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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0075888 | The Crater Lake Monster | In Crater Lake, Northern California, Dr. Richard Calkins (Hyman) is informed by his colleague Dan Turner (Garrison) that he and his girlfriend Susan Patterson (Cobb) have made an incredible discovery in a nearby cave system. The three head down and discover a system of cave drawings, including what appears to be a depiction of people fighting off a Plesiosaurus, thus providing evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man. However, a flaming meteorite crashes into the lake just overhead, resulting in a cave-in that destroys the cave system and the drawings, while the three scientists are barely able to escape alive. The local sheriff, Steve Hanson (Cardella), sees the meteorite crash and radios in the incident before continuing on his patrol.
Several months later, Sheriff Hanson meets with the three scientists to go search for the meteorite. Turner and Patterson dive down to the bottom of the lake, only to find that the meteorite is still too hot to recover and has resulted in the entire lake becoming significantly warmer than before, rising to approximately 90 degrees. Somewhere else on the lake, a birdwatcher (Hal Scharn) is setting up his equipment when the monster suddenly rises out of the water, moves onto the shore, and kills him.
Two friends, Arnie Chabot (Roberts) and Mitch Kowalski (Siegel), running low on money, decide to start a boat rental service. Their first customer is U.S. senator Jack Fuller (Eliot), who rents a rowboat for a quick fishing trip for $20. However, he is attacked and killed by the monster. Arnie and Mitch see the empty boat drifting in the middle of the lake and go out to retrieve it, finding only some large blood stains inside the boat. They bring the boat back to shore as evidence for the Sheriff.
Some time later, a performer named Ross Conway (Hoover) and his wife Paula (Lewis), are on their way to a show when their car suddenly begins to break down. They stop at a gas station and learn from the mechanic (John Crowder) that their car won't be repaired for several more days. The attendant tells them that the fastest method of transportation at this point is by boat across the lake. The couple heads down to Arnie and Mitch's dock to rent a motorboat for $25 and head out. While out on the lake, they are attacked by the monster, but manage to outrun it due to the boat's motor and run it aground. When the monster pursues them onto the shore, Ross empties the can of gasoline into the boat and sets it on fire, with the blaze scaring the monster away.
Arnie and Mitch, as they walk away from renting the boat out to the couple, begin to argue about their boat-renting service, with Arnie constantly claiming that they're his boats instead of "our boats." Mitch claims that he is tired of being bossed around by Arnie, and the two eventually fight. Their scuffle leads to the water, where the two discover the severed head of Fuller floating in the lake just as the Sheriff arrives. As he takes in the head for evidence, he orders them to stay out of the lake, stay away from the shore, and to not rent anymore boats. Realizing that the couple from earlier is still out there, Arnie and Mitch head out in another boat to search for them. They eventually discover the charred remains of the motorboat and the distraught couple, both too mortified to explain what happened to them. The couple is taken away in an ambulance, and the Sheriff issues a stern warning for Arnie and Mitch to not head back out onto the lake.
While at the local diner, the Sheriff spots a man (Sonny Shepard) who is wanted for armed robbery in the nearest town that killed the clerk (Mike Simmons) and another customer (Mary Winford), and quickly pursues him into the forest. After the robber drives his car off a cliff and jumps out, the Sheriff pursues him on foot. The chase eventually leads them down to the shore, where the Sheriff shoots him in the knee, then stops and hides behind a tree to reload. During the brief pause, the monster quickly snatches the robber and drags him under. The Sheriff does not hear it happen, but discovers a large blood stain on a nearby rock. Meanwhile, Calkins' autopsy report on Fuller's head comes in, and he tells the Sheriff that the wounds were caused by an animal's teeth, and the attacking animal is not only of a significant size, but also living in the lake.
When the Sheriff returns the next day to the location where the robber went missing, he finds several massive footprints before the monster suddenly emerges. He fires all six shots in his revolver at it before jumping in his car and driving away. He tells Calkins, Turner, and Patterson about the incident, and his description of the monster fits that of a Plesiosaurus. While the three scientists are excited at the idea of a living dinosaur in the lake, the Sheriff is determined to kill it before it takes more lives.
The Sheriff, Calkins, Turner, and Patterson host a town meeting in the diner the next day, informing the town of the danger and what they plan to do to stop the monster. Arnie and Mitch ultimately take the scientists' side in favor of keeping the monster alive, saying it'll bring in a significant amount of money for the town. However, a man named Ferguson (Joe Sasway) is attacked by the monster and barely manages to make it to safety inside the diner. The Sheriff, Turner, Patterson, Arnie, and Mitch all head outside to confront the monster, which is just outside the barricade of farming vehicles and a wall of hay bails. The Sheriff starts up a bulldozer, but Arnie attempts to stop him at gunpoint, saying that the monster must live. The Sheriff convinces him that nothing will stop the monster without killing it, and Arnie jumps in the back, shotgun at the ready. As the monster draws closer, Arnie panics and attempts to flee, only to be caught and killed by the monster. The Sheriff slams into the monster with the bulldozer, causing it to drop Arnie's lifeless body. When it reaches its head down to try to pick up Arnie's body again, the Sheriff drives the bulldozer forward and repeatedly slams the bulldozer into the monster's neck, finally killing it.
In the aftermath of the battle, the Sheriff, Calkins, Turner, Patterson, and Mitch all mourn Arnie's death, with Mitch vowing to continue the boat rental service that he and Arnie started, softly repeating "our boats...our boats." | revenge | train | wikipedia | Will Steve let the dinosaur live?"The Crater Lake Monster" is a terrible and lame dinosaur film with awful story, screenplay, performances and special effects.
Best lake monster movie with top notch Stop-Motion Effects by David Allen!.
Anyway back to Crater Lake Dave was assisted by Jim Danforth & Randall William Cook two other great Stop-Motion Animators Danforth that was focusing on more matte painting on Films at that time since Stop-Motion was becoming obsolete.
Dave Allen's Animation in Crater like steals the show it is what makes the film worth watching.
Other then that stay away I guess unless u are a fan of Drive-Inn B Sci-Fi Films with great special effects & low grade everything else.
The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse "horror" with light comedy.
After that, a meteor comes down into a lake and causes heat which, in turn, causes the hatching of a frozen dinosaur egg (maybe the cave-paintings suggest instead that this isn't the first time such a thing has happened).
At the exact right moment that a few redneck amateur-scientists discover cave paintings indicating that some type of dinosaur monster might have inhabited the area thousands of years ago, a burning meteor crashes into the lake and spontaneously hatches a monster's egg that has been lying there
for over a thousand years, I suppose!
"The Crater Lake Monster" is a movie that literally must be seen to be believed, but you better do so in the company of many friends and a pile of ganja in order to make the wholesome a little bit easier to digest.
The monster is undeniably the best aspect about the film, especially since it's accomplished through good old fashioned and adorable stop- motion effects.
Add Cardella's sturdy performance as the take-charge sheriff, along with some pretty good stop-motion, and you've got genuine compensations that lift results from the truly bad.
In an age filled so-called 'monsters' which are no more than laughable men-in-rubber-suit creations or lizards dressed up in frills and forced to rip each other to pieces (cheap exploitation-style), it's refreshing to discover that the Plesiosaur in this little gem is an excellent Harryhausen-style stop-motion creature.Quite a hard film to find, but it's worth finding..
Granted, the acting is bad (even though actor Mark Siegel went on to have a great effects career at Industrial Light and Magic)and the poor sound and picture quality of the crown international VHS (I just bought my copy of this film on DVD, much better video quality!), and the irritating flaws (How can that chick see "stars" in the middle of the day?
The stop-motion special effects for the dinosaur are excellent, the suspense is adequate, the characters are quit funny, (unintentionally, most of the time) and it was pretty fun to watch and poke at the flaws.......enjoy!.
The Crater Lake Monster is a 1970's monster themed b-movie but alas not one of the better ones.It tells the story of a meteor that awakens something ancient beneath a lake which proceeds to chomp on the locals.I was drawn to the movie because of the cover art but shortly into the film you'll realise that it's not being entirely honest with you.The movie itself looks and sounds great, in fact I was stunned to discover that it's as old as 77 so for that it gets a remarkable thumbs up.
The "Monster" looks like it's straight out of Jason & The Argonauts movie (The original ones) and for that reason it's very hard to take seriously.One stand out part of this film is a couple of comedy characters who actually make the film somewhat watchable to a degree.
I actually laughed but was frustrated that even the dreadful finale had to screw that up.With more plot holes than you can shake a stick at this should have been better but poor writing and laughable sfx ruined it.The Good:Some oddly good comedyLooks ahead of its timeThe Bad:SFX are unintentionally funnyCover is deceptiveWeak finaleThings I Learnt From This Movie:Bray Wyatt has come a long wayStars are easier to see during the dayDying underwater will cause your blood to teleport onto your boat.
I originally watched this movie in the early 90's maybe more like 89/90 on a local channel monster show called "Morgus Presents".
Crater Lake Monster, The (1977) * 1/2 (out of 4) Scientists are up in arms after they discover evidence that dinosaurs were around at the same time as man.
The dinosaur sets out for revenge killing anyone or anything that gets in its way.I've always been a fan of films like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms but this here certainly isn't in the same league.
The film was released around the same time that the Loch Ness monster was in the news and it's clear the filmmakers are trying to cash in on that but they left this viewer pretty much scratching his head.
Boring monster movie is only redeemed by infrequent stop-motion special effects and occasional appearances by a giant rubber monster head.
The story involves a meteor crashing into Crater Lake (Crater Lake in Northern California, near Susanville, not the more famous National Park in Oregon), which then causes a dinosaur egg to hatch, unleashing a Loch Ness Monster-like creature upon the lakeside residents.
Stromberg, who's only other credit is special effects on "Night Train to Terror," and featuring a cast of non-actors, "The Crater Lake Monster" is strictly amateur hour.
It's too bad the enjoyable stop-motion and giant rubber monster head couldn't have been part of a better overall movie (you know, something like "Lake Placid").
The best part of the film of course is the monster, stop motion all the way in 1977?
Stromberg, "The Crater Lake Monster" details events in the high country of central California after a meteor strikes the eponymous (fictitious) lake and incubates a prehistoric egg, which hatches a plesiosaur-like creature that terrorizes the locals.
The second-rate acting of the principles in particular distinguishes "The Crater Lake Monster" from these movies.
But the Ray Harryhausen-like stop-motion effects are effective, although whenever the creature is shown emerging from the lake the contrast between the two (the monster and the lake) looks decidedly fake.Kacey Cobb shines on the female front and looks great in tight jeans, but her role is too small.
I should add that I never perceived the plesiosaur as a particularly scary or formidable dinosaur, but this flick gave me a different perspective.THE FILM RUNS 1 hour & 25 minutes and was shot in Huntington Lake and Palomar Mountain, California.
It was made by b-movie legends Crown International Pictures and it tells a story where a large plesiosaur emerges from a lake after a dormant dinosaur egg is fertilised by a meteorite from outer space.This film seems to have a pretty bad reputation but I can't go along with the negativity at all.
The main attraction in the Crown International creature feature "The Crater Lake Monster" is its stop motion animation by David Allen, who was one of the experts in the field.
The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values.
In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds.
A meteor lands in Crater Lake, Oregon, where the incredible heat incubates a dormant, fertile Plesiosaur egg; once hatched, the dinosaur rapidly grows to 50ft in length and begins to feed on unfortunate visitors and locals.
Sheriff Steve Hanson (Richard Cardella) investigates with the help of paleontologists Dan (Richard Garrison) and Susan (Kacey Cobb).Filmed in Fantamation (whetever the heck that is), The Crater Lake Monster is a typical 50s-style creature feature, only it's from the late-70s, meaning that along with the hokey premise, dreadful acting and jerky stop-motion monster, we also get Jaws-inspired attack scenes with a fair amount of bright red blood splashed all over the place, and characters sporting either big sideburns or Farrah flicks.
Helping to pad out the film to feature length are light relief hick duo Arnie and Mitch, a pair of drunken dolts who hire out fishing boats on the lake, plus a pointless sub-plot about an armed robber on the run from the law having shot two people during a liquor store hold-up (maybe he was upset because they didn't stock one of their stylish 'Booze' T-shirts in his size).Fans of quality film-making will no doubt quickly move right along, but those who dig shonky monster movies for their sheer naffness should find enough to enjoy here: in addition to the not-in-the-least-bit-scary animated aquatic creature, we get some hilarious close-ups of a crap monster model in the water, some of the worst day-for-night photography ever ('Look at the stars' coos a woman to her husband as the sun beats down on them from a clear blue sky), true professional Bob Hyman as the town's doctor fluffing his lines but carrying on regardless, a guy crashing a boat gently on a sandbank and then taking a nap, a very slow car chase, and a police photo-lab adorned with 10 x 8s of cute kittens and puppies (suspects in an illegal bone and catnip smuggling operation perhaps?)..
As people are attacked by the monster, the Sheriff (Richard Cardella) investigates along with a group of scientists in order to stop the creature.What we have here is awesome stop-motion, a terrible script and a very low budget.
A meteor crashes into a lake which causes a dinosaur egg to hatch and before you can say Lock Ness, the baby Dino is chowing down on the local townspeople in this low-budget b-movie.This movie has almost everything that one wants from a dinosaur flick.
The bottom line is that "The Crater Lake Monster" is a very bad film.
However, in addition to the usual very bad acting and horrible writing you'd expect in a schlock movie with a score of 2.4, it has something even more laughable--a silly 'monster'.
A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K.
Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief.
The creature itself a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!.
He reminded me a little of Steve Barkett in THE AFTERMATH: sure, he's wooden, but he's enthusiastic with it and, I have to say, pretty entertaining when on screen.Sadly, the rest of the characters are not so good, including some truly insipid scientists, some distinctly non-rugged macho men, a guy sporting the worst British accent I've ever heard, and a couple of drunken rednecks who supply the film's comic relief.
As for the monster, well it's a not-bad animated creature, with stop motion effects by the erstwhile Dave Allen and Jim Danforth combination.
The effects are quite good, close to Ray Harryhausen's standard, and I have to say that the film picked up whenever the monster appeared on screen.
First off, this movie bears a striking resemblance to the Japanese film "Legend of Dinosaurs and Monster Birds".
Unfortunately, there are huge stretches of nothing happening and a strange moment where a man robs a liquor store and shoots two people that almost seems to come from another movie.The thing that really drags this film down though is Arnie and his buddy as they chew up more scenery than the dinosaur chews up people.
Basically the story is about a prehistoric dinosaur brought to life by the crash of a meteor in a lake, and the monster begins munching on the locals after it eats all the fish in the lake.
Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way.
It would seem as if Hanson, along with the town's doc, a visiting archaeologist and his girlfriend, and the area's two doofus boat renters, Arnie and Mitch, will have their hands very full, eliminating--and perhaps even capturing--the prehistoric menace...."A beast more terrifying than your most frightening nightmare," the original trailer for "The Crater Lake Monster" proclaimed, and while this amusing bit of hyperbole is of course patent nonsense, the film's creature nonetheless is a most pleasing creation.
I taped it when ITV screened it during the early hours around the mid 1990's but I recorded over it and wished I hadn't as it has not been on since and is quite hold to get hold of.A meteor that crashes into Crater Lake hatches the egg of a Plesiosaur and it starts killing and eating people.
The beast is killed at the end by a bulldozer.The stop-motion Plesiosaur by Dave Allen is quite impressive, despite the movie's low budget and fairly poor acting.I rather enjoyed this movie and wished it would come on TV again, although it is shown regularly on The Horror Channel, which I don't have.Rating: 3 stars out of 5..
The Crater Lake Monster starts late one night in Oregon as local County Sheriff Steve Hanson (co-writer Richard Cardella) stops his patrol car by the side of Crater Lake & witnesses a meteorite hurtle from the sky & crash into the lake.
As it happens a couple of university scientists named Dan Turner (Richard Garrison) & Susan Patterson (Kacey Cobb) are on hand to investigate the next day along with local County Dr. Richard Calkins (Bob Hyman) who all think little of it beyond the fact that it heated the lake up considerably, unfortunately unknown to them the warmed up water has acted as an incubator to a fertile Dinosaur egg at the bottom of the lake which hatches in no time at all & before he knows it Sheriff Hanson is trying to work out why there are so many missing persons reports & where old farmer Ferguson's (Joe Sasway) bulls have disappeared to...Co-written, produced & directed by William R.
The script by star Cardella & director Stromberg takes itself very seriously apart from a couple of dumb comedy relief rednecks & is a bit uneven as is the case in a lot of these types of films, there are whole stretches of the film when the monster isn't seen or even referred to, there's some subplot about a robber that goes absolutely nowhere & the film isn't sure who the main character is.
Most of the character's just come & go without much thought for continuity or narrative, the Sheriff, the County Doctor, the scientists, a couple from Vegas, the two local redneck idiots & the Crater lake monster itself all take it in turns to star for five minutes before they disappear for ten.
The monster itself is by far the most impressive thing about The Crater Lake Monster, the stop-motion animation on it is actually quite impressive.
The acting is uniformly poor by everyone, period.The Crater Lake Monster is a pretty bad film by most peoples standards which I'm not trying to deny but I thought it had some merit with some decent special effects & a nice feel to it.
This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature.
This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief.
Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them!
If you haven't guessed yet The Crater Lake Monster is hardly the most inspired movie out there and it's run time is heavily padded by an inordinate amount of scenes that are completely mundane, which often include slow and pointless camera pans and long zooms - that take forever to complete.To no great surprise the monster itself is the best and most entertaining part of this cheap little creature feature; which is brought to life through a series of shots that include partial life-size mock-ups of the monster (or at least it's head and neck) and of course there's some corny stop-motion animation - which is my favorite part.
Just to make room for a Plesiosaur like monster to come out of the lake and start terrorizing people all over the small county.
Obviously, the director of the film William Stromberg and the writer/leading actor Richard Cardella were inspired by Loch Ness monster.
Yep, it's one of 'those' movies.Let's start with the plot/script: It's pretty lame, very limp story, just an excuse to see a large stop-motion monster eating people alive.
The monster effects were
well, stop motion was pretty much solid, while from close, the big toy head was used, and that was so fake.
The next scene is just there to give us a rush towards the end of the film, it's about sheriff returning to the lake, on the same location where that ugly hobo was eaten, just to suddenly confront a monster. |
tt0887892 | Dark Shadows | In 1760, the Collins family moves from Liverpool, England to Maine and establishes the fishing town Collinsport, where they built their estate, Collinwood.
When he first arrives, the young son Barnabas (Johnny Depp), meets the young Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) who instantly falls in love with him. Angelique's witch mother who was with her at that time warned her of socializing with people of noble birth. This, however, did not stop Angelique from following the family for many years, hoping to be noticed by Barnabas.
In 1776 (that is, 16 years later), Barnabas, now a grown man, falls in love with a young woman named Josette du Pres (Bella Heathcote), scorning Angelique who was now working as a maid in his household. Turning to black magic, Angelique curses the Collins family, first killing Barnabas's parents (Ivan Kaye and Susanna Cappellaro) in an assumed accident, then by enchanting Josette to leap to her death off a cliff. In a fit of grief, Barnabas attempts to leap to his own death but that fails as well, as Angelique has cursed him to the immortal life of a vampire. When he still rejects her advances, she turns the town against him, and he is buried alive in a coffin.
In 1972 (that is, 196 years later), the young Maggie Evans (also Bella Heathcote), under the assumed identity of "Victoria Winters", applies for a job as a governess at Collinwood and meets with the current reclusive matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer). Her nephew David (Gulliver McGrath), for whom Victoria will be caring, believes his mother, who drowned in a boating accident, still visits him. Victoria does not divulge that since her young age she, too, can see ghosts.
After meeting with David, his live-in psychiatrist Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter), his father Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), and Elizabeth's rebellious daughter Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz), Victoria is hired by Elizabeth. That night, Victoria sees the ghost of Josette who warns that "He's coming" before disappearing after falling from a chandelier.
Elsewhere, a group of construction workers dig up Barnabas's coffin and inadvertently free him. After sating his blood thirst of 196 years, and shocked by the modern times he finds himself in, Barnabas returns to Collinwood, and hypnotizes the groundskeeper Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Haley) as his personal Renfield, and introduces himself to the family as a "distant relative". Elizabeth believes him to be a con man until he reveals hidden riches buried in a secret room within the house, when Elizabeth thought the family to be destitute. After realizing who and what Barnabas is, she asks to keep it a secret, barely passing him off as a distant cousin.
Barnabas is instantly smitten with Victoria when he meets her as she resembles Josette. He seeks out Carolyn's advice on courting her. Angelique, now an immortal witch herself, visits Barnabas and threatens him not to go into business competition against her. Nevertheless, Barnabas reopens the Collins family cannery business and uses hypnosis to steal several of the fisherman crews who work for Angelique. She tries to buy him off. Even after an episode of supernatural lust between the two of them, he rejects her offer. Julia discovers his identity by hypnotizing him and offers to cure his vampiric condition via blood transfusions.
Barnabas wants to hold a ball to reintroduce the family to the townsfolk. Carolyn suggests they make it a happening with musician Alice Cooper as the headliner. At the ball, Barnabas catches Roger stealing from guest's coats. Victoria reveals to Barnabas that she's actually an escapee from the mental asylum where her parents had her confined since she was a child due to her powers.
Angelique makes a grand appearance in order to seduce Barnabas. When she catches him kissing Victoria, she becomes even more embittered. Barnabas, on his part, wishes even more desperately to be mortal again. Barnabus finds out Julia has been using his blood to make herself immortal, so he kills her and dumps her body into the bay with Willie's help. After catching Roger trying to break into the secret room, Barnabas gives him a choice: to stay and be an exemplary father to David or leave with enough money to live his life alone. Roger chooses the latter, to David's heartbreak. Barnabas's true identity is finally revealed to the rest of the family and Victoria when he saves David from a falling disco ball. Victoria is scared by the revelation and runs away.
Angelique summons Barnabas again to her office, but when he rejects her offer of partnership once again, she traps him into another coffin, this time burying him in a mausoleum. Shortly after, he is found and freed by David, alerted by his mother's ghost. Meanwhile, Angelique destroys the Collins's factory and implicates Barnabas in the murders of Julia and all the people he had to feed on, turning the townsfolk against the family.
At the mansion, Elizabeth and Barnabus see the police, Angelique, and the angry mob approaching as Caroyln withdraws into the mansion. Barnabas reveals his and Angelique's true nature in front of an angry mob and a fight ensues. During the fight following the mob's departure upon these revelations, Carolyn reveals she is a werewolf, a massive fire breaks out in the house. Ultimately, the ghost of David's mother (Josephine Butler) manages to hurl Angelique against the chandelier, which then falls to the ground, mortally wounding her as she starts to shatter. She literally offers her heart to Barnabas again, but he refuses it and it turns to dust and she dies. David learns from his mother that Victoria is headed toward the cliffs where Josette committed suicide. David asks Elizabeth what the Collins family will do now, and Elizabeth says they will do what they've always done: "endure."
After catching up to Victoria at the cliffs, Barnabas refuses to turn her into a vampire. Victoria throws herself from the cliffs; he leaps after her, biting her so she can survive the fall as a vampire. She awakens, asking him to call her Josette, and the two kiss passionately on the rocky shore.
Meanwhile, at the bottom of the bay, Julia, who had been assumed dead, suddenly opens her eyes to her new immortal life as well. | gothic | train | wikipedia | Halloween. Shown only in the 2005 Dark Shadows festival in Los Angeles, this remake of the 1960's Gothic day time series - yes, a Gothic soap and a deserved classic! - is surprisingly good. Sets of the Collinwood manor and the mausoleum where the vampire Barnabas Collins is found are wonderful and very atmospheric, so is the idea of using Halloween as the night when the story is opening. Alexis Thorpe has a striking screen presence and I would have loved to see her in a much more prominent role. She would have made lovely Victoria Winters! Cast of the young models like Asian Julia Hoffman (Kelly Hu) is never more than OK and will probably be too much to the fans of the original, but I loved the Gothic atmosphere. And I mean Gothic, not Goth, thank you! Little rough around the edges - hey, it was a rough cut! - this is a gem I would love to own in DVD.. Time to bury the concept. I was able to view the unaired pilot recently after a link was posted on a Facebook group.
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
I stopped watching just as Victoria is introduced to Elizabeth and Roger in the mansion. The IT'S JUST A DREAM on the train, (and the guy who says they can't hurt you) plus the suddenly exploding lamps at the train station all screamed a desperate scream of THIS IS REALLY SCARY STUFF!!!
BOO!!!!!!
ARE YA SCARED?
DID WE SCARE YA YET...
YEAH, WE BET YOU'VE NEVER BEEN SO SCARED BEFORE.
Have ya met Willie? He's a creepy guy ya know.
Oh look, a scowly glaring mean-tempered guy with a drink in his hand. Bet that creeped you out.Time to bury the chain wrapped coffin in the mausoleum and let the memories linger.... Shameful. Anyone who knows and loves the original and the 1991 revival will cringe at this travesty, shown only at conventions and festivals.This was clearly produced for the "Scream" audience, without regard for the Gothic heritage of the stories that made up the original's various chapters. The treatment of Angelique was egregiously bad. The casting of Alec Newman as Barnabas might have worked if this were being produced now; he wasn't mature enough at the time of this production although he appeared to understand the character.If anyone ever considers making a new TV series, they should realize that its original atmosphere and stellar cast were what made it work despite the stagey acting style and the continuity errors. |
tt1837703 | The Fifth Estate | The story opens in 2010, with the release of the Afghan War Logs. It then flashes back to 2007, where journalist Daniel Domscheit-Berg meets Australian computer hacker Julian Assange for the first time, at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin. Daniel's interest in online activism has led him to Assange, with whom he has corresponded by email. They begin working together on WikiLeaks, a website devoted to releasing information being withheld from the public while retaining anonymity for its sources. Their first major target is a private Swiss bank, Julius Baer, whose Cayman Islands branch has been engaged in illegal activities. Despite Baer's filing of a lawsuit and obtaining an injunction, the judge dissolves the injunction, allowing Julian and Daniel to reclaim the domain name. As their confidence increases, the two push forward in publishing information over the next three years, including secrets on Scientology, revealing Sarah Palin's email account, and the membership list of the British National Party.
At first Daniel enjoys changing the world, viewing WikiLeaks as a noble enterprise and Assange as a mentor. However, the relationship between the two becomes strained over time. Daniel loses his job and problems arise in his relationship, particularly concerning the BNP membership leak, which also revealed the addresses of the people involved, and caused several to lose their jobs. Assange openly mocks Daniel's concerns about these issues, implying his own life has been more troubling. Assange's abrasive manner and actions, such as abandoning Daniel at his parents' house after having accepted their dinner invitation, only deepen the strain further. Interspersed throughout the film are flashbacks hinting at Assange's troubled childhood and involvement in a suspicious cult, and that Assange's obsession with WikiLeaks has more to do with childhood trauma than wanting to improve the world. Daniel begins to fear that Assange may be closer to a con-man than a mentor. He also notices that Assange constantly gives different stories about why his hair is white. Assange at first tells Daniel that WikiLeaks has hundreds of workers, but Daniel later finds out that Daniel and Assange are the only members. Most importantly to Daniel, Assange frequently claims that protecting sources is the website's number one goal. However, Daniel begins to suspect that Assange only cares about protecting sources so people will come forward and that Assange does not actually care who gets hurt by the website, though Assange claims that the harm the website may cause is outweighed by good the leaks create. Daniel's girlfriend tells him that she believes in his cause, but that it's his job to prevent Assange from going too far.
The tensions come to a head when Bradley Manning (later known as Chelsea Manning) leaks hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, including a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, the Afghan and Iraq War Logs, and 250,000 US Diplomatic Cables. Assange wants to leak the documents immediately, but Daniel insists that they review the documents first. Later, several major newspapers agree to cooperate with WikiLeaks in releasing the documents while spinning WikiLeaks positively. However, both Daniel and the newspapers require the names in the documents be redacted both to protect sources and to assist in the media spin, to which Assange reluctantly agrees. Daniel realizes that Assange has no intention of following through on this promise and is grooming a right-hand man to replace Daniel. The newspapers release the redacted documents. The resulting media and public uproar forces informants to flee from their countries of residence and many U.S. diplomats to resign. Before Assange can go further, however, Daniel and the other members of the original WikiLeaks team delete the site and block Assange's access to the server.
Daniel later talks with a reporter from The Guardian, and the two fear that giving Assange such a large platform was a mistake. The reporter tells Daniel that while Assange may be untrustworthy, he had done a good thing by uncovering secret dealing in the government and business world and attempting to protect sources. Daniel also reveals the real reason for Assange's hair colour—that it had been a custom of the cult he had been part of in Australia—and reports that he once accidentally discovered Assange dyeing it that colour.
As the film ends, it is revealed that WikiLeaks is continuing to leak information (with Assange implied to have either regained the site or rebuilt it), and the Manning documents were released with no redactions. Daniel has written a book on his involvement with the organization on which this film was based, and Assange has threatened to sue in retaliation. Assange is shown to be living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest on an outstanding warrant for alleged sex crimes. In an interview, he denounces the two upcoming WikiLeaks films, stating that they will be factually inaccurate (having been partly based on Daniel's book). He informs the viewer that individuals are what the government is afraid of and claims that hiring Daniel was the one mistake he made. | cult, intrigue, murder, sci-fi, flashback | train | wikipedia | Nor that it plays just once per day, at 9pm, at my local Cineworld compared to five screenings per day for Captain Phillips, eight for Ender's Game and fourteen for Thor: The Dark World.But Bill Condon's (Gods and Monsters, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn) film about Wikileaks founder and hero/pariah (delete according to your political stance) Julian Assange really isn't that bad.
It consumes 8 minutes more of your time than The Social Network, feels twice as long, is far more arduous and will require just a single viewing, compared to repeat visits for the Facebook flick.Trudging through the meeting of the ultimate whistleblower Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Daniel Berg (Daniel Brühl), the explosion of Wikileaks in the public's perception, the shadowy deals with The Guardian and the fall out from countless exposés about underhand dealings from governments and corporations, The Fifth Estate spews out a huge amount of information but never quite manages to get down to the gritty truth.It feels cluttered and more of a lecture than a movie and I'm not sure I know a great deal more about Assange now than I did yesterday.
But Thewlis' performance is evened out by able turns from the new Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi, Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci, though with so many characters vying for screen time and Condon battling to squeeze in as much information as possible alongside some outdated 80s techniques (text across faces, anyone?), they, too are lost in the mêlée.The Fifth Estate isn't a great film and it may not be terribly truthful (the jury's still out on that one) but, despite it's flaws, I still enjoyed it.
As Cumberbatch wrote in his response to Assange, "
the film should provoke debate and not consensus." And in that, at least, The Fifth Estate succeeds admirably.For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page..
The Fifth EstatePlot In his quest to make information free for everyone whistle blower Julian Assange takes on the kingpins of the world by raging a sophisticated ,new age war that threatens to shake the foundations of diplomacy and overthrow established regimes .It tells the story behind the rise and fall of wiki leaks and of its creator ;Julian Assange who some people call a visionary and some a threat to national security .The story revolves around the complex character of Assange and explores his relationship with Daniel Berg ,one of the spokespersons for Wikileaks.Script The Fifth estate is loosely based on the book "Inside WikiLeaks" by Daniel berg and uses real life examples as key points to narrate the story.
If the makers wanted a boring narration of the events that are already available online why did make all the efforts to make a movie and waste a talent like Mr Cumberbatch?The script is written to explore the association of Assange and Berg but fails to do so and only creates a one dimensional sketch of a Multidimensional relationship.
Other parts of the movie are outwardly boring and dimensionless which makes it a Prime time News at max when the viewers expected a thrilling and insightful leak into the life of one of the most Controversial public figures of the 21st Century.Direction Its Difficult to understand why Bill Condon was chosen as a director for such a controversial public figure (Mr Condon is the director of Twilight :Breaking Dawn 1 and 2, Now you get it ,right?).His lack of control of the story and the essence of Julian Assange's character is visible throughout the 128 minutes , his lack of understanding of the character is the prime reason why this movie fails to hit the right chords.Performances Benedict Cumberbatch is the reason why you should watch this movie is watchable throughout its runtime.The expression, body language ,non- verbal cues are exactly like Julian Assanges.Though Assange refused to meet when benedict requested him so that he could understand him better ,citing faults in the script which he disapproved, still he managed to bring such a complex character to life on screen with panache .He is one of the most exemplary actors of this modern world of cinema.Final Word The only reason why you may want to watch the movie is Benedict Cumberbatch.
I know I'm in the minority, but I liked "The Fifth Estate." Others will agree with me, though, that the best thing about it is Benedict Cumberbatch, who does brilliant job as Julian Assange.I come at this film from a slightly different point of view because I still don't know what was so fabulous about "The Social Network." I understand the comparisons due to the similar stories.
That's all in the film, based on two books that we're told are biased.Still, The Fifth Estate raises some interesting questions and also talks about the challenges we face now with news going out onto the Internet.
Concentrating on the strengths at first, right off the bat, it's quite obvious just how exceptional the lead performances from Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Bruhl are, and as usual, Cumberbatch carries that impressive volume of charisma with him where you simply can't take your eyes off his mannerisms and speech (I believe I already noted this in my Star Trek review); in short, his portrayal of Julian Assange is terrifically veracious.
At the end of the day, The Fifth Estate is great in that it sparks a mixed reaction and requires both extreme sides of the table to continuously argue over the rightfulness or criminality of Wikileaks' existence and the path that Julian Assange took to see it to success.
Similarly to aforementioned documentary, 'The Fifth Estate' has notably been objected by Assange, who wrote to lead actor Benedict Cumberbatch outlining why he shouldn't take the role or have any part in the film.
Additionally, the sequences set inside the 'cyberspace' feel out-of-place and don't work at all.The film has good intentions and attempts to raise some interesting questions, as it successfully manages not to show favour to any side of the WikiLeaks argument, even going so as far as questioning the film itself, as we see Cumberbatch's Assange dismissing it in an interview.
I'll just leave to Wikileaks's response the task of identifying all the gross factual mistakes done by the movie (just search for 'wikileaks internal memo fifth estate').This film is a joke, the objective of tarnishing Assange's image is obvious from beginning to end.
Calling a movie about WikiLeaks "The Fifth Estate" begs the question: Can people who work with such an organization really be called journalists, are they lawbreakers, or are they something new and different, something that defies definition?
Even to the way Assange ties his scarf this film is complete make-believe, and is probably best given a wide berth for those interested in what really happened regarding the leaked US embassy cables.I've just watched Mediastan, which is a road movie recounting the distribution of the cables across central Asia and the obstacles encountered: geographical, political, security, and media.
As the Assange character in the movie puts it, "Whoever thought that we'd need extra servers to fight censorship attacks from the bastion of free speech?" The fostering of Fear is paramount in any Fascist society, and it was Hillary Clinton herself who said, "We recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it." Wikileaks brought us as a nation face to face with our own hypocrisy and to this day fugitives who should be hailed as heroes are demonized by the Corporate Media.
There's a lot of talk of hypothetical harm that's been done to the American $urveillance $tate by whistleblowers, but a movie like THE FIFTH ESTATE , with its collateral characters and laughably overblown imagery, is simply disingenuous and does more real Harm than Good..
Bill Condon is at the helm of this controversial look at Julian Assange and Wikileaks, the organization which infamously leaked top secret documents, videos, and other highly classified information belonging to many of the world's governments starting back in December of '06.
All in all this movie is a good watch for those who are interested to know in depth about Julian Assange and Wikileaks in a non-documentary way!.
Through Daniel Berg's point of view, as a person, Assange is an odd, anti-social egomaniac who constantly invents stories about how his hair grew white, cares very little about the consequences coming after the exposure of corruption through the leaks, not thinking things through and is sometimes mean, cold and condescending towards individuals and his friends and family.Despite the positive things about him, such as his charisma, determination to change the world and the fantastic, wonderful things that his website Wikileaks has done, by the end of the film, he is still made out to be a liar and manipulator, wanted for rape in Sweden; a bad guy who's done a good thing with his website.
The movie stars Benedict Cumberbatch as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Daniel Bruhl as his partner in crime Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
The two lead actors are both great in the film but the movie itself is shamefully exploitative.The story explores how Julian Assange (Cumberbatch) and Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Bruhl) first met (in 2007) and started up the website WikiLeaks.
The movie also examines Assange's upbringing (and time spent in a cult) and Daniel's relationships with colleagues, family and friends.The film is somewhat suspenseful and adequately directed but it makes no effort whatsoever to hide it's true agenda; that of smearing WikiLeaks and it's founder Julian Assange.
Like I said the two lead performances are excellent though, especially Cumberbatch (who is supportive of WikiLeaks and communicated regularly with Assange during filming).
Director Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters, Kinsey, Dreamgirls, The Twilight Saga series) directs a film adapted from Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website" - along with another similar book by David Leigh and Luke Harding – adapted for the screen by Josh Singer – and in doing so brings considerable clarity to the WikiLeaks scandal in a way that more of us can understand the history and the concept behind this precursor to the contemporary fixation on spying.
It may by a bit long in the tooth, and perhaps it is one man's view, but the pacing of the action and the extraordinary way in which the concept developed is enlightening.The headlining true story begins as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Brühl) team up to become underground watchdogs of the privileged and powerful.
This is not a flattering portrait of Assange by any means because it draws on two books critical of him by people who have worked most closely with him and who feel that they have in a sense been betrayed by him, notably the German WikiLeaks expert Daniel Domscheit- Berg (played by Daniel Brühl) and colleagues of the British "Guardian" investigative journalist Nick Cohen (David Thewlis).In an age when the ability to obtain and store vast amounts of information on governments, corporations and individuals is ever more possible thanks to incredible development in technology, questions about the legitimacy of holding, using, abusing, and revealing such information are at the core of what privacy and protection mean in the age of all-powerful governments and armed fundamentalist groups.
By focusing on one US state official (played by Laura Linney) and one informer against his corrupt government, we are asked to appreciate that simply revealing everything that is leaked without careful redaction and the provision of context - arguably best done by conventional media like the "Guardian" newspaper - is literally playing with life and death.This is heavy stuff and director Bill Condon (previously director of bio-pics "Gods And Monsters" & "Kinsey") seeks to liven it up with some kinetic and flashy camera-work and surreal sets which actually detract from what needs to be a serious examination of an incredibly serious issue.
Creating debate by arguing both sides of the issue: Whether to release or whether to edit or whether to not even be involved.The movie makes you think about it, that people don't usually do when they simply see a video on youtube/internet about US and automatically assume the most evil things are happening.Everything Assange does can be considered dangerous to the lives of people around the world.
This film tells the story of the founder of Wikileaks, and the core volunteers work in building a secure platform to help whistle blowers to expose injustice."The Fifth Estate" starts off very impressive, with a collage of news and ways to deliver news in the last hundred years.
Script The Fifth estate is loosely based on the book "Inside WikiLeaks" by Daniel berg and uses real life examples as key points to narrate the story.
The Fifth Estate is a thriller film partly based on Daniel Domscheit-berg's book "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange" and "the World's Most Dangerous Website" who had personal and legal disputes with WikiLeaks.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday MorningA biopic of Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch), the infamous founder of Wiki Leaks, and his controversial exposes of various scandals and institutions around the world, whose personal and professional relationship with old friend Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Bruhl) faltered after he pushed the line further and further and the stakes grew steadily higher.Julian Assange is one of the most influential figures of our time, in a day and age where the internet has become so much of a more powerful tool for information than the printed media, especially with the British press being hit by the Leveson report, being the man behind a renegade website not constrained by any sort of injunction or code of conduct.
Being such a trendy modern actor, Cumberbatch is probably pretty ideal to be taking on the role of this socially awkward, ill mannered loner, who took on the establishment he felt so compressed by.The Fifth Estate is an enigma of a film, in the sense that it's a dramatization of one of the most interesting figures of modern times, that somehow by it's very nature is so boring.
Most people will compare this to the Social Network I'm sure, but it differs in the motivation behind this website.The story is about a computer programmer named Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) who creates the website Wikileaks to allow whistle-blowers to anonymously post confidential reports.
The Fifth Estate is a movie about the infamous WikiLeaks and the people who were behind it – mainly Julian Assange and Daniel Berg.
I personally belong to the small percentage of people who actually went to the theater to watch this biopic and, honestly, I wish that I didn't, since The Fifth Estate is more or less a waste of time.The movie focuses on Daniel Berg (Daniel Brühl), a programmer, who soon meets the charismatic Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who then enlists Daniel in his WikiLeaks project.
Leaks r Us. There is an energy to the Wikileaks movie but the screenplay is just so plain that you just know the film is contrived by trying hard to be exciting.The Fifth Estate is about the biggest whistleblowers in history and the fractious relationship between Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Bruhl.)The film is based partly on a book written by Daniel Domscheit-Berg and it shows.
I watched this movie at home on DVD from my public library system.Benedict Cumberbatch is good as the featured character, Julian Assange, who founded what became known as WikiLeaks, an internet based vehicle for illegally obtaining and widely distributing confidential information.
-The Fifth Estate is a 2013 thriller film directed by Bill Condon, about the news-leaking website WikiLeaks.
The film stars Benedict Cumberbatch as its editor-in-chief and founder Julian Assange, and Daniel Brühl as its former spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg Anthony Mackie, David Thewlis, Alicia Vikander, Stanley Tucci, and Laura Linney are featured in supporting roles.
The movie clearly gives in-depth knowledge about Wikileaks site and the how the leaked data goes viral,U.S government is stunned by a common man Julian,his one idea and a load confidential data is just out there open for every single person.I wished the end should have been better,and a little boring movie but the concept of actual news was terrific.the power of media is clearly popping out and one man can seriously make a difference.real life story of Julian is taken from a book ,I think a lot is yet to be shown is hidden ,Some words like corruption was heard but its was not clear in the movie, more movies like this should come up which actually real facts.
The Fifth Estate is a dramatic biography based on these real events, and tells the story from the perspective of one of Assange's (Benedict Cumberbatch) colleagues, Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Bruhl).
There are also some great supporting roles to watch out for from the likes of David Thewlis, Peter Capaldi and Alicia Vikander, who all bring their own character's dimension to add to the mix.After I saw this film when it first came out I was interested in finding out more about what Julian Assange's perspective of the story was, and I came across a document published on the Wikileaks site giving his side of the story.
Everyone will of course have their own opinions about the events that unfolded surrounding this story, and I am not in any way dismissing the version presented in The Fifth Estate; instead I choose to believe that there is truth to be found in both the film and from Assange's perspective.
After watching "The Fifth Estate" it's one film that you may not understand and may be a little confused, that is if your not down with the business of the high tech and modern world of cyber crime and computer hacking as the film is based on the international WikiLeaks scandal and it's founder Julian Assange(Benedict Cumberbatch). |
tt0367960 | The Legend of Johnny Lingo | Orphan boy named Tama bounced around between families and getting into trouble. He became friends with a girl named mahana who is considered ugly by the villagers. Even though she is ugly and ill treated by her father and the people around her, she remained kind and good. One day, the boy planned to explore and promised to mahana that he will come back. Everyday from the day of the departure of Tama, Mahana will wait at the shore looking for her friend's arrival. The boy drift ashore and was found by johnny lingo. He was given work by johnny lingo and found ways to make his work easier. He invented some simple machines that will help him finish his work faster yet efficient. Ten years has passed and the adopter of the Tama, johnny lingo, is about to die. The adopter of the boy gave his name, johnny lingo to him. As a new johnny lingo, Tama decided to comeback to the island where he left a girl named mahana. When he arrived, he was well received and asked that every maiden would be shown that night so that he can choose his bride among them. When the night came, all arrived except for mahana whom he made his promise. He went to see her in their house but was rejected by mahana. The new johnny lingo asked the hand of mahana from her father, the latter Agreed if he will give him three chickens as dowry of mahana. The new johnny lingo, however offered ten cows for the hand of mahana. The father of mahana agreed but mahana is furious and slapped the new johnny lingo. Mahana noticed the arm of the man and recognized in his arm the bracelet that she gave to a boy who promised to comeback for her. The new johnny lingo apologized and mahana accepted it. She is curious though of why ten cows. Tama told her that its is the payment for every year he failed to fulfill his promise. Mahana went with Tama back to the place where he lives as johny lingo. Then they lived happily as a married couple. | romantic | train | wikipedia | I simply love this movie..
That's not how I felt about it the first couple of times I watched it, but seeing it again recently, I realized: I really, really like this movie.Okay, so Alvin Fitisemanu's acting is awful in this film.Okay, so it's a rolling commercial for Tahitian Noni Juice.Okay, so it's weighed down by its share of clichés, including one scene that appeared to have been stolen directly from Chicken Run.In the end, I just don't care.
In the end, I am overcome by the story, the music and the characters in this film.
I LIKE Johnny Lingo, I LIKE Toma, and I LIKE Mahane.No, there are no Academy Awards here - but what we DO have is a good clean film with some positive things to say and a fun way to say them.
And after several times of seeing The Legend of Johnny Lingo over the past few years, what seemed to be glaring flaws the first few times around have faded.
I really like what's left..
A GREAT FLICK!.
On a hunch I decided to see what I knew was destined to be a much overlooked flick entitled "The Legend of Johnny Lingo".
This turned out to be the finest movie I've personally seen in the past decade.
The movie lacks foul language.
It also lacks blatant sex.
Further, it will not be classified as an action movie ...
well, as a teaser I will just say that it is perhaps best described as a human corollary of that old "Ugly Duckling" story.
Take your date or the entire family too.
Even though it won't, in my humble opinion THIS movie should receive the highest awards ever bestowed upon the industry and it's actors.Bottom line: DON'T MISS THIS ONE!
'NUF SAID!the humble recluse ....
sweet family film, exotic locations.
The leads and the supporting characters that get the most screen time are solid (a couple of them appeared in "Whale Rider", where they were outstanding, so you know that they were capable of more than they were given here) -- the shortcomings are primarily in the script, I think.
Some of the supporting cast are a bit wooden, and the script is often a little cliched, but it's very sweet and the locations are beautiful.It's a very gentle film with its heart in the right place, so I would recommend it for younger kids, and I think that most adults won't mind watching it with their kids.
If you're a softie like my wife, you'll actually enjoy it....
I saw this movie on opening day with about 20 other people (total in the theater); I took my kids & wife to see it today (theater filled this time).
It is a nice update to the old campy movie.
It is a nice update to the old campy movie.
Although inexpensively done it is well acted, funny, interesting, compelling and fun.
It is still campy, however.
The central message (that we can influence the self-esteem of others by the way we treat them, whether good or bad) has been expanded nicely.
There are a few BIG plot holes and silly movie mistakes (nobody but the main characters seem to age; how did all the cows get there in the end?
etc.) but overall it is quite enjoyable.
It didn't move me to tears but it was moving; the ending, though contrived, is quite satisfying.
And best of all, my favorite line from the old movie ("Mahana, you ugly!
get down from that tree") is also in this version.
Hey, it won't win any awards, but it was good enough just the same.
A definite 7 or 7.5 out of 10..
Good Family Movie.
I saw this movie a couple of days after it opened.
The theater was packed.
It is not a movie with deep twists and plots, it's a child's movie.
A visually beautiful movie.
I lived in Hawaii for three years as a child and this movie brought back memories of how beautiful the islands in the South Pacific are.
It also reminded me of the good clean action movies that used to come on TV on the Wonderful World of Disney.
Anybody remember watching those movies growing up?
Hollywood doesn't make many movies like this anymore.
I thoroughly enjoyed it..
Good family film.
This movie was surprisingly good.
The story is engaging and well told.
The plot does have some holes, but they are not really relevant to enjoying the film.
The scenery is absolutely incredible - the locations were this was filmed was great.
I spent a good bit of the first part of the movie trying to place the date and location, which is doable.
I like the fact that they used actors and actresses that actually were from the islands and looked the real part.This is also a great film to watch with your family - there are not a lot of good films you can watch with your young kids and all enjoy.
The entire story was suitable for all audiences.
I never saw the original - so not sure about the comparisons with the older version..
Missing Lesson.
Of all the many short movies that the Mormon church has produced, my very favorite of all was the 1969 "Johnny Lingo".
The message, given in the end, is very profound, regarding the meaning of the price that Johnny paid for his bride, and what it meant to her sense of self-worth; and how the ugliest, most undesirable woman on the island was transformed into the most valuable and beautiful.
I have just now finished watching 'The Legend of Johnny Lingo'.
On the whole, I found it a very enjoyable movie, very much worth watching.
Of course, it is to be expected that in 91 minutes, it tells the story in much greater detail, with much more richness, than the 1969 version could do in its 25 minutes.
I was a bit disappointed, however, in the end, when the lesson that was so profoundly taught in the 1969 production seemed to be lost in this version.
This version is very much worth watching, but I strongly recommend that after you've seen this one, you try to find and view the 1969 version as well.{Added 27 march 2005} If you seek to buy this movie on DVD, do yourself a favor: Find a "Deseret Books" store (a store that specializes in Mormon-related books and materials) and look there for the "LDS Classic 2Disc Edition" of this movie.
Among all the other special features, this set includes the original 1969 movie produced by the Mormon church.
I could be mistaken, but I think this edition is only sold through Deseret Books..
nice.
It is so easy to criticize it.
it is so naive, the performances are not the best, the music is awfull and the moral lesson almost childish.
but it has one virtue - it represents the right choice for the gray periods.
after a busy day, after difficult events, after a not happy period.
if you are tired.
or far to be yourself.
like a tea cup.
sure, it is a sort of propaganda.
sure, its story is not exactly credible but too predictable.
but it is the expected fairy tale.
soft, sweet and...lovely.
so, a nice film.
for every family member..
An extended story.
The Legend of Johnny Lingo is an extended story of the 70's original.
It goes into Johnny Lingo's childhood and explains how he first met his wife and how he first became a goods trader.
It is a fun movie for all, including those who loved the first version..
Nice fun flick.
Although a bit clichéd..
The Legend of Johnny Lingo starts off strong and keeps itself going through the whole movie.
You will notice the way it tells it's story at a normal pace and doesn't drop off the deep end and bore you to death.A castaway pacific Islander infant recently washed up on one of the islands is taken in by the Island chief (Whale rider's "Rawiri Paratene") to be heir to the chiefs throne.
The child is named Tama.
However after a series of misfortunes the chief rejects him of this role and passes him to another family.
However after bringing bad luck he is soon passed on from family to family until he is taken in by the island drunk and his stubborn daughter Mahana.
Both him and Mahana, endlessly abused, begin sticking up for each other and form a close bond.
However after being harassed up to his teeth Tama is fed up and longs to leave the island for a better place.
Leaving Mahana behind so she can take care of her father, Tama promises to come back to take care of her.
After being shipwrecked on a more wealthy Island Tama is taken in by the legendary Johnny Lingo destined to fill in his shoes after his time is up.Sometimes the humor is over done and clichéd but the story and characters maintain a strong balance which leave it's flaws in the dust.
Nice little flick.
Recommended for anyone and maybe a family or two.
Johnny's Extended Legend.
If you're looking for a clean cut family film with lots of symbolic undertones (good messages) then "Legend" could serve the purpose.
It offers good location filming, some very good actors amongst what seems like a mostly amateur cast.
The real star of this piece is most certainly the music score by respected composer Kevin Kiner.
Mr Kiner's written several moving pieces all treated to unexpectedly lush orchestral arrangements.
Some good ethnic pop songs also help to set the scene.Director of photography is the highly regarded New Zealander Allen Guilford and features some very good looking locations.
The film is directed and edited by first time feature director Stephen Ramirez.
It won't please hard bitten audiences but anyone looking for the style of matinée movie from yesteryear should be fairly well pleased (although the girls unpleasant drunkard father could be seen as a tad unsettling for some).
This movie is an extended version of an earlier short film (Johnny Lingo 1969) from a story by Pat Mcgerr.
Seen better - but sure seen worse!
(just off the cuff, the promo posters don't particularly suit this version).
the legend of johnny lingo.
I was very intrigued watching this movie whilst on holiday in NZ with my brother,he lives in Wellington,as his daughter -Fiona-is in it!She is the attractive middle native girl giggling with two others when offered to Johnny as a bride!
I feel she should have had the lead role!!!but I'm biased.It was a light hearted fun movie with some good Pacific Island scenery,and villages.It had a feel good quality to it, and you wanted to continue viewing till the end to make sure there was a good result.I enjoyed it,particularly as my niece is in it, I felt very proud to have such talent in the family, I am now looking to purchase a copy so that family in the UK can see it too..
Great Family Movie.
This movie is taken from the Church of Jeasus Christ of Later Day Saints a.k.a. Mormons.That said it is in no way a religious movie nor does it advocate any particular faith.
I only mention it as that is where I learned of "The Legend of Johnny Lingo." I was surprised to see it was a full length movie (91 minutes).This film teaches the idea of love, honesty, faith (not religious type)and hard work and reward for such work.I liked seeing the longer version of this film that what I had before.
It is filled with great views of the aquamarine colored sea and tropical sights they are breath taking.While the message of the film is there it is not annoyingly so. |
tt1800254 | Barbie: A Fairy Secret | Barbie is at the premiere of her latest movie when her rival and co-star, Raquelle, steps on her dress, ripping it. Her stylists, Carrie and Taylor, use magic to mend it. Crystal, a photographer, greets Carrie and Taylor and, taking one last picture of Ken, leaves to go back to Gloss Angeles. Crystal shows Princess Graciella the pictures she took at the premiere. She gives the Princess a love potion, which, due to the effects, turns her eyes from blue to purple. Crystal then shows the Princess the picture of Ken she took, and Graciella falls in love with him on the spot.
The next day at Wally’s restaurant, Barbie confronts Raquelle about the dress-stepping incident. Princess Graciella, Crystal, and two assistant fairies show up and kidnap Ken. Carrie and Taylor sprout their wings and attempt to stop the Princess from taking Ken, but the portal to Gloss Angeles closes before they can enter it. The stylists attempt to dissuade Raquelle and Barbie of the fact that they just saw fairies, but finally admit their existence. They explain that Ken is in trouble because if a human marries a fairy, the human has to stay in Gloss Angeles forever. Meanwhile, in Gloss Angeles, Ken and the Princess arrive in the royal palace, where they meet Zane, Graciella’s boyfriend. Zane is outraged at Graciella's new love interest and challenges Ken to three duels.
Barbie, Raquelle and the fairies go to a clothing store, where they enter the Flyway (a fairy method of transport), which leads them to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The fairies reveal that Lilianna Roxelle, a fashion critic, is the oldest and wisest fairy living on Earth. After they arrive at Lilianna’s home, she informs them that Princess Graciella is under a love potion spell. She gives Barbie a potion that will turn the Princess back to normal if it rains down on her. It is also revealed that Taylor and Carrie were banished from Gloss Angeles. The girls then take Liliana's portal to continue their journey.
Barbie, Raquelle, Taylor, and Carrie make it to Gloss Angeles and they make a stop to Wings and Things in order to get wings for Barbie and Raquelle where they run into the human owner named Reena and her fairy husband Graylon. They then disguise as cooks to try to reveal Princess Graciella about Crystal's love potion; however, Crystal reveals Taylor and Carrie by recognizing Taylor's shoes, and the princess locks the four in furyspheres. Barbie and Raquelle talk and finally figure out their misunderstanding. The reason Raquelle has always been so mean to Barbie is because she never got the chance to be Barbie's friend. They apologize to each other and become friends. Their reconciliation breaks the furyspheres and their wings become real, and they now realize that forgiveness lets them fly. The two then go to stop the wedding between Graciella and Ken, holding off the attendants and the princess. Finally, Barbie puts the antidote on Graciella, curing her from the love potion. Graciella realizes that it was Crystal who gave her the love potion and apologizes for the misunderstanding. She also explains that the reason she banished Taylor and is because the three of them were once friends but Taylor and Carrie started spending so much time together that she felt left out and betrayed. At the urging of Barbie and Raquelle, she lifts Taylor and Carrie's ban, and the three fairies forgive each other. Graciella then punishes Crystal by having her clean up after the ceremony, and goes to marry Zane.
After the wedding, Graciella tells Barbie and Raquelle that their wings will disappear when they and Ken go back to the human world, and then reappear when they return to Gloss Angeles. Graciella sends them back to Earth with magical dust. The next morning, Barbie wakes up with no recollection of Gloss Angeles or the fairies, thinking it was a dream. However, she and Raquelle are now friends. Carrie and Taylor tell the two that they reconnected with an old friend (Princess Graciella) and are going back to their hometown (Gloss Angeles). | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Ugh..
Bring back the old Barbie!.
These movies are getting worse and worse.
Bring back the old style and old Barbie.
They are also not entirely appropriate for a 3-5 year old.
Sad. They have attempted to modernize Barbie and taken away her sweetness and innocence and made her into an annoying teenager with a cell phone.
She doesn't even look like Barbie anymore.
The fantasy is gone.
Barbie is supposed to be hip and modern- it is like the movie producers are ignoring the 3-5 year old genre and targeting 8-10 year olds.
But the main audience is 3-5.
What 10 year old wants to watch this?
That being said my 4 year old enjoyed it, but I am not sure I did and I am not sure I like the new influence.
I think we will stick with old Barbie movies on reruns.
This pales in comparison to Three Musketeers or Princess and the Pauper.
Get those instead..
Weird messages about money & shipping.
I've had the opportunity to see a number of these Barbie flicks and they're uniformly targets at little girls and so portray a fairly formulaic fantasy land of fairies and adventure.
By and large I think that kind of story telling is benign in the long run.
This film stood out to me with the bizarre mixture of shopping and royalty.
Per the film fairies create out of magic all the stuff in the fancy stores and in fairyland life is portrayed as one endless shopping excursion.
For all of the characters their only real 'normal' activity is shopping for stuff (note I didn't say buying as that's never actually a part of the process, just walking around with bags of fashion garments).
The rest of the time the characters are in some sort of interpersonal conflict or peril.
Fantasy and play are part of being a kid and that's a grand way for them to experiment with human roles.
This peculiar shopping fantasy land and it's direct tie to a excessive vanity is pure mental poison.
I don't know that I would recommend the other Barbie movies but their not cognitively poisonous in relating real world situations like this one..
A huge disappointment.
I wanted to like A Fairy Secret, and tried to.
But I just couldn't.
And this is coming from somebody who actually likes the Barbie movies(especially Nutcracker, Diamond Castle, Island Princess and Prince and the Pauper).
But although I haven't yet seen Fashion Fairytale, despite hearing a lot of negative press about that one, I can't imagine until I see it that it will be worse than this.
The only redeeming quality for me of A Fairy Secret was the catchy soundtrack, and even that is nowhere near as good as those for Nutcracker, Rapunzel and Swan Lake.
I disliked the animation here, entries like Nutcracker, Swan Lake and Diamond Castle have beautiful animation that is full of colour and fluidity, but here the colours are lifeless, the backgrounds blocky and the character designs at their most plastic.
The writing focuses far too much on fashion(seemingly fashion is like the most important thing in the world) and behavioural snobbery, and the story instead of being charming with good messages is formulaic and rushed with values of stealing boyfriends and vanity.
The characters are no longer cute, but now act like childish brats, especially Ken. Barbie in another of her as...roles is no longer resourceful and kind but now a stereotypical teenager, the anti-thesis of her persona in the first place, in other words she's at her least likable.
The voice work is stilted, nobody sounds natural as their characters, granted I wasn't expecting any big names to pop up and practically embody their roles like in Nutcracker, Rapunzel, Swan Lake and Three Musketeers but at least the voice actors could've sounded as though they were bringing some kind of life to the proceedings.
Overall, a huge disappointment, I'm expecting little from Fashion Fairytale but I just pray that it isn't worse than this.
2/10 Bethany Cox. A good movie for young girls.
Some of the reviews on this flick are freakin' HARSH-CITY!
Here's a News Flash to some reviewers: THIS MOVIE WAS NOT MADE FOR YOU!!I've got two daughters, ages 6 and 9.
They both enjoyed it, particularly my 6 year old who was jumping up off the couch because she was totally getting into the movie.
The thing I noticed the most was how much they were smiling and giggling throughout the entire film.
(Isn't that what these films are all about?I thought the voice acting was fine, and the computer animation was on par with all the other BARBIE movies we have in our collection.I asked them what their score would be for this, and they both said "It was AWESOME!" So, I give it TEN STARS for its intended audience.The bottom line is that NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS MOVIE CONSIDERING THE TARGET AUDIENCE, AND BOTH OF MY DAUGHTERS GREATLY ENJOYED THIS FILM!And that's what really matters the most..
Worse than the worst.
Critical analysis of any Barbie movie is like attempting to extract blood from a turnip.
There is nothing of merit to critically dissect.
It's just pure, less than juvenile garbage.
They are, to the letter, stilted, terribly scripted, amateurish CG animated, middling voice acting (though hardly the worst I've ever heard), with incredibly stupid, improbable stories and plots and manufactured dialog that would never come from a human's mouth.
You feel certain you've dropped 2 or 3 IQ points after watching one of these monstrosities.With these exceptionally low standards for context, the "Fairy Secret" may be the bottom 2 or 3 of these exceptionally terrible cookie-cutter, quasi-formulaic junk piles geared for little girls who think they want to be Barbie and that we parents are in the unfortunate position of occasionally having to watch with our little ones.
The dialog and "plot" (for a story that's mind-numbingly idiotic) are both so awful that one will find oneself groaning constantly throughout the time you've wasted watching it.Whereas some minor merit can occasionally be extracted out of some of the Barbie movies - as in maybe there's a slightly funny joke or at least the plot isn't entirely stupid, little can be said that is positive about this one.
It's like the writer isn't even trying to create believable characters, dialog, or plot, even at the level of the fantastical.
Perhaps the writer is so underpaid that they barely phone it in.
Perhaps they are already angry that they have to have this trash on their resume.
Maybe they will legally change their name after being associated with a movie like this.
Whatever the case, it doesn't make for a good movie.Save your little girls the trouble and rent something vastly better that nearly all kids enjoy - like pretty much any Pixar movie..
Perfect film for Girls ages 2 to 10.
Full of Fashion, Friends and Adventure.
"Barbie: A Fairy Secret" is the story of how Barbie discovers that fairies really do exist.
When a fairy princess captures her boyfriend Ken, Barbie along with her costar, Raquelle, and two of Barbie's stylists, head out to rescue him from Gloss Angeles, a floating town filled with fairies.
I really like the animation in this movie, especially how each of the characters are drawn.
Barbie's eyes glisten like jewels and get me into the fairy mood.
Each scene bursts with color, like their hangout Wally's.
I also love how every piece of clothing has a modern twist.
I wish I could have two fairies as my personal stylists.
The movie also has great music that makes me want to dance.
Barbie is already friends with her two fashion stylists at the beginning of the movie, but is uneasy around her rival Raquelle.
Raquelle is jealous of Barbie, so what will happen when they get twisted up in this magical world together?
When Ken is forced to marry fairy princess Graziella he realizes how much he loves Barbie but lots of trouble stands in their way.
Don't worry, because Barbie will do anything to get Ken back.
Girls ages two to ten will really enjoy this movie filled with friends, fashion and adventure.
Will Raquelle and Barbie ever be friends?
How will they get into the magical world?
Will they rescue Ken?
Find out when you watch "Barbie: a Fairy Secret." Credit: Makai Weber Colvin, Age 9, KIDS FIRST!
Film Critic.
Disappointingly poor effort.
I think I understand the messages they were trying to get across with this film, women can be heroes, forgiveness and that you have to make an effort with friendship, but all they imaged to get across is that the important things in life are shoes, dresses and boyfriends.
Barbie doesn't even care when her two friends leave at the end of the film.The writers just took the storyline and the characters from Mariposa and A Mermaid Tale, added Ken and some inane dialogue to make it sound clever - "ugh, too many apps".
I assume the action figures and merchandising are already available in the foyer??All the things that made the early Barbie thing special - character development, original storyline, catchy songs, emotion, humour etc are missing.
All we're left with is an empty, shallow 70 minutes of bright noise.Avoid.
For your children's sake..
Set the feminist movement back 100 years..
Why did I watch this movie?
Oh yes I was under the impression that it MIGHT be good.
It was really bad!
SPOILERS after this point: This movie is about Barbie, duh.
Some, wait for it, FAIRY literally STEALS her boyfriend, Ken of course.
And Barbie has to rescue him.Throughout this ENTIRE movie was BRAINWASHING PROPAGANDA for girls to be stereotypical girls.
NOT ONE FEMALE IN THIS ENTIRE MOVIE WEARS PANTS!
Wow these days women wear pants more often than skirts, and dresses.
The closest one girl got to wearing pants was the "stuck up" girl naturally!
And they were skin tight leggings UNDER A SKIRT!
You may say "These are the girly girls." So jeans are not girly?
These days women wear dresses/skirts ONLY for special occasions.
When one is seen with one on they are asked why they are all dressed up.Since this movie takes place in the present (one fairy saying "too many apps") they must reflect the present style.
The movie was so sexist!
All women do is figure out what outfit to wear and steal each other's boyfriends?
None of these women have REAL jobs they have all la la land jobs; actor, stylist, fitting room attendant.
Wow talk about telling women to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!
NONE of these women do jobs that require actual intelligence!
Just repeating lines, and the fairy stylists USE THEIR MAGIC to make outfits!
They don't even have a bachelor in arts or something!
Also the whole "forgiveness sets you free" thing hmm, well the stuck up girl did not really do anything wrong to be forgiven.
It was a MISUNDERSTANDING!
MORE BRAINWASHING to teach girls at an early age to "forgive" TRANSLATION: LET PEOPLE WALK ALL OVER YOU, BE A GOOD LITTLE SLAVE TO MEN, LET MEN CHEAT ON YOU, ETC." WOW!
Should women "forgive" a man who assaulted them.
NO of course not.
THAT is THEIR responsibility not to pointlessly harm a woman!
I am aware I did not put a question mark.
That is because that is not even a QUESTION!
The answer is CLEARLY NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!
Oh yes and the whole thing that one woman did in a fairy store.
She left her WHOLE LIFE behind for her HUSBAND!
And now can NEVER leave the fairy world!
So she can't ever be a part of her life BEFORE this guy.
What about a compromise?
They live in fairy land for a while and a while in the real world!
WOW!
WOW!
WOW!
HORRIBLE "LESSONS" for little girls!
"Give up your life for men and be their slave." NO DON'T DO THAT!
Barbie shows her true colors here!
And they are sexist!
And they are sexist!
DO NOT SHOW THIS "MOVIE" TO YOUR LITTLE GIRL(S); THEY WILL BE SCARRED FOR LIFE!.
Is this really what little girls want, or need?.
Barbie: A fairy secret is perhaps one of the worst Barbie movies ever made.
Sure, the animation is alright, I like Barbie's new voice actor, and the story isn't the worst in history.
But there are just so many stupid scenes and moments, and even creates plot holes in the process; Such as not giving a set of rules for magic for it to make sense, or letting the audience learn more about the fairy world.I know I just said that the animation is alright, but the animation here does NOT look like it was made in 2011; It still looks like 2008 animation.
And this confuses me actually; Why is it that the most popular franchise associated with little girls, have such mediocre budgets, and technology?Besides the passable animation and terrible writing, the movie is presenting little girls with fashion, shopping, and just being terrible role models.
Even if little girls like this movie, they can be subconsciously influenced by what they see.
If you are creating a message, THINK THROUGH YOUR IMPLICATIONS, or else girls can get the wrong idea of what the movie is trying to convey.
I know I'm not in the demographic for this movie, but A: I grew up with this movie, and B: We are living in a decade where plenty of kids movies prove that they can be enjoyable by the whole family, and not just 5 year old's!
Even if your kids like terrible movies, that doesn't mean that the adults have to pretend to like it; They can offer their own opinions on the movie.
Besides, it is up to parents to decide what movies kids can, and can't see.Those are just my thoughts on the movie. |
tt1996207 | Call of Juarez: The Cartel | The offices of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are bombed by unknown assailants. Assistant Deputy Director Shane Dickson enlists LAPD detective Ben McCall, along with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Kimberly Evans and DEA agent Eddie Guerra to track down the culprits. She informs them of the late Patrick Stone, who was investigating the Cartel up until his death in the bombing. They are also tasked with protecting Stone's only daughter, Jessica. Kim reveals that the Cartel has been purchasing military-grade hardware from an unknown source. During the story, each character illegally interferes with the investigation for various reasons.
The team then storms Mendoza's Hacienda, killing more of his men and finally manage to corner Mendoza, who promptly surrenders. Ben tries to strong-arm him into testifying, only for Mendoza to be killed by an unmanned aircraft drone, which fires upon the rest of the team, who realize that Dickson must've sent the drone after them in order to cover up her tracks, and they take cover to avoid drone fire trying to kill them. Ben says that Alvarez is the only one left who can testify to Dickson's involvement. The team chase him into a cellar, where they split into three paths. Kim and Eddie are contacted by their superiors who encourage them to kill off their teammates, while Dickson orders Ben to walk away, or "things will go badly" for him. The team manages to corner Alvarez, who reveals that Eddie's debts have been paid off in exchange for his agency to hold him responsible for his illegal actions, Kim reveals that Alvarez is a federal informant and was their link to the Cartel. Ben wants to kill Alvarez in retaliation for his crimes, Kim wants Alvarez alive so Dickson and Waters can go to prison and Eddie wants to split the drug money three ways where they can start with a clean slate.
The team engage in a Mexican standoff and the player is presented with a choice to either kill his/her teammates or decide not to fight, choosing to kill your teammates results in Alvarez detonating a grenade and escaping, after which you kill your teammates and get different fates for each character, Ben goes to prison while the United States prepares to go to war with Mexico, Kim slaps Dickson after being awarded a medal, and is apprehended, and Eddie is killed (presumably by the person who was blackmailing him). If you choose not to fight, the team lets Alvarez live. If Alvarez is taken alive, he testifies against Dickson's involvement, resulting in her arrest. Eddie is jailed for his involvement in the murder of Jessica and Kim for killing Donleavy, and Ben is shown placing flowers on Patrick and Jessica's grave, and pulling out a Bible, finally seeking redemption. | violence | train | wikipedia | poor gameolay, clichéd story.. Wow! what a comedown from the first game..its now just a generic shoot-em-up derived from- and inferior to- so many others.Gameplay is awkward. I found the driving levels incredibly irritating and cumbersome.The story is clichéd, the characters are unlikable racial stereotypes and there are just too many cutscenes. Swearing doesn't bother me but if it offends you there is a lot of profanity here.The modern setting adds nothing and merely removes call of juarez of its unique selling point and sense of identity.I did consider buying this but thankfully I rented it first. I definitely won't be buying it.. Mistake with some good stuff. This game did not fulfill my expectations. I don't know what was the idea
no more good old western, no more Indians, Mexicans
duels
good music
This is just
a FPS with some typical, already used story about FBI, DEA
and all that stuff fighting against drug lords and weapon smugglers. There are some tiny references
for example, you can find some valuable items
you can ride a car and you can choose character, this time, three of them. One of them is Ben McCall, no other than a descendant of Marisa and Thomas and their son Billy. But, he inherited some strong genes that reminds you of
Ray McCall. And the guy is pretty the same as Ray, he is tough, hard-nosed, merciless and he cites the bible when he enters a special shooting mode
a former Vietnam veteran and a crazy mofo. Eddie is latino-American DEA, not that important, but he can handle rifles pretty good. Kim is a FBI agent skilled with snipers. And they all have pretty interesting connection through the gameplay. But, the game itself doesn't offer you any kind of intensity, energy, atmosphere
just running around and shooting at the targets, but it holds some elements from the previous games, like concentration mode shooting and breaking in position at the doors. On occasions, it can be fun, but don't expect too much.. Terrible!. I'm a huge fan of shooter games (anything Rockstar, Stranglehold, Call of Duty 3, The Uncharted series, etc.) so I was excited when I heard positive things about its predecessor. I was absolutely disappointed the moment I pressed the start button.The character development was non-existent, the plot was ridiculous, and the game-play was extremely annoying. There was a level where you have to move drugs from one car to another. You can't shoot anyone while holding items and every single flipping time I did this part, I ALWAYS ended up dying. I was stuck on this mission forever. When playing, in general, it felt as if I was a lab rat trapped in a universe that you can't even explore or get some fresh air. I don't have a problem with linear games but this was poorly executed.Immediately after dying for 50th time in a row, I went to Gamestop sold it for store credit. Those $10 I paid for it were not worth it. Do yourself a favor and avoid this game! |
tt0108473 | The Vanishing | A Dutch couple, Rex and Saskia, are on holiday in France. As they drive, Saskia shares a recurring dream in which she is drifting through space in a golden egg. In the most recent dream, another egg containing another person appeared; she feels the collision of the two eggs would signify the end of something.
Their car runs out of petrol and they stop at a rest area, where a man in another car dons a false sling and orthopedic cast. Rex promises to never abandon Saskia and they bury two coins at the base of a tree as a symbol of their romance. Saskia enters the petrol station to buy drinks and does not return. Rex frantically searches for her.
Some time earlier, Raymond, a wealthy family man, secretly plots to abduct a woman. He buys an isolated house, experiments with chloroform, and rehearses scenarios in which he entices women into his car. When his initial attempts at abduction fail, he poses as an injured motorist in need of assistance and goes to the rest area out of town where he will not be recognised.
Three years after Saskia's disappearance, Rex is still searching for her. He has received several postcards inviting him to meet the kidnapper at a cafe in Nimes, but the kidnapper never comes. Unknown to Rex, the cafe is directly opposite Raymond's apartment, where he watches Rex wait. Rex's new girlfriend, Lieneke, reluctantly helps him search for Saskia. One day, Rex has a dream similar to Saskia's in which he is trapped in a golden egg. Unable to endure his obsession, Lieneke leaves him.
Rex makes a public appeal on television, saying he only wants to know the truth about what happened to Saskia. Raymond confronts Rex and admits the kidnapping; he says he will reveal what happened to her if Rex comes with him. As they drive, Raymond says that he has known from a young age that he has no conscience, and is therefore capable of anything. After saving a young girl from drowning, he resolved to commit the worst crime he could imagine to learn whether doing something good felt better. He describes how he kidnapped Saskia at the rest stop by posing as a traveling salesman and enticing her into his car after she asked about buying a gift for Rex.
Raymond takes Rex to the rest area. He dismisses Rex's threats of police action, saying there is no evidence connecting him to the crime. He pours Rex a cup of drugged coffee, and tells him the only way to learn what happened to Saskia is to experience it himself. As Raymond waits in the car, Rex rages, unsure of what to do. After digging up the coins he and Saskia buried years earlier, he drinks the coffee and awakens buried in a box underground. Raymond relaxes at his country home, surrounded by his wife and children. | flashback | train | wikipedia | In this remake of the 1988 Dutch film 'Spoorloos' writer Jeff Harriman (Kiefer Sutherland) searches for his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock) who disappeared from a gas station during a road trip they took 3 years earlier.His new girlfriend (Nancy Travis) tries to help him pick up the pieces of his life but gets increasingly frustrated over his fascination with the mystery.
Diane's kidnapper Barney (Jeff Bridges) has his own interest piqued by Jeff.There still persists the perception that remakes are inferior to originals and that European cinema is artistically superior to Hollywood.
Had they known, there can be little doubt Bullock would have played Rita.The ultimate sin that North American film audiences could not forgive is obvious pandering to their own glaring superficial tastes when it comes to how movies end.
North American film audiences DO prefer happy endings with neat and tidy closure.But expecting them to embrace the glaring implication that they can't handle scary and/or thought-provoking material is an unforgivable insult which could only elicit the kind of derision from reviewers that it has even though the action which leads up to it is far from boring or silly.
When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending.
If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book.
Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world..
Others have said it already, but since there still seem to be some people who think this remake is worth watching, I feel the need to reiterate: skip this movie and watch the original.
The major difference between the two is an ending on the Dutch film that will chill you to the bone, versus the predictable Hollywood version of the story..
Either the studios think that US audiences must be protected from downbeat endings or hollywood just likes to spit in the face of the cast and producers of the orignal Dutch version (Spoorloos).
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original.
Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988.
I think The Vanishing is as good as the original or even better, especially Jeff Bridges as Barney is incredible which alone makes it worth to watch this movie.
I mean I only think it's a pity that those who haven't seen this movie and might be interested to watch it get such an underrated opinion of it just because some of you are showing their personal disgust to Hollywood remakes in a such a low way.
This movie is the 2nd movie i watched in my Kiefer Sutherland marathon and by far one of his best movies and this movie is a little bit better then Kiefers movie Truth or Consequences,N.M.And the actor Jeff Bridges does a great job at playing the bad guy named Barney Cousins in this movie.
This is the first movie I have seen Jeff Bridges in and I would like to watch one of his other movies like K-Pax,Tron or The Door In The Floor.And if u are a fan of Kiefer Sutherland or Mystery/Thriller movies u will love this movie to death.Over all this movie is really great and my rating is a huge 8 out of 10..
The true thinking man's psychopath is Jeff Bridge's "Barney" in this story about one man's (Kiefer Sutherland's) obsessive, years-long search for a girlfriend who disappeared during a vacation.
Jeff Bridges goes from sympathetic(you actually like the guy) to scary, Keifer Sutherland does a great job playing a normal guy strung out on too much coffee, but the real star is Nancy Travis.
Though I found The Vanishing a really interesting movie, I recommend checking out the original, the 1988 Dutch film Spoorloos.
Yes, I know, the Dutch original, Spoorloos, by the same director is supposedly far superior, but since I haven't as yet found or seen it, I can only comment on the American remake.
After he goes on TV and pleads for information (you kind of wonder why he hasn't done this earlier, or why there seem to be no other family members looking for her, but I guess these are irrelevant questions) the kidnapper Barney (Jeff Bridges) contacts him.Along with Jeff, we gradually come to realize what happened to Diane, and we are effectively sickened and saddened.
Even when Barney was beaten up by Kiefer Sutherland(Jeff Harriman),"24",'01 TV series, he was still able to talk almost with a broken jaw and a swollen face.(great acting for Bridges) Sandra Bullock (Jeff Harriman's wife) played a very sweet and loving young bride who ran out of gas and was left in her car, which was in a tunnel.
For me, however, the relationship between Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) and Rita (Nancy Travis) also takes away the from the original film as to me the feeling of obsession by Jeff on finding his missing girlfriend is totally lost.The character played by Jeff Bridges does not appear as cold and calculating as in the original although I would admit he does give a reasonable performance but the whole feeling of menace is lost early in the film.All in all a very poor remake!
This must be one of the worst remakes of a European film, although made by the same director, and the actors in it have tried their best, but even Bridges, Sutherland and Bullock did not make this movie fun to watch.
The abductor in the original movie (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu as Raymond Lemorne) was creepy, but Barney (Jeff Bridges) was far from that!
The best thing ( and the climax ) about the original was the ending.The whole movie revolves about that moment and in this version, it's totally changed and made into a happy ending.
This remake is utterly disturbed, yet oddly provocative in its slick style and torrential execution.This film waltzes you through the plot without a hitch, taking you from scene to scene in an almost seamless way, which makes the climax all the more climactic for its stylish concepts and devilish innovations.The performances, especially Jeff Bridges, are extraordinary in that you can almost believe you are watching it happen, rather than watching a movie.
The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.OK here we go.
At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake.
...would Hollywood ask a Dutch director [George Sluizer] to remake his own 1988 film, nearly scene for scene until the end, in ENGLISH.No subtitles please, George.
Jeff Bridges plays Barney the psycho killer and as usual he gives a brilliant performance as does Kiefer Sutherland.
Jeff Bridges had this character type down cold.Oh yeah, and my husband (who is very critical of movies we watch), actually liked this one.
This film is the story of a Seattle man (Kiefer Sutherland) that searches for his kidnapped girlfriend, (Sandra Bullock) for a long time.
This film is the story of a Seattle man (Kiefer Sutherland) that searches for his kidnapped girlfriend, (Sandra Bullock) for a long time.
Bullock disappears and Sutherland spends the next few years trying to find her.Basically what we have here is your basic psycho thriller enlivened by Bridges performance as Barney - a part pathetic part pure evil character that borders on the comic, making him all too real and chilling (he even laughs at himself when he botches a kidnapping).Like The Sixth Sense, the pay-off is what it's all about and when you find out what happened to Bullocks' sweet and naive girl-next-door chances are you won't forget it in a hurry.Sometimes silly (the joke at the end is plain stupid), The Vanishing has a nasty bluntness about human evil to it that you don't usually find in this genre.
I could go on for pages, but instead I'll leave it with one simple point.........Jeff's been lookng for his girlfriend for three years, yet when he returns to the gas station with Barney the abductor, it is the first time he has been back since the day of the disappearance!!!!!!
Barney is "off" - and frighteningly so.Jeff and his girlfriend Diane (an early role for Sandra Bullock, and a limited performance, restricted to the first third of the movie if that) stop at a convenience store while on a trip.
The mystery of Diane's disappearance is somewhat secondary, but it is the engine that drives the character of Jeff, and - like him - the viewer also wants to know what exactly happened to her.
Released in 1993 and directed by George Sluizer from a novel by Tim Krabbé, "The Vanishing" is a crime drama/mystery/horror about a man (Kiefer Sutherland) whose girlfriend goes missing during a trip in Washington State (Sandra Bullock) and he searches in vain for her for years.
The boyfriend (Kiefer Sutherland) of an abducted woman (Sandra Bullock) never gives up the search as the abductor (Jeff Bridges) looks on.What I find so interesting about this film is how much they made it like the original.
A remake of a 1988 Franco-Dutch film, also directed by George Sluizer, 'The Vanishing' does deliver some thrills & an unbelievably menacing performance by Academy-Award-Winning Acting Legend, Jeff Bridges.
I did not know of the original movie when I watched this version, but I really liked this remake.
Now keep in mind, Diane was Sandra Bullock but, she was only on the screen for about eight minutes tops so don't rent it for her.I felt like Rita because I was ignored as the viewer as well, denied the real life (plot,good acting ) that we wanted.
This US version is apparently gorier and has a happy ending (unlike the original) but I don't see why it should, both the films are directed by the same person, George Sluizer, who shouldn't have changed a winning formula.Anyway for me this wasn't a very good film, it is classed as a thriller but their wasn't really anything thrilling about it.
It has some really good actors in it (The normally reliable Jeff Bridges, 24's Kiefer Sutherland) and that's why i picked it up to start with but they don't add anything much to the film (in fact Jeff Bridges character seems oddly over the top).Watch the original instead** out of *****.
The Vanishing (1993) starts off as two different stories: Preparations for a kid- napping on Barney Cousin´s behalf (Bridges) and a road trip, in which Diane Shaver (Bullock) and Jeff Harriman (Sutherland) drive to Mt. St.
Jeff Harriman (Kiefer Sutherland) and his girlfriend Diane Shaver (Sandra Bullock) are having a less than perfect vacation.
(There are Spoilers) The movie "The Vanishing" starts out interesting enough with couple Jeff & Diane, Kifer Sutherland & Sandra Bullock, driving in the Pacific North West on vacation where Diane later ends up missing when they stop at a highway rest-stop to get gas.
When he wakes up finds himself six feet under in a coffin that Barney prepared for him; was that what happened to Diane three years ago?Instead of ending the movie right there with Jeff finding out what happened to Diane, like in the original and far better Dutch version of the movie "The Vanishing", we instead have Rita coming to his rescue and battling it out with the crazy Barney.
Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges).
Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film.
For the most part, this version is a paint-by-numbers remake with excellent performances from Kiefer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, and Nancy Travis.
The American remake of the 1988 Dutch film THE VANISHING, about a kidnaping, used the same director but completely revamped the script to include a much more elaborate and absolutely unnecessary happy ending, right down to a dreadfully unfunny punchline delivered by the two leads.
For three years Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) never gave up looking for his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock).
The movie had some good moments, and I think Jeff Bridges did an excellent job playing a psycho.
The overall acting of Kiefer Sutherland and Jeff Bridges helped this movie out a lot.
I knew the original dutch movie Spoorloos (of which this is based) had a better rating, but I decided to go with this version primarily because Sandra Bullock is in this and she is one of my favorites.Unfortunately she is not in it a whole lot, instead the movie focuses primarily on the boyfriend 'left behind' played by Kiefer Sutherland.Which could still have been made into a interesting watch but the plot just strays away from the topic at hand way too often in those scenes with for instance Kiefer trying to make it as a writer etc.Jeff Bridges plays his role as a sociopath rather well though, and it would have been a lot better if he was put in the forefront instead of Kiefer but nothing you can do about that of course.It could potentially been cut down to decent 87 minute movie but even then the ending lacks the punch needed.So yeah, I think it's fairly safe to assume that I'd been better off watching the original..
That is why the captor in this thriller stole someone's girlfriend.While on a road trip, Jeff's (Kiefer Sutherland) girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock) vanishes from a truck stop where they are filling up.Years later, Barney (Jeff Bridges) introduces himself to Jeff as the man who snatched Diane.But in order to finally learn the truth of Diane's disappearance, Jeff must endure the same torment as her.Unfortunately, that experience includes Jeff having to be drugged, bound, and buried alive.
The American remake of the European original based on the best selling Dutch novel, this 1993 version of the account is as suspenseful and nerve-wracking as its inspiration.With Bridges turn as the sleazy subjugator being one of the film's many highlights.However, sometimes when your girlfriend disappears, it just means you've been dumped.Yellow Light.
Okay Spoorloos Is My Favourite Thriller Film So I Wasn't Expecting Much From A Remake, Despite The Fact That Both Were George Sluizer's Creations, However This Is My Opinion And I Wont Discriminate Anyone For Difference So All I Ask From This Review Is For You - The Reader - To Hear Out What I Have To Say.Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu Was Amazingly Cast As A Villain, He Was Creepy And He Knew How To Portray A Complete F#ucking Psychopath, Now Take Nothing Away From Jeff Bridges, Out Of All The Actors In This Film He Did The Best Job But In Comparison Donnadieu Is So Much Better!
I had several problems with the film as I will detail below.The plot consists of Jeff (Sutherland) looking for his missing girlfriend Diane (Bullock) who vanished on a vacation trip three years prior.
Barney (Bridges) plays the creepy villain in this tale with Rita (Travis) as Jeff's new girlfriend rounding out the cast.
Diane disappears and Jeff is obsessed with trying to find what happened and will do almost anything.bottom line this movie is great I loved it!
I only saw The Vanishing a few days ago on cable and surprised I've never come across it before.The Vanishing reminds me so much of Breakdown, starring Kurt Russell where the movie plods along at a nice speed, nothing over the top happens or anything.Sandra Bullock, although on screen for about 10 minutes is brilliant as Diane, girlfriend of Jeff, played by Kiefer Sutherland.
As a result, the film received the most formulaic of endings, destroying the mood and underlying creepiness that made the original so disturbing.Jeff Bridges character, Barney Cousins, begins by experimenting with chloroform to see how long it takes to render someone unconscious.
Bridges plays Barney as an eccentric character – far more mannered than his opposite number in the Dutch version played by Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu.A young couple enters the story, Jeff Harriman and Diane Shaver, played by Keifer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock.
As a Dutchman I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen the original 'Spoorloos' yet (nor have I read 'The Golden Egg'), but I sure hope it's better than this American re-make.While buying some beer, Diane (Sandra Bullock) is kidnapped by Barney (Jeff Bridges), leaving boyfriend Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) left in despair. |
tt0070253 | Jugnu | Sooraj is from a wealthy household. He meets Jugnu when he's tried to commit suicide by jumpung off a cliff and jugnu tries to stop him. In reality it was a ply conceived by sooraj and his friends to distract jugnu and all the girls so that they can steal the food prepared by the girls. All of them study in the same college and live in hostel. And thus slowly on meeting few times Jugnu and Sooraj fall in love with each other. Jugnu is orphaned when she was young and is taken care of by a friend of her father's who wishes for her to be married to his son Dilip. Sooraj's parents come to know about his love for jugnu and oppose the match as jugnu is poor. One day in conversation with his father sooraj comes to know that they are not rich as all the assets (bungalow, things etc.) owned by his father are mortgaged under heavy loan and so he plans to arrange marriage of Sooraj to a rich household so that the dowry received will help them pay off the loan and continue living a wealthy life. Sooraj is surprised to hear this but he nevertheless is happy as now he can marry Jugnu as both are poor. But Sooraj's mother goes to jugnu and pleads for her son's life explaining her predicament and jugnu promises her that she will get out of sooraj's life. What happens next is the central plot of the story. Will sooraj and jugnu meet again? Will the difference be sorted out between them? Will the lovers love be sacrificed for parents' happiness and money?
This movie was the first hit of Dilip Kumar. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0984204 | Love Lies Bleeding | Duke (Brian Geraghty) and Amber (Jenna Dewan) are a financially strapped young couple, both working menial jobs to survive, while their gangster neighbors continue to steal Duke and Amber's things. One day Amber gets home and finds the neighbors in the house, stealing a few things. They beat her up and leave. Duke gets home and finds her, and is so angered he goes out and purchases a gun. Meanwhile, a corrupt DEA Agent named Pollen (Christian Slater) is after a cache of dirty money that belongs to him. He tracks it back to the house Duke's neighbors live in and gets there before Duke does. There is a shootout, and Pollen is injured. Duke arrives and finds the aftermath, and the money. Duke takes the money, believing that it will mean a better life for himself and Amber. Pollen tries to stop him, but passes out due to his injuries.
Duke returns home, and he and Amber flee. Pollen wakes up and finds two other Agents after the money, and they team up and go after them to get back what is theirs. Duke and Amber buy a car and travel to an expensive Albuquerque hotel, and spend a few days gambling and having fun, and finally getting married. Amber also tells Duke that she is pregnant. Pollen and his men arrive the next day, however, and start searching for Duke. A room-service man takes the money from them, and Duke goes after him to get the cash back. Amber, meanwhile, is ambushed by Pollen, who threatens to kill her if she doesn't tell him where the money is. Amber tells him that Duke left her after she got pregnant, and Pollen believes her. He's about to kill her when she cuts him with a shard of glass and kills one of the other detectives. Pollen and the other Agent go after them, but Duke and Amber eventually escape, leaving the money hidden behind a bush as a bargaining tool should Pollen catch them.
Pollen is questioned by two suspicious detectives, who start following the DEA Agent around. Duke soon calls Pollen and says he doesn't want any more of it, and that they'll give him the money that day if they'll let Duke and Amber go. Pollen agrees, and deduces that they would have left the money at the hotel for safety. Duke goes back to get it, but the money is gone. He finds out a gardener quit the previous day, and he goes after the gardener. Sure enough the man took the money, and Duke leaves the man some of it when he learns the gardener has children.
Pollen and Morton follow Duke and Amber directly behind them. Duke pulls off at an abandoned warehouse, and the DEA Agents follow, with the detectives on their trails. After exchanging words, Pollen reveals that Morton has Amber tied up. Pollen then takes out horrific tools to make sure that Duke didn't tell anyone about what Pollen has done, but Duke fights back, killing the other detective. Pollen wounds Duke and the two fight. Pollen beats Duke with an iron pipe, but before Pollen can finish the beating, Amber kills him with Morton's shotgun. Duke dies of his injuries. One of the detectives enters the building, and unseen by Amber, manipulates the evidence so it appears that Pollen is at fault. Sometime later Amber is feeding a baby boy, and the camera pans back to show a new suburban house. | murder | train | wikipedia | Yes, this is an old storyline but I thought the story was credible, the actors did a good job and were believable and the locations were authentic.
Just remember folks, biggest isn't always best, just like this comment, I've said all I want to say but its not ten lines so I've got to fill it out!.
Christian Slater released two films at approximately the same time, "He Was a Quiet Man", and this particular piece.
"Love Lies Bleeding" is a modern-day Bonnie and Clyde, but imagine Clyde as a miserably ignorant, somewhat philosophical "nice guy".A young couple, Duke and Amber are living together on the wrong side of the tracks, dealing with poverty, crime, and general economic misfortune until coming upon a bag of money belonging to their drug-dealing neighbors.
Also sought after by dirty cop Pollen, they go on the run to escape their depressing lives and find their dream life of a house with a yard and 2.5 children...etc...Jenna Dewan is really developing quality acting skills, especially opposing Christian Slater's frightening "dirty cop" routine.
Christian Slater once again shows his talents and versatility (very obvious if going between this film and "He Was a Quiet Man).
Brian Geraghty was slightly over-done, but it suited the role (Iraq war-vet that didn't come home quite right).Overall, this film was chock-full of stereotypes and stayed rather cookie-cutter and predictable throughout.
It's not perfect by any means, but if you're not looking for substance, it's just a good entertaining film..
And the casting of Christian Slater doesn't bode too well however kick ass Jenna Dewan of Step Up and Tamara and sexy Brian Geraghty in full on hunk mode does add a bit of intrigue.
A down on their luck good natured young couple come upon a bag full of dirty cop money.
Christian Slater is actually quite menacing as the films villain but the real treasures here are Dewan and Geraghty.
The movie falls into a True Romance type category and borrows heavily from that film and all those other Bonnie and Clyde type films like it.
I really wish this film would have been given a chance it's much better than most released in theatres and is actually professionally made with a clean gritty look to it.
It's a shame that such a good film would be passed over because of lack of star power.
Not as great as true romance, but still good.
If you are to chose between watching true romance and this movie; chose true romance.
Different movies leaves difference impressions on me: i sometimes watch movies that are highly rated on IMDb (like "I am legend") and and is bored during the movie and afterward felt like i wasted a part of my life.
It is very exciting all the way, and balances the action with slower parts to actually produce an emotion of thriller to this viewer.The acting is decent, and i felt with the characters.
They felt like normal people and not like unrealistic super humans that's common these days in movies.
This film was truly awful, its a shame i read a review saying it was like true romance, "true romance being a 10 and this an 8".
As true romance is my favourite film i thought i'd given it a go.
I wish i'd watched true romance instead.
Christian Slater is the only good part in this film and the only reason he is in it is because he must be a bit hard up for cash.
The whole way through this couple are disgustingly cheesy and its an extremely cringeworthy film to watch.
I don't blame the actors for the cheese in this film because they weren't overly that bad, but the writer, some lines were terrible.
This film is nothing like TRUE ROMANCE..
I don't think I've ever seen a movie this bad in my life, honestly.
All I can muster is rhetoric, it's REALLY JUST THAT BAD.Acting is awful (especially Brian Geraghty, who is always stone like for no apparent reason), in fact, even Slater (which was a bit of a surprise) seems to struggle to play the role convincingly (it's just too over the top retarded I suppose).
It's one of those movies that you want to turn off from the beginning.Predictable plot, sloppy and uninspired cinematography, etc.
The way the characters flip-flop back and forth (about what to do with the money) when their lives are at stake is laughable.I will never write another review unless I see a movie poorer than this one.
In fact, I am so disgusted by Brian Geraghty's performance that I will never watch another movie that he is ever again.
It's been a while since I seen a good film, and this keeps you on the Edge of a the seat, There is not much I can say without spoiling the film, But a must see Movie it's a constant flow of Romance, Action and Thriller throughout The film, I would give this a rating of 7, because: A good story line, but nothing new it's been done before, The ending was good, but could have been better "they cut it too short" There was also two actors that I personally fort they could not act for a toffee:-p But overall I was impress and would watch this film again given the choice..
This is my first review as I felt compelled to write to say just how bad this film is.The acting is awful.
The direction is awful and this type of storyline has been done to death.What was Christian Slater thinking ?
I always watch films to the end of the titles but I was sooo glad when the, "Action", finished, I couldn't bear to see the names associated with this monstrosity.If you have 94 minutes to spare, just go and stare at a wall, you may find it more entertaining..
Almost every scene reeks of morbid stupidity making suspension of disbelief impossible except to wonder how bad can it be right to the end of this abysmal quagmire.
Anyone who claims to like this movie must own shares in or be a shill for the production company.
The character Duke is an absolute puke in this film.
I couldn't bear to watch this stupidity right through to the end.
Dumb and Dumber make this the Dumbest movie I have ever seen and the least worthy of watching, ever..
I don't know what Christian Slater is doing on a movie like this, his career must be as bad as it gets.
I rented because I had a credit to get a movie free and because Christian Slater was on the cover, so I thought this could be a nice movie, nothing too good but at least a regular movie.I have to say that I'm thankful that I didn't spent money on this.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, don't lost 90 minutes of your life with it, I did and I regret it!.
I have seen better on a county college film school.
They say that blood money is never good and this movie proves just that.Duke and Amber,a young couple who are engaged, are struggling to survive, when one night a corrupt cop, who will stop at nothing to get his money back, shoots their neighbour, who are also a bunch of thugs who had looted the house several times in order to finance their habits.
He takes the money and informs his fiancée that they are moving.Directed by Keith Samples, written by Brian Strassman, Love Lies Bleeding stars Christian Slater, Jenna Dewan and Brian Geraghty.
I have to start by saying,like most others have said,this movie is very similar to my all time favourite movie,True Romance,however,its still a good movie and i don't think you will waste your time watching it.Obviously the acting could have been better,but it wasn't ALL that bad,i still have a lump in my throat as well,i WOULD recommend this movie to anyone,and give it a chance,don't just watch the first 10 minutes and think,why am i watching this,it does get better and i give it an 8/10.It was strange seeing Slater play the opposite of Clarence Worley(his character in True Romance)but you do get used to it..
He figures a safe distance away and starts to settle down, only to find bad guy psychotic Slater on his trail.The genre categories on this film are stated as action, drama, and thrills.
Well, no thrills here, especially for someone who doesn't, ordinarily, like movies like this.As for some of the leads, Geraghty didn't pull off his character, at least I didn't believe him and when did Dewan grow up?
Three bad acting jobs takes three stars away from what WAS a good story line.
This was somewhat a routine set of stories brought up as a single movie to entertain the viewer.The film was not boring though.It was thrilling but nothing to jump up and down about.You know what i mean.The main character "Pollen" could have done a little bit more justice to his character than he did in this movie.
Christian Slater does a somewhat minor role compared to roles he played in Broken Arrow etc.In this movie Slater becomes the bad guy who is after the bag of money he lost during a shoot out.
Can be recommended if you have gone through all the movies in your movie store and left nothing else to watch when it comes to "Thrillers".
I recently purchased Love Lies Bleeding because I'm a fan of Jenna Dewan and Christian Slater.
This movie was a decent suspense thriller and I loved every minute of it.
Jenna Dewan(Tamara and Step Up) and Brian Geraghty(I Know Who Killed Me and Cruel World) star as a married teenage couple, who have a rough life, until he finds a bag of money.
Everything is going great until Christian Slater(Alone in the Dark) and his people show up to claim the money.
He plays a good psychopath in this flick, as he hunts the young couple to get back the millions of dollars of drug money.
OK the story and action is enough to make this a good movie, but the writers make the couple out to be so stupid it drives you nuts.
Without the stupidity I would rate this movie higher, but with it I have to give it a lower score.They steal drug money then buy a bright orange 57 Chevy to run away in.
I don't see how anyone can give this film a good rating and to compare it favourably with True Romance is an insult to that movie and film-making in general.
There's nothing new in this story but that is not what makes it a bad film.What makes this cringe-worthy viewing is the absolutely sloppy writing.
Our heroine in a maid's uniform with a massive and fresh gash on her head allowed to walk past a Police checkpoint who are on the look out for such a person.The list is absolutely endless, and there's even an apparently abandoned but fully functioning, rust and dereliction free power plant.I had given this 3/10 but now that I've written about it I realise that is too generous 2 is all it's worth despite the odd amusing reference to True Romance that has been slipped in..
this is one of the best action movies I've seen in a long time..and me and my spouse watch a lot of films.the acting is very believable,and u just feel for the couple who never seem to get any breaks..
If u want to watch an movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat..this one is a must see for you!from the very first scene this movie draws you into to world of duke and amber,a young couple just trying to build a life together.and when duke comes come to find his girlfriend beaten by some neighborhood thugs,he decides he has had enough and after he decides to buy as gun..their lives are suddenly turned upside down and they are led on the ride of their lives...soon they realize they are in way over their heads..and..well now u have to watch it to find out the rest...
This film was average because it resembles True Romance too much.
A couple looking to make a better life for themselves, stolen cash, bad guys and Christian Slater.
The likeness to True Romance was evident from the start and the constant 'I love you' between the couple added to this.
However, it wasn't as good as True Romance and the fact that it seemed like it was meant to be just like true romance made it worse.But worth a watch if not doing much else.
"Love Lies Bleeding" uses a done-to-death plot line, which is, "Protagonist(s) come across a large amount of cash belonging to bad guys, and the bad guys hunt down the protagonist(s)." Even if you haven't seen as many versions of this plot line as I have, more likely than not you'll find this version considerably below average.
The actors playing the protagonists (Brian Geraghty and Jenna Dewan) are much too bland to generate sympathy from the audience, and Christian Slater (who is miscast) overacts so much that his antagonist character isn't the least bit creepy or menacing, coming across more like a cartoon character.
The script has its share of flaws, such as some needed explanation for things (like how some ways the Slater character identifies and tracks down the protagonists) just isn't there, and how various plot turns are for the most part very predictable (like the climax taking place in...
The direction by Keith Samples is also inadequate - there is very little tension or excitement generated, and the movie for the most part comes across as cheap and tacky.
If you want to see a GOOD retelling of this formula, watch the Sean Bean movie "Ca$h" or the Scott Glenn movie "Night Of The Running Man" instead..
Prolific television director Keith Samples doesn't waste moment in his exciting little crime thriller "Love Lies Bleeding" with Christian Slater cast as a corrupt narcotics detective.
As just about everybody else has pointed out, this low-budget, Sony Pictures release appropriates the premise of "True Romance" about a young couple on the lam with a vindictive cop on their tail.
Brian Geraghty and Jenna Dewan-Tatum couldn't be more sympathetic as two young people who are struggling to eke out a living.
Duke and Amber live near a Hispanic hoodlum who likes to steal from them.
LAPD Narcotics Detective Pollen (Christian Slater of "Cuffs") pays a visit to Duke's Hispanic neighbors, but it isn't a social call.
Instead, Pollen wants a duffel of drug money that he needs to slip back into its property locker at the police department.
While Pollen is strewn in his own blood at the scene of the shoot-out, Duke walks in and spots the duffel stuffed with loot.
They are planning to make a new life for themselves with the illicit drug money.
That being said, we had no clue as to what to expect with this story about a young couple that are involved in robbing what appears to be "dirty money" from a gang of Latinos in a suburb of L.A. This film reminded us of movies of the genre that have been better made.
It calls to our mind "True Romance", and others with stronger story lines, something this film could have used.As a point of reference, this title has been used so many times before, we thought it might have been a remake of any of the other films, notably, the one from 1999 with Malcolm McDowell and Faye Dunaway in it.Directed by Keith Samples, a man with a lot of experience in television, the movie is based on a weak screenplay by Brian Strasman.
The story line doesn't make much sense, but one likes to go along to see where the plot takes us.
It is hard to imagine that Duke, the young man in love with Amber, will get involved in trying to outsmart people that want them dead because, stupidly, they have robbed a team of bad cops; little do they know that money was earmarked to trap the gang members in the first place.
Thus begin a chase throughout the Western states because Pollen, the sadistic policeman, will not give up and wants to trap the pair and make they pay for the humiliation of being outwitted by an amateur duet.Christian Slater plays another creepy character without good results.
Brian Geraghty and Jenna Dewan appear as the lovers that see the opportunity to start a new life far from their own backyard..
Good little B movie..
Good low budget exploitation film has an Iraq war vet trying to get buy in a bad neighborhood.
When his house is robbed by the local bad guys, he goes to get his stuff back and walks into the aftermath of a bloody shoot out over drug money.
He takes the money, grabs his girlfriend and runs.
Unfortunately the money belonged to a crooked DEA agent and he wants the money back.I never heard of this film before I stumbled on it and the presence of Christian Slater as the bad DEA agent was the reason I picked it up.
Slater is quite good as the bad guy and he makes watching this film a great deal of fun since its a nice break from his normal heroic screen persona.
The cast sells what is a run of the mill plot making this a perfect film for a rainy afternoon.
If there is any flaw its that the film feels a bit too much like True Romance at times.
Perhaps its Slater, perhaps its other things, but more than one I asked myself why they bothered copying Tarantino when the film works so well on its own terms.Worth a look. |
tt0104706 | Lektionen in Finsternis | The film is a meditation on catastrophe, contextualised through the literary modes of religion and science fiction. It begins with a quotation, attributed to Blaise Pascal: "The collapse of the stellar universe will occur – like creation – in grandiose splendor." This attribution is anecdotal, as the text was in fact written by Herzog for the film and chosen, like the music, to give the film a certain mood. The prologue of the quotation is followed by thirteen sections, denoted by numbered title cards: "A Capital City", "The War", "After the Battle", "Finds from Torture Chambers", "Satan's National Park", "Childhood", "And a Smoke Arose like a Smoke from a Furnace", "A Pilgrimage", "Dinosaurs on the Go", "Protuberances", "The Drying Up of the Source", "Life Without the Fire" and "I am so tired of sighing; Lord, let it be night".
Virtually devoid of commentary, the imagery concentrates on the aftermath of the first Gulf War — specifically on the Kuwaiti oil fires, although no relevant political or geographical information is mentioned. Herzog intended to alienate the audience from images to which they had become inured from saturated news coverage, and thereby to "penetrate deeper than CNN ever could". Herzog uses a telephoto lens, truck-mounted shots as in Fata Morgana, static shots of the workers near the oil fires, and many helicopter shots of the bleak landscape. Through avoiding establishing shots, Herzog heightens the apocalyptic effect of depicting the devastated landscape. Herzog remarked that "the film has not a single frame that can be recognised as our planet, and yet we know it must have been shot here".
Herzog's sparse commentary interprets the imagery out of its documentary context, and into a poetic fiction: the opening narration begins "A planet in our solar system/ wide mountain ranges, clouds, the land shrouded in mist". The narrative stance is detached, bemused; Herzog makes no effort to explain the actual causes of the catastrophic scenes, but interprets them in epic terms with vaunting rhetoric to accompany the Wagnerian score. The workers are described as "creatures" whose behavior is motivated by madness and a desire to perpetuate the damage that they are witnessing. A climactic scene involves the workers, shortly after succeeding in stopping the fires, re-igniting the flow of oil. The narration asks, "Has life without fire become unbearable for them?" | anti war, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0312450 | Bells of Innocence | Jux Jonas (Mike Norris) is a man whose faith in God hangs by a thread. His daughter was hit and killed by a car, and he's spent the last few years "tearing through life", not wanting to face the pain and return to his faith. Reluctantly, he journeys with friends Conrad (David A.R. White) and Oren (Carey Scott) aboard a plane to Mexico, to hand out Bibles as a form of ministry. However, their small aircraft soon crashes, and the trio find themselves in the secluded wasteland of Ceres, a town where the citizens are pale, eerie, and visitors are seen as unwanted outsiders.
It's not long before Jux and his pals start to discover something is very weird in this place. No communication to the outside world seems to exist, until local rancher Matthew (Chuck Norris) offers them the use of his two-way radio. The town at large despises Matthew, and what he stands for. It's soon revealed that the town elder, Joshua (Marshall R. Teague) is in fact an agent of Satan who has controlled the children of Ceres for centuries, to bring about an unholy war. Matthew has been sent by God to observe, protect, and lead broken believers (like Jux) back to their faith in Jesus Christ. As the forces of evil prepare for a spiritual Armageddon, using the town's children as terrifying hosts, even Matthew can not interfere alone, and Jux, Conrad and Oren must choose which side they will stand with...for all eternity. | good versus evil, suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | One of the worst movies I've seen in my entire life.
OK, I'm 26 so I've been thru all the action heroes 80's hype, and Chuck Norris along with Seagal, Van Damme and the rest of the guys were my childhood heroes, fighting the bad guys, shooting dozens of bullets from one round only;) I saw the advert of this movie on TV a couple of days ago - Chuck Norris was throwing some fireballs from his fingers.
It is very difficult to see all the movie - stuffed with some religious thoughts, ridiculous zombie-like monsters, who serve Satan, all the idea of a plot set in some forgotten community, which represent whole mankind - it is a load of Christian fundamentalist's wet dreams.I've nothing against Christianity, even in the movies, but this one lacks taste, it lacks almost everything that connects with a common sense, c'mon, Chuck Norris playing an ANGEL, whose job is to look after little town, where Satan lives?!?!
The whole plot is so damn straight and boring, not mentioning its silliness (yes, it's not stupidity anymore, we're talking silliness like...
like a retarded child's joke) make altogether terrible movie, made as far as I suppose for elder people very much devoted to Catholic Church, because young viewers laugh at almost every scene.
Technically it's incorrect, the fx are worse than the ones you've seen in early 90's in TV series, the plot seems VERY stupid, actors could be easily exchanged to cardboard stands, not mentioning the music which as far as I've heard was played on a childish toy piano.
I've seen a lot of movies, even the worst ones (the ones from the IMDb bottom list) like 'Space Mutiny' or 'Manos - hands of fate' BUT believe me nothing compares to this ridiculous, terrible, horribly acted quasi-movie which brings some students' prank movies to my mind rather than regular production.
Chuck Norris has officially finished his movie career..
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen.
While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience.
Wow, please NEVER watch this movie..
I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life.
I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again.
Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong.
I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie?
This is quite possible the worst movie ever made.
I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea.
Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris...
that's right, Chuck's son.This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated.
This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).I don't really know what else to say about this movie.
I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh.
Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow...
after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens.
I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made.
Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clichéd.
The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream.
This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer.
I recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris.
I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should.
I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list.
The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike.
I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason.
The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris.
No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris.
In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy!
His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was.
The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris.
The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen.
The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character.
Maybe Chuck owes this guy something.
All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses.
Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck.
OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years.
The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job!
A very good movie with a good message for people intelligent enough to understand it.
It appears as though some people have a major problem with anything dealing with Christianity.
As for me, I have been to Mexico on 7 different occasions, each time bringing with me Bibles.
This movie focuses not on anything more than Good vs.
It does not come across as a fundamentalist Christian movie trying to cram beliefs down your throat.
Overall, a pretty good movie..
I always liked chuck norris movies because of the "kick butt" action scenes.
This movie through me as to the plot and content.
As many movies as i've seen in my 50 years on this planet(sometime i'll tell ya about the other ones!)bells of innocence is a well produced flick!
In the tradition of chuck norris, I'm glad to see him doing New Stuff!
I'm not saying this movie is as good as "The order", "Left Behind", Etc...
But, it sure was interesting seeing chuck attempt this type of movie.
good movie.
i thought this movie was good,i like any thing with chuck in,it was a different role for him, but he carried off the role very well.not much violence,which was good to see.
a little bit of religion does not hurt any body and having faith in god and faith in people is nothing to be ashamed about.
was nice to see chuck's son and granddaughter in this movie, nice to see family members involved in this movie, they should all be pleased with the end result, a movie for all the family to watch.
i purchased this movie on DVD, and have watched it a number of times,my twin daughters aged 13 really enjoyed watching it.
Something different from Chuck Norris..
"Bells of Innocence" is a good Christian film, in that it includes a hero who attempts suicide on screen, an angel who is a total asshole, and a little girl who murders people.
So in other words, it's not really a Christian film at all, and so none of the confusing plot twists make any damn sense because you can't just say Jesus did it."The Bells of Innocence" is the story of what happens to three close friends, while on a missionary flight to deliver Bibles to a town in Mexico.
A very unusual Chuck Norris film that's kind of entertaining, but it's not one of his best.
Chuck Norris doesn't bust out any karate moves on anyone either.
It's like a religious horror western film with some action.
This movie combines danger with Faith, you gotta trust in God to get through the danger.Overall it is kind of interesting, However, there are no Chuck Norris action scenes in this movie, so don't watch it if you want to see Chuck Norris bust out karate moves only..
Wow. my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of.
i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc...
not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch.
the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible.
if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it.
I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!.
(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section.
I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies?
You know who the good guys are.
Great Movie.
I got it because I'm a big Chuck Norris film and I also enjoy his son's movies.
I know that Chuck is not the greatest actor in the world but I believe his son Mike is a great talent in this area.
More movies like this should be made and less with all of the sex and profanity in it.
Chuck's granddaughter was also in the movie and did an outstanding job for her first acting job.
A real mission from God. For those of you expecting Chuck Norris to do some fancy karate moves on Satan's minions in Bells Of Innocence you will be disappointed.
Chuck is getting a bit old for that and he's playing a senior citizen in Bells Of Innocence.
Son Mike Norris who is the real star of this film does take care of a couple of them while he and his friends are fleeing for a few seconds.The younger Norris is a Christian who's fallen away from the faith with the death of his young daughter and friends David A.R. White and Carey Scott try to bring him back to the church by taking him on a mission trip.
The coming of these three strangers has been foretold in their lore.Chuck Norris plays a rancher who has the only communication with the outside world, a short wave radio.
Chuck has some other help available though in the crunch.Bells Of Innocence seems to be a modified rip off of the Stephen King classic The Stand.
Certainly, there's a good reason that this movie didn't get nominated for an award.
However, the movie has strong points such as: 1) Chuck Norris-As Matthew he's cool as ice, proving you don't have to hit someone to be intimidating-particularly if you're Chuck Norris.2) The film while suffering from some predictability kept me watching by making me wonder, "What exactly is going on?" Yes, the Devil's working in the town, but what the heck is he doing?
The people of the town, the leader, and the peacock joke all made this like a Mexican border version of Fargo if you think about it long enough.So is it the greatest movie of all time?
I'd suggest that people who say that need to expose themselves to "The Beast of Yucca Flats." "Bells of Innocence" is a B-movie with a positive message.
This is the type of movie I enjoy.
Christian based movie that show the truth in our everyday walk.
A movie that shows how Satan can take control of your life if you allow it to happen.
Mike Norris did a awesome job of a father who lost his daughter .
I also enjoy seeing Mr. Chuck Norris having his granddaughter in the movie.
I have heard that Mr. Mike Norris would like to do more Christian based movie.
When you watch the making of with this DVD - they tell you what is attempted here- they are retelling the bible story of good versus evil & trying to preach it to a main stream movie audience.
There are way too many sheep depicted in this movie.
People are too empowered for this type of preaching today.As far as the acting, directing, & technical functions, they are done OK.
I liked the movie.
It deals with three men trying to get bibles into Mexico.I found the movie to be exciting and relevant for today.The Catholic Bible is different with 5 extra Books in the OT that are used as books of history rather than cannon.
I would rather watch a good, clean, moral story free from murder violence and cussing any day.
Chuck Norris: BRAVO!
I am a Chuck Norris fan without peer (heck, have to brag a bit), and I just love the guy's cool manner.
Well, in this movie, he has a cool collectedness, and is a real magnet to that part of us that wants better in life.
His real-life son joins him in a key role, and the entire movie is great because these two supercool actors pull us mesmerized through a little bit of everything that's delicious in a movie: a plane crash, a western desert town...
My estimation of Mr. Norris has shot sky-high: it takes a big man to make a movie like this, and doubly so, to do one with other members of his family.
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films.
Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats.
So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene.
I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.I don't have a problem with Christianity ...
If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get.
The last reviewer said that Jux woke up at the end of the movie, having a horrible dream, making the movie really stupid.
The 'waking up from a dream' part was actually Jux having a mental flash before he was murdered by the little girl.
He was acting like a father to her, as he really was having a hard time dealing with his daughter's death.This movie is excellent.
However, there are no Chuck Norris signature action scenes in the movie, so don't watch it if you want to see an action movie.
Interesting little movie 6 out 10.
I just watched this movie with a friend of mine.
Yes, it is a religious movie, but not very preachy.
Though, I wouldn't recommend this movie for kids under that age of 10 because of some violence, unless you are sure they know the difference of fiction and reality.* SLIGHT SPOILERS WARNING *The movie starts out with a mission to bring bibles to a village in Mexico.
This is one of the darkest Christian movies I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot of Christiann films).
Bells of Innocence tells the story of three men who crash in the desert when taking a small airplane to deliver bibles to a town in Mexico.
The visual effects were good at the beginning and during the middle of the movie but I think their quality went down somewhat towards the end.
The movie does well in its attempt to depict the struggle between good and evil.
The story is pretty easy to understand although I got a little bit confused with Mike Norris's characters death at the end.
I would say the movie is probably not suitable for children, who could get scared from some of the scenes..
Chuck Norris for the loss.
Chuck Norris spews Christian BS on audience.
Mike Norris was eyeing that girl's body.
Does that constitute good Christian morals?
A short synopsis would be as follows: A damned village is saved by the miraculous acting of Mike Norris and the two other shmoes that follow him around.
Gabby remains an annoying little twit, but, also inexplicably, the best actor in the movie.
Go figure.Chuck Norris's tears do not cure cancer.
An exciting movie..
At first I was reluctant to watch Bells of Innocence.It looked like a boring sci-fi type thing.But boy was I wrong.
It was an exciting movie that shared the gospel in a unique way.I really like the way they showed good Vs. evil through the use of angels and demons.Also the way they showed that evil can come disguised as good was really cool I also like the ending.Although it was confusing at times I thought it was a great Christian movie. |
tt0120257 | Swept from the Sea | Yanko Góral (Vincent Perez), a Ukrainian peasant, is swept ashore on the coast of Cornwall, England, after his emigrant ship sinks on its way to America in 1888. The bodies of his fellow passengers wash ashore and are soon buried in a mass grave. Yanko makes his way to the Swaffer farm, where his dishevelled appearance frightens the family. Amy Foster (Rachel Weisz), however, is not frightened by the stranger. Amy is a loner who visits her parents, Mary and Isaac Foster, every Sunday, despite receiving very little love from them. Her father calls her a "queer sort" who collects things that wash ashore, and blames her for his scandalous marriage—Mary was already pregnant before they were married. In the coming days, Amy attends to Yanko—washing, feeding, and caring for him. When he regains his health, Yanko is taken away by the townspeople to work as slave labour.
A few months later, Dr. Kennedy (Ian McKellen) and Mr. Swaffer (Joss Ackland) are playing chess when Yanko approaches and shows the men a series of brilliant chess moves. Dr. Kennedy soon determines that the man is in fact Russian. Having gained a newfound respect for the stranger, the Swaffers take him in, start paying him for his labor, and give him normal working hours. Yanko learns from the doctor that Miss Swaffer (Kathy Bates), on the eve of her wedding day, had a horse-riding accident and broke her spine. The doctor also reveals that he lost his wife and son to typhus "many lifetimes ago." The doctor's fatherly affection for Yanko is evident in their meetings, where Yanko learns English and the doctor learns chess. The doctor purchases Yanko a new suit of clothes, which gives him the courage to visit Amy and ask her to go for walks.
When Mr. Swaffer learns of Yanko's interest in Amy, he tries to dissuade her from any romantic involvement. Amy's parents also urge her to stay away—her mother warning her that love is "God's trick upon women." When Yanko goes to church, he encounters a hostility in the congregation that bewilders him. "Their eyes are like glass," he later tells Amy, who finds him at the obelisk memorial for the ship's dead. There he learns for the first time what happened to his fellow passengers. To escape the hate, Amy takes Yanko to her secret cave filled with treasures she found on the shore, which she calls "gifts from the sea." Yanko and Amy make love in the cave.
Soon after, while walking alone in town, Yanko is set upon by Amy's father and his thuggish friends, beaten up, and nearly drowned before being saved by Amy, who takes care of him in the coming days. Meanwhile, Dr. Kennedy has little sympathy for Amy, whom he considers "a little strange" and "slow of the mind". After chastising the father and his thuggish friends, Miss Swaffer arranges for a preacher to come and marry Amy and Yanko. Amy's father, however, retains his hatred for Amy whom he reveals to be in fact the child of his father, saying, "Not a tear. Bad you were conceived and bad you've remained."
After someone sets fire to Amy's cave, Miss Swaffer arranges for the cottage to be given to Amy and Yanko, who are soon married in church. Afterwards, they make love in the cave pool, with Yanko saying, "We are the lucky ones." Later that year they have a son, who is delivered by the doctor. Amy asks Yanko to show the child the sea, and he does, while the doctor looks on approvingly. Amy's new-found happiness, however, is soon cut short by the towns children who taunt her and call her a witch. When Yanko learns of this, he is angry and shares his feelings with Dr. Kennedy, who tries to console him. Believing he cannot leave because Amy has found a home in Cornwall, Yanko's greater concern is for his child and his future. Yanko tells the doctor, "I want him to be like you ... I want him to have the learning of great men. I want him to love the mystery of our universe." The doctor pledges to help his son.
One day Yanko becomes sick with a fever. Dr. Kennedy arrives and treats him, gives Amy medicine to give to Yanko, and urges her to stay with him while the doctor continues his rounds. Unfortunately, Yanko's condition worsens and he becomes delirious—seeing a vision of his sinking ship. Unable to understand what he's saying, Amy doesn't know what to do, and when Yanko loses control, Amy flees the cottage with the child in a rainstorm in search of help. Her first stop is at her parents' house, but her mother turns her away. On the road she stops a neighbor and pleads for help, but is also rejected. Finally, she makes it to the Swaffers' house, and Miss Swaffer agrees to watch the baby while Mr. Swaffer accompanies Amy back to her cottage. Meanwhile, Dr. Kennedy returns to the cottage and discovers Yanko lying on the floor near death. Shortly after, Amy arrives and takes her dying husband in her arms as he says, "I would change nothing, my love, my gold—we are the lucky ones."
In the coming weeks, Dr. Kennedy complains to Miss Swaffer about Amy not showing appropriate grief for her deceased husband. He wonders how she could wipe Yanko's memory from her mind so easily, but Miss Swaffer points out that the doctor has wiped from his memory his own ghosts of his dead wife and son. Soon after, Dr. Kennedy visits Amy and apologizes for wronging her, asks to be forgiven, and the two embrace. Amy declares, "I will love him until the end of the world." Dr. Kennedy concludes his story to Miss Swaffer saying, "He came across the world to love and be loved by Amy Foster." | flashback | train | wikipedia | The British have dedicated themselves lately to film their wonderful 19th century novels: Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, and have come now into the 20th for a Joseph Conrad short story with a strong 19th century flavor.
And they are catering to the older audiences, those who care more for story values and literary qualities than for the display of technical advances in films.
Any one who cared for Sense and Sensibility, The Return of the Native and Persuasion, will have a real feast in Swept from the Sea. The Conrad story is beautiful, and the adaptation is intelligent.
A memorable musical score by John Barry, the breathtaking photography and the magnificent scenery are real assets for those who pursue an esthetic experience in the movies.
The look in his eyes near then end when he realizes that he was wrong about Weisz's character is filled with anguish and regret.
Basing himself on his own experiences roaming the wild and wide seas, where he even went through a shipwreck, his novels were on the one hand resounding novels of adventure, if not of the swashbuckler type, but backed up by that deeply rooted Russian philosophical sense of feelings and human emotions.
Today, among the best pieces of literature ever written in English, we have `Lord Jim' and `Nostromo', two gigantic tales with superb human and humane backgrounds.Simply watching a film based on a Joseph Conrad novel is not enough to reveal all the invisible, profound thoughts, the real human philosophy of life, how humans think and react under different situations.
Perhaps you should start with `Almayer's Folly' before embarking on the two previously mentioned masterpieces.However, `Swept from the Sea', based on his story `Amy Foster' does wonderfully well in not only showing the story, but also giving us a glimpse into the powerful thinking of Joseph Conrad.
Vincent Perez is not bad, even quite good at times; Rachel Weisz has made the job of her life in a highly concentrated reading, and the supporting cast like Ian McKellar and Kathy Bates is top-notch stuff.
The filming sequences on the Cornish coast in the deep south west of England, especially with the fog curling round the forelands and creeping up the inlets and into the harbours, or in the pouring rain, gives excellent ambientation to the telling of the story.
John Barry's musical apportation was the same as always, such that if I had closed my eyes I might well have been watching `Dances With Wolves' (qv); however it fitted in with the proceedings and the photography well enough.Filmed on the wild coastline of Cornwall, south-west England, now tamed by the August hordes of campers and footpathers, carvanners and English language learners; IMDb lists Pentire Point on the northern coastline, but I cannot help thinking that I saw some village streets such as in Mullion, Coverack or even Mousehole (pronounced "muzzle") on the south coast of that beautiful holidaying area of England.
The famous author John Le Carré also has his home down there.This is a film worth seeing, even for the most pedantic and enthusiastic readers of Conrad's novels such as I, precisely because I think Conrad himself would have been quite pleased with Ms. Kidron's work, with Tim Willocks' very correct adaptation for the screen.
The people lived on a stark and barren spit of land attached to a strikingly beautiful yet often-ferocious sea.
If you have felt like the outsider, ever tried to shut off your emotions in order to stop others from hurting you - you will have no trouble relating to the character of Amy Foster.
The acting was well done (I am not an expert at English dialects, although I'd say the accents were as adequately done as the actors who attempted the Newfie accent in The Shipping News).
Another example of these magical characters within this story is Miss Swaffer, played by Kathy Bates.
Its as if the people playing these character have a real love for the story, making them appear more than just two-dimensional figures, but real living breathing people..
I knew the cast was good, and in fact all the performances are first class, but the story and the scenery are equally inviting.
I rented this movie because I was trying to watch as many Rachel Weisz movies as possible (inspired by her acting in The Mummy Returns).
I think this movie is all about subtlety of character.
Even though Yanko learned to speak English, he also appreciated and learned to communicate in Amy's own language.
I liked Vincent Perez's acting in this movie.
I'd say this is probably the best acting I've seen out of Rachel Weisz in the five of her movies I've seen.
I don't know whether that is what the directors are looking for or if this is one of the few acting flaws that Ms. Weisz might yet overcome.
However, the most obvious and relevant point is that the language he is speaking in the film is Ukrainian, not Russian.
Beautiful, tragic love story.
Set in England, probably in the 1800s, this film deals not only with a beautiful love story, but with being an outsider--and the kind of ugly hatred some people exhibit towards those they consider different from themselves.
It also deals with blaming others and not accepting the responsibilities of your own faults.Yanko Gooral(played by gorgeous Vincent Perez) is a young man from the Ukraine, who, with some other young men from the Ukraine, decides to go to America.Amy Foster (played by beautiful Rachel Weisz) is a young Englishwoman, who works as a servant, and helps support her hateful parents and younger siblings.
Eventually we discover a shocking secret about Amy and her parents, that explains their warped bitterness.The ship Yanko is on is destroyed in a storm, flinging him up onto the coast of England; when he wanders ashore, he is at first treated like a lunatic by the fearful inhabitants.Unable to speak English, Yanko is unable to communicate with anyone and Amy is the only person who treats him with any human kindness.Eventually he is befriended by a Dr. Kennedy, and another family in the area, learns English, and his life seems to be becoming somewhat better.
In fact, the actions of the bigots lead indirectly to what finally happens to this young man.I didn't pick it up until almost the end of the movie, but in my opinion, there's a bit of an undercurrent of homo-eroticism in the doctor's feelings regarding Yanko--which ties in to the doctor's behavior towards Amy, and leads eventually to an unexpected scene between him and Amy at the conclusion of the film.10 stars.
The cinematography and the music in this film are wonderful, and there is a great supporting performance from Ian McKellan.
For me Vincent Perez' performance didn't work at all -- I couldn't see past his studied "wildness" and fake accent.
And Rachel Weisz, as Amy, is such an enigma that I didn't feel much for her except for a couple of intense scenes.
It was a bit confusing, though -- I wasn't sure if we were supposed to think that Dr. Kennedy felt a homosexual love for Yanko (Perez).
It felt like a short story dragged out to feature length, which it was.
Not only is the geographical scenes breathtaking but so is the love story.
Its a simple love story that takes your heart away....The little cottage overlooking the mountains and water is amazing!
This indeed was one of the best love stories I have seen and would recommend it to anyone and everyone, I saw watch it with the one you love....and like every good story of love, there always is a sad ending.......
My only complaints being the occasionally sluggish pacing and the variable sound ranging from too loud to too quiet, this is a beautiful, tragic and haunting film based on an even more beautiful, tragic and haunting story.
The direction is very romantic but I never actually found it overblown or melodramatic, and the story does convey a range of emotions especially in the second half.
The scenery, sets, costumes and cinematography are meticulous, the score is stunning, the screenplay is honest and the acting from Rachel Weisz, Vincent Perez, Kathy Bates, Ian McKellen and Joss Ackland is spot on.
Overall, Swept from the Sea:The Story of Amy Foster is a beautiful, tragic and haunting story, that is worth seeing.
Amy Foster (Rachel Weisz) has a son and works for bedridden Miss Swaffer (Kathy Bates).
Some years earlier, Yanko Góral (Vincent Perez) from the Carpathian Mountains is on his way to America, the land of true gold.
Amy shows kindness to the foreigner who speaks no English.
Rachel Weisz shows her quiet sadness acting skills.
Good, solid movie.
First of all, let me explain that normally I would not even attempt to watch a movie like this.
His life turns a new chapter when he falls in love against all odds."Swept from the Sea" is definitely a beautiful and emotional film.
The second half of the film had so much emotions that captured me.
The relationship between different characters are inadequately introduced, so I was completely confused by the shocking revelation about Amy Foster's heritage.Overall, I enjoyed watching "Swept from the Sea"..
How can all these reviews here like this movie?
Lousy script too - did I watch the same movie?
This was like a bad silent movie.
the characters are so real and emotional that i couldnt stop myself from being sucked into the movie.
I, for one, think it is a sublime story about how two people can find comfort and security within each other while the outside world cannot accept them.I have heard one reviewer claim that if the character of Amy Foster was as beautiful as Rachel Weisz, absolutely no one would isolate her.
I think that is the bigger verdict for this film.Beautiful cinematography and sweeping natural romantic storytelling, accented by the superb acting talents of Ms. Weisz and "Queen Margot"'s Vincent Perez make this feature a breathtaking, underrated film..
A combination of a wonderful story, strong, interesting and attractive characters, and a very fine cast made this film a pleasant surprise for me.
My wife and I rented it, thinking it would be 'just another period drama' but wanting to see Rachel Weisz ...
then as we watched the opening credits, and saw in quick succession, 'Vincent Perez', 'Joss Ackland', 'Ian McKellen', 'Zoe Wanamaker' we knew we would be in for a treat!If you are a Rachel Weisz fan, this has to be her best film so far, and she certainly uses her interesting dark looks to better effect here than in Chain Reaction or the recent Beautiful Creatures.
Although her character is largely silent throughout this film, she has enormous screen presence, standing out even amongst this all-star cast.I won't comment too much on the plot, as I am sure it means different things to different people, but we enjoyed the humanity and liberal views of the doctor and the squire, and the contrast with the ingrained xenophobia of the working men - perhaps a bit trite, since this seemed to us un-Victorian and closer to what you might expect in the present day, but on the other hand maybe it was already in the Joseph Conrad story (I don't know, I haven't read it).Negative points:other users have commented on the cinematography; I found it rather flat, for example the weather never seemed to change (very un-British!) and I did not feel the crispness of the seaside atmosphere was captured.
The locations mostly looked to me like Yorkshire rather than Cornwall, and there were few long shots (usually difficult because there is an electricity pylon or other modern-day eyesore in the frame, but these problems can be overcome...)also the accents ...
Vincent Perez was particularly good, but Rachel Weisz was too well-spoken for a servant girl (does her accent ever change??) and none of the farmers or fishermen seemed to have a Cornish accent ...
Would watch this movie again and again!.
The filming, direction, acting, dialog, score, location and actors are all top-notch!
Not only was this movie a joy to watch, it kept me thinking about it for many days afterward.
"Swept from the Sea" ('Amy Foster') is my 4th or 3rd favorite film of all time.
The shortest way I can describe it is: "Amy" has a sad family secret which makes her the 'outcast' of the town.
Amy Foster feels for him as they are both living in their hard - outcast time and he falls for her.
If you do not feel for this film (these characters) you have no soul.
Post Script- Ian McKellan, Kathy Bates & Joss Acklund are fantastic in this movie..
Bandeman on June 20, 2001 wrote: "I'd say this is probably the best acting I've seen out of Rachel Weisz in the five of her movies I've seen.
However I notice that those expressions which I felt were so striking in this movie for this character are rather stereotyped expressions that she uses in general.
However I notice that those expressions which I felt were so striking in this movie for this character are rather stereotyped expressions that she uses in general.
I don't know whether that is what the directors are looking for or if this is one of the few acting flaws that Ms. Weisz might yet overcome." I want to say what I think about that because I have seen this situation many times in different actors and actress.
I think it's not only the directors or the character, but the casting.
I mean, they are often selected because the producers, directors or writers have seen them acting in a movie, specially who has a career, so, some expressions are used for the new character no matter the play is..
The movie was already half over but the scenery caught my eye because the film looked as if it had been filmed in Ireland.
I was hooked immediately and have watched it a several times since.This film is worth the time--grab some popcorn and forget the rest of the world for a while.
Let me say, the technical standards in the picture are superb!The film is a simple story of love between 2 people.
Of course I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's quite an interesting take on the Amy Foster story.The film has plenty of high points: The photography is stunning, so beautiful, so amazing that you cannot take your eyes off the picture.
Wide-screen framing is an art in itself.The performances are very good, each one did their bit but I didn't think Weisz had enough in her character.The John Barry is superb but a little bit repetitive.
Really need variety.There are some points of the film which were not so good:There wasn't enough meet in some characters, Amy Foster didn't have enough depth.
I loved this film..
I loved this film..
I'd like to point out to the commentor from Puerto Rico that this film isn't only for adults.Teenagers can be mature, as well.
Although, I couldn't help but think every now and then that Mr. Perez's accent was a bit fake, the effort was there, and it was close enough.
So the effort was definitely there when it came to the accent.the cinematography was beautiful, and the music was captivating.
And even though it was a short story stretched to be feature length, it was a magical film.
Rachel Weisz is a good actress, and carries the role of Amy well, as I vaguely remember reading "Amy Foster" a couple of years ago.
Dr. Kennedy was played out magnificently, and I was sure that the pain and grief of losing the first you actually made a bond with since your entire family died was well played out.Kathy Bates carried her role with perfection, but she stills need to work on the accent.Only one draw-back to this entire film as I can see it; I couldn't spot one single genuine sounding Cornish accent.
I especially enjoyed the John Barry score and soundtrack for this movie.
Although I felt the plot was somewhat predictable, the music kept this movie interesting, and doing quite a bit of justice to the story with mood and feeling to the characters..
This is a very good movie, not to be missed!.
This movie is one of the best I've seen in years!
The acting is great, the photography is breathtakingly beautiful, the soundtrack is perfect - watch it, it's a must!.
I can say that I was not overly impressed with the plot, but if you are a John Barry (composer) film music fan, this will definitely be of interest to you.
I am not a film music expert by any means, and cannot give you a critical analysis of Mr. Barry's works in all orchestral themes, but I did enjoy the central theme and "sorrow-lows" if that's what I can call it.
Vincent Perez to me was an unknown, but now that I know who he is (the lead male actor) I've noticed him in a few other films, too.If you're expecting action, adventure, and secret twists in a plot, don't look here.
But if you are a John Barry film music fan, then I'm sure you'll enjoy this one..
This is such a beautiful movie.
This is such a beautiful movie.
I wish more romance movie were like this one.
I really don't watch a lot of romance movies but this one is worth watching.
I recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good clean romance movie..
I really liked that the plot explored more themes than just romantic love.
In regards to the type of story and the setting, I can't help but think that a three-part mini-series would have been a more appropriate treatment than a feature film.
I emerged from watching the movie with a feeling that there was a lot more to explore beneath the surface of each character. |
tt0027390 | Bottles | On a dark and stormy night, an elderly pharmacist falls asleep at his stool while mixing poisonous chemicals in a glass bottle. After he falls asleep, the night takes a sudden fantastical turn as his poisonous bottle—topped with a "skull and crossbones" stopper as a warning label—suddenly springs to life, becoming a malevolent cackling skeleton. Laughing evilly, and screaming "Death walks tonight!", the skeleton douses the pharmacist with chemicals that mysteriously cause him to shrink.
Waking up, the pharmacist sets out to explore his store in his new minuscule form and finds that all of the bottles in the pharmacy have similarly sprung to life, with most of them taking on colorful personalities based on their contents: three baby bottles become a trio of crying babies, a bottle of Scotch whiskey becomes a jolly Scotsman (married to the bottle of rum that sits next to him), a bottle of Absorbine and Absorbine Jr. become a father and son, a container of vanishing cream playfully vanishes and reappears, a bottle of smelling salts sniffs everyone in close proximity, and a bottle of India ink takes the form of an Indian snake charmer—charming a tube of "Cobra Toothpaste" that becomes a live snake.
With the evil skeleton nowhere in sight, the pharmacist joins the bottles in their merriment as they all begin to sing, dance and frolic in turn: three bottles of Cuban rum sing a Spanish song, a pair of rubber gloves spring to life and tap-dance, a bottle of Carmencita-brand powder and a bottle of toilet water dance a flamenco dance, a pair of salt shakers come to life as Dutch children and go ice-skating on a mirror while a bottle of talcum powder drops imaginary snow on them, a bottle of shaving cream happily takes up a shaving razor, and the pharmacist finally takes up a smoking pipe and begins playing it like a tuba.
But all is not well in the pharmacy, as the skeleton has secretly formed an alliance with a small cadre of evil bottles that inhabit the darker corners of the shelves: a bottle of witch hazel springs to life as an old witch, and several bottles of spirits of ammonia open up to release a trio of mischievous singing ghosts. As the witch and the skeleton mix a poisonous brew in the pharmacist's beakers and test tubes, the ghosts fly out to snatch up the pharmacist and bring him back to the skeleton. As the skeleton cackles triumphantly, the ghosts hurl the pharmacist into the glass distiller as it bubbles with chemicals. Helpless, the pharmacist is sent hurtling through the twisting tubes of his distiller, chased and ground up in a mincer (which splits him up into tiny duplicates of himself), only to be hurled back into the distiller after the skeleton sucks him up in a syringe. After sending him through the distiller twice, the skeleton finally traps the pharmacist in a glass beaker, laughing as he ties him up with rubber tubing and attacks him with a pair of scissors, threatening to snip him in half.
Finally, when the pharmacist's death seems certain, he wakes up at his stool, unharmed and back to his normal size. Looking to his bottle of poisonous chemicals, the pharmacist realizes that he had merely been having a nightmare, and laughs in relief. | horror | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1894476 | How I Live Now | Daisy, a neurotic and anorexic American teenager, is sent to the English countryside for the summer to stay with her Aunt Penn and her cousins, Eddie, Isaac, and Piper. She arrives at Heathrow Airport to tightened security and reports of a bombing in Paris, and Isaac drives to her cousins' farm, which she discovers to be dilapidated and very messy. Although initially abrasive, Daisy warms to them upon learning that her deceased mother used to stay there frequently. She also falls in love with Eddie, her eldest cousin, finding him to be as introverted and strong-willed as she, and noticing his unusual, almost mystical connection to animals. A few days after her arrival, her aunt flies to Geneva to attend an emergency conference because she is an expert in terrorist extremist groups, and the group takes advantage of her absence to explore their local woodlands.
Their summer fun ends when a terrorist coalition detonates a nuclear bomb in London that potentially kills hundreds of thousands; the nuclear fallout reaches as far away as their home. In the aftermath, electricity goes out, and they learn from an emergency radio broadcast that martial law has been imposed. The next day, an American consular official arrives at the house and offers Daisy passage home. Unable to help her cousins, he advises them to remain indoors and wait for evacuation. After they move to a nearby barn, Daisy has sex with Eddie and decides that she would rather stay with them. The next day, however, the British Army storms the shelter and takes them to a nearby town. There, they learn boys and girls are to be evacuated to separate parts of the country. Both Eddie and Daisy resist separation, and Daisy is restrained with cable ties; Eddie calls to her to return to their home when she gets the chance. Daisy and Piper are taken to the home of a British Army major and his wife, who foster them. Determined to escape, Daisy discreetly begins hoarding supplies, but their neighbourhood is attacked by the enemy before she has time to take everything she needs.
As Daisy and Piper hike through the countryside, Daisy interprets her dreams of Eddie as indications of his current situation. One night, Daisy is woken up and witnesses a gang-rape. She and Piper flee, but after Piper starts whining, Daisy threatens to abandon her. Already disturbed by the prior experience, they discover a massacre at the camp where Isaac and Eddie were taken. Daisy reluctantly checks the bodies; although Eddie is not among the dead, Isaac's body is. She mournfully takes his glasses and later buries them. As they leave, they are spotted by two armed men, who chase them through the woods. Piper and Daisy decide to hide, but the men discover Piper. Daisy threatens them with a gun and impulsively shoots them both; she kills one and wounds the other. The horror of what she has done, along with her fears, begins to take its toll on Daisy. Later, she realises that they have lost their map and compass, and the girls are on the verge of giving up when they see Eddie's pet hawk fly overhead. They realise it will lead them home and follow it.
Upon arriving home, their elation turns to horror when they discover that the military garrison stationed there has been massacred; the house is ransacked and empty; only Jet, Piper's dog, remains. Eddie is not at the barn where they took shelter either, and although Piper is elated to be home, Daisy breaks down in tears outside. The next day, however, the two hear Jet barking, and Daisy runs out into the woods, where she finds Eddie lying unconscious; he has severe burns, gashes, and his eyes are swollen shut. As she nurses him, a ceasefire is announced, electricity is returned, a new government forms, and the country begins to recover. However, it becomes clear Eddie suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is mute. After he accidentally cuts himself while gardening, Daisy tenderly sucks the blood from his cut, which mimics his actions earlier. She kisses Eddie, hoping he may soon recover. | comedy, realism, murder, anti war, violence, atmospheric, flashback | train | wikipedia | Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) is a young, broody, moody, American girl who is sent to stay with extended family in the English countryside.
In a World War III type scenario, she is taken away from those she now considers family in the first and with only the companionship of her young cousin Piper (Harley Bird), she must journey back across the warn torn English countryside, to the place she wants to call Home.It's a curious pick n' mix type story that in some ways feels like two genres melded together.
The immediate narrative feels very much like a teen 'chick flick', but this is played out over a dark backdrop that at times feels course and close to the bone.To me, the running commentary of Daisy the American girl, outlining her disciplined set of rules and paranoia, felt a little cheesy in its attempt to force home the difference between English and American culture.
In those and many other respects, HILN is more for the heart than the head.Good performance by Saoirse Ronan as Daisy, a brash, cantankerous, and troubled American teenager who is sent to live with some distant relatives in the English countryside.
The American teenager Elizabeth "Daisy" (Saoirse Ronan) is sent by her estranged father away from New York to the countryside of England to stay with her Aunt Penn (Anna Chancellor).
In a country in war, Daisy and Piper flee from their lodging and cross England in martial law trying to find Eddie and Isaac."How I Live Now" was a great surprise since I was expecting to see a drama about a rebel teenager and I found an original come of age story in time of contemporary war.
Initially its a fish out of water story about Saoirse Ronan's character, a difficult but intriguing American teen landing into an eccentric English rural family who live on a remote farm.
She quickly starts to fall for her handsome cousin but then world events intervene as a nuclear device is detonated in London and the film shows them dealing with the new reality of soldiers at the door, mass evacuation and the family being split up.
A spoilt, disrespectful and unappreciative Yankee girl, is sent to visit some relatives who live in the English country side, (lovely scenery, lousy story line) and when she arrives, she is collected by her 14 yr old cousin who has driven some 8hrs to pick her up (let's not worry about police and unlawful driving here): straight away this tells you there's something terribly wrong with the whole lot of them, and this is verified by the fact that the aunt is too busy with: whatever: and doesn't make an effort or an appearance, to welcome her niece who's travelled so far to stay with them.
Then a nuclear bomb goes off in London and the two romantic lovers are separated by the British military, and the second half of the movie is about her trying trying to find him again: I.e Cinderella looking for Prince Charming, and they live happily ever after.
Yet this love is the frame of the film as she leads her younger cousin Piper (Harley Bird) back home from the compound for sequestered rural residents in her hope to reunite with Eddie.This romance gives me pause about the Hunger Games, whose young love now seems mature by contrast.If How I Live Now is a metaphoric treatise on Eve's journey out of paradise or teens' need to engage their natural instincts and chuck the superficiality of urban life, then the film has succeeded.
For a man who has given us the cinematic treasure that is Touching the Void and the high standard dramas in the form of The Last King of Scotland and State of Play it becomes quite bewildering to think that he has now also given us this pulseless and pathetic attempt of a film in the form of How I Live Now.A deserved box office and critical dud upon release this adaptation of Meg Rossoff's somewhat famous book of the same name is such a wasted opportunity to produce something meaningful that you must wonder where it all went so horribly wrong.
Macdonald directs in a very workmanlike effort that features one stand out scene at a picnic, which goes to showcase the film could have been something very scary and also very real yet quickly falls into unbelievable incest romance with two wholly uninteresting teenagers and unlikeable teenagers.Saoirse Ronan has consistently shown herself to be a fine young actress and in How I Live Now she still can hold her head high despite being given a horrible character to portray.
Ronan's Daisy is an annoying type of character and her quick falling in love with cousin Eddie is so rushed and forced you'll have to think twice about if your actually witnessing some type of black comedy instead of weighty romance/drama lampooning in the very real setting of a World War 3 scenario.
While these characters in the film are quite weak the actual story feels forced and contrived also, a sense of dread is never fully formed and the weight of what has occurred at these children's doorstep is also not fully felt.A lame dead in the water movie, How I Live Now is an appealing film for those teenagers that think Tomorrow When the War Began is classic filmmaking and for those that can't get enough of unbelievable teen romances but for the rest of us it's a torrid journey that a fine filmmaker like Kevin Macdonald should of made a better go at.1 concrete road pillar out of 5 For more movie reviews and opinions check out - www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com.
The little girl in the movie seemed stand out from the rest and the whole love story seemed a bit quick and strange.
Scottish director, Kevin Macdonald, who has had some hits (The Last King of Scotland) and some misses (The Eagle) delivers a film that I would rank in the middle, not as good as his best movies, but not as bad either.
But at the same time the film is also very hard to connect with because the main character is introduced as a hateful and guarded teenager who slowly begins to change when she falls in love with her cousin.
She shines in a film that changes tones and moods very quickly and Ronan is just captivating despite all the issues I had with this film.Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) is an American teenager who is sent to England to spend the summer with her cousins at their countryside home.
The love story was also pretty weird considering she begins a relationship with her cousin and never has second thoughts about incest or anything like that.
Beautiful English countryside, fun loving British kids, a somewhat mute animal psychic bloodsucking (non vampire) older brother, and falconry.Burnt chicken topped with canned spaghetti, hyperactive pink rabbit eared dog, thermonuclear snow, tire rafting, first cousin copulation, and yelping/human body scavenging red foxes (Vulpes).9mm double taps, treetops adorned with dead bodies, an eye wear burial in the forest, bloody socks, and orange puke.Oh - and did I forget to mention, the UK nuked, a bitch girl from New York City, and being chased by dead rabbits ?
In all the recent films I've seen by her, except Hanna, like How I Live Now, The Host, Lovely Bones, etc., she always seems to have this very mushy teenage romance going on.
i dont know wich one is worst.Daisy was doing a great job, and turns out her present become more strong when she do it by her self like the rest 50 minute in movie.
you take a supernatural event (vampires/aliens etc), or, in this case, an 'action one,' then add in a teen romance in the middle of it and – hey presto – you have your movie.Miserable American teenager 'Daisy' comes to England (against her wishes, but then everything seems to be against her wishes) to stay with a family of posh countryfolk (if that isn't a contradiction in terms?) and she falls in love with the boy who keeps taking his shirt off.
However, as an adult (and a miserable cynical one at that), I found it all a little predictable and the British acting more like Americans THINK the British should, rather than how we do.However, it is well-acted and very atmospheric, almost portraying a World War 2 scenario in modern times.
American cousin Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) is sent to live with her British family.
I felt no empathy towards him and really was quite disappointed he was still alive at the end.Given that I could not develop any feelings towards the two main characters this movie was doomed to fall flat.The backdrop of a war was equally frustrating.
There are hints of terrorism again with reference to poisoned water supplies which again is implausible given real life military history.The rest of the film revolves around our American lass escaping with the young girl, seeing small snippets of a decaying society (all men are rapists apparently) and trying to return home.
And we are meant to hope that Eddie finds himself eventually and they live as a new nuclear family.Suspend belief, try to ignore the incest and the needless naked running through the forest dream scene and the unlikely ending and yes there are enjoyable parts of this film.
The most redeeming quality of this film was the lovely British countryside shown.The story is thin and hard to believe, one more example of how a bad script is impossible to transform into good film.It amazes me some of the glowing reviews on IMDb...either these people were watching a different film or working for Film 4.This is the story of an American girl, Daisy (Ronan), who comes to visit English cousins mainly because her father is too busy to look after her and her mother is dead.
Yet her visit oddly is ill timed being on the verge of a nuclear war that supposedly wipes out London an spreads fallout over a wide area...radioactive ash that cover everything yet doesn't seem to affect the Daisy and Co.Even though she initially dislikes her new home, she just as quickly falls for her teenage cousin Eddie.
On the other hand the unknown enemy invaders seem intent on killing civilians.Eventually the bulk of the film revolves around Daisy trying to get back to her first love Eddie, with her youngest cousin Piper in tow.
How I Live Now is a realistic film following an American girl getting stuck in England when World War 3 breaks out.
Dear UK National Lottery, please stop wasting money funding utter rubbish such as this load of poorly acted tripe.Much like a lot of Lottery funded films over the years this is a film that would never have been (and indeed should never have been) made if it weren't for the funding grant this film received, unfortunately it did and it was.There are some good ideas here, the tension leading up to and the subsequent occurrences of a nuclear explosion works but is quickly glossed over, there is confusion as to whether this was a story about a terrorist attack and its aftermath or a war with an invading force of unidentified origin.Coupled with a cast that (with the exception of the criminally underused Anna Chancellor) couldn't act their way out of a paper bag let alone a post nuclear crisis and you have a badly stitched together mess.There were far too many plot holes, far too much unexplained and too many cardboard characters that quite frankly no one cared about, especially the leading lady who was just awful.
A girl travels from the States to England to face nuclear war and the film chronicles her encounters with the relatives she stayed with during this time.Trying to rate this as a cinematic experience, I must admit that it was stimulating enough to keep the audience engaged which is always a plus although I have few issues with the storyline and the message it tried to convey.Somewhere between the prospect of total nihilism, a girl that hears voices arrives to visit relatives who although gladly host her she is rudely hostile to them all.
This is a movie that explores both.An Anerican teenager and her English cousin embark on a sexual relationship against the backdrop of WW3 but get separated and she must go on a journey to be reunited after a terror attack in London separates them.Phoned in performances meet flat direction in a movie that doesn't know whether it's trying to be thought provoking, romance or thriller and ends up falling short on all three instead of succeeding at any of them.Pure garbage.
This British set, British produced film is yet another based on a popular piece of Young Adult literature, though dating back a decade to the terse post 9.11 period when all comfortable certainties seemed gone and death could strike right at our very doorsteps once again.The storyline features troubled (of course) teen Elizabeth (Saoirse Ronan), a New York girl who is a neurotic, living by rules gleaned from magazines and TV, terrified of germs and infection, and convinced she is hexed, since her mother died giving birth to her.
The main problem is that it's all been seen and done before so many times, in the old post nuclear dramas ("Survivors", "The Day After", etc) in the original "Red Dawn", "Cold Mountain" and others, and bleak post-apocalyptic dramas like "The Road" "A Boy and his dog" "War of the Worlds" (2005) and of course "28 days later", which this film most obviously resembles.
American-girl, Daisy, is shipped off to England to live with her cousins in a rural area so she can get embroiled in a war.
Eddie yells to her to remember what he told her (that they should always make their way back to the farm area if anything bad happens since it's their eternal happy place).The girls are sent to live with a Scottish woman in a nice house inside a military-like installation.
The impact of terrorism first on the idyllic lives of the film's youngsters, and then on the country as a whole was delivered in a harsh and unpalatable way, which made the film very watchable.You could argue the film is over sentimental, I even heard someone say it felt like terrorists had invaded The Twilight Sage, I can understand, the 'true love' did seem a little overplayed, stretch belief beyond that and it's a film well worth watching.Saoirse Ronan is good value for money, the transformation in her character was very well done.
New York teenager Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) is sent to stay with her cousins in rural England.
Daisy escapes with young Piper and makes her way back to the house where she is eventually reunited with Eddie, who was been damaged by his experiences.This rather curious film is based on a successful novel, and I rather fancy that the narrative development works rather better on the page than it does on screen.
It should be me - I'm all for apocalyptic story lines, and I love Saoirse Ronan - but, while the apocalyptic stuff works well, the set-up takes too long, Daisy is hugely unsympathetic in the early stages (being out of sorts with everyone for reasons which are never made clear in the film), and there is a strong air of Young Adult/teen romance being the driving force behind the film It is also perforated by unnecessary instances of the F-bomb.My verdict: not unsuccessful, but could have been better..
I felt that this is a film worth watching, not for the action nor the romance, but for the determination one can have in times of difficulty, to hold on to a particular promise with such perseverance, enough to push her back home.Read more: http://tiffanyyong.com/2014/01/17/how-i-live-now-movie- review/.
Unfortunately though, it did.Characters and StoryFor the movie, our lead character is Daisy (played by Saoirse Ronan) who begins as an annoying American who as time goes on we learn has some sort of anxiety issue.
Then terrorist hit London and send the film into war mode.With this, the boys and girls are separated and Daisy ends up stuck with her little cousin Piper (played by Harley Bird) who is this sweet and eccentric little thing, but at the same time a child who grew up in a slightly neglectful household.
Ronan as a seemingly stereotypical American just makes you roll your eyes, and at times I did wish Bird's Piper was the focus for the story she could have had was more appealing to me.Overall: TV ViewingThough certainly not the best film out there, it surely isn't the worst.
Kevin Macdonald's "How I Live Now" stars Saoirse Ronan as Daisy, an American teenager sent to the English countryside to visit several cousins.
what I like mostly of this movie is that You don't know for sure what twist is going to take and the way it flows was really good, that's a high point for the director.
For me How I Live Now is an underrated movie (another one) for sure, I highly recommend, and we have the plus to see Soirse (pretty) Ronan, and off course the rest of the cast, Tom Holland, George MacKay, Harley Bird, they were really good..
I thought her romance with Eddie was a bit rushed and nobody in the film even mentioned the incest going on between them, but overall Saoirse did an excellent job.I also liked Piper, played by Harley Bird, although at times, I thought she put a bit too much emphasis on some of her lines.
Daisy and Piper seemed more like sisters than cousins and I think their relationship was portrayed very well and became the heart and soul of the film.
But what I don't understand is that Daisy, the American that comes to live with her British cousins, falls in love with the oldest one, Eddie. |
tt0044863 | Macao | Three strangers arrive at the port of Macao on the same ship: Nick Cochran (Robert Mitchum), a cynical-but-honest ex-serviceman, Julie Benson (Jane Russell), an equally cynical, sultry night club singer, and Lawrence Trumble (William Bendix), a traveling salesman who deals in both silk stockings and contraband.
Corrupt police lieutenant Sebastian (Thomas Gomez) notifies casino owner and underworld boss Vincent Halloran (Brad Dexter) about the new arrivals. Halloran has been tipped off about an undercover New York City policeman out to lure him into international waters so he can be arrested. With only three strangers to choose from, Halloran assumes Nick is the cop. He tries to bribe a puzzled Nick to leave Macao, but Nick is interested in getting to know Julie better and turns him down. Halloran hires Julie as a singer, in part to find out what she knows about Nick.
Later, Trumble offers Nick a commission to help him sell a stolen diamond necklace. However, when Nick shows Halloran a diamond from the necklace, Halloran recognizes it; he had sent the jewelry to Hong Kong only a week earlier to be sold. Now sure of Nick's identity, he has the American taken prisoner for later questioning.
Nick is guarded by two thugs and Halloran's jealous girlfriend, Margie (Gloria Grahame). Worried that Halloran is planning to dump her for Julie, Margie lets Nick escape, with the two guards close behind. When Trumble happens on the late-night chase, he tries to help Nick and is killed, mistaken by the thugs for Nick. Before he dies, he tells Nick about the police boat waiting offshore.
When Nick tries to get Julie to go away with him, he learns that Halloran has invited her on a trip to Hong Kong (to retrieve his property). With this information, Nick is able to dispose of Halloran's murderous henchman, Itzumi (Philip Ahn), and take the helm of Halloran's boat. He steers for the waiting police and hands Halloran over to them. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0335473 | The Thing | In 1982, an alien spacecraft is discovered beneath the Antarctic ice by a team from a Norwegian research base: Edvard (Trond Espen Seim), Jonas (Kristofer Hivju), Olav (Jan Gunnar Røise), Karl (Carsten Bjørnlund), Juliette (Kim Bubbs), Lars (Jørgen Langhelle), Henrik (Jo Adrian Haavind), Colin (Jonathan Lloyd Walker), and Peder (Stig Henrik Hoff). Columbia University paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) and his assistant Adam Finch (Eric Christian Olsen) to investigate the discovery.
They travel to the Norwegian base, Thule Station, located in Antarctica near U.S. Outpost 31, in a helicopter manned by Carter (Joel Edgerton), Derek (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and Griggs (Paul Braunstein). After viewing the spacecraft, Kate, Sander, and Adam are told the group also discovered an alien body from the crash, buried in the ice nearby. In the afternoon the body is brought to the base in a block of ice.
That evening, while the team celebrates their find, Derek sees the alien burst from the ice and escape the building. The team searches for the creature and discovers that it killed Lars' dog. Olav and Henrik find the alien, which then grabs and engulfs Henrik. The rest of the group arrive and set fire to the creature, killing it. An autopsy of the scorched alien corpse reveals that its cells were consuming and imitating Henrik's own.
Derek, Carter, Griggs and a sick Olav take the helicopter to seek help. Kate discovers bloody dental fillings near a blood-soaked shower. She runs outside to flag down the helicopter after it takes off. When it attempts to land, Griggs transforms into the Thing and attacks Olav, causing the helicopter to spin out of control and crash in the mountains. When Kate returns to the shower, she finds the blood is gone.
The team decides to send a party to the closest base, but Kate confronts them with her theory that the Thing can imitate them and has likely already done so. They dismiss her claims, but Juliette says she saw Colin leaving the showers. When Juliette and Kate look for the vehicle keys to prevent the others from leaving, Juliette transforms and tries to attack Kate. As Kate flees, she runs past Karl, who is impaled by the creature. Lars arrives with a flamethrower and burns the creature just as it assimilates Karl. At nightfall, they burn the remains of the Juliette-Thing and Karl's body.
That night, Edvard, Kate and Lars find Carter and Derek stumbling into base, half frozen. The team refuses to believe that they could have survived the crash. Kate has them isolated until a test can be prepared to verify they are human. Adam and Sander had started to work on a test, but the lab is set on fire in the few minutes it's left unattended. Kate proposes another test, believing that the Thing cannot imitate inorganic material. She inspects everyone and singles out those without amalgam dental fillings: Sander, Edvard, Adam, and Colin, while herself, Peder, Jonas and Lars are proven human.
Lars and Jonas go to retrieve Carter and Derek for testing, and discover they have broken out. As Lars searches a nearby building, he is suddenly pulled inside. The group hears Carter and Derek breaking into the building and rushes to intercept them. In the middle of a standoff, Edvard orders Peder to burn them. Before he can, Derek shoots Peder dead in self-defense with Lars' gun, but also punctures the flamethrower's fuel tank, setting off an explosion that knocks Edvard unconscious.
When brought to the rec room, Edvard transforms and infects Jonas and kills Derek before assimilating Adam. Kate torches the infected Jonas and Derek's body before she and Carter pursue the Thing. While the pair searches, Sander is ambushed by the Thing and Colin hides in the radio room and isn't seen again. They get separated and the Thing, into which Edvard and Adam are now fused, corners Carter in the kitchen, but Kate burns it before it can kill him. They then see an infected Sander drive off into the blizzard and pursue him in the remaining snowcat. While they are pursuing Sander, Kate notices that Carter is wearing his gold earring, reassuring her that he is still human at this point.
They arrive at the spacecraft, where it suddenly activates and its engines begin to melt the ice over it. Kate falls into the ship and is separated from Carter. Kate discovers the source of the radio transmission at the beginning of the film, in the form of a giant glowing cylinder with strange geometric blocks forming and shifting apart, the signal still broadcasting. Confronted by Sander, who has transformed into a larger creature, Kate destroys it with a thermite grenade and the explosion deactivates the ship, shutting down its engines. Kate and Carter escape the ship and Carter suggests driving to a Soviet base about fifty miles away, saying that they'd stashed enough fuel in their snowcat to be just able to cover that distance.
As Kate and Carter return to their vehicle, Kate notices that Carter is missing his earring and becomes suspicious. She tells him that she knew he was human earlier because he was still wearing the earring, implying she suspects he may have been assimilated while they were separated in the alien ship. Upon hearing this, Carter realizes that the earring is missing and points to his ear while attempting to explain its disappearance and reassure Kate. When Carter points to the wrong ear, Kate realizes he must have been assimilated and proceeds to burn him. She then retreats to Sander's snowcat and stares blankly as the screen fades black.
As the final credits roll, a helicopter pilot, Matias, arrives by morning at the now destroyed Norwegian outpost. He shouts, looking for any survivors. Colin is shown to have committed suicide in the radio room using a straight razor to slash both his arms and throat to ensure the Thing could never get to him. Matias sees the charred remains of the Adam/Edvard-Thing in the snow.
Lars, now revealed to be alive and uninfected, orders Matias at gunpoint to show his dental fillings to prove that he is a human. The Thing, having taken the form of Lars' deceased dog, runs out of the camp. Lars realizes it's the Thing and orders Matias to start the helicopter. As the dog flees, the two chase it in the Norwegian helicopter, with Matias piloting and Lars leaning out of the open doorway, trying to shoot it with a scoped rifle, thus leading into the events of the 1982 film. | insanity, violence | train | wikipedia | "We're Gonna Die Here!".
Great game but could have been better.
Set some time after the events of the movie, the game sees you as leader of a rescue team trying to work out what happened in the south poll.
After going solo to look for the other half of your team the action begins.
Finding guns and staying alive is only half the story, you have to find, lead, equip,earn the trust of survivors who then help you out before meeting a bloody end, you must also keep up their moral or they will freak out p*****g their pants or worse, eating a bullet.
That is a problem, it feels that there are set times when you squad "has to die so you are forced on alone" and it's annoying, it would have been better with a set team that you have to keep alive from the start.
But other than that really, the games good and plays well on lower spec systems, has great pitch battles, out numbered solo fighting, puzzles, great plot and keeps you on your guard all the time...just who in your team is infected?!
8/10If you like resident evil style games this is for you..
Gets an awful lot right.
Two decades after the film, this came out, picking up about where it left off.
This can be judged as either just a stand-alone exploit, or as a sequel.
It does introduce the idea, and one does not need to have seen the movie(though I would definitely suggest it).
While this is less complex, and plagued by the usual type of conceptual change that are seen elsewhere when it comes to further entries in a series(and/or when changing from another medium to this interactive one), in order to facilitate more of the specific popular and easily crowd-pleasing sights and situations(if this makes no sense to you reading, then feel free to contact me and ask), it does do certain things really well.
It builds atmosphere quite successfully...
the eeriness is utterly spot-on.
The isolation is thicker than the deep snow.
And all the dangers from the silver screen version are there, continually threatening you: The icy cold, and merciless, weather, paranoia, infection(albeit not of yourself) and, last but not least, attacks from Things.
If those all stayed true throughout all of this title, it would be more accurate.
But it strays, and whether or not that's a positive is, I suppose, up to each individual to decide.
One could of course argue that since this was made based on the chord that was struck back in 1982, it ought to stick closer to that.
Yes, part of the way in, this takes a turn, and goes down a much-trodden path(which, in itself, does not have to be a negative, 'eye of the beholder' and all).
The quality of the ending is up for debate, however, in at least one aspect, it's entirely in Carpenter's vein.
That's not the only portion, either.
Apart from quite literally, since he appears in this, you can see him, and his hand, in this.
The humor and dialog come off as stuff he could have written, without seeming like it was copied from elsewhere.
You get to visit locations we already know, and they crafted them well.
In general, the level design is a mixed bag, they can be nice and open.
It isn't always clear where you're supposed to go.
You aren't even equipped with a compass.
The HUD is rather discrete, perhaps excessively so(health bar, be visible!).
The Fear and Trust systems are interesting, and a fantastic thought, and they add to the overall experience.
Moreso, if they had a stronger impact, and were significantly important(and less infrequently so).
The execution leaves a bit to be desired.
Nevertheless, as they are, they are inspired features in this.
Your people have to have faith in you still being human, for them to do anything you ask at all, and if you don't keep them from losing it when they are terrified, they may quite simply wind up blowing their own brains out from panic.
As far as I know, these are unique to this.
They can be helpful(Medics to heal, and Soldiers that are skilled at fighting along with you), and several of them, you need to keep alive and well(Engineers, to work electronics that you can't).
The first-mentioned Squad-combat is also available, and you can give orders to your men.
I personally, as with other releases that allow that, wanted a couple more commands, and too often found them getting in the way.
The AI varies.
The aforementioned teammates relatively seldom get stuck or hit you, and are fairly decent at using the weapons that you can give all three classes.
The Things tend to be aggressive, and it does occur that they are slow to act.
No, they do not have all the abilities that they ought to...
meanwhile, I challenge anyone to, after seeing someone "turn", not be satisfied with the way they did that.
The guns are well-selected, and there aren't so many, aiding in preventing this from becoming just a straight-forward, all-out shooter.
The flamethrower is impossible to do without, exactly as it should be in this.
This is faster paced than one might think, and there is focus put on the action in it.
Don't get me wrong: It *is* mainly survival horror.
It doesn't dare be as bleak.
It isn't unlike AvP(either, both are better than this).
One problem, I've seen other places, and may be on account of it being made (primarily?) for consoles.
The view can only be moved left to right and vice versa, never up/down.
Third person is the usual camera, with a handful of odd angles that are briefly forced upon you here and there, and the option of using 1st, if you stand still.
As in Enter the Matrix, your precision when firing is considerably improved in the latter, for no readily apparent reason.
The auto-aim is great, and only comes up short in the rarest of instances.
This has freedom, yet at its core, it is linear.
In fact, there are one or two bugs that keep you from proceeding if you don't do it how they planned it.
Graphics are magnificent, with well-done effects.
Nearly glitch-free, too.
The voice acting ranges between average to pretty good.
The story-telling is OK, mostly done with the plentiful cut-scenes, all done in-engine.
As far as design of enemy units and attacks go, you can kinda tell that this is done by Computer Artworks...
as in, they also did Evolva.
It shows.
That doesn't have to be bad; on the other hand, you can see that they had played Half-Life...
that one's worse.
The similarities, thankfully not all over the place, are obvious.
The audio is fine, music and sounds can be marvelous.
The boss battles are a nuisance.
The items hold a few gems.
The saving doesn't cover that this is a short, and not that re-playable, game.
There is bloody violence/gore and a moderate amount of harsh language in this.
I recommend this to fans of John's The Thing.
If you're going with one or the other, I'd watch that, instead.
'It's time for the blood and gore'.
The game is great, set some time after the film where a rescue team is sent to Antartica to check out the carnage, very soon your team get wiped out by creatures and you are left by yourself in a snow storm to find a way out, you are captain Blake, leader of the military rescue team and its your job to find weapons, ammo, and other supplies if you are survive.
The game is difficult when you need to find a way out as keys and stuff are hidden and aliens attack you, the scenes of the murder is pretty gruesome and the game has many gore and blood scenes that wont disappoint you.
During the game you are pitted against a number of bosses which you must defeat to survive and for me they were hard, no joke, for all gamers, this game is one for scares..
Mixed: Good start bad finish, good points, bad points.
Summary The Thing is potentially a game that has some strong points going for it, like the feeling of being isolated, by the Antarctic conditions from the world and from your fellow teammates because any of them could turn into a thing at any moment.
Yet the entire game struggles to a bad end, with annoying boss battles, bad visuals, mediocre music and bad implemented game features.This game is set after the happenings in the movie The Thing from John Carpenter and you play the commander in charge of a team sent to find out what had happened.
This first part is really great, while you work your way through the partly destroyed bases in search for clues and missing team members.
Then of course the s*** hit's the fan and the things turn up, first in the single spider form, then in waves, and later on as the more robust humanoids.
In the meantime your companions change into things themselves at the most inconvenient moments.
At the end you find yourself not only up against things but also against soldiers protecting a secret base.
But the game kicks the bottom out of the horror part.
Horror in general takes common persons who, with meager resources, are at the mercy of a unknown powerful threat.
When they are armed, the weapons in general are ineffective(pistols won't hurt ghosts).
Through luck or quick thinking some survive the ordeal, but most of the time it is just an temporary escape because more often then not the monsters will be back.The first thing the game does is end the common person bit as you realize that everybody is turning into monsters except for you.
The danger should be that you can get infected by the thing and then become one yourself, like zombies or vampires.
It is therefore important not get infected, hence not get wounded by things.
But you are not infected whatever happens.
At first you think it's a game bug but then halfway through the game an explanation is given.
But the explanation given hurts the horror part even more.
You are no common person: you are a bio-engineered soldier.
The second way the game hurt's the horror theme is by giving the player a huge amount of weapons.
You will soon find that the Antarctic is apparently a weapon dump of sorts bursting with shot guns, automatic rifles and flamethrowers.
So the game become's an extermination game instead of an horror in which you fight of hordes of monsters with a large supply of weaponry.The game is weakened even further by the ridiculous boss battles.
I don't like them in general, but in this game they are even worse than normal.
Boss battles general put the player in a small enclosed space against a incredible powerful enemy that takes a lot of hurt to stop.
In this game it's the same and sometimes taken to extreme.
In one battle you have to stand on one particular spot, otherwise you get killed.
There is no hint where you have to stand, so it can take a lot of trial and error to win that one.
This is not counting for the fact that standing on the spot will not make you win this battle: you have to stand there not to lose it.
And that is not even the end boss battle!The story sinks even further halfway through the game as you discover that there is a bio-engineering project that wants to create super soldiers by mixing humans with things.
Apparently between the movie and the game so much time has progressed that a complete project has been launched and executed.
Alternatively: apparently someone has spent a huge amount of money on a project on the Artic without having a clue about the progress of the project.
And why the antarctic?
Why not take samples of thing-specimen to a place elsewhere where it is cheaper to built a base and maintain it?
You don't have to conduct experiments with specimens on the place where you found them.
Finally the horror genre somehow should have a mystery.
The less is explained the more scary things are.
But this game is crystal clear after you have been informed by the bad guy.
No odd encounters here, no strange conversation or partly destroyed papers.
After being explained what is going on, the game turns into an amusing chaotic situation as soldiers from that secret base battle it out with you and the things.
By this time the entire horror thing has gone out of the window.
It's has become a shooter.The last thing that makes the game weak is that no effort has been made to make it visually or musically attractive.
Proper sound and vision make half a movie and this is up to a point also true for a game.
It would have been unnerving if for instance in the deserted base a radio is still playing and you hear it's sound get stronger and weaker while you work your way through the rooms.
No such mood enhancement has been done.The game is but half a game and weak at many moments.
By taking out the fear of the unknown and the mystery it has become a dumb shooter.
It's a pity because it started so promising..
No One Can Trust Anybody.
I love "The Thing" movie was the greatest movie ever made by John Carpenter and now they made "The Thing" the video game, what more could you ask.
I'm speaking to all of "The Thing" fans to save some money and buy "The Thing" video game, you won't be disappointed after playing it.
I have to say they should have made it long ago but they still made it.
This video game shows the rest of the film from "The Thing" and the plot was amazing, it beings with a thing monster attacking two workers and killed while someone was watching.
Then showed Blake and his team searching for survivors but what they had was a thing adventure.
Many died and only one rescue team person will survive but the question is can you survive "The Thing".
This shows blood, monsters, curse word, three main thing monster and the fourth thing is the mother-load of the things, can you have trust with you and your teammates, do they have what it takes to survive with your or would you feed them to the things.And there are many bodyguards to kill from the middle to the end.
Now can you handle this creepy monster game and beat the mother of the things and beat Whitly and your team to help you or will you die and on never to know what happens at the end.
Two more "things", I want to thank the band "Saliva" for the ending song which is very "cool".And lastly the ending and the mid-beginning show a special someone from "The Thing and you'll find out only if you play the game.10/10.
Better then the movie!.
Now I know its hard to compare a movie to a video game, but in this case I had to clash the 2 together.
For those who don't know, this video game picks off from where the movie left off/ended.
You are sent in the frozen wastelands of Antarctica to stop a shape-shifting alien life form whom has wiped out an American scientific outpost.
You play as Blake the leader of a military rescue team/group to investigate the carnage.
You must keep your squad members together and control there fear, there trust, and there survival.
Now The Thing is a great video game no doubt about it but it has its faults, a couple of them being the blood-testing kits which don't always work, for example you might test a member of your group and he may be clean but then 10 seconds later he will transfer in to The Thing even through the kit told you that he was alright.There's also a couple of glitches through the gameplay, but apart from this The Thing is really a top game that will have you having to earn trust, kill all sorts of different Aliens, and survive.The Thing is available on PC, PS2, and the original XBOX. |
tt1801096 | Sexy Evil Genius | Salesman Zach Newman sits alone in a bar when he meets Miranda Prague. After talking to her for a few minutes, they realize that they are ex-lovers of the same woman, Nikki Franklyn. They were both told to arrive at different times and wait for Nikki, who would be joining them later. Miranda reveals that Nikki just got out of a mental hospital after killing a man she was dating by poisoning him. Shortly thereafter they are joined by Marvin Coolidge, a jazz musician and also a former lover of Nikki. The trio trade stories about Nikki for a bit until Nikki herself arrives, bringing the table a round of drinks and passing them out herself. With Nikki is her defense attorney turned fiancè Bert Mayfair. Nikki tells them all that the evening is about a big announcement, and she declares that she is getting married. Bert becomes angry with Nikki, as he did not want his engagement to her publicized yet for fear of losing his law license.
Upset, Nikki rushes to the bathroom, and Miranda follows her. While the girls are gone, Bert admits that he bribed doctors to testify to Nikki's insanity so that she would escape the murder charges. He also admits that Nikki really is insane and that he fears she will kill someone that night. After the girls are gone too long, Zach checks on them. Nikki rushes out, but Miranda pulls him into the restroom and shows him a gun that Nikki gave her. Back at the table with the others, Nikki accuses Marvin of planting heroin where she could find it, knowing that Nikki had once been an addict. Marvin vehemently denies this and suggests that Nikki made it up as an excuse to hate him for their breakup. A disheveled Zach and Miranda return to the table and admit that they were making out. They also claim that Nikki's wedding announcement is not the real reason they are there and that Nikki is looking for revenge on them all.
After more arguing, Nikki admits that she brought them there to settle her old scores with them. Zach becomes worried that she has poisoned them all, and Nikki turns serious. She admits that she coldly murdered her ex-boyfriend by brewing her own arsenic and watching him gasp and spasm as he died. She tells Bert that she's not insane but instead planned it all, knowing she could fake insanity. As the others become more paranoid, Bert decides he's had enough and gets up to leave. Bert pauses when Marvin suddenly develops a sharp headache, and Nikki claims to have poisoned Marvin. Before he slips into unconsciousness, Marvin admits he really did plant the heroin for Nikki to find. The others are horrified and frantically ask if they've been poisoned. Nikki tells Bert that she overheard him tell her doctor that he wanted her sent back to the asylum because he wanted to be rid of her.
Fearing he's been poisoned as well, Bert flies into a rage, grabs Nikki by the throat, and begins to choke her. Unable to break his hold, Miranda retrieves the gun Nikki gave her and shoots Bert in both knees. Nikki admits that she didn't kill Marvin and only gave him drugs to induce him into a K-hole. She reassures them that she did not poison anyone else. She takes the gun back from Miranda and leaves, telling them that she plans to disappear. The next morning, the police release Miranda without her being charged. Zach, who waits for her in the lobby of the police station, offers to drive her home, which she accepts. She mentions that Bert assaulted several cops while being arrested and that his career is over. They drive off together and do not notice Nikki watch from a nearby rooftop. Nikki gets in her car and drives away. | romantic, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | The second: Even absent a billion dollar budget, CGI, 3-D, spectacular shoot-outs, or gratuitous nude scenes, a decent script, coupled with impressive acting is, as always been, damn entertaining.I am content the above paragraph summed up my viewing experience of Sexy Evil Genius, however, the content gods of IMDb demand more input.
What a fun movie to watch and try to figure out what is about to happen!
You will have to see this movie if your are curious.Each actor gives a power performance and their interaction will keep you watching.
I do not want to offer up any of the plot line because when I watched this movie I had no idea what it was about.
It's one of those flicks (in my opinion) that makes you feel like saying - "That was good" at the end.What you think one moment about Nikki will change numerous times during the story!
But that's a shame because it's a corker of a script and deserves a wider audience.A capable cast leads the audience through a twisty turny plot involving the ex-lovers of Nikki, a 'sexy evil genius.' She gathers them together in a bar for mysterious reasons that she baits them with through their meeting...
Come to think of it, there are questions of 'the truth' about her ex-lovers too.Key to the story is the question of her sanity, the veracity of which is cleverly shuffled throughout the dialog.
what is believed to have happened and what has actually happened.The state of Nikki's mental health (don't call her Nik!) would explain her motives but we never know what that is or what they are till the end.The ensemble cast all help create an electric atmosphere but when Katee Sackhoff is let off her leash she steals it.If you enjoyed the intelligent screenplay, brisk pace and edgy atmosphere of Glengarry Glenross then you'll get a pleasant evenings entertainment from this..
What appealed to me before watching this movie was that 2 actors where in it who I loved from TV shows Buffy and Lost.
But I must say that I didn't care much for Michelle Trachtenberg in Buffy, but she was great in this!I'm a sucker for clever, funny, fast and weird conversations and this movie has all that.
Of course this movie doesn't come close to them, it is not as clever, but it sure is fun!
And for me it has been a long long time since I enjoyed a movie that was (almost) all talk..
And if you can love the characters like I did than I'm sure you'll love this little gem of a movie!.
I was surprised multiple times while watching this movie.
but that is only a MINOR quibble and in no way detracts from the film, he's just an actor whom I'd like to see more of.Writer Scott Lew may be known for the more off beat "Bickford Schmeckler's Cool Ideas"..
I would give the movie and its casting good marks.We come to this film.
And the one thing I can say is to me it was overshadowed by the darker more grindhouse driven (but similar old friends meeting in a bar) film "Sushi Girl", if you haven't seen that film I would HIGHLY recommend it..
I wasn't bowled over by William Baldwin in the film, then we come to the icy "sexy evil genius" herself Katee Sackhoff best known for the "Battlestar Galactica" revamp.The basic story..
While the BIG twist at the end wasn't all that big a shock, its a film that's interesting to see how it got to that end as the characters bounce off crazy stories, each one seeming to relate an almost entirely different person to the others before a singular version begins to kind of form together..
The flick isn't high on the stylish look, but it serves the film well enough and the easy dialogue keeps the film moving pretty quickly.I won't spoil the film, but I will say its definitely worth a watch..
The first scene didn't bode well it felt like the plot was going to be predictable so at that point I didn't expect to enjoy it.
Luckily it's the only film I had so I watched anyway and despite that first scene the rest of the film was written perfectly and I can see how it drew such an interesting cast.I like mind games especially when they're executed with real intelligence along the lines of what some of the really good Japanese animators can pull off.
The lead character in this certainly managed to provide that and again I have to differ with the other reviewer in that throughout the movie I thought she was getting sexier and sexier, I do love the crazies though.The cast played the parts very well and I was kept guessing until the very end but what impressed me most about this film is that I was left extremely satisfied with the outcome.I think it's a shame this movie has such low votes as I'm not an easy person to please film wise in fact I've avoided linking my google account to IMDb for over a year because I'm paranoid but I had to say something when I saw the bad rap this was getting.Tl;dr If you like intelligent mind f***ing movies/books/animation you'll definitely recommend this to a friend despite the slow start..
There were some times in the middle where I just wished they would get on with it but other than that, I was pretty darn satisfied with this film and am glad I watched it.
The plot twists with the best of them, taking the emotional load with it.In the same vein as other movies of its kind such as My Dinner with Andre and Before Sunrise, Sexy Evil Genius was superbly brought to life through the power of the actors and the dialogue alone.It's pretty tough to keep things in a movie such as this both unpredictable and believable.
We don't know what's going on inside the minds of anyone and neither do the characters in this story.
The characters are left with rapidly changing speculation and mounting anxiety as the story plays out.I had just two problems with the film.
The other when a woman who was viciously assaulted by a large angry man was left without even a bruise.This is a definite must see for anyone who enjoys some good drama where the action is primarily expressed in words.One final note, I'm happy to see that homosexuality in film has reached the point where no matter whether people enjoyed the film or not, it's not thought abnormal enough to be worth commenting on.
If your looking for a calm, predictable thriller to watch, this is the movie for you..
This is my first review and nothing compelled me more to write it than the painfully positive reviews and the unreal rating for this title.To begin with, justice was not done with the caste while Green was a type caste role, the "sexy evil genius" herself looked too old to play the role's demand.
Performance department was better but not good enough, a staggering performance in the lead role while just an OK job from Green and Trachtenberg, hence my 2/10 rating only due to acting and a bit of interesting opening.Even though I was already not too optimistic from the title itself my expectations were not very high, still the movie succeeded in disappointing me.Plot was full of unsurprising, not so twisting twists, and there was a non existent element of suspense.
All of a sudden Nikky just doesn't like being called Nikk...Character development was also not far behind the plot weakness, in sinking the movie further.
The lead "Sexy Evil Genius" character itself gathers more irritation from the viewer than the genius image it struggles so unsuccessfully to project till the very end.
In the end the sympathy and support the plot provides for the "genius" main character from other characters is plain failure for the writers to develop the character required to deliver the title role.In total, it's all down the hill after a couple of good lines in the time before the main character "Nikki" arrives.
Unless you really want to sit out the duration you paid for, I suggest leaving the theater and do something good with your time then watching till the end as it would just frustrate you more.And to avoid further frustration to point you melt down and create an IMDb account only to write a real review, please don't read the rating and other positive reviews of this title..
Actually, the characters and actors, minus the lead, all make the film work a lot better than it would have.
I guess this is a case study in how a single important character miscast can leave a film being little more than olives and alcohol.Besides being a psychotic-lite drama with a little humor thanks largely to the actors, it also taps into, with better than average insight, common early-to-mid life crisis issues along with sexual abuse issues.
Maybe when the writer learns Cobain carried Nirvana, he'll have enough smarts to put together genius films like Matt Damon has done..
And as film, comics or any media writers/creators will tell you, the hardest scene is a couple of people sitting around a room or a table talking and keeping it interesting.
If you understand that the practice of making that, people talking for the length of a movie, is the hardest thing to make entertaining, then just know I was fully entertained by this film.
But take it from this guy; I don't like action movies if there's no point other than to just watch pretty explosions.
There's no point in berating it if you aren't into fun, thriller, character driven films.
I was struck again by how good an actor Michelle Trachtenberg is – for years I've been seeing her give little bits of evidence that, were she only given roles to get her teeth into, she could build a really high reputation.
There are subtle undercurrents: for example, watch the sub-surface rivalry and point-scoring between Zac (Seth Green) and Marvin (Harold Perrineau) – just facial expressions and body language, but made me chuckle repeatedly.Nikki (Katee Sackhoff) assembles four other characters, who turn out to be present or past lovers, for a get-together in a bar.
I found fascinating the gradual working out of the individual back stories and how they feed into the equally gradual build-up to what she's been planning.The only thing that could improve it would be a bit more in the way of snappy dialogue – some memorable one-liners, perhaps – if only for the title character.This film sort of sneaked up on me.
A group of guys are drawn to the same bar in downtown Los Angeles by an ex-girlfriend (Katee Sackhoff) they all have in common.I have to say my least favorite Buffy actor (Seth Green) is canceled out by my favorite one (Michelle Trachtenberg).
Round it out with Billy Baldwin and Harold Perrineau ("Lost") and this is a solid cast of characters.This film is awesome to repeatedly reference My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, one of the greatest (overlooked) bands of the 1980s and 90s.
"Sexy Evil Genius" is a Comedy/Drama with snappy dialog that moves quickly from scene to scene and keeps one guessing as to the what led up to the opening moments of the film.
If you don't like movies that depend on dialog skip this one.
I must admit; with the likes of Michelle Trachtenberg, Katee Sackhoff, Seth Green, Harold Perrineau and Billy Baldwin, I expected this film to be considerably better.
The writing could have been (a lot) better - the finale a tad more climactic but I ultimately enjoyed the character interactions enough to say: I liked it.Would I recommend this enough to spend $20?
(If only to watch Michelle, Katee, Seth, Harold and Billy interact.)One question to anyone else who has watched "Sexy Evil Genius": did I hear Michelle's character; Miranda refer to Seth's character; Zachery as "Seth" (about 12 ½ minutes into the film)?
And then later on when Katee's character; Nikki arrives also refer to Zachery as "Seth"?
I did not know what to expect going in to this movie it had a great cast of actors i have grown to love since i was young so i thought i would give it a shot.
You never really know what is happening throughout the entire movie but it does keep you gripped and entertained and really is a bit of a thrill ride.
this movie was never going to win any awards but it really is a good watch and i did enjoy it.
apparently i need ten lines of text but i think this is one of those films that you more that you describe it the more it ruins the experience, the best way to watch this is with little or no knowledge of what its about so enjoy..
A movie that I thought was very fun and entertaining but is also not for everyone.
"Woe be he or she that falls in love with Nikki Franklin." After being told to meet an ex-girlfriend at a bar three strangers show up and begin to talk and share stories.
I have to say that overall this is a pretty good movie that is worth watching but it is not for everyone.
The whole movie takes place in one area and is pretty much just talking the whole time.
That said the dialog is well written and the whole plot is actually interesting enough to keep you watching and interested in seeing what happens next.
Overall, a movie that I think is fun and worth watching but is not for everyone.
Nikki gathers around at a bar all her previous lovers (including a girl) and they get there before her arrival so they have a chance to know better and everyone talks about the adventures that they had with Nikki.
At the 30 minute mark leaving the lounge room to escape to the fridge for a little more excitement I discovered a block of chocolate, at this point I found the highlight of the movie was not watching it.
As the movie came to the end I was relieved more to the disappointment of the story line.
A bunch of people sit in a bar and talk old times about a crazy ex.
This movie sucks, and so do the people that like this crap.
Title says it all,movie shows why.
Out of the blue a "friend" calls up three of her friends she has not seen in a long time (10 years the longest she hadn't seen) Well, Nikki (Katee Sackhoff) is the SEG that has put a plan in motion with these three "friends" I use the term loosely since it is obvious they are all ex-lovers.
This movie takes place solely in a bar, with some well used flashback scenes to explain the back stories of their connections to Nikki.
And my title pretty much sums up this film, Sexy?
Katee Sackhoff stars as Nikki, the girl in the title.
The stories barely held my interest, but I was drawn in by wanting to know where this film, with a jazz opening, was headed.
The movie involves telling stories and playing head games at the table.
It is more of a five man play.The film is clever and there are times when I think it is clever for the sake of being clever.
"Sexy Evil Genius' is for the most part what I refer to as a one room adventure, or a movie where a majority of the story stays in one place.
Seth Green (Zachary Newman) sits in a Los Angeles bar drinking five olive martinis (he missed lunch) waiting to meet an ex girlfriend Nikki from high school.
After a brief time talking, mostly sharing stories about the ex they have in common, Marvin Coolidge (Harold Perrineau), another member of the former Nikki fan club strolls into the bar.
It becomes evident that Nikki wants these three to meet before she joins the group to share her "big news." 'Sexy Evil Genius' is similar to the 2011 movie 'Carnage' in the sense that because the story stays in one place the progression of the plot relies mainly on strong dialogue.
In contrast however, 'Sexy Evil Genius' does have some minor flashback scenes, mainly because the characters are all telling stories about their ex girlfriend, and the plot strays from the bar at the very end.
It appears that the characters telling their stories about Nikki could have been just as strong and less confusing than a director's depiction.This movie features a strong cast including the people I mention above and William Baldwin, unfortunately the director is not experienced.
Her wit and her charm, along with the fact that she is as Seth Green says in the movie a "sexy evil Genius" creates a plot that becomes wild and unpredictable (in a good way).
Her intentions become as unclear as the original reason why everyone has been invited to the bar, and by the end of the movie even M.
Zachary arrives at a bar because Nikki asked to meet her there.
They discuss Nikki's stalker, Mark, and his public records.Nikki shows up at 9:00, knowing that the three of them have been talking about her the whole time.
Insanity entered in somewhere; she killed Marvin, and did not know it.Bert says that he stays with Nikki because he is certain she has been cured of her mental condition.
Also, she wanted Zachary to meet Miranda.This is only the beginning of the film.
Very atmospheric.Sound: 10/10 No problems.Acting: 10/10 Best performance I've ever seen from Michelle Trachtenberg and from Seth Green.
Katee Sackhoff, Harold Perrineau, and William Baldwin were great.Screenplay: 10/10 One of the best, tightest scripts I've seen in a long time. |
tt1295021 | Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King | The Mystery, Inc. gang visit a Halloween carnival on Halloween night. When the magician "The Amazing Krudsky" (voiced by Wayne Knight) does not allow Scooby to see his show, he and Shaggy accidentally expose Krudsky as a fraud during one of his acts, resulting in the gang getting kicked out of the carnival. The rebellious Fairy Princess Willow (voiced by Hayden Panettiere) later enters Krudsky's tent, where he secretly reveals his wishes to become a real magician. The fairy inadvertently causes Krudsky to notice her on the Goblin Scepter in a spell book, which can be combined with fairy magic to control Halloween. Krudsky then gets an idea to obtain the scepter and rule the world with it. Willow decides to toy with him, but while flying, she accidentally slams her small body against a metal chair knocking her out; Krudsky then crushes her with his flyswatter. When he notices her cry of pain from being crushed, he sees that she is a real fairy, kidnaps her, and absorbs her magical powers, thus becoming a real magician.
Meanwhile, Scooby-Doo and the gang go trick-or-treating all night. Shaggy's and Scooby's last stop is a spooky looking house which claims to be a "genuine magic shoppe". However, a very loud thunderstorm also begins, frightening the heroes. Inside, they meet the kind Mr. Gibbles (voiced by Wallace Shawn), who reveals that magic really does exist. At that moment, Willow enters being chased by Krudsky; he captures her and turns Gibbles into a rabbit, and steals the magic equipment before leaving. Mr. Gibbles explains to an astonished Shaggy and Scooby that Krudsky, after capturing the good magic of the princess, will now want the bad magic held in the scepter of the Goblin King, which will, as well, cause an imbalance in the supernatural order which will make Halloween remain forever and as a result will turn every human into horrifying monsters. Shaggy and Scooby board the Grim Reaper Railway which flies them to the spirit world. Once they arrive, the two realize that they need to get the scepter before Krudsky can, and return home before sunrise or else they will be trapped in the magic world forever. Before they depart, Gibbles gives them magic cards that perform spells just by reading the inscription on each one; however, they have to be saved for emergencies because each card can only be used once and each spell is temporary. To make it less suspicious-looking, Shaggy and Scooby are magically disguised by being transformed into monster-like versions of themselves.
While looking for Shaggy and Scooby, Fred, Daphne and Velma see Krudsky conversing with the Goblin King through a mirror where the Goblin King (voiced by Tim Curry) agrees to exchange his scepter for Princess Willow at midnight at a clock tower. However, seeing that all the evil magic and the Goblin King are real causes Velma's rational mind to shut down; Fred and Daphne leave Velma to rest and go to the tower and set a trap for the Goblin King and Krudsky.
Back in the magic world, Shaggy and Scooby go to a bar owned by a werewolf (also voiced by Tim Curry). During the song "Bump in the Night", Shaggy adds in the lyric on how to get to the Goblin King's castle. Shaggy and Scooby-Doo find that everyone is afraid of the Goblin King and will not help them upon running off. The Goblin King's two bumbling goblin henchmen, Glob and Glum (voiced by James Belushi and Larry Joe Campbell), attempt to capture Scooby and Shaggy, but the latter two are saved by Jack O'Lantern (voiced by Jay Leno), a living pumpkin who leads them to three witches while running away from the Headless Horseman. Along the way, they avoid the chasing monster (who was Jack's former body) by heading across a covered bridge which he cannot cross. The three of them arrive at the Witches' Hut where they meet the Grand Witch (voiced by Lauren Bacall) and her two fellow witches (voiced by Grey DeLisle and Russi Taylor). The witches send Shaggy and Scooby on a ride on their flying broomstick named "Broomy" towards the Goblin King's castle, but they are shot down by Glob and Glum by a goblin gun-like cannon.
Landing in a fairy village, Shaggy and Scooby find three fairies named Sparkplug, Honeybee and Tiddlywink, who help them to the Goblin King's castle entrance. Reluctantly using a potion from the witches (made from someone called "Scratch"), Shaggy and Scooby disguise themselves as Daphne (Shaggy) and Velma (Scooby) in order for Glob and Glum to let them into the castle. Only a few minutes away from midnight, Shaggy and Scooby try to run off with the scepter, but are captured and sent to the dungeon by the Goblin King who heads off to meet with Krudsky. At the clock tower, Krudsky and the Goblin King are almost through with their trade when Fred and Daphne release a trap and run off with the princess. But the trap only catches the Goblin King and Krudsky takes the scepter, turning himself into the new Goblin King before turning the Goblin King into a goose.
Krudsky and his new goblin army set off to take over the world. He turns the Mystery Machine into a living monster vehicle to chase Fred, Daphne, and the now-awakened Velma. They capture the three and Krudsky uses his powers to turn Fred into a vampire, Daphne into a witch, and Velma into a werewolf (respectively). At that moment, Scooby, Shaggy and Jack O'Lantern arrive having been saved from the dungeon before sunrise by the fairies and Broomy. Jack apparently sacrifices himself to strip Krudsky of the staff of which Scooby uses to break Krudsky's spells, restoring his friends, the Mystery Machine and Mr. Gibbles, and the Goblin King back to normal where he reclaims his staff from Scooby-Doo and then uses his restored powers to imprison Krudsky.
The Goblin King is revealed to be Willow's father who holds her responsible for all the trouble caused and grounds her for a year, though he does admits that he is relieved to have her back. Mr. Gibbles brings Jack back to life with the Goblin King's help, who then takes Krudsky prisoner for both his crimes and treachery (the Goblin King tells him that he will have plenty of time to "work on his act"). He, the goblin army, Willow, Jack, Broomy and Mr. Gibbles all return to the magical world. But before departing and to also keep the balance between the worlds, the Goblin King uses one final spell to erase the memory of the events from Fred's, Daphne's, Velma's, and the others' minds. However, Scooby and Shaggy are allowed to keep theirs as they have proven their courage.
As morning comes, Fred, Daphne and Velma forget what transpired (due to the effects of the memory-erasing spell) as Shaggy and Scooby-Doo come to pick them up. As the carnival packs up, Scooby uses an unpacked mirror one last time to spook the gang as the film ends. | psychedelic, horror, fantasy | train | wikipedia | An absolute delight for Scooby Doo fans.
I am 16 and I enjoyed it more than the other Scooby Doo movies.
It isn't as good as Witch's Ghost though, but I also really enjoyed Zombie Island and Alien Invaders.
The animation was way better than Shaggy and Scooby: Get a Clue, which is just atrocious in every aspect.
The songs were actually really catchy, especially Goblin Boogie, which also played in the end credits, which were a delight to watch.
As for the voice talents, they were the main reason why I liked this film as much as I did.
Wayne Knight was a little over the top, but he was fine, and Casey Kasem is a sheer delight as Shaggy.
James Belushi was funny as one of the goblins, and as the Goblin King, Tim Curry was both sinister and fun.
I loved the twist at the end, which was typical of Scooby Doo. I also loved the fact that it was real monsters, the old formula was getting tired.
My favourite bit was the Headless Horseman chasing Jack O'Lantern,(an unrecognisable Jay Leno) Shaggy and Scooby.
No, seriously, I really think that a Scooby-Doo movie going after a musical genre is a really good change of pace.
Sure, it may not be as good as Zombie Island, and it may not live up as a Halloween musical classic the same way The Nightmare Before Christmas did, but it's still not bad for a beginner.
The bottom line: it's a delight for the whole family, especially if you're a Scooby-Doo fan..
Lots Of Puns and Fun, Heh Heh Heh. Zoinks!
Like, ruh roh, Raggy, don't rook now, but just when you were about to ask "where are you" there's a reaky new Scooby Doo movie available on rideo.
Like, no way man, but this wunnerful creepy old time animation is completely on the mark and ten times as fun as th-th-th-the rive action Scooby Doo movies.
The kids will love the Goblin King, and the adults will laugh at the inside rokes: "Oh no!
Way to go old Scooby Dooby movie makers.
You should totally rent Scooby Dooooby Dooooo and the Goblin King: jeepers, maybe there's food inside the box..
I had mixed feelings on this one 1) Having Jim Belushi, Jay Leno, Wayne Knight, Lauren Bacall, Wallace Shawn and "witches ghost" return of Tim Curry was a plus.
3) The story was mostly Shaggy and Scooby who couldn't carry it alone.
5) the attempt to return to old style Scooby Doo was a plus 6) The story didn't really care to follow the plot and became a series of unconnected scenes.
8) Daphne getting wet was unforgivable :-) At the end of the day, it was fun to watch but forgettable after a few days..
This is NOT Scooby-Doo!.
How can any Scooby-Doo fan not take offense that the main premise of Scooby-Doo was to show children that monsters do not exist, and now they use monsters without any premise of trickery in all the latest films.Seriously, this is not the Scooby-Doo that had been made famous years ago.
They have taken the name and done what they want with it.I have little problem with cartoons about monsters and the like, it is only when the premise of a great show for children is completely reversed that I take offense.I would love to see the original concept of Scooby-Doo restored so that future generations may come to enjoy Scooby-Doo the way that it was originally intended to be enjoyed.
Your average Scooby-Doo animated movie....
"Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King" is certainly a movie that will appeal to the long-time fans of Scooby-Doo and the Mystery Gang.I, however, found the 2008 "Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King" animated movie to be just another generic, run-of-the-mill addition to the Scooby-Doo franchise.
It just happened to be a very standard and generic animated movie that we have seen so many times before.The animation was good and the art style was good, very much keeping up with the traditional art style that is used in the Hanna-Barbera cartoon.
So on that account, there is some sense of security and familiarity to it.As usual the voice acting was great, as it always is in the Scooby-Doo animated movies.
Furthermore there are some rather great voice appearances in this particular animated movie as well, such as Tim Curry, Jim Belushi and Jay Leno.The storyline in "Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King" was somewhat too generic and stereotypical, even for a Scooby-Doo movie, and that was the main reason why my rating of it ends on a mediocre 5 out of 10 stars..
It really seems like they were trying to return to the old school Scooby Doo feel.
The look was very New Scooby Doo Movies.
Even the cover felt like the Scooby Doo everyone grew up with.So, it really felt like they were throwing us old Scooby fans one massive cherry.But then, it was really only Shaggy and Scooby and they can't carry it alone any longer, the movies are about Mystery Inc and the whole Scooby Gang and you feel robbed when they are paid that much lip service...And then the plot never came together.It felt too much like they were trying too hard to appeal to us old Scooby Fans and not hard enough to appeal to the people that came to love Scooby from these movies..
Very funny lots of transformation animation.
I really enjoyed this movie.
There were lots of laughs when Scooby and Shaggy got scared.
Shaggy's hair would stand up and their faces would show distorted fear.The animation was great.
There was lightning and flash animation when characters would change in to monsters or back to themselves.
The flashing of colors and the characters transformation is stunning.The music was good too with the monsters singing and performing in a band.
A skeleton on keyboard and more.This is one of the better Scooby Doos.
Just a lot of running, flying on a broom and dodging goblins.Casey Kasem as Shaggy, Frank Welker as Scooby and Freddie, Grey DeLisle, Mindy Cohn, Jay Leno, Lauren Bacall, James Belushi and more.Well worth watching..
Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King (2008)** 1/2 (out of 4) Scooby and Shaggy go to a magic show with the gang when they call out a fake magician who in return turns Fred, Velma and Daphne into monster.
Scooby and Shaggy must then enter the monster underground to find a cure but first they must go up against the Goblin King.
It's certainly not a bad movie and I'm sure fans of Scooby will be entertained but there were several moments where my son's interest (as well as mine) was not fully into the picture.
I think the start of the film is a lot of fun as the gang are on a roller coaster ride with all sorts of scary monsters around.
The ending is also a lot of fun as Scooby and Shaggy have to dress up as Velma and Daphne to get into the Goblin King's party.
This here adds some nice laughs and there's another great sequence where the duo go to a monster party.
The animation during this party sequence is great and there's a lot of good imagination going on with the various creature looks.
The biggest problem is in the middle of the picture where it just seems like the writers didn't know where to take the material and we've got a lot of scenes that just drag without much happening.
Still, fans of Scooby should at least be mildly entertained and we even have the likes of James Belushi, Tim Curry and Wayne Knight and Jay Leno adding some vocal support..
Back to real ghosts and monsters!.
This is the first post-Sander Schwartz Scooby-Doo made-for-video movie.
Animation originally began producing the made-for-video Scooby-Doo movies 10 years ago, starting with "Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island," they broke away from the typical "fake ghost and monster" formula and broke new ground, using real ghosts and monsters.
(This wasn't the first time they did so either, they did so back in the 1980s with "The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo" and a few TV movies.) "Zombie Island" and the following "Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost" (the best of the "real monster" movies) were much darker compared to the older Scooby-Doo cartoons.
But when Sander Schwartz took over in 2002, he made them switch back to fake monsters and ghouls, the first two were good ("Legend of the Vampire" and "Monster of Mexico") which were practically like 70-minute episodes of "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?", and after that it would vary.
They basically became 70-minute episodes of "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" and typically focused on Fred and Daphne.
But beginning with "Scooby-Doo in Where's My Mummy?" they began toying around with the old formula again, which somewhat became the norm for the later films, which started to get better over time.
Bringing back real ghosts and monsters helped liven up this recent installment in the Scooby-Doo made-for-video series of movies!
It also helped put a bit of creepiness back into the Scooby franchise, something that "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" and the 2001-2007 made-for-video Scooby movies completely avoided.
(Even the original "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?" had quite a bit of creepiness in it, too.)However, now it's on to reviewing the actual movie itself.
Even though this was probably the umpteenth time they did a Scooby-Doo story that revolves around Halloween (such as "The Headless Horseman of Halloween," "To Switch a Witch," "A Scooby-Doo Halloween" and many others), I still enjoyed it, mainly because Halloween is my favorite holiday!
I guess that proves not all real supernatural creatures in this movie have to be bad!
The real ghouls and dark setting helped bring this movie up to "Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost" level.
As far as voices go, we still have the same voice cast from "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" and the other past made-for-video movies.
Frank Welker has improved a little on his Scooby-Doo voice.
It's starting to sound less like Brain from "Inspector Gadget" and more like Scott Innes's Scooby-Doo voice!
It seems Mindy Cohn's Velma voice changed a little, and Grey DeLisle's Daphne voice hasn't changed a bit since 2001.
The music is pretty good, too, with a bit of lively musical numbers by the monsters!
At that part it seemed to remind me of "Scooby-Doo and the Boo Brothers." As far as the sound effects go, they haven't changed them much since 1998.
They only use the classic H-B sound effects for exaggerated comedy scenes with Scooby, Shaggy, the goblin guards and Krudsky the Magician, similar to when Warner Bros.
Animation was making the Cool Cat cartoons for WB/Seven Arts 40 years ago.
And this may be a minor gripe, but the people at WB STILL haven't used the Haunted Castle Thunder sound effect like the classic Scooby-Doo cartoons did!
This annoys me mainly because the crappy "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" series used it, so why not have the made-for-video movies use it?
They're MUCH better than "Get a Clue!" Instead it sounds like they just sent the Foley editor into a real storm to record the thunder.
The characters are thankfully not drawn in that ugly "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" style, and the animation is quite decent, though not as good as the animation in "Zombie Island" and "Witch's Ghost." There are also extensive uses of CGI effects/animation in this movie, which I don't think the previous direct-to-video Scooby movies even attempted!
And as far as the classic character personalities go, Scooby and Shaggy have never changed since 1969.
Daphne did not complain at once about her hair or clothes in this film, and it was nice to see a more intelligent and serious version of Fred again (after dumbing him down in "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" and "What's New, Scooby-Doo?").
Velma fainting at the sight of a real fairy was just hilarious!
I'm surprised she didn't do that at the real monsters in the late-1990s made-for-video movies!
My only main complaint about this movie is that they STILL didn't dedicate any of the recent Scooby-Doo movies, including this one, to Joseph Barbera!
Since he died before this film was even thought up, it would've been nice to dedicate the movie to one of Scooby-Doo's creators.
But nevertheless, they still insisted on using that zooming "1970s Hanna-Barbera" logo at the end, which is still completely inaccurate and has been since 1998, since Warner Bros.
Animation produced the movie, and now that both Bill and Joe are gone, it makes no sense to have another company's logo (even if it's owned by WB) at the end of a WB movie!
Imagine seeing it at the end of a Looney Tunes cartoon of the 1950s, and it'd be just as weird, if not weirder.However, this is admittedly better than the 2004-2007 made-for-video Scooby movies, and it's WAY better than "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue!" I highly recommend this one, especially if you loved the 1998-2001 Scooby-Doo movies!Oh and P.S., the werewolf Scooby-Doo and Shaggy come across when first entering the monster world is AWESOME!.
Scooby and the gang get involved with a phony ghoul of some kind and Velma and Fred solve the case, while Scooby and Shaggy get to be live bait.Then came the live action movies.
They tried but failed to be anything more than actors overshadowed by too many visual effects and stories that much like the old TV show were tedium incarnate.The retooling of the old TV show was an improvement.
What's New Scooby-Doo was bold enough to play with conventions and actual decent animation.
The monsters are real!
There's no unmasking and Fred, Daphne and especially Velma are kept off screen for much of the running time.
Jay Leno (actually funny here) as a pumpkin.
Tim Curry, as close as a cartoon in live person as you can get and Jim Belushi and his sidekick from According to Jim.The animation assisted by lots of CGI makes you head hurt but the voice talent elevate this from being a total dud.
Well first off let me say this was by far one of the best Scooby Doo cartoon adventures I have ever seen.
From beginning to end I was smiling being a long time fan of Scooby Doo I'm always excited to see what the next movie will bring, and this time around I was definitely not disappointed.Scooby and the gang are enjoying a wonderful Halloween night at a Halloween carnival filled with exciting rides with a few scares thrown in.
After Scooby is denied entry into a magic show Shaggy and Scooby decide to take it upon themselves to show that this magician is a fraud.
It is now up to Shaggy and Scooby to save humanity from this evil magician before he sets forth dire and irreversible circumstances.The storyline this Scooby Doo movie follows is filled with non stop excitement, action, laughs and just pure old fashion fun.
Shaggy and Scooby must travel to the super natural world to retrieve the Goblin Kings magical wand before it gets into the hands of the amazing Krudsky.
Along the way we are met with funny characters, catchy songs and a story that will keep you interested until the end and begging for more.
The only thing I wish there could have been of was good plot twists, there was only one twist at the very end of the film which was an OK twist but could have been a bit more interesting.
I also like the fact that this movie returns to the use of real monsters and that it travels to the supernatural world, it just made this adventure that much more fun and exciting.I must say, by far the best part of this Scooby Doo adventure was the all star voice cast.
This one has everyone such as the regulars: Frank Welker as Scooby Doo and Fred, Casey Kasem as Shaggy, Mindy Cohn as Velma and Grey Delisle as Daphne who all do an amazing job as their characters as usual.
On top of the regular cast we are gifted with the likes of: Wayne Knight as The Amazing Krudsky, Wallace Shawn as Mr. Gibbles, Jay Leno...yes I said Jay Leno as Jack O' Lantern, Tim Curry as the Goblin King and even James Belushi as Glob, who all do such a wonderful job which just makes this Scooby Doo adventure shine.So if you're a Scooby Doo fan or you are just looking for a good Halloween movie to enjoy with your kids this is the movie for you, from the great comedy to the great voice talents, it is a movie for all ages and is defiantly worth watching.Overall Rating: ********* out of ********** ****1/2 out of *****.
Although I enjoy most Scooby Doo films, this one is not on the list.
The movie is also extremely confusing, such as when Scooby and Shaggy are driven to the graveyard.
The caretaker ends up being a werewolf, but you would think they were still in the human world.
Back in the real world, with Velma dramatically passing out, Fred and Daphne have to free the fairy, which isn't a very promising combination.
The characters are VERY creepy and at times frightening.
One particular scene was when Shaggy and Scooby encounter the three witches in the hut.
They don't grab my attention, but seem too adult for the movie, which never works good with Scooby Doo. The movie also has TREMENDOUSLY dark moments, such as when the Great Krudski begins to harness his power.
He belongs more in an actual horror movie than this.
He is like a perverted best Friend's dad: Creepy, annoying, and scary.
Although it is supposedly scary, the fantasy elements do not help the movie whatsoever.
The only positive review I have for the movie is the pumpkin.
Sadly, even he cannot bring the movie up from it's very deep hole. |
tt0027938 | The Man Who Changed His Mind | Dr. Laurience (Karloff), a once-respectable scientist, begins to research the origins of the mind and soul in an isolated manor house, aided only by the promising surgeon Clare Wyatt (Lee) and a wheelchair-using confederate named Clayton (Donald Calthrop). The scientific community rejects his theories and Laurience risks losing everything for which he has worked so obsessively. To save his research, Laurience (pronounced "Lorenz") begins to use his discoveries in brain transference for his own nefarious purposes, replacing the mind of philanthropist Lord Haslewood (Frank Cellier) with the personality of the crippled, caustic Clayton. With Lord Haslewood's wealth and prestige at his command, Laurience becomes an almost unstoppable mad scientist.
Despite a powerful patron and a state-of-the-art laboratory, chain-smoking Laurience remains the typical absent-minded professor, with eraser dust on the back of his wrinkled jacket, and in constant, desperate need of a strong hairbrush. However, he is not immune to the feminine charms of the lovely Dr. Wyatt. He attempts to take control of the body of Lord Haslewood's handsome son Dick (John Loder) in an effort to seduce Clare, but finds it impossible to disguise his own strange physicality even in the body of another man. Nor can he go without a cigarette in front of Clare although he is aware that young Dick Haslewood never smoked. Unfortunately, before transferring his mind with that of Dick, Laurience strangled Clayton, who was inhabiting the body of Lord Haslewood, so that Dick, afterwards a prisoner in Laurience's own body, would be hanged for the murder of the man presumed to be his father.
Realizing the truth, Clare and her friend Dr. Gratton (Cecil Parker) return Laurience's mind to its proper body, but that body has been badly broken in a panicked fall out of a high window, taken while Dick Haslewood was in unwilling possession. Admitting he has wasted an incredible invention on a selfish and murderous scheme, the shattered Laurience tells Clare he should never have meddled with the human soul. He takes his knowledge to the grave, having changed his mind for the last time. | comedy, revenge, suspenseful, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | It may be shorter and far less grandiose than Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932), and especially Bride of Frankenstein (1935), but it touches on many of the same themes as the Frankenstein films while allowing his Karloff his turn in the role of a mad doctor.Karloff is Dr. Laurience, a well known neuroscientist who had a reputation for being brilliant but whom we learn has developed a reputation as an off-his-rocker quack in the last few years.
As The Man Who Changed His Mind opens, we meet the charming young Dr. Clare Wyatt (Anna Lee).
Everyone warns her not to go, especially Wyatt's boyfriend/fiancé-hopeful Dick Haslewood (John Loder), a budding reporter who works for the newspapers owned by his father, Lord Haslewood (Frank Cellier).Wyatt is determined and a bit stubborn.
Wyatt soon learns why Laurience has a questionable reputation--he's been experimenting with siphoning off the mind, or the "soul", as he calls it, from monkeys by using sophisticated scientific equipment.
What will be the result of the experiments?Director Robert Stevenson, whose career interestingly went from hard-boiled genre films to serious dramas before he finally settled into almost exclusively directing live-action Disney classics throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, engenders a thematic and atmospheric kinship to the early 1930s Universal horror classics in the earliest moments of The Man Who Changed His Mind.
Dracula features a similar journey at the beginning, even if the surface mechanisms involved in the conflict there are not scientific, but bureaucratic, centering on a real estate deal.The Man Who Changed His Mind, like the Frankenstein films, uses "gobbledy-gooky" contraptions to fuel its bizarre metaphysics.
The script also has more biting humor than one might expect, but you have to listen closely to make sure you do not miss some of the odder and more scathing jokes.As it is heavy on dialogue and light on environment changes and things like special effects (aside from the Frankenstein devices), films like this must ultimately succeed or fail on the performances.
Donald Calthrop is excellent as a feisty quadriplegic, and Cellier does a fantastic job in a demanding role that requires drastic changes of character.If there's a flaw, it's merely that the short running time makes the film feel a bit lighter than it should.
I had read in Michael Weldon's "Psychotronic Encyclopedia" that "The Man Who Changed His Mind" was a seldom-seen Karloff film that was considered to be quite excellent, but until last night had never seen it before.
Anna Lee, who would costar with Karloff again 10 years later in the 1946 picture "Bedlam," is excellent (and beautiful) here as Karloff's assistant, and the actor Frank Cellier almost steals the film as the lord and publisher who receives the mind of Karloff's wheelchair-bound helper.
And in light of these factors, it's an amazingly effective and enjoyable film.Boris Karloff plays a mad scientist--this is certainly no great stretch.
In particular, when Karloff's evil and physically twisted assistant changes bodies with the rich philanthropic newspaper owner, I found myself laughing repeatedly because the writers for the film deliberately injected some levity into the horror plot.
Frank Cellier and Donald Calthrop are great as well, but Boris Karloff comes off best in one of his best ever performances, when he's on screen you cannot look away from him.
To conclude, it is a shame that The Man Who Changed His Mind is seldom seen, it's not perfect but Karloff's performance especially makes for a film that I found myself enjoying a lot.
Dr. Laurience (Boris Karloff) creates an invention that can transpose the mind of one person to the body of another.
A very rich man Lord Haslewood (Frank Cellier) finances Dr. Laurience's experiments.
Finally he shares his secret with his beautiful assistant, Clare(Anne Lee) who appeared with Karloff in "Bedlam" who lives in London at the age of 90 years.
Long before some of our favourite classic horror films were ever invented there was The Brainsnatcher (The Man Who Changed His Mind).
Boris Karloff gives off a brilliant performance as a mad scientist and is aided by great performances by Anna Lee, Brian Pawley and Donald Calthrop.
"There's always something queer about a genius," argues brainy and beautiful young doctor Anna Lee; she is leaving the medical establishment—and ditching her handsome boyfriend—to join exiled former colleague Boris Karloff, whose brilliant past work has been recently overshadowed by his pursuit of ideas and research just a little too weird.
What's most interesting about THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS MIND is that it is not as much science fiction as it is an observation of what we might today call the "PR machine," and it takes some lacerating swipes at journalism, publicity and self-promotion.Karloff is Dr. Laurience, a reclusive scientist who believes he can transfer the consciousness (or soul?) from one brain to another.
Before the dust settles, Haslewood feels swindled, Clare feels suspicious and Laurience feels used, vowing to employ his work to his own ends rather than for the benefit of mankind.Boris' performance is exuberant, and supporting players Anna Lee, John Loder and Donald Calthrop are effective, but Frank Cellier, as Lord Haslewood, walks away with the picture whenever he is on screen.
Without giving too much away, let's just say that Cellier is called upon to portray more than one personality, and provides the film with its most enjoyable scenes.THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS MIND definitely has its moments, along with a little something to say.
Boris Karloff plays Dr. Laurience (pronounced Lorenz), a brilliant scientist working on a mind-transference machine.
The increasingly unstable Laurience can't have that so he uses his machine to switch Haslewood's mind with that of crippled Clayton.Wonderful British sci-fi horror film that is not well-known today but is one of Karloff's best mad scientist movies.
Frank Cellier is also very good, especially after Clayton's mind has taken over Lord Haslewood's body.
Boris Karloff plays the title character, who figures out a way to switch people's brains, but gets rejected by the scientific community.
I am a huge Boris Karloff fan so i try to watch every movie he was in and i recently seen this mini masterpiece on the internet archives.and also stars one of my favorite British actresses;Anna Lee who i thought was an awesome and beautiful presence.well Karloff is at his best as a mad scientist conducting illegal experiments first on chimps then of course to people,it has something to do with mind and soul transference,kind of sci fi.its pretty bizarre.Boris Karloff did this little gem for the same British studio that made the ghoul also a Karloff film,this was made in 1936 so he did this while he was still on universals contract,between the black cat and son of Frankenstein.if your a fan of Boris Karloff and sci fi then i totally recommend this movie.Boris Karloff was the king of horror,and was an awesome actor.he should've won an academy award for some of the films he did.I'm giving this gem 10 out of 10..
Star Boris Karloff's second British horror film, following THE GHOUL (1933), proves a more satisfying vehicle and quite an underrated (if minor) classic; apart from director Stevenson (later to helm some of the Walt Disney studio's most popular live-action films), its imposing credentials include producer Michael Balcon (one of the most influential in British cinema) and co-screenwriters John L.
Balderston (a genre fixture who had worked on some of Hollywood's finest entries) and Sidney Gilliat (later a Hitchcock collaborator and an important film-maker in his own right, often teamed with Frank Launder)!Production-wise, it's a modest effort mostly confined to studio interiors but one which, in its brief running-time, exhibits both style and substance in a gripping (if familiar) plot line that manages to encompass drama, comedy, romance, chills and suspense!
In fact, the star's 'mad scientist' character here (named Laurience but pronounced Lorenz!) was the second in a string of similar roles he played from 1936-1942; I've only watched the first two and the last one but I have two more coming up tomorrow and the day after, while the rest will be released as part of Columbia's Karloff set next month!
Anyway, he's excellent as always driven, menacing or poignant as the situation demands but he's ably supported by a wonderful British cast: Anna Lee (the director's own wife and with whom Karloff would reteam, memorably, in Hollywood in the Val Lewton-produced BEDLAM [1946]), John Loder, Frank Cellier, Cecil Parker and especially Donald Calthrop; the latter almost manages to steal the show with his crippled and cynical doctor's assistant, whose brain is then put into Cellier's body: the scenes where he tries to act up his new persona provide some delightful and unexpected moments of black comedy!
Obviously, this is NOT what this early collaboration between horror veteran Boris Karloff and the respectable director Robert Stevenson is about.
A wonderful little horror/science fiction oddity, featuring newly-crowned horror king Boris Karloff in a deliciously over-the-top performance as a mad scientist performing illegal experiments.
Clayton is Dr. Laurience's wheelchair bound assistant and the only person that knows the doctor's experiments actually work outside of one woman,Dr. Clare Wyatt, that begins to believe Dr. Laurience but can she stop him on time?
Boris Karloff has come up with a mechanism for transferring the minds, the souls of two beings.
When the scientists walk out on his lecture, and newspaper magnate Frank Cellier ends his funding and claims his work, he goes a bit barmy, and proceeds to swap the minds of Calthrop and Cellier.It sounds like a Universal creepy-crawly directed by James Whale.
While "The Man Who Changed His Mind" of 1936 may not be as brilliant as the most essential masterpieces starring Karloff (such as "Frankenstein", "Bride Of Frankenstein", "The Mummy" or "The Black Cat"), it is doubtlessly a terrific example for both Karloff's genius, and for the variety of innovative ideas that dominated the Horror industry in the 30s.Karloff plays the eccentric Dr. Laurience, who is dedicated to the idea of separating the mind from the body, and transferring it to other bodies.
The chain-smoking Dr. Laurience alone is a character as eccentric and interesting as only the good old days in Horror, and Karloff is, as always, brilliant in the role.
Anna Lee plays Clare, a young female scientist, and aspiring assistant to Laurience.
Overall, "The Man Who Changed His Mind" is a wonderful film for everyone who appreciates Classic Horror that comes with my highest recommendations!.
The thirties was, without doubt, one of the golden ages for the horror genre; you've got all the classics that are still iconic to this day with films like Dracula, King Kong and Frankenstein, and then you've also got a core of overlooked yet excellent films such as Mad Love, Island of Lost Souls and this one; The Man Who Changed His Mind.
Disheartened, the once upstanding and honest doctor decides that it's about time he started looking out for number one; and uses his invention for personal gain.The film stars horror icon Boris Karloff, and Karloff is, as always, excellent in the lead role.
The story that is sprung from the base concept is really well done too; the film only runs for just over sixty minutes so obviously there isn't a great deal of time to explore too much, but the plot we do get it witty and entertaining, and certainly ensures that The Man Who Changed His Mind is a fun film to watch.
The supporting cast, which includes Anna Lee, Cecil Parker, Frank Cellier and John Loder all fit into their respective roles well and that helps to make The Man Who Changed His Mind satisfying on the whole.
Boris Karloff returned to Great Britain for a few films, this one The Man Who Lived Again being one of them.
Literally taking the experiences imprinted on our gray matter and with some mad scientist type equipment putting two animals or two men as it were and exchanging all the life experiences that sum up a human being and swapping it with another's experiences.He's even impressed young doctor Anna Lee with his genius, but she runs when she learns the nature of his experiments.
There are good supporting roles from John Loder, Frank Cellier and Donald Calthrop.The production valves were reasonably good with its art and set direction, especially that of the doctor's laboratory.
Where this print or negative was found, I don't know, but I do know that I'm ecstatic over it!WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW!!!Boris Karloff is EXCELLENT as Dr. Laurience, a scientist trying to get the scientific community to accept his process of transferring "thought content" from one brain to another, ostensibly to preserve the knowledge and personality gained over a lifetime instead of leaving it to rot with the body after life has expired.
Coupled with the rejection of his romantic advances by his lovely assistant Clare, this, in the time-honored tradition of horror and sci-fi stories, proceeds to send the doctor over the edge...Boris Karloff manages to make his character by turns likable, detestable, frightening, and sympathetic, according to the demands of the story; at all times he is believable and utterly compelling.
Anna Lee, as Dr. Clare Wyatt, the good doctor's assistant, makes for an intelligent, sophisticated, well-dressed, and above all luscious damsel-in-distress.
But it was the 30s and it was Great Britain, so I'll let it slide.This early "mind switch" movie has a great performance from Karloff (which is no surprise) and also from two of the supporting actors (one playing a wheelchair bound paralytic, the other the lead actress' father and millionaire crusading publisher).
This isn't to say that everyone isn't fine in "Man", just that the nature of these three parts means that a) they get all the best lines, and b) they all get to play each other (what with the mind transplants and all).The director keeps things moving and the scenes stay energetic and snappy, the black and white photography makes the sets look moody and interesting.
Although this Gaumont-British film presentation is neither as memorable nor sentimental as "The Ape," future "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" director Robert Stevenson's "The Man Who Changed His Mind" with Boris Karloff still qualifies as a taut, entertaining tale about a stereotypical mad scientist who harnesses the power of electricity to swap the minds of two separate individuals.
The theme of "The Man Who Changed His Mind" is about man playing God. Karloff's mad scientist begins with the best motives but after society scorns him, he turns evil and wants to alter things to satisfy himself rather than mankind.
Karloff's performance is sterling, and "The Man Who Changed His Mind" boasts an outstanding supporting cast, including John Loder, Anna Lee, Frank Cellier, and Donald Calthrop.
Dr. Gratton (Cecil Parker of "The Saint's Vacation") observes to Dr. Clare Wyatt (Anna Lee of "King Solomon Mines") with an air of finality, "Well, that's the last time we shall operate together." Clare is leaving the hospital to join Viennese brain specialist Dr. Laurience (Boris Karloff) out in the boondocks at his manor house to assist him with his eccentric experiments.
Newspaper baron Lord Haslewood (Frank Cellier of "The 39 Steps") likes the story and wants to finance Laurience's research since scientific success is front page news.
A British newspaper mogul bankrolls his research, only to find his mind exchanged for the mad doctor's crippled lab assistant.Karloff's performance is what makes this movie.
Boris Karloff, three years after making The Ghoul, returned to England to make this intelligent and interesting horror/sci-fi chiller.
The sci-fi is very much to the fore (probably to placate the notoriously sensitve British Film Censor), as Karloff's Dr. Laurience experiments with mind-exchange.Karloff chain-smokes throughout, which actually leads to a clever plot reveal towards the end.
Anna Lee also features, and was to later star with Karloff in Val Lewton's Bedlam (1946).A stylish piece, suprisingly glamorous-looking for a British studio from this era, and well worth a watch..
Thanks to the experiments of scientist Boris Karloff, the minds of living creatures can be changed.
Pretty assistant Anna Lee has a great deal of respect for him (at first), until he goes off on a room full of scientists, indicating that he is mad.
We get that through the clever use of special effects, and this leads to twists and turns that makes this film extremely powerful.Karloff's character is pretty much the same as he has been in many films, most obviously "The Man They Could Not Hang" and "Before I Hang".
As for Lee, it was one of two films in which she co-starred with Karloff, the other being the Val Lewton cult classic, "Bedlam".
Until the climax, in fact, the best thing about the movie are Boris Karloff's studiously mannered, theatrically nervous performance (director Robert Stevenson indulges him with lots and lots of close-ups) and Donald Calthrop's unnerving study of a twisted, wheel-chaired patient.
Being a British film there does seem a slight lack of budget and perhaps that little bit of something that is exclusive to Hollywood studios is missing but director Robert Stevenson - who'd later make some very memorable Walt Disney films in the 1960s and 70s - makes the best of what he's got and Karloff is a good asset and never goes camp or over the top unlike in the 1933 British horror flick THE GHOUL It's interesting that Dr Laurience was previously working in Genoa but had to leave for undisclosed reasons .
On a similar matter Lord Haslewood must be based upon Lord Beaverbrook and again I thought this was going to lead to a subtext about one man having too much power but being a mad scientist plot the film concerns itself with concept and plotting As for the plotting it's a strange mix of good and bad . |
tt0478126 | Cthulhu | When young history professor Russ is called upon by his sister to execute their late mother's estate, he is reunited with boyhood friend Mike, and with his father, the charismatic leader of a New Age cult. While exploring his memories, Russ wanders into a warehouse where hundreds of names are listed on the walls. As he sleeps that night, he dreams of a stone cudgel and awakens to find a cudgel (with the word Dagon written on it) in his motel room; the town drunk warns him that it is an instrument of sacrifice. A young liquor store clerk enlists him to help find her brother, whom she believes has been taken by the cult. Russ's aunt, who has been living in an asylum, tells him that his mother left a message hidden in her house.
Looking for answers in the warehouse, Russ is taken on an unbelievable journey through the small town's ancient, subterranean origins. When he escapes, he and Mike find the girl's brother murdered. Russ begins to believe preparations are underway for a mass sacrifice, and engages the attentions of a seductress in order to obtain information. He is raped and arrested for murder on the eve of the May Festival. The stakes are raised when Russ discovers that the cult intends to take over the world by raising anthropomorphic creatures from the sea.
Russ is shown his children, presumably gilled Deep Ones swimming in a bath. The film ends with Russ and his best friend/lover being held by the cult, as Russ' father orders him to choose between the man he loves and the life he has been called to lead in his father's church. | cult, flashback | train | wikipedia | I really wanted to like this, especially with the glut of direct to video adaptations of Lovecraft stories (Beyond the Wall of Sleep etc) that are essentially student project level non-movies.
It owes more to The Shadow Over Innsmouth than anything, and unfortunately that world was already realized in far better (yet still in woefully inadequate) fashion in "Dagon." To someone who loves Lovecraft as much as I, it's rather insulting this film is called "Cthulhu." There are ideas the writer and director were far more interested in, such as the main character's confused sexuality, than anything written by Lovecraft.
You will also let down legions of HPL fans because once again someone has made a film that seems to think it's own very uninteresting and pedestrian ideas have any place mixed in with the cosmic horror of Lovecraft.
And worse, viewers who don't know HPL will once again be left with the opinion that "Gee, I guess he wasn't that good a writer." And with this sad example, you can probably add "Was Lovecraft gay?" to those questions..
The Thing That Should Not Be. This is a terrible adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." The acting was weak, the direction was weak, and the original content has been butchered.
If you want to see a film based on "Shadow Over Innsmouth," Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" is mediocre, but it's certainly better than this botched attempt.
I'm a big fan of the Cthulu mythos, and the preview actually looked pretty good.Unfortunately, this is yet another disappointing release from HERE TV.The frustrating thing is that the movie almost works.
There are a lot of wonderfully creepy little details: the bizarre check out girl who passes the protagonist a warning note, the strange kids saying "I knew you'd be back", the crazy things being reported on the news.Unfortunately, the film never really gels.
About half way though the film, the plot breaks down almost completely and weird random events seem to take over everything.The film was at least mildly interesting in a "what sort of weird stuff will they throw out next" sort of way, but never really worked as a story.Cinematography varies from some very nice shots of the ocean to some very amateurish hand held stuff..
Unique and creative camera work establish the drama in more ways than the actors themselves, but a sever lack of music during several key points of the film does little to keep audience's attention during dialog heavy scenes.
Or, maybe, you just need someone out there who actually wants to make a movie about the Cthulhu Mythos, and not just stick a big "Cthulu was here" sticker on a homosexual love story.
If you're looking for extremely bad acting and a long-winded introduction to the political views and sexuality of the director, this is your film!
The editing makes a point of destroying your last chance of actually getting involved in the story and understanding what goes on from one scene to the next, uncomprehensible flashbacks and dream sequences included.
And I am of the opinion that "Cthulhu" provides both cerebral and visceral fun.Yes, the film takes some liberties with Lovecraft's work.
By, among other things, having a flashback of two teenage boys jacking off together under a pier.On the other hand the movie is creepy from time to time when the entire town except him seems to be part of the cult but it is ruined by changing the focus to homosexual exploration as soon as it started to catch my interest.Avoid at all cost.
It doesn't take off until the second act, really -- when Tori Spelling (who actually steals her scenes in a supporting role) shows up on screen, oddly enough, things start to get good.
The best way to describe CTHULHU is "Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Shadow Over Innsmouth." It's a very deliberately-paced movie with long, moody takes and an emphasis on character drama.
People expecting gore and monsters will be disappointed, but art-house horror fans and David Lynch lovers will be in pure bliss.H.P. fanatics will argue the merits of this one, but the filmmakers are the first to nail the bizarre fever-dream aspect of Lovecraft's writings.
And while this is a very loose adaptation, there are plenty of nods to the Cthluhu mythos to keep fans happy.The acting is a little uneven and there are times when the movie feels TOO disjointed, but this cerebral effort is still the closest we've come to seeing true Lovecraft captured on film.
I live in Seattle so was interested in the film as a homegrown project, but it's a great movie, and not just because it comes from my neck of the woods.
What we see is chaos, through the vision of people who simply end up in the wrong ally at the wrong time, swept by the waves into the most sinister of maelstroms, sucking you deeper and deeper into madness, until the total epiphany of a psychosis takes one step forward, only to have your protagonist hang himself to one unresolved suicide, with scribbled notes of cultists and watching eyes of the Deep Ones.This is Cthulhu, a world that never ceases to twist ones mind into a reality not recognizable from the first.In truth, Cthulhu 2007 is NOT a bad movie, per se.
To fans of Lovecraft, it's certainly a stretch with all the chants, cults, and Cthulhu, all regarded with a very slight read-up on what these books really had in mind, which to me as a small fan appears a bit weak.However, from a more romanticized view, this movie creates a tale of describing nature, and actually captures the origin pretty good.
The very thin love story has actually caught good interest, and renders decent quality, not with any unnecessary thwarts here and there, just plain and simple, and like the movie, it takes itself seriously.
Again, it did not bare the same familiar being to the original, but it has it's own perspective, and in regard to storytelling and emotional value, it holds up very good.All in all, this movie is not like the books, only with pieces it introduces fright, but it poses itself from a different angle, a more human modern way, and as it reflects upon the book, I'd say it's a good tribute to Lovecrafts work.The actual best part of this experience is that it leaves me with that exact feeling I'd hoped for, NOTHING is explained, only that there's a cult, strange creatures, and the sea.
The connection gets pretty vague, as Cthulhu is sometimes pronounced wrong, the language of the deep ones could've had more ambitious work, and all in all, reading the books should've been a greater study to really execute the presentation of the movies source.It could be looked upon as a different starting point within the same universe, or an inspirational version of it's forefather (more like their own version).As a movie, and compared to Cthulhu, I can say I did enjoy it.
I feel sorry for the guys that produced this, because it seems like they made a massive loss.In my view, having read most of HPL's stuff and in particular recently re-read "A shadow out of Innsmouth", I must say that this is a really good adaptation of the book.
The story felt stretched and a bit convoluted, and the title is misleading since the movie has virtually nothing to do with Cthulhu, but I feel like I have to give props to the director for making the film he made.
Some reviewers have complained that the plot of this movie bears little resemblance to Lovecraft's original story, and perhaps they're right.
The film's presentation of a decayed, decadent sea-port is a good match for Lovecraft's, despite being set in a different era.Making the main character gay was an inspired idea.
The only human intimacy in the whole movie is between men, and that's still sufficiently unusual in mainstream cinema to be slightly shocking -- as, I imagine, Lovecraft's thinly-veiled references to sexuality would have been shocking to his own readers.I would have rated this film more highly if it had been technically more competent.
I appreciate that it's a low-budget offering, but in some places the dialogue cannot be heard over the background music, and some scenes are so badly-lit that it was hard to figure out what was happening.If you expect Cthulhu to be a faithful adaptation of Lovecraft, you'll be disappointed.
Viewing it as a weird, intense, story of unhappy people in a run-down town, loosely inspired by Lovecraft's prose and characters, is a whole lot more rewarding..
I'm a gay man, and a huge Lovecraft fan, and I loved this film.
The script is good- spare and well-paced, the sexual content is subtle (my mom could handle this movie just fine) and while yes, it's in no way shape or form an adaptation of any Lovecraft story per se (it has the most in common with "Shadow over Innsmouth," and even that is pretty tangential) it certainly has a lot of influence from Lovecraft, and the film-makers stay very true to the spirit and atmosphere of his stories.Do not believe the detractors: this film is both a good horror film, and a good gay movie: both are rare, even rarer when combined (in fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of another good gay horror movie out there and I see a lot of movies).
Don't have expectations: just see the film and appreciate it for what it is (a gloomy, cynical little horror story), not what you think it's supposed to be..
In all the discussions and comments about all the previous movies based on Lovecraft stories and ideas, I've never seen anyone raise the topic of sexuality.
Others--I'm tempted to say the more honest ones--are just upset about the filmmakers daring to introduce a gay character into Lovecraft's world.In most of his stories, the *gender* of the protagonist isn't even disclosed.
While I think actually she makes a perfect visual representation of a Lovecraftian horror, at the same time, she's one of those people that you instantly and only think of as being that person, not the character they are playing (like say, Mr. T or David Hasselhoff).
OK, I'm a long-time reader of H.P. Lovecraft, and I'll admit I have been disappointed again and again with film adaptations of his works.
I've been a fan Lovecraft for over 20 years now, and have read all of his stories and seen almost all the movies based upon his work.
The settings are good(a gay main character is an interesting twist) and the filmmakers manage to make the movie look creepy in few placesBut...the bad things are too many to ignore.
Oh hell.The worst thing about this movie wasn't the sometimes really bad acting, not the tendency to always follow the rule "when not knowing what to do with the story, throw in a weird montage" or even the lack of an actual plot line.
HP Lovecraft seems to suffer from the eternal legacy of amateur fools attempting to make his works as Z-movies, of which 'Cthulhu' definitely falls into, and that is a shame as the original source material is so strong.
There are very few movies based on Lovecraft's work that surpasses your average B horror movie, and in this case, even though the movie itself looks and feels nothing like a B horror movie, it actually suffers more from it.We are introduced to Professor Russ Marsh, a homosexual.
Him being gay does tie in with the story, but not to such an extent that the film makers should be forced to remind us of his orientation every five minutes, which is the case in this movie.
The bad acting seems to be the hallmark of Rivermouth county, and with the exception of Russ's childhood friend and soon-to-be lover Mike, the cast's performance ranges from mediocre to dismal.Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Insmouth is picked apart and shuffled freely as the plot unfolds, and it seemed to me that all the good parts from the story were missing.
The Shadow Over Insmouth had several set pieces that have been included in previous adaptations, so I can forgive the screenwriter for not including them, but the bits that are there are so few and far between that you never feel the presence of the Mythos, and you certainly don't feel that you're watching a film based off of a Lovecraft story.Connecting global calamities like the melting of the polar caps and the war in the Middle East to the Cthulhu Mythos is a nice touch, but it is never delved into, and feels almost like the movie taking a five minute break while bombarding us with stock footage.
Not much of it is actually borne out on film though because that would, like, cost money, although the budget was big enough to include one overturned car.Russ turns out to be gay, which is fine by him, but not so fine with his weird dysfunctional family.
The movie is tangentially related to H.P. Lovecraft's horror stories wherein Cthulhu apparently is a pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings.
Unfortunately, this one sinks like dead weight.Cthulhu then comes across as something like a Coen Brothers movie if the brothers were drunk while making the film.
P. Lovecrafts "The call of Cthulhu" i got so excited thinking that this was going to actually follow that story.
And now this movie completely ignores that aspect - which is like betraying Lovecraft, n regard to using the name Cthulhu as the film's title.I am sure the director and the producer of this film are not trying to exploit the Lovecraft fans but unfortunately that's what it comes down to.
Thought rife with Lovecraft references and drawing heavily on The Shadow over Innsmouth this film isn't really a Lovecraft movie.
And finally some good acting, while it may be hard to imagine how a fish person is going to act at the end of the world the main actors did some fantastic performances, especially (to my happy surprise) Tori Spelling.The film despite some press to the otherwise isn't overtly anti Bush, anti Religion or overly Gay. The film also doesn't try an tie up everything neatly for you, So if you like to think when you go to the movies and don't need your movies explained to you you might really like this film.It gets extra points for being the first film of the Director, and independently filmed and produced in the NorthWest, but i would have loved this film even if it was a Hollywood film.
I felt empathy with the main character, and think he did an outstanding job, and will look forward to seeing him in other movies.What if the world you know, is not what it seems, a world you thought you left behind but now it's bringing you back.
Given the set-up, I would imagine the protagonist and sister to have spent a LOT more time together, or at least that time to be much more emotional.In general, I had no massive problem with the film in that I have certainly seen worse Lovecraft adaptations and much worse acting.
It is ultimately worth watching, but as a Lovecraft fan there are other films I would get to first..
Framed for the boys murder Russ is arrested for on the night of the May Festival, Trapped in a cell the stakes are raised - maybe higher than the world has ever known.This is a thought provoking, terror inspiring movie with enough humor and human drama to satisfy those who like good film and great acting..
Nor does it happen in the Lovecraft Story this movie is based on.
Yes.But it also succeeds as a spooky movie, and really conveys a wonderfully creepy atmosphere with its beautiful cinematography and interesting directing and acting choices.One thing I really respect about Cthulhu is the decision to make the central character a gay man.
Rest assured this film never lets its hero's sexual orientation get in the way of the story.For that matter, it doesn't even get in the way of the hero winding up in a sex scene with Tori Spelling.With a name like Cthulhu, some folks might be disappointed by the lack of tentacle-faced, ancient, alien-monster-gods in this film, but there really weren't any monsters in the Lovecraft story upon which it's based, other than the creepy townsfolk themselves.I'd love to see the people responsible for this film make more Lovecraft-inspired movies, and perhaps reveal some squid-like, fishy-monsters in one of those, but that's probably too much to hope for..
I thought it was one of the very few SERIOUS cinematic approaches to Lovecraft's work brought to our modern times.I honestly don't understand all the hate against this movie.
You'd think, with so many "Lovecraft fans" out there, they would see how well this movie translated that to the big screen.
But I didn't feel like it *needed* it either.With all the trash out there that craps all over Lovecraft's vision, any true fan or at least, REASONABLE person, would be grateful for this movie.
That is why they are so "weird," and for their time (and even our own) so uniquely interesting.The Shadow Over Innsmouth is just such a story, and the chief weakness of this movie is the filming locations aren't consistently decadent enough to capture the mood of its inspiration.
The main character is Gay, but there isn't a this is a film for gay people feel to it.
But I love the stories of Lovecraft, unfortunately judging from the horrible profits this movie made, I don't think there will be a sequel..
Obviously after listening to the commentary on the DVD the budget did not allow many sfx ,perhaps working to the films advantage, but delivers in other ways and has some nice suspense and overall is well worth a look for any Lovecraft fan. |
tt0028505 | Wife vs. Secretary | Magazine publisher Van Stanhope (Clark Gable) and his wife, Linda, (Myrna Loy) are celebrating their third wedding anniversary. They are very much in love and Van gives Linda a diamond bracelet. However, Van's secretary, the beautiful Helen "Whitey" Wilson (Jean Harlow), is thought by Van's mother (May Robson) to be a temptation to Van. Linda refuses to listen to all of her friends and Van's mother as she trusts Van. In truth, she has all the reason in the world to trust him, as his relationship with Whitey is strictly business.
Meanwhile, Whitey's beau, Dave (James Stewart), is very uncomfortable about her relationship with Van as he calls one night while they're having dinner to ask that Whitey help him finish work at a party. When Dave asks Whitey to marry him, Whitey refuses, and buries herself further in her work.
When Van has to be very secretive to buy J. D. Underwood's (George Barbier) weekly, for fear that his rival will buy it instead, only Whitey is permitted to know, providing still more conflict between Van and his wife.
When Van returns from his business meeting with Underwood, and tells Linda that he has been at the club all day, Linda discovers that he has not been at the club but rather has been out with Whitey, who was merely helping him prepare for his discussion with Underwood. At a skating party, Linda is too sick to skate. As Van and Whitey skate together, Linda hears from one of the wives there that Van and Whitey are most likely having an affair. When Linda and Van get into the car, they fight when Linda requests that Van have Whitey moved to another employer. Van refuses and Linda ignores him for the rest of the evening until she calls him back to make up.
Van plans a trip for himself and Linda, but when he learns that Underwood is at a conference in Havana, changes his plans and won't permit Linda to accompany him while he works. Whitey learns of important information regarding the rival paper, which results in Van bringing her to Havana to close the deal. While celebrating the successful closing of the deal, they develop a drunken attraction to each other but do not consummate this attraction. When Linda calls at 2 am, Whitey answers the phone, and she assumes they are having an affair.
Van returns to New York only to have Linda ignoring him entirely and asking for a divorce. Lonely, he asks Whitey to accompany him to Bermuda as a friend, which she, having fallen in love with Van, agrees to. But, realizing that Van will never love her as much as he loves Linda, Whitey visits her on the ship that Linda has planned to take to Europe. Whitey challenges her to go back to Van, telling her that she would be a fool to let him go. After resistance, Linda meets him in his office, and they make up. Whitey is then met by Dave, and they make up as well. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt6263850 | Deadpool 3 | The film is presented in a nonlinear narrative, jumping between the present and past. This is a linear summary of the plot.
Wade Wilson, a former special forces operative working as a criminal enforcer, meets a prostitute named Vanessa at a bar. The two develop a relationship, and a year later Wilson proposes marriage. He is then diagnosed with liver, lung, prostate, and brain cancer. Despite Vanessa's love, Wilson dislikes the thought of her watching him waste away, and he leaves her in the middle of the night.
A recruiter, dubbed "Agent Smith" from a covert organization approaches Wilson and promises him abilities that will cure his cancer. Wilson reluctantly agrees. He is taken to a remote laboratory where he meets Ajax and Angel Dust, and instantly hates them. Ajax injects a mutation-activating serum into Wilson and subjects him to daily torture to activate it but Wilson's body fails to respond. Wilson then finds out Ajax's real name is Francis and mocks him. Annoyed, Ajax asphyxiates him in an oxygen chamber, causing him to develop an accelerated healing factor that cures him but leaves him disfigured with burn like scars over his entire body. Ajax reveals to Wilson that he does not actually intend to make him a superhero, but instead will sell him to someone else as a "super slave". Wilson finds a way to escape his confines and destroy the lab. He fights Ajax, but relents when Ajax says that he can repair his appearance. Ajax then impales him with rebar and leaves him for dead in the burning building.
Wilson survives and attempts to return to Vanessa, but is afraid of her reaction to his disfigurement after people on the streets appear to be scared by his appearance. After consulting his best friend Weasel, Wilson begins the task of tracking down Ajax to get the cure. He becomes a masked vigilante, adopts the alter ego "Deadpool", and resides with an elderly blind woman, Al. Following a string of leads after massacring prominent members of Ajax's empire, including Smith, Deadpool tracks Ajax to a convoy on an expressway. He executes the numerous convoy guards, subdues Ajax, and demands the cure to his disfigurement. He is interrupted by Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead. They try to convince him to join the X-Men, and Ajax escapes. Deadpool incapacitates himself trying to fight Colossus. They capture Deadpool, but he escapes by severing his own hand, which later regenerates.
Ajax and Angel Dust go to Weasel's bar and learn about Vanessa. Weasel warns Wilson that she is in danger, and they go to the club where she works to warn her, but Deadpool hesitates. Ajax and Angel Dust abduct Vanessa and tell Wilson to meet them at a decommissioned helicarrier in a scrapyard. Deadpool persuades Colossus and Negasonic to help him rescue Vanessa. They travel to the scrapyard and battle Ajax, Angel Dust, and their team of mercenaries. As Colossus and Negasonic fight Angel Dust, Deadpool kills most of the mercenaries and engages Ajax in hand-to-hand combat atop the helicarrier. Negasonic accidentally destroys the equipment stabilizing the helicarrier during the fight, tipping it and scattering Ajax and Deadpool. As Colossus carries Negasonic and Angel to safety, Deadpool saves Vanessa and incapacitates Ajax. When Deadpool demands that Ajax "repair" him, Ajax laughs and reveals that there is no cure. Deadpool kills Ajax in response, despite Colossus pleading with him not to. Vanessa is initially furious with Wade for abandoning her, but they reconcile after she learns why he did not return.
In a post-credits scene that spoofs Ferris Bueller's Day Off's post-credits scene, Deadpool tells the audience that the film is over and announces a sequel to his film featuring Cable, breaking the fourth wall. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0067409 | Max et les ferrailleurs | Born into a wealthy family of French vintners, Max (Michel Piccoli) is a loner who devoted himself entirely to his obsession: the arrest of criminals. A former judge he is a police inspector and he sees a new band of burglars escape. This failure is still fresh in his mind when he meets Abel who has become a scrap thief and plunders construction sites with a small band of hoodlums around Nanterre. Max plans to encourage them to commit something big and catch them on the spot. Posing as a client, he meets Lily (Romy Schneider), a young German-born prostitute who is the companion of Abel. He pretends to be the director of a small bank branch which receives significant amounts of money at regular intervals. He ensures the support of his police commissioner. Max fails however to reveal his role as instigator. Gradually, some feeling arises between Max and Lily. But Max keeps a reserved attitude and merely influences the scrap through her. Finally, guessing the band ready for action, he communicates an ideal date to commit robbery. On the scheduled day, the police await them and they are arrested. Later in the police station, Rosinsky (the top cop in the bank's district) reveals to Max that he wants all collaborators brought to justice, including Lily. Distraught, Max tries to save her and ends up threatening Rosinsky. In an argument, Max pulls out his gun and kills him. | neo noir, murder | train | wikipedia | Much more than yet another detective yarn..
Excellent crime drama, beautifully underplayed by Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider.
Good story with a beginning, a middle and a surprise ending.
You'll think about this film for days afterwards and want to see it again.
If you love movies, you'll love this one.
It will make you want to see more of Claude Sautet's work.
The brigade of Pre-Pre Crime (cinematheque).
My favorite writer, PKD, has written a short story adapted by my favorite director, SS, where police could arrest criminals before they commit the crime as they could guess it before hand (it's "minority report").
Here, it's even more diabolic: the police can arrest criminals before they commit because they know it will happen because it's the police that inspire the crime.
This Machiavelism is extremely well played by Piccoli as this crazy policeman.
As the best brains in criminals, he builds his web with his colleagues and the poor bunch he has chosen for prey!
The best is that his suggestion power is so amazing that he uses it indirectly, trough the girlfriend of the gang boss, played by our french Marilyn, that is to say Romy Schneider.
Those two iconic actresses have really much in common: their talent, their fragility, their beauty and their tragic fate...
In addition, this movie has now 40 years and i'm amazed how life in France and Paris has changed (and you can Google map rue d'Argonne Paris to see it as well) 1) almost every big brand heard or seen in the movie has disappeared today ("suze", "crédit-lyonnais", "Byrrh", "prisunic"...) 2) this is the last years before computers and electronics and however, the people aren't cavemen, depressed or whatever bad: on contrary, they look more human 3) i can't explain this as i would be labeled as racist.
In addition of being a great thriller, this is also a wonderful love story, one of the kind that I like where the lovers are unable to tell the feeling.
Those two stories run all along the movie and meet beautifully and dramatically in the climax.
In conclusion, a excellent innovative french thriller that has strangely escaped so far any American remake, even if this dark plot from security forces has emerged in books: read for example Forsyth's Avenger where the war on terror is played with the same rules: infiltrate cells and inspire them up to the point they can be stopped....
Lovely noir.
Claude Sautet made some of the finest pictures I have seen, over a period of three decades.
If the script he is shooting is occasionally less than interesting, it remains that Sautet's talent is very great.
He teamed with Romy Schneider on five films, helping her to shed the sex-doll image she had picked up through the Sixties.Max is an obsessed, aging detective who sees life through blinkers.
His colleagues humour him, although one gets the impression they would like to see him pensioned off.
Lily the prostitute he falls for represents the one mistake in his life, if love may be called a mistake.
Sautet gives Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider plenty of room to develop their characters.
There is one virtuoso sequence set in a junk yard in Nanterre, a run-down suburb of Paris: Rozinsky describes with no little humour the lives of some marginals, while Sautet's camera prowls around the site..
The most sustained piece of Work of Sautet in the seventies..
Few people know it,but Claude Sautet was first a film noir connoisseur.His first work,"classes tout risques" was beating Jean -Pierre Melville at his own game;the follow-up ,"l'arme à gauche" ,is difficult to see nowadays ,but if you can ,do not think twice.In the seventies,from "les choses de la vie" onwards,Sautet became the cinema de qualité director .I mean it pejoratively.Whereas "les choses de la vie" remains watchable today ,thanks to a sensational editing,the other works such as "Cesar et Rosalie " "Vincent François Paul et les autres" "Mado" are depicting a bourgeois life ,speaking of people "in danger of despair"(Sautet Dixit) but with an optimism that was almost unbearable in the crisis of the seventies.The screenplays became very loose,without any dramatic progression .You can sum up "Cesar et Rosalie" like this :"Rosalie loves Cesar ,but she also loves David.What will become of her ?":everything taking place in desirable mansions ,what a contemporary critic aptly called " un espace Cardin" This is two-bit psychological drama ,with ponderous symbolism,as "Mado" will confirm with its infuriating scene where the cars get boggeddown in the mud .a critic said then "it's the movie that gets bogged down itself."Max et les ferrailleurs " is a different matter;by combining the film noir side of the two first opus with what will be developed (in a very gauche way) in the "psychological" future films ,Sautet brings it all back home.It stands out as his most sustained piece of work in the seventies.An absolutely intriguing work,with a beautiful Romy Schneider who keeps the audience waiting,only appearing after 30 minutes.Her relationship with cop Piccoli is very shady,sometimes recalling the Fonda/Sutherland one in Pakula's "Klute" :it really stands comparison with it.A wonderful depiction of a popular milieu,in the suburbs of Paris (Nanterre) ,where the secondary characters seem to be out of a Duvivier or a Clouzot work.But it's finally the Jacques Becker spirit Sautet captures here ,and it's really too bad that,after such an interesting movie,he fell into the trap of the academic cinema de qualité..
'Max et les ferrailleurs' - a fascinating overlooked gem.
Undeservedly neglected, 'Max et les ferrailleurs' is one of the most intelligent, splendidly acted and carefully crafted French crime flicks of the 70's.
However, cataloguing it as just another 'crime flick' would be sacrilegious, as it has to offer much more to the patient viewer.Claude Sautet, from what I have gathered, is known for his dealing with the bourgeoisie's turmoils, often depicting complex social dramas in his films.
Prior to watching 'Max et les ferrailleurs', I had only seen another great film he made with Michel Piccoli - Les Choses de la Vie, which is indeed quite different from 'Max'.
The subjects and genres might differ, yet Sautet ingeniously manages to create intriguing character studies (as both films have fascinating protagonists) and, while at that, to depict perplexing and powerful love stories, which help shape the protagonists' moral portraits.I won't insist on the plot; suffice to say that the film does not get dull at any time and it also does not fall into a standard, clichéd policier.
Max, the protagonist, could be compared to Melville's Le Samourai, insofar as both are cold, meticulous, obsessive and enigmatic.
The baddies - the 'junkmen'- are also well individualized, and here I should point out the excellent scene where policeman Rosinsky talks about each of them.
Last but not least, there's also the divine Romy Schneider: between us, I wasn't able to take my eyes off her whenever she was in front of the camera.One more aspect that amazed me about the film was the fluent and elegant camera-work, which had an immense impact on creating the film's atmosphere.
Although I'm not by any means technical literate, the composition of the shots struck me as carefully planned and the lightning was spot-on.In a nutshell, 'Max et les ferrailleurs' is more than you'd be inclined to think: it's gritty and elegant at the same time, it's brutal and sensual, it's a thrilling crime movie and a complex character study, in short it is what a good film must be.
Don't miss it!.
Rough Cynical Police Tale Becomes Tender Love Story.
This is a very well acted and directed police story about a French detective investigating a gang of thieves which is headed by an old friend of his.
What begins as a cynical film about violence and prostitution turns into a tender love story..
Romy the divine.
I went to see this movie today in NEW YORK is going to be show for one week only and for the first time is show in USA, the movie is very good with a great end but what make this movie good is ROMY SCHNEIDER 1938-1982 when she came out in the screen ,she play a prostitute named lily, the question i ask myself was how come somebody can be so beautiful so perfect i have not word to described this woman and beside her talent she was so good in her part i love this movie, ROMY IN REAL LIFE WAS NEVER HAPPY SHE HAVE A5 YEARS LOVE AFFAIR WITH ALAIN DELON AND AFTER THAT SHE MARRIED THE FATHER OF HER LATE SON David EVENTUALLY SHE DIVORCED HIM AND MARRIED DANIEL BIASINI THE FATHER OF HER DAUGHTER SARAH.
Here Come Da Judge.
Max (Michel Piccoli) was once a judge but resigned, frustrated by letting guilty perps go due to lack of evidence.
He joins the Paris Police Force and becomes a detective.
Same thing happens - he can't arrest guilty mobsters for the same reason.
As this obsession begins to consume him, he devises a plan, which amounts to a sting operation.
He hopes this will restore some respect for truth, justice and the French way.He befriends a prostitute who is also the girlfriend of a small time hood, who was once a childhood friend.
Complications arise (you knew that, didn't you?), as the girl is attractive and comes with a heart.
Max is stoic as well as obsessed and tries hard not to let sentiment interfere with his plan.The film's pacing is uneven and involves a great deal of table-setting, so the film takes a while to get going.
All the action takes place in the last 20 minutes - be ready to check your watch several times.
But the ending is worth the wait, and that's as far as I can go without giving it away.
Piccoli gives a thoughtful performance as a man driven by his conception of justice.
He is tall and lean and is a commanding presence throughout.
Romy Schneider as the bimbo gives what must be her best performance after years of fluff and junk.This was apparently the film's US premiere as it was not shown here in its initial release.
It played at Lincoln Center, NYC, 8/12..
Above average crime movie.
Max is a former judge who became a cop after he had to turn loose criminals (due to a lack of evidence) of whom he knew that they committed the crime.
He is obsessed with catching criminals red-handed.
He also wants recognition or a promotion or something (don't remember) so he decides to trick some petty thieves led by an old friend of him into robbing a bank so he can catch them (weird understanding of justice).
He tricks them by starting a relationship with his old friend's girlfriend Lilly who works as a prostitute.
He poses as a rich banker and encourages Lilly to think about her future.
He hints at a payroll that comes through his bank and knows that she would go to her boyfriend saying that she doesn't want to go on like that and talk him into robbing the bank.
The plot works, the petty thieves decide to rob the bank and as they do the cops are in place.While this movie is a crime movie -parts of it are almost like a heist movie- it also has an almost philosophical touch to it and can easily be categorized as a drama.
The development of the characters is good and the movie is always interesting.However, since one knows in advance what is going to happen, one expects a giant twist.
Of course this movie is out of the pre-Se7en/pre-Usual Suspects era, but still the ending is disappointing: Max is told by his boss (who knows that he set up the criminals) that another detective (who also knows) is going to not only charge those you actually robbed the bank but Lilly also.
Max has fallen in love with Lilly who also has feeling for Max. Max goes to talk to the detective and because he would not change his mind, he shoots him.
This is unrealistic as Max has had time to think what he was going to do if he cannot convince the detective.
However the movie implies that his decision is a spontaneous reaction to the detective's reluctance.
Shooting him might solve part of the problem since no one else (besides the boss and he wouldn't tell) knows that Lilly was involved (even though there might be files or colleagues could know).
But Max now has to face life in jail.That's what I think he (as a former judge) should have come up with: (I'm not an expert on French law (the movie is set in Paris) but I assume that entrapment is illegal in every democratic country.) Max could have just said that he entrapped them to rob the bank.
That he not just hoped that they would come up with the idea of robbing that bank but that he actually told them to do so.
You cannot be convicted for a crime that you would not have committed if the police had not entrapped you (at least in America).
Lilly (and the criminals) would go free and he had to face some kind of punishment but not life in jail."Max et les ferrailleurs" is a movie with an interesting idea and good performances and it is certainly an above average film.*** 6.5/10 ***.
A compelling, class-conscious drama.
When I first saw Claude Sautet's Max et les ferrailleurs, Max's climactic act of self-destruction seemed to me successful as a shocking narrative coup, but not entirely convincing as character development.
On subsequent reflection, I'm still not sure, but one wouldn't bother to ponder the matter as much if not for the surprising richness of what leads up to it.
Max (Michel Piccoli) is a policeman who runs briefly into Abel, an old army friend, a man laboring on the margins of the scrap metal business (a pretty marginal business in the first place, no doubt), subsisting mostly on petty theft.
Frustrated with a recent spate of unsolved bank robbers, Max discerns that Abel and his cohorts might be ready to move up in the crime leagues, and then surreptitiously sets out to help them get there, working through Abel's prostitute girlfriend (Romy Schneider).
The scheme works, and Max is credited with an easy score, but then the wheels of the law move on more heavily and efficiently than he wants them to, prompting that final outburst.
Sautet certainly seems here like an under-appreciated genre master, pacing events perfectly, and sustaining an intriguing contrast between Max's cold, isolated machinations and the rambunctious camaraderie of the scrap merchants.
Of course, cops who exercise blurred ethics in the name of ultimate order are a genre staple, but Max et les ferrailleurs finds a particularly compelling, class-conscious way of interrogating that murky territory.
The ferrailluers, it suggests, are really no more lawless than they need to be to sustain a workable existence, and perhaps no richer (several characters cast suspicion on Max's private wealth as a distorting factor); if they have to be destroyed, it's primarily in the interest of warped governing interests.
Looked at in that ominous, politically-charged way, it's perhaps fitting after all that the ending goes beyond mere irony, into utter breakdown. |
tt0074851 | The Man Who Fell to Earth | Thomas Jerome Newton is a humanoid alien who comes to Earth from a distant planet on a mission to take water back to his home planet, which is experiencing a catastrophic drought.
Newton uses the advanced technology of his home planet to patent many inventions on Earth, and acquires incredible wealth as the head of a technology-based conglomerate, World Enterprises Corporation, aided by leading patent attorney Oliver Farnsworth. His wealth is needed to construct a space vehicle with the intention of shipping water back to his home planet. While revisiting New Mexico, he meets Mary-Lou, a lonely, unloved, and simple girl who works as a maid, bell-hop, and elevator operator in a small hotel; he tells her he is English. Mary-Lou introduces Newton to many customs of Earth, including church-going, alcohol, and sex. She and Newton live together in a house Newton has built close to where he first landed in New Mexico.
Meanwhile, Dr. Nathan Bryce, a former womaniser and college professor, has landed a job as a fuel technician with World Enterprises and slowly becomes Newton's confidant. Bryce senses Newton's alienness and arranges a meeting with Newton at his home where he has hidden a special X-ray camera. When he steals a picture of Newton with the camera, it reveals Newton's alien physiology. Newton's appetite for alcohol and television (he watches multiple televisions at once) becomes crippling and he and Mary-Lou fight. Realizing that Bryce has learnt his secret, Newton reveals his alien form to Mary-Lou, and her resulting reaction is one of pure shock and horror. He leaves her.
Newton completes the spaceship and attempts to take it on its maiden voyage amid intense press exposure. However, just before his scheduled take-off, he is seized and detained, apparently by the government and a rival company; his business partner, Farnsworth, is murdered. The government, which has apparently been told by Bryce that Newton is an alien, holds him captive in a locked luxury apartment, constructed deep within a hotel. During his stay, they keep him sedated with alcohol (to which he has become addicted) and continuously subject him to rigorous medical tests – notably one involving X-rays which causes the contact lenses he wears as part of his human disguise to permanently affix themselves to his eyes.
Toward the end of his years of captivity, he is visited again by Mary-Lou, who is now much older and whose looks have been ravaged by alcohol and time. They have mock-violent, playful sex that involves firing a gun with blanks, and afterwards occupy their time drinking and playing table tennis. Mary-Lou declares that she no longer loves him, while he says that he doesn't love her either. She leaves him. Eventually Newton discovers that his "prison," now derelict, is unlocked, and he leaves.
Throughout the film are brief sequences of his wife and children back on his home planet, slowly dying, and by the end of the film they are dead and Newton is stuck on Earth, broken, alcoholic, and alone. He creates a recording with alien messages, which he hopes will be broadcast via radio to his home planet. Bryce, who has since married Mary-Lou, buys a copy of the album and meets Newton at an outside restaurant in town. Newton is still rich and young looking despite the passage of many years. However, Newton has also fallen into depression and alcoholism and the film ends with an inebriated Newton passing out in his cafe chair. | cult, psychedelic, murder, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | See it twice (I had to) and it will sink in, or read the IMDB reviews to get a taste before you digest it wholeheartedly.Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) lands, as surely all self respecting aliens would choose to do, in New Mexico.
To get the maximum benefit from the film, you simply have to take these unexplained occurrences - and also the rapid and disjointed passing of time - on board, because the whole is more significant and understandable than its component parts.Newton arrives on Earth to suck on the capitalist system, recruiting a top patent's lawyer (Buck Henry - superb as Oliver Farnsworth) along the way to help quickly mould his business idea, World Enterprises, into an immense scientific and commercial colossus.
An alien falls to earth in search of water for his planet, and somehow loses his way, corrupted by materialism, sex, alcohol, the physical world.I recall Candy Clark's cool, almost southern voice (just saw her in a cameo performance tonight, playing Christopher Walken's girlfriend in the 1986 "At Close Range, another great) purring at Bowie after he has built a little house for her at the end of a dock, "You're such a nice man," and there is something so unsettled about the cinematography -- cloudy and dark and too still -- in the scene that you know he is definitely NOT a nice man, but deeply troubled and unable to respond to human emotions.
The Man Who Fell To Earth is essential viewing(unless of course movies that are hard to follow or a naked David Bowie aren't your thing)..
I have just watched "The Man Who Fell to Earth" from beginning to end after seeing several scenes here and there from years of flipping past the sci-fi channel or whatever other channel this film might've been shown on.
Well...quite simply, David Bowie, in his first and probably one of his best on-screen performances, is an alien on Earth trying to find a way to get water back to his world.
The rest of the cast performs rather competently, although nobody's performance shines as much as Bowie's (although Candy Clarke is pretty good in some scenes, and Rip Torn's deadpan performance is a bit of dry humor).Dispute me if you must, I give this movie ***1/2 out of ****..
I went into this film expecting something more like Walkabout, because that is all I had seen of Nicholas Roeg's work previously, and the thought of David Bowie being in it enticed me.
In that hour, Bowie's character outlines three basic patents -- including two which we can recognize today as digital cameras and music.A particularly fascinating scene has our newly rich and already bored alien watching about 20 TV sets at once, while holding a small, battery-powered propeller.
No it's not a musical.My favourite lines in the movie are the CIA guy saying "This is modern America and we intend to keep it that way" (when threatened by the future-shock tech Mr.Newton has brought; also, "Yes, I think you've had enough, Mr. Newton." Great effects, especially the sex scene, parts of which were banned in the US when first released..
Maybe I'm the problem...Anyway David Bowie here plays a part which seemed to haunt him for years to come, in the aftermath of the film alone, he used images from the movie for two of his album covers, a 12-inch single sleeve while it also seems to inspire tracks on his "Station To Station", "Low" and "Scary Monsters" albums not to mention the famous "Ashes To Ashes" video.
In one of the film's most telling lines, he forgives his captor-torturer, as he admits his own race would gave treated a visiting earthling in the exact same way.There's solid back-up to Bowie's central role with a variety of convincingly portrayed stock characters.
I would still say there were too many scenes which for me played like Bowie's own cut-up method for lyrics at around this time, by which I mean I found them puzzling, strange and unconnected.
And why no Bowie soundtrack?Still, an interesting if confounding movie, as strangely addictive in its way as television is to Newton..
But something just doesn't feel like it goes the way it should, even when things are fascinating in a scene, maybe even brilliant, and the actors do end up trying their best along with Roeg's knack at capturing a mood in a specific, strange but bewildering way.It isn't totally clear where the plot could be headed, aside from the usual oblivion of the protagonist to the wretched TV, excess of alcohol, and some drugs to boot.
I even loved the quirky, old rock and roll/jazz type of music Roeg used, when the first assumption would be Bowie would glam-rock the whole place up.If there's anything that keeps the Man Who Fell to Earth from being a truly spectacular cult item though, if only for this reviewer, it's a certain mood overall to the piece, an uncertainty as to what to do with everything in the book and how to make it so unusual a piece of science fiction that its own alienation could potentially affect the viewer in unexpected ways.
I mean, I wasn't sure if David Bowie was going to be able to carry a movie like this, but he was great.
Still, for me to like a movie, it needs to have a good plot or at least interesting characters.Speaking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, there is something else I must say.
I'll be completely honest - out of all of the interesting scenes in The Man Who Fell to Earth, the one that I remember the best is the one where David Bowie shows Candy Clark his real eyes and she wets herself.
And why is it that they use footage from one of the Apollo rockets (I think it's Apollo 11, but I'm not sure) blasting off into space when David Bowie is supposed to be "The Man Who Fell to Earth"?
The film when watched in spoon fed fashion causes brain damage, the same way the TV wall in Bowie's suite was drilling into his mind - incoherent images that fails to capture reality - the water on earth is an illusion that lured Bowie into his destruction.The chaos that frustrated me, including totally unrelated scenes and broken scene sequences illustrate the frustration and confusion experience by Bowie.
An alien (David Bowie) comes to Earth to bring back glorious water to his ailing planet.
David Bowie plays a sad, quiet alien who comes to earth to find water for his drought-stricken home planet..
David Bowie plays an alien who comes to Earth to get water for his dying family.
Torn (a great actor) seems confused at first (although that COULD be because of Roeg's scatter shoot editing) but, as the movie progresses, he gets better.So, it is far too long and Roeg should have stuck to the story but the acting and storyline keep you watching..
Despite David Bowie's spot-on casting in the lead as an alien, and director Nicolas Roeg's penchant for the sublimely bizarre, "The Man Who Fell To Earth" showed me nothing.
So casting him in Nic Roeg's cult sci-fi The Man Who Fell to Earth as Thomas Jerome Newton had a certain inevitability: the bloke who frequently sung about starmen should now play one.
(Of course, there's also a pleasing symmetry in the fact that Bowie's son Duncan Jones, has written and directed a film set on the Moon.) While Roeg's may not be the only movie to feature a drunk alien (see also E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and Superman III) it's full of iconic, unforgettable images - the timeslips, Newton's draught-ridden planet, the multi-screen viewing.
Some Bowie jokes throughout the movie - his inability to sing the English hymn Jerusalem in church, and the display for the recently released 'Young Americans' album in the record store towards the end of the film to name but two.Bowie at his best, mind you it's a role he has played for most of his working life!.
The Man Who Fell to Earth features a great turn by David Bowie, who was beginning his coke fueled Thin White Duke period.
This really plays into his performance and it's hard to tell where Bowie ends and Thomas Jerome Newton begins.In fact I rate all of the performances in the film highly.
The characteristic Bowie beauty of the alien Thomas is stark contrast to his real self, which, while not revoltingly ugly, does NOT look like David Bowie.The sex scenes are more artistic than crude or pornographic, although during the scene with the pistol, you do see a flash of The Gentleman's "assets." Bowiegasm waiting to happen, although I found the film and Bowie sexy for reasons higher than getting to see his "lowers."One thing that may disappoint many a fan of the music of this beautiful and gifted fellow is that David, that grand and enchanting monarch of the music world, has nothing to do with this film as far as music is concerned, due to contractual disputes.
He's the EMPEROR of rock-n-roll) sings like an angel (am listening to the LOW album as I type this.)The thing that I loved about this film is that I felt for Thomas's plight, both in connection with his homeworld and in connection with Earth.A must-see for Bowie fans everywhere..
David Bowie plays the role of an alien that comes to Earth.
"The Man Who Fell to Earth" is a story about an alien (David Bowie) who has come to Earth on a desperate mission to save his family.
David Bowie is excellent as Newton, and there also good performances by Buck Henry, Rip Torn, and Candy Clark.
(At least unlike most films, they were almost fair by showing David Bowie naked too.)I don't even mind the occasional slow moving film with little plot (made it through all of Babette's Feast) and I just watched Easy Rider and could appreciate it's message about American's fear of difference and truly free people - despite finding the movie overall very slow and rather boring.
Somehow though this failed to interest me on any level (other than the enjoyment of seeing David Bowie be an alien).The whole film really served no purpose, I felt that I didn't get anything from it and that I had wasted hours of my time.
Nicolas Roeg's The Man Who Fell To Earth is a bit of a trippy viewing experience full of layered themes of isolation and loneliness excellently portrayed through main star David Bowie's performance to which he later re-counted was the perfect role as to what he was experiencing personally at that time in his life (The Thin White Duke era) .
The film aims high in terms of its ideas but doesn't always hit the target, it ends up being a mixed bag.It's a not so complex plot and one we have seen many times before and since, An Alien Thomas Jerome Newton (Bowie) falls into earth in order to gather what he needs (in this case water) to collect and bring it back in order to save his dying planet (Which remains unnamed).
Candy Clark is possibly the weakest point in terms of acting although she does a decent job portraying a damaged soul dependent on drink and Newton, it's her more hysterical scenes that get slightly irritating.Roeg goes for an evocative style in terms of his direction it's like he's out to shock with soft porn sex scenes featuring male and female full frontal nudity.
Does it make Newton (David Bowie) try to forget his past life?At the start of the film we see what appears to be a comet entering earth's orbit.
I picked this up on it's anniversary re-release a couple of years back and wanted to share with my partner but was worried she would think it trash...she didn't.The film is a basic simple story of an alien coming to earth to take water back for his planet.
Maybe Starman David Bowie was born to play the title role in The Man Who Fell To Earth, an avant-garde disjointed sci fi film from director Nicolas Roeg.Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) is an alien who lands in New Mexico with some precious rings, a British passport and some rudimentary knowledge of patents.
With this technology he hopes to patent a number of lucrative inventions in order to generate enough wealth to aid his desperate cause.As things turn out for Tommy, he soon becomes addicted to alcohol and TV (what a combo), guzzling down high-quality liquor while endlessly viewing television, having 20 TV sets sitting out in front of him, all at once.If nothing else, this rather unusual Sci-Fi/Thriller from 1976 is well-worth a view just to catch David Bowie at the absolute pinnacle of his world fame as a Pop Idol.Directed by Nicolas Roeg, this film contains some really impressive make-up effects..
The ultimate down to earth sci-fi ever - dramatic story, fantastic production, the definitive Nicolas Roeg film with David Bowie as the alien of all aliens.
The Criterion Collection presents the film in director's uncut version (139 minutes) with options of audio commentary by director Nicolas Roeg along with actors David Bowie and Buck Henry, and a second disc full of behind the scenes interviews with screenwriter Paul Mayersberg, video with Candy Clark and Rip Torn talking about their experiences on the set, production designer Brian Eatwell and costume designer May Routh, and an audio radio interview with author Walter Tevis, whose novel was adapted to screen and a reprint special accompanies the DVD package."The Man Who Fell to Earth" is the most dramatic sci-fi alien film ever, holding its own without laser gun battles or explosive action sequences or anything super hi-tech.
Once i used to be a mad Bowie fan, and, as most of them do, i tried to obtain everything related to this man.And there was a film having David in his best, and all way long ,and with a sci-fi plot!
Plus, every now and then, you'll be seeing him in his alien form, scaring the life out of poor Mary-Lou (played by "American Graffiti" star Candy Clark), so that was interesting!A must see for all Sci-Fi fans, and of course, David Bowie fans!.
(None of the sex scenes was really necessary, and they all appear to have been a personal indulgence of the director.) This film, or at least the publicly released version of it, is now being seen again far and wide, as we look back in retrospect at the extraordinary phenomenon which was David Bowie.
Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie) is a humanoid alien who comes to Earth to get water for his dying planet.
(A major example of this is the change of Betty Jo, Newton's middle aged house keeper to Mary Lou, a young woman who he becomes sexually involved with.) I've read the book and scene the movie (both multiple times) and I believe that the over all feeling of the book is preserved in the film.
He is so believable as Thomas Jerome Newton, a man from Anthea, that I've actually begun to question whether or not he might truly be from another planet.I'd go further into detail about how every bit of this movie works, but I certainly don't want this comment turning into a term paper (Heaven only knows I write enough of those).A truly timeless film, The Man Who Fell to Earth speaks to every generation (I've watched it with everyone from my college girlfriends to my mother).
And the more you understand the story, the more you get pulled into the film's vision.I have not read the book nor the original screenplay, but Bryce (Rip Torn) may have a lot to do with this whole movie, after all his character is one of the first to be introduced in the film(If you blink you'll miss him) This might explain how Newton (David Bowie) soons carry his similar characteristics.
As for the rest of the movie, it is well-done, not to be taken seriously, yet this is a flick that can plant images and thoughts into your mind about what happens if a cosmopolitan "ALIEN" such as Newton could drop into the earth's atmosphere.Like I said, re-view the film (Restored version) and decide for yourself..
However I like Roeg's work, and had enjoyed the novel.Whenever you've read the book, the film (however good or bad) always seems a disappointment.
I think the only reason I could possibly recommend this film is that David Bowie is great.
I think she was a lot skinnier than Bowie.Also it was a little weird when the two people in the beginning of the movie have sex and they take pictures of each other doing that.But anyhow...
As I may have pointed out Bowie does do a good performance (everyone else is serviceable), the cinematography at times can get really striking and outright beautiful and the old man make-up on Rip Torn at the end is like looking at him today.
While I consider myself a fan of director Nicolas Roeg - his WALKABOUT and DON'T LOOK NOW are two of my favourite films - and a fan of David Bowie's music, I didn't think much of THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH at all.
This sci-fi oddity comes across as more of a collection of beautifully-shot vignettes rather than a real movie, and it suffers as a result.I think this film is trying too hard to be cult and in doing so it ends up alienating the mainstream audience instead.
Unfortunately this film, which starred David Bowie playing a rather shy little alien sent to earth to take water back to his planet, was made in such a way that you completely get lost and you end up thinking "what a load of rubbish!"But if you look deep into this film, beyond the outrageously bizarre sex scenes and all the urinating, you will see that the plot outline is simple. |
tt0097707 | The Lady and the Highwayman | The film begins with a narrator telling us that Cromwell's tyranny is coming to an end, when we see several men approaching on horseback. We learn that King Charles II and several of his Cavaliers have been on an exploratory tour in England, checking to see if the populace is ready to back his return. At the moment he is being hounded by a troop of Roundheads. King Charles stops to bid one of his supporters, a Royalist Lord Lucius Vyne (Hugh Grant) who he gives one of his favorite rings, telling Lucius to send it if he ever needs his help. Taking the ring Lucius borrows the King's distinctive plumed hat and leads the King's pursuers away, allowing Charles and Lucius' cousin, Lord Richard Vyne to reach a waiting boat bound for France. Lucius manages to lose the Roundheads in a cavernous entrance of a quarried chalk cliff face.
In the next scene Lady Panthea Vyne (Lysette Anthony) is tricked into marriage by a lecherous older tax collector Drysdale (Ian Bannen) who had been seeking her hand in marriage. He promises to intercede and save her brother Lord Richard who, he tells her, is about to be executed. Drysdale tells her he can save her brother if she agrees to marry him. Leaving the church she and her new husband, no sooner reach their waiting coach that he attempts to unbutton her dress. Her small Cavalier King Charles Spaniel barks at Drysdale, who throws it to the floor of the coach and stomps it to death. Just then a gun ball blows a chunk of wood from the coach beside Drysdale's head. The mysterious masked highwayman known as "Silver Blade" (secretly her cousin Lucius) puts a stop to Drysdale's advances and helps our heroine to bury her dog. She tells Silver Blade of her plight; he whispers that Drysdale has lied, telling her that her brother is already dead.
"Silver Blade" then duels with Drysdale, who Panthea warns Silver Blade is the best swordsman in England. Silver Blade soon runs him through and then takes Panthea home. The event will come back to haunt them both.
Next her aunt, Lady Emma Darlington (Claire Bloom) talks her into coming to live with her as Panthea is all alone now that her father and brother are dead, nevermind her dead husband. At a royal reception we learn that Aunt Emma was the King's 'second' mother. The King invites Panthea to be a lady of the queen's bed chamber. With Panthea attracting all of the males' admiring glances plus her now becoming part of the new queen's court, the King's mistress Lady Castlemaine (Emma Samms) is livid. About then Panthea asks her Aunt who is 'that' lady, pointing to Lady Castlemaine. Her aunt tells her to look away.
Next Lady Castlemaine's guest Rudolph introduces himself, reminding Panthea and her aunt that he is Panthea's cousin on her distaff side. He then introduces Lady Castlemaine, when suddenly Lady Darlington grabs Panthea and abruptly turns her back and walks away. Lady Castlemaine is fit to be tied, and swears to take revenge for the slight.
Cousin Rudolph plots to inherit the title as Duke of Manston Hall, which is Panthea's home and also Lucius' hiding place. Lucius, instead of claiming his royal title, is in true Robin Hood fashion working against the King's secret enemies. Panthea, who has been in love with Silver Blade since the day he saved her, learns he is in grave danger and is about to be captured in a trap set for that night. She rides to warn him and saves the day after declaring her love for him. However, soon after the King leaves for France, she falls victim to the schemes of Lady Castlemaine who is after her head. Meanwhile, Lady Castlemaine learns of the coach incident and pays the coachman, now a sergeant in the King's Guards, to accuse Panthea of murder. She sets her trap and soon Panthea is fighting for her life in court.
After she is condemned to death Lucius attempts her rescue and ends up arrested as well. He passes the King's ring to Panthea's maid, telling her to take it to the King, but Rudolph sees the sparkling ring and takes it from Lucius. On the morning of his execution Lucius tricks his jailer, and he and his men fight their way out of their jail and ride to the Tower of London to Panthea's rescue. As the hulking Axeman is in mid swing, an arrow from Lucius strikes his shoulder, causing his blow to miss Panthea's head, but Lucius and Panthea are surrounded; escape is seemingly impossible, but meanwhile in an amazing Deus Ex Machina, the plodding Rudolph, who can't wait till he is sure Lucius is dead, barges in before the King and demands to be declared the Duke of Manston Hall. The King, who has seemingly forgotten his friend, spies the ring and soon shows up at the tower, just in time to save the day.
Lucius and Panthea are married and all ends well. | action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0060550 | It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown | With autumn in full swing, the Peanuts gang prepares for Halloween. In the cold open, Linus and Lucy go out to the local pumpkin patch to find a pumpkin. Lucy selects the largest one they could find, and poor Linus has to be the one getting it back to the house, only to be very distraught when it turns out Lucy is going to gut it to become a jack-o-lantern. After the opening credits, Snoopy ends up helping Charlie Brown a bit while he's out raking up a pile of leaves, only to have Linus jump into it with a large lollipop. Then Lucy entices Charlie to try to kick the football...with the usual results.
Meanwhile, Linus writes his annual letter to The Great Pumpkin, despite Charlie Brown's disbelief, Snoopy's laughter, Patty's assurance that the Great Pumpkin is a fake, and even his own sister Lucy (who is watching TV and reading a TV Guide with her picture on it) making a violent threat to make her brother stop. Only Sally, Charlie Brown's younger sister, who is smitten with Linus, supports him. When Linus goes out to mail the letter but cannot reach the mailbox, Lucy refuses to help him; so he uses his blanket to open the box and throws in the letter.
On Halloween night, the gang (including Sally) goes trick-or-treating, each with their own costume. Most dress as ghosts in simple white sheet costumes; Charlie Brown botches his costume with errant scissor work, and Pig-Pen's trademark dust cloud makes him easy to identify, while Lucy opts to dress as a witch, as she perceives it as being the opposite of her real personality. On the way, they stop at the pumpkin patch to ridicule Linus for missing the festivities, just as he did the previous year. Undeterred, Linus is convinced that the Great Pumpkin will come, and tries to convince Sally to join him; Sally, against her better judgment but acting almost entirely on her infatuation with Linus, agrees to skip trick-or-treating to be with her sweet babboo.
During trick-or-treating, the kids receive various goodies (except for Charlie Brown, who gets nothing but rocks). After going back to the pumpkin patch to tease Linus and Sally, the gang goes to Violet's Halloween party. (Neither Lucy nor Charlie Brown can believe that the latter even got invited to a party hosted by the notoriously snobby Violet; Charlie Brown breaks out into a "happy dance" upon receiving the invitation as Lucy assumes it was a mistake.) Meanwhile, Snoopy, wearing his World War I flying ace costume, climbs aboard his doghouse (imagining it to be a Sopwith Camel fighter plane) to fight with the Red Baron. After a fierce but losing battle, Snoopy makes his way across "the countryside" to briefly crash the Halloween party, where he is entertained by Schroeder's playing of World War I tunes on his piano (two upbeat songs, then two slow songs, both of the latter songs make Snoopy cry) and then goes to the pumpkin patch. When Linus sees a shadowy figure rising from the moonlit patch, he assumes the Great Pumpkin has arrived and faints. When Sally sees that it is only Snoopy, she furiously yells at Linus for making her miss out on the Halloween festivities as Charlie Brown and the others come to get her. As they leave, Linus, still convinced that the Great Pumpkin will materialize, promises to put in a good word for them if he comes—an off-the-cuff remark that he fears, because of the uncertainty, will scare the Great Pumpkin away; namely, because he said if instead of when.
At four o'clock the next morning, Lucy realizes that Linus is not in his bed. She finds her brother asleep in the pumpkin patch, shivering. She brings him home, takes off his shoes, and puts him to bed. Later, Charlie Brown and Linus are leaning against a wall, commiserating about the previous night's disappointments. Charlie Brown attempts to console his friend, admitting that he has done stupid things in his life also; this only infuriates Linus, who sets off on an angry rant vowing that the Great Pumpkin will come to the pumpkin patch next year, as Charlie Brown listens with an annoyed look on his face and the credits roll. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | From the pumpkin carving opener, the pumpkin patch, Snoopy's fantasy World War I adventures as he makes his way across the French countryside, to the beautiful musical score, it all adds up to one great Halloween experience.
The thing I loved most about this Charlie Brown Halloween special was the sheer simplicity of it.
It shows what Halloween is really about- the fun of trick-or-treating, and being with your friends.Linus believes in the 'Great Pumpkin', the Santa Claus of Halloween.
From Linus and Sally in the pumpkin patch all night to the still quoted "I got a rock!" line, not many holiday specials that don't involve Charlie Brown and the gang bring a smile to my face like It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
It was always a cause for celebration to see these endearing characters and laugh at their assorted escapades.Here, the character of Linus, ordinarily the most sensible of the children, indulges in his ongoing personal fantasy involving the almighty Great Pumpkin who in Linus' mind is the Santa Claus of the Halloween season, appearing in the most sincere of pumpkin patches and distributing toys to the faithful.One can't help but be charmed by his dedication to this concept, even as it prevents him from enjoying the more conventional trappings of the holiday - specifically trick or treating, which his admirer Sally forgoes in order to be with him.This lovable story does of course display a constant disarming sense of humour, in particular poor Charlie Browns' tendency to get rocks in his treat bag in place of candy - yet he doesn't let it get him down.
Good old Snoopy continues to be a major cut up - whether he's indulging in his own flights of fancy, taking on the persona of the World War I Flying Ace forever facing off against his arch rival The Red Baron, and pretending to be making his way across enemy lines (this sequence features some of the best animation in the special), or stealing the show at Violets' Halloweeen Party.
CharlieBrown and his bag of rocks, Snoopy and the Red Baron, Linus'ingenious use of his security blanket for a ghost costume, VinceGuaraldi's great score, and of course, bossy Lucy and hersarcastic voice of reason - I think we all know a 'Lucy' growing up!
As a Halloween Special, Linus is always waiting for the Great Pumpkin & it is consistent with Linus that he makes a negative remarks about Santa believers.
Everyone should grow up watching this movie: Charlie Brown getting rocks in his bag, Linus' unwavering belief in the Great Pumpkin, Sally's calls of "Sweet Baboo," Lucy...being Lucy.
Charlie Brown's sister Sally adores Linus and willingly waits with him at the pumpkin patch instead of going on her first trick-or-treating.
It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown was a must watch show for me every Halloween since about the age of 4.
It got me primed to go trick or treating.As an adult with children in their 20's, I still stop what I'm doing to watch Linus sit in the pumpkin patch with Sally.
My kids shake their heads when I start going off that by now he should know better.I will be an old woman and still watching It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown.
The Peanuts gang goes trick-or-treating while Linus sits in a pumpkin patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin.
Fantastic Vince Guaraldi music, Lucy and the football, Charlie Brown's pathetic ghost costume, the WWI flying ace, poison dog lips, and "I got a rock" are among the wonderful things about this timeless gem.
Linus some what thinks that there's this so called "Great Pumpkin" who comes to the Pumpkin Patch every night.His sister Lucy and the other kids tell him that there's no such thing.
He just goes to the Pumpkin Patch while everyone else goes Trick or Treating and partying.The best part of this TV movie was when Snoopy dresses as the red Baron and pretend he's in WW1 of France.Those who are obsessed with Peanuts will enjoy this Holiday special as well as other people who enjoy Snoopy Cartoons..
A halloween tradition where Charlie Brown and the gang celebrates halloween by the usual trick or treating and bobbing for apples..all except for Linus and Sally who wait anxiously for the Great Pumpkin to come...will he finally make his appearance?
I know Charlie Brown is the always the butt of the jokes, but in this some of what was directed his way seemed mean rather than funny - like adults (presumably) throwing rocks in his trick or treat bag.
Things like "there are three things I should never discuss - religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin!" or Charlie Brown suggesting that his belief in Santa Claus and Linus' belief in the Great Pumpkin represent "denominational differences." Snoopy is always a great addition to these shows, and he's always cute enough for young ones to love, but his get-up as the World War I flying ace, and the extended part of the story about it also seemed to be extraneous.Yeah.
It brings back some good memories of childhood - not just of watching this year after year but of going trick or treating with friends and dressing up, but I still didn't find this anywhere near as magical as "A Charlie Brown Christmas," although I was delighted that at the end of the story a softer side of Lucy came out as she went and collected a shivering Linus from his fruitless night in the pumpkin patch and put him to bed.
and a believer in the Great Pumpkin.Charlie Brown's experiences of trick or treating (how bitter sweet childhood is!), Snoopy's fantasy life, Sally's devotion to Linus, the wonderful 'Lucy and Linus' theme, all add up to a tremendous show - every bit as excellent as the famous comic strip.
Some prefer slashers greats, notably "Halloween," others comedic horror flicks, like "The Evil Dead." Then there's the classic monster variety, preferring Universal and Hammer productions, and even family friendly fare such as "Hocus Pocus." Despite the overabundance of varying festive films, there's one movie to unite us all: "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown." An undeniably adorable Peanuts, it demands an autumnal viewing each October.Halloween is upon the Peanuts gang, and Linus (Christopher Shea) is gearing up not for trick or treating, but his annual wait for the Great Pumpkin.
Each year, Linus writes a letter to the Great Pumpkin, much to the embarrassment of his sister Lucy (Sally Dryer).Meanwhile Charlie Brown (Peter Robbins) accidentally gets invited to Violet's (Ann Altieri) Halloween party.
The kids go trick or treating, but Charlie Brown's sister Sally (Kathy Steinberg) decides to keep Linus company in the pumpkin patch."It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie" is the greatest of the Halloween films.
A hilarious segment, the dialogue about notarized documents is sure to go over kids heads, but adults will get a chuckle.This cross-generational appeal is precisely why "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" has morphed into the seasonal staple it is today.
The finale, where Lucy brings a shivering Linus in from the chilly pumpkin patch shows that Lucy's heart isn't as cold as we're made to believe.Overall, "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" is a slice of perfection.
Ultimately, with mass appeal and infinite replay value, Halloween isn't official until the annual screening of "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown."-- Mitchell "Moe" Long http://www.examiner.com/movies-in-durham/mitchell- moe-long.
Schulz is also the best, a fondly remembered and still quite popular tale about how Linus decides to forgo trick or treating with his friends to stay in the pumpkin patch to get presents from the Great Pumpkin, a legendary figure who is quite similar to Santa Claus.
Meanwhile, poor Charlie Brown gets only rocks in his bag, and mistakenly invited to Violet's Halloween party, where Lucy uses his head as a pumpkin model!
Sally's love for Linus is also tested, and Snoopy becomes a WWI flying Ace. Wonderful tale has a distinct Halloween feel to it, and is also both funny and even spooky.
After all these years, Linus still believes in the Great Pumpkin rising up from the pumpkin patch to give presents to all the boys and girls, Snoopy dresses as a WWI flying ace to battle the Red Baron, Charlie Brown cuts too many holes in his sheet and gets nothing but rocks from trick-or-treating, Lucy dresses as a witch, and Vince Guaraldi plays the most wonderful music ever made for an animated cartoon.
Even though I enjoyed watching the Great Pumpkin special when I was younger, I watched it several years ago and there were some parts that I didn't like because I felt it glorified childhood cruelty and bullying.
The football scene that would later lead off A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving was hilarious and the scene where all the kids except Linus and Sally were trick or treating and Charlie Brown getting a bag of rocks was memorable.
And I love the "Peanuts Gang" too.I love the part when Linus sees Charlie Brown's giant leaf pile and goes "CHARGE!" then jumps in it, and the leaves went all over the place; Then Linus said "Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker." I also like it when the kids go out trick-or-treating except Sally & Linus of course, they're sitting in the town pumpkin patch, waiting for "The Great Pumpkin" to show up.
Linus is convinced that the Great Pumpkin is Halloween's version of Santa Claus; Snoopy thinks he's a World War I flying ace; Charlie Brown gets rocks instead of candy.
That is the most awesome part of any Charlie Brown movie.And...beyond that you have a kid making up a story and believing it that would, almost 30 years later, be spoofed in an episode of the Simpsons.
I just think it's a little overhyped.The animation style and smoothness is great, and the music is wonderful, as per usual for anything involving Charlie Brown.This is one of my mom's favorite things to watch, and I pretty much always watch it with her, every year.I'm not really a fan of the moments like the Red Berring scene-that's a little out-of-place, in my opinion, and it's a good four or five minutes of this special.Everything else really recreates that October and Fall feeling we all feel, as children.
Nothing too spooky here, just Charlie Brown, his ghost costume and Linus waiting in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin.
It's a great family event, written by Charles Schulz himself and directed by Bill Melendez.It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown is probably one of the best remembered specials that has been produced starring the Peanuts gang.
Long before the annual Simpsons Treehouse of Horror, Halloween Night is Grinch Night, and The Halloween Tree, there was this classic 1966 animated peanuts special about the Great Pumpkin that was an annual tradition on CBS (now it airs on ABC) since it's first airing.
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown is one of my favorite TV specials ever, because it's a lot more comedic.
Have your parents made you believe that there's a Great Pumpkin that gives toys to good kids every Halloween?
Linus, on the other hand, made himself believe that there's a Great Pumpkin that gives toys to good kids every Halloween.
In the Peanuts universe, Halloween is the only day of the year where one of the kids is a bigger fool than Charlie Brown.
Whether you're seeing Linus and Sally awaiting for The Great Pumpkin's arrival in the sincerest pumpkin patch, Snoopy in combat from World War I, or just Charlie Brown and the rest of the Peanuts gang trick-or-treating for candy or rocks, you'll have one of the great experiences yet.
While I loved the Charlie Brown Christmas, I must say I always liked the Great Pumpkin one more.
In a sense, the football antics could be another thing that are caught in The Flying Dutchman aspect to Peanuts, as Chuck never gets anybody else to hold it and he never learns much from it.So next year, I will once more watch The Great Pumpkin episode, fully expecting them to be still fully caught in their time warp..
Their Halloween special is simply fun...although I remember as a young child having my heart break for poor Charlie Brown when folks kept giving him rocks on Halloween while Trick-or- Treating.
It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown is Halloween Classic :).
Happy Halloween Everybody Today I'm Reviewing the 1966 Halloween Special It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown.
Anyway I Loved It's Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown It's Halloween Classic.
It just isn't Halloween without it...Celebrating the Peanuts special "It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" on its 50th anniversary.
Fifty years ago in 1966, the television special "It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" aired as "A CBS Special Presentation In Color" on October 27,1966.
"It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" really encapsulates childhood, the camaraderie and the spirit of Halloween in this classic tale of Charlie Brown and his friends going out for trick or treats and seeing Charlie Brown and his bag of rocks while everybody else gets candy and goodies; Linus and Sally waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive while Charlie Brown and the gang get invited to Violet's Halloween party.
The scene where Sally really gives Linus the scolding of his life is the best of this holiday special where Sally misses Halloween and Treats while calling Linus "You Blockhead!" while sitting all night in a pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive but instead rises Snoopy from the patch.
I heard there is a soundtrack album to this television special too."It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" aired annually on CBS from 1966 until 2000 with ABC picking up the rights beginning in 2001(as with all of the Peanuts specials)where it airs annually during the Halloween season.
Charlie Brown actually gets invited to a party, the kids are making their costumes, and Linus, slightly mixed up in the area of "which holiday figure goes where" is eagerly awaiting the "Great Pumpkin" and his sack of toys for the good kids and convinces Sally to bypass Trick-or-Treating and wait with him in a pumpkin patch.
The kids go out for Candy, Charlie Brown gets a bag of rocks, the party goes on as planned,and Linus is left sleeping in the pumpkin patch with Sally unleashing her wrath upon him after missing all the fun waiting for something that just wasn't going to happen.
While the rest of the Peanuts gang are preparing for their usual Halloween rituals, Linus is busy writing his letter to 'The Great Pumpkin', a figure who is seems to be a cross between Santa Claus and Pumpkinhead who he believes gives Halloween presents only to kids that really deserve it.
He is ridiculed by everyone apart from Sally who is the only one who will join him in the pumpkin patch.The trick-or-treating goes well for everyone apart from poor Charlie Brown who is only given rocks.
From the scene where Snoopy is fighting the red baron, to when Charlie Brown (Peter Robbins) is informed that he was supposed to be placed on a black list of people not to invite at the party (by the way, the only other person who does that is Joseph McCarthy) to the scenes where Linus Van Pelt (Christopher Shea) waits for the great pumpkin, this short has everything you could want.
"It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" is a timeless animated family animated classic.
This cute cartoon short is sure to please the kids (and a few adults) on Halloween.After recently re-watching this film short, I can't decide who I felt more sorry for Charlie Brown, who kept getting rocks instead of candy for Halloween treats, or Linus, who still did not see the Great Pumpkin rising out of the pumpkin patch...
lol.If you or your kids have not seen this timeless Peanuts classic then you should give this short film a watch this Halloween season - it's sure to give you a few giggles.10/10.
So come Halloween night, the gang is all dressed up, including Charlie Brown as a Swiss-cheese ghost, and Linus sits in the patch, and waits.
Another Halloween has come and gone, but I still urge you to see It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown...even though this special was more about Linus than CB.
As Sally, Charlie's younger sister wants to stay by her sweet baboo Linus, who wants to see the Great Pumpkin Patch or the Santa Claus of the Halloween.Charlie gets invited to a party thrown by Violet.
Ahhh." To Snoopy's WWI Flying Ace and his crawl through "war time France." And who can forget Linus and Sally in the Pumpkin Patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin to rise.
Sure some of us like the slasher flicks and what not, but I'll take my "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" over them all..
Then there is the fact that it combines Halloween and Santa Clause, and after that, when you go back and watch it when you are older, jaded and a cynical like myself you notice other things.First off Charlie Brown NEVER gets any candy, all he gets is rocks in his bag, basically stating that life is just a series of disappointments.
Second, Linus hangs out all night giving up trick or treating and a party at Violet's house and the Great Pumpkin never shows.
"It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" is not that great, but it's still entertaining enough to watch after all these years.
Schulz, this special tells the story of Linus Van Pelt (Voiced by Chris Shea), the best friend of Charlie Brown (Voiced by Peter Robbins) as he tries to stick to his beliefs on Halloween, no matter what others may think of him.
A various religious interpretations of Linus' sincere belief in the Great Pumpkin has come out since this animated special.
The Peanuts Halloween special from 1966 concentrates mainly on Linus' idea of getting ready to welcome The Great Pumpkin making his visit for this very special time of the year. |
tt0263101 | Bangkok Dangerous | Joe (Cage) is a professional freelance contract killer who works strictly by the rules; never socializing outside his work, staying secluded in quiet spots, never interacting or meeting with his handlers and always leaving on time without a trace. He usually hires young pickpockets or small-time criminals as his local help, whom he usually murders after the end of the job to prevent any identification. He uses multiple aliases and also has middlemen between him and his handlers. He also carries a watch to perform a hit in specific time and correctly visualizes his every target.
After completing a hit in Prague and killing his current help, Joe travels to Bangkok for an assignment to assassinate four people for notorious Bangkok crime boss Surat, whom he never meets. Joe occasionally provides insight via voiceover narration throughout the film. He hires a local Thai pickpocket named Kong, who has simple English knowledge, as his go-between in Bangkok, a condition of the contract being that the gang will never meet Joe. Contracts from the Bangkok gangsters are passed to Kong one by one via a nightclub dancer, Aom. Joe's first execution in Bangkok is done on motorcycle; when the target car stops at a red light, Joe kills all the occupants with a machine pistol.
Kong retrieves information about the second target, again via Aom, and the pair become friendlier with every contact. Before Joe executes his mission, Kong informs him of the target, Pramod Juntasa, another notorious gang lord and Surat's rival crime boss who acts as sex trafficker, buying young girls from impoverished parents and selling them after sex deals. Joe sneaks into the target's penthouse and drowns him in his pool. Unsatisfied with Kong's assistance, Joe contemplates killing him, but after a brief confrontation when Kong is ambushed by local gangsters regarding a briefcase containing information files of Surat's/Joe's targets, he instead decides to act as Kong's mentor and trains him for self-defense.
Midway through the movie, Joe meets Fon, a deaf-mute pharmacist, with whom he becomes intrigued after a brief consultation. Joe later returns to the pharmacy to invite Fon out for dinner. Soon after Joe falls for Fon and meets her mother. The affair is cut short when he shoots and kills two assailants in Fon's presence. Blood splatters on Fon, and she runs off, trembling and traumatized by the violent deaths. Feeling betrayed, Fon cannot forgive Joe and ends their relationship.
Before the third kill, the gang attempts to identify Joe, and he warns them off. For the third execution that takes place at the Damnoen Saduak floating market, Kong assists Joe. The kill does not go as planned, and the target, a playboy and a criminal underworld associate, nearly gets away but Joe manages to catch and assassinate him. Before beginning his last mission Joe visits Fon, presumably to say goodbye. She initially ignores him but as Joe begins to drive away she runs after his car.
His fourth target is the Prime Minister of Thailand, who is revered by many. Joe is about to make the kill when he has second thoughts, is spotted, and escapes through a panicking crowd. Meanwhile, the gang has abducted Aom and Kong with plans to execute them. Joe, now a target, is attacked at his house by four of Surat's henchmen. He uses explosives to take them out and is faced with the choice of rescuing Kong or leaving the country unharmed. Joe decides to rescue Kong, so he sets off to the gang's headquarters with one of the half-alive attackers.
Joe goes to the gang's headquarters, kills most of the gang including Surat's underboss/bodyguard (who is blown into half by explosives), and saves Kong and Aom. The fearful gang leader flees to his car with three other accomplices. Joe spots him and shoots the gang members, then gets into the back seat with Surat. As the police arrive at the location, Joe realizes he has only one bullet. He puts his head adjacent to Surat's, puts the gun up to his temple and pulls the trigger, killing himself and Surat.
=== Alternate ending ===
An alternate ending to the theatrical version shows that before Joe kills himself in the original version, Kong steals a police car and comes to his rescue. He kills Surat and runs to the stolen car (although he is shot once in the arm). After eluding the police officers, they hide in a neighborhood a few meters away from Surat's headquarters. As locals come out to investigate the commotion, Kong reveals that Joe is the man who killed Surat. They help him recuperate while one local remarks that Surat was a very bad man, adding that his death marks an end to his crimes and atrocities in their place (with the words "it's good that he is dead") Kong then takes Joe to a boatman and gives him his passports, so that he may flee the country. Joe thanks Kong for his assistance, and gives him a bank account number with "a bonus", stating that he was a good student. Joe then departs, with the camera focused on Kong (from Joe's perspective, similar to the original ending). | revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0807737 | X-Men: The Official Game | Professor X asks the X-Men to return to Alkali Lake to retrieve irreplaceable parts to Cerebro. Nightcrawler infiltrates the remnants of William Stryker's base with his teleportation ability, since the weapons systems were somehow operational. Once inside, the X-Men discover a group of agents called HYDRA looting the base. Nightcrawler and Colossus go to find the Cerebro parts while Wolverine and Storm investigate HYDRA's presence. Wolverine and Storm discover that Stryker had been building giant robots called Sentinels as another plan to eradicate mutantkind.
Storm is abducted by Lady Deathstrike and Wolverine pursues her, eventually rescuing Storm. Nightcrawler is plagued by visions of Jason Stryker, who reminds Kurt he left him to die. Nightcrawler retrieves the Cerebro parts, battling a Sentinel in the process. A massive Sentinel- the Master Mold- is activated and rises from Alkali Lake. The X-Men and Lady Deathstrike escape; Wolverine attaches himself to Deathstrike's helicopter to follow her while the other X-Men return to the institute.
Iceman stops Pyro from triggering a meltdown at a nuclear power plant while Storm and Nightcrawler stop Multiple Man from blowing up a bridge. (this storyline is somewhat picked up in X-Men: The Last Stand, when Magneto and his new Brotherhood free Multiple Man from the Prison Convoy). Meanwhile, Wolverine follows Deathstrike and her HYDRA agents to Tokyo. Wolverine learns that Deathstrike and HYDRA are working for the Silver Samurai. After battling though legions of HYDRA forces and "killing" Deathstrike again, Wolverine confronts Silver Samurai. Samurai reveals that HYDRA helped Stryker build the Sentinels, not realizing he planned to turn them against mutants. Silver Samurai himself is a mutant, and the Master Mold's activation was a mistake. After defeating Silver Samurai, Wolverine learns that HYDRA has a device in Hong Kong that can stop the Master Mold, where the Master Mold is currently heading. Wolverine informs Professor Xavier, who contacts Magneto- fearing the X-Men cannot stop the Sentinels alone. Magneto and Sabretooth travel to Hong Kong to help the X-Men. Xavier also reveals that Jason Stryker is still alive; his psyche now fractured into two halves: a good half who has been appearing to Nightcrawler and an evil half that is controlling the Master Mold. He states that another of his students had a similar problem (referring to Jean Grey/Phoenix)
The X-Jet is shot down by Sentinels upon its arrival in Hong Kong. Iceman battles Sentinels and recovers HYDRA's device. Magneto arrives and uses the device to incapacitate the Master Mold, which crashes to the ground, but his helmet is knocked off of his head and Magneto is subdued by Jason's telepathic powers.
Nightcrawler disables the Master Mold's control center, guided by Jason's good half, who helps point the way through the maze of the Mold's body. Nightcrawler disables the Master Mold's neural net, changed by Jason to look like a demonic realm. Meanwhile, Iceman destroys the core of the Master Mold and Wolverine- in another of Jason's hallucinations- fights several feral clones of himself, emerging victorious. Nightcrawler attempts to save Jason as the Master Mold begins to collapse, but Sabretooth abducts Jason and attempts to make his escape. Wolverine tracks Sabretooth's scent and confronts him while Kurt escapes with Jason. The two have a vicious battle, ending with Logan throwing Sabretooth from a great height to be impaled below. Jason dies, thanking Nightcrawler for saving him. Magneto leaves, vowing that his next encounter with the X-Men will be as an enemy.
Back at Xavier's mansion, Nightcrawler tells Xavier he does not want to be an X-Man, for their lives are too violent and he is a peaceful man. Xavier tells him he is always welcome in the Mansion, and Kurt leaves (which explains his absence in X-Men: The Last Stand).
Later in the film continuity, the Silver Samurai, Trask Industries and the Sentinels made appearances in The Wolverine and X-Men: Days of Future Past. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0024989 | The Clairvoyant | Rains plays Maximus, "King of the Mind Readers", who performs an English music hall mind-reading act with the help of his wife, Rene (Fay Wray), using a secret code. One night, he sees the beautiful Christine Shawn (Jane Baxter) in the audience, and his act becomes reality. He is able to tell what is in a sealed letter without Rene's assistance.
Maximus doesn't think much of it, until he and Christine meet by chance on a train and he foresees an impending crash. He pulls the emergency cord to stop the train, but nobody believes him. He, his family and Christine disembark, and a few minutes later the train crashes. Christine tells her father, who owns a newspaper. He publishes the story, making Maximus famous.
Maximus realizes that his power only works when Christine near; as they spend more time together, Christine falls in love with him and Rene becomes jealous. Maximus' mother (Mary Clare) believes that no good can come of this new gift, but Maximus pays little attention, enjoying his well-paid success.
Another of his well-publicized predictions comes true: a 100-to-1 long shot wins the Epsom Derby. He chooses to ignore his own prophecy of his mother's death; when it comes true, he is so distraught that he decides to follow her wishes and abandon his ability. He feels compelled to act, however, when he foresees a great mining disaster. He is unable to convince the mining company to evacuate the mine. When the disaster occurs, hundreds are killed and more are missing and presumed dead.
He is publicly accused of causing the accident, and he is brought to trial. The prosecution claims that Maximus himself caused both tragedies, by delaying the train and by panicking the miners into making a mistake. Maximus predicts in the courtroom that the missing miners will be found alive. When this becomes true, he is released. Maximus decides to give up his gift and he and Rene slip away into obscurity. | paranormal, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0062803 | Chitty Chitty Bang Bang | Commander Caractacus Pott is an inventor who buys and renovates an old car after gaining money from inventing and selling whistle-like sweets to Lord Skrumshus, the wealthy owner of a local confectionery factory. The car, a "Paragon Panther", was the sole production of the Paragon motor-car company before it went bankrupt. It is a four-seat touring car with an enormous bonnet, or hood. After the restoration is complete, the car is named for the noises made by its starter motor and the characteristic two loud backfires it makes when it starts.
At first Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is just a big and powerful car, but as the book progresses the car surprises the family by beginning to exhibit independent actions. This first happens while the family is caught in a traffic jam on their way to the beach for a picnic. The car suddenly instructs Commander Pott to pull a switch which causes Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang to sprout wings and take flight over the stopped cars on the road. Commander Pott flies them to Goodwin Sands in the English Channel where the family picnics, swims, and sleeps. While the family naps, the tide comes in threatening to drown them. Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang wakes them just in time with a hiss of steam. At the car's direction, Commander Pott pulls another switch which causes it to transform into a hovercraft-like vehicle. They make for the French coast and land on a beach near Calais. They explore along the beach and find a cave boobytrapped with some devices intended to scare off intruders. At the back of the cave is a store of armaments and explosives. The family detonates the cache of explosives and flees the cave.
The gangsters/gun-runners who own the ammunition dump arrive and block the road in front of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. The gangsters threaten the family, but Commander Pott throws the switch which transforms the car into an aeroplane and they take off, leaving the gangsters in helpless fury. The Potts stay overnight in a hotel in Calais. While the family sleeps, the gangsters break into the children's room and kidnap them and drive off towards Paris. Chitty tracks the gangsters' route, wakes Commander and Mrs. Pott, and they drive off in pursuit.
The gangsters are planning to rob a famous chocolate shop in Paris using the children as decoys. The Pott children overhear this and manage to warn the shop owner, Monsieur Bon-Bon. Chitty arrives in time to prevent the gangsters from fleeing. The police arrive and the gangsters are taken away. As a reward Madame Bon-Bon shares the secret recipe of her world-famous fudge with the Potts, and the two families become good friends. Chitty flies the family away to parts unknown, and the book implies that the car has yet more secrets. | psychedelic, entertaining, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0282589 | I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus | Young Justin Carver (Dylan and Cole Sprouse) is having Thanksgiving dinner with his family, only for it to end with the news that his best friend Bobby's (Hannelius) bickering parents are finally deciding to divorce. When he overhears his own parents, Stephanie and David Carver (Sellecca and Bernsen) having a heated argument, Justin retreats to his bedroom. A few minutes later, Justin peeks downstairs, only to see his mother Stephanie locked in a warm, romantic embrace with none other than Santa Claus (his father in a Santa suit). He takes a photo, shows it to Bobby the next day, and then sends it to Mrs. Claus. Fooled by Bobby's own situation with his parents, Justin jumps to the conclusion that his mother is having an affair with Santa. So he decides to behave as badly as possible in an attempt to prevent Santa from coming to his house on Christmas Eve night for him to make off with Justin's mother. The resulting hi-jinks include Justin setting traps and throwing snowballs at a street Santa, and even getting himself in trouble at school. Then, on Christmas Eve, Justin's mother receives a letter from the post office. Inside is the photo, which didn't get sent. In the end, Justin finds out that Santa was his father and apologizes to the street Santa. | comedy | train | wikipedia | A movie for young kids.
Yes, it contains elements of themes seen in other movies, but it is a movie for kids with a "feel good" ending.
And kids up to age 9 will enjoy it.
Parents that are seeking to fine a way to introduce their kids to the concept that the parents are the Santa's will find this movie helpful in setting the scene for their own kids.
Those familiar with the "Home Alone" series will see elements of a brilliant kid doing similar things, only this time Dad is the victim.
And in the end, the movie gives the real Santa one more year of fulfilling the wishes of the kids.
Young parents and grandparents ought to rate this movie highly..
This made-for-TV film centres around a little boy Justin who witnesses his father, clad in a Santa Claus suit, kissing his mother.
Fuelled by his best friend's worries over his recently separated parents, Justin jumps to the conclusion that his mother is having an affair with Santa.
So, Justin decides to behave as badly as possible in an attempt to prevent Santa coming to his house on Christmas Eve night lest he make off with the boy's mother.Dylan and Cole Sprouse, the child actors who share the role of Justin, are wooden on occasion but deliver a passable performance.
This is a rather predictable, mediocre film and will hardly be a contender for any awards but it's enjoyable enough to pass time on a quiet December evening.
I wouldn't really recommend this film for very young children though as they might be confused with why Justin is beating up Santa!.
This is all you need to know about this movie..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ofUZAE_SQ Watch this.This is what really happened when "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus."It sums it up in about 3 minutes and is absolutely hilarious.
Skip the movie and watch this instead.Instead of a heart warming tale told best by ABC Family, we get the real account of a little boy who wanders downstairs Christmas Eve and finds his mother and Santa Claus.
The little boy decides to run upstairs and tell Dad and then things go down hill from there.
Honestly watch this, it is great.
Not to mention it saves you about 2 hours that you would spend watching this poor excuse of a film.
If you're reading reviews for made for TV Christmas movies, then you have time to copy and paste this link...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ofUZAE_SQ Watch this..
Film suffers because the leads are 20 years too old for the parts.
Listen I like Connie Sellecca and Corbin Bernsen.
They are good actors but they are both around 50 playing parents to a 7 year old.
This film however also suffers from steeling a few things from "Home Alone" and failing to execute even a minor chuckle from obvious set- ups.
In this film Young Justin Carver (Dylan and Cole Sprouse) is having Thanksgiving dinner with his family, only for it to end with the news that his best friend Bobby's (Hannelius) bickering parents are finally deciding to divorce.
When he overhears his own parents, Stephanie and David Carver (Sellecca and Bernsen) having a heated argument, Justin retreats to his bedroom.
A few minutes later, Justin peeks downstairs, only to see his mother Stephanie locked in a warm, romantic embrace with none other than Santa Claus (actually his father in a Santa suit).
He takes a photo, shows it to Bobby the next day, and then sends it to Mrs. Claus.
Fooled by Bobby's own situation with his parents, Justin jumps to the conclusion that his mother is having an affair with Santa.
So he decides to behave as badly as possible in an attempt to prevent Santa from coming to his house on Christmas Eve night for him to make off with the Justin's mother.
The resulting hi-jinks include Justin setting traps and throwing snowballs at a street Santa, and even getting himself in trouble at school.
Then, on Christmas Eve, Justin's mother receives a letter from the post office.
In the end, Justin finds out that Santa was actually his father and apologizes to the street Santa.This film might entertain young kids but parents will hate this.
It also seems mean to show that Santa can put married people back together if that is child;s Christmas wish.
Excellent family movie.
My family and I watched this movie around Christmas and we loved it.
I recorded it on my dvr and my kids would watch it everyday.
This cute little movie is a great family movie especially if you do have small children.
Three of my children still believe in Santa and the movie didn't put any doubt into their little minds whether he exists or not.
It lets the children know that it's okay for mom and dad to have their fun at the holidays too and know it won't corrupt their kids mind about Santa.
I think it's great that kids believe in Santa even if they are 8 yrs old.
It's a great holiday movie to spend any evening with your family.
I will make sure it is on our list of movies to watch every Christmas..
everything seems to go wrong, but on the end => Everybody Happy!I basicly bought it 'cause of the Sprouse Twins.
I liked their playing in "Big Daddy" so i figured this ought to be laughing too!Justin (Dylon & Cole Sprouse) is an angel, atleast he acts like one.
The parents of his best friends are planning to divorce.One night Justin hears his parents having a fight.
Some moment later he sees his mommy kissing Santa Claus - not knowing that it is actually his dad trying to make up.
He trows snowballs to the Santa Claus at the mall...
Several times he does bad stuff to the same Santa...
those appear multiple times until the ending of the movie...
This movie does not deserve a 2.4.
There were a few nice little jokes, the childish imagination is better reflected than in many other comedies with children involved.
Justin acts like a child, reacts like child and thinks like a child.
So I suspect that many critics here simply prefer children behaving like little adults in movies.
Christmas for children.
It's meant to be a Christmas film, aimed at kids for them to enjoy ..
Yes, it could have been made so much better, but it's good enough for the children.I do think that parents will enjoy it watching it with their children.
However, if you don't have children to watch it with then you are probably best finding another to watch.
I watched it without children, and I enjoyed it but I can see why others wouldn't.
It put me in the Christmas mood and that is all I care about!It is probably one of those films where you either love it, or hate it.
Terrific, well-acted film.
A terrific movie with a fun and fresh plot and wonderful acting!
A little boy sneaks downstairs at Christmas time and see Mommy kissing Santa Claus - literally!
Not knowing it's his Daddy, he misbehaves and the rest is a series of funny scenes and a cool ending..
" I tried to tell you when you were on the phone with Santa!".
I thought the Director forgot it was just a movie and was trying to make you think they thought it was real.
Before that, going over and over the premise with the kid and Santa was boring.
It would have bored one kid actor to pieces.
Good thing they had two to work with.
They were smart enough to make up their tedious side of the story but: try to really understand the kid's problems!
Sure that was the point of the movie, a misunderstanding, but it went to far too many times.
Anyways, it's just another Modern Christmas Story.
I saw this film yesterday and i thought it was very sweet and funny it cheered me up and i love that little boy from big daddy he's very sweet its good for all ages i'm 14 and i loved it.
the boy (Justin) is trying to keep Santa away from his mum he almost kills him its a very good film..
this is not a family movie and obviously not an educational one.
The poor old man dressed like Santa is beaten on the street, fired from the mall and all because of this trash.
Even when the kid finds out that Santa is innocent, he doesn't felt sorry at all for the old men who is now a beggar on the Christmas day.
Another thing: stupid little kid could kill his father when he plants a lot of traps in the front-yard.
If your kid watches this movie will become a defiant idiot one.
One more thing: why the real Santa Claus bought the Titanium present??
The disgusting kid was naughty all the time...
what will the other kids learn from that??.
So much hate for so such a warm movie.
I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus has been my favorite Christmas movie since the fateful year of 2005 when I first saw it on the PAX Network.
Before going to ION, PAX would show movies I believe every Friday night and during the month of December, obviously they would show Christmas films every Friday.
I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus was one of the movies and tuning into it about fifteen minutes late, I still enjoyed it and it never gets old.The film may be panned by audiences who call it "cliche", and I don't recall it ever going to theaters in it's release year 2001.
Ever since 2005 it has become a ritual that I watch this film at least once in the month of December to not only to commemorate the holidays, but as well as my childhood.
Some films can't go one year with out a watch, and I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus is one of them.
The four stars not only goes to the film, but it's ability to send me back to the past...The plot: an eight year old boy named Justin (played by both Cole and Dylan Sprouse, respectively) feels bad for his friend Bobby who's parents are constantly arguing and fighting.
The parents announce at the Thanksgiving dinner they will be getting divorce.
Justin sneaks out of bed to find his parents arguing with his dad leaving and fears the same events will happen to him.
He sees Santa (his father) come in the door and kiss his mother.
Justin snaps a picture and now he has the best evidence any eight year old can have.Justin talks it over with his friend Bobby who says if he behaves badly, Santa won't come to his house and stay away from his mom.
The father then goes away on business so the kid can't tell his father about his evidence.
The whole film is Justin trying to kick down every mall, Salvation Army, and school Santa there is to prevent him from going near his mother.
One of my favorite scenes is the chase between the mall Santa and Justin.
Somehow I wanted to reenact that scene in real life when I was little - that never worked out too well.I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus is more than meets the eye.
To me, it's my favorite Christmas film and one of the few reasons I look forward to the Holiday season.
Movies have come a long way, and for this to be one of the few bright sides about the Holidays is a very unusual thing.
Nothing but smiles, memories, and laughs when I turn this gem on.Starring: Connie Sellecca, Corbin Bernsen, and Cole and Dylan Sprouse.
far to be a good film, it is a smart use of very simple idea.
jealousy of a boy, who discover in Santa the great enemy, the moments of revenge and the mix of fondness and smile, the dialogues with his friend and the proportion of the imagined disaster, the last part and the expected gift with the logical source .
but enjoyable.a kind of version for Home Alone moments, different perspective about a magic moment from childhood and the splendid happy end.
It's tough watching a Christmas movie, or any movie, when the child actor(s) are worse at acting than a fence post.
Dylan & Cole Sprouse are horrible!
This Made-for-TV movie has a terrible rating on IMDb but it doesn't necessarily deserve it.
It's decent enough for Christmastime but the acting isn't the best and the dialogue is just stupid.
I can always appreciate something filmed in my former home state of Utah.5.7 / 10 stars--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener.
Terrible acting mixed with clichéd plot = I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus.
The acting of this movie is some of the worst I have seen in recent memory.
Nothing any character says is believable and their facial reactions are so laughably bad that my entire family was making fun of it to keep from falling asleep.
I just can't see what even a small child would see in this movie.
It's like the poor man's Home Alone (which some ideas were stolen from and not done well).
Those ideas are rakes in the yard that fake Santa walks into among other terrible clichéd ideas everyone has seen a hundred times (except better).
They even have the boy get a fake Santa excited at working inside at the mall, fired, who then breaks his arm chasing the boy and ends up going door to door for charity money.
Little boy sees Mommy kissing daddy in Santa suit and is bad to keep Santa away for Christmas.
He finds out it was his dad and makes peace with Santa.
Watch Home Alone instead, even if it's for the hundredth time..
I love Dylan and Cole Sprouse.
They are so adorable in this movie.
It was pretty funny to watch!
In the movie, Justin, played by Dylan and Cole, finds his mother kissing Santa Claus.
And as told by his friend, Bobby, he must be EXTRA bad that way Santa wont come and have his parents get a divorce.
So Justin plans all these plots in order to stop Santa.
Along the way, he finds a man in a Santa Claus suit, thinking its Santa, and warns him to keep away.
And everywhere that man goes, he ends up seeing Justin around, too.
I loved this movie as a Christmas movie, and i was glad it was something different to see.
I totally LOVE the plot concept for this movie: little boy spies on his mother kissing "Santa" (in reality his costumed father), so he starts a "Home Alone"-style prank war to prevent the jolly big guy from visiting his house on Christmas Eve and threatening his parents' marriage.
As a story, I actually like it BETTER than "Home Alone" because it seems like a situation that could actually happen in reality and the boy's pranks are toned-down enough that a real child could probably pull them off.
My one complaint (and hence the 9 stars instead of 10) is that this script, with so much potential, was only given the straight-to-television, B-list actor treatment.
If this had just been done with a bigger-name cast and given the full big theater-release treatment, it could've ended up on the same mainstream "Christmas classics" list as "A Christmas Story," "Elf," and even possibly replaced "Home Alone." I feel sorry for the writer of this little gem that their script wasn't picked up by a big-time movie company and given the proper production the story deserved..
A sombre warning about the dangers of Santa kinks.
As mentioned in the plot summary of this movie, the basic premise is that a young boy sees his mother kissing his dad, who happens to be dressed as Santa at the time.
What it doesn't mention is that this is in November, and that throughout the movie the mother seems to have a thing for Santa, with the dad sending his flowers from 'Santa', and her addressing him as Santa over the phone.
He even discusses with his friend at one point about why the mother would be attracted to Santa.
Is it okay to write a children's film with the kink serving as a central plot point?
The rest of the movie is also odd and somewhat off-putting, especially the boy's attempts to keep Santa away by misbehaving.
This leads to entertaining scenes such as him putting a dead fish in the Christmas grab-bag, or lynching a model Santa from a tree.
It funny because a little girl cries over Santa's apparent suicide, get it?
The movie also seems me to hate American culture, by showing scenes where the adults make the two main children sit down for a Christian prayer, then unironically have one of the adults say she is thankful for an upcoming divorce.
This is instantly resolved in the final scene, where the two seem to be in love again and have decide to have a couple of counselling sessions instead.
It actually feels clumsier than the famous 'breast cancer' subplot of The Room, at least that was only forced into a scene once.Overall, do not show your child this movie.
If you are searching for a family film about a small child pranking adults, there are many out there, and many better than this steamer..
Little boy vs Santa..
Young Justin Carver(Cole & Dylan Sprouse)happens to see his beautiful mother(Connie Sellecca)kissing Santa Claus; not knowing it is really his father.
Justin has heard so many stories about divorce from his friends, that he fears his mother is having an affair that might lead to divorce.
Justin wanting to keep his family intact...declares war against Santa.This movie becomes a poor man's HOME ALONE, with Justin putting jolly old St. Nick through hell and high water; determined to keep him away from his mother. |
tt0378918 | True Crime: Streets of LA | Note: This plot synopsis details the "good ending"
The game begins with Det. Nick Kang (voiced by Russell Wong) being recruited into the autonomous Elite Operations Division of the LAPD at the behest of Chief Wanda Parks (C. C. H. Pounder). Kang is the son of Henry Wilson, a detective whose disappearance twenty years previously has remained unsolved. He was recently suspended from the police department for repeated incidents of excessive force, but Parks believes he has what it takes to help the E.O.D. break a case involving a series of bombings in Chinatown. Kang's gut tells him the Triad is behind it. Parks partners him with Det. Rosie Velasco (Michelle Rodriguez), an ex-gangbanger turned cop.
Kang and Velasco head to a diner in Chinatown where they see a Triad member harassing the owner. During the ensuing confrontation, Velasco is shot and wounded. Parks puts out an APB on the Triad's getaway car, which is soon spotted at a Chinese bar. Kang heads there, learning the driver works for Jimmy Fu (Keone Young), a small-time criminal. Kang visits Fu, who tells him "something big is about to go down," and reveals he is working for Big Chong (Keone Young), an enforcer for Ancient Wu's Triad, which is thought by many to be a myth.
At the precinct, George (Christopher Walken), an elderly desk sergeant, tells Velasco about Kang's background; his father, Henry Wilson, was involved in a drug trafficking scandal in the 1970s, during which he disappeared. Internal Affairs believed Wilson skipped town, but George never believed it. Meanwhile, Kang tails Chong and sees him bringing large amounts of money into a building owned by Cyprus Holdings, a company linked to the Russian mafia. Kang follows Chong to a spa, where he observes him meeting a Russian named Rocky (Gary Oldman). Rocky complains Chong is not laundering the money from Chinatown quickly enough. Chong tells Rocky that Ancient Wu is unhappy, but Rocky is unconcerned, telling Chong, "the General is in town looking for his money. That's bad news for all of us." Kang confront them, killing Chong, but Rocky escapes.
Meanwhile, Parks introduces Kang to FBI Agent Masterson (Gary Oldman). The FBI had the spa under surveillance in an effort to build a case against Rocky, but since Kang's raid, Rocky has disappeared. Kang sets out to find Rocky, and Parks fills Velasco in on more of his backstory. After Henry disappeared, Kang and his brother Cary (Ryun Yu) moved to Hong Kong to live with their deceased mother's relatives. They changed their name to Kang, but both returned to L.A. eventually; Kang to become a cop, Cary to open a franchise of martial arts dojos. Meanwhile, Kang traces Rocky to a club, where he observes a Hollywood detective entering the building. Kang meets Rocky, who tells him the money the Triad is laundering is counterfeit. Rocky warns Kang that if he doesn't back off, Cary will be killed. Kang races to Cary's dojo, but Cary is nowhere to be found.
Kang confronts the Hollywood cop from the club. His name is Don Rafferty (Michael Madsen), and he is an old friend of Henry's. He warns Kang the case he is working on is over his head, but tells him where Rocky is holding Cary. Kang rescues Cary and decides to speak to Ancient Wu. In what may be a dream, Kang heads to a restaurant in Chinatown, where he discovers a network of secret tunnels under the streets. Fighting his way through a horde of zombies, he finds Wu (James Hong), who makes him undergo a series of tests, including fighting fire-demons and a dragon, before telling him that twenty years previously, the KGB sent one of their top agents to L.A. However, he soon lost loyalty to Russia, and turned to a life of crime in the United States. The agent was Rasputin Kuznetsov, aka Rocky.
Believing Kang to have lost his mind, Masterson fires him and issues a warrant for his arrest. However, with Velasco's help, Kang tails Rafferty to a warehouse where he hears Rocky tell Rafferty that Kang must be killed. Rafferty protests that he never wanted Henry killed, and doesn't want his son to die as well. Kang attacks them, but both Rocky and Rafferty escape. Kang is then led into a trap at Santa Monica Airport by Rocky's girlfriend Jill (Grey Griffin). Rocky explains that in the 1970s, he and Rafferty were smuggling cocaine into L.A., but Henry found out. Rocky tried to pay him off, but he refused, so Rocky shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Rafferty then planted evidence to make Henry look dirty. Rocky tries to kill Kang, but Rafferty intervenes, saving Kang's life at the cost of his own.
Rocky tries to escape, but Kang stops and kills him. Kang is then confronted by General Han Yu Kim (Mako) of the North Korean army, the mastermind behind the counterfeit/laundering scam. Rocky had betrayed Kim, electing to keep the money for himself rather than sending it back to North Korea. With Rocky now dead, the only person blocking Kim's plans to use the money for his army is Kang. They fight, and if Kim wins, he escapes before the police arrive. If Kang wins, Kim is defeated and Kang is finally able to put his father's disappearance behind him.
=== Alternate endings ===
Bad Ending
After Rocky escapes from the spa, Velasco discovers there have been four recent bank robberies involving Cyprus Holdings, all carried out by two women. Prints taken at the crime scenes match those of a stripper named Gypsy (Debi Mae West). She tells Kang she is a driver for failed reality TV star Lola Gees (Grey Griffin). Kang goes undercover as Gees' new driver, and she tells him she is working for someone known as "The General," who is taking his money back from the Russian mafia. As Kang arrests her, a sniper kills her to stop her from talking.
Velasco discovers Cyprus Holdings own a jet leasing company at Santa Monica airport. Kang heads to investigate, finding Rocky and his men dead in the hangar. Velasco contacts Kang to tell him a team of East Asian commandos have stormed the bank to which all Cyprus Holdings deposits were recently transferred. They are holding hostages and demanding $500 million. Kang infiltrates the bank and meets General Han Yu Kim of the North Korean Army. He explains he hired Rocky to launder the money, but Rocky betrayed him, keeping the money for himself. Kang and Kim fight, and if Kim wins, Kang is flung from the roof, and Kim escapes. If Kang wins, Kim falls from the roof before providing any information. As he walks away dejectedly, Kang tells Masterson he knows there's more to the case than this.
Average Ending
Kang fails to save Cary, and sets out for revenge. He finds Rocky's bodyguard, Misha (Ron Perlman), who tells him Rocky has gone to see Ancient Wu. Kang heads to Wu's restaurant, but Wu assures him he had nothing to do with Cary's death. He tells him that Rocky has gone to the airport. Kang heads there, highjacking a track full of Rocky's money. However, Rocky contacts Kang, and tells him that if he returns the truck, he will give him information about what happened to his father.
Kang heads to Rocky's S&M club, where he learns Rocky is holding Velasco hostage until Kang returns the truck. Kang gets the truck from the impound lot, and heads to meet Rocky, who releases Velasco. Kang and Rocky are then assaulted by a crew of Asian commandos. Kang fights them off, and as he notices a member of the North Korean Army observe from a roof, he is attacked by Rocky. They fight, and if Kang loses, Rocky escapes. If Kang wins, Rocky surprises him, and is about to stab him when Velasco shoots him dead. Kang laments not finding out what Rocky knew about his father, as he and Velasco leave. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034941 | Kid Glove Killer | Ambitious young attorney Gerald I. Latimer helps mayoral candidate Daniels and district attorney candidate Turnely to be elected; the pair had vowed to rid the city of its pernicious criminal rackets.
The two elected officials are unaware that Gerald has paired up with one of the city's biggest gangsters, Matty, to get help in getting Gerald elected to the U.S. Senate in exchange for future political favors.
When Turnely becomes troublesome, Gerald and Matty arrange his murder. Gerald is appointed special prosecutor, and gets to meet the crew that investigates the district attorney's murder. His good friend, forensic scientist Gordon McKay, and his assistant, Jane Mitchell, examine the body and determine the identity of the hit man, who dies while trying to avoid capture.
Restaurateur Eddie Wright, tired of being harassed by the racketeers, visits the mayor's office and volunteers to help fight the criminals. The police take him for a hobo and he is taken into custody and questioned.
The mayor questions Gerald about a large insurance policy he bought, wanting to know where the money came from. Gerald is worried that the mayor will find out about his dealings with the gangsters and decides to get rid of him too. He places a bomb in the mayor's car, and the mayor dies when the bomb goes off.
The police suspect Eddie of having placed the bomb, and detain him. Some circumstantial evidence points to Eddie but Gordon is skeptical and continues the investigation although Gerald calls for Eddie's arrest.
Gerald spends a lot of time in the police crime lab and eventually falls in love with Jane. He even asks her hand in marriage, but she rejects him, explaining she can't marry and quit her job until the double homicide investigation is finished. She tells him Gordon has concluded that the man planting the bomb should have gunpowder under his nails.
Gerald rushes off to scrub his hands meticulously, but Gordon later finds a note in the mayor's office implicating Gerald. He suspects Gerald of both murders, and calls on Gerald to surreptitiously obtain a hair sample from him.
After getting the sample, Gordon tells Jane he has found the killer, but he won't reveal his name. When Jane and Gerald meet again and she agrees to marry him, she tells Gerald that Gordon has found the killer through a hair sample. Gerald realizes he has to kill his friend Gordon.
Gerald sets up a meeting with Gordon and Matty, and gives his car keys to Jane so she can drive herself home. She sees the cigar cutter on the key ring and realizes it could have been used to cut bomb wires. She takes it to the crime lab for examination.
Gerald gets a gun from Matty, who shows him how to use it. He rushes to the crime lab to kill Gordon. When he enters Gordon's office he asks him to hand over the evidence incriminating him, and Jane overhears the shouting from the lab.
Gerald is confessing the killings to Gordon when Jane enters the office. Gordon overpowers Gerald and gets the gun. The police arrive at the scene shortly after, and both Gerald and Matty are arrested. Gordon realizes that he is in love with Jane and proposes to her. She willingly accepts. | murder | train | wikipedia | Van Heflin is a forensics man trying to solve a couple of murders in "Kid Glove Killer," a 1942 MGM film also starring Marsha Hunt and Lee Bowman.
As in "The Grand Central Murder," it's Heflin's performance that puts this film across, though this time he is aided by the lovely Marsha Hunt as his assistant, whom he calls "Mitchell." Lee Bowman plays a crooked politician pretending to be a good guy, and as a result, he's eager to see an innocent man put away for murder.
Hunt's role is somewhat dated (or maybe not) - she's on her way to becoming a good forensics person, but says that the job is not for a woman and she wants to get married.
Evidently that will put an end to her career.Heflin was an interesting actor who could do character roles and leads.
This film was made around the time of his breakthrough role in "Johnny Eager," after which he hung up his B movie mantle and moved on to bigger things.
Hunt brings warmth and sparkle to her role.There was, in my opinion, a major problem with the plot having to do with Heflin testing to find particles in the hair of various suspects some time after the crime - wouldn't the particles have come out when they washed their hair?
And yet it's fun to watch VAN HEFLIN and MARSHA HUNT go about solving a crime using old techniques and spouting a lot of artificial dialog, 1940s style.Both of them also smoke frequently.
A cast of standard MGM B-players keeps things going nicely as Heflin and Marsh investigate the murder of a politician, when all the time we know who the killer is--LEE BOWMAN.
Bowman is one of those actors who never quite made it to big time stardom, but he's completely at home here in the role of a ruthless heel.All of the suspense in a story of this kind lies in wondering how the killer will be caught--since he's very manipulative and very cunning.
His charm makes his criminal nature very deceptive to both Bowman and Hunt.Favorite line: "Just bury me with one of your swell hamburgers on my chest." Reply: "With onions?"If you watch carefully, you can spot BOBBY BLAKE as a youngster listening to a car radio and AVA GARDNER as a car-hop waitress.This one, and GRAND CENTRAL MURDER made the same year, are well worth watching and nicely directed by Fred Zinnemann who later went on to A-film assignments..
Within the first five minutes of the film you found out that Jerry is corrupt and you meet McKay, the man who'll certainly solve the crime.
McKay's forensic quest is quite interesting too.Bear in mind that it's a debut and watch a very nice film..
Hinds, for mayor of Chatsburg crusading lawyer and crime-fighting, that's a laugh, radio personality Jerry Lidimer, Lee Bowman, is in the know to just what Daniels is to do to in combating crime after he gets into office.
Turnley, by telling them wheres he's going on vacation and thus away from his police protection, Jerry is now made by the unsuspecting Mayor Daniels special prosecutor which makes him even more effective for the mob not the law-abiding people of Chatsburg who he's sworn to serve.
What Jerry didn't count on is the man in charge of police lab Gordon McKay, Van Heflin.Getting all the evidence together Gordon and his pretty assistant Jane Mitchell, Marsha Hunt, at first exonerates the accused and bewildered Eddie Wright of Mayor Daniels murder.
With Jerry desperately trying to put the frame on poor Eddie and with a little conniving, on his part, Gordon gets the goods on Jerry by getting a sample of his hair which has particles that were found at the murder scene.
The ending has Jerry who found out about Gordon's evidence against him ,from an unsuspecting Jane, have it out with Gordon, who knew he was coming to murder him, who called the police in advance and also gets Jerry pinned with a dart that he was practicing with all through the film.
Van Heflin was both valiant and funny as the somewhat peculiar lab technician Gordon McKay and his scenes with the pretty Marsha Hunt were, besides a number of fight scenes, the highlight of the movie "Kid Glove Killer"..
Forensic pathologist Heflin tries to clear accused killer Quillan from being railroaded by radio cop Lee Bowman.
The best way to enjoy it is to suspend what you know about today's film-making and settle into a more innocent time when plotslike the movies themselveswere in black and white, when characters were labeled good or bad, when dialog was crisply effective (though artificial) and when even the deadliest dramas ended with wedding bells.
One thing that separates "Kid Glove Killer" from similar films of the 1930s and '40s is the fact that its protagonist, Gordon McKay (Van Heflin) is not only a cop.
With the aid of his assistant, Jane Mitchell (Marsha Hunt), McKay solves murders and rids the city of corruption by using a microscope, a spectrograph and other tools thatmutatis mutandiswill be used again in crime-scene-investigation stories for decades to come, up to and including the current "CSI" television series.
(That same year Heflin won a best-supporting-actor Oscar for "Johnny Eager.") Lee Bowman is suavely manipulative as a power-seeker.
Marsha Hunt makes what she can of a role that has her wearing a lab coat one minute and an evening gown the next.
This was Fred Zinnemann's first feature film, and he keeps the whole thing moving to a time clock.
Van Heflin plays the head of the police crime lab who investigates the murder of a district attorney and a mayor.
So when his friend (Lee Bowman), a special prosecutor working for the mayor, starts romancing her we get ourselves a good old-fashioned love triangle.Heflin is terrific and has great chemistry with lovely Hunt.
Pretty good B movie from director Fred Zinnemann (his first film).
Kid Gloves Killer (1942)There might be little to recommend this movie beyond a look at Van Heflin in a constrained early role.
Heflin is an acquired taste these days, but an interesting leading man a little different than the rest (he's great in "Martha Ivers" and "Act of Violence").
The homicide is investigated by forensics expert Van Heflin (as Gordon McKay) and his attractive assistant Marsha Hunt (as Jane Mitchell).
A likely couple, they say "match me" instead of "got a light?" Special prosecutor and crime-busting radio show host Lee Bowman (as Gerald "Jerry" Ladimer) is also on the hunt.
In a "love triangle" subplot that adds tension later on, both men are attracted to Ms. Hunt...As a car-hop, young Ava Gardner asks if anyone wants desert.
This was a good feature length debut for director Fred Zinnemann.
God only knows if Brian Wilson was jotting down song titles while watching.****** Kid Glove Killer (4/17/42) Fred Zinnemann ~ Van Heflin, Marsha Hunt, Lee Bowman, Eddie Quillan.
The feature film debut of director Fred Zinnemann, the man who'd later go on to direct such classics as "High Noon" and "From Here to Eternity," kicks things off with a solid little police thriller.
Van Heflin, an actor who I'm always baffled at how he became a leading man, plays a police chemist uncovering the mayor's murderer.
This is strictly B-Movie material, but it's well done and even if you don't see the brilliance you'd see in later Zinnemann films, you do see that he's a solid filmmaker.
Police forensic expert Van Heflin (Gordon) and his assistant Marsha Hunt (Jane) are given a couple of high profile murders to solve whilst lawyer friend and Mayor hopeful Lee Bowman (Gerald) also gets involved and romances Marsha.
You know who the villain is but it is the journey as to how he is caught that keeps you watching.The actors are good even though I had to warm to Van Heflin as he didn't seem very nice at the beginning.
On the plus side, however, are the colorful characters and some nice touches.Note, for example, how rather unlikable Heflin's criminologist is, always bossing poor Hunt around and slyly demeaning her—not the way a force for good is expected to act.
And Bowman looks and acts like the charming fixer, even if his Jekyll and Hyde is something of a stretch.The business with the cigarettes both defines the Heflin-Hunt relationship and adds character color.
It is rather obvious at times, and the dialogue is often lame, but for Zinnemann fans it should be quite decent viewing, and even for general fans of its type of detective film, it is probably worth a look..
There are a couple of non-laboratory scenes that stand out but most of the intrigue is played out in the exposition of the "new" (you Criminals better watch out) Science now known as Crime Scene Investigation.Nowhere near the richness of good Film-Noir that was rumbling but wouldn't truly emerge until after the War, this is overall worth a watch if not very intriguing.
Fred Zinneman who would go on to direct such classics as High Noon, From Here To Eternity, and The Sundowners made his feature film debut with Kid Glove Killer.
You have to know that a lot of people must have gone into the movie house and while watching Kid Glove Killer had to have sworn they had seen this before.What happens is that the reform mayor of a small city, played by Samuel S.
CSI man Van Heflin with microscope at the ready sorts through the maze of tiny clues to eventually get the responsible party.The big problem with Kid Glove Killer is that what was added was a romance between Heflin and Marsha Hunt with Lee Bowman also showing some interest in Hunt.
The original film, They're Always Caught did have one red herring suspect and in Kid Glove Killer that part is played by Eddie Quillan.
I think Kid Glove Killer would have been much the better for that.Still director Zinnemann got good performances from his cast working from a flawed story..
Van Heflin and Marsha Hunt handle their roles quite well.
Lee Bowman makes much of his sly bad guy role.
It is too bad Van Heflin was not given more roles like this one..
Any movie that has Van Heflin as the lead and Lee Bowman and Marsha Hunt in support has got to be a B.
Van Heflin, on the other hand, turns in an interesting characterization, laconic and intense at the same time, keeping his assistant Hunt at a distance with his ironic smile and refusal to take her seriously.
The movie spends as much time on the triangle involving Heflin, Hunt, and Bowman as it does on the crime theme itself, and not to its detriment.
Given it's relatively high rating and its headliners, Van Heflin and Marsha Hunt, I was expecting much more.
To begin with, the plot about forensic scientists Heflin and Hunt solving a high profile murder on what at least to me seems as extremely weak evidence is pretentious.
While MOST B-movies have plot holes and logical errors, this one is very tight and interesting and seems superior to the usual detective films.Van Heflin plays a brilliant forensic scientist who works for the police.
In addition, he uses standard equipment of the day to investigate the crimes (whereas, CSI often features procedures that are NOT really used today).Van is ably assisted by the pretty Marsha Hunt--who Van seldom seems to recognize for her many talents.
Just be prepared to be impressed by an intelligently written and acted film--and much of the credit should go to the great director, Fred Zinneman, who is able to get the absolute most from the material.
It's not surprising to find that Fred went on to better and more prestigious projects--probably thanks to his success with little films.FYI--Although the forensics are pretty good, at one point Van picks up what's left of a pipe bomb with his bare hands.
Look under the word "dull" in any dictionary, and a small picture of Van Heflin will appear: he's no better in this film than any of the others I've seen.
It has one foot in the fast-paced stories of urban corruption and crime of the 1930s, the other in the more disillusioned, skeptical world of emerging film noir of the 1940s.Instead of a crusading newspaper reporter, Kid Glove Killer gives us a forensic investigator (Van Heflin) working for the police department of a mid-sized city.
But we soon find out that he's on the mob payroll and is actually the killer (who uses not kid gloves but car bombs).He's also romancing Heflin's lab assistant (Marsha Hunt); Heflin's also sweet on her if he'd lift his droopy eyes from a microscope long enough to admit it.
The story turns on Heflin's sifting through the evidence to exonerate an innocent man whom Bowman tries to railroad.
But when the evidence starts building up, Hunt inadvertently spills the beans to the vigilant Bowman.Kid Glove Killer stays a cut or two above the standard programmer by virtue of superior acting (Heflin never had the parts his talent deserved) and its unusual, if primitive, forensic angle.
Lee Bowman, with his little pimp mustache, is a slick assistant to the soon to be blown to smithereens mayor and appears to be Mr. Law and Order.
Van Heflin is a forensics expert with the beautiful Marsha Hunt as his assistant and love interest (although he does not want to admit it).
We get to see the early development of forensic science as Heflin performs spectagraphs,etc on evidence found at the crime scene.
A love triangle develops among Heflin, Hunt and Bowman which does not really detract from the film......in fact it makes it more interesting as Hunt tells Bowman some inside information about evidence, not realizing that he is the killer.
There is a good supporting cast and Heflin's performance is odd but interesting.
Marsha Hunt is lovely and Lee Bowman, not a particularly good actor, is not bad here and come across as a real stinker.
This is Fred Zinneman's first feature film, after directing short subjects and it's a pretty good start to a great career.
Van Heflin stars as a forensics expert who is doing the investigation to find out who is responsible.
It's owing to the over done smoldering looks between Van Heflin and his female assistant
smoldering?
It wasn't settled enough to have conventions yet, except that the bad guy was usually brought to justice.The pre-genre, pre-noir era is the most interesting in film history, so I'll see any mystery from this period, no questions asked.The experiment this time has a wisecracking forensic scientist, complete with lab (and lots of visible paraphernalia), lab coat, and beautiful young woman assistant who he secretly loves.She becomes a love pawn of the criminal, but that's not very interesting.
He doesn't "investigate" in the Hardy Boys manner of stupidly putting yourself in a vacant house with the killer without anyone knowing.He's just a guy in white coat, discovering the cause of things and wondering how to tell the woman he loves that he does.
This is an excellent film featuring Van Heflin and Marsha Hunt as a quirky "odd couple" team.
He is Gordon McKay, a forensic investigator and she is Jane Mitchell, his assistant, who just happens to have a degree in chemistry.
To me, Marsha Hunt is a big key to the film's success.
They were usually vehicles for up and coming talent".When newly elected District Attorney Hunter Turnley is murdered, Jerry Ladimer (Lee Bowman) takes over as special prosecutor and is determined to find the killer.
Van Heflin (Gordon McKay), Marsha Hunt (Jane Mitchell), Lee Bowman (Gerald Latimer), Samuel S.
The head of the police department's understaffed scientific laboratory tries to solve the murders.NOTES: Feature film debuts of producer Jack Chertok and director Fred Zinnemann, both graduates of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's shorts department.COMMENT: Considering the film's "B" budget, both director and producer have brought out a picture of remarkable quality.
Perhaps the film's greatest appeal, however, lies in its players: Lee Bowman, cast against type as a scheming killer and secret ally of avuncular crime boss John Litel, offers the best performance of his career.
we do not have a great script and the support cast tries to help Van Heflin as much as possible.
The girl he gets is a tattletale that keeps screwing up his investigation of the murders.It is a script worthy of New York as we have rampant corruption, a protection racket, a radio guy exposing criminals while being one.
This film hurt Van Heflin's career I am sure..
Van Heflin is miscast (IMO) as a forensic criminologist trying to solve the murder of the anti-corruption mayor.
Marsha Hunt is the love interest and his assistant.
Lee Bowman plays the ambitious young attorney who helped get the mayor elected.
As the film starts, the crime-busting mayor and DA had just gotten elected and the mayor is thanking Bowman.
Cut to the next scene where Bowman secretly meets with crime kingpin and political fixer John Litel and arranges the murder of the DA.
After the DA's body is found, Heflin uses forensics to find the killer and Bowman is made a "Special Investigator" who also make fatuous crime busting appearances on the radio!
Meanwhile, Bowman is romancing Marsha Hunt and she foolishly keeps tipping him to everything that Van Heflin figures out.
Pretty soon Heflin uncovers evidence of Bowman's guilt and, of course, Hunt unwittingly tips him off.
It all come to a head when Bowman goes gunning for Heflin at his laboratory.
A sappy added on final scene has Heflin proposing (successfully of course) to Marsha Hunt.I really enjoyed this movie.
Anyhoo, Van Heflin, although he gives a journeyman performance, is hard for me to accept as a "good guy".
I feel the roles of Heflin and Bowman should have been switched. |
tt0418460 | Aitraaz | Raj Malhotra (Akshay Kumar) is a product engineer for a telecommunications company, Air Voice. Priya Saxena (Kareena Kapoor), a junior lawyer goes to Raj's house for an interview, mistaking him for barrister Ram Chautrani (Annu Kapoor), a neighbour and Raj's friend. They fall in love, marry and are soon expecting a child. Raj expects to be promoted to CEO when the company's chairman (Amrish Puri) arrives with his new wife, Sonia Roy (Priyanka Chopra) to announce the promotions. Sonia Roy is named the company's new Chairperson; and after a discussion with her husband, she announces the promotions. The CEO position instead goes to Raj's friend Rakesh (Vivek Shauq), while Raj is placed on the Board of Directors. At a party, Raj, accompanied by Priya, learns about his new boss, Sonia Roy. Priya is surprised that Sonia is the wife of the much older Mr Roy. Raj and his colleagues talk about Sonia being very attractive and the age difference between her and her husband, and Raj jokes that his magnetic personality was responsible for his massive promotion. It is implied that Raj may have encountered Sonia previously.
A flashback explores Raj's previous relationship with Sonia. Five years earlier, Raj and Sonia (then a model) meet at a beach in Cape Town. They fall in love and move in together; Sonia becomes pregnant with Raj's child, which makes him happy, but Sonia refuses Raj's marriage proposal and says she is going to terminate the pregnancy as her child would stand in the way of wealth, fame, power and status and their relationship ends.
The next day, Rakesh tells Raj about a defect in the company's new mobile handset: a call goes to two people simultaneously—the intended recipient and another random person on the phone's contact list. Raj needs Sonia's permission to stop production, and she invites him to her house to discuss the matter. Sonia makes provocative and sexually explicit statements to Raj, who ignores her. She then aggressively tries to pursue Raj, who resists. Although he repeatedly rejects her advances, Sonia continues trying to seduce him. As he leaves, Sonia threatens to punish him for spurning her. The next day, he learns that Sonia has told her husband that he sexually harassed her. Since he has admitted finding Sonia attractive, his claim of innocence is not believed, and the company pressures him into resignation.
Raj asks Chauthrani to take his case; Chauthrani tells him not to resign, and to keep going to work. This case goes to court; Sonia and Roy engage a lawyer (Paresh Rawal). Initially, the bulk of the evidence is against Raj and the case gains widespread media attention. Raj's bank manager returns from Bangkok and gives him a tape that recorded Raj's encounter at Sonia's house. After the tape is proven genuine, Chauthrani is struck by a car driven by a goon hired by Sonia and the tape is destroyed. When Priya asks Raj why he called their bank manager from Sonia's house, he replies that he had called Rakesh, and the call went through to the bank manager as well due to the defect in the company handset. Priya continues the case after Chauthrani's injury. She exposes Sonia's earlier relationship with Raj in Cape Town and finally plays Rakesh's voice mail to the court - revealing what really occurred between Raj and Sonia. It is revealed that Sonia married Roy for money, power and status, but when he could not satisfy her sexually, she tried to resume her relationship with Raj. Priya wins the case and Roy leaves Sonia. Guilt-stricken and humiliated, Sonia commits suicide by jumping from a building. The end credit scene shows Raj and Priya walking their child. | flashback | train | wikipedia | It is about a man named Raj who is accused of trying to molest his old manager's young wife Sonia, who actually happens to be his ex-girlfriend, while in fact, she was the one who tried to sexually harass him and he refused, being a married man.
This case is taken to court where Raj's wife Priya, who is a lawyer and who has full trust in her husband, decides to fight his case against seasoned lawyer Patel who represents Sonia.
Aitraaz stars Akshay Kumar as Raj, and he does well.
Kareena Kapoor is also very good as his protective wife Priya, though she has little to do until the film's last few scenes.
But Aitraaz fully belongs to Priyanka Chopra, who is simply amazing in an all-out villainous turn as the vicious and devious manipulator Sonia.
Other cast members include Amrish Puri in one of his last film appearances, and Paresh Rawal, who is outstanding as the witty and funny lawyer Patel.
Aitraaz may not be exceptional, it may not be original, but it is a very entertaining movie.
I recommend you to watch it mainly for Priyanka Chopra..
The plot outline of Barry Levinson's gripping 1994 drama 'Disclosure' (starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore) has been nicely Indianized.
There is no question that it is a remake of that Hollywood production, although the latter had a second plot-twist that Aitraaz doesn't provide.Chances are that majority of the Indian audience may not have seen Disclosure and, therefor, will love Aitraaz.
The first time I started watching this movie, in first ten seconds I realize that this is copy cat from movie "Disclosure".
Right from the songs, music, story-telling, acting, everything is great.
Raj who is now married and living happy life, gets a shock when his ex-girlfriend enters in his life as his Boss.
Finally with the help of his lawyer wife Kareena he proves that women can sometime have negative characteristics in case of sex.
The story actually starts with the meeting of Kareena and Akshay, and slowly catch the main theme.
Songs are pretty good and so overall music.
Kareena and Priyanka are impressive in their characters.
Director has done an excellent job, in bringing out drama slowly in the movie.
Overall though, it is a copy cat movie, you will not regret watching it.
Kareena Kapoor did and excellent job!!.
When i first saw this movie in the theaters back in 2004 November, I was really interested in the roles of the characters.
Kareena did and amazing job being as a lawyer and she didn't over act it at all.
When i saw Priyanka doing that negative role, i was thinking wow shes doing a pretty good job as that.
Its mostly Kareena Kapoor & Priyanka who stole the show.
I love the part when Kareena starts fight with Priyanka in the office and in the court as well.
These directors know how to make a good film.
The box office in Canada for the movie Aitraaz was way better than Veer Zaara.
Goob job Kareena & Priyanka.
Kareena Kapoor is the best actress in the world!!
Priyanka Chopra has really established herself in this Abbas Mustan flick.
Albeit, this movie is not in the same league as some of the class efforts from this director duo, it keeps the viewers plugged in through the end (partially due to Priyanka of course!) Why does Kariena always become the scapegoat in Bollywood movies where ravishing beauties play cameo roles.
She has done the romantic, modelling and vengeful scenes with passionate energy and great elegance, which should get her the filmfare for the best supporting artist (Rani will give her a tough fight thanks to the Yas Raj rigging factor..
She might be a serious contender to Bipasha if she keeps this tempo going.Paresh Rawal's court performance reminded me of his role in Akele Hum Akele Tum, while Annu Kapoor has done a sufficient job.
I shall say no more.Verdict: As a Priyanka and Abbas-Mustan Fan, I loved this movie.
Sexy Priyanks, good Paresh Rawal in overlong remake of 'Disclosure'.
Akshay Kumar is alright although he essentially plays the victim in the film.
The plot is a variant on the Hollywood thriller Disclosure, but there's a lot of Indian spice including some catchy songs.
Abbas Mustan are back with the bang and this time with a bold theme which tackles with the issue of sexual harassment, with an exclusive twist by placing the man as a victim and the woman as an aggressor.
It has been inspired by a Hollywood flick DISCLOSURE.Raj Malhotra (Akshay Kumar), who works for a cell phone company, is popular amongst his circle of friends and work colleagues.
But his world comes crashing down when he meets Sonia (Priyanka Chopra) again.Sonia is an ambitious model with great aspirations.
Her fundas in life are crystal clear: Nothing shall come in between her wants and desires.Raj is well aware that Sonia knew only one way to live and that was her way.
Sonia brings Raj's world to a screeching halt.Raj's wife Priya (Kareena Kapoor), once a lawyer herself, is prepared to do anything to protect her husband's honor and dignity.The deceitful dusk that threatens to put Rajs honor at stake, finds an adamant Priya at the opposing end.
She is now Rajs partner in more ways than one.Thrown into this web of deceit is Rajs boss, Ranjit Roy (Amrish Puri), who happens to be Sonias husband.
The court is far from adjourned and what happens next you have to watch by yourself.Akshays performance in a serious silent role is satisfactory and the audience will sure sympathize with his character.
AITRAAZ belongs to Priyanka Chopra completely.
She sneaks her way through the role like an expert, drawing audience hatred the way a magnet collects iron filings.Paresh Rawal and Anu Kapoor have made their wonderful input to the film as lawyers.
A good courtroom drama viewer will see after a long time, after Damini (93).
In a long courtroom scene, Paresh Rawal is able to keep the viewers engaged in the proceedings while Anu Kapoor appears in an impressive role after a long time.
And the same year he started working for zee TVs program Antakshari.On the whole, AITRAAZ is a well-crafted thriller that meets the expectations in each and every department from story, direction till performances and music.
As a prosecuting attorney Rawal is the Court-jester bringing the audience down with some of the best dialog in the movie.
There have been seductive vixens and stunning looking actresses on the Indian cinema but Priyanka Chopra is an all in one.
Akshay Kumar is acting, when you consider that the Indian audience is used to the overacting from the likes of SharRukh Khan.
Kareena Kapoor is okay but she could have been more dramatic in the Court, instead of her parrot like dialog delivery.
Priyanka does an extraordinary job and is easily the best part of this film.
Akshay, nonetheless, also gave a great performance and proves he can play any role.
Kareena was slightly disappointing, especially in comparison with her past performances and with Priyanka.
A negative role in this movie.
She did it so well that she never acted in a negative role (till 2018).Plus the movie had lovely music.Watchable.....
This movie was so totally and definitely amazing Storyline is good screenplay is good editing is good direction is good Songs are really enjoyable Akshay Kumar was superb priyanka did amazing in her negative role kareena was outstanding amrish is remarkable paresh is superb in a small role other cast is excellent 8/10.
Priyanka Chopra will amaze viewers.
Priyanka does an exceptional job in the film.
Akshay Kumar also shines in the film.
It was refreshing to see Kareena Kapoor in a mature role.
Even though Paresh Rawal's role was short in the film, it is one that you won't forget.
The only thing I have to add to the other reviews is that you may be fooled into thinking you know what will happen next -- more than once, in fact -- but just when you think this is just a Bollycat version of DISCLOSURE, there are a few plot twists remaining.
Actually, the film starts off as though it is going to be a goofy romantic comedy, but there are many changes in store.The performances are good all around.
I thought Kareena (the most gorgeous woman on the planet) Kapoor was wasted, until the final scenes when she steps forward to do battle.
And the bad girl, Sonia (Priyanka Chopra) ends up seeming pathetic, not simply evil.
Corporate hotshot Raj Malhotra (Akshay Kumar) has an extremely successful career as an Engineer the biggest Mobile maker and service provider and has a lovely wife Priya (Kareena Kapoor).
When all seems to go well, enter Soniya (Priyanka Chopra) young sultry wife of Voice's septuagenarian Chairman Rakesh Roy (Amrish Puri).
While the new MD announces the promotions at the Annual day, she throws a surprise and Raj is inducted into the board of directors instead of an ordinary promotion.
Only his wife Priya stands by him and decides convinces Raj to fight the case and prove his innocence.
The rest of the story is a courtroom battle.Aitraaz seems inspired (err copied) from the 1994 Michael Douglas, Demi Moore Hollywood flick Disclosure.
The idea of presenting 'affairs' where the female is the aggressor is different from the generally accepted norm that the male is the typical aggressor in an affair.The story has been dealt well, of course not without funnies usually shown in Indian Courtroom dramas especially funny dialogues like 'Insaan do kisam ke hote hain – Mard aur Aurat' (there are two kinds of humans – Male and female), and the bad joke about bottoms by Paresh Rawal.
Ah, when will Bollywood make good courtoom drama.Of all performances, Priyanka Copra steals the show with her stunning looks and villainousness that fit the role of Soniya.
Kareena plays the sweet girl turned dutiful wife who can be a 'savitri' while defending her husband.
Akshay Kumar has done a good job too.
Paresh Rawal and Anu Kapoor show their drama skills as lawyers.
Amrish Puri doesn't have much of a role anyways.The film's music is not very memorable except for the first song 'Gila Gila'.
In its Bollywood makeover, you have Kareena Kapoor, Akshay Kumar and Priyanka Chopra as the lead characters.
Akshay plays (Raj Malhotra) a business executive at a top mobile phone company which is owned by Ranjit Roy (Amrish Puri).
Meanwhile, Raj's neighbour Barrister Ram Choitrani (played perfectly by Annu Kapoor) had also placed an ad in a newspaper advertising for a secretary.
Priya Saxena (Kareena Kapoor) has just graduated from law school as is searching for a job when she comes across this ad in the newspaper and decides to go and apply for the job the next day.
Along the way (and in a very hilarious scene) the housekeeper Raj's friend is sending gets confused by all the lookalike houses and goes to the wrong house (Barrister Choitrani's ) while Priya, who had stopped to pray at a temple then got flustered after wards, goes to the wrong house as well.
The barrister, confused but happy that the housekeeper is happy to work for less, hires her as an co-attorney without even checking her credentials.Sooner than later though, the truth comes out but Priya forgives Raj and they get married (Don't Miss the Uber hot 'Gela, Gela, Gela' song that is played during their honeymoon) and the barrister as well, marries the maid.
After the honeymoon, Priya announces that she is pregnant and Raj, though happy begins to make plans to accommodate the child.
He (Raj) is so sure that he is about to be promoted to a very comfortable position when Ranjit Roy arrives to do the honours.
But along with the festivities comes an unforeseen whirlwind in the manner of Roy's new and very young wife Sonia (played by Priyanka Chopra in arguably her most career defining role).
Don't miss the ever hilarious and multi-talented actor Paresh Rawal in a special appearance as Advocate Patel, Sonia's lawyer when all goes to the dogs.
Kareena Kapoor also turns in a great performance.
Don't miss other great songs like 'I wanna make love to you' and 'Tela Tum' both performed by Ms. Chopra who seems to have a knack for these sort of things.
Aitraaz is nothing but a rip-off of 1994 Hollywood film Disclosure which starred the sexy Demi Moore and Michael Douglas.While Priyanka Chopra did her bit in a seductive vamp role, there were several laughable scenes like "Kuch thanda loge or you want something hot!" This was another poor imitation of Sharon Stone's famous leg crossing scene from Basic Instinct, another erotic thriller.What's disappointing is the performance of Akshay Kumar in this film although he had limited scope due to his role.
The show stealer apart from Priyanka is Paresh Rawal.
Aitraaz is a remake of Disclosure, quite a hatke topic for Abbas-Mustan however the treatment could be much better.
The film starts off with typical comedy, romance between Akshay and Kareena, only when Priyanka enters things look better, the flashback portion is well handled, the twist at interval is good while second half too gets better.
Though the courtroom drama could be better, it jars and also suddenly Kareena becoming a lawyer yet the end is goodDirection by Abbas Mustan is good, he could resist however from putting comedy at odd places Music by Himesh is good, Gela Gela is good, rest songs are good too however the choreography is crude at timesAkshay Kumar underplays his part well, Kareena is good too Priyanka in her first author backed role tries very hard does deliver well too though at times her effort shows too much Amrish Puri gets less scope and is okay, Paresh Rawal is superb, Annu Kapoor too excels, Upasna Singh is adequate,Vivek Shauq lends some fun moments,rest are okay.
Raj gets a promotion and buys a bungalow.
At the announcement of his promotion, Raj gets a bad surprise.
The Big Boss' wife is Sonia, his one-time girlfriend, who is also the new managing director of his company.
She announces Raj's promotion; not to CEO but to seat on the Board of Directors.
The party that evening sets the stage for disasters to come.The flashback description of the early days of Raj and Sonia's relationship (before they broke up) was nothing short of beautifully done, lovely and evocative.
Raj thought they had something; clearly Sonia did not.
Her career and ambition are everything to her.Why she is angry at Raj after she marries the big boss Ranjit Roy is hard to see.
Raj does not resign; he goes to the office and works.
Of course, there also turns out to be business reasons driving this mess, plus dirty tricks.Who comes out the better in this horrible waste of resources, time, money, and reputation?-------Scores--------Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent camera work and 2.35 aspect ratio.Sound: 10/10 Delightful music and singing.
No problems with conversational voice.Acting: 8/10 Good.Screenplay: 9/10 Well done adaptation.Musical Numbers: 10/10 Beautiful, energetic, enjoyable.
Although a little long, this turned out to be a delightful musical drama.
Initially, this film starts out as a comedy with two young ladies of dissimilar talents getting their new job locations confused and winding up with the employment the other should have had.
Likewise, the acting on the part of Akshay Kumar (as "Raj Malhotra"), the attractive Kareena Kapoor ("Priya Saxena") and Priyanka Chopra ("Mrs. Sonia Roy") was first-rate.
The movie is the remake of Hollywood blockbuster Disclosure.This is the story of ambition.
A Law student Priya gets married to a guy Raj working for a cellphone company.
During the annual meeting, when Raj was expecting a promotion as the CEO and a hike, instead gets promoted as the Director of the Company.
When he tries to find out the reason, he comes to know the reason behind is Sonia, wife of the Owner of the Company and once his love.
But Raj doesn't give up like all others.
But then a for a change Priya fights the case for Raj after his lawyer had an accident and fails to attend the court.
Priya the wife, gets all the evidence to nail Sonia which results in a happy ending for Raj..
Means : Objection , protest, opposition the opposite of approval
Story line : Hunk hero falls in love with a model aspiring to make it very big in life by hook or by crook.
Hero knows of her ambition still humps her
I mean goes around with her , sleeps and enough steamy scenes happen between the 2 of them.Model becomes pregnant.
he leaves her and they part ways.Hunk hero meets a dumb advocate (played by Kareena) floors her by talking like a 17 years old boy and they get married to live happily ever after
..but the Director had something else on mind.Ex flame model now married to an old haggard Industrialist because of his money of course wants hunk hero back just to hump her occasionally not as a hubby as she has all the goodies from her rich old haggard unable to perform on bed husband.She wants to have the cake and eat it too.
I have written about it read it and see how the higher world reacts to vulgarity.The most talked about scene : a song where the ex-model and horny but dissatisfied wife of the old haggard Industrialist calls Ram Malhotra (Akshaya) to her cabin and jumps on him singing "I want to make love to you" in English !
how these Chamelions - Indians change their colors - they are singing English songs in Hindi movies !!..Later we come to know that its just a dream sequence !! |
tt0142240 | Doragon bôru Z: Kono yo de ichiban tsuyoi yatsu | Dragon Ball Z picks up five years after the end of the Dragon Ball anime, with Son Goku as a young adult and father to his son Gohan. A humanoid alien named Raditz arrives on Earth in a spacecraft and tracks down Goku, revealing to him that he is his long-lost big brother and that they are members of a nearly extinct extraterrestrial race called the Saiyans (サイヤ人, Saiya-jin). The Saiyans had sent Goku (originally named "Kakarrot") to Earth as an infant to conquer the planet for them, but he suffered a severe head injury soon after his arrival and lost all memory of his mission, as well as his blood-thirsty Saiyan nature. Goku refuses to help Raditz continue the mission, which results in Raditz kidnapping Gohan. Goku decides to team up with his former enemy Piccolo in order to defeat Raditz and save his son, while sacrificing his own life in the process. In the afterlife, Goku trains under Kaiō-sama until he is revived by the Dragon Balls a year later in order to save the Earth from Raditz' comrades; Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta. During the battle Piccolo is killed, along with Goku's allies Yamcha, Tenshinhan and Chaozu, and the Dragon Balls cease to exist because of Piccolo's death. Goku arrives at the battlefield late, but avenges his fallen friends by defeating Nappa with his new level of power. Vegeta himself enters into the battle with Goku and after numerous clashes Goku manages to defeat him as well, with the help of Gohan and his best friend Kuririn. At Goku's request, they spare Vegeta's life and allow him to escape Earth. During the battle, Kuririn overhears Vegeta mentioning the original set of Dragon Balls from Piccolo's home planet Namek (ナメック星, Namekku-sei). While Goku recovers from his injuries at the hospital, Gohan, Kuririn and Goku's oldest friend Bulma depart for Namek in order to use these Dragon Balls to revive their dead friends. However, they discover that Vegeta's superior, the galactic tyrant Lord Freeza, is already there, seeking the Dragon Balls to be granted eternal life. A fully healed Vegeta arrives on Namek as well, seeking the Dragon Balls for himself, which leads to several battles between him and Freeza's henchmen. Realizing he is overpowered, Vegeta teams up with Gohan and Kuririn to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries summoned by Freeza. After Goku finally arrives on Namek, the epic battle with Freeza himself comes to a close when Goku transforms into a fabled Super Saiyan (超サイヤ人, Sūpā Saiya-jin) and defeats him.
Upon his return to Earth a year later, Goku encounters a time traveler named Trunks, the future son of Bulma and Vegeta, who warns Goku that two Artificial Humans (人造人間, Jinzōningen, lit. "Artificial Humans") will appear three years later, seeking revenge against Goku for destroying the Red Ribbon Army when he was a child. During this time, an evil life form called Cell emerges and after absorbing two of the Artificial Humans to achieve his "perfect form," holds his own fighting tournament to decide the fate of the Earth, called the "Cell Games". After Goku sacrifices his own life a second time, to no avail, Gohan avenges his father by defeating Cell after ascending to the second level of Super Saiyan. Seven years later Goku, who has been briefly revived for one day and meets his youngest son Goten, and his allies are drawn into a fight by the Kaioshin against a magical being named Majin Buu. After numerous battles resulting in the destruction and recreation of the Earth, Goku (whose life is permanently restored by the Elder Kaioshin) destroys Majin Buu with a Genki Dama attack containing the energy of everyone on Earth. Goku makes a wish for Buu to be reincarnated as a good person and ten years later, at another martial arts tournament, Goku meets Buu's human reincarnation, Uub. Leaving the match between them unfinished, Goku departs with Uub to train him to become Earth's new defender. | violence | train | wikipedia | Excellent animation, but uncharacteristically science-fiction plot.
This is the second Dragon Ball Z movie released during the series' Japanese TV run.
This movie's plot, unlike the first DBZ movie, is not a re-telling of a particular moment in the TV series, but more of a side story.
While Gohan assists Oolong on a trip up to the Zulmitezubri Mountains to recover Dragon Balls to wish for women's underwear, they stumble upon the Dragon Balls being used by an assistant scientist named Dr. Kochin.
He makes a wish to the Eternal Dragon, Shenron, to free his mentor, Dr. Wheelo, from the ice that for fifty years buried him after the heavens punished him and Dr. Kochin for their selfish and inhumane intentions of their scientific endeavors.
After the two scientists abduct Piccolo, Master Roshi, and Bulma, Goku sets out to rescue them and save himself from being used as a puppet controlled by Dr. Wheelo's only remains, his brain.
This movie's plot is radically different from the usual demons-and-martial-arts affairs.
It focuses on science fiction elements, which were actually developed later on into the TV series during the Cell era.
The science-fiction story elements often causes the movie to drag inbetween the fight sequences, but the animation continues to be superb and surpasses that of the previous DBZ movie Return My Gohan!
a.k.a. Dead Zone.GRADE: 2.5 out of 5.
Best out of the 3 Pioneer Dubbed Movies!.
This Dragonball Z Movie is one of my very favorite, It has Excellent fight scenes and a very...
Different original story, And on top of that the movie is pretty fun to watch, a lot of variety here.
We got Master Roshi fighting, we got Dr. Wheelo's hand transforming into a Gun!
and a lot of the fight scenes are some of the best in all of the movies.
The fights are long and go pretty much throughout the entire movie, this one is also 60 minutes and is MUCH more better than "The Tree Of Might" which is also 60 minutes...
I also found the animation for this movie was the best out of the three Pioneer Dubbed movies, just motion wise, I found that the fight scenes in the Worlds Strongest had more smooth motion fights and a lot of pretty unique fights, As of Dead Zone and The Tree Of Might they had there awesome fights here and there but The Worlds Strongest had excellent smooth animation throughout the entire movie..
Pretty nice..
Out of the three DBZ films I've seen--Dead Zone, The World's Strongest, and Tree of Might--The World's Strongest is the one I most enjoyed.
The plot is decent enough: evil guy tries to take over the world, Goku and pals have to stop him...there's a little bit in there about Goku's rival/ally, Piccolo, getting mind controlled and having to fight Goku.
This all leads up to some nice, fast-paced action with the least stalling ever featured in DBZ.
^_^ What's really great about the action in this film is that unlike most other DBZ stuff, it concentrates mostly on martial arts rather than the flying and massive blasts of power and charging up that is the center of the action on the TV show.
The martial arts action is very well-animated, and the fights manage to be very dramatic for the most part.
Now for the bad.
Gohan...sings...a...song...in...honor...of...Piccolo.
I will never get those few minutes of my life back.
"Di di di, Pic-co-lo..."AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Sorry...having flashbacks.
That is seriously one of the most screwed-up, insane songs in the world and I worry that the people who made that sequence were on some sort of mind-altering substance...there is no other explanation for its existance.
Anyway, fast-forward past THAT insanity and this is a film you should enjoy..
A must see for Dragon Ball Z fans.
This was an excellent movie.
The animation is just great.
The story seems pretty weak and it doesn't have the greatest dialogue in the world, but it's still pretty good.
The fight scenes are terrific and more than make up for the story.
This is a definite must see for all fans of the series..
Awesome.
Although it probably helps if you are already familiar with the characters and storyline of the Dragonball Z series, it is not a necessity.
The animation of Dragonball Z has always focused on fighting, and this movie is no exception.
If you've never seen this series and you're wondering what you're missing, this is a good place to start.
I also recommend seeing "Dragonball Z: Dead Zone" if you get the chance.
Both are must-sees for any die-hard fan..
A good flick..
This DBZ movie is very good.
It is the only movie so far that I have seen where you get to see Master Roshi fight.
Sure the fight doesn't last long, but he does good for a bit.
This movie is about a crazy doctor who is now a brain in a jar.
This guy wants the strongest person in the world so he can have his body.
He hasn't been around lately so he mistakes Master Roshi for the strongest, but Bulma tells him that Goku is.
Goku is on his way to rescue them and a bunch of cool fighting begins.
Gohan, Krillin, and Picallo also are on hand for the fight..
Who is the strongest fighter in the world....
Dragon Ball Z: The World's Strongest is my favorite dragon ball z movie.
The animation is smooth, the fights are awesome, and it's just an all around fun film to watch.The world's strongest takes place somewhere before namek but after vegeta.
Doctor Wheelo is a bio-scientist and together with his assistant ko-chin, they plan to take the body of the most powerful being on earth and use it as a vessel for doctor wheelo's genius brain.The story as far as anime goes is passable, but in comparison to film in general, it's kinda ridiculous.
But hey, i don't watch dragon ball z for story.
I like it cuz of the crazy fights and fun characters.
The World's Strongest delivers this.
Goku, Krillin, Piccolo, Master Roshi and Gohan are all in top form.
The fights here are great, and as mentioned before, have fluid animation.
The voices are are alright but some of the dialogue is annoying.
The music is classic original DBZ, which i dislike very much actually.
Thankfully there isn't too much of it And i didn't enjoy the dream sequence where gohan falls asleep while doing homework.
Oh well, still a great movie.
I highly recommend this movie if you are a fan of dragon ball z.
Nonfans will be lost and probably unhappy with it, but for real fans, you can't find any better than this..
The World's strongest indeed..
For sometime the crazed Dr. Wheelo has been resurrected as a brain in a robot.
Now his desire is to inhabit the body of the world's most powerful fighter.
Master Roshi was targeted as the body to snatch.
While little did Wheelo knew is that there's someone far stronger than Master Roshi himself.Like the previous movie this one is like watching a 2 parter episode.The idea of the story was entertaining and it has all the promising characters making an appearance.
Course this was an alternate telling during the first part of the series, so it doesn't feature those who make an appearance later in the long lived anime.If you like the first one, then this one is right up your alley..
I'm Impressed!.
After watching Dead Zone and claiming that it was the only thing I loved about DBZ, I'd say it's that this next film which came out straight after it is good.I think the voices are contrasted well between conversations, fight scenes and introduction.I think the music is generally great and I like the snowy atmosphere.
Definitely different to other DBZ settings, mainly contrasting Dead Zone.The only problem I really had was this film did drag on at a few points which kept me waiting for something.
In my opinion, its definitely not as amazing as Dead Zone.I still like it and it has intrigued me to watch the other 13 or so films they have made in the on-going series!
Good Anime.
It is without a doubt, the best in the trilogy of films.
The DVD has kick-a** sound.
The plot is pretty standard, world is threatend by an evil madman, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway this film is much better than Dead Zone, and 100 times better than Tree of Might.
All it needs now is 79 minutes of new footage.
Grade: A.
A good way to begin a passion..
This is probably one of the best movies to help a newcomer to the series to get a handle on all that goes on.
A BIT better then Dead Zone, but much better then Tree of Might.
Though not in continuity of the series, it's still worth the watch.
Highly recommended..
out of the characters in the DBZ saga piccolo is the coolest.
This movie is the ultimate, super, coolest next to the tree of might.
NO ONE can beat some of the animation in this movie.
so in other words i'm saying Akira Toriama outdid himself on this movie..
This movie just doesn't make any sense.
This movie isn't the worst DBZ movie ever, but absolutely not the best either.The story started up okay.
It's about an evil doctor named Wheelo who wants to put his highly-advanced brain in the most powerful body in the world (the world's strongest, duh).
So, he sends his assistant, Dr. Cochrin, or whatever his real name is, and a bunch of "saibamen-like" henchmen to capture what he thinks to be the world's strongest, Master Roshi.
Then, Gohan, Goku and Krillin come to the rescue and yada yada.The main problem of this movie is actually what should be the main interest of it: the fights.
In fact, there is too many incoherences in those.
For example, Roshi fights Wheelo's biowarriors and don't seem to have any problem in doing it.
On the other side, Goku, who is a LOT stronger than Roshi, couldn't do it without Kaioken.
Such a nonsense!
Also, why in the world Wheelo wants to put his brain in Roshi's body if his super cyborg-like form is so powerful?
There's a lot of people who think that Lord Slug is one of the worst DBZ movie ever made.
At least, fighting scenes in Lord Slug make sense!
And it has a TRUE villain, not some kind of giant self-underestimating cyborg who sounds like Darth Vader.But at least, World's strongest do have some serious fights scenes and a decent story if we put aside the incoherence.
So, I guess this movie is not THAT bad.
Oh, and it's still better than "Return of Broly"..
This is not the best DBZ movie,its not the worst either..
This is not the best DBZ movie,its not the worst either.The animation in this movies is great,but the plot isnt.They also need to focus on other characters in the story instead of just Goku.I did like this movie,and I think that any person who likes DBZ should see this movie,some of the fight scenes are cool.(well to me anyway).
The best of the Dragon Ball Z movies so far.
From the opening frames of an icy wasteland, to the pounding drumbeat of the opening credits, to the simply awesome appearance of Dr. Wheelo, this movie is a standout amongst action animes.
Most of the action takes place inside a huge fortress (which always offers limitless potential for coolness) before moving to the upper atmosphere for the climax.
Almost everything here is perfectly realized and I'm guessing the animators were very pleased with the result of their hard work.
Check it out, whether you're a DBZ fan or not, you won't be disappointed..
Review of World's strongest.
I don't know how this movie fared on the market yet I liked it.
The movie unlike others, (others meaning ones translated by FunImation) kept the original musical score.
BIG +.
Though dialogue at times was a little naff (writer Christopher Neel), I was simply too hooked into the fight scenes to notice.
Goku vs Piccolo, as evil as he was, had to take the cake.
Especially when Piccolo smacked Gohan round.
You got to see everyone fight, even Master Roshi which was pretty cool.
I really liked the detail in this movie.
Being set in the mountains, steam was drawn wafting from the characters mouths at points.
A nice touch.The plot was decent enough.
Dr. Wheelo even got a little history thrown in.
His three elite fighters if I recall had next to no lines, so they kept a real evil air about them when fighting.
As for bad points.
The voice chosen for Dr. Wheelo was somewhat annoying and he tended to have rather bad lines.
He could have been made much more evil than what he was.
Many a time lines were just the problem, if only he had said that instead of *sneer* ....
It was also some what uninventive that Goku finished with the spirit bomb attack.
If all else fails I guess.
But overall I did like this film, it is the better of the few I have seen."I am my own best quote".
Better then the Dead Zone....Not Saying Much Though.
The World Strongest was a decent Dragon Ball Z.
I mean it tries to be original.
While the first film The Dead Zone retold the beginning of the show, this one made a honest attempt to make an new story....problem is....the story's pretty plain.
Goku's friends are hurt, Goku shows up, fights a few of the lackeys, get the living crap beaten out of him, finds a way to beat the bad guy.
No surprise.
Goku's spirit bomb works on the boss.
Goku's used that thing four times.
Only hurt Vegeta, barely hurt Frieza, killed Buu, and this robot guy.
That was pretty cool.
I also don't like the voices in the movie as I don't like the early voices of the show.
They just don't fit the characters..
Not as good as "Dead Zone", but still a good watch.
For being a self contained story, with no build-up for the antagonists, this is structured really well.
You can see elements from the Saiyan Saga, as well as the Ginyu and Frieza Sagas, but it doesn't feel super condensed like "Mythical Adventure" was.
The action's good, the humor's good, and the plot's easy enough to follow.
The biggest problem the movie has is Dr. Wheelo himself.
He's not as interesting as Garlic Jr. was, and his plan, while evil, seems more suited for "Dragon Ball", instead of DBZ.
Aside from that though, there's not much to complain about.
If you're a fan of DBZ, check this out, there's a lot to like about it, and it's a quick sit..
Not perfect, but still pretty slick.
The first DBZ movie to air on Cartoon Network (and thus, the first DBZ movie I ever saw) is definitely one of the most memorable.
"The World's Strongest" is one of the original, higher-quality movies of the film series and easily the best of the original three.The plot is simple enough.
A disembodied mad scientist wants to claim and take over the body of the world's strongest person, and as such, targets the Z Fighters.
The rest is some of the slickest action sequences I've ever seen in an animated movie.This movie's main strength is that the Z Fighters are treated as just that: martial arts fighters with some superhuman moves, rather than superhumans (or even Super Saiyans!) with some martial arts moves.
The result is some of the most intense fights that I've ever seen between cartoon characters.
They're also more vulnerable to high-tech and even conventional weaponry this time around (disregarding the fact that Goku once took an axe to the head in the "Dragon Ball" cartoon when he was just a kid), which opens up an endless number of possibilities.
One memorable scene features Goku using his martial arts prowess to stay one step ahead of a room full of spiked balls (something you'd never see in a DBZ movie for the simple fact that your typical Super Saiyan isn't afraid of some shiny little spikes).
Combine this intense action with an evil brainwashed Piccolo and some good quality animators, and you've got one of the best DBZ movies out there.Its main weakness is that the hardcore fan isn't too sure of this movie's place in the timeline.
Goku uses some techniques from his time as a dead man, which means that the Saiyans should've already shown up, but Piccolo is still alive...let's face it, though, these movies aren't known for staying true to the series.
Even as far down the line as Movie 6, there are still some issues that haven't been resolved.Final ruling: A fine piece of cinema this still isn't, but there's a reason this was the first movie that Toonami showed in their little DBZ movie block.
If you can get past the minor details and errors between the main show and the movie and watch it for what it is, there's no way you can't enjoy it.
(Take it from 12-year-old me...) |
tt0100143 | Miami Blues | Frederick Frenger, Jr. (who asks to be called "Junior"), a violent psychopath recently released from a California prison, starts a new life in Miami. Before leaving the airport, he steals luggage and kills a Hare Krishna after breaking his finger.
Junior checks into a hotel and hooks up with Susie Waggoner, a naive prostitute who is a student at a community college. They become romantically involved and take a house together, with Susie blissfully unaware of Junior's criminal activities and harboring fantasies of living happily ever after.
An investigation of the Hare Krishna murder leads grizzled cop Sgt. Hoke Moseley to come knocking on their door. Moseley shares a home-cooked dinner with the couple, upon Susie's suggestion, and plays it cool while seemingly indicating to Junior that he's on to him. He overtly suspects Junior has been in prison and wants him to come to the police station for a lineup. Being a proactive criminal, Junior goes to Moseley's home the next day, assaults him, and steals his gun, badge and dentures.
One interesting scene is when Junior is with Susie and she is busy taking a bath and working on a haiku. He decides to break into a nearby apartment. He steals a Desert Eagle handgun and a steak. As he is doing this, he speaks aloud a haiku of his own, "Breaking entering. The dark and lonely places. Finding a big gun".
Junior begins using the badge, demanding bribes as rewards after breaking up robberies, only to keep the loot for himself. He's highly enjoying his new role as criminal with a badge and the perks it holds for him.
Susie happily cooks for him. While at a grocery store, Junior witnesses an armed robbery and decides to break it up. He lectures the gunman about avoiding a life of crime, but the gunman runs a truck over him. Junior complains to Susie that the "straight life" has made him too soft.
Moseley tracks down the couple through a utility account opened up in Susie's name. He pretends to run into her at the grocery store, where they swap recipes. After she lies that she has left Junior, Moseley tells her that Junior is a murderer and that he and the police are looking for him.
Back home, to test whether he will lie to her, Susie deliberately ruins a pie by adding too much vinegar to it. To her disappointment, Frenger compliments the dessert and eats it with gusto.
The next day, Junior asks Susie to drive him around town on errands. Their first stop is a pawn shop, which he robs. In the course of the robbery, the pawnbroker chops off several of Frenger's fingers before being killed by him.
Badly injured, he limps to the car, but Susie drives away upon realizing what he's done. Moseley pursues him to the house, where he shoots and kills Junior. Junior, being ironic with his last words, tells Moseley, "Susie's gonna get you, Sarge." Susie then arrives and Moseley asks why she stayed with him for so long. She explains that he ate everything she ever cooked and never hit her. | tragedy, cult, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | They're usually hysterical!!Anyway, there is some violence, some 'dark' comedy (e.g. Ravindra!), etc., but overall, I think this movie was very entertaining and a nice offbeat surprise with some great performances and lines.
"Miami Blues' is a pretty unusual film about a charming psychopath played by Alec Baldwin(in what could be his best role yet), who beats up an outsider detective(Fred Ward),steals his badge and dentures, and shacks up with a sweet simpleton hooker(Jennifer Jason Leigh).
See this movie for Alec Baldwin and the crazy character he plays, because it's a role you won't soon forget!.
It's pure entertainment, one of the fastest-moving 97 minutes you will find, thanks to a good combination of violence and humor.The three main characters in here are all low-life scumbags but interesting and definitely fun to watch.
Alec Baldwin plays a psycho thug and exhibits a good flair for comedy, which he has pursed several times in movies after this one.
Alec Baldwin walks away with quirky crime picture, having the time of his life.
Then Baldwin is off and running through Dade and Broward Counties, stealing wallets and identities, staging impromptu holdups, and running giddily amok.Tired old cop Fred Ward picks up his scent, and even shares a meal of many brews and Leigh's pork chops with the couple.
and entertaining movie, though, in NO WAY do I consider this a comedy.Excellent performances by Baldwin and Ward, but especially Jennifer Jason Leigh.
It's got enough interesting faces in its supporting cast to help it make an enjoyable cult-favourite type of film.Alec Baldwin plays psychopathic hoodlum "Junior" Frenger, who arrives in Miami intending to "start over", or in his case simply move on to a new assortment of victims.
(He begins by messing up a Hare Krishna in an airport.) He hooks up with Susie Waggoner, a sweet, simple minded hooker played by the endearing Jennifer Jason Leigh.
A tough homicide detective, Hoke Moseley (Fred Ward, good as always) follows his trail, but gets victimized himself when Junior gets the drop on him, and steals Hokes' gun, badge, and false teeth.
Junior then has the time of his life pretending to be a cop, while entering into a domestic situation with Susie."Miami Blues" does get fairly violent sometimes, but if this sort of thing doesn't bother you, you can have a good time with this story and these players.
You can be or do anything you want, said Sartre, and you can break all the rules -- as long as you're willing to take the consequences.In "Miami Blues" the Belmondo part is played by Alec Baldwin, a guy fresh out of prison who has chosen a life of wilful disobedience.
Fred Ward, looking grizzled and great, is a homicide detective whom Baldwin clobbers and whose identity he steals.I don't know why certain things happen.
Alec Baldwin plays a recently released sociopath murderer and thief who manages himself to steel a police badge in Miami.
Fred Ward also does a great job playing the cop desperate to recover his badge from Baldwin.
This movie greatly shows Baldwin'versatility, and kind of makes me thing of a much lighter version of Henry; Portrait of a serial killer, in the way that both movies deal with leading characters that even thought their morals are highly questionables (they kill and steel just for the kick of it) they are not entirely unlikeable to the audiences witnessing their acts.
Living with his wife (under a lie) Jnr starts to live out the life as a cop AND a criminal while Moseley tries to get him.I've seen this film a couple of times and still am not 100% sure what it wants to be, a comedy, a violent crime thriller or a mix of both.
A charming thief named Junior (Alec Baldwin) embarks on a romance with a hooker named Susie (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a young, naive Southern gal, in this offbeat character study by director George Armitage.
I also question why the lead detective, a rather hapless guy named Hoke Moseley (Fred Ward) feels compelled to have dinner and engage in social chitchat with Susie and Junior.A couple of plot sequences were hard for me to watch because of the graphic violence.
I liked the music, which included "Spirit In The Sky".Despite a weak script, "Miami Blues" is worth watching once, mostly for the really fine performances of Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Jason Leigh..
MIAMI BLUES (1990) ***1/2 Alec Baldwin, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Fred Ward, Charles Napier, Obba Babatunde, Nora Dunn, Paul Gleason.
For most of the film the detective he plays is beat-up and helpless, leaving little time for any positive character development.Baldwin and Ward are both good working actors, but Jennifer Jason Leigh is great.
I don't like his hair in this film, it's cut too short on the sides.Alec plays this weirdo ex-convict and the film consists of him just kind of going around robbing and beating up people.He takes up with a hooker, a rather plain-Jane girl who must have been born with the word stupid stamped on her forehead.The cop is looking for Alec after Alec kills a Hari Kirshna who was pestering him at an airport, by breaking his finger.
This was never explained.The cop befriends Alec and Susie, the hooker, and even stays for a supper of pork chops, behavior that struck me as a little odd.The killing and robbing continue with Alec after he manages to relieve the cop of his badge, along with his false teeth.The only thing I can figure is that this was supposed to be some kind of comedy crime caper, only it isn't particularly funny.
It stars Alec Baldwin, Fred Ward, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Charles Napier.
Hooking up with gullible prostitute Susie Waggoner (Leigh), Frenger, by now under suspicion for the killing of a Hare Krishna man at Miami airport, steals the identity of the policeman investigating him and ups his crime spree...This is all about the characterisations, for the story is simple and played as a darkly comic hard boiled cop picture.
And with Leigh and Baldwin also making good on the characters as written, this is very much worth a look for the acting performances.It's not under seen or under valued, the respective ratings on internet sites and critical appraisals are about right.
In this quirky, little gem, Willeford's characters come alive as they are so well portrayed by Alex Baldwin (Freddie), Fred Ward (Hoke) and Jennifer Jason Lee (Susie).Hoke Moseley is a recurring lead character in other Willeford books but this encounter with Freddie will be most memorable for viewer and reader.
Full of rough violence and noir situations, but played mostly as very dark comedy.Alec Baldwin is very good indeed as a killer sociopath who somehow is also very likable when he's not robbing and beating people.
And Jennifer Jason Leigh underplays to great effect as a pretty, dumb hooker, who falls for Baldwin, and doesn't figure out just what kind of dangerous, crazy guy he is until very late in the game.
That said, it doesn't add up to a lot emotionally, Leigh's role is underwritten, and there are several gaping logic holes the film just ignores (Ward has dinner early on with Baldwin and Leigh, clearly knows he's a criminal, but just leaves?!?)But - those flaws noted - I've seen it twice, and fully enjoyed myself both times..
But the comedic elements didn't work for me; I guess I was just never in sync with its sense of humor.I was much more interested in Jennifer Jason Leigh's character, of the three (Ward and Baldwin are certainly no amateurs).
Alec Baldwin displays the marks of genius here, over the top, beyond the fringes of insanity and then he pulls back from sociopath to sweet, chummy boyfriend to his thespian equal, Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays the dim-witted,sweet girlfriend forever to endearing believability.
"Miami Blues" takes the glamour out of Miami in the 1980's Alec Baldwin shines as "Junior" in this offbeat, quirky, action/crime/comedy adventure.
Charles Napier, a welcome Demme mainstay, is in a peripheral role here as a colleague of Wards' Mosley, but he's just one of many familiar faces that show up unexpectedly throughout the film."Miami Blues" is a unique blend of comedy, and action crime thriller that will get your attention with it's visual flash, and hold your interest with its well paced plot and odd characters.
Suzy coming into Fred's life seems unexpected to him, but it gives him something to work toward, the American Dream.Fred Ward plays an at times pitiful Sgt Hoke Moseley.
He plays a cop and all of the scenes with him and Baldwin's Junior are pure gold, it's just a great rivalry what we have with these two.
One of the great scenes in this movie is Jennifer Jason Leigh's defense of her husband's good qualities.I just watched the 1970s BBC drama based on Trollope's 'Palliser' novels, and there's a remarkably similar character: Ferdinand Lopez appears as an 'adventurer' who, in the end, is a victim just like Junior Frenger.
Miami Blues is not the best movie I've seen but it's got an attraction to it.Here we got three fine stars, Alec Baldwin, Fred Ward and Jennifer Jason Leigh.Baldwin is the main character,a hardened criminal that on a murderous journey in Miami meets Leigh's half-witted prostitute and Ward's polic eofficer who is out to get him.They are all very good in their roles.Ward is unshaven, dirty and got false teeth which Baldwin steals from him along with his gun.Baldwin is pretty good as the bad guy,not excellent but ok and Leigh makes a good performance as a dumb callgirl.It starts out fine but as it goes on it gets somewhat ridiculous, laughable and violent.
Miami Blues follows Fred Fenger (played by Alec Baldwin) after his release from prison, and his almost immediate return to a life of violent, petty crime.
Like many 1990s movies made after Miami Blues (many of which are better), the film-makers establish a lyrical (and non-judgmental) approach to Mr. Fenger's one-man crime wave.
Accompanied by a hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, and chased by detective played by Fred Ward we watch Mr. Fenger stab, shoot, and bash his way across urban Miami.
Co-star Fred Ward (who also co-produced the film) shines as a seedy detective whose badge is stolen by a charismatic ex-con, well portrayed by a young, slim Alec Baldwin.
Their performances and that of Jennifer Jason Leigh, as a young prostitute who falls for Baldwin's character, have much more depth than normally seen in such action fare.
I wasn't sure if the movie wasn't a huge parody or what, but this is almost, you could say, Miami Vice played for laughs.Alec Baldwin, featuring a very odd hairstyle, I just couldn't place my finger one what it was..
While settling down in Florida, he picks up a perky call girl played by Jennifer Jason Leigh and is being hunted down by one sad sack of a detective, played by Fred Ward.I have no idea what happy juice Alec Baldwin was on at the time, but Mr. Baldwin is just plain scary in the movie.
Baldwin and Leigh never did better IMO-so I credit the director and screenwriter in particular.Ward's character will be with me forever as this guy isa genuine original and gives the feeling that the actorhimself created touches (such as the denture) which were quirky but not jarringly false.
I don't mind a black comedy, in fact I'm quite fond of them, so where are all the between-the-lines jokes in this mess.If it could qualify for anything it would be a crime movie based on character development, but the trick is they just don't develop a whole lot.
The three main actors are fine and if Alec Baldwin is not one of my favourites he is certainly good here as is the seductive Jennifer Jason Leigh and eccentric, Fred Ward.
This, to say the least, was a very interesting movie.Alec Baldwin (The Cooler, "30 Rock") plays a psychopath who pops into Miami and starts making a name before he can even get out of the airport.Krishna Ravindra (Edward Saxon): My name's Ravindra.
The movie is your regular action-comedy but features Alec Baldwin at his very best.
You gotta love a film that includes a burglary Haiku."Miami Blues" is a frumpy and sleazy movie, and I mean this in a good way.
Its great plot has Alec Baldwin playing a scummy manipulator fresh out of prison who hooks up with dumb-as-a-sack-of-rocks prostitute Jennifer Jason Leigh.
One thing leads to another and Baldwin is running around the grimey-est parts Miami, posing as a cop and stealing like a bandit.Baldwin snagged his badge from Fred Ward, a down-on-his-luck cop who also gets his false teeth swiped.
Alec Baldwin plays the ruthless killer with wonderful comic timing and Fred Ward's pursuing policeman is equally engaging.
I do not like to watch movies on TV because they cut a lot and stack the commercials so heavily at the end that you can never stand to see how they turn out--although missing the inevitable chase scene is good.But here we have some surprising play amidst the usual corrupt cops and big city decadence.
You can guess who gets what.Fred Ward plays a crusty detective whose gun, badge and dentures (!) are stolen by Baldwin.
(Alec Baldwin) flies to Miami airport where he steals a suitcase and gets hassled by a Hare Krishna devotee before casually breaking one of the guy's fingers in retaliation.
She's unaware that he's an habitual thief and that during his time in Miami; he's been carrying on business as usual.Detective Sergeant Hoke Moseley (Fred Ward), the veteran cop who's investigating the killing at the airport, comes to Junior and Susie's place because he says that Junior has been identified as a possible witness.
The assault on Moseley led to him being hospitalised but after being discharged, this previously laid-back cop becomes extremely determined to hunt Junior down and bring him to justice.This movie's run-of-the-mill plot is illuminated by its characters and Alec Baldwin gives a particularly energetic performance as the violent sociopath who's also an inveterate thief and a pathological liar.
Deception also features strongly in his modus operandi as he arrives in Miami under an assumed identity, indulges in a sham version of suburban life and masquerades as a cop.Jennifer Jason Leigh makes the naïve Susie a sympathetic character and Fred Ward is great as the sleazy, unshaven and cynical cop who's really struggling to cope but remains good natured despite being humiliated by Junior, ridiculed by his colleagues and having personal problems with his false teeth, alimony and indigestion.
It is witty, deep in their depiction of the characters, specially the ill-fated relationship between the incorrigible, still lovable (damn, he can't help but do what he does) Junior Frenger (Alec Baldwin) and the still more lovable, naive, loving Susie (Jennifer Jason Leigh).
(superbly played with riveting wired intensity by Alec Baldwin) gets out of jail and goes to Miami, Florida to embark on a crime spree.
Moreover, Freddy steals the gun, badge and false teeth from weary, hard-luck homicide detective Hoke Moseley (the always excellent Fred Ward in peak scraggly form) and starts posing as a cop so he can more easily break the law.
The film features a sociopathic thief named Junior Frenger, played with great relish by Alec Baldwin, who after murdering a guy in San Francisco, travels to Miami to seek some new victims to steal from.
He then moves to a hotel room and hires a dozy hooker, Susie (played well by Jennifer Jason Leigh, love the accent), who takes a liking to Frenger, who then moves in with Susie.
Soon after a haggard and world-weary cop, Hoke Moseley (great performance from Fred Ward), is on his trail.
Alec Baldwin moves to Miami, steals a cop's identity, falls in with a dizzy hooker and spends the rest of the movie committing a few random crimes and trying to evade capture from inept detective Fred Ward.
The gags fall flat, the story goes nowhere and it's instantly forgettable.Baldwin isn't convincing as the bad boy, Jennifer Jason Leigh is pretty good, and Fred Ward deserved better than this hokum.
"Miami Blues" is a great adaption of Charles Willeford's first Hoke Moseley novel.
The scene where Fred Ward as homicide detective Hoke Moseley and his cop buddy (Charles Napier!) crack jokes over the body of a murder victim while the victim's friend weeps a few feet away is priceless.Alec Baldwin does great work as Freddy Frenger, sociopath and ex-con, who immediately after his release from prison goes right back to beating people up and robbing them.
Leigh, Baldwin and Ward all do excellent work and the movie looks like it was as much fun to make as it is to watch.
One particular victim is a police detective named "Sergeant Hoke Moseley" (Fred Ward) who not only has his gun and badge taken from him but also his false teeth in the process.
I especially liked the performance of Jennifer Jason Leigh who was not only quite erotic but also seemed to be the perfect balance between both of these tough and hard-willed characters.
They were all very memorable.Alec Baldwin really nailed Freddie Frenger - what a change from the usually portly all American hero persona (like Dave Robicheaux in Heaven's Prisoners) to the nihilistic punk in Miami Blues.
Miami Blues is the first film based on Charles Willeford's series of novels featuring hard boiled detective Hoke Moseley.
~Spoiler~Alec Baldwin, looking like he was doing a guest stint on Miami Vice, plays one of his quirkiest characters in Miami Blues.
Baldwin ends up robbing Ward and steals his gun, badge, and even his false teeth. |
tt0283987 | A Charlie Brown Valentine | This special begins with Charlie Brown sitting on a bench at lunch, trying to get the nerve to talk to the Little Red Haired Girl, but of course, chickening out. He says he feels silly to chicken out, because he knows he is the type of person she would like. He says "I may not be the greatest guy who ever lived, but after all, who is? I'm just a nice type of guy who never gets to meet little red haired girls". Just then, the Little Red Haired Girl walks by, and drops her pencil. Charlie Brown notices it, picks it up, and sees it has teethmarks in it. He realizes, this means she nibbles on her pencil, and is human. Charlie Brown wants to use the Little Red Haired Girl's lost pencil as an excuse to talk to her while returning it to her, but unfortunately, Lucy takes the pencil from Charlie Brown and returns it to the Little Red Haired Girl before Charlie Brown has a chance to.
Later that day, Charlie Brown buys a cheap box of chocolates for the Little Red Haired Girl, and decides to hide behind a tree and give it to her, commenting "Love makes you do strange things".
The next day, Marcie is seen making a Valentine's card for Charlie Brown, and telling Peppermint Patty that she is very fond of him. Later that day, Marcie goes over to Charlie Brown's house to ask him if he likes her, and all Charlie Brown says is, "Do I what?". Marcie then walks away, angry. Later, Charlie Brown receives a letter saying "I know you like me and I like you". Charlie Brown gets very excited thinking it's from the Little Red Haired Girl, but Peppermint Patty yells at him, telling him "That letter was from me. You like me, Chuck". She leaves Charlie Brown standing there, saying "I do?". And the next day Marcie calls Charlie Brown to ask him if he likes her, and he gets confused again.
Charlie Brown buys the Little Red Haired Girl a valentine, and then he wants to practice giving it to her. He tells Snoopy to pretend to be the little Red Haired Girl while he practices delivering the valentine. When Charlie Brown knocks on his door (while practicing), Snoopy answers with a wig on, which annoys Charlie Brown.
Charlie Brown still doesn't know what to do about the Little Red Haired Girl. Linus suggests Charlie Brown should invite her to the school Valentine's Day dance. Charlie Brown agrees, but first asks Linus to talk to her to find out if she likes him. Linus goes over and asks her if she likes Charlie Brown. However, the Little Red Haired girl has no idea there was a kid in their class named Charlie Brown.
Later, in class, Charlie Brown tries to impress the Little Red Haired Girl by winking at her. However, before she can notice him, the teacher sends Charlie Brown to the nurse because she thinks he is winking because his eye hurts him.
The next day, Valentine's Day, Charlie Brown notices the Little Red Haired Girl handing out valentines. He gets excited that she might give him a valentine, but becomes discouraged when she doesn't give him one.
Later, when Charlie Brown and Linus are at the wall, Linus suggests that Charlie Brown calls her to invite her to the Valentine's Day dance. Charlie Brown says he can't because he is worried she might hang up in his face. Linus tells him that's the beauty of calling on the phone. If she hangs up on one ear, that is not considered the whole face.
Later, Charlie Brown with Linus dials on the phone, attempting to call the Girl. However, on the other side of the line, Marcie picks up. Charlie Brown realizes he dialed the wrong number. He tells that to Marcie, and Marcie says she understands, and she thinks he probably meant to call Peppermint Patty. She tells him lucky for him, that Patty is here. She gives the phone to Patty. Peppermint Patty asks Charlie Brown if he called to invite her to his school's Valentine's dance, but before Charlie Brown can answer her, she accepts the offer.
That night, Charlie Brown puts on a suit, because he has to go to the ball with Peppermint Patty. He goes to feed Snoopy first, but Snoopy puts on a bowtie and goes with him. When they arrive at the party, Charlie Brown is told that Snoopy can't come in because dogs aren't allowed at this party. Charlie Brown tells a fib to the host that Snoopy is really a kid who comes dressed as a dog because he thinks it was a costume party, so Snoopy is allowed in.
At the party, Charlie Brown sees Linus, and Linus tells him the Little Red Haired Girl is at the party, so he should ask her to dance with him. Charlie Brown decides Linus is right, and starts walking towards the Little Red Haired Girl, getting more nervous with every step he takes. But before he could make it over to her, Peppermint Patty and Marcie find him, and start dancing with him, much to Charlie Brown's annoyance. When the two girls finally let him go, Charlie Brown realizes the Little Red Haired Girl is already dancing with somebody else. And that somebody else is Snoopy.
After the dance, Peppermint Patty and Marcie complain to Charlie Brown that he is not a good date, as he is a horrible dancer. They also ask that he doesn't invite them to any more dances.
The special ends with Charlie Brown upset that he didn't get to dance with the Little Red Haired Girl, and didn't even receive one valentine. Just then, Snoopy brings Charlie Brown a valentine, and Charlie Brown becomes excited. The special ends there, and it is not revealed who the valentine is from. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Is This the Future of Peanuts?.
Charles Schulz requested (though since he did not hold the copyright to Peanuts he could not demand) that no one create any new Peanuts stories after his death.
United Media, on the other hand, did not want to let a cash cow like Peanuts fade into the night.
So they compromised with Schulz's family, making the latest Peanuts special, "A Charlie Brown Valentine", from a conglomeration of numerous loosely connected comic strips penned by Schulz.
Unfortunately, the special feels like a conglomeration of numerous loosely connected comic strips.Unlike previous Peanuts features, which almost always contained a coherent (although occasionally bad) plot, the only prevailing theme here is that it is Valentine's Day.
Actually, it's several Valentine's Days.
The time frame jumps around *so* much that we can't keep any supposed story line straight.
Early on, we get the impression the special takes place on February 14.
Then Lucy announces that Valentine's Day is a week away.
Then Charlie Brown tries to work up the courage to give the little red-haired girl a Valentine.
Then we learn that V-Day is still a few days away, then Charlie Brown goes to a school dance.While some of the jokes are funny, the special could hardly be called hysterical, and its choppy style is more dizzying that enjoyable.
All in all, "A Charlie Brown Valentine" plays more like a love-themed episode of _The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show_ than a legitimate television special.
While such a variety show could get away with some unfunny sketches (_Saturday Night Live_ has been getting away with it for decades), a full-blown special has to pull its weight all the way through.
Sadly, this one does not.If Peanuts is to survive beyond one more TV special, a new compromise must be reached.
We must allow the producers the opportunity to forge existing strips into a workable script--one with a story line--and the possibility of adding some new jokes.
Otherwise, the next special may be, "It's the Last Hoorah, Charlie Brown.".
A Major Disappointment.
No spoilers in this review.
But there is nothing to really spoil.It is Valentine's Day, a day I always hate living through, and I just finished watching the newest Charlie Brown TV special.
It is the first Peanuts television special since 1993, and I was interested to see if it would be any good.
The nineties weren't too kind to anyone that liked or used to like Peanuts.
The big TV stations started to crack down on its cartoon specials like Peanuts and Garfield, and the success that the sixties, seventies, and eighties brought it were stopped cold, with only the traditional Christmas special being shown (which I don't think is as good as people claim when compared to some of the other specials).
The last special for television, `You're in the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown,' was absolutely the most wretched special ever made.
The strip itself was also going South.
Charles Schultz, I believe, should have quit ten years ago.
I would read the strip in the paper and wonder where all the funny stuff went.
Now, two years and two days after Schultz's death, a new cartoon is made.
I found it odd that they made a Valentine's Day special, since there already was one, a good one, back in 1975.
But I decided to watch with an open mind.
But I couldn't believe how bad this turned out to be, and it is with a heavy heart that I type this review.
What it all really turns out to be is a whole bunch of short sketches with various members of the Peanuts gang doing different things leading up to Valentine's Day. Scene after scene, joke after joke, flops like a dead fish.
You don't have to be a kid to like a Peanuts cartoon, so I don't think I am being unfair calling this horribly unfunny.
I did not find any of this amusing.
Part of the problem is that there is so much going on at once that you have trouble following it all.
Characters are off doing their own thing, and Bill Melendez switches scenes every twenty seconds, and very few of the `subplots' are resolved.
The main story involves the tired old plot of Charlie Brown having difficulty asking the Little Red-Haired Girl out.
Most of the scenes involve Charlie Brown complaining to himself or Linus how he can't do it, how he is not tough, how she doesn't know he exists, etc.
He's doing something different in each segment, so there is no real plot movement and no story structure at all, which completely kills the experience of enjoyment.
What was the point of the Marcie and Peppermint Patty segments?
Or the Lucy and Schroeder scenes?
Or any of the scenes, for that matter?
When they finally get to the scene involving the Valentine's Day dance, nothing happens and it is cut off after less than three minutes there.
The final scene also doesn't explain itself.
I am not sure what it was implying, really, but it looks like a desperate attempt to throw in a happy ending when the script has painted them into a corner Melendez couldn't get out of.
There were other aspects I wasn't impressed with, too.
The usually reliable Bill Melendez was really sleeping on the job here.
There is a scene early on where Charlie Brown and Lucy are sitting and leaning against a tree, but their heads overlap the tree trunk.
This might be excusable had the special been funny.
The same cannot be said for a goof up at the dance, when you see Franklin in the background, but he has dirt marks all over his head like Pigpen, who makes his own cameo a few moments later.
How did that slip by?
Worst of all, I think, is the voice cast.
It isn't that they were poor choices, though voices in past specials easily top them, it is just that they don't say things right.
Many times the cast shouts their lines out when a character should be talking normally; other times a character plainly talks when the animated body movements suggest they should be shouting.
And many of the voices are stiff, like the vocal actors didn't even get a practice take.I was shocked that this was as poor as it was, particularly the lack of structure.
If they make another Peanuts special, I sure hope it comes out better than this.
I wouldn't call this the worst, as nothing could be worse than the Super Bowl special, but it ranks up there with the worst.
Even `Flashbeagle' could be forgiven.
I would suggest that you skip this one and look for another.
There are over thirty Peanuts specials in existence....so why can't the big stations just show some of the old, rare ones again so we can remember what it was like when the Peanuts were terrific?
Zantara's score: 2..
A Charlie Brown Valentine isn't as effective as the previous Peanuts love special.
Though it had the usual "Created and written by Charles M.
Schulz" credit, this was the first animated special made after Sparky's death in 2000.
It was also the second concerning Valentine's day and as such, there isn't the depressing vibe the first one had.
In this one, Charlie Brown spends most of his time pining for The Little Red-Haired Girl who is usually an unseen character.
But this one has her in a couple of scenes.
Unlike the last one, Peppermint Patty and Marcie are also present both of whom think Charlie likes them and get disappointed when they find out otherwise.
Add in Lucy still trying to get Schroeder's attention and Sally's ignoring her "Sweet Baboo's" protests of her love declarations and you have a pretty funny show lovingly directed, as usual, by Bill Melendez.
But compared to the last Valentine one, it's not as effective....
The most recent Charlie Brown special.
This special premiered tonight and I really enjoyed it.
A lot of classic Peanuts strips were put into animation.
Though this was probably the first Peanuts special produced after the death of Charles Schulz it still had the same classic animation and humor as the others.
They even showed the Little Red Haired Girl dancing with Snoopy.
One thing I've noticed though is that a lot of things are drawn the way they were in the comics: (Ex: In most Peanuts specials Lucy's hair is all black, here it has a white outline.
The same thing with Snoopy's ears.) Oh, well.
Still this was a great holiday special..
This is my favorite of the "new" Charlie Brown specials.
I liked it better than the Christmas tales and Lucy must be traded.
It's also one of all time Charlie Brown specials-I'd say in the top 5 somewhere.
I loved the dance part!
I think the main reason that I loved it is because I could relate to about 90% of it!
(Especially the dance part) Worth watching and even worth owning.
It's suppose to come out in Jan, 2004.
(PeanutsAnimation website).
It's Valentine's Day. Charlie Brown pines to be the little red-haired girl's valentine.
He doesn't even have the courage to rescue her from a bully.
Peppermint Patty also wants a Valentine.
She sends one to Charlie Brown.
Marcie also wonders if Charlie Brown likes her.
Lucy is willing to settle for kisses and a hug from Schroeder.
Sally wants Linus to be her sweet baboo no matter what he actually wants.There is something hilarious about the pathetic Charlie Brown.
Poor Charlie Brown!
Poor Charlie Brown!
It's also his essence.
It's just simply funny.
I like both Marcie and Peppermint Patty in this.
They are a favorable duo of mine.
Snoopy has a funny bit putting on a red wig but this is all Charlie Brown.
He is completely hopeless and completely funny..
Great!.
Great!.
When you own it, it adds four minutes of footage that did not air when it aired back in 2002.
It's one of my favorites from the Peanuts gang!
It's right up there with, a CB christmas, first kiss, short summer and Why CB why?
Great special!!!.
Cartoon Romance, Charlie Brown-Style.
If you are someone who is deeply yearning for even a bit of love'n'romance to happen on this Valentine's Day - Remember - You are not going to be alone in your longing.
No.'Cause you can be sure that Mr. Lovelorn, himself, (good, old) Charlie Brown (good grief!), has got his romantic-eye set on the little, red-haired girl (who doesn't seem to know that he even exists).(Poor Charlie Brown.
Indeed.)So - If you enjoy watching 2-D "Peanuts Gang" animated pictures - This is definitely a really cute one that is sure to keep you happily entertained for its 25-minute running time.Kiss.
Kiss.
Hug. Hug..
Another fun and amusing Peanuts TV special.
Valentine's Day with the Peanuts gang: Charlie Brown tries to muster up the courage to ask the little red-haired girl to the school dance, Lucy demands kisses and chocolates from Schroeder, Sally wants to make Linus her sweet baboo, Snoopy writes bad poetry, Marcie grapples with her crush on Charlie Brown, and Peppermint Patty wants Charlie Brown to take her as his date to the dance.
Once again, this show offers Charles M.
Schulz's trademark engaging blend of sharp humor (Snoopy's terrible stabs at poetry in particular are hilariously awful), well-defined characters, and bittersweet pathos (poor wishy-washy Charlie Brown's continual struggle with his low self-esteem and faltering attempts at getting the little red-haired girl to notice him are both funny and touching).
The climactic dance is a total hoot, with Snoopy wooing all the ladies and even stealing the last dance with the little red-haired girl away from Charlie Brown.
Linus' obdurate refusal to be Sally's sweet baboo likewise provides some good laughs and it's always a riot to see Lucy hitting on the blithely oblivious Schroeder.
David Benoit supplies a nifty and lively revamp of Vince Guaraldi's classic theme music.
Worth a watch for Peanuts fans..
Peanuts in Love.
Unfortunately, for them, pretty much all of it is unrequited in "A Charlie Brown Valentine".
This is a 25-minute short film from almost 15 years ago and this was one made in the brief period after Schulz' death while Melendez was still alive.
They could basically recycle some of the old stuff here for this one in terms of the story as the romantic preferences of the characters have been show in many films already.
Charlie and his little red-haired girl is my personal favorite, but one girl's love for the piano virtuoso and the other one's for her little baboo are fairly entertaining too.
All in all, another decent addition to this long-running franchise.
We shall see how the topic of love is used are used in the new Peanuts film this year.
We will certainly see a bit about these romantic connections in there as well.
Until then, I recommend watching this one here.
Snoopy's pranks are funny again too. |
tt1241195 | Aamir | The film begins with Dr. Aamir Ali (Rajeev Khandelwal) returning to Mumbai on vacation. Upon arrival at the airport, an unknown person hands him a cellphone. The caller asks him to follow instructions. Though initially reluctant, he sees a video in the phone and realises that his family has been kidnapped. Not sure what to do, he hesitantly agrees to follow the instructions when told that his family will be released if he does so.
The instructor asks Aamir Ali to think of Islam and wants him to do something for his religion rather than work and live in a foreign country. He is then made to go a hotel, where he is given an address. From there, he goes to a PCO and calls an anonymous number, which is in Pakistan. He is asked to stay in a lodge, where a lame man asks him to follow him. Aamir is then led to a house where he is given a red briefcase. Initially thinking the briefcase is a bomb, he opens it and finds that it is full of money. From the lodge, he is asked to catch a particular bus at a designated time.
He leaves to catch the bus, but on the way his briefcase gets stolen. Realizing that the only way to save his family is to get back the briefcase, he enlists the help of a prostitute whom he met at the lodge. After finding the place, he fights back and takes the briefcase. He then hurries to catch the bus. Once inside the bus, he is told to put the briefcase underneath his seat and leave. Aamir now realises that his briefcase has been switched. Instead of money, they have put a bomb inside it. He alights from the bus and begins to hallucinate. He boards the bus once again and takes the briefcase. He then clears an area saying he has a bomb in his hands. He holds on to the briefcase tightly and begins to think of his family. The bomb expolodes, killing Aamir.
The antagonist weeps upon hearing his plan of creating a terrorist has failed. The film ends with reporters reporting live from the spot, saying "A terrorist was killed in a bomb attack. But why he decided to kill only himself is unknown." | brainwashing | train | wikipedia | Or like proclaiming that since you are used to "Desi" ..champagne is as good as salt water.Aamir is one of the best films I have seen of late .
You might have seen many good Bollywood movies but I am sure you surely haven't seen something like this.
I will not tell anything about the plot because the less you know about it the more you will enjoy the movie.It will surely pull you in the shoes of the lead character from the very first scene.
This is a debut movie for most of the cast and crew surely most amazing debut in Bollywood after a very very long time.This surely is best of this year, don't miss this one..
In the midst of writing my first screenplay, I was keenly observing reviews from my close ones about the movies they liked and disliked and the reasons for them.
Aamir is fantastically different to the clichéd movie world, we live in India.
Rajeev Khandelwal looks dapper, plays his character and displays angst, fear and horror with great facial precision and makes you wonder why he has not been casted in another movie yet, are we all sleeping or are we just too obsessed with our stars?
Editing is first rate, direction has a sense of purpose and the whole ensemble of actors plying their trade meaningfully gives Aamir a definite must watch tag.
A Masterpiece showing a reality of old Bombay at present, a small budget movie with great significant of present issues photography was excellent by Alphonso Roy, A great effort from rising star of film industry"Rajiv Khandelwal" sure he'll going to have rocking future like S.R.K. If we put ourselves in the character then we will realize the psychology of the maker & excellent story with a power punch to think Aamir=Leader title is perfect beyond the politics Watch it at any cost.
Brilliant Acting, awesome camera work, tight script, haunting background, extreme locations (even i would not dare to go in daylight) and message for all.
You would want to stand up and applaud when the end credits roll, for this will be easily one of the finest films you have seen in recent times.
And it becomes all the more commendable considering the fact that most of the names in the credits are debutants, including the lead protagonist and director.Debutant director Raj Kumar Gupta dares to tread the path less travelled with a dark, hard hitting drama thriller.
And to add to the class of the director and innovation of cinematographer, there is impeccable background score.Rajiv Khandelwal, probably the most precious Bollywood import from television and best debutant this year, showcases the character that is traumatized, shocked, feared, determined, strong, venerable all at the same time.
We only hope he is nurtured and used well in Bollywood, for he is a talent to look out for.Looking at the kind of cinema that's being churned out these days, you'll have to wait probably really long to watch a film of this stature.
Never before in Hindi cinema, anyone has made such a thriller (without introducing any ghosts).Brilliant direction, story, camera work, background music is far beyond expectation, special credit goes to director for choosing such real life locations during shooting.
Excellent acting by Amir, I can't remember his name, probably Rajiv.....congrats man, you can expect "critics" award next year, some of the incidents in the story are almost our common life experiences like the custom officer matter.Overall, it is simply a masterpiece.
Last year such an unexpected movie came out "Jhony Gaddar" but this one is far better than that dealing with a real life story from different angles..
The TV star Rajeev Khandelwal makes an impressive movie debut with this one.
We have seen similar thrillers like cellular or phone booth but this ones shows an entirely different scenario.An Indian doctor on returning from London founds himself in precarious circumstances where his family is kidnapped and he is made to run around the city by goons.
Easily the best performance of the year so far.Raj Kumar Gupta makes a fine directorial debut.
although its "inspired" from a Filipino movie Aamir is well directed by debut director Rajkumar Gupta ..Your heart goes out to Aamir Ali and what he is been put through...
but how an ordinary man makes takes a stand.....Another good point of the movie is real locations..
A calorie free movie which sans the "phormoola" (the must-have superstitious ingredient for every Bollywood movie).Aamir rests heavily on the technical department and needless to say it is rock solid, hence works big time.
Kudos to all the new faces, Rajeev Khandelwal deserves a special mention (and so does the lady who plays the hooker).The director spares no moments to gets straight down to business and you get sucked into the whirl hole.
The choice of locales deserves a special mention very realistic and add the background score to it, you almost feel it is virtual reality you are experiencing.Somewhere in between, you get déjà vu as though the entire plot is a bad prank (Bluffmaster/ The Game) but eventually it dawns that the funny bone does not exist.And ah yes the ending couldn't have been better!
Am I glad I did!'Aamir' is a story of Dr. Aamir Ali who returns from London to his home in Mumbai only to find that someone has kidnapped his entire family.
He is then told to get off the bus at the next traffic light leaving the suitcase behind.This is as far as I want to tell you since the final few minutes of the movie are a revelation.
I wouldn't go as far as to say I was completely taken aback by it or wasn't expecting it to happen, but the conviction with which a normal regular common man steps from those shadows of cowardice and attempts to personify his name 'Aamir' – a leader – was what I found most endearing.
I recommend everyone to watch 'Aamir', as such 'in the face' almost surreal seeming plots very rarely make for a good viewing..
excellent movie ,with extraordinary thrill ,live characters ,wonderful script and finally the god locations.ALL the time it will make u thinking whats going to happen next.GIves a picture of emerging thinking among Muslims .AND in the end it shows how people still react.Background score and music is just perfect with the theme of the movie.AND songs are also so fit with the movie as it proceeds.This is a debut movie for most of the cast and crew surely most amazing debut in Bollywood after a very very long time.SO please don't miss the movie.
Best movie of 2008 so far i have seen.
I must say this was the best movie i have seen so far in this year.
Aamir is a commendable movie coming from a first-timer.Marking the graduation of television star Rajeev Khandelwal to the big screen, 'Aamir' tells the story of a Muslim doctor who arrives in Mumbai from the UK.
The only way Aamir can save them is to do what he is told to.Following the instructions of the fanatic on the other end of the line, the suited booted Aamir goes through the filth and squalor of Mumbai's impoverished by-lanes, the red-light areas, the dilapidated buildings and the bustling markets until he finds himself in a dead-end situation where he has to either carry out a deadly act or risk losing his family forever.'Aamir' is a slice-of-life cinema that mirrors the possibility, if not reality, how a harmless individual can be held to ransom and blackmailed into doing something seemingly beyond his morals and capacity.The movie works primarily because its lead player Rajeev Khandelwal lends credence to the character with his finely nuanced performance deftly punctuated with restraint and outbursts.Secondly, the film's director Rajkumar Gupta does a heck of a job behind the camera.
In the beginning i thought it would be something like d English movie Phone-Booth but its quite different..
"I feel people like the head of the BAD guys in d movie have a limited and a very narrow thinking.
Such people are just cowards who don't actually know what they are doing because they are uneducated and misguided by other such people..I think watching these kind of movies is far better than wasting 3 hours on a masala film.
The film is terrific and I especially appareciate the way the film ends, as Hollywood NEVER would have chosen to end a movie that way.The film begins with Aamir Ali (Rajeev Khandelwal) arriving in Mumbai.
Suddenly, this phone begins to ring...and the voice on the other end tells Aamir that his family is being held captive and he must do EXACTLY what he's told or they'll die.
1st watched 1/30/2010 – 4 out of 10 (Dir-Raj Kumar Gupta): Fair thriller with good soundtrack but typical American-like terrorist theme played out very much like a lot of Hollywood output in this genre.
The movie follows the typical good-guy manipulated by bad-guy motif and then tries to end with making us think about our moral choices.
The soundtrack was the best part of this movie and otherwise it was a typical Hollywood-like thriller that Bollywood shouldn't be trying to imitate – in my opinion..
However, these are small nitpicks in a flowing canvas and don't take anything away from the point being driven: that Mumbai (and India, by natural extension) is as much about the poor souls as it is about the wealthy, famous, and powerful.In terms of performances, the director, Rajkumar Gupta, deserves the kudos for penning and executing a tight thriller, something Bollywood is not prone to do.
Aamir is a nice film and can be seen although the subject is inspired of 2005 released Cavite .
When you see lots of bad movies, then even an average movie starts looking very good, and Aamir is above average.
But when I again watched this movie, flaws started to come out of the surface and it looked to me not so very good movie.
Infect, Aamir is just an above average movie in terms of everything, acting, the pace of the movie, cinematography, everything but the story.
The story of the movie, I must say is good.
The protagonist of the movie just returns from London and soon he finds that his family is kidnapped by some people and the only choice he has to save them is to do whatever is asked to do by them.
As far as the rating goes I shall give this 7 out of 10 and would recommend to watch if you want to see a good sensible film..
This had crucified my inhibitions that such a movie can't be made and is difficult to be held on to.This indeed is a brave attempt, from long shots of AAMIR running in streets to close ups showing his despair, every nuance is married with his psychological state.
Oh, what a vicious circle it is.Editing is sublime and so is the cinematography to capture each face each nuance and convey something that in such time conveys many greater things.Kudos to director Raj Kumar Gupta for thinking of making it and Anurag Kashyap who has helped it to surface the way it is.One might like it and many may not.
Aamir is a compelling drama from start to finish and Rajeev Khandelwal gives the performance of a lifetime, and director Raj Kumar Gupta shows great promise in his film debut.
TV actors make awful actors this was one of my thoughts proved right ever since Amar Upadyay superstar of Kyunki Saas fame who became a disaster of an actor in films and left the films foreverMany more TV actors tried and most were embarrassing to watch on big screen But Rajeev Khandelwal proves it wrong and he proves that TV actors can act though we can't say he will make a big star or not or he will go ahead in films and he hasn't signed anything much after AAMIR sadlyThe film looks like another terorist film but it's not It does have nationalism, communalism.etc but yet it is a great film we are saved from sermons and other stuff such films are madeWhat we see is a proper story of how a common man is told to do some crime in the name of religion which he hasn't done yet The film is very identifiable and brilliantly handledIt's difficult to make a film where there is no heroine, no naach gaana, no hero dancing, fighting.etcIn fact the hero is a common man who has just 1 wardrobe for most of the film, you can feel his sweat, pain, agony.etcThe film keeps your attention throughout and you get seeped into the character's world The film is a short film of 1:30 mins but yet it makes a terrific impact and till the climax it keeps you on tenterhooksDirection is superb Music mostly in background is goodRajeev does a great job, he looks a common man and his expressions throughout are natural and you feel his agony, distress, pain.etc Hope he goes ahead in films The villain is good too rest are okay.
Khandelwal is a bit of a 'pretty boy' and his character acting a wee bit dry at first, but it really picks up linearly in empathy till the end....you just feel for the lead actor!
The frustration, helplessness, anger, are so well spoken through the music, very few movies from Bollywood have been able to attain this level of connection between screenplay and background score.
Just when you think the Indian cinema is repeating its non-sense routine crap all the time, a very refreshing movie pops up to highlight the excellence in bollywood.
Rajeev's acting was good too but had flaws at so many places like when he runs behind the taxi , its like he working out and getting tired there no concern in his face .
Well but looks like a lot of effort has been put in though to make the movie and kudos to that :-)..
The movie really proved to be an "Eye Opener".The places shown really depicts the condition of people living miserably with/without knowing it.Aamir's character of a non-discriminating individual was nicely portrayed.
"Aamir" failed to make the cut in my book, in terms of being *good* cinema.***Probable Spoilers*** The best way to enjoy this movie is to not know ANYTHING about it at all.
The slightest hints can be a spoiler because the best things about this movie are the beautiful location shots (how lovely they make Mumbai look on screen nowadays, starting with the adorable "Taxi No.9211" montage) and the starkly non-bollywood treatment.
The film progresses like a thriller, throwing surprises and giving hints.
The movie surely has an interesting theme, very rarely presented and seen in Bollywood.Aamir Ali (Rajeev Khandelwal) a doctor, returns from UK to India.
He faces religious discrimination at the airport and when out of the airport is drawn into a web when he knows that his family is kidnapped by some Muslim extremist, who want Aamir to run from one place to another in Bombay and end it up by planting bomb on a crowded bus.
I won't tell you the ending and leave it to you to see it.This is a very good effort by the first time director Raj Kumar Gupta, who has also written the movie.
There are lots of other characters who come and go but Rajeev Khandelwal as the main protagonist has done a great job in enacting the role of the educated Muslim youth.The technique of the movie is good and reminds us of some Hollywood style movies.
The movie Actor is not a leading Star of India film industry, So the expression are not looking real.
As a Indian movie, the music must be good to become a best hit to the box office, but in this film the songs are not good enough to listen again.
At 95 minutes, Aamir could be Bollywood's shortest movie ever.
And after watching the movie, though I wouldn't say the theme is fresh, it sure is rare.Inspired by Johnny Depp's Nick of Time (1995) or more closely by the low budget Philippine cinema Cavite (2005), Aamir tells the story of Dr. Aamir Ali (Rajeev) who is coming home to Mumbai from London, due to a Parliament bill passed in UK, prohibiting immigrant doctors from practicing medicine.
Outside the airport he is suddenly drawn into a web of terrorism, where a mystery man, who interacts with him on phone, is keeping his family hostage to make sure Aamir does what he says.
Watch Aamir to learn the rest.Director Raj Kumar Gupta makes a stunning debut by making a bollywood cinema that breaks all conventions and traditions.
Even the couple of songs that are in the movie are used in the background while the story progresses.
Rajeev Khandelwal makes an impressive debut, thereby getting his emotions all right.
But his character is very much one dimensional as the movie happens in real time.
Despite these minor flaws, Aamir is still Bollywood's new age thriller cinema at it's best.Verdict: Go for it !!!!.
Rather his take was if you want to grow, work hard not get jealous of others who grow.The movie marks the debut of actor Rajeev Khandelwal, with no heroines, songs in the movie and directed by Rajkumar Gupta, the movie is a masterpiece.
No Hindi movie in recent memory had a screenplay and visuals like that of Aamir, a movie with débutant director Raj Kumar Gupta and débutant lead actor Rajeev Khandelval, along with the débutant music composer and cinematographer.Also, for the first ever time the dingy by lanes in the dirtiest parts of the dreamy film city Bombay (Mumbai) have been captured on the big screen.
Aamir is a perfect movie depicting the story of Aamir who currently arrives in India after spending three years in London, studying medicine. |
tt0477252 | 36 China Town | Multimillionaire Sonia Chang (Isha Koppikar) finds out her only 2 year son is kidnapped. She lives in her huge mansion named "36 China Town" with a servant couple Mr.Lobo (Dinyar Contractor) and Mrs.Lobo (Roshan Tirandas) in Goa. Sonia is consoled by Rocky (Upen Patel), a local flirt. Sonia declares 25 lakh reward if anyone returns the child to her.
The story then focusses upon Raj (Shahid Kapoor), a struggling actor & Priya (Kareena Kapoor), a runaway jilted girl. They both meet each other after both of their dreams have been shattered. They find a child who is dumped in Mumbai. They take pity on him, but after seeing a missing persons ad, they realise that the child is the only son of Sonia Chang. The ad says that they will get a lot of money if they return the son back. They both need the money so they decide to return the baby to her. Before leaving for Goa, they call Sonia Chang and tell that they have her child. She was discussing the change in her will with her lawyer Mr Dixit (Vivek Vaswani), when the duo inform her about her baby. Meanwhile, Raj falls in love with Priya. But she is irritated by his presence.
Sonia is overjoyed & calls them to Goa. During midnight, her casino is hosting some interesting people. One of them is Mr. Natwar (Paresh Rawal), a notorious gambler who has come along with his wife Gracy (Payal Rohatgi). Natwar has pawned his four hotels to Sonia & has only one hotel left in his possession. When he loses money, he is forced to pawn the last hotel too. He keeps this a secret, but Gracy knows the fact. Another person is KK (Johny Lever), who has come along with his wife Ruby (Tanaaz Currim). There is also playboy Rocky among them, who is a big hit with ladies, especially Sonia. Rocky flirts with Ruby. Ruby wins a lot of money in casino. But when she doesn't get the money even after claiming it, she enters 36 China town to meet Sonia in a very angry mood. Even Natwar goes inside the mansion to meet Sonia and pawn the last hotel. Upset by this, Gracy goes to 36 China Town in an angry mood. Then, she goes her bedroom with Rocky. Meanwhile, KK and Natwar decide to play together and they lose all of their money. They fight and get out of the casino by the bouncers.
Meanwhile, Raj & Priya come to Goa, where they run into a drunkard (Raj Zutshi) loitering near the mansion. The drunkard runs away on seeing them. The duo are surprised to see the mansion to be in dark, since they expected Sonia to be waiting for them. They enter the mansion & call for Sonia. When she doesn't answer, they realise that something is wrong. On seeing the state of the house, they realise that Sonia has been robbed, but are later horrified to see Sonia dead. The duo run, but find that the child is left inside the mansion. Raj enters the mansion again to take him. He witnesses two eyes and legs of the killer behind a cupboard. Terrified, he gets out of the mansion with the child. Raj and priya then inform Goa police about the murder. They keep the child inside a police van and run away. But Priya finds that she has left her suitcase inside the mansion inside which her passport is kept. Meanwhile, audience watch that Sonia's body is kept inside Priya's suitcase by somebody and kept outside the mansion. KK reaches the mansion and finds the suitcase. Thinking that it is containing lot of money, he takes it and reaches his room in hotel where Ruby is waiting for him. Meanwhile, Raj and Priya go back to the mansion to take her suitcase. Raj enters the mansion but is arrested by Inspector Karan (Akshaye Khanna), the investigating officer and Ravi (Vivek Shauq). Meanwhile, KK and Ruby find out that the suitcase contains dead body, not money. They decide to dispose the suitcase. Meanwhile, Priya, who wants to help Raj, gets arrested. Priya and Raj become the prime suspects of the murder. Inside the cell both fall for each other. Meanwhile, KK and Ruby unable to dispose the suitcase, are arrested by police. KK tells the truth to Karan about Natwar. Karan goes to meet Natwar. Natwar lies to him that he was in his room with his wife, Gracy. Karan goes away. Natwar then finds out that Gracy was with Rocky in the room. Next day, Karan comes to meet Natwar and Gracy. Natwar tells him that it was he who was in the room and he got out from pipe directly to the neighbouring house's bedroom (Which actually Rocky did). But to his shock, the room turns to be Sonia Chang's mansion's bedroom where she was murdered. Natwar is arrested.
Natwar then tells the truth to Karan about Rocky. Karan calls Rocky to police station. But seeing Rocky's eyes, Raj recollects that it was rocky's eyes and shoes which he had seen behind the cupboard. Rocky then tells that he was in Gracy's room that night. He had got out from the pipe to sonia's bedroom only to find her already murdered. When he was about to get out from the house, Raj and Priya had entered with the child and started searching for Sonia. Then, when Raj had entered the mansion again to take the child, he had seen his (Rocky's) eyes and legs. Karan is able to reconstruct what actually happened that night. Based on Mr. Dixit's statement about the will & everybody's statement, Karan is able to find the truth. First, he procures the drunkard, whom Raj & Priya believe to be the murderer. But, Karan goes on to explain that he is in fact, the kidnapper.
Karan goes on to explain that the kidnapper was hired by the killer but the kidnapper lost the baby's possession, who was then found by Raj and Priya in Mumbai. After Sonia is informed by Raj & Priya about the baby's discovery, the mastermind found that his/her plan was failing. Hence, he/she murdered Sonia, while other people incriminated themselves by fooling others to believe that it was robbery gone wrong. The actual killer was Mr. and Mrs. Lobo, Sonia's servants. According to Sonia Chang's initial will, after her death, the person who was most close to her son (which were her servants) would inherit everything but then one day she found out about their evil intentions and decided to change her will, which led to them murdering her. | murder | train | wikipedia | The movie was quite good with many twists and turns although it's a comedy thriller and they both don't match.
I thought it was going to be rubbish but as usual Abbas-Mustan's films are always good.
Their films are always copies but they turn out to be better than the original especially Disclosure which was so rubbish that I only seen the first 20 minutes but Aitraaz was brilliant.
The best thing is that they're not a complete copy only the basic plot e.g.: 36 China Town- Chinatown (1974) Aitraaz- Disclosure (1994)Humraaz- A Perfect Murder (1998) Ajnabee- Consenting Adults (1992)Daraar- Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)Baazigar- A Kiss Before Dying (1991).
Even though Abbas Mastan claim that the inspiration for this movie came to them while watching Chinatown (1974), the movie is actually a scene-by-scene lift of the 1992 Hollywood comedy Once Upon a Crime, starring John Candy and Cybill Shepherd.
Interestingly, that movie was also billed as a comedy-mystery, but was also much more comedy than mystery, like this one.The roles played by Shahid Kapoor and Kareena Kapoor were played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young in the original.
But several things are not changed at all, including the character of the married-for-money Paresh Rawal (played by John Candy in the original), the suave Casanova Upen Patel (played by George Hamilton in the original), and the inspector Akshaye Khanna (played by Giancarlo Giannini).Despite having seen the original, I found this version to be highly entertaining.
Of course this starts with the usual Bollywood movies..with a lot of songs...But the story starts taking its grip gradually.
Great chemistry between Shahid and Kareena, real good comedy by Paresh, Johhny...Upen Sucks!!!
but this guy has potential to do something gr888...Upen needs to be selective in his role....All in all a great entertainer and would be really more entertaining for you too, if you just go ahead and watch the movie without knowing the ending.
But the ample comedy, good songs and Upen Patel makes up for all this.
I went into this movie expecting a stylised(somewhat overly) thriller from Abbas-Mastan duo and boy was I surprised.The movie started off like expected with a stylised flashback and a decent attempt to merge to the stories of a few individuals but it was all different and confusing since then.In fact everything about this movie and the motives behind it such as packaging it as a thriller and the dozen ploy holes (maybe more i lost count after a while) are confusing.I've reviewed this movie like a comedy with a murder involved maybe even like a spoof as THIS MOVIE CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE CALLED A THRILLER AND ANYONE GOING INTO THIS MOVIE EXPECTING ONE WILL BE SEVERELY Disappointed also if i did review this movie as a thriller than even one star would be to much.The story of this movie is promising enough with a few bumbling people all landing up at the same time at China Town(sic) in Goa at the same time a murder happens.The characters are all caricatures with the henpecked husband, the suave playboy, the tough cop, the bumbling sidekicks etc.
Even so they are all tolerable and the performances by everyone is good given the limited premise of the movie.Special mention to Upen Patel (who I'm sure is dubbed) who has had a decent debut and Johny Lever who thanks to his short hiatus from films (and the fact that his Numero Uno status as the most annoying guy in Bollywood being taken over by Rajpal Yadav) is actually quite tolerable in this film.
In fact Item Girl Payal Rohtagi also gave a decent performance.The songs in this film save for the first one are probably the worst part of this film as they completely destroyed the flow of the film and were played when you least wanted it.
It wasn't exactly a thriller but still a great film to watch as it contains good songs, good characters, a lot of comedy for entertainment etc.
Decent thriller--good songs and performances.
Abbas-Mastan don't live up to their name after delivering suspense-packed films like Aitraaz, Humraaz, and Ajnabee.
36 China Town is not an edge-of-the-seat thriller, which is a characteristic that has by now become expected from the director duo.
This movie still proves to be entertaining thanks to great songs, great performances, and a decent story.
36 China Town is Shahid's first movie with Abbas-Mustan.Expectations from Shahid's fans are high: -How is Shahid's performance?After all this is his first movie since December.
-How is Shahid and Kareena's chemistry?They both have stated it's better than FidaWell let's answer those questions:Performance is great while the chemistry is getting better.Story: Shahid wants to become an actor.He tells his parents,they get mad,he runs away,meets Kareena and they fall in love.They find a child and they take the child back to their house, 36 China Town.When they get there the head of the house is dead.They weren't the only ones in the house.Johnny Lever and his wife were there.Paresh Rawal was there.Shahid and Kareena were there.and Upen Patel was there.Akshaye Khanna is the detective trying to figure everything out.Positives: -Shahid's performance -Akshaye's performance -Music -Story and screenplay -Direction -Shahid's Dancing -Shahid and Kareena's chemistry is much better than Fida -The scenes with Paresh and JohnnyNegatives: -Upen PatelPerformances: Upen is OK.Nothing to boast about.
Kareena was great in her part Akshaye did very well which surprised me.Much better than his last release Shaadi Se Pehle Shahid did his role with such ease.This is easily one of his best performances.Direction: This is one of Abbas-Mustan's finest work to date.They handled every frame beautifully.Music: Himesh's music fit with the narrative.All in all a wonderful film.The movie starts like a normal Bollywood flick then you're at the edge of your seat at intermission,and you're shocked at the climax.But i won't give the ending away.9.5/10.
Great movie - i never thought a comedy and a murder mystery could mix in so well with 36 China Town!
Paresh Rawal and Johnny Lever are great and give the movie an x factor.
Kareena and the rest of the female cast do well too, and Upen fits the character well - not a bad attempt for a debut.the best part was the audience were intact within the movie as there were only 3 main sets - the casino, 36 china town, and the police station!
outline story - shahid and kareena find a missing child and as they go to the house to deliver him, the mother is murdered!
Not being one to carry my analytical part to a movie theater, especially for a bollywood movie, i pretty much enjoyed this movie.The songs, apart from the first and last one, are stuffed in the movie for no reason at all.Akhshay Khanna is wonderful and so are Paresh Rawal and Johny Lever.
Best comedy and thriller film of 2006.
This is way too entertaining for me and the whole audience that watched it in the theater I enjoyed this movie allot it was cool and funny there is a very outstanding story-line in this movie great acting performances by akshaye and shah-id and Kareena and up-en Jonny is funny all the time I liked his comedy scenes with Mr pare-sh rawal there were too witty and hilarious my rating is 10 out of 10.
36 china town is not only a thrilling film, but also a comedy film which has been mixed with other stunning elements as well.
I have seen many thrilling films (mystery thrillers, but i have never seen a film like this before which satisfied me with thrilling segments and comedy as well.
The director of this film is known for his work in many suspense thriller films such like Baazigar, Ajnabee, Humraaz and etc.
As i described before, 36 china town is indeed a suspense thriller film but has mixed up with sublime comedies here and there.
Shahid makes a small role in this film so do kareena and other titular character, however, Paresh and Akshay did a great job in this film.
Plus points of this film - Amazing Screenplay, Performances, Songs, thrilling segments.Minus Points - Some scenes are quite subtle which could have been little more obvious to the audience.Please go for it.
Gone are the days of yore when edge on the seat thrillers used to mesmerize you and engulf you in their hunt for the unraveling of true suspense; but encountering a film like '36 China Town' it seems that thrillers have now been reduced to a vestige of RECLINING ON THE SEAT DROOLERS, which have nothing new to roll on the screen .It would be a hyperbole to categorize films like these as thrillers and an insult to the genre, because they stand nowhere near it and every moment they either lull you to sleep or tempt you to make your way to the sign flashing in red above the cinema hall door.The whole movie stands on a wafer thin plot and is full of frippery.
The movie stands in complete shambles due to the fact of this duo not adding the right ingredients to the cauldron of film making.
So a feeling of great felicity empowers you when this ordeal comes to an end.Considering the star cast Shahid and Kareena seem to be too much engrossed in themselves to act well.
The only saving grace of the film is the performance by Akshaye Khanna enacting the role of a detective with élan.
Then we have Priyanka Chopra at the moribund end of the movie just to encourage some whistles form the front rows.The whole story drags along failing to arouse your alacrity at any instance and the scene where the dead body is found by Shahid and Kareena is total balderdash and the internecine quarrels of putting the blame on each other are totally childish.All and all the film is a tawdry show and is insipid in nature.
This one certainly serves as a punitive for people who have watched this movie and wont draw rewards form the film cognoscenti and certainly wont add good words to the directors repertoire..
The only respite is comedy by Johny lever which acts as the highlight of the film.
Akshay khanna is good and natural as the investigating officer but poor script makes the suspense looks so ordinary .
upen patel is decent in his movie but he needs to really prove himself which he is unable to do in this movie.He is no doubt good looking but needs to hone his acting skills.
I started watching Indian movies since I saw the "chance pe dance" in a movie theater, because I thought that shahid kapoor looks cute.
Hollywood hardly ever makes movies like that.
36 China Town is promoted as a 'Whodunnit' kinda thriller film with suspects lined up and the stage set for a master detective to enter and unravel a suspense mystery..........my advice to the promoters is : GO TO HELL.The film passes off as acceptable merely on the basis of some good acting and Reshammiya's Midas Touch over Hindi music.
Bollywood is still in the infant stage in the arena of suspense-thrillers and a few good ones that have been made so far , like Samay (Sushmita Sen,2003) never got an encouraging response.ACTING: The only good thing that can be said about 36,China Town is the above average acting.
Paresh Rawal and Johny Lever do gross injustice to their comic talent; though as an afterthought, there are certain hilarious scenes in the film.
36 China Town (U/A)---------RATING:3/5A good thriller with more complexions ....The songs in this film save for the first one are probably the worst part of this film as they completely destroyed the flow of the film and were played when you least wanted it.
In fact one could easily hear the collective sigh of the audience when yet another HIMMESBHAI song was played.The comedy is nothing special though a few scenes especially those involving the interrogation of the Suspects was hilarious.
In fact one could easily hear the collective sigh of the audience when yet another HIMMESBHAI song was played.The comedy is nothing special though a few scenes especially those involving the interrogation of the Suspects was hilarious.
Some of the scenes even though they were predictable had me falling out my seat laughing.Also a really funny person throughout the movie was the Stupid Junior Cop who was Akshaye Khannas sidekick all his one liners were absolutely hilarious.The sets of this film were actually quite good although the crude labeling of the Casino was very annoying (come one people are gambling inside we all know its a casino).Which brings us to Murder Mystery...the lesser said the better there were a dozen plot holes it was shoddily done and completely unimportant I'm sure almost no one in the audience cared who the killer was....hell it was so bad that the killer actually cracks a joke about the killing after being caught WTF.Save for the first ten minutes when this movie tries to be a thriller this movie is actually funny.A good comedy (maybe even a spoof)but the obtrusive songs and the fact that this movie was not supposed to be comedy and a thriller affect its ratings.Watch this movie if you want to see a good comedy with the background of a murder mystery.PS maybe subhash ghai saw the box office of the recent comedies and repackaged this movie as a thriller to con us whatever be the reason this movie will definitely reflect negatively against him..
Some of the scenes even though they were predictable had me falling out my seat laughing.Also a really funny person throughout the movie was the Stupid Junior Cop who was Akshaye Khannas sidekick all his one liners were absolutely hilarious.The sets of this film were actually quite good although the crude labeling of the Casino was very annoying (come one people are gambling inside we all know its a casino).Which brings us to Murder Mystery...the lesser said the better there were a dozen plot holes it was shoddily done and completely unimportant I'm sure almost no one in the audience cared who the killer was....hell it was so bad that the killer actually cracks a joke about the killing after being caught WTF.Save for the first ten minutes when this movie tries to be a thriller this movie is actually funny.A good comedy (maybe even a spoof)but the obtrusive songs and the fact that this movie was not supposed to be comedy and a thriller affect its ratings.Watch this movie if you want to see a good comedy with the background of a murder mystery.PS maybe subhash ghai saw the box office of the recent comedies and repackaged this movie as a thriller to con us whatever be the reason this movie will definitely reflect negatively against him..
This Movie is not a Movie its CrapAs for Shahid Kareena Chemistry It Sucks Abbas-Mustan Have made Great Movies but This One hmmmmWhat happened to Them i really Loved there Baazigar, Khiladi and all they were really good Im Really Disappointed After Seeing this CrapThis movie Is not Worth Watching A Total Ripoff, This Movie Really one of the Most Worst movies of 2006.]I wasted my money on the DVD but i made a mistake.The Acting is very Bad The Direction is Passable Due to Modern Day Technology The Cinematography, i would say the same but the Storyline is CrapDon't Bother to watch it ull waste ur time.
He seems to enjoy staying with Sonia Chang at 36 China Town, the address/name of her mansion.Meanwhile, in Mumbai, Raj made a music video which a director likes.
Sounds like possible homicide motives.Priya and Raj find 36 China Town.
The single biggest reason I watch Bollywood films is the presence of good musical numbers.
Talking about success of 36 China Town is also talking about repeated success of its directors duo Abbas Mustan who started off as directors in Hindi films more than 15 years ago with a flop Agneekaal (1990).
In this flick for example, they crafted a thriller that is the core but as usual is not great and neither is their suspense but surely this is not a genre film and therefore they bring the elements of comedy (the highlight of the film), Romance, Foot-tapping Music as well as sufficient skin show make all the difference.
If you like a thriller/comedy this is the movie 4 u.
They left no loose ends or wandering questions although some pointless songs which turned out 2 b a figment of some very powerful imagination from shahid and kareena and upen patel in this film was SOOOO HOT!!
Paresh Rawal and Johnny Lever guarantee this a good comedy and work together comically to settle their debts.
Abbas-Mustan who otherwise make decent thrillers this time made a hotchpotch The film ranks amongst their not too great filmsThe film is supposed to be a comic thriller but ends up being over the top and filled with some of the stupid scenes ever like a candle light dinner in jail.etc The first half slowly establishes the plot but the focus is on comedy,romance too which gets boring There are some good scenes involving Akshaye Khanna but the identity killer is really nonsenseDirection by AM is not great Music by HR was good, the songs were stylish but most come at inept momentsAkshaye Khanna reminds of Vinod Khanna here, but plays his part well, for once being subtle,The others don't impress Shahid Kapur overacts and makes faces, Kareena hardly gets scope, Upen Patel with a dubbed voice is okay for his debut, Tanaaz Currim is loud, Johny Lever too is loud but has some funny moments, Paresh Rawal is decent, payal Rohatgi is not impressive, ISha Koppikar hardly gets to act, Dinyar Contractor, Vivek Vaswani and others are okay.
Not to mention supported by the very hilarious Johnny Lever & Paresh Rawal who turn in decent performances.
Upen Patel makes his Bollywood debut as the heart breaker Rocky. |
tt0971183 | August Underground's Penance | August Underground's Penance continues the series's narrative mode of showing the lives of serial killers (now just Peter, and his girlfriend Crusty) through their camera, though this installment abandons the "degraded footage" aspect employed by the first two films, being shot in high-definition.
After killing a man who breaks free of his restraints and tries to escape them, Peter and Crusty visit various locations in town, and enjoy some fireworks at a celebration. Peter is then shown in his basement, taunting a semi-conscious man who has had nails hammered into various parts of his body. Next, Peter and Crusty go on a hike, assault a vagrant they find sleeping under a bridge, and cut a man open so they can pull his gurgling intestines out. The two then attend a party, where Peter does drugs, Crusty flirts with other women, and a live rat is fed to a pet alligator.
Around Christmas, Peter and Crusty break into a family's home. Peter bludgeons the father with a hammer, and suffocates the mother, who he is unsuccessful in trying to rape due to being unable to attain an erection. When the dead couple's young daughter stumbles onto the two intruders, Crusty strangles her. While Peter goes to shower, Crusty opens some of the family's presents, then falls asleep beside the corpses of the little girl, and her mother. Later, while watching a band perform, Crusty goes to an empty room with a man, who she has rough anal sex with. Back in the basement, Peter and Crusty torture and murder several people they have imprisoned. Afterward, they take apart a dead deer, and with a friend's help, feed pieces of it to a lion. The two then enjoy several recreational activities, like shooting on a makeshift firing range, and racing ATVs.
As Peter beats a man to death with a hammer, Crusty drinks some of the spilled blood, then helps Peter dismember a female body. When Peter wakes up from a nap, he and Crusty get into an argument. Peter is then shown cutting the fetus out of a pregnant woman, an act which causes Crusty to break down. When his attempts at comforting Crusty fail, Peter rapes her, then goes into hysterics himself. Peter gets drunk, and proceeds to take his frustrations out on a woman in the cellar, while screaming insults at Crusty, who is still sobbing hysterically upstairs. When Peter passes out, Crusty throws alcohol and other fluids onto his body, while ranting about how much she hates him.
After beating and tying up a woman, Peter masturbates and smears his semen on her. When Crusty walks in on this, she gets into a physical fight with Peter; he beats her while she screams insults and profanities at him. When Peter falls asleep, Crusty spits on him, and strangles his captive to death. With the woman dead, Crusty breaks down again, and begins begging for forgiveness and rambling about how she "wants out". The film ends with Crusty going to the bathroom and committing suicide via self-asphyxiation. | violence, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | Four years after the over-the-top graphic spectacle of "Mordum", Toe Tog Pictures' "Penance" has finally seen the cold light of day.
Thankfully, the finished film is an accomplished offering that is actually better than its predecessors.Starting with a surprising scene in which things don't go quite as planned for Vogel's character and his equally disturbed girlfriend, again played by Cristie Whiles, the film then takes a temporary break into normality.
Introduced in "Mordum" as a psychotic powerhouse with a penchant for vomiting and abusing her female captives, her character in "Penance" is going through a transformation.
Here, he's well and truly involved and the film's a return to the style of the original "August Underground".Watching the two characters enjoy a break is entertaining and the viewer can enjoy the relative peace before the storm.
Their run-in with a homeless man, realistically played by Toetag fan and competition winner Fuctup, is the first sign during their vacation that these characters won't be at peace for long.For those seeking gore and violence, this installment won't disappoint but it's not the same intense, fluid-splattered, unrelenting roller-coaster as "Mordum".
If anything, it's a hybrid of the first two films, taking the best elements of both and coming up with an end result that's well paced and satisfying.What really works in favour of "Penance" is the clean, crisp presentation of the video footage.
"Penance" will undoubtedly offend a lot of viewers but despite its characters, the film has a moral centre.
There's a moment in the film when the characters watch a lion being fed raw "meat", some of which you wouldn't expect to find in your local supermarket.
But there's also sadness that this is very probably the final installment ever of "August Underground", a series that has reinvented the horror genre and taken viewers to a new, disturbing place.
The shock film, August Underground's Penance, is the pinnacle of holiday filth.
The August Underground trilogy is a collection of snuff footage filmed by the murderers, one male and one female, themselves.
The first August Underground is disturbing in the way that it depicts a snuff film so accurately.
August Underground's Mordum, as far as I am concerned, is the most disgusting and upsetting movie ever made.
Thanks to the special features section in Penance we learn that real pig intestines were used in the film making the actors sick to their stomachs!
The effects in this gore-fest are so realistic that the Toe Tag crew decided to use a better quality camera then in their previous movies to show off their skills and attention to detail.
This film shows the character development of the killers and adds that touch of humanity to contribute to the realism to this movie.
And, while Penance may not be as disgusting as Mordum, it does manage to supply a generous amount of its own sickness to the trilogy.Which brings us to the only thing worse than Christmas carolers; home invaders!
August Underground's Penance also has an ending that has to be seen to be believed!
The final scene might leave fans a little choked up.August Underground's Penance is a shockingly gruesome movie filled with anger, torture, and ejaculation.
Running on empty-the lackluster latest August Underground faux snuff video.
August Underground: Penance both sequentially and quality wise comes in third within the faux snuff video series (and I say series not trilogy simply because I know it in my gut that another one will follow in the future most likely out of necessity.) The digital video is clear this go around as opposed to the previous entries which sought to recreate the degraded bootleg VHS aesthetic.
The first seven minutes of August Underground seemed interminable for all of the right reasons as any good horror video should feel.
You would think the depravities shown in the third and final video in a faux snuff series would be taken to Mephistophilian levels unseen before within the gorenography genre, but this is just not the case here.
It didn't portray her absolute joy about this time in her life nor did it display her horror during her final moments as she realized the impending end to both her own and her unborn child's life.
It seems Vogel and company simply ran out of ideas which is shocking considering the repugnant reputation we are dealing with.The whole supposed finale has the feel of a quick dash for cash rather than a true artistic conclusion about the faux snuff phenomena the series explored.
After the somewhat disappointing 'August Underground's Mordum', which often went beyond believability in an attempt to do outdo its predecessor, the team at ToeTag have delivered what must be one of the most nauseating, realistically disgusting and vile pieces of filth that I have ever witnessed.
The film is an 84 minute catalogue of extreme depravity, sexual violence, torture and dismemberment, and hardly a minute went by where I didn't feel revulsed by what I was watching (and more than just a little bit sordid).
But, of course, director Fred Vogel doesn't want viewers to enjoy Penance; he wants them to endure it, which means that the third and final movie in the August Underground series can only be hailed as a success!The aim of Penance is to make damn sure that anyone watching it sees murder as it truly is: an ugly act that is nasty, messy and totally repugnant.
Vogel's on-screen killers, a couple of psychos (played by the director himself and Mordum's Cristie Whiles) who enjoy nothing more than inflicting pain and suffering on complete strangers, are neither glamourised or exaggerated, nor are they portrayed as anti-heroes; they're shown to be real people—albeit bloody scary ones who would be perfectly happy to remove your head from your shoulders without giving it a second thought.Once again, the film consists of random video footage shot by the twisted twosome as they go about their day-to-day business, attacking the homeless, going to rock gigs, indulging in drugs and, of course, raping and killing innocent people.
This time, however, the quality is not that of a degraded VHS tape (as in the previous two AU films), but digital (and in widescreen), meaning that the viewer gets to see every last sickening detail.And what sights they have to show us: Vogel's character wrestles with entrails whilst trying to disembowel a corpse, removes a foetus from a pregnant victim, and (unsuccessfully) tries to rape a woman after having smashed her husband over the head with a hammer; Whiles's soulless bitch slowly squeezes the life out of a child, gleefully hacks up a deer (which is later fed to the scariest lion in existence), and also indulges in her fair share of vicious torture and bloody dismemberment.
The gruesome effects are top notch and praise must be given to effects man Jerami Cruise for successfully turning my (usually cast-iron) stomach several times.With the OTT approach of the second film replaced by the more realistic feel of the first, Penance is a satisfactory end to a unique and very unsettling series of films.
I now hope that Vogel leaves the 'pseudo-snuff' genre well alone and turns his attention to making the zombie film that he has mentioned in the past.As with the other AU movies, I find it a hard film to rate.
It's not 'enjoyable', and at times it plods (the first twenty minutes are pretty uneventful), but it's a powerful work that you just cannot ignore, and for that reason Penance gets 7.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 8 for IMDb)..
The long awaited arrival of Toe Tag Pictures third entry into the August Underground series, Penance, is finally here, and was well worth every minute.The story picks up with Vogel and While's characters documenting their violent, savage acts on home video as they tantalize, humiliate and force their victims into submission.
Through the midst of vicious rape and torture are shots of the two hanging out and goofing off just as any home video would show, adding a certain realism to the film.August Underground's Penance combines the dark realism of August Underground with the extremeness of Mordum to make for the strongest entry in the series.
On the other hand, While's character begins to deteriorate, as she slowly comes to the realization of the atrocities in which they are committing; she starts to break down emotionally and physically.The term "Penance," which also serves as the central theme in the film, refers to, "punishment or suffering undergone voluntarily to atone for sin or wrong doing," and can be seen in the last few minutes of the film where the characters, primarily While's, undergo a dramatic change in mentality.
As with the other August Underground films, what happens in the final scene is left open-ended and requires viewer interpretation.Penance, hands down, contained the best acting the series has seen yet with a strong focus on Vogel and While's brilliant performances.
Aside from playing the parts of psychotic killers, at certain times in the film their inner child comes out, which in ways, brings a sense of normalcy to their characters but also makes for some of the most disturbing aspects.
The complexity of these two characters can be overwhelming at times as they often drift in and out of various mood swings.With a much bigger body count than the two prior films, Penance made for some sick special effects, courtesy of f/x wizard Jerami Cruise.
Cruise pays extra close attention to detail and delivers his best effects yet.In the August Underground series, Toe Tag Pictures takes horror, shits on it, and portrays it for what it truly is without glorifying the actions.
These films show the harsh reality of what really happens in the world, where murder and torture happens daily, and takes the viewer beyond scary into a world of true, bloody horror, straight to the point and without any bullshit.
"August Underground's Penance" is basically the personal home video of two sociopathic killers on murder spree.Again two nameless butchers played by Fred Vogel and Cristie Whiles videotape their bloodthirsty madness,but "Penance" shows also their slow decline.First of all I'm not a big fan of "August Underground" series.Still as a lover of extreme cinema who had previously seen "August Underground" and "August Underground's Mordum" I really wanted to see the final installment.This time the faux-VHS look of Mordum has been tossed aside in favor of a more contemporary digital look.The gore effects made by ToeTag crew are very convincing and the violence is dirty and vile.There are some boring moments,but overall "Penance" is not as perverted and repulsive as "Mordum".7 out of 10..
If it's purely infamy Vogel's looking for he's gone about it the right way, but hey Vogel, why not surprise people and at least try to make something remotely intelligent, then you can throw in as much filth and degradation as you like and still get taken seriously?
The thing is, Vogel doesn't have the minerals to create anything of any quality or depth, and Penance is a hollow exercise in pushing the boundaries of what is watchable.
It's utterly devoid of any subtext whatsoever.Ironically the only thought provoking element in this film is Fred Vogel himself, who co-writes, directs, produces?, and stars.
In much the same way as Argento used to perform the stabbings himself in many of his films, Vogel has a vested personal interest in the violence displayed here.
Writing, directing and playing the central character seems to be giving Vogel the closest experience possible to fulfilling his ultimate fantasy without actually having to get arrested, although one could argue that even the inclusion of such a young girl in the filming of this offal is worthy of a stern ticking off.
Vogel's film, on the other hand is designed purely to shock and/or titillate.
After watching all three August Underground films, you will be questioning yourself whether the directors are disturbed for making such a sadistic series, or are you disturbed for watching all three.
The first august underground was dark and disturbing as it mimicked a snuff film so accurately.
Well, Fred Vogel and Cristie Whiles are back as directors and star in the third installment of the series playing the psychopathic killers Peter and Crusty.
Penance takes a different approach, yes, there is still vile scenes such as disembowelment and cutting out a fetus from a victim, but we see more from the killers.
For a film that had a very low budget and unknown actors, it pulled off something so spectacularly disgusting that the series will be implanted in our memory for a long time..
The August Underground films each have their "breath of fresh air" scenes in between - or even during - the more disturbing blood/vomit drenched scenes.
Where it seems most people think that Mordum was the most disturbing in the trilogy, Penance went to a completely different level of grit and darkness.
Penance is the third and final film of the August Underground trilogy.If you have seen the first 2 you will know of the grainy, amateur camera work used.
The picture is much better quality but still amateur like making you believe that this is for real.Again, it's very gory and disturbing for some but doesn't have quite the intensity of some of the extreme scenes in Mordum.
Man uses video camera to shoot 2 underground snuff films August Underground Pt1 & Pt2.Man meets girl and goes about making a 3rd only this time messes the formula up and spends the bulk of it filming himself in various redneck/trailer park trash pursuits.
The scariest and most disturbing thing about "August Underground's Penance" is that Fred Vogel and his team of no-talents deemed what they'd shot worthy of release.
There are no characters, there is no story, the Killers' POV perspective is now clichéd and done to death, and the ultra-shaky camera-work just further illustrates the lack of intelligence and talent behind this abortion.
Don't know why I'm just now getting around to giving my thoughts on AUGUST UNDERGROUND'S PENANCE - I watched it quite a while ago, and typically try to give my 2 cents shortly after viewing.
I'm not a real big fan of this series (or the fake-snuff genre in general...) - but I like to keep up on the latest "shock" films out there, so of course I had to give this one a whirl too...If you've seen the other AU films - PENANCE is much of the same: Guy and girl "serial killers" graphically murder people and then do a whole bunch of boring sh!t - all captured on their cam-corder.Compared to the other two AU films, I liked (and I use the term "liked" quite loosely...) PENANCE more than the first AU film, and less than MORDUM.
There were a few elements to PENANCE that were a bit stronger than AU (the "downward spiral" of the main characters in this entry particularly), but it lacked the gleeful and almost cartoonish violence of MORDUM which made that entry notable.
It starts off with a nice bit of violence, always a great way to kick off an underground film.
From there, it goes to a bit of beauty, which is not without its methods of getting under the viewer's skin in ways not thought possible by the simple video.In one scene, Fred assaults a homeless man, played by the Toe Tag Forum's very own Fuctup34 (whose piercings must weigh more than his head by now).
Toe Tag Pictures has done it again by showing us what the public doesn't want to know.Please, if you liked Mordum, and expect this to have the same all out guts and gore approach, then avoid it.
It's something unlike anything you've ever experienced, especially the soon-to-be-infamous "Christmas" scene (trust me, if you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about, and you agree).Once more, everything in this film has a purpose, nothing is just to make it longer.
It all has a purpose, and it all serves its purpose very well.The reason this film is so great is because you don't just see the horrible, perversion that you saw in Mordum, you see Fred and Crusty having fun, you see them as normal people, then get slapped in the face with another kill.
Perhaps he designed it that way because he may think any ending he could give it would be a cliché, or perhaps it's just one of those things the public isn't meant to know.One theory, nothing has been confirmed by Fred Vogel (though it has been hinted that this may be correct), but one theory on Crusty's breakdown is that in the bathtub was her miscarriage (which would explain her complaints throughout the movie).
For more information on this film, and other Toe Tag Films (such as August Underground, or August Underground's Mordum, as well as The Redsin Tower) or to purchase it, go to www.toetagpictures.com Rating: Acting: 10/10 Story: 8/10 Gore: 10/10 Character Development (one of the most amazing aspects of this film): 10/10 Disturbing Factor: 12/10 Overall: 10/10 The best horror movie to come out in the past 20 years.
First of all , I feel an irresistible urge to say something about those " Fred - Vogel - and his - gang - of - non - talents - made -a horrible - piece - of crap " reviews .
This is not some amateurish attempt at shocking people , this is extreme horror at it's best .That being said , I can go on to reviewing .What we have here , in the 3rd part of August Underground series , is a complete downfall of our beloved , slimy , pathetic characters .
Fred's character still shows no remorse , but apparently disintegrates .Of course , Mr Cruise did a brilliant job with special effects , make - up is also top notch , and acting very good .
It's one of the best horror movies I've seen so far . |
tt0213611 | Dharam Veer | Maharani Meenakshi is a princess who one day while out hunting is rescued from a handful of attackers by a hunter-warrior Jwala Singh (Pran) who lives alone in the jungle, accompanied only by his pet falcon, Sheroo. She offers him a reward for saving her life but he only wants her hand in marriage which he had been denied by her father. During the night they are awoken by another tiger and Jwala goes to slay it. The tiger kills a villager and Jwala puts his poncho over him to cover his dead body. He wrestles the tiger and they both fall over a cliff. The Princess sees the body of the dead villager and she thinks it is that of Jwala and goes into shock. Her father eventually marries her off into another royal family. Unbeknownst to Jwala, Meenakshi is pregnant by him. King Satpal Singh, Meenakshi's brother is told in a prophecy that he will be killed by his eldest nephew, Dharam. In order to prevent this, he pleads poverty and moves in with his sister.
The Queen gives birth to a healthy baby boy. Satpal takes the baby, minutes after it is born and tosses it out of a window. Instead of falling to its death though, the baby is caught by Sheroo who flies him to his master. Jwala has been injured by a tiger and is being healed by a poor blacksmith and his wife. They are childless and are pleased when the bird brings the baby, believing it to be a gift. They explain what happened to Jwala when he awakes and he assents to them keeping the child and raising it as their own. In the meanwhile we learn than the Queen gave birth to twins and Satpal only dealt with the first born. He is satisfied that the prophecy has been averted and now plans to help himself further by swapping his sisters baby with his own. Whilst he is asleep though, his wife swaps the children back.
As the children grow up, Satpal mistreats his own child, who he believes to be the prince, and dotes on the prince whom he thinks are his own son. The twins grow up. The elder is called Dharam (Dharmendra) and grows up to be a blacksmith like his father. The younger, Veer (Jeetendra) is the crown prince. The boys become best friends and do not realise that this is because they are actually twin brothers. Dharam falls in love with a princess (Zeenat Aman) while Veer wins the heart of a gypsy girl, Rupa (Neetu Singh). They also meet Jwala Singh who is the master of swordsmanship. Jwala Singh teaches Dharam the skills of swordsmanship and as a result Dharam also becomes a master swordsman. The training scenes were exceptional.
Once the truth about his son is revealed to Satpal, he attempts to get rid of Veer. Before doing so, he realises he must first break the bond between him and his staunchest supporter, Dharam. The Kingdom has "an eye for an eye" as the ultimate law. Dharam's father is accused of shoddily preparing a chariot wheel which caused a soldier to lose his hands. In reality Satpal and his son Ranjeet sabotaged it. The Queen is forced to chop of Dharam's father's hands in retribution. Dharam vows never to forgive Veer for this. Satpal and his son then kill Dharam's mother and use one of the prince's royal arrows. Dharam fins this and accuses the prince of the murder. In retribution for the mother he has lost, Dharam demands the Queen become his mother. Although Veer strongly protests, the Queen submits stating that she must be seen to uphold the law or no-one will. For this act, Veer begins to bitterly hate Dharam. Veer challenges Dharam to a duel and Dharam accepts. Satpal and his son know that in this duet, Dharam will kill Veer and they will get Dharam executed for Veer's murder. Whilst the boys are fighting, the poor blacksmith reveals the story of how Dharam came to him and his wife. He shows the Queen the cloth the baby was wrapped in. The queen realises that this was in fact her own child who she believed to have been carried off by a falcon. She stops the fight just in time to stop the brothers from killing each other and reveals their relationship. Reunited, the brothers now face the challenge of disposing of the forces that Satpal Singh has gathered together. In the end, Satpal is killed by Dharam. The films special appeal is its grand and colourful sets, melodious and gradious music as well as its sharp screenplay and storyline based in the medieval periods. | good versus evil, revenge | train | wikipedia | A Must Watch Classic. Dharam Veer is a period costume drama set in the midieval periods shot in grand colourful palaces and forts. While the storyline and screenplay are contemporary, its the special effects and poorly edited action sequences that make the film look a bit dated. The film is based on the "lost and found" formula, a specialty of its director, Mr. Manmohan Desai. When the family astrologer predicts to the brother of the queen of a kingdom that his eldest nephew (sisters son) will be responsible for his untimely death, the uncle tries to eliminate him on the day he is born. While the scheming uncle believes that his nephew is dead, all that he has unknowingly managed to do is that he has separated the child from his family. The prince is brought up at a poor blacksmith's house in an environment of contrast with the life of a palace. However, as luck would have it, the poor prince emerges to be the best friend of his younger brother from the palaces in a kingdom which believes that rich and poor are all alike. They eventually reunite as brothers to get rid of their scheming uncle who had designs for his son to be the crowned king. Various parallel well knit side tracks enhance the pace of the film.All in all, thoroughly entertaining fare with nice music, beautiful backdrops, gorgeous stars (zeenat aman and dharmendra are just fab!), grand festivities, moderate emotions and hilarious comedy scenes make it a must watch!. Like The Beastmaster meets Pirates of the Caribbean, but like nothing else at the same time.. If you are looking for entertainment but aren't sure if you want to settle on a comedy, a musical, a period film, a mystery, some romance, some action, something the kids would like, or a nature documentary, look no further than Dharam-Veer. In this forest of interesting costumes, characters, plot twists, stunts and dialog, anyone hunting for a dull moment will come back to town empty handed! This isn't the film you go into taking seriously, however, it is entirely possible to do so granted the sincerity with which it was made. The setting is all at once an Ancient Roman/Medieval/Rococo period containing knights in armor, stage coaches, ships with cannons, zippers, laz-y-boy living room sets, and huge, jeweled clip-on earrings adorning the ears of the men. The surrounding events include everything from fencing to baby-carrying falcons to tiger wrestling to seafaring gypsies. But in spite of such a diverse and higher than average array of elements, it does not have LITERALLY everything. Due to the "historical" nature there aren't any motorized vehicles to be found, none of the English-mixed-in Bollyspeak, and in the opinion of one viewer "it could have used a disco ball." Our songs include an anthem of bromance and friendship between the heroes Dharam and Veer as they ride their horses across field and stream, make breakfast by the creek, and tease a passing princess. Next is a colorful arena-filling gypsy spectacular rife with sweeping leaping moves by a Veer in disguise, as one of our heroines kicks in the sand and some midgets poke a caged captive to the beat. Dharam interrupts a vain princess' bath to carry her out to the woods and we get what was probably the world's first bondage-fetish bollywood number. Later, the Gypsies are at it again, this time in a camp while the heroines disguise themselves to dance and jingle amongst the flickering torches and sparkling rainbow tambourines while clueless villains look on. With all this wacky stuff to look at, some things would be needed to keep the film from being just an empty, hyper spectacle. Dharam-Veer has those things. The first is the compelling dialog written by Khader Khan. For example, when Dharam is offered a set of armor during a jousting competition he says "an iron body like mine has no need for such jewelry!" and when Prince Veer dramatically enters a room by crashing through a glass window, he gives a little speech to the villain about why he just did so! Also preventing emptiness is the distinctness of all the characters, and even the most minor of them are lovable in a way that would inspire you to collect action figures and wear catchphrase t-shirts if such things had ever been made.Only after viewing Dharam-Veer multiple times and with various people have I developed a few criticisms to display in the course of this description. The first is Dharam's short tunic outfits that make no rare item of Dharmendra Deol's manly thighs. Constantly exposed by variations of a short, skirt-like garb, his legs have an unrelenting screen presence which could unnerve certain members of the audience. The second would be the matter of some rather crude special effects in the form of animations, dummies and showing things happening in the reverse. These moments are seemingly unnecessary and elevates the kitch factor of the entire venture to a point of mild embarrassment. There is also the matter of deficiency of songs and situations for the second pair of this feature's remarkable "double romance". However, it seems as if these required scenes may have been cut for the sake of duration and it presents a stellar opportunity for you to spend some time writing fan fiction afterward. This is a great movie to watch alongside friends and family and a must own for any Bollywood fan or collector of unusual films. In regard to DVDs I'd recommend the Shemaroo release as some people have reported sound quality problems with others.. Good story and acting hampered by cheesy stunts and special effects.. Dharam-Veer takes place in a mythical kingdom, tells the tale of twin brothers separated at birth who still become best friends not knowing they are real brothers. It also tells about their adventures, loves, court intrigues, and has a host of terrific villains. One of the main characters is a beautiful talented hawk who steals every scene he(she) is in. The acting, writing, music, and choreography are all top-notch.
Despite all the above, I had to give the film a 7 since the fight and battle scenes were poorly executed, unrealistic, and, at times, looked more like people running around, pretending to get killed or injured, and/or doing a series of acrobatic falls, jumps, etc. There were also times, such as when a horse jumps, where it looked like another piece of film had been inserted.I had some concerns which might be unique to me but which others might share. I watched Dharam-Veer on a Sky DVD where the sound quality was so bad that I came close to chucking the whole thing but, either the story got better or the sound quality improved -- still not sure which. I also had a problem with the Samurai hunter at the beginning of the film -- the actor's voice, physique, looks did not even come close to fitting the role. Luckily, he was not in the film all the much and, as he aged in the film, he fit more into the role.CAUTION: INDIRECT SPOILER.Finally, I wish the writer(s) had decided against taking a page out of Turandot because that is the major weak spot in the script. As in Turandot, the hero falls for a princess who is cruel, tortures people and puts some to death for trifles. In Dharam-Veer, she also sends a good number of her soldiers to death in an effort to catch the hero. She even has him tortured yet it does nothing to dampen his ardor. I could never understand why the hero in Dharam-Veer or Turandot were so smitten and, when the princess changed, it did not seem to match her previous personality deficits.In spite of all my reservations, the film was quite entertaining and, if the viewers can handle the flaws, the film will not be a waste of time. |
tt0182320 | Mindgame | Mark Styler, a writer of "true crime" stories arrives at the Fairfields experimental hospital for the criminally insane, with the hope of interviewing serial killer Easterman for a new book. He meets Dr. Farquhar, the hospital director, however things don't seem quite right. The doctor is reluctant to let Styler see Easterman, and encourages Styler to leave. Styler, however refuses with the excuse of a long car journey. In the end, he stays and Farquhar offers him dinner. His assistant Nurse Plimpton seems frightened of something, and is anxious. She tries to give a note to Styler, but Farquhar burns it in the bin. She reluctantly makes a pot of tea and liver sandwiches for Styler. After she leaves, the two discuss the book further, but Styler's real feelings about Easterman are revealed. He is desperate to see Easterman, and suggests that he wore a strait-jacket to keep him from damaging anything. Farquhar, seemingly annoyed at this, retrieves a strait jacket from a closet and offers to put it on Styler to show what it is like, and he reluctantly agrees. Once Styler is strapped in, Farquhar taunts him about being mad, and threatens him with a scalpel, then Nurse Plimpton returns, and she knocks Farquhar unconscious with a wine bottle. She explains that Farquhar is in fact Easterman, who killed most of the staff during a "psychiatric drama" session. Nurse Plimpton is in fact Doctor Carol Ennis. She cannot undo the strait jacket straps, and as she bends down to get the scalpel from Easterman, he awakens and grabs her, then stabs her behind a curtain. When Easterman and Styler begin to talk, it turns out the two men used to be neighbours, and Styler admired Easterman, perhaps even loved him. It appears Styler's motives for visiting are not as they appeared to be. Doctor Ennis suddenly awakens, and cries out for help; Easterman straps her to a chair and after removing the jacket, asks Styler to kill her. Styler is tricked into thinking he is Easterman, and they think up various methods, but in the end Styler suffocates her with a carrier bag. Once it is done, he feels guilt but Ennis awakes and now assumes the role of Doctor Farquhar. She and Easterman, who is now Carol completely change, and Styler is told he is Easterman and Styler was just his assumed name. He tries to prove them wrong, however his BMW is gone, and the letter he sent to Farquhar is blank. In the end, Styler is forced to believe he is Easterman, however it is never explicitly revealed to the audience who is actually who. | sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0091138 | Good to Go | S.D. Blass (Art Garfunkel) is a beat journalist for the Washington Daily Tribune newspaper in Washington, D.C. His editor-in-chief pressures him to deliver more featured stories, as it's been too long since Blass has had a decent article printed. Blass reaches out to Matthew Harrigan (Harris Yulin), a detective for the Washington Metropolitan Police department, looking for a good story to pursue. He learns about a nurse that was raped and murdered on her way home after working the night shift at Washington Metropolitan Hospital. Unbeknownst to Blass, the detective had fabricated the police report and placed the primary blame on go-go music and its concert goers. Blass take the story and publishes it with the title: "Nurse Murdered at Go-Go: Music and Drugs Blamed for Violence."
Meanwhile, Max (the owner of "Maxx Saxx Entertainment") manages three of the city's top go-go bands. After fifteen years of playing at local clubs, he feels the timing is perfect to take go-go music nationally. He arranges a sit-down meeting at the Watergate complex with Gil Colton (an L.A.-based record producer) hoping he'll sign his artists to a recording contract. Colton loves the music and the band's energy when performing live at the local clubs. However, he's worried about all of the bad press and media attention that's associated with the live performances. Because of this, he decides not to sign the artist and heads back to L.A.
Little Beats (an up-and-coming conga player for one of Max's go-go bands) has an older brother ("Chemist") who was once a promising college student majoring in chemistry. However, he started using illegal drugs, primarily PCP (aka "Luv Boat"), and is now robbing and stealing to finance his drug addiction. He also hangs with Mr. Ain't (Fred Brathwaite) and his street crew as they travel around the city wreaking havoc, including the rape and murder of the nurse. Eventually, this leads to Chemist being falsely accused and charged with the murder and rape. Little Beats is apprehended by Det. Harrigan, with hopes of getting more information of Chemist's whereabouts. Blass (now aware that the detective has been fabricating many of his police reports) has chosen to disassociate himself with Harrigan. He gets in touch with Little Beats, Chemist, and their mother and works to clear Chemist of the allegations, along with exposing the police misconduct of Det. Harrigan. | murder | train | wikipedia | They got stoned on "angel dust" and then piled on this nurse at the Go-Go?. (There are Spoilers) Set in the crime and drug infested slums of Washington D.C just blocks away from the center of power of the United States Government, the Capital and the White House. "Short Fuse" or "Good to Go" takes place in the mid-1980's at the beginning of the then much heralded "War on Drugs". The war initiated by the Reagan/Bush Administration that's still with us after twenty years and still going strong as well as being frustrating,for the local police and Federal DEA and FBI fighting it, as ever.A gang of homeboys, high on crack and angel dust, go on a wild rampage one Friday evening. The destruction ends with the vicious and deadly rape and murder of a nurse going home from her job on the night-shift at the local hospital. Washington Tribune reporter S.D Bass, Art Garfunkel,needing a story for his papers morning edition calls D.C Police homicide Chief Harrigan, Harris Yulin,for some breaking crime news. Harrigan gives Bass the inside scoop about the nurse's rape and murder. Bass is also told that the rape/murder happened at a local music and dance club called the Go-Go.Making all the headlines the next day the Go-Go manager Max, Robert DoQui, is outraged at Bass for reporting that the rape/murder happened at his nightclub when it actually happened in an empty alley blocks away. Bass who took Harrigan's story about the murdered nurse at face value begins to realize that he's using him to implicate the night club and those who work and go there.This on Harrington's part is to give the public the impression that those living in the almost all-black US capital city of Washngton D.C are for the most part not law abiding but mostly a bunch of drug addicts and criminals. Later Bass' suspicions are confirmed when a couple of white teenagers high on pot drive their car into a congested inner city intersection killing themselves and their both reported to be, by Harrigan's and the D.C police official's, black.Bass is later at the police station as an impartial observer where Harrigan is interrogating young Beats Daughtry, Reginald Daughtry,about the whereabouts of his big brother Tony Daughtry's,Richard Brooks, known on the street as "Chemist". Harrington wants to know what role Tony had in the nurse's murder which in fact he had nothing to do with. Befriending the young and scared Beats Harrington tells him and later his mother, Hattie Winston, that if Tony turns himself over to him he'll see to it that no harm comes to him and he won't end up on a cold slab at the city morgue.Tony not wanting to turn himself in is later caught up in a shoot-out with the same gang of homeboys, who raped and murdered the nurse, with the police. When the dust clears five of the "gansters" and two D.C policemen are killed. Hungry and on the run for days with nowhere to go or hide Tony end up in his mothers apartment. Tony feels that he'll be killed by the vengeful police and Chief Harrigan for the deaths of their two comrades, which he had nothing to do with. Taking up reporter Bass' offer to give himself up to him Tony is in for a big and deadly surprise later in the movie. Bass with Chief Harrigan coming along to peacefully take Tony into custody has Harrigan, instead of arresting Tony, shooting him dead in front of his shocked and terrified mother and younger brother as well as Bass. Feeling that he let Tony and his family down and is responsible for the innocent mans murder Bass is now more determined then ever to go public with what happened.The city is now about to explode, since the newspaper Bass works for refuses to print his story, over Harrigan's killing of Tony, thats been reported as a justifiable act of self-defense which nobody in D.C proper for a minute believes. It's now up to Bass to get the truth about Tony's death out to the public before Harrigan has the same thing happen to him that happened to Tony before he can tell it!The film "Short Fuse", slow moving at first, really picks up in the last fifteen minutes or so as Bass is on the run from the murderous Harrigan who's trying to prevent him from telling the truth, about his cold-blooded murder of Tony. At the same time Brass trying to prevent a major race-riot from erupting in the streets of D.C, over Tony's death, fights and claws his way to the stage at a coast-to-coast televised Go-Go music concert as he leaves Harrigan who's chasing him behind stuck in the crowd. Bass making it to the stage ends up telling the millions of viewers the truth about Tony's death and Harrigan's role in it. Thus both vindicating himself as well as seeing to it that justice is done to the wild cheers of thousands of Go-Go music fans at the concert.. Slow Moving Stinker. Good to Go (aka Short Fuse) is a snoozer. I rented it a few years ago because I was lured in by the cover art. The cover made it look like a decent action flick-cops, guns, helicopters, etc.. However, it moves at a snail's pace and had no intelligible plot whatsoever. I feel it was a showcase for the "go-go" music contained within and nothing else. Don't get suckered in; ignore this movie.. Good to Go. Director of Special Photography for Good to Go , and who's work appears on the soundtrack: WG Allen Please include: www.UFOdc.com. I created a chemical technology which was used to render daily's for the film and often consulted with the producers on film sequences throughout the film. Working on the film for the duration of production in DC, WG Allen was able to create a working copy of the film which was used to represent the film at the Cannes Film fest in 1986 After leaving Good to Go WG went on to work with ABC News in the White House and on board Air Force One. WG is currently a UFO investigator working on Close Encounter Samples taken by him during assignment.. Witness Art put the "funk" in "Garfunkel" and watch this oddity today!. In Washington, D.C. in the 1980's, Go-Go music was huge. Go-Go is an urban cross between funk, R&B, soul and dance music with extended songs meant for the largely African-American audiences to dance the night away to. Some of the most famous practitioners of this genre of music include Trouble Funk, Redd & The Boys, and Chuck Brown and the Soul Searchers. Max (DoQui) is a music impresario and label head who is trying to make this music go global and has a large record deal in the works for Redd & The Boys. Spoiling this dream, a rape and murder occurs outside a club that caters to the music, called, you guessed it, The Go-Go. Or did it? Trying to get to the truth, alcoholic newspaper reporter S.D. Blass (Garfunkel) calls Chief Harrigan of the local police precinct. Harrigan leads Blass to believe Chemist (Brooks) was involved in the crime. But along the way, Blass befriends Chemist's little brother Beats (Daughtry) and begins to question Harrigan and his motivations. After a lot of chaos and confusion, Blass begins to sort things out - but he's going to have to do it fast before a race riot occurs in D.C. Can he do it? Please read in a gravelly, portentous, gravely serious Don LaFontaine-like movie trailer announcer voice: Art Garfunkel. Has a: SHORT FUSE. Coming this summer. When we think of actors that could be chosen for the lead role in a movie entitled Short Fuse, names like Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson or Jason Statham come to mind. But for some reason yet to be fathomed by mankind, they chose noted badass Art Garfunkel for the role. And true to form, in this movie he's such a wet noodle that he makes Toby from The Office look like The Ultimate Warrior. But in all fairness, this movie was originally titled Good To Go (and characters do say that a lot and there's a song of the same name on the soundtrack as well). Adding weirdness to inappropriateness, the main thrust of this movie is urban, street-level crime, in the era of boomboxes, graffiti and Kangol hats. Again...Art Garfunkel? But seriously, we could see what they were thinking because "Bridge Over Troubled Water" has some fresh beats.And if they were so gung-ho for Garfunkel, why hire Harris Yulin as the only other White guy in the cast? They look very, very similar. So much so it's hard to tell them apart in some scenes. But the tell is Garfunkel's bizarre combover. It makes Donald Trump's look positively normal by comparison. Plus the movie has a lot of product placement for Pepsi. It's practically a 90-minute commercial for Pepsi. But it's hard to imagine the Pepsi people being very happy that a movie about a drug-fuelled rape and murder with a bunch of shootouts and car crashes is so tied in with their product. That observation aside, by far the best thing about Short Fuse is not, as you might expect, the length of the fuse of one Arthur Ira Garfunkel. It's the music! In all seriousness, the soundtrack and the live performances are uniformly excellent. All the bands mentioned above are excellent, both musically and from a showmanship perspective. We really were dancing in our seats! As a concert film documenting the Go-Go phenomenon, Short Fuse is actually an important "Art"-ifact. Robert DoQui, who was in Diplomatic Immunity (1991), and resembles Richard Roundtree but is an accomplished actor in his own right, is always worth seeing, as is future Law & Order star Richard Brooks, who also appeared in Shakedown (1988). Short Fuse is listed in some sources as a "concert drama" and seems to be little-seen, even though it was released on the Vidmark label. But the cast, as well as the musical performances keep it from ever getting boring.Witness Art put the "funk" in "Garfunkel" and watch this oddity today! For more action insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com |
tt1050160 | Kataude mashin gâru | Ami Hyūga is an average high school girl whose world comes crashing down when her brother Yu and his friend Takeshi Sugihara are killed by bullies, led by Sho Kimura. As Ami tracks down Sho, she discovers that the bullies are associated with a ninja-yakuza family. She goes after the clan for revenge, but they brutally overpower her, cutting off her left arm. Ami escapes and seeks out shelter from Takeshi's parents, Suguru and Miki Sugihara, two kindly garage mechanics who fit her with a multi-barrelled machine gun prosthetic. Ami and Miki (who uses a chainsaw) go after the clan, massacring them one by one. Their victims' families, meanwhile, band together to get revenge of their own.
Eventually, they reach the yakuza's hiding place. As the fight continues, Miki loses her right foot and eventually dies. Ami loses her machine gun during her fight with Sho's father Ryūgi Kimura, but gets Miki's chainsaw. Finding Sho with hostages to keep Ami at bay, his mother Violet Kimura manages to disarm Ami while attempting to kill her with her drill bra. However, noticing one of the hostages wet himself, Ami takes advantage and trips Violet onto the urine, electrocuting her. She then kills Sho. Feeling she has nothing left to live for, she attempts to commit suicide. At that moment, however, Ami hears noise behind her and turns, sword at the ready. | revenge, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0367153 | Toolbox Murders | Daisy Rain goes to her apartment in the Lusman Arms, a former luxury hotel undergoing renovations, and is beaten to death with a hammer by a man wearing a balaclava. In another room, new tenants Nell and Steven Barrows, a teacher and a medical intern, are introduced to the amenities and a few of the residents by Byron, the building manager. As Steven works long hours, Nell is left alone most of the time, and befriends Julia Cunningham, a neighbor down the hall, and Chas Rooker, an elderly man who reveals some of the history of the structure, mentioning it was made by Jack Lusman, who disappeared mysteriously, and that builders died while working on it.
As days pass, the Lusman Arms are plagued by mysterious circumstance; strange noises are heard throughout it and coming from the intercoms, Nell finds a trinket containing human teeth in a wall, and Julia and another tenant vanish, having been killed (with a drill and a nail gun, respectively) by the ski masked murderer, who hides their bodies. While looking into Julia's disappearance, Nell speaks with Chas, who offers cryptic warnings about the nature of the building, and sneaks Nell a note reading "Look for her in Room 504". Nell takes the advice, and discovers that there is no Room 504, and that all the other floors lack apartments whose numbering should end with 4.
Nell goes to the Los Angeles Preservation Society, where an employee tells her that Jack Lusman was an occultist who associated with a society that tried to mix science and magic, and that the symbols (which Nell copies down on her arms) decorating the building are part of a spell. The blueprints for the Lusman Arms also reveal that there is a townhouse hidden within the structure, hence all the missing rooms. Nell returns home, and finds a hatch on the roof of the building that allows entrance into the townhouse, where she uncovers a room dedicated to the Golden Age of Hollywood, torture chambers, and dozens of corpses. The killer, who had just butchered another tenant and the handyman, appears, and removes his mask to reveal that he is a monster, which the credits refer to as "Coffin Baby".
A teenage resident discovers that the webcam he had been using to spy on Julia had recorded her death, prompting him to go to Steven, who finds Nell's notes about the building, and goes looking for her along with the boy, Byron, and the doorman. The men send the teen to get the police after they find a passageway into Coffin Baby's lair, which they enter. Coffin Baby kills Byron and the doorman, and gives chase to Nell and Steven, the former of whom theorizes that Coffin Baby needs death and the Lusman Arms to continue existing. The Barrows are found by Chas, who tries to lead them to safety, and murmurs that Coffin Baby came into the world when he clawed his way out of his dead and buried mother's womb.
Coffin Baby leaps out from under a pile of human remains, fatally throws Chas at a wall, and captures Nell, but she is saved by Steven, who bludgeons Coffin Baby, and knocks a shelf onto him. The authorities arrive, and take Steven to a hospital, and as Nell returns to her apartment, the police lift up the debris that fell on Coffin Baby, who has disappeared. Coffin Baby crashes through Nell's window and tries to kill her, but is disoriented by the runes she had earlier drawn on her arms, distracting him long enough for a pair of police officers to barge in, and shoot him out a window, causing him to be hanged by a cord Nell had wrapped around his neck. The officers check on Nell, then go to the window, only to find that Coffin Baby has once again vanished. | violence, horror, murder | train | wikipedia | Let's face it, with the legend of the Black Dahlia (mentioned in the film), the constant-battle for the control of the water-supply (an engineer once controlled L.A. His name was William Mulholland, and designed the Owens Valley Acqueduct), the Manson Family, gangs, poverty, the desert air, all the Hollywood deaths and scandals, cults, Scientology, the Mexican Day of the Dead, Chinatown, drugs, the Ramparts scandals, decades of obscene-corruption--Los Angeles is creepy.Nell notices a lot of hammering and other strange-phenomena, and eventually begins to probe the mystery of the Lusman Arms.
It's been subdued for decades - but when renovations start, a series of murders take place.This film becomes a mystery as our heroine Nell(Angela Bettis - see her in "May") tries to unravel the secret of the Lusman Building and its residents...it keeps us guessing cause almost everyone is a suspect and Hooper doesn't need big special effects to keep us interested, the story is fast paced and the killings are inventive and gruesome.It's not that kind of film that spends millions of dollars in special effects and scares us only with sharp and loud sounds and tricks like that, no!
This film shows a great director, some good actors and a good sinister story that will really scare you in a way that only really good horror movies can...this is no cheap trick or horror movie for 16 year old boys with cheerleader type actresses that show off their assets...this movie is far more interesting and scary than most of the so called horror movies that go to theaters.Like I read in bloody-disgusting.com, " Toolbox is a strong film likely to boost Tobe Hooper back into the top rung of horror directors along with names like Craven, Carpenter, and Romero."Go see a master of horror doing his thing...you will not be disappointed!.
After a fifteen year long string of awful horror movies and forgettable TV shows, director Tobe Hooper finally roars back to life with this fun, scary and intense horror thriller.When I first heard Hooper was remaking TOOLBOX MURDERS, I thought he had hit a new low.
The result is a movie that is as technically well-made as SCREAM or WRONG TURN, but with the guts of a 70s drive-in shocker.While the killer finds some creative ways to kill people with various hardware items, and the action takes place in a single apartment building, this movie has little to do with the original TOOLBOX MURDERS.
However, despite its remake status and its borrowing plot points from a few previous movies, it has a surprisingly fresh and original feeling to it.I'll go out on a limb and say Tobe Hooper's TOOLBOX MURDERS is one of the better horror movies I've seen in quite some time.
Mix some elements of Polanki's Apartment Trilogy with some from TCM, and throw in a few inventive, violent kills à la the original Toolbox Murders, and you have a rather enjoyable horror movie.
Except that in 2004 he directed Angela Bettis in a remake of the 1978 film "The Toolbox Murders".This new version stars Bettis as Nell as she and her husband move into the Lusman Arms apartment complex in Los Angeles.
Although Nell is a school teacher and her husband Steve and med student.From the first scene of the movie we know that there is a ski masked maniac in the building who is killing off the resident and things seem to point towards Ned the quiet and creepy young maintenance man who kind of looks like Jack White.
Like the original film he kills his victims with various tools in his toolbox, so yeah the title is pretty self explanatory.Nell immediately gets the creeps about the place, but its so affordable since they have to live in a construction zone.
Acting on a tip from the Old Man she find that each floor is missing a room and that something sinister lurks within the walls.This is a fun little movie that is all about Angela Bettis and her character Nell as she fights for not only her life but for her sanity.
This is a remake of a vicious 70's slasher that is overall gory and disgusting (the original was even included in the `video nasties' list of banned horror movies in the U.K) The plot and motivations of the murdering nut are slightly different in Hooper's version of the Toolbox Murders.
Also, the Toolbox Murders seems to give the impression we're guessing fro the identity of the killer initially
like a good old-fashioned whodunit' slasher, but the mystery and detective aspects abruptly come to an end as the plot opens up a little more.
And I think Gierasch may have been this film's savior, writing Hooper a script that is well thought out, original, esoteric, and breathes new life into the dead slasher genre.Angela Bettis is one of today's best horror actresses...
A homicidal maniac uses weapons of any kind from drill to hammer begins killing off some of the residents one by bloody one and secrets from the past are coming back.Co-starring Sherri Moon Zombie, Juliet Landau, Christopher Doyle and Adam Weisman, this is a nifty reimagining of the low budget "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" wannabe known as "The Toolbox Murders" but this one is directed by horror maestro Tobe Hooper.
After Nell's friend disappears and several tenants start getting murdered, Nell decides to investigate the building's sordid past and who's behind these murders.The tone of this movie takes a completely different turn to the original, not that it's a bad thing, in fact it features some pretty decent performances (something the original lacked), especially Angela Bettis who plays the young teacher, turns in a solid and well rounded performance I also enjoyed her in one of her earlier horror movies "May", a radically different role to this one, as she's more straight forward in this one.
But it keeps you hooked from beginning to end with some decent kills and has that old school feel to it.Okay there are some low points, like none of the other cast are fleshed out, they're just cardboard cut outs, apart from Angela Bettis, none of them are remotely memorable, but that often happens in these types of movies.
And some of the plot scenes doesn't really go anywhere, like the mysterious symbols and curses that are found, but this part of the story falls flat and certain things aren't explained very well leaving massive plot holes, like towards the end seems rushed and left a lot of questions unanswered.All in all "Toolbox Murders" definitely improves on the original version, Tobe Hooper shows us that he's still got what it takes, but this doesn't quite reach the heights of some of the classic and won't be as well remembered in years to come, but it's a pretty decent movie, with some effective deaths and a creepy killer..
There is not a single good original sequence in this film!.There are some good ones,but we've sen them at least hundred times!The plot is also generic and easily predictable,without any touch of creativity and originality.The violence is overblown and it dominates the film,but the scenes of slaughter are not scary-not at all.And they don't look realistic!For example,the scene of beheading.You can easily see a man beheading A DOLL,not another man.Where are the effects?And I am not pretending to be Sharlock or Hercule Poirot here,but I realized how the film would end after 20 minutes of watching it.Take five horror films from the third millennium,put them in a grinder and polish the resulting mess until it starts resembling a movie and you'll have the prescription from almost everything on here.
This film is the worst remake of a horror film since The Thomas Crown Affair (Steve McQueen is freaking scary).In the original, there's an apartment building with like six hundred tenants, and we get to see the killer go around killing every one in six hundred new and exciting ways using six hundred different tools, all the time raping all his victims so we get to see boobs flopping around as well as getting cut of.
But the remake has all the good stuff taken out, and it's replaced with a story of a lesbian who moves into the building and falls in love with another girl there, so she pays the other girl's neighbour to film her in the shower, which sounds like a great scene, but it's not really because she's ugly.
A remake of the 1978 film of the same name, "The Toolbox Murders" is a return from director Tobe Hooper to his suspense/slasher roots.
Watch, and find out.Like Hooper's infamous "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (and to a lesser extent, the under-appreciated but wholly worthwhile "The Funhouse"), "The Toolbox Murders" is a slow and steady slasher that builds to its conclusion.
Rarely does the film break away from convention, and although its throwback feel is refreshing, it gets a bit stale by the end and gives one the impression that Hooper directed the film in his sleep (and without the aid of Spielberg this time).In short, "The Toolbox Murders" is an efficient slasher romp that offers little in the way of surprises.
Now for all my days i've always had a strong attraction to horror movies, not for the gore although that is par for the course when you watch a movie with the said genre specifics, but more so for a good little story.Now having read an article in Fangoria about the new version, prior to its debut on video/DVD, i was intrigued by the notion that the scripting duties were being left to the writing duo of Adam Gierasch and Jace Anderson, didn't exactly fill me with comfort, having watched some of their previous efforts like 'Crocodile' and its less than glorious sequel as well as 'Spiders', if you couple this with a director whose film-making career appears to be on the wane, none of these ingredients would make for promising viewing.Especially more so if you watch a movie of this kind in the company of your girlfriend, not a wise movie.
The main star of the show was Angela Bettis, hot off the creepy classic 'May'appearing as a young waif like married woman living in a new 'old style apartment complex with her doctor husband who is periodically at home but mostly tending to the sick and the bewildered, strange to use such a word, when the majority of the inhabitants of the Lussman Arms are just that.Creepy and Kooky, as all should be when they appear in a dark and foreboding horror movie, why if you look close enough you'll notice the presence of co writer Adam Gierasch appearing as the not so handyman 'Ned' he doesn't say much, he just creeps around with his hair in his eyes, lusting after Juliet Landau.Upon viewing it, if memory serves, the release over here in the U.K. was certificate 18, having been released to video/DVD the version i watched was only certificate 15, lessening the impact when you watch the demise of half the cast.
what a horrible,horrible movie.i thought i was watching a snuff film.you have to be emotionally unhinged to enjoy this piece of excrement.low budget and it shows.the camera lingers for a very long time on all the killing scenes,way too long.the acting is poor, the plot is ridiculous and full of inconsistencies and holes you could drive a couple of semi trucks through.but really the movie is just pointless,gratuitous gore and violence.this dog may be worse than hostel.it's definitely a close race.if you're even slightly well adjusted,you will have no use for this bomb.if you do enjoy this film, i hope i never live next door to you.i felt so dirty after watching this thing,i had to take a shower right after to cleanse myself.and i may never get the stench out of my house.truly,truly,sick and demented(and not in any good way) filth 0 out of 10.
The first major shock was that Tope Hooper doesn't seem to have moved out of the 1970's with this film, I honestly felt like I was watching a seriously dated slasher flick, the acting was wooden, the inbred/mutant/murderer was pathetic and the atmosphere just seemed to lack depth and claustrophobia Tobe Hooper managed to achieve so well in Chainsaw Massacre.
The story was adequately paced, although there were actually many deaths throughout the entire movie.It was essentially the cast that saved the movie, in particular Angela Bettis.This isn't Tobe Hooper's best movie, not by a long shot."The Toolbox Murders" isn't particularly outstanding amidst the countless movies in the horror genre, and as such I am rating it a mere five out of ten stars.
On one sight,we have masterpieces like Poltergeist,Salem's lot and The Texas chainsaw massacre(1974).On the other sight we have craps like Lifeforce,Funhouse and the remake of Invaders from Mars.With this thing,I wanna say that when there's an opportunity to see a Tobe Hooper's film,it's very possible that we can see a masterpiece or a crap.Toolbox murders(2004)is not a masterpiece and it's not a bad film...it's a good horror film which kept me very fun.A very little quantity of people will remember the original film,The Toolbox murders,made in 1978,which,by my point of view,is a very mediocre and clichéd film.This remake is a lot better than the original movie(surprise!)because it's funner and more ingenious.In Toolbox murders(2004),the tired formula of the masked killer has a thanked twist which explains the motives of the killer and the nature of its surroundings.Angela Bettis showed she's a brilliant actress on a masterpiece called May.She does a good work in Toolbox murders(2004),but her talent is beyond her role on this movie.This film has some fails(the edition is a little weak and the script feels forced on some occasions)but it kept me very fun and it never bored me..
Fans of any of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films will definitely enjoy the original more.Had this movie been titled something else, I wouldn't have judged it a rip off of the Toolbox Murders.
Being a Tobe Hooper film, and given the somewhat obscure status of the 1978 movie, I don't think it helped much by calling this the Toolbox Murders.
finally a gory slasher movie that is comparable to the early eighties slashers.this remake kicks the crap out of the boring original that's for sure.hard to believe this was made buy the same guy that made that horrible comedy chainsaw massacre 2.tobe hooper has not made that many good movies besides this one there is the original chainsaw massacre and lifeforce.this movie has got some incredible and inventive gore scenes in it.the killer has a gory deformed face that kind of reminds me of the way darkman looks.no cgi in this movie at all and the location in the hotel is great dark and dreary.the return of the slasher film is here and it is called the tool box murders.
The killer look's like a bad rip off of a 1940's mummy, why this got an R, i don't know?Most of the killing's r very poor, only two good one's comes to mind, it made me jump once (not much 4 a horror eh?) Very disappointing for such a new film, this director needs to go back and watch some early classic's and try again!If ure looking for a night which will scare the pants off of you, this is not it, you're more than likely fall asleep with boredom..
i didn't like the original Texas chain saw massacre, or poltergeist, but tobe hooper really out did himself in toolbox murders.
I have never seen the original Toolbox Murders, and for the most part I'am against remakes but I generally saw this film because of the film's director Tobe Hooper (who gave as such horror classics as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist) and the film's star Angela Bettis (who I thought gave the best performance of the year in 2003 with the film May).
"Toolbox Murders" starts off like your average slasher film with both Lusman Arms tenants Daisy and Saffnon, Sheri Moon & Sara Downing, ending up with their head bashed in with a claw hammer and pinned to the ceiling with a nail-gun by the hooded killer.
Nell and Steven Burrows move to Los Angeles to start a new life together.When they move into the Lusman Building,a historic Hollywood apartment complex,Nell and Steven find themselves caught into a web of terrifying evil.A ruthless killer lurks inside,somehow moving sight unseen from apartment to apartment and using drills,claw hammers and saws to murder his victims.When Nell stumbles into the killer's hidden lair,she comes face to face with supernatural horror."Toolbox Murders" is a highly entertaining remake of the original.The first "Toolbox Murders"(1979)was a fun but obvious rip-off of Hooper's masterpiece "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".This film stars Angela Bettis,the beautiful scream queen who is the best known from brilliant "May".Hooper takes great joy in creating several red herrings throughout the film and it would be a shame to spoil the killer's identity.The film is loaded with plenty of gore and the killings are extremely violent,so fans of the original should be pleased.Bettis is surprisingly good-a strong,independent woman who still,for some reason,stays home all day and tries to solve the mystery all by herself.Her journey through the story is actually quite terrifying.Give it a look.9 out of 10..
Tobe Hooper returns to his Texas Chainsaw roots with a remake of a film that ripped off his classic Massacre movie.
The gore story presents original deaths and is well tied in, and Tobe Hooper seems to have recovered his "old shape" of great and talented director of horror movies.
I didn't think so.If this were just a standard a B-horror film (like the original), The Toolbox Murders might get away with such nonsense.
When Nell (Angela Bettis) and Steven (Brent Roam) Barrows move into the historic Lusman building, things start going terribly wrong in Tobe Hoopers remake of "Toolbox Murders". |
tt0404225 | Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon | The story centers around Max Havoc (Mickey Hardt), an ex-kickboxing champion known as "Mad Max", turned globetrotting sports photographer. Max quit kickboxing after accidentally killing a fellow boxer during an unlikely comeback in the ring, but still suffers from flashbacks to the fight. After a bar scuffle over a biker girl (Nikki Ziering), his agent (Diego Walraff) sends him to Guam for a publicity photo shoot. There, Max encounters Tahsi (Richard Roundtree), his former kickboxing coach, now an antiques dealer, and promises to catch up with him later. While photographing an outrigger canoe race from a jet ski, Max rescues Christy Goody (Tawney Sablan), a vacationer who was about to be unwittingly run over by the canoes. In the process, he knocks over one of the canoes, earning the wrath its head rower, Moko (Pyun veteran Vincent Klyn). He is also admonished by Jane (Joanna Krupa), Christy's sister, for his brazen driving. However, she later apologizes and agrees to a dinner date.
In the meantime, Tahsi is approached by a thief (Danielle Burgio), who has fled to Guam with a stolen rare jade dragon and wants to pawn it, promising to return in 24 hours. Tahsi agrees, but does not promise not to sell it. Indeed, Jane Goody, who turns out to be a friend of his, visits his shop and buys the dragon, despite Tahsi's reluctance. She later has it appraised, learning it is worth many times more than she paid for it, heightening her hopes of paying the tuition for her sister's medical degree. Later, an enforcer (Arnold Chon) for the yakuza group Black Dragons, the original owners of the jade dragon, appears in Tahsi's shop with the thief in a headlock, demanding the figurine's return. Tahsi refuses to reveal Jane's identity and is killed along with the thief.
Max and the Goody sisters are soon involved in a streetfight with henchwoman Eiko (Ji Ling). After Max saves the sisters, and is involved in a further fight with Quicksilver (Johnny Trí Nguyễn), he is contacted by the leader of the criminals, Aya (Marie Matiko), who is also Eiko's lesbian lover. The Black Dragons explain that the jade dragon is actually an urn containing the ashes of their former leader, Yoshida, and that they believe it holds mystical value and will stop at nothing to get it back. Max and the sisters agree to return the dragon at noon the following day in return for their own personal safety. They are helped by locals, including beach vendor Debbie (Carmen Electra) and Moko, with whom Max reconciled at the scene of Tahsi's killing. Nevertheless, Jane is torn between returning the figurine and protecting their lives, and ensuring that her sister finishes her M.D. The deal falls through as Jane's cell phone battery dies, and she does not arrive at the meet in time. Max escapes the angry henchmen on a jet ski.
The head of the Black Dragons (David Carradine, credited as Grand Master), pays a visit to Guam to take the matter into his own hands. It turns out that he is a man prominently seen ringside in Max's flashbacks. The Black Dragons kidnap Christy, enticing Max and Jane to come to their hideout. Max and Grand Master reach an agreement that Max will fight Arnold Chon's character to death. If Max wins, Max and the Goody sisters can go free. Max almost deals a deadly blow to the enforcer's head, but stops himself at the last moment, sparing his life, yet winning the fight. He turns over the urn to the yakuza, and receives a priceless katana as a gift. Max and his allies celebrate the end of the adventure in a party. The film ends with Max embracing Jane Goody on a beach during sunset. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0920464 | Manorama Six Feet Under | The film opens with a narrative about a nondescript town called Lakhot in Rajasthan, India. The narrator is Satyaveer Singh Randhawa (Abhay Deol), a down-on-his-luck public works engineer. He compares Lakhot – dry, desolate and despondent – to the general downturn in his own life. As he returns to his irritable and nagging wife Nimmi and their young son, we learn that Satyaveer has just been implicated in a small bribery scandal at work. Nimmi (Gul Panag) broods over how she wishes she had married a richer fellow. Satyaveer, an aspiring writer whose only novel Manorama sank without a trace, laments about how he had once wished to be famous but is now resigned to a banal and unremarkable existence.
They have an unusual visitor that night. A well dressed, affluent woman presents herself as Mrs. P. P. Rathore, the wife of the Irrigation Minister (and former Maharaja, presumably prior to Independence) P. P. Rathore (Kulbhushan Kharbanda). She says she is a big fan of Satyaveer's novel. Captivated by the ingenuity of the detective Raghu, the principal character of the novel, she hopes to secure Satyaveer's assistance in applying the same ingenuity to procure photographic evidence of her husband's affair. She pays him an advance and leaves. Satyaveer accepts the job in spite of Nimmi's reproach. He stealthily stakes out Rathore's manor. He spots another woman visiting Rathore. Rathore rebukes the woman and turns her away. Satyaveer snaps a few pictures of this exchange and hands over the roll to Mrs. Rathore. He also confides in his brother-in-law and best friend, the loutish but generally well-meaning local cop Brij Mohan (Vinay Pathak). Brij finds this all very fishy and advises Satyaveer to take Nimmi on a short vacation. Strange events happen to Satyaveer. He finds out that the woman who hired him is not Mrs. Rathore; the real Mrs. Rathore is an invalid. Late one evening, as Satyaveer returns home after drinks with Brij, he spots the same woman running for her life from people who are out to kill her. She earnestly urges him to remember her real name, Manorama (Sarika), and that she is 32 years old. The next day's papers report that Manorama committed suicide in connection with her protests against a canal being built through Lakhot. The canal project is sponsored by Rathore.
He decides to investigate further. He finds out that Manorama was connected with a local children's home and lived with a roommate, Sheetal (Raima Sen). The roommate is confused and scared. She refuses to talk with Satyaveer. Satyaveer is later set upon by thugs; they turn out to be the same men who chased Manorama on the night of her death; and they want to find out what she told him that night. Satyaveer later uncovers that Manorama's death was an accident; she was hit by a truck as she fled her pursuers.
Sheetal calls him. She is still scared but somehow warms to him and asks if she can stay with him for a few days. Seeing as Nimmi has returned to Rohtak (her parents house) for Diwali, Satyaveer agrees. Sheetal moves in for a little while. Around this time, Satyaveer attends a rally function with Rathore in attendance. He follows Rathore and discovers that Rathore receives regular medication from a doctor for an unknown ailment. He also spots the woman who visited him on the night Satyaveer took the photos.
He follows the woman and makes contact with her. She lives with the doctor Anil Potdar. She turns out to be Sameera Rathore, the illegitimate daughter of Rathore. She was trying to get Rathore to accept her as a daughter. Satyaveer begins piecing the parts together. However, when Satyaveer visits the doctor, he finds that the doctor and Sameera have both been brutally murdered. He runs to the children's home where he discovers that Sheetal has been dead for quite some time!
Arriving home, he finds that the woman masquerading as Sheetal is neither surprised nor scared. She directs him to meet Rathore. Rathore demands the photos. Satyaveer turns over the photos he had taken. Not surprisingly, Rathore isn't the least bit interested in photos of him having an argument with his biological daughter. It turns out that Neetu (the girl pretending to be Sheetal) is a concubine for Rathore. Rathore now openly threatens him and asks that he hand over those photos. Satyaveer returns home. He scans one of the photos he had taken and suddenly finds a clue in it. This clue leads him to what Manorama had said to him on the night she died. He uses the clues to land up in the room of a small hotel in town, where he discovers a shocking set of photos in a packet cached behind the light switch-board.
Satyaveer returns to confront Rathore. He presents the shocking evidence he has found. Rathore was a paedophile (a person who is sexually attracted to children). The children's home was his steady supply of (orphaned) children. The real Sheetal and Manorama, who worked at the orphanage, had realized his wicked activities. They were about to blow his cover and hence he had them silenced. Rathore calmly informs Satyaveer that Satyaveer, smart though he may be, is still a small-town man that may easily be dispensed with. Satyaveer reveals another fact. The doctor Anil Potdar and Manorama were siblings. Also, though the doctor knew that Rathore had lung cancer, he kept concealing the fact from him and kept giving him placebos merely to suppress the symptoms of the cancer. The doctor and Manorama merely wanted to keep him alive long enough for him to accept Sameera as his daughter and heir. Then, on Rathore's eventual death, the estate would come to Sameera and thus also to the doctor and Manorama. It was now too late since the cancer had reached an advanced stage and Rathore had precious little time left to live.
The film ends as Satyaveer quietly walks out. He remarks that the only thing that is certain in an unknown world is a known God. | plot twist, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0397312 | Anonymous Rex | In an alternate timeline, dinosaurs have managed to survive the KT Extinction Event and now live amongst humans using disguises. Vincent Rubio is a Velociraptor private investigator along with his partner, Ernie Watson, a Triceratops.
When Ernie's ex-girlfriend's brother is found dead, the incident is dismissed as suicide. However she doesn't believe her brother would kill himself and asks Ernie to investigate ("for free," Vincent observes). When the pair investigate the crime scene, Vincent notices the scent of another dinosaur on the windowsill, concluding it was not a suicide.
At the funeral Vincent talks to a man dressed in a strange suit who belongs to the cult that the deceased had previously joined, "The Voice of Progress." He pretends to be interested in their ideals and gets himself and Ernie invited to a gathering. During the funeral, Vincent detects the same scent from the victim's bedroom, indicating the killer is nearby.
Vincent and Ernie go to the cult meeting where they are told the Voice of Progress' ideals and history: The Voice of Progress is revealed to be a collection of dinosaurs who believe that the prolonged use of disguises has robbed the dinosaur community of its unique identity. The cult also believes that humans have caused dinosaurs to see themselves as monsters and humans as normal. While Ernie appears indifferent to the cult's ideals, Vincent is profoundly impacted by the cult's beliefs.
As their investigation continues, Vincent and Ernie come to realize what one man in the cult is planning a dinosaurian revolution by turning cult members into violent, feral dinosaurs and releasing them on the humans. The resulting conflict will force both sides to face each other, and allow dinosaurs to reveal themselves. Though Vincent is somewhat sympathetic to the cult, he disagrees with the idea of a violent revolution, leaving him unsure which side he's on. | cult, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2389182 | Cheap Thrills | Craig (Pat Healy) is an auto mechanic who loses his job. He is unable to pay his rent and after seeing the eviction sign, he goes to a dive bar, where he meets an old friend from high school, Vince (Ethan Embry). After their reunion, they meet a rich couple, Colin and Violet (David Koechner and Sara Paxton), who appear friendly and benign initially, and after becoming aware of Craig's dire financial situation, offer them money in return for completing certain tasks to entertain Violet, as it is her birthday.
As the first task, Colin offers fifty dollars to whoever between Craig and Vince can drink a shot he pours first. From there, the danger of the tasks escalates along with the payout. The dares result in a bouncer confronting Craig, who is offered five hundred dollars by Colin to hit him first. He does so and is knocked out. When he comes to, he realizes he been brought to the home of Colin and Violet. Tensions between Craig and Vince begin to emerge when they compete with each other in a breath-holding contest and Vince punches Craig in the stomach to prevent him from winning so that he may claim the prize money himself. Another dare between Colin and Vince involves Vince urinating on Craig's shoes. When Craig angrily goes to clean up in the bathroom, Vince accompanies him and they hatch a plan to rob the couple. Vince divulges that there is $250,000, which he instructs Craig to steal.
At knife-point, Vince manages to get Colin to reveal that the safe is unlocked. Craig retrieves the money and returns only to have Colin and Violet turn the tables on them when they disarm Vince. Colin and Violet agree to let bygones be bygones if Craig and Vince promise to behave, and still allow them to take all of the money, if they continue to play. Another dare involves Craig having sex with Violet as well as getting $4,500, the amount required to pay for Craig's month's rent. This angers Vince, who views it as an unfair bet, increasing hostilities between the two friends. Humiliated and feeling guilty for cheating on his wife, Craig withdraws from the game and goes home, having earned enough money to delay homelessness for the time being. Violet, who seems to have begun to develop feelings for him, is upset and becomes withdrawn, causing the game to end, as its purpose was to entertain her. Vince, desperate to win some more money, offers to perform anything asked of him. Colin suggests the amputation of his pinkie finger for $25,000. Just as Vince is about to accept, Craig returns to the game, stating that he only temporarily solves his problem with the $4,500 he has earned so far, and offers to the do the same dare for a smaller sum. Vince also goes lower, and they go back and forth until Craig settles for $15,000. Vince cuts Craig's pinkie off, resulting in Craig winning again, which only serves to anger Vince further.
The next challenge involves eating a cooked dead dog, (who had died while trying to eat Craig's finger), with the winner who finishes his portion first receiving $50,000. The contest results in a draw, a tiebreaker and the money will be given to whoever eats Craig's finger, Craig wins but he then gets beaten up by an enraged Vince. After being taken outside to calm down by Colin, he suggests that Vince kill Craig for the remaining portion of the $250,000. Vince considers the offer but finds himself unable to kill his friend, he suggests he and Craig leave but is suddenly shot to death by Craig. Colin calls Craig a taxi and he leaves with his winnings in hand, after he has left, Colin pays Violet her money, (the two had made a bet on which friend would kill the other; Colin chose Vince with Violet choosing Craig.) The film ends with Craig arriving home, comforting his child, suddenly the light turns on and his wife appears, staring at Craig covered in blood and at the money strewn all over the room. | cult, comedy, satire, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Thankfully the director doesn't overdo it, which gives the violent scenes all the more impact.Acting, Cinematography, Script, and a sense of connection, makes Cheap Thrills another movie that proves that lower budget films are capable of matching it with the mega budget movies as far as enjoyment is concerned..
His character comes across as very friendly and likable but there is always a nervy feeling, like he could do anything at any moment, he is very intense & Koechner is extremely convincing in playing him.The divide between filthy rich and poor is huge and this movie makes it its aim to show you this.
The view from Craig and Vince is also a simple one, how far would you and how low would you go if big bucks were being offered to you.This movie certainly isn't ideal family viewing; there is sex, drugs, violence and some disturbing scenes.
The film stars Pat Healy and Ethan Embry as two old friends who, while commiserating over their extreme financial woes, meet a rich, thrill seeking couple, played by David Koechner and Sara Paxton, that derive enjoyment from making wacky bets involving risky dares and large amounts of money.
Ultimately I really enjoyed this film and despite maybe not having the best ending in my opinion, it's still damn good movie which should be seen.
On the night he loses his job as a mechanic at a Southern California garage, Craig wanders into a local bar only to hook up with an old buddy of his from childhood (Ethan Embry) and an obnoxious, borderline- sadistic millionaire (David Koechner) who keeps tossing money at the two men whenever they perform impromptu, trivial tasks for him.
Things turn serious, however, when Mr. Moneybags ups the ante, throwing out ever more enticing financial rewards for ever more vile and degrading stunts.Though fairly simple and straightforward on the surface, "Cheap Thrills," written by Trent Haaga and David Chichirillo and directed by E.L Katz, is really a modern-day parable about greed, desperation, exploitation and the dangers of unbridled macho bravado.
Colin, along with his equally amoral wife, Violet (Sara Paxton), on the other hand, represents the callous 1% who amuse themselves at the expense of other people's desperation, going so far as to pit the have- nots against one another for the sheer pleasure of watching them brawling in the dirt over the scraps that are condescendingly thrown their way.
Crude, brutal, at times unwatchable even, "Cheap Thrills," nevertheless, manages to get under the viewer's skin, forcing him to face harsh truths about society and human nature and to ask himself just how far he would be willing to go to get what he needed to survive.
CHEAP THRILLS is a punch to the gut with a cast of characters that's impossible to associate with and it leaves a sour taste in your mouth when the end credits roll, but it's an entertaining funhouse mirror of a movie that goes off the rails to reflect some of the darkest elements of our culture..
He hits the local bar on the way home from work and sees an old high school buddy (Ethan Embry, in an against-type role that completely works) and the two meet up with a strange couple that wants to have a drink with them (David Koechner and Sara Paxton, who are both deliciously hilarious and mysterious).
On the way home, he runs into an old friend at a bar, and the two of them run into an eccentric rich couple played by David Koechner and Sara Paxton (again of The Innkeepers) who propose a twisted series of games for money at their private residence.To compete against each other for large rewards, Craig and Vince engage in more and more disturbing acts of depravity, self-mutilation and moral bankruptcy.This is a shocker, and a hard-to-watch one at that.
Two rich sickos torturing a couple of poor strangers by daring them to do progressively twisted tasks could result in an exploitative B-movie designed to shock the audience for the sake of it.
Cheap Thrills is that better film, and whilst Sara doesn't have particularly much to do, Pat puts on a similarly likable performance as the down on his luck protagonist, who we can all relate to.
The first work of Katz as a director is, in my opinion,a successful debut: the movie is filmed with great sensibility and the art in general is perfectly in tone with what we feel from the very beginning.
If you like shock value in your movies, then look no further than "Cheap Thrills".
Watching his character, Craig, progress through the movie is quite incredible, as you see a seemingly normal and level headed man consistently test his personal boundaries to ensure his family's wellbeing.
"Cheap Thrills" is one of the most unique movies i've seen in a while, and managed to capture the despair and greed that people endure in life perfectly.
The characters in this movie seem very human, and I think many who watch this will find themselves connected to these people in some way despite how twisted the subject material can be.
Vince is a small-time thug who's merely "getting by" until his next inevitable larceny or strong-arm job.The predators are Colin (David Koechner) and Violet (Sara Paxton), two obscenely wealthy LA layabouts who get their kicks dangling thousands of dollars in front of our two protagonists, baiting them with dares that are ever more risky, repulsive, dangerous, violent, and lethal.It all sounds very much like an idea for a left-over Saw installment, and it could have been if the script and performances weren't so strong.
I did not expect to like this movie, but It slowly pulled me in with it's desperation, humor, horror, and ethical dilemmas.Cheap Thrills has a little story, but it's big in suspense, intrigue, and insanity.This movie excels at dark humor.
Before I continue, I would like to make clear that this movie isn't so much a horror film as it is a very dark comedy and the less you know going into this film, the better.
Cheap Thrills is an excellent film with brilliant performances, solid direction and a clever screenplay which brings a potent message about human condition, combined with such black humor that it's difficult for us to determine whether we have to laugh or cry at the display of sadism and perversion portrayed.
I will say that it escalates slower than I might have liked and ends abruptly and shockingly a short while after things had gotten very tense and I had started to pay proper attention and sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation.I enjoyed this film but it is probably not something I would watch again.
It's a decent story with two men who are both pretty much going bankrupt meeting each other while drinking at the bar and then they end up making some money they desperately need when a rich guy starts offering them cash in exchange for performing different challenges for his and his wife's amusement.
The money keeps going up to get them to do more and more things that get bigger and ever crazier.The best part of the movie is David Koechner's performance, he is really hilarious.Worth seeing but don't bother buying it or paying to see it at the theatre, it's just Okay..
But he is played by David Koechner, so I'm not surprised.I didn't know much about the movie before I watched it (I like it that way) so I was constantly guessing and wondering what would happen next.
Cheap Thrills (2013) is an independent film based on the idea that people will do anything for money.
The premise of the film is two down-on-their-luck friends from high school bump into each other at a local dive bar and come across a very wealthy couple looking for a good night on the town.
What I really liked about this film was that despite it's B-movie status, and obvious lack of quality writing, what goes down isn't as expected as you would think.
I also enjoyed Pat Healy as Craig, he's not the kind of character you'd expect to see in a movie like this, and he added an interesting dynamic to a cast that was otherwise pretty droll.
A new father faced with eviction and the sudden loss of his job finds out the hard way in the intensity dark comedy Cheap Thrills (2013), directed by E.L. Katz and written by David Chirchirillo and Trent Haaga.
Shot in only twelve days, Cheap Thrills delivers the punches early for its main character Craig, played with a heavy sense of stoic inner turmoil by Pat Healy.
What do you want me to do next?"As the title suggests, director E.L. Katz delivers some cheap thrills in this extremely dark comedy which begins as a standard down on his luck tale of a family man trying to survive through the recession after losing his job and receiving an eviction notice.
This theme is richly explored in Cheap Thrills through two characters (played by Pat Healy and Ethan Embry) who meet a rich married couple (Sara Paxton and David Koechner) in a bar and begin playing an innocent dare game.
The film reminded me a lot of Saw where the rich couple take on the role of Jigsaw as they get a kick out of watching their victims compete for money (instead of their lives).
If you like you films dark and nasty then Cheap Thrills might just be your thing, but it just wasn't for me despite appreciating some of the things it was saying about our society..
Cheap Thrills may not receive the attention it deserves upon its initial release but just like every Tucker and Dale vs Evil, and John Dies At The End it will continue to receive plaudits and gain new fans through word-of-mouth due to its taut, original screenplay (written by David Chirichirillo and Trent Haaga), and a great directorial debut for E.L. Katz (the film won the Audience choice award at SXSW).The premise is simple really and director E.L. Katz does not beat about the bush in setting up the main bulk of the story.
Cheap Thrills follows Craig (Pat Healy), a family man who is struggling financially; who has just had his final eviction notice handed to him due to failing to keep up-to-date with payments and on top of this he has just been fired from his job.
They sit and play catch up and are eventually invited to sit and have drinks with the elusively charming and ridiculously wealthy stranger, Colin (the excellent David "whammy" Koechner), along with his mysterious wife Violet (Sara Paxton).The somewhat enigmatic couple eventually engage the two friends in what can initially be seen as innocuous dares in exchange for a quick couple of bucks.
Thus, it is when one denies and projects their own greed in the form of these types of natural excuses that it becomes most dangerous as becomes a prominent theme in the film.David Koechner's character, Colin, and his wife, Violet, can be seen at the other side of the bar in terms of the present day rich and poor divide, being so god-damned filthy rich that they are pretty much immune to the unwritten rules that are placed upon society and they see their money is simply a tool to buy themselves out of any situation.
But i came across a small gem of a movie A scheming couple put a struggling family man and his old friend through a series of increasingly twisted dares over the course of an evening at a local bar.
And is well worth a watch especially for how intense it becomes halfway through the film Some great acting performances from some actors you barely know (Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, Sara Paxton, David Koechner) A dark an gritty backdrop with lots of moral compass story thrown in for good measure this film is well worth the time to watch My rating for this movie 6 out of 10 ps i have never cringed so much in my entire life.
CHEAP THRILLS is another film with a premise about doing 'dares' for hard cash.
This low budget offering particularly reminded me of the rather good Thai film 13: GAME OF DEATH, in which a down on his luck office worker becomes involved in a game whereby he earns money for doing increasingly dangerous or disgusting tasks.CHEAP THRILLS is a film very much in the same style although it's lower key, more realistic, and not as outlandish (or entertaining) as the Thai movie.
'CHEAP THRILLS': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)Dark comedy/horror film about two down on their luck friends who are lured into participating in a rich couple's twisted games.
One of the highlights of this movie is it's cast; which includes Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, David Koechner and Sara Paxton.
Their demented games lead the four back to Colin and Violet's place where things become more and more sick and violent.The movie is a great character study and examination on how far people are willing to go for money (especially those in need).
What I liked most about the film is that Colin and Violet never seem mean or forceful; they're always polite and friendly and only let Craig and Vince fall into darkness of their own free will.
No story, no music no morale to get from it, just a bunch of friends playing truth or dare and doing funny rather awkward things and thinking they are making a movie.
In that sense modern filmmaking has probably hit an all time low with films like this that objectify the human experience which also includes objectifying the sex act along the way but that is small potatoes compared to whee all this stuff is going in the end.
that's all I'll say.The acting and writing is well done.I like the indie and original film style.However I will say I ended up feeling terrible about picking this to watch with a sensitive significant others and it just got too dark for my taste.I have watched, and maybe looked away from parts, of many horror movies, depending on what it was.This just got too gross for me and I regretted watching it.
OK , first of all Cheap Thrills for its level is a good movie and you can watch it without get bored.The scenario it's simple but the point is to see how far can go a person for money.The movie is more or less predictable at some parts and it has shocking and funny moments cause of dark humor it used.
I liked the personality transformation when they loose moral barriers and are eager to reach the endsThe acting is pretty good , especially Pat Healy in his role.It's a watchable movie and I totally recommend for someone who want to watch something different.
There he meets old friend Vince, whom he hasn't seen in five years and begin catching up on what they've been up to since the they last seen each other then they encountered a married couple, Colin and Violet, who get them a few drinks and show off their obscene amount of wealth in doing so and they engage the two friends in a series of dares in exchange for money over the course of the evening, which at first is all in light hearted fun but soon takes a more darker and sinister turn as the stakes are raised and desperation of what the two friends need becomes more apparent.Well this is certainly a ballsy film.
Ballsy in the fact that the 'villains', except for the one moment that Colin and Violet are threatened as Craig and Vince try to rob the money from them, they literally don't do ANYTHING to these days other than plant the seeds for them to make their own choice, it's the greed
desperation if you will of the money on offer that corrupts them and eventually pits them against each other as the friendship between Craig and Vince is used as ammunition against one another as the night goes on that takes them to breaking point.The power aspect comes from Colin and Violet being able to buy their way out of any situation and also show that they aren't stupid millionaires splashing their cash in sake of a long night of 'I dare' games for their cheap thrills when they're under attack.Not going to lie, I still just see Koechner as Champ from the Anchorman films and here I just see him as a darker version of that character without the 'WHAMMY' catchphrases and such but he plays this role well and is a good serious actor.
Ethan Embry does a good job as Vince but the standout actor that we see do a complete 180 throughout this film is from this shy guy to someone that is willing to do anything to get the money to provide for his family and that is Pat Healy.Simple story that's executed pretty well.
CHEAP THRILLS (2013) ** Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, Sara Paxton, David Koechner, Amanda Fuller.
A scheming couple put a struggling family man and his old friend through a series of increasingly twisted dares over the course of an evening at a local bar.A pretty straight forward premise that delivers a pretty watchable movie.
Let's crack on with the review...I must admit I thought that the film started out quite strongly; we're introduced to Craig Daniels (Pat Healy) who is a nice and caring family man, he's in employment and seems like a decent guy.
I didn't like any of the characters and I also hated the way that the film ended.
What intrigued me was the dynamic that developed between long time buddies Craig (Pat Healy) and Vince (Ethan Embry) when the prize money offered by Colin (David Koechner) began to escalate. |
tt0411195 | Breakfast on Pluto | The film is divided in over 30 chapters. In the fictional Irish town of Tyrellin, near the border of Northern Ireland in the late 1940s, cartoon robins narrate as Patrick Braden's mother, Eily Bergin, abandons him on the doorstep of the local parochial house where his father, Father Liam, lives. He is then placed with an unloving foster mother. Biologically male, a young Patrick is later shown donning a dress and lipstick, which angers his foster family. Patrick is accepted by his close friends Charlie, Irwin, and Lawrence, as well as by Lawrence's father, who tells Patrick Eily looked like blonde American movie star Mitzi Gaynor.
The story moves to Patrick's late teen years. Patrick gets into trouble in school by writing explicit fiction imagining how he was conceived by his parents and by inquiring about where to get a sex change. Patrick comes out as transgender and renames himself Kitten, also using the name Patricia. She approaches Father Liam in confession, asking about Eily, but is rebuffed. Kitten soon runs away from home, catching a ride with a glam rock band, Billy Hatchet and the Mohawks, and striking up a flirtation with leader Billy. Billy installs the lovestruck, homeless Kitten in a trailer home where she discovers he's hiding guns smuggled for the Irish Republican Army. Meanwhile, Irwin has begun to work with the IRA, much to the dismay of his now-girlfriend Charlie. Kitten dismisses Irwin's politics as "serious, serious, serious," but after Lawrence is killed by police detonating a suspected IRA car bomb, she tosses the IRA gun cache into a lake. Billy abandons Kitten to flee the IRA, while Kitten plays crazy, so that she won't be shot.
Kitten next journeys to London to search for Eily, but initial inquiries prove fruitless. Penniless, she finds shelter in a tiny cottage in a park, only to find that it's a children's entertainment park for The Wombles. Kitten gets a job as a singing, dancing Womble, but immediately loses it when her sponsor and co-worker punches their boss. Forced into prostitution, she is violently attacked by her first client, saving herself from strangulation by spraying him in the eyes with Chanel No. 5 perfume. At a diner, magician Bertie Vaughan asks her what she is writing in her notebook. She explains that it's the story of "The Phantom Lady" who was "swallowed up" by the big city, then reveals it's about the mother she is seeking. Bertie hires her to be his magician's assistant, turning her life story in to a hypnosis act. The two take a romantic day trip, but Kitten explains that she's not biologically female when Bertie tries to kiss her. Bertie says that he already knew this. Soon, Charlie finds Bertie's show and takes Kitten away.
Kitten goes to a club frequented by British soldiers and dances with a soldier, only to be injured when the club is bombed by the IRA. When police discover that Kitten is biologically male and Irish, she is arrested as a suspected terrorist. Beaten and prevented from sleeping, she writes a hyperbolic statement, shown in a fantasy spy film spoof sequence. The police's attitude soften, realizing she is innocent, and they release her. With no place to go, Kitten begs to stay in the police station, but is tossed to the street. Kitten is again forced to turn tricks, but is saved by one of the cops who interrogated her. He brings her to a peep show where she transforms herself into a blonde. Her repentant father finds her and in a scene that mirrors their confessional scene, professes his love and tells Kitten where to find Eily. She goes to her house posing as a telephone company market researcher and discovers a younger half-brother whose name is also Patrick. She faints upon meeting Eily, but after reviving does not reveal her identity.
When Irwin is killed by the IRA, Kitten goes home to tend to a pregnant Charlie and reconcile with her priest father. The town reacts against the unwed mother and her transgender friend living with the priest by firebombing the parish house. Kitten and Charlie flee to London. In the final scene, they run into pregnant Eily and little Patrick at the doctor's office, where Charlie is getting prenatal care. Kitten is friendly, but still doesn't reveal who she is. | avant garde, fantasy, murder, violence, flashback, psychedelic, romantic | train | wikipedia | Just as the film is committed, so is Cillian Murphy committed to being the best Kitten he can, and he succeeds to an almost uncomfortable point, which I think is part of the storytellers goal.Who does not want to be loved?
Murphy oozes sensual vitality and is a world class flirt, but he's also genuinely kind and compassionate toward everybody.The story is divided into 35 brief, fast paced "chapters" following Kitten's life over several years, first in a village near Belfast, later in London.
What could have been a one-dimensional caricature becomes a three dimensional movie in the hands of a good director like Neil Jordan, and actors such as Liam Neeson, Stephen Rea, and Cillian Murphy (who is magnificent).Cillian Murphy imbues Patrick "Kitten" with growing dignity as he/she matures through the film, and at the end she has become a self-assured woman, who has 'found' family, her mother and father, and a meaning in life.The film does not shy away from the Irish-English conflict, either, and the prejudice directed against "Paddy" is appalling, reminiscent of "In the Name of the Father." It is not for the faint-hearted, be aware!
This film is fabulous- and has nothing to do with the solar system (haha!) Cillian Murphy is AMAZING in his complicated role as a trans-sexual man growing up in Ireland in the 1970's and his quest to find what he wants in his life.
(Do not judge Mr. Murphy's acting skills from just watching Batman Begins or Red Eye this level of acting falls more in the type of his earlier works such as On the Edge and Disco Pigs) Liam Neeson, Stephen Rea, and Brandon Gleeson are far more than excellent in supporting roles.
Don't want to spoil anything about the plot but if anyone has read the book DO NOT expect the same situations or ending.This film is tender, sweet, funny, has an amazing script and has actors that made this (to some) far-fetched (not to me or anyone I know but one could have that impression) fairy-tale like story excellent.
In the enjoyable end are the film's layered performances, fluent narration and, arguably its goldmine, the music...The opening of 'Breakfast on Pluto' sees a lively Cillian Murphy strut down the street to Sugar Baby Love by the Rubettes, with long blonde hair, red lipstick and a killer dress, playfully exchanging sass with onlookers and flirting with life.
The baby is Kitten and the bishop is Liam Neeson, whom upon discovering this new 'gift' adopts a confused, troubled expression that he wears well for the rest of the film.Where the good ol' Bishop stays the same patient but troubled Kitten shifts onto a path that undoubtedly deviates from the strict conventions of the Irish community; he develops a fondness for cross-dressing in ladies' clothes, writing racy stories and expressing himself creatively.
There are some awesomely filmed scenes, great 70's music, superb acting, transformations, quick pace, yet lots of ground covered, talking birds but most of all it's the unexpectedness, the resilience displayed, the costumes...oh my god, the dreamy guy Kitten dances with, the story reenactments.
If Candide had been born a trannie Irishman from the 1960's through Thacherite England, he would be Cillian Murphy in "Breakfast on Pluto." Neil Jordan draws on several genres to create an original view point of politics, music and human relationships -- takes on "the troubles" from "Bloody Sunday" and Jim Sheridan's films; the cultural changes in the period like Milos Forman's "Hair" and "Forest Gump"; drag queens from "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" and "The Naked Civil Servant" and the gender-bending combination in his own "The Crying Game."But the story, direction and most of all the central performance create a complete person at a specific time that has renewed contemporary relevance.
This is the first film I can think of with no revelation of childhood sexual abuse for such a character, but rather an orphan's lack of parental love from birth.Jordan marvelously pulls off the trick of seamlessly integrating for the viewer the gritty, tumultuous reality with "Kitten"s amusing talent for turning a sordid life into the best of all possible worlds as a romantic musical romantic fantasy.
However, I have never seen the theme been brought to me in such ensuring way than in this film.Superb directing, well written story (although presenting nothing new) and a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y- marvelous acting make this film extremely enjoyable viewing experience.Mr. Murphy gives an unforgettable performance.
In every way this is a tender, sensitive, sweet story, full of hope, faith, indefatigable courage and persistence that is embellished by a first class performance by the gifted Cillian Murphy.Ireland, late 50s early 60s, and a child is left abandoned on the doorstep of the local priest (Liam Neeson).
The priest hurriedly places the infant with a foster mother and we watch the little boy Patrick Braden slowly grow into a cross-dressing child with outsider friends, loathed by his adopted mother to the point where he is unable to cope with life as a lie and makes off to London as a transvestite gay man (now going by the name 'Kitten Braden').
He hopes to find his birth mother and his search leads him through the dregs of London, the city that 'swallowed up' his real mother, becoming involved with the seamier side of the city, jailed mistakenly, becoming an apprentice to a magician (Stephen Rea), a cabaret singer, etc until he finally makes the discovery of his beginnings - his true parents - and his journey to find happiness ends sweetly.The entire cast of this long (over two hours) film is so fine that never for an instant does the pace of the tale let up.
The self-damaging behaviors receive mixed responses by the various people who enter his/her life, and the negative treatments are well-deserved for someone who is so in-your-face obstinate and disruptive.We found no sympathy or attachment to the character played by Cillian, regardless of whatever fascination other reviewers seem to have with his performance.In all, the movie was barely tolerable by the :38-minute mark, drudgingly boring at the 1:10 mark, and then it seemed to become more fragmented and less defined in plot, soon afterward.If you're interested in trans-gender or gay lifestyles or issues, you might wish to watch this movie.
The main feeling I personally got from the movie is that the whole world has gone nuts and Patrick (Cillian) is the only good one in the ''gone-bad'' basket, yet people think he is abnormal.
First let me start off by saying, I had every hope for this film being amazing, seeing as I am hopelessly in love with Cillian Murphy and have NEVER been disappointed in any of his movies.
In my opinion.'BreakFast On Pluto', brings light to the darker,dramatic aspects,and the all too familiar tragedy's that most anyone can relate to wrapped into a mix of unexspecting,heart warming comedy..I suppose its 'that sort of film', with an alternative to todays overwhelmingly 'modern' flicks..At times, the main character,"Kitten'played by the wonderful 'Cillian Murphy,seems to find himself in rather unbearable,often humiliating circumstances..Meaning no disrespect towards the character,He truly delivers a naive charm,and often sad ignorance...Though,he never fully established a relationship with a 'certain' highly pivotal person,But still on toward the end,I believe he was able to walk with much more confidence ..I enjoy the film very much...
But this sugarcoated view is bittersweet, because we see the horrors, too: the war, discrimination, sadness, loneliness, and realize Kitten's forced optimism is the only way she can handle the real world around her.Cillian Murphy is always good, but with this role he proves to be one of the best actors of his generation.
He makes us love Kitten with all our heart.Supporting characters are also excellent, and, given the fact they're all viewed through Kitten's point of view, they are all equally unique and colourful.This film has it all, except widespread popularity: an interesting script, great acting, compelling story and, above all, a lovable, unique protagonist..
Our guide for the occasion is one Patrick "Kitten" Jordan, a hopelessly romantic transvestite who finds himself looking for love in all the wrong places.The story begins in 1956 Ireland, when Patrick, as an infant, is left on the doorstep of a local priest who may just possibly be the father of the child.
But all of these travails are just brief downpours in Patrick's life experience, and while they may dampen his mood at times, they can't extinguish his spirit.Writer/director Neil Jordan has turned McCabe's novel into a fast paced (if overlong) film filled with warmth, humor and a sort of cockeyed optimism that helps to counterbalance some of the grim social issues (prejudice, child abandonment, terrorism) that lie along the story's periphery.
This unusual and chronically upbeat person is Patrick/Patricia "Kitten" Braden (Cillian Murphy), who goes to London in his twenties to find his birth mother "The Phantom Lady," he calls her who abandoned him as a baby on the doorsteps of a parish priest (Father Bernard, Liam Neeson).
"Pluto" is a whirl of theatrical experiences including stints as a rocker's "squaw" and a magician's assistant, not to mention street-walking and political violence which Kitten tries not altogether successfully to escape to live a fairytale life like the one described in Bobby Goldsboro's saccharine "Honey" and a lot of other bad pop songs that provide the movie's soundtrack.
Lots of other good actors, including Stephen Rea, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Neeson, Gavin Friday, Ian Hart and Bryan Perry, keep him from succeeding completely in that aim, but the movie isn't up to Jordan's best work, such as "Mona Lisa" and "The Crying Game." I'd rather watch it than "Interview with a Vampire," though, and it's another big notch on Cillian Murphy's ladder to fame..
Breakfast on Pluto is one of those beautiful packets with not a very interesting content could have benefit the movie.Patrick (Cillian Murphy) is an abandoned child raised by a foster family in the very catholic very conservative Ireland of the sixties.
Historic events are so over sighted that barely register in the public (unless of course you lived there or know Ireland conflictive history).Directed by one of the most brilliant Irish directors and populated by the cream of Ireland's cinema (Neil Jordan, Liam Neeson, Stephen Rea, Brendan Gleeson and Cillian Murphy) the movie feels like a big disappointment.
Burdened with a set of the most irritating mannerisms Murphy sails through the film playing an idiot savant and it's like Jordan took a back seat in directing him Lacking any of the bite seen in Butcher Boy, the whole thing is a mess from beginning to end.
I wish there were more films being produced as good as this one.The story follows a young orphan, fathered by the local priest, as he grows up,and leaves his small town to head for London in search of his mother.The lead actor Cillian Murphy plays the role of transvestite Kitten and was fabulous in the part.
Playing the lead role, Cillian Murphy sweeps you through Kitten's journey with such fantastic heart and conviction, expressing real convincing emotions like a spectacular firework display.
Emotive, funny, poignant , colourful and sad all at the same time - a movie that left a smile on my face and that I can watch again and again without it losing its power.Cillian Murphy delivers a stunning performance and the rest of the cast is brilliant as well (Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Cunningham).I haven't read Patrick McCabe's novel which was the basis for this, but the movie was so good that it's now on my reading list.The selection of music is a joy in itself, I bought the soundtrack as well and even though the CD is not perfect (some tracks are missing) I really like it and listen to it a lot.
as my heading this really declares om what i believe is true.Cillian Murphy has delivered yet another amazing performance.this young Irish actor deserves all the credit that is given to him recently.He will sore into the spotlight for sure after this movie.I for one do not think this movie as my best cillian performance..Disco pigs rates high up in my charts,so does the Character Jim in 28 days later which i do believe to be his best acting yet,he was great in intermission,also red-eye and batman..which I'm sure he will be in the new batman due out in 2008 BTW.
Cillian Murphy gives a brilliant and compelling performance as Patrick into Kitten, but I wish that I could have liked his character more and had more empathy with "his/her" journey in the film.The music and the costumes take you back to those "glam rock" days of VELVET GOLDMINE with Murphy sashaying through scenes with various men that leads to London.
Through all her trials, she befriends the right people at the right time, but it is always on her own terms.I had the fortune of seeing this movie twice in one weekend (at its first official screening in the US) and loved both Cillian Murphy (his performance, in the words of a fellow fan, was "flawless") for the way he not only slipped into the role, but stopped it from becoming comic by over-the-top acting and loved Neil Jordan (the man makes some brilliant movies!) - and Stephen Jordan and Liam Neeson positively sparkle.
Like that other Jordan/McCabe collaboration "The Butcher Boy", 'Kitten's' view of the world is skewered by his/her over-ripe imagination just as "The Butcher Boy's" Francie's was, though where that ended in tragedy this ends happily.From his first appearance as the adult Patrick, Cillian Murphy is hardly ever off the screen and it's a career making performance, (a close up of Murphy's face seems to allow you to know what is going on inside his head), and the supporting cast, without exception, are superb.
Jordan revisits the ambiguous sexuality theme of Crying Game but this time we know it all along and we follow Patrick at a trip alternating between fantasy and reality.Cillian Murphy is the defining performance of 2005, hands down.
With "Breakfast on Pluto," Neil Jordan attempts a whimsical picaresque tale but creates instead a pale and glaringly underdeveloped movie.Cillian Murphy tries with all of his might to inject some vitality into the character of Patrick Braden, an effeminate boy who grows up to be a cross-dressing gamine, a sort of modern-day Scarlett O'Hara who wants to prance through life without getting his feet dirty in any of the world's messiness.
cillian Murphy plays patrick " kitten " braden , a dreamy , beautiful and flamboyant orphan who rediscovers himself slowly and begins the journey of his life with the hope of meeting with his long lost mother but his journey turns out not just a vehicle and it becomes his destination.
Neil Jordan spins the tragic-comic tale of an Irish boy in the late 60s and early 70s, Patrick "Kitten" Braden, who having found his home village in County Cavan somewhat intolerant toward young lads who like dressing up in ladies' costumes, goes to London to find a future and his mother, who abandoned him on the church steps when he was a few weeks old and set off herself to that great metropolis.Patrick wanders around Ireland first, meeting various oddball characters and also some very nasty ones who use politics as an excuse for homicidal behavior.
Cillian Murphy, assisted by a terrific set of cheekbones and big blue eyes, puts in the performance of a lifetime as Patrick and is utterly convincing as a gorgeous woman.There are many other good performances in the film, particularly Stephen Rea as a seedy magician Patrick goes to work for, Liam Neeson as the parish priest who turns out to be a father in more ways than one and Ruth Negga as Charlie, a black girl who eventually gives Patrick a purpose in life.The storyline reminded me of Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man", a wide-eyed innocent reeling from one dodgy situation to another.
Cillian Murphy stars as Patrick (Patricia) Kitten Braden, an Irish transvestite who goes on a journey to England to find his estranged mother.
This film is the best Jordan has done for ages and it has a stunning central performance from Cillian Murphy as kitten.
Breakfast on Pluto (2005), written and directed by Neil Jordan, is the story of Patrick "Kitten" Brady (Cillian Murphy), a young man growing up and trying to survive in Ireland in the 1960's and '70's.
Set in 1970's Ireland the film chronicles the slightly bizarre life of Patrick "Kitten" Braden (played with sublime soft spoken campiness by Cillian Murphy), as eccentric a character as goes his appearance by the standards of the time.
Jordan's adaptation of Patrick McCabe's book (I've never read it, so I can only go by Jordan's screen work) is much in the same impressionistic, seemingly shapeless form as a John Rechy novel: Everything has its own little universe, the main character realistically searches through the honest depths of his and everyone else's emotions and worlds, different cities and different cultural scenes, different lifestyles, directions, romantic interests, and friendships, some recurrent and some fleeting, to find what he is looking for.Breakfast On Pluto is very funny, very different, and very well-acted, with a cast of many great Irish actors including Murphy, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Neeson, and Stephen Rea, and it has a wonderful soundtrack of 1960s and '70s classic rock and R&B.
When the moment comes, Kitten is not resentful of the way he was left behind as he discovers that his mother has made a life for herself and her new reality.The film is a delight because the work of Cillian Murphy.
The film is not about a person discovering himself (as so many coming-of-age movies are); it is about a Kitten knowing who she is and not changing her ways to please the world at large.The direction and cinematography are amazing, but then this is Neil Jordan. |
tt2211173 | Yevadu | Satya and Deepthi are lovers living in Visakhapatnam. A dreaded don, Veeru Bhai, lusts for her. When Deepthi's parents are killed, she and Satya escape. They board a bus on route to Hyderabad, but the bus is stopped unexpectedly and boarded by three men: Veeru's henchman Deva, Veeru's brother Ajay, and a corrupt police inspector, Shravan. They kill Deepthi in front of Satya, and he suffers an almost-fatal stab wound. Before the three leave, they set fire to the bus, leaving Satya to his death (after they stabbed him to death). However, Dr. Shailaja saves Satya by giving him a new face and skin. Ten months later, Satya wakes up from his coma.
Under the pseudonym of Ram, Satya returns to Visakhapatnam where he meets a model named Shruti, whom Veeru likes. Befriending Shruti, he takes advantage of his new unknown face, and lures Deva to a half-constructed apartment (or unconstructed building), where Satya kills Deva. A photo of Deva is discovered by assistant commissioner Ashok Varma, which has been marked with a "1". Satya then files a report on Deepthi with the police, stating that she has been missing for ten days. Since Shravan knows that Deepthi was killed ten months earlier, he becomes suspicious of Satya in his new persona, and follows him to a mall, where Satya kills him. During the investigation on Shravan's death, Satya presents himself to Varma as an eyewitness. When asked to provide a description of the killer, Satya describes his former face. Satya then manipulates Ajay to fall in love with Shruti and gets the two of them to pose in compromising positions for some pictures, under the pretense that they will be used as a promotion to assist Shruti in getting an opportunity to audition for the female lead in a film. Instead, Satya sends copies of the pictures to Veeru, to turn him against both Ajay and Shruti. Satya then convinces Ajay that the only way to save Shruti from Veeru's ire is to kill Veeru, which would also allow Ajay to gain his brother's position. However, Veeru's henchmen kill Ajay, but Veeru is himself killed by Satya, who reveals his true identity. He apologises to Shruti for using her, before leaving.
His vengeance fulfilled, Satya departs from Visakhapatnam. On the way, a stranger attacks Satya, but is killed. Suspecting that the attack might have something to do with his new face, Satya visits Dr. Shailaja. When they meet, Shailaja confesses that she has given Satya the face of her deceased son, Charan; she then goes on to explain the circumstances surrounding Charan's death. Charan was a happy-go-lucky rich graduate who hung out with his friends and girlfriend, Manju. One of his friends, Shashank, questions the local don, Dharma, regarding his illegal acquisition of lands by exploiting the slum people. Threatened, Dharma kills Shashank, after which Charan begins to raise support among the local population to revolt against Dharma. Again threatened, Dharma approaches another one of Charan's friends, Sharath, promising to establish his political career if he kills Charan. Charan and Sharath go to Visakhapatnam to attend a wedding. On their return, they board the same bus as Satya and Deepthi. When the bus was stopped, Sharath pulls a knife on Charan and the two engage in a fight. Veeru's men simultaneously enter the bus. Deepthi is killed inside the bus while Charan and Sharath's struggle has led them outside the bus, where Charan is stabbed to death. Charan's body is sent to Shailaja, who after observing Satya's urge to live decides to transplant her son's face onto Satya, rather than simple plastic surgery. Before Shailaja could inform Satya about Charan, Satya had left the hospital.
Leaving Shailaja, Satya visits the slum, under the guise of Charan. After meeting the locals, he decides to avenge Charan's death. First, he meets Sharath in a political meeting and, using the shock of Charan seemingly being alive, makes him kill Dharma. Satya makes the slum people follow Sharath to Dharma's house. Sharath stabs Dharma, who in turn kills Sharath. However, the mob, which has followed Satya, finally kills Dharma. Afterwards, Manju is shown living in a distant land, mourning Charan's death. The film ends with Satya meeting her. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Story-Satya(Alluarjun)and Deepthi(Kajal)they both are in love Veerubhai(Rahuldev)who likes Deepthi comes to know they are in love and kills them Dr.Shylaja(Jayashuda)will save Satya Ram(Ram Charan)comes and kills Veerubhai and his gang with the help of Brahamnandam and Amy Jackson and finishes his revenge.Dhrama(Sai Kumar)will try kill ram.Who is Ram why he is killed Veerubhai and his gang,who is Dhrama,what happen to Satya,why Shylaja saved Satya.Will be seen on screen Positives-Ramcharan performance,Allu Arjun and Kajal performance,Vamshi direction,Devi music and BM and all artist performances Negetives-slow first half,predictable second half and story,unnecessary heroines Yevadu is routine flick with predictable story watch it for only first 15 minutes Ramcharan,Alluarjun,Kajal,and all artist performance Rating-4/10.
Well as speculated and rumored previously that this film is a copy of 1999 Hollywood blockbuster 'Face/Off' have been proved as partial truths as the movie is not a copy but rather an inspiration from that flick.
When it comes to the plot , the film has two different stories , one for first half and the other for the rest and connected through an incident.
Ram Charan as usual , rocked with his dance moves.
Without Allu Arjun this movie isn't possible , hence a special mention.
Director sticked to the basic mass masala formula that is running in TFI presently and didn't at all try any new things , precisely routine direction..
The director, Vamsi, is only a few movies old, but the manner in which he introduces the characters and puts forth the story is commendable.
Yevadu is an out and out entertainer and doesn't let the mass enthusiasts down.Just like any revenge drama, the movie involves the protagonist's loved one being killed and how the hero in turn gets his revenge.
The story has twists but quiet a few of them are easily predictable.Acting wise Ram Charan was good, his body language and emotions were spot on.
Please do keep your brain in the home and come to the theatre..You are gonna watch some of the fishy logics neva unfolded on any movie Yess..plastic surgery can turn you to completely another hero..Yess please vamshi I guess both the heroes need more plastic surgeries Due to these kind of stories narrated the TFI level is dropping down daily..Just a mass entertatiner..IF you are die hard fan of mega family please go kill urself Please charan do some interesting movies..don't do for some collections..choose stories wisely.."Mass entry interval bang villanism heroism exposing and brahmis comedy"..please keep this formula aside and use only if you are completely down in the career to get back you need these kinda stories..Racha,Naayak and yevadu seems like same films to me.I don't want to waste any energy now on this movie still...
On the other hand, Ram alias Charan(Ram Charan) starts killing everyone from Veeru Bhai's gang.When all this is happening, yet another gangster from Hyderabad, Dharma(Sai Kumar) is after Charan's life.
For all these questions, you need to watch the film on big screen.The movie is completely Ram Charan centric.
His dances are to die for especially in the Freedom song.Allu Arjun and Kajal's cameos are breathtaking, and have been conceived wonderfully.
He looks menacing and once again proves what an stunning actor he is.Story idea is unique and the way it has been executed is also decent.
Amy Jackson provides the necessary glamour quotient in the first half.Vamsi Paidipally's films have always been high on technical values.
Screenplay of the film is good but a number of scenes could have been chopped off.Dialogues are powerful and suit Charan's body language well.
Choreography is top class and proves Ram Charan's dancing talent once again.
Fights have been composed well and director Vamsi Paidipally has succeeded in elevating Ram Charan in a powerful role..
Not expected from the actor Like Ram Charan.
Yevadu is the film released on 12 January,2014.Coming to the script, its definitely a different kind of story than previous movies of Hero Ram Charan or the director Vamshi Paidipalli.
i Don't want to reveal the story by unleashing the twists of the movie.(Do watch in theaters for the complete entertainment rather than reading the story online)The credit goes to the director for selecting such a story and directing it in such a brilliant manner.Next it comes to Hero Ram Charan, he had improved vastly in his acting as he is doing regularly with his films.He has justified his role in both the characters of the movie.
Next it comes to cameo role done by Allu Arjun, he was shown in brilliantly stylish manner as he is known as Stylish star of TFI.He has justified his role along with equally placed cameo role by Kajal Agarwal in each possible way.
Next to the actress, Shruthi Hassan,Amy Jackson,Kajal.Everyone were shown marvelously beautiful in the film and they tried to justify there role.Next to the music, Devi Sri Prasad once again showed his skills of attracting masses(some extent even the classes).His background scored very important points in the outcome of the film.
Screenplay,Dialogues,Editing were up to the mark.Finally, Yevadu can be defined as a movie with perfect mixture of all the qualities required for a Blockbuster start to 2014 and it may be said as the festival winner(Sankranthi festival season).Punch Line: Two movies on One Ticket..
Since mahesh babu's movie "1 nenokkadine" is flopped at the Indian box office, all the non resident indians have resorted to spoiling ram char an's yevadu movie, since it stood as a tough competition back in the home country.
IMDb is a international website for movie database and since mahesh babu has more fan following in USA compared to home country, all of his fans in USA have used this IMDb website to tarnish "yevadu"s fame and ram char an's image.
Allu Arjun and Ram Charan starrer film is the first super hit film in 2014 for Telugu Film Industry in India.Genre: Action Type: Straight Banner: Sri Venkateswara creationsCast: Ram Charan, Shruti Haasan, Allu Arjun, Kajal Aggarwal, Amy jackson, Jaya sudha, Kota Srinivas rao, Rahuldev, Sai kumar, Ajay, LB Sriram, Supreeth, Vennela Kishore.
etcMusic: Devi Sri Prasad Camera: C Ram Prasad Lyrics: Ramajogayya Sastry, Sirivennela Sitaramasastri, Chandrabose, Krishna Chaitanya, Sri Mani Dialogues: Abburi Ravi Editing: Marthand K Venkatesh Action: Selvam,Peter Hain Art: Anand Sai Story: Vamsi Paidipalli & Vakkantham Vamsi screenplay -direction: Vamsi Paidipalli Producers: Dil Raju Release date: 12 January 2014Story:Satya (Allu Arjun) loves Deepthi (Kajal Agarwal).
As Satya's body is burnt partly, the doctor performs a surgery and replaces his body with a new look (Ram Charan).
Yevadu _ My ReviewYes, Yevadu has got a very interesting story line,but falls short to some extent due to the easily predictable poor narration and inevitable logic less flaws.Coming to the story, Sathya's lover Deepthi is killed in front of him and being incapable of fighting them, he is also brutally attacked and the bus in which they were,is burnt.
The plot of the film ends in the first half ends, with an exciting bang in the interval, growing excitement among the viewers.The first half of the movie was dangerously fast, with some unwanted and failed comedies of Brahmanandam.
A better second half could have made out Yevadu a remarkable film.Vamsi Paidipally is successful to some extent to make Yevadu a mass film with different plot.
In the film, we can see a Ramcharan coming out after, Allu Arjun undergoes surgery.
Let it be, these are common in Telugu films, but the makers must remember one thing that, All the Viewers aren't fools.#Ram Charan carries the film on his shoulders with his heavy action and foot tapping steps.
But he always had only one expression on his face....wanna improve a lot in that section...There were too many villains and unwanted heroines in the movie.
The tollywood villain pack was complete with, a politician, a gunda, a land mafia wala, his goons, Hench boys, a mafia don, bro of mafia don and an inevitable police officer.Brahmanandam was wasted in the movie.Even though, Ram Charan tops high, #Allu Arjun's cameo appearance in 2 scenes seemed more impact able.
That hand drawn picture of Allu Arjun just, roared the theater.#DSP offered average tunes, with the song, "Cheliya Cheliya" offering a good feel.Action sequences were of top notch with good cinematography.
Overall, Yevadu is a mass film with different theme, which slowly draws itself into the class of usual revenge dramas.My Rating: 2.5/5Thank You for Reading My Review....
Movie: Yevadu Rating: 4/5I have seen Ram Charan in various movies.
I was excited to see him in this movie, which also starred my favorite hero Allu Arjun.
Its not that I don't like Ram Charan, but I like Allu Arjun more.
In this film, Ram Charan proves that he can do anything.Yevadu,to be very honest, is a revenge saga in a twisted and unusual way.
But the screenplay is do damn confusing that you are left wondering what the hell is happening on the screen.Satya and Deepthi (Allu Arjun and Kajal Agarwal) are two lovers who are on the run from a local don Dheeru Bhai (Rahul Dev) as Dheeru is lusting after Deepthi and has even murdered her parents for her, and in the process Deepthi gets killed and Satya becomes badly disfigured.Dr. Sharada (Jayasudha) does a face transplant (nope, I got that right, not plastic surgery but a face transplant) and gives him a different face (Ramcharan).Satya escapes from the hospital and eliminates all the people responsible for Deepthi's death with the help of a real dumb girl Shruthi (Amy Jackson).Once the vendetta is over, Satya is shocked when he finds someone else out to kill him.
He realizes that they are after the person whose face he now wears ( yes..wears).He finds out that the face belongs to a charan, Dr. Sharada's son who was brutally murdered by a land grabber Dharma (sai kumar) since he interfered with the latter's plan of grabbing a slum area.Now Satya decides to take revenge on those people who murdered Charan He kills them all and marries Charan's girlfriend Manju (shruthi hasan) in the end.The most dumb sequence in the movie is the face off sequence, where both the male lead's beds are placed side by side and measurements are taken for each of their faces and lo and behold you have a medical miracle.It reminds you of that awful sequence in AMAR AKBAR ANTHONY where a blood transfusion was done simultaneously to Nirupa Roy from Amitabh Bachan, Vinod Khanna and Rishi Kapoor, but then that was the 70's and we are in 2014 now and people are better informed, it is pathetic how tollywood filmmakers take the audience's intelligence for granted.Now for the best points in the movie.Allu Arjun and Kajal gave the best performances in the entire movie, followed by Shashank, as Charan's friend.
Too bad these actors were only given 15 minutes of screen time.Jayasudha as Dr. Sharada proves yet again that she is a versatile actress.
She was excellent both as the caring doctor and the doting mother and equally carried herself in the high voltage confrontation sequences.Ramcharan is his usual self, has the same constipated expression throughout the movie, we wish he played Satya and Arjun played Charan and not the other way round.Shruthi Hasan does not have anything to do except wear tight fitting clothes and giggling and has a lost look when she is not giggling.Amy Jackson does not look that firang, she plays the dumb act well, too bad her character was not so well written Sai Kumar hams his way through out the movie, just like a man who has not eaten for a week is suddenly given an emperor's meal to eat.The songs are good..especially Chelliyaa...chelliyaa.The item song by Ayyo Papam picturized on Scarlett Wilson was naughty.Oye Oye shot on Ramcharan, Amy Jackson and a couple of bikini clad foreigners with clueless expressions was foot tapping.Devisriprasad did a better job here than he did with One.Screenplay and Direction by VamsiPaidipalli was confusing to the core, the climax sequences where another twist is revealed is one of the better sequences in the movie.
This is the only sequence where you see Ramcharan and Allu Arjun in action in a single frame.Shyam Naidu's cinematography is excellent and pleasing to the eye...too bad can't say the same to the movie however..
Yevadu (U/A) TELUGU --------------- my Rating : ★★★ FACE OFF.
LIKE THIS PAGE : English Hindi TAMIL TELUGU Facebook : Movie Review by Yunus Irshad https://www.facebook.com/YunusIrshadsMovieReviewYevadu (U/A) TELUGU --------------- my Rating : ★★★ FACE OFFSTRENGTHS :- * Casting and Performances: shruti was damn hot....
* Screenplay: was good....WEAKNESSES :- * Story gets predictable...
it is a decent one time watch family entertainer....One person, just as he thinks that his vengeance is satisfied, his face drags him into another quest.Director: Vamsi Paidipally Writers: Ashwin (script co-writer), Hari (additional screenplay), 5 more credits » Stars: Ram Charan, Allu Arjun, Shruti K.
First the movie is copied from the English movie FACE OFF.overall the movie is the mixture of 3 to 4 movies(Vikramarkudu,Chatrapathi,Nayak,......etc)People have taken the face surgery concept in Yevadu as a joke.
the Idea its self is a great disaster.......Heroines play no role in the movie except song.....It felt irritating to the audience to see brahmi doing silly comedy...Ram Charan again proved him self as a wax statue ...He is able to expose his muscles but unable to give proper expression from his face...Over all Ram Charan ends with a disaster again before recovering from "Zanjerr".
Raccha , Nayak ( Raccha 2 ) , Yevadu ( Raccha 3 ) A routine Revenge Drama.
Twist in story there, Later Ram charan enters the same town and kills every Goon there, In that process Sai kumar a big Goon there tries to kill ram charan.
How is Ram charan linked with Allu arjun ?
Performances : Allu arjun and Kajal agarwal are major plus elements of movie, Both performed very well with lot of action and entertainment with their presence, Allu arjun is a special attraction of movie, Ram charan who prefers same kind of story line has nothing much to show than following his own kind of action.
Sruthi hasan who enters in second half has nothing much to do with story and also she is jut in movie for a glamor show, Same applies for Amy jackson too.
Positives of Yevadu : Allu arjun and Kajal agarwal presence in movie.
Ram charan performance Sruthi and Amy glamor scenes Nee jathaga song looks cool Pre climax and climax Negatives of Yevadu : Movie has a routine story after first 15 mins Entire movie has a low standards of comedy and entertainment No special scenes or dialogues to be noted Over all talk on Yevadu : Allu arjun and Kajal episode brings a huge hopes on movie but soon after they leave screen there will be a blank expressions from audience as everything goes as they expect.
No comedy and few silly attempts to make fun turned disaster, But apart from that Ram charan and Allu arjun performance rocks and Kajal and sruthi glamor can drag fans to theaters..
Typical Telugu film story.Film is a non-stop 3 hour violent movie with very little comedy.
Too much over action in fights and scene.Hero action even makes it worse.Even directors attempt to bring in a lot of well known artists like Kota, brahmi, saikumar, jayasudha couldn't help the movie.Some parts of story makes audience fell like Telugu serials had a good impact on movie director (maybe).
Even Brahmanandam comedy is below average.Film overall looks like a series of fights and songs, each followed by other.Unless you are a die hard fan of Ramcharan(probably not),you will be disappointed after watching the movie.some songs are good, rest of the songs just look like fillers.OVERALL ITS A 3HR NONSTOP HEADACHE..
Why bad guys do not have guns every time hero wants to fight with them??All I could say is that basic commandment you should follow while watching a routine Telugu paisa vasool masala : "Thou shalt not worry about logics!!".
There is no comedy and there is no importance to other roles except Charan, jayasudha, and Sai kumar.
Charan's acting is very bad, through out the movie he put only single expression(no expression at all) if anyone delivered dialogue, he put face like wooden statue.His screen presence is not good and he did not improve his acting skills.There is no difference between his first movie and this movie.
It is same routine revenge telugu cinema, Nothing new in this movie.
Ram Charan's Screen presence, Vamshi's direction, Dsp's back ground score and some dialogs are big assets to the movie.
But it follows the regular Telugu movie cliché and at times too predictable.
Allu Arjun appears only 15 min on the screen but he reminds us through out the movie.
This movie does not impress much, its same old formula, a revenge story in fact 2 revenge stories, first revenge is personal by killing 4 bad guys, second revenge is for people good by killing another 4 powerful guys,Emotional element of the movie does not impact much, its because we have seen this type of emotional scenes a lot.
In bad guys Sai Kumar is impressive and will hold your attention.Comedy Bhramanandam is only in first half there after its just gone without any ending.
Ram Charan dance moves are good...
One need to put their mind safe at their house to watch a movie like this.
With unnecessary comedy, songs and with absolutely no logic, ends the first half at the end of which we arrive at a new twist so to speak in the plot.
story is a lift off from a old Hollywood movie.
allu arjun comes to our mind even though he is only 15 minutes in the movie.
overall story is allu arjun face is gone in goons attack, gets replaced by ramcharans face.
so allu with cherry's face kills cherry's allu arjun's villains in first half and then cherry's villains in second half. |
tt0969647 | The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning | King Triton and his wife, Queen Athena, rule over the underwater kingdom of Atlantica, filled with music and laughter. They have seven young daughters: Aquata, Andrina, Arista, Attina, Adella, Alana, and the youngest of whom is Ariel. One day, the merpeople relax in a lagoon above water, and Triton gives Athena a music box. However, a pirate ship approaches. Everyone escapes except Athena, who is crushed to death by the ship when she tries to rescue the music box. Devastated by the death of his wife, Triton throws the music box away, and music is banned from Atlantica.
Ten years later, Ariel and her sisters live under a strict routine maintained by their governess, Marina Del Rey and her assistant, Benjamin. Marina dislikes being the girls' governess and longs to be Triton's attaché, a job currently filled by Sebastian the crab. Ariel hates their current lifestyle, which brings her into arguments with her father. Ariel encounters Flounder, whom she later follows to an underground music club. She is overjoyed by the presence of music, and is shocked when she sees Sebastian performing there. When her presence is revealed, the entire band stops playing and hides, believing Ariel will tell her father about them. Ariel sings a song explaining her love of music and the remembrance of her mother, and she joins the club with an oath.
Ariel returns to the palace, and her sisters confront her over her disappearance. She explains where she was, and the following night the girls go to the club to have fun. Marina finds them, she later reports their activities to Triton, who destroys the club with his trident. Sebastian, Flounder, and the band are sent to prison, while Marina gets the job she wants. Triton punishes his daughters inside the palace, resulting in Ariel asking him why music is forbidden, but he refuses to answer and angrily shouts, "I will not have music in my kingdom!" Distraught, Ariel argues that her mother wouldn't have wanted music forbidden. She swims to the bedroom, with her sisters following. That night, she leaves Atlantica, and frees her friends. Sebastian leads them to a deserted place far from the palace where Ariel finds Athena's music box, as Sebastian hoped. Ariel and Sebastian decide to return to Atlantica to bring the music box to Triton, hoping that it will change his mind, as he has not remembered how to be happy after Athena died.
On the way back, they are confronted by Marina and her electric eels. Marina wants to stop them so she will retain her position of power, and a struggle ensues. Marina barrels towards Sebastian, but Ariel pushes her away, getting hit in the process. Triton arrives in time to witness this, and blames himself. He sings the lyrics of "Athena's Song," and Ariel recovers. Triton restores music to Atlantica, and appoints Sebastian as Atlantica's first official court composer, much to everyone's delight. Everyone rejoices except Marina and Benjamin, who are sent to jail. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | There have only been two animated releases so far, Cinderella III and The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning.
Disney did the right thing for this film by keeping songs short and to a minimum.This film highly deserves a chance to be seen by many, unlike the rushed and horrible Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea..
I don't think it isn't as good as the classic first film or the series(a childhood favourite of mine), but I do think it is an improvement over the rather average Little Mermaid 2:Return to the Sea. Here, the animation is breathtaking, beautifully fluid and colourful, and fairly true in terms of style to the original.
And the voice acting is great, Jim Cummings is a worthy replacement of Kenneth Mars as Triton, and Jodi Benson(who also voiced Thumbelina in the Don Bluth movie, Ariel isn't the only role she's done, it's just the role she's best remembered by) is just amazing as Ariel, with a fantastic singing voice that makes me want to sing with her.
Marina-marvellously voiced by Sally Field- is an improvement over the bland Morgana, Sebastian is hilarious, there is nice character development and Benjamin is so cute.
However, the film is too short, the plot while a wonderful idea is rather so-so in execution and takes time to get going, and Flounder's voice was more teenage than innocent-sounding, the latter suited the character more.
I really enjoyed the character design and animation; the film was very true to the original designs portrayed in the first Little Mermaid, and included just enough of modern 3d animation techniques to give additional depth to the 2d creations without spoiling its 2d nature.
The story had a solid plot that supported other Little Mermaid films, as well as giving the viewer a touching glimpse of Ariel's mother and a deeper understanding of King Triton's character.
The songs, while not as moving or masterful as Menken and Ashman's work on the first Little Mermaid film, were decent and fit in well with the overall theme of the movie.
You know who I am talking about - it's Ariel and starring in the first Disney prequel, 'cause I wouldn't call it a sequel.
Set before she walked on land and married her Prince.Under the narration of Sebastian, the story starts with King Triton and his wife, Queen Athena, have seven young daughters (the youngest of whom is Ariel).
Ten years later, Triton's daughters live under a strict schedule maintained by their governess, Marina Del Rey an original villainess voiced by Sally Field; no relations to the two witches what so ever.
When her presence is revealed, at first all the club patrons flee, but Ariel sings a song explaining her love of music, and she joins the club with an oath.
You will have see it for yourself.It's great to finally see Ariel's mother Queen Athena, who looks like Ariel.
But I can see some differences between mother and daughter: Athena's hair is a different shade of red compare to Ariel and done up almost like a ponytail.
Overall, Ariel's Beginning is another excellent Disney OAV (original animated video),and prefect to go with the original film and "Return to the Sea." I love out of Ariel's sisters Alana (pink fin), Arista (red fin) and Attina (orange fin)..
I am a huge little mermaid fan since i can remember and i was definitely not disappointed it in this movie.
It tells us how Ariel came to be and answered a lot of the questions we had in the first one like what happened to Ariel's mother and why King Triton hates humans.
It also tells us how flounder and Ariel met but the one thing i did not like about flounder is that he beat boxed and was kind of out of character because he was a lot braver in this one which in the other ones flounder was always scared.
I don't think you can have a Little Mermaid movie without them as the characters.
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning (2008) ** 1/2 (out of 4)This prequel starts off with Ariel as a child and we get to see what happened to her mother, which leads her father King Triton to ban all music in Atlantica.
We then flash-forward to Ariel as a teenager when she learns the power of music and wants to bring it back.This third film in the series is certainly a major step up from the second one but then again the second movie was so poor that it wouldn't be that hard to be better.
This film here was obviously done on a low-budget and there's no question that the animation is far off from the original movie but, then again, it's at least better than the second film.One certainly shouldn't go into this movie expecting some sort of masterpiece but at the same time I thought it was mildly entertaining and worth watching.
The story itself wasn't all that original but it too was at least entertaining.The music wasn't the greatest thing from Disney but the sequences were at least fun.
As you can tell, there's really nothing ground-breaking with THE LITTLE MERMAID: ARIEL'S BEGINNING but it's at least mildly entertaining and worth watching once..
The Little Mermaid is one of Disney's most lovable classics, it's one of my personal favorites, so I did want to see the sequel, which was pretty average.
The Little Mermaid is one of Disney's most lovable classics, it's one of my personal favorites, so I did want to see the sequel, which was pretty average.
Normally most Disney sequels are lame or a waste of time, but it seems as if Disney is finally getting something right because The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is a very sweet movie and was a nice prequel for Ariel to see what her life was like before she met Prince Eric and we learn a little bit about her family and how she came to meet Flounder.
Normally most Disney sequels are lame or a waste of time, but it seems as if Disney is finally getting something right because The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is a very sweet movie and was a nice prequel for Ariel to see what her life was like before she met Prince Eric and we learn a little bit about her family and how she came to meet Flounder.
This is definitely a must see for the kids, it has fun music, cute characters, and a charming story that anyone could fall in love with.
This is definitely a must see for the kids, it has fun music, cute characters, and a charming story that anyone could fall in love with.
I liked that they chose a different story rather than continuing her life with Eric, I just like the "they lived happily ever after" and that's it, so this was a nice idea to get to know Ariel's sisters and mother.In this Disney prequel, we explore Ariel's life before she became human, met Eric, met Ursela.
I liked that they chose a different story rather than continuing her life with Eric, I just like the "they lived happily ever after" and that's it, so this was a nice idea to get to know Ariel's sisters and mother.In this Disney prequel, we explore Ariel's life before she became human, met Eric, met Ursela.
But a mermaid named Marina is trying to take over the girls and their lives so she can eventually control the kingdom.The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is a fun Disney sequel and was a pleasure to watch.
But a mermaid named Marina is trying to take over the girls and their lives so she can eventually control the kingdom.The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is a fun Disney sequel and was a pleasure to watch.
This isn't my favorite Disney sequel, but it was a huge improvement over the second Little Mermaid.
This isn't my favorite Disney sequel, but it was a huge improvement over the second Little Mermaid.
A job we don't know if she wanted.The whole film is about the death of Ariel's mother and the subsequent return to music to the underwater kingdom.
As a child i loved the first Little Mermaid, as well as the second movie...Until this movie came out.The WORST things from this movie : Marina Del Ray and Flounder.
He is so annoying, his voice is cringe worthy and is nothing more of a stalker.I liked the concept of Athena though, but for the rest of the movie, just no..
Ariel's got six headstrong sisters, how they slept in the same room, it almost appeared as a sea-dormitory, and her father, Triton look so cute when he was younger.
Even her mother, Athena, looked much like an older Ariel.
Don't get me wrong, I maybe a guy but I like the old movie with likable characters, catchy music, and an actually complex villain but did they really need to do this?
And it shows how Ariel's mom was killed {at least they keep the whole killing mom thing that Disney likes to do} and why Triton banned music but when the movie starts it is all over.I won't bore you with details so I will just show you the things that tick me off about it.
They do this once in a while in prequels and it irritates me to no end because they think that they are being clever by adding unneeded tension.So in conclusion this movie is a bomb, granted the voice work is solid and the animation looks nice but the predictable ending and boring plot don't make it worth it.
This was a prequel but there was an animated Little Mermaid cartoon that did a better job as that.The best part is easily the beginning of the film where we finally get to see Ariel's mother!
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is the prequel to Disney's The Little Mermaid as well as the final direct-to-video sequel made by DisneyToon Studios.To critique, I will start with the bad and say the good afterwards to redeem the bad.The Bad: 1.
Fairly inconsistent continuity, with Ariel's sisters arranged a little differently by age compared to the original film.
2. Flounder was really annoying, unlike in the original film where he was a likable and awesome character.
3. Marina Del Rey is a very hypocritical villain, therefore making her weak, because she was singing a song twice during the time music was banned in Atlantica, where she was as well.The Mixed: 1.
4. I Remember, since we get to hear Ariel's beautiful voice and it made me feel genuinely emotional during the course of the song, becoming the next Part of Your World, the best song in the original The Little Mermaid.
But I still think the original The Little Mermaid soundtrack is superior.The Good: 1.
The animation, especially by the standards of direct to video Disney sequels, is really good.
2. It also has a deep and enthralling story about Ariel's past, especially with her mother, Athena, involved, which we did not see in the original film, has a lot of heartwarming and genuinely sad moments, as well as a fresh story.
3. We get to know a little more about Ariel's sisters, since they did not have a lot of screen time in the original The Little Mermaid.
Wright reprising Sebastian, which are the only stars from the original to return to this film with other voices include Sally Field (Marina Del Rey), Jim Cummings (King Triton and Shellbow), Kari Wahlgren (Attina), Jennifer Hale (Alana), Grey DeLisle (Aquata and Arista), Tara Strong (Adella and Adrina), Jeff Bennett (Benjamin and swordfish guards), Andrea Robinson and Lorelei Hill Butters (Queen Athena, singing and speaking voice respectively), Rob Paulsen (Ink Spot and Swifty) and Kevin Michael Richardson (Cheeks and Ray-Ray), all do a pretty good job in this film, except Parker Goris, who voiced Flounder, who has a really annoying voice.
5. We get to reunite with the main protagonist we all know and love called Ariel, which is why this film is superior to The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, since Melody was a terrible character, as well as a highly infantilised version of Ariel, both in terms of appearance and personality.Now, since I reviewed a direct-to-video Disney sequel, some people might think I am beating a dead horse on the subject.
Story: King Triton bands music from Atlantica (is that really the best name you could come up with?) because it reminds him of his dead wife and brings him bitterness and grief.
He never shuts up, he is always making music sounds when he knows it's forbidden, he talks modern ("Oh yeah, I'm hot", "Torpedo Tube", "Cork Screw", "We love you, Flounder"), he plays spy kids, he's not the "guppy" we know and love, the Little Mermaid TV series gave a better backstory on how he and Ariel became best friends, and he and Ariel have little to no time together alone, pouring their hearts out with each other, or exploring.
2) I won't falter - it's so nice to hear Ariel sing 3) Compared to other Disney sequels, this has some nicer animation - it's not as overwhelming as the first movie.
I was on the edge of comparing this movie the the awful Fox and the Hound 2 film, but Ariel's Beginning got a better premise.
The TV stories gave us a backstory already, the first movie had nothing to do with banned music, and the sequel moved on with her life.
While I do like The Little Mermaid, it was never one of my favourite movies - it's first sequel made me gag, but this one (while definitely not as good as the original) was not only enjoyable, but something that I would honestly watch again with a smile on my face.The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is (obviously, from the title) a prequel, telling the story of everybody's favourite red-headed mermaid approximately one year before the events chronicled in the original film.
We are told through a sad little prologue about the death of Athena, wife of King Triton and mother to Ariel and her sisters.
She has an awful, garish taste in clothes that makes her fun to watch, and her voice has real personality, which makes her lines fun to hear.Although not as well animated as the original (it's wonderful animation, don't get me wrong - just not as good), and definitely not as well developed, Ariel's Beginning will have me coming back for more - if you hated Return to the Sea but love the original Little Mermaid, I guarantee you'll like it, if not love it.
Now, the original Little Mermaid is a great Disney film and it even informed audiences of the characters' current situations due to events we heard about, but never actually saw on screen (like how Ursula mentioned that she was kicked out of the palace for God knows what).
But, unfortunately, The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning does none of that.
It's just an extremely awkward story with terrible songs (except "I Remember" was decent enough), a lame villain, and annoying slang and dialogue.The good - The animation and art are beautiful.
- I really liked the first couple of minutes where Ariel's mother, Athena, is shown.
One minute, Athena saves one of her daughters from an approaching pirate ship and that's good, but then the next she goes after a music box that she could have just left behind, right?
My question is...what happened to the pirates after this?The bad - I really hated Triton's character in this movie.
"I Remember" was decent enough though.So, in conclusion, while this movie wasn't the worst of the Disney direct-to-video sequels (that would be Hunchback II), it's definitely not nearly as good as The Little Mermaid.3/10.
However; upon purchasing this in a triple pack with the first two DVDs, it didn't live up to all of my expectations.The animation is mostly fluid and the colours are not overly bright like they were in 'The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea,' but some elements look a little too CGI-ish within a 2D animated environment such as the music box, Marina Del Rey's gigantic hook and the statue of Athena.
Like 'TLMII:RTTS,' Jodi Benson and Samuel E Wright reprise their roles as Ariel and Sebastian respectively and they sound exactly as they did in the other two films and TV series.
I also found the shot of Ariel and her sisters being shown in Marina's eyes confusing because I didn't know if she was watching them from her lair or at the underground club, although I can see why her report of the girls in the club to Triton was brief.
The scene where Ariel appears to have died towards the end may be confusing for those who haven't seen the other two films because they may think she has actually died but she regains consciousness upon hearing the music box.
The moments of Athena's death and Ariel having a flashback of happier times after having retrieved the music box had just the right amount of poignancy.To conclude, it was an adequate idea of Disney to make a prequel but it wasn't quite as enjoyable as the other two films.
You see Ariel's mother died by humans and since that day Triton cannot stand humans.Overall the animation was great but this movie is all over the place as like I said before its out of sequence.There's NO Eric and there's not much to say about it its just not as good as the 1st movie.
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning (2008).
For a direct to video film, and compared to the sequel, it's pretty darn good. |
tt0046480 | Un acte d'amour | Robert Teller (Kirk Douglas) visits a seaport in the south of France in the early 1950s. He reflects back to his time in the army shortly after Paris has been liberated.
Years earlier, to get away from the barracks and the other soldiers, Robert rents a room in a hotel-restaurant. Lise (Dany Robin), an orphan without money or identity papers, seeks a way to escape from the authorities. She asks Robert to pass her off as his wife. Even though he does not inspire trust, she starts to fall in love. Lise tells of the time she was the most happy and secure—living in a little seaside village.
When a black market dragnet lands Lise in jail, she is humiliated because now she (like Jean Valjean) is branded a "criminal for life." By this time, Robert loves her deeply and is willing to marry her.
In order to do so, Robert must obtain the approval of his commanding officer, who refuses because the captain thinks he knows what is best for his men. Robert is transferred away from Paris immediately. He deserts, but is arrested. Lise now feels even more abandoned because Robert does not show up for their wedding.
His thoughts returning to the present, Robert runs into his old captain (who had been trying to place Robert's face). He hears the captain tell his wife what a troublemaker Robert was back then and how he "rescued" Robert from the clutches of a French girl. The captain says, "Well, I bet you haven't seen her since the war." Robert replies, "You are right. They pulled her body out of the river shortly after I was transferred." | melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0048937 | Alexander the Great | Saikumar plays the role of Prathapa Verma, a rich man in Dubai who has a son Manu (Bala) but also has an adulterous relation with a lady in Mumbai, Janet, with whom he has another son named Alexander (Mohanlal). In his will, he has bequeathed all his wealth to his son Alexander. If Alexander dies, then 40% of Prathapa Verma's wealth will go to his relatives (Siddique, K. B. Ganesh Kumar, etc.) and 30% goes to Manu, and 30% to a trust. If Manu dies, then 100% will go to the trust. So the relatives decide to kill him, while Manu decides to go and meet Alexander and power of attorney from him so that he can get all Verma's wealth, and then kill him or get rid of Alexander. But to their surprise, Alexander is in mental rehabilitation center under the treatment of Dr. Korah (Nedumudi Venu). Eventually, over time, Manu realizes that his brother has unique abilities, which he grows to accept. He starts becoming fond of his half-brother. The story then progresses to show how Manu brings Alexander to Dubai. After reaching Dubai, the struggles that Alexander face form the rest of the story. | cult, historical, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0078999 | Coriolanus | The play opens in Rome shortly after the expulsion of the Tarquin kings. There are riots in progress, after stores of grain were withheld from ordinary citizens. The rioters are particularly angry at Caius Marcius, a brilliant Roman general whom they blame for the grain being taken away. The rioters encounter a patrician named Menenius Agrippa, as well as Caius Marcius himself. Menenius tries to calm the rioters, while Marcius is openly contemptuous, and says that the plebeians were not worthy of the grain because of their lack of military service. Two of the tribunes of Rome, Brutus and Sicinius, privately denounce Marcius. He leaves Rome after news arrives that a Volscian army is in the field.
The commander of the Volscian army, Tullus Aufidius, has fought Marcius on several occasions and considers him a blood enemy. The Roman army is commanded by Cominius, with Marcius as his deputy. While Cominius takes his soldiers to meet Aufidius' army, Marcius leads a rally against the Volscian city of Corioli. The siege of Corioli is initially unsuccessful, but Marcius is able to force open the gates of the city, and the Romans conquer it. Even though he is exhausted from the fighting, Marcius marches quickly to join Cominius and fight the other Volscian force. Marcius and Aufidius meet in single combat, which only ends when Aufidius' own soldiers drag him away from the battle.
In recognition of his great courage, Cominius gives Caius Marcius the agnomen, or "official nickname", of Coriolanus. When they return to Rome, Coriolanus's mother Volumnia encourages her son to run for consul. Coriolanus is hesitant to do this, but he bows to his mother's wishes. He effortlessly wins the support of the Roman Senate, and seems at first to have won over the commoners as well. However, Brutus and Sicinius scheme to undo Coriolanus and whip up another riot in opposition to his becoming consul. Faced with this opposition, Coriolanus flies into a rage and rails against the concept of popular rule. He compares allowing plebeians to have power over the patricians to allowing "crows to peck the eagles". The two tribunes condemn Coriolanus as a traitor for his words, and order him to be banished. Coriolanus retorts that it is he who banishes Rome from his presence.
After being exiled from Rome, Coriolanus seeks out Aufidius in the Volscian capital of Antium, and offers to let Aufidius kill him in order to spite the country that banished him. Moved by his plight and honoured to fight alongside the great general, Aufidius and his superiors embrace Coriolanus, and allow him to lead a new assault on Rome.
Rome, in its panic, tries desperately to persuade Coriolanus to halt his crusade for vengeance, but both Cominius and Menenius fail. Finally, Volumnia is sent to meet her son, along with Coriolanus's wife Virgilia and child, and a chaste gentlewoman Valeria. Volumnia succeeds in dissuading her son from destroying Rome, and Coriolanus instead concludes a peace treaty between the Volscians and the Romans. When Coriolanus returns to the Volscian capital, conspirators, organised by Aufidius, kill him for his betrayal. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0138967 | Hercules | Hercules is the leader of a band of mercenaries composed of the spear-wielding prophet Amphiaraus of Argos, the knife-throwing thief Autolycus of Sparta, the feral warrior Tydeus of Thebes, the Amazon archer Atalanta of Scythia and his nephew storyteller Iolaus of Athens. Hercules is said to be the demigod son of Zeus, who completed the legendary Twelve Labors, only to be betrayed by Hera who drove him insane and caused him to murder his wife Megara and their children during a visit to King Eurystheus. Throughout the film, it is not clearly established that Hercules is truly the son of Zeus, and many are skeptical of the claim as well as of the stories of Hercules' famous Twelve Labors. Despite this, Hercules displays unusual strength and nigh-unmatched skill in combat. Hercules is frequently haunted by the memory of the deaths of his wife and children by his hand, as well as visions of Cerberus.
After finishing a recent mission and saving his nephew on the Macedonian Coast in Northern Greece in 358 BC, Hercules and his team are celebrating and drinking at a tavern when they are approached by Ergenia on behalf of her father Lord Cotys who wants Hercules to train the armies of Thrace to defend the kingdom from bloodthirsty warlord Rhesus. Hercules accepts after he and his men are offered his weight in gold, and the band is welcomed to Thrace by King Cotys and General Sitacles, leader of the Thracian army. However, Rhesus has reached the Bessi tribe in Central Thrace and Cotys insists that Hercules lead the army into battle to defend the Bessi, despite their lack of training. However, they are too late as Rhesus' sorcery has turned the Bessi against the Thracians.
After the Bessi are defeated, Hercules properly trains the army, then Hercules and Sitacles confront Rhesus and his soldiers on the battlefield before Mount Asticus. The Thracians force Rhesus' army to retreat, but Rhesus himself rides out to confront Hercules and is defeated by him. Rhesus is taken back to Thrace as a prisoner, where he is tortured and humiliated. Hercules takes pity and stops the townfolk from throwing more objects at him, then Hercules mentions Rhesus' actions of burning down villages, Rhesus tells him it was not him or his army, and tells Hercules that he has been fighting on the wrong side. Later in the hall of the palace, Rhesus has been chained up and left on display. Noticing that Ergenia has taken pity to him, Hercules confronts her and finds out Rhesus was telling the truth in that he was merely retaliating against Lord Cotys's aggressive attempts to expand his kingdom. Although Ergenia doesn't agree with Lord Cotys's methods, she goes along with them for the sake of her son Arius, Lord Cotys's successor to the throne, who is being threatened by Cotys.
After receiving their reward, the mercenaries are ready to leave, but Hercules decides to stay behind to stop Cotys, and all but Autolycus choose to follow him. However, they are overpowered and captured by Sitacles and his men. While chained, Hercules is confronted by King Eurystheus, who is in league with Lord Cotys. Eurystheus reveals that he drugged Hercules the night his family died, viewing him as a threat to his power. Hercules's family was in fact killed by three vicious wolves sent by Eurystheus, resulting in Hercules's constant hallucinations of Cerberus. When Lord Cotys orders Ergenia to be executed for her betrayal, Hercules is encouraged by Amphiaraus to believe in himself just as everyone believes in him. In a show of superhuman strength, Hercules breaks free of his chains, saving Ergenia and slaying the wolves with his bare hands. Hercules releases the prisoners, including Rhesus, and then confronts King Eurystheus, impaling him with his own dagger. He is attacked by Sitacles, who is then stabbed by Iolaus.
Outside, Hercules and his forces battle Lord Cotys and his army. Arius is taken hostage, but then rescued by Autolycus, who has decided to return to help his friends. In the ensuing battle, Tydeus is mortally wounded while protecting Arius, but fights on slaughtering numerous Thracian soldiers. Hercules again uses inhuman strength and pushes a massive statue of Hera from its foundations and uses it to crush Lord Cotys and many of his soldiers. The remaining soldiers see Hercules as lightning flashes in the background. The surviving soldiers bow to Hercules, and Arius takes the throne, with Ergenia at his side, while Hercules and his men depart in search of other adventures.
As the credits roll, an animated retelling of the Twelve Labors shows how Hercules accomplished these feats with the help of his companions. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Playing with Greek Myths, what fun!.
I wish I had watched this series in it's first run, but I figured "Oh great, another badly done TV series" (I was still bitter about Aladdin and Gargoyles being cancelled).
Then, directly before it went off the air I found these sound clips from the show that were so funny that I decided to watch it.
The show is full of vague references to Greek myths and plays.
The more Greek you've been made to study, the more amusing Hercules is..
Sure, it takes a lot of liberties with Greek mythology and Greek history.
It's not even totally faithful to the 1997 movie with the same name, to which it's supposed to be a "midquel".
But still, "Hercules" is rather educational (there are facts about mythology and history in it, if you only care to look for them) and really funny.
It must be one of Disney's most underrated TV shows ever!
It must be one of Disney's most underrated TV shows ever!
It follows the adventures of the young demigod Hercules, who's not only a hero in training (he lives with his trainer Philoctetes), so it's often up to him to stop the plans of his evil uncle Hades, the lord of the Underworld, or to solve other problems.
But he also has to go to High School, just like any other teenager, and face typical teenage issues.
He's got two best friends, Icarus and Cassandra, but he's often taunted by Adonis, the arrogant prince of Thrace, who considers him "a loser".The ancient Greek gods, like Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena, Apollon, Artemis, Demeter, Bacchus, Aphrodite, Poseidon, the Muses and Hermes, all make appearances, and so do many heroes and monsters from Greek mythology.
And like other reviewers have said, this show also have an impressive cast list, even for guest roles.
So if you can, check it out!.
A Cute, Halfway Intelligent Kids Show.
Hercules hits all the typical Disney/kid-show notes, delivering moral messages and a lot of humor.
Like the original Disney movie, but unlike shows like Aladdin and Little Mermaid, Hercules toss in lots of modern-day in-joking which keeps it somewhat interesting for the adults (like myself) to watch while the kiddies enjoy the show.
There's also a lot of quality voice talent assembled here (how did they ever get James Woods??).
Overall, this somewhat skewed look at Greek mythology is humorous enough..
A fun, cute little series, and one of Disney's most underrated.
I remembered seeing this show as a kid, and I also remembered liking it.
To this day at 19 I like how fun and cute it is, and I do consider it one of Disney's most underrated.
The 1997 movie Hercules I admit is not one of my favourites from Disney, but it is a very enjoyable movie, funny with great vocal talent, and one that I have learnt to appreciate more over-time.
I like this series even more.
True, like the movie it is not true to Greek mythology, though I much enjoyed the facts brought forward for educational value, but it is vibrantly animated, has a catchy theme tune, has some interesting story lines and has some really funny and witty writing and jokes while leaving some moments of cuteness and sometimes poignancy.
I loved all the characters, Hercules is for me much more likable than he is in the movie, while everybody else, some from the movie some not, fare even better with fun personalities.
Hades especially is hilarious.
The voice acting, I agree it is just a treat of a cast both on paper and in voice work, is just terrific, hard to pick a favourite.
All in all, fun, cute and underrated, it may not be among Disney's very best but I can think of worse ways to waste my time with.
8/10 Bethany Cox.
"Bless my soul...
Herc is on a roll!".
In a sea of obscurity from Disney (from Dinosaur to Inspector Gadget to Recess to Disney's Doug to whatever things they destroyed) Hercules is one of those shows that has a lot of creativity.
Now mind you, the Movie wasn't up to Disney Standards in any way you put it but was an interesting feature film that many other animated features will try to emulate.
But actually the Hercules Cartoon is actually very nice.The cast of characters are very interesting and is definitely making fun of Greek mythology and today's pop culture.
This series' was more well executed that the movie of the same name.
Animation is sortof typical for this kind of show, but (my God) look at the celebrities they casted for the roles.
Everybody like Robert Stack (Unsolved Mysteries), Eric Idle (Monty Python) and even James Woods (The original Dead-Head: Hades) gave their talent to this show.
It's sortof amazing in a sense.
But I digress, this show is still much more better than the crap they put out now on Disney's One Saturday Morning but I think will never replace Disney's Nostalgic shows like Ducktales, Darkwing Duck, or even Gargoyles.
Still, it's a nice show.
Recommendable if you ask me..
what a cast list!!!.
I'm completely blown away at the cast list of this very funny, clever show.
How in the world did they get (almost literally) every major living star to do a voice?
I'm particularly impressed by how faithful (mostly) the stories are to the Greek and Roman sources.
One of the best cartoons around today..
I never saw the Hercules movie but I have seen loads of episodes of the TV series and it is a very funny show which adults will appreciate as well as kids.It's quite educational in the fact that you get to know a lot about Greek Mythology.The most astonishing thing about it is the voice over cast with the likes of Tate Donovan, French Stewart, Sandra Bernhard and James Woods among the regulars.
And an amazing guest star cast which has seen everything from Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jenifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow to William Shatner and Robert Stack doing voices.To sum up a very witty show..
Just Watch It For the Actor Cameos....
The television show "Hercules," based on the Disney film "Hercules," is perhaps worth watching just for the impressive cameos by actors.
Why a show like "Hercules" would ever attract so many talented actors and actresses is beyond me.
Perhaps the sound studio was nearby when the actors were filming a movie, and they decided to stop in and spice up the show a bit.
Either way, the kids who watch the show most likely didn't realize any of the actors.
It's an adult joke, really.
As for the show itself...well...what have we come to expect from television spin-offs?
Though, be careful.
When you start tuning in to hear the actors, you can become attached to the show easily.
2.5/5 stars --John Ulmer.
Intelligent, morally filled, highly recommended.
A great, intelligent show!
Each episode presents some part of the Greek mythology in a very funny and ethic way.
The characters are great, friendship they have is very enlightening for youngsters.
It is a very good manifest for the young generations.
Adults can easily watch the show as it has quite a lot of hilarious moments.
Highly recommend!
I am very amazed how it did not get the respectful critics and popularity.
On the other side the animation is not as good as in original cartoon from 1997.
However the story is still great!
There is even a Disney "wiki" page which has a lot of explanations and descriptions of the characters.
A great way to popularize Greek mythology in this era..
A crazy irreverent little romp!.
....and one that's *way* more than halfways intelligent- indeed one needs to be half way through highschool to get half the jokes- and a few years of college don't hurt either.
Hilarious,wonky, bittersweet and adorable the series follows the adventures of young teen Herc and his friends as they grow up during their high school years with surprising realism and candor for what looks at first to be a standard Saturday morning kiddie cartoon.
Take the time to discover it and you''ll find it's possibly the best series Disneys ever done with Broadway quality show tunes and over 160 TV and movie guest star voices ranging from Garrison Keillor to William Shatner.
James Woods and French Stewart fans are in for a special treat.Disneys Hercules the TV Series.
Good good good.
This wasn't a bad show that i used to watch sometimes, it was clever and had good messages usually.
I especially liked the episode where Hercules was trying to impress a goth girl (voiced by Joey Lauren Adams from Chasing Amy and Dazed and Confused, apparently).
Jeez, would you look at the voice list!
I think they must've been blackmailed or something to get all those famous stars on that show, doing relatively little parts on a show that wasn't much publicity for either.
Or maybe they just got paid a LOT.
I think they were blackmailed though, like Bob Dylan being on an episode of Dharma and Greg (next is getting J.D. Sallinger on an episode of Friends)..
Best Disney Movie ever!.
I absolutely loved this movie and sometimes I watch the cartoon as well.
It was so good!
Everyone in the cinema was laughing whenever Hades(James Woods) went onto the screen.It was a really great movie!
I really loved all the singing by the Muses.If you haven't seen it by now then you have just missed one of the greatest Disney movies ever created..
Did you see Him. Hades is me done in white face.
THe rest you may have known about...
Did you see the man sitting behind the beast signing that document for Hercules?
The beast is me and the man telling me that there really is an alien on the planet.
The man with his head on Fire is really the Creator of the planet we call earth.
That is really what he looks like.
When that happened to me Eric Tillman back in June of 1998 he that man with his head on Fire is who did that to me.
So as you can see he was trying to explain to the world that the reason my eyes are like firery red to you all is that i am Lucifer the actual Sun in the sky walking around here alive on the planet and that there is a hole in the Ozone layer that needs to be closed but everyone alive has to get behind the idea of trying to close it instead of waiting for him to fix it all by himself.
That man with his head on Fire and then it cools down is named Jurell not spelled Jo'rell.
but pronounce almost the same.
I have been going through this conversation for sometime now and it seems to fall on deaf ears of people who are not actually deaf.
Come and take these micro-chips out of Mr. Frederick Khayyam Tillman's apartment.
That was what they were for to help spread the word out of how to solve those environmental issue everyone else seems to ignore.
If no one was gonna listen then you must extract them and leave him alone or you would start to hear him speak at a level of words and phrases that are not healthy to the society as a whole that is his way of deleting the general population which he could of done on June 4,1998.
Become more mature ladies and gentlemen The Creeator does not want the moon to drop on your heads but he wants you all to keep it from doing that.
One man down here on earth can't be the only one you look to for that solution.
Look at it again thoughts he needs to give you when you look at him will come to you and you will be able to understand even though you try not too..
Looks and Gibberish.
I think Hercules looks like my step brother Alex.
Its totally hilarious.
He has never seen the movie or the t.v. show so he has no idea.
I showed him a picture but he didn't get it.
I also show his sister and she agreed and laughed.
Its so funny because he can act like him too.
I want to get the movie for him for Christmas.
I think it will be a funny joke.
We were born the same year, so its like he is my twin.
I'm related to Hercules.
LOL.
Wow, these things have to be long.
I'm just writing gibberish now to fill up space.
Hercules is a cool show.
I used to watch it every day before school.
Well before I graduated.
Now I watch it on Toon Disney every so often.
My daughter likes it.
Is it 10 lines yet?.
Is it 10 lines yet?.
Why did anyone watch this, again?.
Sorry.
I know you're all reviewing the TV series.
Found that odd, since I got to the review page from the movie page, not the TV show page...Apart from that, after the five minute intro Vegas song and dance crap, followed by Hercules being born on Mount Olympus to Zeus and Hera.
followed by Hades 'Turning him Mortal', I managed to make it to the DVD player to turn it off.I was absolutely disgusted from the first moment that all of these Hollywood stars would put their names on this piece of horribly inaccurate trash just because it was Disney.
perhaps after several bottles of Pepto Bismol, I'll be able to watch it further and find out how exactly Hercules' life went with a loving Goddess mother instead of a spiteful jealous Goddess that tried to kill him his entire life, causing him to achieve the amazing feats that he was famous for.I'm sure a minor detail like that won't affect the life of the son of the greatest God in Greek mythology.
Really, it's OK, I swear.But, since we seem to be reviewing the TV series here, let me just say ..
woohoo!!!
I LOVE IT!!!
I LOVE IT!!!
I LOVE IT!!!
It's better than Recess and the Smurfs combined, tossed together with a little bit of Schneider from 'One Day at a Time'!!.
Wonderful!.
I remember waking up at the crack of dawn early Saturday mornings just to catch this on ABC and airing simultaneously in syndication.
Anyway, I was impressed on how many celebrities signed on to voice characters, however, I did note that two of my personal favorites were missing, "The Golden Girls'" Bea Arthur and Broadway's Bernadette Peters, but I digress.I enjoy still enjoy the show which now airs on the Toon Disney Channel and I recommend it for the celebrity cameo appearances..
Fun little kid show.
When Disney released their Hercules movie, it was so obvious a cartoon series was going to be made.
I thought the series would be a piece of garbage because I had seen what Disney had been offering Saturday mornings I decided to give it a chance and I was really surprised.
The series was good and funny.
I would put this show up with Disney's other great animated series, Darkwing Duck and Gargoyles to name a couple..
Some facts about Hercule's story.
''Hercules'' is a cute cartoon from Disney, but it does not tell the exact story of this mythological and famous hero, as also does not show all of the things Hercules have passed through.
Hercules and their parents Hera and Zeus live in the Olympus, and they have a nice and calm life.One day,Zeus was going to introduce Hercules to the other gods in a party,when Hades,the god of the sub world, angry because he was not invited for the party was decided to take off Hercules' immortality.
He sent his two pals Panic and Pain to do this mission, and they were going well taking Hercules powers, until they listened to a noise and they let little Hercules with his strength.
Panic and Pain thought Hercules was a mortal,so nobody else was worried with Hercules powers and he was adopted by a mortal couple,living well and thinking about himself as a strong human.
Only with the time, when he met Meg,Zeus,his unicorn and Puk he is going to know that he is actually son of a God..
Excuse me?
Okay, I've seen Alladin and the Little Mermaid and I'm cool with that.
It's a lame attempt to turn a Greek story into a TV series about a guy who acts like he's weak when he is actually one of the strongest people in the world according to this show.This is probably the hardest votes I had to make because I like Disney.
I don't love it though because it's too cheesy, but I like it.
I give it a one, sadly.
I haven't seen this show in so long though that all I remember is a guy holding up the sky in one episode.
That's it, but I remember the poorly made, poorly drawn, and bad jokes in the show.I do not recommend this show for Disney lovers.
It will disappoint you. |
tt1682940 | Playback | On October 21, 1994, Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) murders his family at their farmhouse and he is shot by the police, as he kills his sister. The tragedy leaves behind video footage (which he had taped) and his sister's baby, who lives. Fifteen years later in Marshall, Michigan, an ambitious high school student Julian Miller (Johnny Pacar), is tasked with completing a film assignment on forgotten local stories for journalism class. Choosing the Harlan Diehl case, though it goes against the wishes of his mother, Anne Miller (Lisa Jane Todd), he selects his girlfriend, Riley (Ambyr Childers), to be his project partner, and borrows camera equipment and archive footage from his reserved former coworker at a video store, Quinn (Toby Hemingway), who has since become a news station cataloger. He also recruits his fun-loving friends, DeeDee Baker (Jennifer Missoni), Nate (Jonathan Keltz), and Brianna Baker (Alessandra Torresani) to re-enact the murder scene, allowing him to produce a gory slasher movie.
One night, Quinn watches footage from the aftermath of the tragedy, where Harlan is taken away after having been shot. Still alive, Harlan awakes as the video intercuts, leading to the spiritual possession of Quinn's body by way of video playback transmission. Besides cataloging footage, Quinn is paid by a perverted cop, Officer Frank Lyons (Christian Slater), to set up spy cameras to privately record teenage girls, using this chance to initially possess Brianna, who finds and looks into the camera. He begins to kill people, starting with a coworker at his news station. Meanwhile, Julian and Riley discover that Harlan, whose parents died when he was four, bounced around from foster home to foster home until he was adopted by the Diehls, and that he is the descendant of Louis Le Prince, the inventor of cinematography. They locate the Diehl house to record footage, in the process finding out that there was a baby in the family, omitted from the reports.
At work, Julian's disabled coworker, Wylie (Daryl Mitchell), tells him about an ancient legend involving Louis Le Prince, who is believed to have invented a way to steal souls, taking the soul of his own son, Adolphe, and replacing it with his own demonic spirit simply by filming him in the motion picture, Roundhay Garden Scene. The evil spirit would then possess each child in the bloodline from father to son, from generation to generation, which explains the Diehl family case. Some time later, Nate is killed by Brianna, who has become possessed. As Frank is assigned to investigate Nate's disappearance, Quinn kills Brianna, and DeeDee is possessed by Quinn through a spy camera that she finds. Next, Quinn kidnaps Riley and kills Frank and DeeDee, while Julian asks a retired newscaster, Chris Safford (Mark Metcalf), about the Diehl case. He learns Harlan raped his adoptive sister and together they conceived a baby. Their parents planned to put the baby up for adoption in order to cover up the incident, but Harlan objected and killed them. Afterwards, the baby was adopted by Julian's police officer mother, Anne, meaning that Julian is Harlan's child. Having acquired tapes from Frank, Quinn discovers this by watching police-owned footage showing Anne taking the baby.
Quinn kidnaps Julian, and restrains Julian and Riley in the Diehl home. Before Quinn can possess Julian, the electricity goes out. Quinn heads upstairs from the basement to fix the issue and buying Riley time to free herself from the restraints and rescue Julian from the other room before they flee. On their way out, they stumble across Nate's dead body. They hide until Julian's armed mother Anne arrives, suspecting trouble after trying to contact Julian. Quinn shoots her with his gun and this forces Julian and Riley out to save her. They fight Quinn, though he subdues them and prepares to use his phone to film and possess Julian, as an injured Anne, wearing armor, shoots down Quinn. The next day, Anne is hospitalized and Julian and Riley see the police report about the recent murders. Shortly after, Julian receives a video message and Quinn uses it to possess Julian. | paranormal, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Ill start off by saying,if your the kind of person that's always looking for connections in movies(Most people on IMDb who think their intelligent, but just young) then you may not like this one, but if your old school like me and have seen everything already and don't care too much if movies draw slim similarities to others as long as they're good then I would say have at it.
There's some great gore, naked girls, and a twisted little story line that doesn't steal 'too' much from other movies, but taking just enough to get the troll's panties in a bunch.
This makes even more stupid people run around saying, "Oh yeah I heard that movie sucked!" Well, I actually SAW this last night, I was expecting nothing good after reading reviews here.
We have Christian Slater playing an "interesting" part to say the least along with a creepy kid who likes to go through old film in his spare time.
Nothing too great, but not bad at all either..I gave it 7 out of 10 because of the sh%*storm of idiots who will undoubtedly ruin the rating/reviews of this movie(as they do to so many) all because one person left a good review before everyone else did so everyone assumes there part of the crew and its their duty to make 3 accounts and post fake reviews..how sad peoples lives must be.
Another thing, don't run out and buy this, wait till its on cable or Netflix.Its worth a watch when you put it up against the crap that true Horror fans have to sift through to get a decent watch, but its not a must see..
The adding of Christian Slater's character just cheapened the entire film, when is the last time one of his movies hit the big screen?
This is a VERY generous 5/10 Just to be fair, movies I watch on the net I add a extra point to just to put things in the right prospective..
First pet peeve with movies like this is 30 year olds playing teenagers.
Majority of the time i found myself looking away from screen and just wondering how the directors can get away with releasing movie like this.
In the present days, the teenager Julian Miller (Johnny Pacar) borrows a camera, tripod and other equipment from his friend Quinn (Toby Hemingway) that works in a TV studio to make an amateurish film about the infamous Harlan Diehl with his girlfriend Riley (Ambyr Childers) and their classmates DeeDee Baker (Jennifer Missoni), Nate (Jonathan Keltz) and Brianna Baker (Alessandra Torresani).Quinn sells footages of DeeDee and Brianna in the change room in the high school to the sick police officer Frank Lyons (Christian Slater).
When Julian inadvertently unleashes evil through the playback of videotapes, Quinn is possessed by Harlan Diehl and begins a violent crime spree."Playback" is a noisy, lame and messy horror movie recently released straight on DVD in Brazil.
In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say his work in this film might be the most realistic, believable acting job in recent history, far surpassing Christian's former costar, Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight.My only beef about the film was that it was sometimes hard to follow the intricate movements of the actor's index fingers, although I suppose its not fair to deduct points for something that I assume is a rare fetish that is only shared by complete sociopaths and a large percentage of field mice..
I had to throw the screen in the trash, such was the damage incurred.The synopsis for this movie at the top of this page is all wrong.The cop, played by Christian Slater, isn't investigating anything at all.
When a group of film students attempt to document the brutal history of their town's past, they unleash the evil spirit which inspired the rampage and must stop it's current rampage before it exposes the secret behind it's existence.This is overall a pretty lame and barely worthwhile effort.
The only true sense of credit that this one really has is it's plot line about the body-hopping spirit that can only be transfered through video, which is pretty creepy and doesn't get used often-enough as a concept since it generates some really impressive moments here and there of the possessed beings out and about with their unknowing victims.
Otherwise, this here is a gory, low-budget boring mess that seems to fling itself around in ten different directions without any sort of inner compass to determine what it wants to do, a low-budget feel that never lets it's full scope become apparent despite the feel it's going for and a laid-back pace that rarely lets on it's a horror film and never really goes for any sort of excitement or enjoyability.
But it's fun, it made me jump a couple times, and the gore doesn't look ridiculously fake like most B movies!Will I watch it again?
First thing first I still cannot believe that Christian Slater will take a role of pedophile in a C graded movie.
For a start, Christian Slater's part in this film is little more than an extended cameo and it seems to be a blatant attempt by the studio/promoters to do their best at cashing in on the one and only (semi) big name attached to the project.The film is actually about a group of teenagers who are trying to make their own horror film when they stumble on a particularly nasty supernatural force that links back to their town's past.
In many ways, Playback is little more than a (supernatural) slasher film that loosely borrows from superior works like The Ring.
You may even forget that Christian Slater is in the film because his character has so little to do.Playback is okay.
Most of the budget had to have been used for the soundtrack, because there were some decent songs used throughout the film (Awolnation's "Sail" was excitingly in here) and the rest probably went to pay Christian Slater for his less-than-memorable performance.
I understand it's hard to write teenage dialogue, especially at the beginning of a "horror" film, but you'd think someone would have spruced it up a bit after the initial draft.
It gets a little better later on, after the movie tries and fails to introduce the characters, but it's enough to make you blush a bit for the producers.
That might be because I'm a Horror freak and have watched many Horror and Thriller films, but I can't help but expect more.The second thing, which was really sad for me, was Christian Slater's roll.
The effects and cinematography were very impressive, the original indie-rock soundtrack was great and is in my opinion good enough to purchase if available, and the way some of the scenes shot by the kids in the movie end up realized by the killer was very nice.
But the best thing about this film is for sure Toby Hemingway's acting (and a great job by the make-up department).
Hemingway was superb, and I look forward to seeing him in other films!All in all, like I've mentioned, Playback wasn't the best film ever, nor the worst.
After watching The Dark Knight Rises this year, I did not expect any other movie to top it.
Boy, was i wrong.This movies stars Christian Bale as the protagonist, who played the main character in The Dark Knight trilogy and American Phsyco.
In fact, all the characters in this movie does the best acting I've seen in years.I won't write about the plot, because I don't want to spoil it.
What I came away from the viewing experience with was that yes, it does take some of its moments away from other movies in the horror genre but it has enough of its own bends and twists to make it an alright experience should you choose to watch it.
I often hear people writing about characters and plots and all the other rubbish associated with movies.
Yeah, I know, it may be a bit deep but if you look at in that way then you might just be shocked at how "real" the characters in the movie really can be.
Just think about that girl you see on the street or that cop that just drove past you while you were out walking and think about how every person you pass by in the course of your day might have some deep, dark desire or passion or obsession that they secretly act upon when the eyes of civilized society aren't watching.
Well, it's slow, only one true jump moment, very little killing, poor storyline, weird random storyline involving Christian Slater and generally bad acting.
He was possessed." While a group of high school students are making a movie for a class they begin to uncover a dark secret involving the town's past.
As for the fallen angel Christian Slater I must say that he still looks like years before and he still can act.
I can understand that a lot of people will have problems with Quinn (Toby Hemingway) as nothing is really explained why his face do looks like some kind of zombie.
Years later some high school kids work on a film project for class recreating the killings.
Of course Quinn will flip out and attack Julian and his girl.Playback goes beyond most movies of its kind.
Seriously I knew how the movie was going to end when they started doing investigation.And they changed the camera angles from some shots when they showed them a second time, you'll see what I mean towards the end.
There is actually one part on the movie that he is supposed to be filming with his phone and the screen turns black and he just keeps going.The only good thing about this movie is the girls that's why I gave it a 2/10.
I took a step back after watching this movie to really appreciate the cinematography and dialogue that this film contains.
The whole time watching this movie, I was wondering how they got Christian Slater is take part of this.
The plot sounds like it came straight from a Japanese horror film, the only problem is that this film doesn't even bother to attempt to elicit any scares.
Playback drags on for far too long, so that by the time you actually get to the interesting part, you feel like the movie should have ended a long time ago.I'd put the characters under the "nice try" category: they're far too flat--cliché high school students whom I had no desire to relate to, much less feel sorry for.
The special effects were laughable for the most part, which should have been attended to more considering this is a horror film.The only reason I watched Playback all the way to the end was because of the main storyline--which was actually quite good.
Christian Slaters performance in this film was far from bad.
I really liked the opening scenes in this movie, it kinds grabs you really fast but it shame next 20 minutes which I thought the movies was moving a little slow at times.
The acting was not all great from most cast then were some decent well know actors in this movie.I going to give this movie 4 out of 10 Worth watching!.
Now the main event : this movie mentions Louis Le Prince as the originator of film.
"Playback" is a horror film that crams in all the current popular subgenres, namely dead teenagers, technology, demonic possession, and found footage, with just a hint of historical fiction thrown in for good measure.
Through a combination of an omniscient camera and hand-held footage, we watch as a teenager named Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) wanders through his house in the middle of the night holding a camcorder.
He's one of those creepy kids that wears all black, resists long-winded conversations, avoids most people, and gets high by sniffing a rag soaked with what I think is paint thinner.Julian asks Quinn if he could hook him up with news tapes related to the Harlan Diehl murders.
One is a completely unnecessary subplot starring Christian Slater as a perverted cop who pays Quinn to set up spy cameras in the girls' locker room and in the bedrooms of two of Julian's friends, who are hot sisters.
That should be enough of a review as their are no redeeming features to this mess.The worst thing of all is how it's marketed to suck you in to see it in the first place, I mean IMDb's description 'A cop investigates the case of a missing local teen.....' is very misleading - yes a cop does investigate - for about 5 minutes of the movie.
In fact the only reason this description is used is because the cop in question is played by Christian Slater, and of course it's Slater's name that carries the movie, the only reason why you might want to watch this.That being said, Slater's role is very minimal, he basically plays a sick pervert cop for a very brief part of the movie - yup, not the impression the description would have you believe.The story is predictable from the start, contains only 'jump' scares and well.........nothing more to say really, this really is crap.
Even for a B-grade movie this is as awful as they come.The Plot was predictable, the special effects were atrocious and the characters were stale.
Any fans wanting to see a decent gory-horror flick should look elsewhere, there is literally nothing to like about this movie.10/10.
There are some murders, some pointless sexuality and Christian Slater completely wasted in a role as a porn-addicted cop buying covert footage from inside the girls locker school from the pre-possessed filmmaker.
The only other recognizable name is Alessandra Torresani ("An American Horror Movie"), but she's barely given anything to do before her character is killed off.
The story line a man who we get to know very little about in the early part of the 20th century made a cameo film so he could steal the souls of the people in the footage.Then jump forward to I think 1994 and deranged Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) kills his family in their farm and only a baby survives.
We then get to the present day and a group of replaceable teenager Americans who look more middle to late twenties than teenagers (Toby Hemingway,Jonahtan Keltz, Johnny Pacar, Jennifer Missoni, Luke Bonczyk, Alessandra Torresani and Ambyr Childer) All hell breaks out murder a bit of flesh and a bit of gore.Now how far must your career sink when appearing in this mess seems like a good idea?
Christian Slater wanders bored as a porn-addicted cop buying covert footage from inside the girls locker school from the pre-possessed filmmaker.Writing that it seems more exciting then it is the acting is appalling, the script has no thought, the plot messy.
The opening includes a great leaping stab.In today's time Julian (Johnny Pacar) is making a movie of the event as a class project.
In this horror film we are given the gratuitous nude shots of the young girls as they are being secretly filmed by Quinn (Toby Hemingway) the teen who works at the news station.
The maker of the film claims it gives the movie "energy" while the viewer describes it as giving him "a headache." Toby Hemingway plays a good moody psychotic teen.
The distinctive piece about the film is that whatever possessed Quinn does so via watching recorded footage.What is this spirit after?
Must have been a quiet day at the office.Anywho, not the worst film I've ever seen, but down there with quite a few other teenage 'horrors' I would have enjoyed it age 13 possibly!.
Then some more partying happens, teenage shenanigans ensue, and 'oh hey, it looks like Christian Slater
oh wait, it is!' he sleazes it up, bring in some blood, insert antagonist's history s*** goes down and bobs your uncle.And just one spoiler for the end: Don't read if not wanting some things spoiled!
This movie dives right in at the deep with the character Harlan Diehl, covered in blood and dirt, moving through a house with a video camera.
Christian Slater actually plays a very small role in the movie.
The bad points, although they don't spoil the movie, the acting isn't great, but the story keeps you interested, and it does get a little predictable towards the end.With a storyline based on the notion of the ability of photography to capture souls, it goes one step further with the use of video and as it turned out, this movie was better than average.For reviews head over to http://mavensmovievaultofhorror.blogspot.com/.
Slater is in maybe 3 or 4 scenes in the movie and has no importance whatsoever in the movie.Playback begins with several high school friends who are shooting a film project for a journalism class assignment.
hello, i have watched this movie a few days ago and i almost forget it because i didn't like it much...
this movie is having not a good but also not a bad story.
it was kind of weird what was going on in this movie things like a guy that is recording people and if he touches the TV while he is watching them they fly back and a few secs.
but the movie was a little fun to watch because it was a bit original.
It is also a waste of Christian Slater's talents although his short performance added to the enjoyment of the movie.However, that being said, this movie revealed a major plot hole early in the film.
Or something along those lines.Plot B: A spirit inside an old movie possesses people and goes on a murder spree.Also: The only active cop for 90% of the movie is a pedophile who has the murderer put video cameras in girls' rooms.
Two stars.---They should have made it as either a B-movie gore-fest, Parody/deconstruction with psychological undertones, or a decent-budget horror film. |
tt0089461 | The Last Dragon | Set in New York City, the movie follows a martial artist named Leroy Green (a/k/a Bruce Leroy), who has dreams of becoming a great martial artist like his idol Bruce Lee. His master (Thomas Ikeda) explains that he has reached the final level of martial arts accomplishment known as "The Last Dragon". Martial artists who reach this final level are said to be able to concentrate such mystical energy into their hands that they begin to glow. Only a true martial arts master would be able to exhibit "The Glow" over his entire body. Leroy doesn't fully understand and, in possession of a medal supposedly belonging to Bruce Lee, Leroy embarks upon a journey to find Master Sum Dum Goy, whom his master claims can help Leroy unlock the power of "The Glow".
Another martial artist, Sho'nuff (Julius J. Carry III) (a/k/a "The Shogun of Harlem") sees Leroy as the only obstacle to being acknowledged as the true master of martial arts. Leroy refuses to fight him and a furious Sho'nuff vows that he will defeat Leroy. Sho'nuff and his gang later break in and assault one of the students at Leroy's martial arts school, Johnny Yu (Glen Eaton), demanding that Leroy bow before Sho'nuff. Finally, Sho'nuff and his gang attempt to send a message to Leroy by destroying the Green family pizza restaurant.
Meanwhile, video arcade mogul Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney) sends his men to kidnap 7th Heaven video host Laura Charles (Vanity) in the hopes of getting his girlfriend Angela Viracco's (Faith Prince) new music video featured on her show. The kidnap attempt is thwarted by Leroy who easily fends off the thugs. He loses his medal during the struggle, which Laura recovers. Later, Leroy witnesses Laura being kidnapped by Arkadian's brutish henchman Rock (Mike Starr). A clue left behind reveals that the kidnappers work for Eddie Arkadian Productions.
Laura refuses to promote Angela Viracco's video on her program, but as Arkadian's men prepare to coerce her by force, Leroy suddenly bursts into the room and rescues Laura once again. Back at her apartment, Laura gratefully returns Leroy's medal. Consumed with vengeance, Arkadian hires Sho'nuff to defeat Leroy and takes control of the 7th Heaven studio, capturing Laura and Leroy's younger brother, Richie, who has snuck in hoping to woo Laura.
Posing as a pizza delivery man, Leroy manages to infiltrate the assumed lair of Master Sum Dum Goy within a fortune cookie factory, but is shocked to discover that the "Master" is only a computer churning out cookie fortunes. Leroy consults his former master for answers, but his master suggests that Leroy has known the answers all along.
Not wanting anyone to get hurt in the process of achieving her stardom, Angela leaves Arkadian and asks Johnny to warn Leroy about his plan. As Leroy returns to 7th Heaven, he is ambushed by an army of violent thugs hired by Arkadian. Leroy's students, led by Johnny, charge into the studio to even the odds. Using Laura as bait, Eddie lures Leroy to a dilapidated building where he finally faces off against Sho'nuff. Sho'nuff reveals his ability to use "The Glow", his hands pulsating with a red aura, and beats Leroy viciously before attempting to force him to acknowledge Sho'nuff as "The Master". As recent events flash before Leroy's eyes, he realizes that his former Master was correct and that everything he needed to achieve the "Final Level" was within him all along. His entire body bathed in the sublime golden light of "The Glow", Leroy uses his newfound power to defeat Sho'nuff.
Arkadian appears and fires a single bullet which Leroy catches between his teeth before detaining Arkadian for the police. Laura and Leroy are reunited at the studio where the two kiss. | cult, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | null |
tt5882278 | Mughal-E-Azam | Emperor Akbar (Prithviraj Kapoor), who does not have a male heir, undertakes a pilgrimage to a shrine to pray that his wife Jodhabai (Durga Khote) give birth to a son. Later, a maid brings the emperor news of his son's birth. Overjoyed at his prayers being answered, Akbar gives the maid his ring, and promises to grant her anything she desires.
The son, Prince Salim, grows up to be spoiled, flippant, and self-indulgent. His father sends him off to war, to teach him courage and discipline. Fourteen years later, Salim returns as a distinguished soldier (Dilip Kumar) and falls in love with court dancer Nadira, whom the emperor has renamed Anarkali (Madhubala), meaning pomegranate blossom. The relationship is discovered by the jealous Bahar (Nigar Sultana), a dancer of a higher rank, who wants the prince to love her so that she may one day become queen. Unsuccessful in winning Salim's love, she exposes his forbidden relationship with Anarkali. Salim pleads to marry Anarkali, but his father refuses, and imprisons her. Despite her treatment, Anarkali refuses to reject Salim, as Akbar demands.
Salim rebels and amasses an army to confront Akbar and rescue Anarkali. Defeated in battle, Salim is sentenced to death by his father, but is told that the sentence will be revoked if Anarkali, now in hiding, is handed over to die in his place. Anarkali gives herself up to save the prince's life, and is condemned to death by being entombed alive. Before her sentence is carried out, she begs to have a few hours with Salim as his make-believe wife. Her request is granted, as she has agreed to drug Salim so that he cannot interfere with her entombment. As Anarkali is being walled up, Akbar is reminded that he still owes her mother a favour, as it was she who brought him news of Salim's birth. Anarkali's mother pleads for her daughter's life. The emperor has a change of heart, but although he wants to release Anarkali he cannot, because of his duty to his country. He therefore arranges for her secret escape into exile with her mother, but demands that the pair are to live in obscurity, and that Salim is never to know that Anarkali is still alive. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2992854 | Julia | In California, an alcoholic named Julia (Tilda Swinton) is out of control, partying every night, and waking up in unknown homes with no memory of the previous night. Her reckless behavior costs her her job and she begins to go broke. She soon meets a mother, Elena (Kate del Castillo), at an AA meeting. Elena takes Julia into her apartment after finding her passed out on the pavement one night. The following morning Elena explains that she wants to kidnap her son Tom (Aidan Gould) from his wealthy grandfather and asks Julia to participate for $50,000. Julia declines, but after some time changes her mind. She visits an old friend to ask for his cooperation, but her offer is refused. She rides to the Mexican border, kidnaps the little boy and blackmails Elena's father-in-law for $2 million. The police discover her whereabouts and she flees, accidentally crashing her car through the wall dividing the United States and Mexico. There, the boy is kidnapped in turn by Mexican kidnappers. Her friend Mitch (Saul Rubinek) arrives in Mexico and gives Julia the ransom money. During the exchange, the Mexican kidnappers escape with the money, leaving the boy safely with Julia. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | Plagiarism. The film was never completed for a wide range of reasons but a work print is available to the public that has been scored. Sadly I cannot be lenient on the movie for that reason. The film is such a pretentious piece of plagiarism it's almost funny. Anyone familiar Nicolas Winding Refn's work should find it plainly easy too see where this film spawned. Now I'm all for paying homage but this does NOT fall under that category, it is plagiarism. I can't pick on the editing too much as the film was never completed, so it is understandably really sloppy. The acting is poor, mostly with Stuckmann's performance as "The Man" which comes across as a 4-year-old trying to be Ryan Gosling in Only God forgives. I would go as far as to say that Stuckmann should stick to plagiarizing movie reviews because he obviously has no talent in the acting/directing department. Avoid this one. |
tt0235137 | Son of the Beach | The show centered on the adventures of Shore Patrol Force 30 (SPF 30, a pun on the term Sun Protection Factor), led by the pasty, out-of-shape, clueless lifeguard Notch Johnson (Timothy Stack). The rest of his patrol consists of B.J. Cummings (the dumb, Caucasian, big-buff lifeguard in season 3 becomes big chested blonde pregnant woman), Jamaica St. Croix (the dumb, African-American, big-chested lifeguard), Chip Rommel (the dumb, hunky, muscular male lifeguard who is an obvious parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Kimberlee Clark (the smart but flat-chested female lifeguard and straight man of the series). Many of the plots revolved around silly action genre clichés and movie parodies, with many of the feature roles played by actors and celebrities such as Jason Alexander, Mark Hamill, Alan Thicke, Erik Estrada, Gary Coleman, John Salley, Joey Buttafuoco, Patty Hearst, Adam Carolla, Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, George Takei, Gilbert Gottfried, Walter Koenig, Pat Morita, Anson Williams, Christopher Darden, Maureen McCormick, Lee Majors, David Arquette, Neil Patrick Harris, Musetta Vander, Angelica Bridges, Ian Ziering, RuPaul, and Dweezil Zappa.
The title is a pun on the phrase "son of a bitch." Likewise, character names are rife with puns and innuendo. Porcelain Bidet, B.J. Cummings, Jamaica St. Croix ("you make a saint cry"), Anita Massengil, and Notch Johnson all refer to some sort of double entendre, while Chip Rommel's name refers to the "Desert Fox", further punctuating the fact that the character is German, his parents being "The Rommels of Paraguay" (South America was a refuge for hunted Nazis at the close of World War II). "Notch" and "B.J." are also parodies of the names of the Baywatch characters played by David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson – Mitch and C. J. Kimberlee Clark's name is a pun on the company Kimberly-Clark, manufacturer of paper products such as Kleenex and Kotex. | absurd, satire, adult comedy | train | wikipedia | For now, networks serve up assembly line Punch & Judy shows.Every tired cliche of beach movies, police shows, crime dramas, soap operas, and sitcoms is crammed into this BAYWATCH satire.
Faces get mugged along with characters.I love a delicious satire -- and that's what SON OF THE BEACH delivers.
What other show dares give us memorable characters named Jamaica St. Croix, Kimberlee Clark, and B.J. Cummings -- plus studly neo-aryan Chip Rommel?
Notch Johnson (Timothy Stack), and good writing help this stand out.
There's a good amount (if stereotypical) character development with each episode following a predictable, but enjoyable path.
Son of the Beach follows the misadventures of the world's greatest lifeguard Notch Johnson and his unit, Shore Patrol Force 30.
Notch's unit is made up of Arkansas beauty BJ Cummings; Kimberlee Clark, the "smart, flat-chested one"; lifeguard from the 'hood, Jamaica St. Croix; and Chip Rommel, descendant of the German general Erwin Rommel.
With his SPF 30 team, Notch set out to do things every lifeguard has to do, like stop illegal importers, drug dealers, mad scientists, almost graduate from Southern University College at Malibu Adjacent (SUCMA), and found a school for Retards and Orphans.Just from this description, how can you not want to watch this show?
Many people may be put off by the fact that Howard Stern produced this show, but that is a lame reason to not watch.
If you don't watch this show, it should be for two reasons: 1)You don't get cable or 2)you don't like insanely funny shows.
Plus, just about every episode has a scene where Leila Arcieri and Jaime Bergman get to show off their, uh, attributes more artistically than normal.
How can you not like that?In summation, there's comedy, high comedy, and then there's Son of the Beach..
There have actually been few shows as funny in a long time.
The show is PACKED full of laughs, it's the kind of series that has a joke in every line, and it works perfectly here.
Great actors who are genuinely funny, and a comedic undertone that is just plain outstanding, this show is a 10..
But if you like your humor with a highly irreverent and politically incorrect edge, this show is one of the best.Yes, "Son of the Beach" is a "Baywatch" parody.
It's a Baywatch parody that mixes elements of "Police Squad!", "Get Smart", the 1960s "Batman" TV series and "South Park" with Timothy Stack's own brand of humor.The show has its share of sight gags, but clever dialogue is its real strength.
The one exception is straight-laced, overly serious Kimberlee Clark (Kimberly Oja), whose embarassed frowns and double takes are always fun to watch.The leader of the "SPF-30" lifeguard unit is Notch Johnson, played by chief writer Timothy Stack.
A running gag is that everyone sees and treats Johnson as a perfect physical specimen even though Stack is middle aged, balding, has an overbite and is definitely not in the best possible physical condition.
Chip Rommel (Roland Kickinger, obviously cast for his close resemblance to a young Arnold Schwartzenegger) is a good-natured but brain-dead hunk who's surprised to learn that America and his native Germany had fought wars with each other.
Baywatch meets Police Squad meets Get Smart.
If you were a fan of the "Police Squad" tv series and movies and of the 1960s tv show "Get Smart" and enjoy seeing gorgeous bikini-clad women then this is the show for you.
Even the character names are significant: "BJ" (received her nickname from her high school football team), Mayor "Massingale", (as in douche), the mayor's oh-so-gay adolescent son "Cody" (in honor of Cody Lee Gifford), and muscular German-exchange lifeguard "Chip Rommel" (I guess they couldn't call him Chip Hitler or Chip Goerring or Chip Eichmann).As Stern himself describes it, this show is "cleverly stupid".
This show is one that must be taped and watched with remote control in hand, because the dialogue's humor is often very subtle.This show is very, very funny.
I just bought Volume 1 of the "Son of the Beach" DVDs, which contains the first 21 episodes, and I was quite impressed.
Timothy Stack, who I've been a fan of since his talk show parody "Night Shift," is great at playing a dim-witted takeoff on David Hasselhoff's character in "Baywatch." His name is Notch, which is somewhat similar to Hasselhoff's character "Mitch." And since his last name's Johnson, that purposely opens up many opportunities for cheap sex jokes.
I don't usually like dumb blonde characters, since they're way overused in movies and TV shows, but most of Bergman's airhead one-liners are quite funny.
There are gratuitous montages which feature the beautiful female characters strutting their stuff wearing next to nothing, but in a show like this it's pretty much appropriate.
"Son of the Beach" is in the poorest of taste, and isn't afraid to show it.
But if you buy the DVD set, don't watch all the shows consecutively, because like video games this stuff could rot your brain.My score: 7 (out of 10).
A very funny take-off of the cult TV series 'Baywatch'.
Of course it helps when major hotties Jaime Bergmen (BJ Cummings - c'mon!) and Leila Arcieri (Jamaica St. Croix) are the main stars!
Tim Stack's the master of the suggestive double-entendre and now takes his act to the beach.
A broad and sometimes smutty parody of Baywatch, SON OF THE BEACH is far more intelligent and fun, and with the hard bodies, to boot.There's a bit of BEANY AND CECIL in here, too, in that many of the references might go over the heads of the intended audience.
That's all to the good, since this is more than just the natural child of MARRIED WITH KIDS and Howard Stern, whose company is one of the producers.
SOB is the least politically correct thing I've ever seen, but it manages to stay relatively non offensive by offending everybody equally.Tim Stack, where have you been hiding all these years?.
A truly classic crude comedy, a "Notch" above the rest.
Not just for the fact of missing Jaime Bergman, Leila Arcieri and the other girls in their tiny bikinis but the rude and crude humor that even as you might occasionally grimace, you still found yourself laughing.
From the perfect comedy deliver of Timothy Stack, Jaime and the others, you just couldn't help but get sucked into the world of Malibu Adjacent.
Though I have to admit that season 3 didn't quite equal up to the first two [I have to believe dumping the Mayor and her son might have had something to do with that.
Why do producers feel the need to tinker with a formula that is working, when experience shows that 9 out of 10 times that spells doom for the show?].
Just glad I got them all on tape as I have already watched them all a time or two since and still find myself laughing at the crude jokes and the wild misadventures of Notch and his unit.
I saw my first episode last night (the one with Erik Estrada who, by the way, is bigger than he was on the CHiP's 99 reunion!).
I like Howard Stern and I knew this would be a crazy show.Somebody had to make fun of Baywatch and I am glad it was Stern.
Someone mentioned that the humor on this show is Mel Brooks kind of funny- not Jim Carey.
I remember watching him on the show where he spoofed talk shows (don't remember the name) and he had the same kind of inuendos.I noticed in last night's episode that Maureen McCormick tried to revive her long dead career (she used to Play Marcia Brady) but, alas, she was no better than she was on Brady Bunch.
Over the summer I watched a couple episodes of the new series "Son of the Beach" and I saw right away the show had "Baywatch" parody.
You have it there's three beautiful lifeguards played by rising young stars Jaime Bergman, Kim Oja, and Leila Arcieri.
"Son of the Beach" always has the funniest stories and parody skits along with gags that you love to quote there's your "Saturday Night Live" parody.
Does yourself a favor and watch "Son of the Beach" on Tuesday nights at 10PM on the FX channel, you will laugh and enjoy drama at the same time..
Tim Stack & Howard Stern rule!.
Greatness: Thy name is Tim Stack.
I've always enjoyed Tim Stack's work.
Luckily Howard Stern recognized this, too, and put our man Tim Stack in his "role of a lifetime" as Notch Johnson.
Jamie Bergman (as BJ Cummings) has maybe the best comedic delivery in show business.
And the list of guest stars is impressive and they are allowed to be as funny as the regular cast.
This is a show that works because it isn't afraid to be funny.
Notch says that his "unit isn't the biggest but it's the best" and this show just may be the best comedy on television.
I don't watch FX very much, usually only for the Best Damn Sports Show Period or an occasional MASH but the other night I ran into the funniest show I've seen in years.
Son of the Beach is hilarious!
Like Police Squad this show is stupid and wacky with someone on the show who is grounded in reality enough to be offended by a seemingly obscene remark that isn't or incredulous to an idiotic idea that somehow works.
Tim Stack is great as the world's greatest lifeguard Notch Johnson leading his unit through the funniest situations this side of The Simpsons.
It seems like TV shows spoofing other popular shows usually pop up during the last year of the popular show's run.
Check out the spoofs on shows like `Saturday Night Live,' they draw from the previous week's events, at least the best ones do.
Now we have `Son of a Beach,' an equally well spoofed take on `Baywatch,' which has already risen to self-parody itself.
A `Baywatch' spoof needed to be on the air a few years ago, before "Xena" and it's clones.
`Baywatch' is so old it's not even fun to laugh at anymore.
Co-creator Timothy Stack plays an anti-David Hasslehoff, a beach weakling in charge of lifeguards that could have easily been selected for `Baywatch' duty.
My favorite is current (and best ever) St. Pauli Girl model Jaime Bergman as B.J. Cummings.
Like the `Baywatch' actresses she spoofs, Bergman is knock dead gorgeous and a former Playboy centerfold (1999).
The first episode made me her instant fan and I suspect there will be a `Jaime Bergman Show' somewhere in the future.
The jokes are stupid funny in a Mel Brooks way, as opposed to a Jim Carey way.
But in the show's defense, the actors are funny and many are attractive and there is Jaime Bergman, a future superstar getting her first big acting gig.
Well, the first episode just went to air 10 hours ago & I already want them to release the series on DVD.It's just hilarious & a lot more subtle than I thought.
I was very hesitant at the name "Howard Stern" being involved but this is one of the best surprises I've had all year (True this year is only 14 days old but...).
I saw ads for "Son" during the races, and I thought it looked like the dumbest thing I'd ever seen.
Hyper-sensitive people should not watch this show, but if you don't have a problem with laughing at yourself, tune in!
The cast of "Son" is excellent, especially Tim Stack.
I remember seeing him in guest roles on "Night Court" years ago, but I had no idea how funny he is.
I can't believe it took Howard Stern to get Tim his own show.
Watch "Son of the Beach" one time and you'll be hooked!.
This show is a comedic 'Baywatch' that is a cross between the antics you would see on POLICE SQUAD and GET SMART.
Still funny after all these years..
I missed this show when it was new but now that I have finally gotten around to watching it I must say that it is extremely funny.I never saw Baywatch(I'm not retarded) but I still get most of the parody.The out of shape old man that always saves the world, the stupid blonde, the short haired country girl, the fact that life guards are saving the world.This show crams in so many jokes that most people will miss some.There's a lot of jokes that anyone who doesn't listen to Howard Stern will never even get.The funniest thing that ever happened on the show was when Chip was pretending to be gay and wore a shirt that said "I Love Imus".This show wasn't that pc crap that television has turned into.It was funny and offensive to people who can't take a joke.The way television should be.I'm sure most of the nazi references will go right over most people's heads but even those fools will still laugh at this show.Notch Johnson's Home For Orphans and Retards says it all.This is a must see show..
Hell, no, I'm one of those Commentary-listening nerds and have been informed on good authority there are three seasons with 42 episodes.
Perhaps IMDb can just smother this ruse?Getting back to the review, Notch Johnson for President!
Of course, there is B.J. Cummings, played by Playboy's 45th Anniversary Playmate, Jaime Bergman.
Oh, I know she's married to that ANGEL guy, so okay, lemme just shut up then...This is a rollicking laugh-a-second fun show that is ten times as fun as its inspiration BAYWATCH.
An episode flies by just like that!
Chip Rommel is another noteworthy character, think Arnold Schwarzenegger and a good-natured, well-meaning Adolf Hitler combined, and you might get the picture.Even more fun than a beach holiday!.
Played deadpan straight, this spoof of Baywatch features heroic lifeguards going undercover, and solving crimes such as smashing sex slave rings...
basically doing anything but actually watching the beach.
Thin-limbed, soft-bellied Timothy Stack is a sight gag as Notch Johnson, the world's greatest lifeguard.
The season three opener was a clever spoof of reality shows that also introduced the manipulative Porcelain Bidet, a new foil for Kimberley, the only character with a sense of irony.
The 'professor' character - an obvious nod to Stephen hawking - went from a one-episode bad guy to become the show's one-man forensic lab.
The character of the antagonistic mayor was written out - she appears on a milk carton a few episodes into the final season.
The continuation of this storyline forms the three episode finale of the series as the team runs afoul of secret conspirators seeking to grab power in Malibu Adjacent.Verbally inventive and clever, if rude, and very funny..
Timothy Stack (of the late lamented "Night Stand with Dick Dietrick") stars as Notch Johnson in the sexual double-entadre charged Baywatch parody.
Shame this show got canceled prematurely though.My Grade: B DVD Extras: Introduction for each of the 3 discs by Timothy Stack in character as Notch Johnson; Commentary by various cast and crew on 3 ; 5 & a half minutes of Outtakes with introduction; 1 TV spots; a paltry 3 minute Behind the scenes Featurette; 6 & a half minute Son of the beach piece; 1 minute on the crew; 3 montages (Psychedelic, Baby oil, & Sexy Higlights); 2 and a half minute makeup artist montage (billed as 'too hot for TV', but don't believe it, it's ultra tame).
Very funny spoof.
I do enjoy it when you eviscerate super lame "entertainment" like Baywatch.
If anyone would care to check, this is my first review/comment on any movie or show since I began using IMDB (religiously for about 4 years now).The reason why this show deserves this somewhat dubious honor, is that I simply cannot believe that a show like this is actually having money spent on it and, pray that it's not so, but that it might actually be making money.When making a comedy series with the premise of a satire (Baywatch of course), you'd expect the script writing to be even halfway intelligent.
Most of the schtick on this show was painfully unfunny, the kind of stuff a 12-year-old would roll his eyes over.
Stern can pull it off himself, and has in fact parlayed that into a hugely-prominent career, but having him put it in the mouths of other people, universally terrible actors, is a disaster on wheels.The problem with parodying "Baywatch" is that it's already a parody of itself.
Parody is meant to make something serious into something silly, and of course "Baywatch" is already silly.This show is strictly for Stern fanatics, the kind of people who undiscriminatingly like everything he does whether it's any good or not.
This truly is one bad show, and so unnessesary, you don't need a parody on shows like "Baywatch" and "Pasific Blue", they are a parody in them self.
For a sit-com to work, you need a talented comedian, and a talented comedian is a good actor.
I watched the third season opener last night.
Jaime Bergman hiding her stomach the whole episode.This show has (d)evolved into what the Stern radio program invariably becomes after 10 minutes of listening; fart jokes or sexual double entendres.
First season was funny, so was second.
To think I spent an hour of my life last night wasting my time on Notch gobbling up boogers.
And the new offering, "Son Of The Beach" is no exception to this well exercised rule.Starring Timothy Stack as a cross between David Hasselhoff and Wile E.
Coyote, this BAYWATCH spoof might have been pretty good were it not for lack of one vital element....COMEDY!
It's unfortunate enough when a show is bad, but when it's so much so that you are actually embarrassed for the actors on the screen, then you've hit a new low.Now just watch it become the highest rated show in FX's history... |
tt0103617 | Aces: Iron Eagle III | U.S. Air Force Colonel Charles "Chappy" Sinclair and his friends Leichmann, Palmer and Horikoshi run a classic World War II aircraft exhibition at an air show, where they stage dogfights by shooting each other with paint pellets and are "shot down" by landing with smoke emissions. Then, upon hearing that an old friend named Ramon Morales was killed in a crash in the Gulf of Mexico, Chappy is summoned to Lethridge Air Force Base in Brownsville, Texas, where the remains of Ramon's plane are being examined. Chappy mentions that among Ramon's surviving family members are his sister Anna, who graduated from UCLA on an athletic scholarship, and his father, the mayor of a small Peruvian village. It is discovered that Ramon was shot down while carrying several kilograms of cocaine, which places this case under DEA jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, in Izquitos Village in Peru, Former Nazi captain Gustav Kleiss runs a drug cartel while holding the mayor's daughter hostage. He is also being aided by USAF General Simms in delivering the drugs overseas. Simms has secretly sided with Kleiss after being informed that his airbase is to be closed down in a matter of months and his forces will be transferred to other bases, and that his command will be terminated and he desires to use his cut on a lavish retirement. As the cartel begins to smuggle their contraband in barrels disguised as U.S. Air Force property, Anna breaks free from her prison and sneaks into the cartel's cargo plane, telling her father she will return with help. After the plane lands in Lethridge, she meets up with Chappy, who informs her that Ramon was killed. She then begs for his help, as Kleiss will kill her family and everyone in the village in four days. Chappy goes to DEA Agent Warren Crawford, who offers to help him if Anna can pinpoint the location of the cartel.
During an air exhibition, Chappy's P-38 Lightning is damaged after Leichman's Bf-109 is sabotaged with some live ammunition mixed with the paint rounds, nearly killing Chappy if not for his well-executed emergency landing. Seeing that someone in the Air Force wants him out of the equation, he and his flight team rush to Anna's apartment, where she gives him the location of Kleiss' cartel. The information is handed to Crawford, who finds nothing from surveillance cameras. Following Ramon's funeral, Chappy's friends decide to join him on his flight to Peru. Chappy also convinces air show promoter Stockman to loan him the four World War II planes, promising to return them without a scratch. For this mission, the planes are retrofitted with laser-guided missiles, with Anna providing the targeting from the ground.
Anna and Stockman land in Peru, only to discover that Tee Vee, her landlord, has stowed away during the flight. The mission is compromised when Tee Vee is caught and he and the laser targeting equipment are taken back into the hideout, prompting Kleiss to order his fighter planes to scramble and shoot down the four veteran aces. As the aces fend off the enemy jets, Anna sneaks into the prison compound, frees Tee Vee and recovers the equipment, while at the same time rallies the villagers to revolt against the cartel. Palmer's Spitfire is shot down during a dogfight, but Chappy manages to destroy the cocaine factory. As Simms takes off with a shipment in his cargo plane, DEA helicopters led by Warren arrive to assist the aces. Meanwhile, Anna has the villagers safe in the church, only to find out that it has been rigged with explosives. The villagers escape before the church is blown up.
Chappy and Horikoshi pursue the cargo plane. After sustaining heavy damage, Horikoshi's Mitsubishi Zero does a kamikaze run that destroys the cargo plane, killing himself and Simms. Kleiss arrives at the scene with a prototype Messerschmitt 263, shooting down Leichmann's plane. Chappy, however, outsmarts Kleiss with an inverted roll aided by booster rockets before destroying the prototype jet. Kleiss ejects from his jet and lands in the jungle, where he attempts to bribe Anna into taking the jeep behind her, only to be impaled by a spring-loaded Punji stick trap.
Back in Texas, Chappy, Anna and the surviving aces celebrate with a barbecue. Stockman informs Chappy that the Air Force has given him a fleet of mothballed F-86 Sabres to replace the destroyed planes, and for him to shut up about the cartel incident. Chappy is also told that the P-38 Lightning is now his; he decides to name it "Shadow Warrior" in honor of Horikoshi. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0090799 | Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation | Aboard their boat, a yellow bear and a purple horse look after the baby animals known as the Care Bear Cubs and Care Bear Cousin Cubs. On the way, a red sea serpent threatens them—one of the many forms of Dark Heart, an evil spirit. They escape by following a rainbow up to the sky, while the boat transforms into the Cloud Clipper. There, the Great Wishing Star gives the group their "tummy symbols", pictures that indicate each creature's role or specialty. True Heart Bear and Noble Heart Horse, as the characters are named, become founders of the Kingdom of Caring, a land which comprises Care-a-Lot and the Forest of Feelings.
For the Bears' first Caring Mission, True Heart and stowaway Swift Heart Rabbit (one of the Cousins) travel to Earth and visit a summer camp. There, they meet three of its participants: a girl named Christy, and her friends, the twins John and Dawn. A boastful boy nicknamed the "Camp Champ" always defeats them in competitions, and assigns them to trash duty. Christy is unsatisfied at this; she and her friends run away, only to get lost in the woods. True Heart soon finds John and Dawn, and brings them to the Kingdom of Caring. After they arrive, the children hear a bell toll from the Caring Meter, which tells the Bears how much caring is taking place on Earth. Noble Heart and True Heart tell them to babysit the Cubs, before they leave to search for Dark Heart and Christy.
Meanwhile, in the woods, Christy meets Dark Heart (as a human boy) for the first time, and asks him to make her the new Camp Champ. He grants her that wish, telling her she must pay him back with one favor, and heads away while she rejoins her friends. Aware of Dark Heart's potential, True Heart and Noble Heart move the Bear Cubs to Care-a-Lot, and the Cousin Cubs to the Forest of Feelings. Both sets quickly grow up to become the Care Bear Family.
Later, while the Bears prepare a party for the Kingdom's founders, Dark Heart enters Care-a-Lot in disguise so that he can capture the whole Family. A cluster of Star Buddies, assistants to the Bears and Great Wishing Star, drives him off; he then morphs into a raging red cloud. The Bears shoot light at him from their bellies, forming their "Care Bear Stare"; the Cousins also help by using their "Care Cousin Call". Afterward, True Heart and Noble Heart decide to search for him, and leave the Bears to handle missions all by themselves.
During their patrol, Wish Bear spots Christy stranded in a canoe within a lake; the other Bears and Cousins set out to rescue her. Dark Heart fires lightning bolts before the team, and captures many of them with his magic bag— the favor he wanted Christy to do all along. The few Family members at hand determine that she has teamed up with him. This prompts Tenderheart Bear to hold a conference at the Hall of Hearts; Friend Bear, Secret Bear and Christy's friends later join them.
That night, Dark Heart's influence causes the other children to wreck the camp. The Bears and Cousins search for the Family members, before Dark Heart imprisons them—first in cages, then inside big rubies hanging from a chandelier. Meanwhile, John and Dawn tell Christy of their conviction to rescue the Family from the villain. Feeling guilty, she finally pays him back by admitting what she has done. Despite this, her bargain with Dark Heart is over.
True Heart, Noble Heart, John and Dawn enter Dark Heart's lair amid his impending deed; Christy asks him to free the others. While True Heart and Noble Heart enact their Stare, lightning from his cloud strikes Christy, who screams in fear and gets strucked and wounded. With little energy left in her, she crashes down the chandelier with a marble. The Family members, finally free from the rubies, help True Heart and Noble Heart out.
At the sight of a dead Christy, Dark Heart becomes remorseful for his actions. He asks the Care Bears to bring her back to life, but is disappointed that their kindness is not even enough. So he, the Family, John and Dawn chant "We care!" enough times to bring her back to life. Soon after, the group quickly leaves the cave as it transforms into an outhouse.
Dark Heart becomes a real boy, and everyone is overjoyed. After a swim in the lake, the campers say goodbye to the Bears and Cousins; the former Dark Heart promises to be a better person at camp. The film ends with a message from its narrator, the Great Wishing Star, and flashbacks of the Care Bear Family's childhood. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie.
The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it).
I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met).
I felt the same way watching it as an adult!On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie).
I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan!
Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids!
Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers.
Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS!
Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene).
This cartoon was strange, but the story actually had a little more depth and emotion to it than other cartoon movies.
I found this film to be very true to life and just when things couldn't be worse, the girl sees what she's done, she feels remorse and then changes and then she helps this dark, mystical creature learn the human quality of love.
The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began.
Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all..
The second Care Bears movie is immensely better than its predecessor.
It has a deeper plot, better character development, and the tunes (especially the closing song) are both catchy and warm-hearted.
Sure the movie tends to over stress caring but come on, it IS a Care Bears movie.
This movie is a great picture to show to kids because it emphasizes friendship, love, and again, caring.
Not to mention the Care Bears are just too adorable!.
Care Bears Movie 2: A New Generation isn't at all a bad movie.
The songs and score are lovely, especially Growing Up and Forever Young, the latter has always been my personal favourite of the two.
The care bears, who I do like, are adorable, and the human children are well done too.
Origins of the Care Bears & their Cousins.
The Cousins are raised with the Care Bears, rather than meeting them later.
If you have an open heart, love the toys or enjoyed the original, this is not to be missed.
As a child I preferred the first Care Bear movie since this one seemed so dark.
What I do think is that this film is too dark for infants, but as you get older you learn to treasure it since you understand it more, it doesn't seem as dark as it was back when you were a child.This movie, in my opinion, is better than the first one, everything is so much deeper.
I love every song in this movie, I have downloaded them all and is all I am listening to, I'm listening to 'Our beginning' also known as 'Recalling' at the moment.
I have always preferred this sound track to the first one, although I just totally love Carol Kings song in the first movie 'Care-A-Lot'.I think the animation is great, the animation in both movies are fantastic.
I was surprised when I sat down and watched it about 10 years later and saw that the animation for the time was excellent.
It was really surprising.There is not a lot of back up from other people to say that this movie is great, but it is.
I think it is a wonderful movie.Basically, this movie is about how the Care Bears came about and to defeat the Demon, Dark Heart.
The end is surprising and again, beats any 'Pokemon Movie' with the Care Bears Moral issues.
I think the "Dark-Heart" character is a little on the rough side and I don't like the way he shape-shifts into a "mean" frog, fox, boy
I was wrong, This movie was made for my kid, not for me.
This isn't one of the NEW kids movies that adults will ALSO enjoy.
I loved this movie when I was a kid.
And when I recently found the movie in my storage room and watched it again, I found that I still loved it!
In today's world of kid's toys/movies/TV shows filled with violence and fighting, it's nice to again see the Care Bears, who fight evil with nothing but the power of love and caring.
And best of all, the characters are well developed, but not so over developed that little kids (the movie's target audience) can't understand and love them.
The movie is great fun for kids and adults who want to lose their age for a while!!!.
I was 4 and I fell in love with the Care Bears.
I thought that the story line didn't even follow the actual timeline of the Care Bears Evolution, but loved it nonetheless.
In Lamen's, despite the film's inaccuracy, it's still the most adorable kid's movie.
I love this movie & it the best Care Bears Movie ever!!!.
Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club.
After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp.
Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart.
At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil.
Than they work to together to save the Care Bears.
Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone.
The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart.
True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic.
Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy.
The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy.
Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy.
Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see "Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)".Who like this movie?.
The Best of the Care Bear Movies.
This movie does contradict the first one as far as the origins of the Care Bears and the Care Bear Cousins goes.
However, if you look at "Part II" as a separate film, then it's a very good movie.
I remember watching this in the early 80's (and fitting into its targeted demographic audience then), and absolutely loving it much more than the first movie (not that I didn't enjoy that one too, it's just that this one seemed to have a little something extra to it).
And it's dark in deeper kind of subtle way too (that kids may not fully understand, but could still be a bit scared of because of the atmosphere it gives off, and adults watching will surely get quicker as I have now watching this film again now in my mid-twenties) where you basically have a young girl making a deal with an evil spirit/demon in exchange for something else.
I can't tell you the number of times I used to pretend Dark Heart wanted to imprison me, have me help him capture the Care Bears, tried to make me turn over to his dark side, and other things like that etc.
I used to watch it at least once a week.Also Hadley Kay was the perfect choice for the voice of Dark Heart (I always thought so and I always will).Now it's just too bad that they never made a soundtrack available.
Sometimes I just want to hear Growing Up without watching the movie, as good as it is."What good is love and caring if it can't save her?".
This installment of the care bear movies.
Is i think the best if you actually want to know how these characters began.
It shows characters in a way that reflects well on the T.V series but it also shows a beginning for example you can't just have turned up in care a lot.
Ther story begins when the care bears ship is attacked by an evil being named dark heart but they are saved.
In this time you see how the care bears got their symbols and how they grew up.
They eventually defeat dark heart in the end and watchers get to relearn som e important lessons about caring.
This movie would be cherished by any child who had found the T.V show care bears enjoyable to watch.In a nutshell the care bears shows us how to care and be friendly it sets a perfect example to kids.
It also shows how to fight the obstacles that your caring will encounter this shows this in characters such as Dark Heart in this movie.
Feel free to make more movies as this is one show kids won't learn violence from.
Not Bad. I remember seeing Care Bears Movie 2 when i was young and i never saw the 1st care bears movie.
I thought that the care bears movie 2 was good, and i use to be obsessed with the word Cart Wheels, when i was 6 i started doing Cart wheels alot and now i'm 16 and i can still do them, i still have fun now..
I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.
You just have to love the care bears, and their messege..
Despite it's non-association with the original (which as a kid I never noticed and as an adult I don't care about), this is what cartoons *should* be like.
This movie is great, the music "with the exception of the very first song in the movie" was awesome.
The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages.
(Heck, I'm 33 and I'm horrified NOW!) They'll also be appalled to realise that that greeting-card toy creation the Care Bears were popular enough to have numerous animated TV specials, a TV show, and no less than three movies - and I certainly can't blame them."Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation" capsulises all that was bad about the Neon Decade's cartoons - unabashed commercialisation, animation that isn't even as good as Disney's TV cartoons of the time (surprisingly, it took the House of Mouse until the mid-1980s to take the plunge into tele-cartooning), incredibly bad writing from Nelvana's answer to Hanna-Barbera's Glenn Leopold, Peter Sauder (everybody here moralises and/or lectures rather than talks, and the Great Wishing Star is supposed to be the narrator but serves more to tell the story for anyone who really can't follow the plot), and music - both the songs by Dean & Carol Parks and the score by Patricia Cullen - that makes your average Don Bluth movie's backing seem like Danny Elfman on peak form.
Pathetic excuse for a Care Bears sequel.
This film is a sorry excuse for a Care Bears sequel.
It contradicts most of what happened in the first movie, and really treats it's audience like children...
The only good thing about this film is the music- Dean Parks is a well-know studio guitarist who laid down many tracks in the 70's and 80's for big names like Billy Joel and Barry Manilow.
Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation.
Care Bears!" every time I think about it.
So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs).
Surprisingly dark and mean-spirited would-be children's film has our heroes fighting a demonic force that poses as a young boy at a summer camp.
It is now up to the Care Bears to save the day, help the children, defeat the evil spirit and hopefully turn everything back to the way it should be.
Good thing, because the movie needs to be given a bear tranquilizer.
I encourage adults, parents to watch this movie with or even without their kids.
Granted that's probably why adults like to watch them every now and again but again beyond the point..
I grew up on this movie and I can remember when my brother and I used to play in the backyard and pretend we were in Care-a-lot.
If you are parent and you have not watched this movie with your children, then you should, just so you hold them in your arms and watch them get thrilled over the care bears and care-a-lot!
Parents, I highly recommend this movie for all kids so they can learn how enjoyable caring for others can be!
When it comes down to all the trash that is on TV, you can raise your children to have the right frame of mind about life with movies like these..
Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite.
Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years.
This movie's score has gone up a lot since the last time I checked, but I still think it's crap.
I was willing to at least give credit for the original for having a coherent story and trying to show off some of the Care Bears mythology.
We already saw the Care Bear Cousins origins and this completely changes that!
In a movie that's intended to be a direct sequel, I would think you'd at least know what the original movie was about.There are too many songs to list in this movie and most of them are just plain stupid.
I of course mean the original series and not the awesome new one, as I'd watch that one over anything.
At the end, the villain Darkheart realizes he cares and that turns him into a real boy.
When did anything in this story imply his mission was to become a real boy?Apparently, time moves differently as the Care Bear Cousins grow up instantly.
This is my favorite of the three care bears movies.
The big problem however as most people have pointed out was that this story contradicts the original.
For those that saw the first movie recall the bears met their "cousins" who they apparently never knew about.
In this story however the cousins grow up with the care bears and have tummy symbols all along.
But at the same time I felt it added a sort of balance to the sweetness of the care bears.
I also liked the we care part at the end, although I know other people had mixed feelings about that scene.
The care bears movies have always had such good songs.
Ten stars for a very good movie..
A demon named Dark Heart visits two last-place children at a summer camp and offers them a deal: Kidnap the Care Bears and he will make them both Camp Champs.
In other words: The Devil descends upon two kids and offers them good fortune in return for the CB's mortal souls (The movie doesn't say that but I got the idea).Meanwhile somewhere in the Kingdom of Caring the Care Bears fight back with their little caring patches on their stomachs and shoot colored beams that make a happiness rainbow.
I like the apathetic Grumpy Bear, at least he and I had one thing in common.Sometimes I sit through a movie and declare that I want to see it as part of my life experience. |
tt0106500 | CB4 | Three young friends and aspiring rappers, Albert (Chris Rock), Euripides (Allen Payne), and Otis (Deezer D) want to make their big break. The trio have talent, but no marketable image. In order to get their name heard, they appeal to local crime kingpin and nightclub owner Gusto (Charlie Murphy) along with his sidekick and henchman 40 Dog (Ty Granderson Jones) to ask for a spot on the bill at his club, but during a failed meeting the police rush in and throw Gusto in jail.
Gusto believes that the trio set him up, swearing revenge when he is released from prison. While Gusto is locked up, Albert steals his criminal background and identity to become "MC Gusto", rechristening Euripides and Otis as "Dead Mike" and "Stab Master Arson" respectively. Together they form the hardcore gangsta rap group CB4 (Cell Block 4) and successfully sign with Trustus Jones, a local music mogul. CB4 becomes the hottest band on the charts with controversial hits like "Sweat from My Balls" and "Straight Outta Locash", and their rise to fame is documented by an aspiring director (Chris Elliott) and his cameraman. However, an ambitious politician (Phil Hartman) seeks to shut them down for obscenity charges, and tensions between the group arise over one member's gold-digging groupie girlfriend Sissy (Khandi Alexander) and the strain of the charade takes its toll on Albert's family life and relationship with his wholesome girlfriend Daliha (Rachel True). To compound this, the real Gusto escapes from prison and sets out to get revenge by making Albert take part in a record store robbery, exposing his face to the CCTV cameras and then taking the tape as a tool for blackmail. The group breaks up and reunites after Trustus Jones's death at the hands of Gusto. Eventually, the group set up their own sting operation with Sissy to capture Gusto and he is sent to prison for life. Albert gives up the pretense of being a gangsta, emceeing under his real name, and the group embarks on a reunion tour. | comedy, satire | train | wikipedia | This is by far one of Chris Rock's best works to date, and it's his first starring role!
This movie has tons of talent, a tight plot (okay - you need a good ability to suspend your disbelief), and a palpable message.It quickly became something of an underground classic as the early 90s launched the careers of many gangster rap artists.
This movie does a great job of parodying the rise and fall of a gangster rap group.It's got a unique urban flavor and is loaded with perhaps more race-driven humor than others may think necessary (many many MANY racial stereotypes are exploited in this movie, such as a local restaurant called "Big Ass Biscuit" where the young rappers frequented).
However, it's done in a very tongue-in-cheek manner and the overall effect is hilarious, not heinous.The addition to the cast of Chris Elliot playing the role of "A.
Elliot is great at playing a white fanboy who lands the job of working for his new favorite rap group, and he fumbles through the movie as only Chris Elliot can.Phil Hartman is equally funny as Virgil Robinson, a local politician who tries to use CB4's profanity as his new platform for re-election (meanwhile, his son is addicted to CB4's music and image).
The interaction between Virgil and his son in this manner represents how many parents viewed rap music as their children began to listen to it.This movie is laden with parodies too numerous to list.
The soundtrack is also quite good (if you like rap music at all) and includes the song "Sweat of my Balls" - a song featured in the movie (also hysterical, complete with a stage show of large testicles being dropped from the ceiling onto the crowd).If you aren't easily offended, this movie is VERY entertaining.
If you are able to look beyond the veneer of racial overtones and profanity, it also has a few points to make about the origins of "fake" gangster rap groups and their image.Look for underrated performances by Tyrone Granderson Jones as "40 Dog", Richard Gant as "Baa Baa Ack" and Charles Q.
I love the fact that they pretty much play on the myth that most rappers are essentially middle class kids who've never even smelled the ghetto but try to pass themselves off as true "gangstas".
Chris Rock and the rest of the cast make this one of the funniest movies of all time as well as a great commentary on the music business.
Also, Allen Payne shows that he has a great flair for comedy as he plays Rip and Candy Alexander shines as Cissy.
She pretty much has fun playing the stereotypical groupie that everyone has written about from rockers to rappers.
CB4 pokes fun at west coast gangsta rap that was popular in the early 90's- this had to be one of Chris Rock's funniest roles ever!!!
The songs are really funny and all the characters in this movie make it what it is- from Chris Elliot to Phil Hartman..
Fairly on-point parody of the rap industry......
When CB4 lampoons the rap industry (and its image in white society), this movie really rolls.
Thankfully, the first hour of the movie is content to be a satire, and takes many well-aimed shots at 'gangsta rap' and the stereotypes it perpetrates.
(Melodrama and cliched plot are murder for satires.) Chris Rock is funny as always, and the rest of the cast is surprisingly solid..
CB4 covers all my funny prejudices about the gangsterrap culture, and starts out with a small crew who wants to end up like rap stars - it's all about the beat and the attitude!
Chris Rock just plays his role like a mad man, so good and so real!
I just laughed the whole time this piece rolled in the VCR, and these scenes who are shooting parody of the gangsterculture just takes home the first prize award - it's too much of the good stuff!
It has a good point after all, and when the ending credits roll I felt that this was a true piece of acting - funny and creative as it does not follow any other film formula I've yet seen so far.
This is one of Chris Rock's best performances, he nails the role of a rapper perfectly (not to mention his costume...).
The movie was one of the first to feature parody raps and they are great, considering this film was Pre-Insane Clown Posse and the like.
"Sweat from my balls" still makes me laugh every time I hear it.Some might say this does not transfer to the new rap school, but It definitely does.
Classic Chris Rock at his best.
Even after watching this film twice, I still managed to laugh my way through 99% of the jokes.
This movie showcases Chris Rock's unique and funny blend of black comedy which was still relatively unknown in his immediate post-SNL period of his career.
CB4 follows such films as Spinal Tap, in using the mockumentary style.
CB4 provides a documentary for a rap group headed by Albert, Chris Rock.
Rock's already established views on black culture fit in very well in his role as a middle class black man pretending to be a gangsta rapper.
The supporting cast of Allen Payne and Deezer D as Euripides and Otis respectively, provide great personas for Rock to joke off of.
The movie climaxes in a typical Chris Rock humorous way and leaves the audience feeling satisfied and happy.
The movie is also enhanced by some killer cameos in the beginning by such rapping stars as, Shaq(during his ill-fated rapping days), Ice-T, Ice-Cube, and some other famous rappers.
In a nutshell: I am only waiting for this film to be released on DVD so I can watch it over and over again..
"CB4" is worth seeing if you are a fan of rap music, Chris Rock, or lowball cultural humor.
It has some extremely funny scenes, some great satirical rap songs, and a really stupid plot line.Unfortunately, "CB4" could have been a lot more than it is.
The idea of making a spoof "rapumentary" is a good one, with a lot of humor potential, and the central casting of "CB4" (particularly Chris Rock and Allen Payne) is adequate.
However, the movie is ruined by a particularly lame (and completely unnecessary) plot-line involving a real gangster trying to kill the self-styled "gangster rap" band members who have stolen his name and history.Had "CB4" contained itself to a satirical "rapumentary" about a band of middle-class black guys posing as "gangster rappers", it might have been a truly excellent film on par with "This is Spinal Tap".
Its lame plot reduces it to a sub-par comedy which is much less than the sum of its parts, some of which are truly inspired (The scene with Euripides working as a gay phone sex operator, "Straight Outta Locash" and "Sweat of my Balls" are particulary funny)..
This is really funny movie.
It's made with love.This movie makes you want to forget all the BIG, Tupac and Suge Knight sh*t.
But anyway, after the rap world has experienced very seriously what playing with guns does in real life, it's a little confusing feeling to notice that you're laughing to these guys who are popping' their machine guns.
But if you can take it as humor and all that, it's good movie.
Chris Rock's funniest film.
CB4 is clearly Chris Rock's funniest film.
The film is a right on target of hip hop culture.
Look for Eddie Murphy's brother Charlie in a funny role as Gusto..
The only funny thing Chris Rock has done..
I'm no fan of Chris Rock.
Chris Rock is hilarious in this as a black middle-class wannabe rapper pretending to be a gangster rapper in order to make it big in the rap scene.
CB4 tries to be a rap version of 'This Is Spinal Tap' and succeeds.
Another great scene is this one after the Run DMC jam where we see the guys doing several rap acts on open mic night.
Rap's Spinal Tap....
This film is an amusing highly quotable, high energy attack on the hypocrisy of rap music.
It is a mock documentary in the style of Spinal Tap and uses the format extremely well.Although the characters often descend into caricatures, the energetic performances from Chris Rock, Allen Payne and a great spot from Willard E Pugh as Don King baiting record label boss, Trustuss Jones, see this film through.Great Soundtrack and comic songs such as Sweat On My Balls and Straight Outta Locash are excellent.
However with so much faking behind them, how will the group react when Gusto gets out of jail and threatens to make their play become reality.Even though rap music has moved into the mainstream to a great extent than it had in 1993, and many of the clichés lampooned in this film have changed slightly (from grimy to bling to the style of Fonzworth Bentley etc) this film still manages to be funny and on the nose enough times to be worth seeing.
The plot doesn't really matter because the aim is to spoof the rap scene and it does this pretty well; of course the threads around Gusto and Virgil are pretty loose as a result and this took away from the film but it does other things better.
The humour is pretty broad so don't expect anything as clever as Spinal Tap here, but it produced enough laughs in me from the basic rather crude stuff while also hitting hip hop quite a few times nice and hard!Hip hop was an easy target then and it is an easier target now since it is influencing western culture more than ever to its own detriment it must be said.
Fans of the genre will like the film because it does this it spoofs but never in a malicious or harmful way, if anything it is more affectionate.
The cast are pretty good even if the lack of any real names (at the time) meant that it had a rather low rent feel to it.
Rock is pretty funny but never allowed to be as funny as he could have been due to the very general and basic material likewise Payne and D are both OK but only as good as the material allows.
The support cast throws up a few well-known faces from stardom as well as people like Randle etc but really the material is too basic for any of them to shine.Fans of the music scene will enjoy it because it pokes good natured fun at the clichés within the genre but the casual viewer will find these to be easy targets without the sharpness they deserve and without a good narrative to really make it that engaging.
An enjoyable film but hardly an insightful one although it has enough basic laughs to it to make it worth watching..
What Spinal Tap did to heavy rock, CB4 does to rap in the 1990s and it was about time.Chris Rock is Albert, a decent guy who along with his friends want to hit the big time as rappers.
They eventually raise the ire of conservative politicians but the record buying public love them but Gusto breaks out of prison and wants to get even.The film succeeds because it makes pointed and prescient digs at gangsta rap and some of the songs they parody are actually very good and reflective of the music of the early 1990s.The story is not the strongest, the satire always not sharp or even hits the target but the Rock and the rest of the cast seem to be enjoying the ride and real rappers turn up as to be in on the joke..
Good parody of gangsta rap.
If you hate a topic, your distaste for the topic will come out in cruel jokes and that is not good for the target audience for parodies which is often fans of the material which was parodied.
Your affection for your topic will be clear in the movie you make.This film is very funny in portraying the hypocrisy of family values politicians such as senate candidate Robinson(Phil Hartman) condemning gangsta rap for political gain while his kid Ben (J.D. Daniels) idolizes the group and has plastered his wall's room with posters of the group.
None of the characters (portrayed by Chris Rock, Deezer D, and Allen Payne) have fought their way into this business opportunity from poverty.
White (Chris Elliott) is also funny - the earnest desire to depict of a white man to treat rap and rappers with respect is also mocked hilariously by Elliott's nebbishness.
The depiction of rap groupie Sissy is hilariously parodied by Khandi Alexander in over-the-top excess.
The willingess of MC Gusto and his crew to appropriate Gusto's name to promote an image of toughness is also a good method to allow the mens' true toughness to be revealed.I think if anything, this film's middle section could have been developed more into a harsher, more acerbic treatment of the hypocrisy of politicians, the disingenuousness of the would-be gangsta-rappers, and of the over-the-top obscenity which often seems so gratuitous that it loses its ability to shock.
Screenwriters Nelson George and Chris Rock, if anything, understated the acidity of their idea.
One of the funniest films ever, esp if you love hip hop!.
Ice T, Ice Cube, Chuck D, and Isaac Hayes in a truly surreal cameo (you'll have to wait till the end of the credit...), some top quality music from classic rap jams to hilarious spoofs of NWA's 'Straight Outta Compton', and the awesome 'Sweat on My Balls.' the film deals with all sorts of stereotypes from the rap game, sending them all up, but never totally criticising one particular method of getting over.
I've seen this film hundreds of times and it never bores me.
Even for a SNL-actor related movie, this is pretty bad...
I found myself only laughing out loud a few times (and not even hard laughter; more like chuckling).
This movie fails at comedy AND general entertainment.
I guess if you saw the group N.W.A. as a bunch of poseur rappers this could be hilarious (but then why did Ice Cube and Eazy-E have cameos in this???) because that is how this movie plays out most of the time.
Second to that would be Chris Elliot, who had a very small yet somewhat amusing role.
Chris Rock was not nearly as funny as he is as a stand-up comic.
If you want to see a much better parody of rap see Fear of a Black Hat, which was much more amusing.
i have only seen this movie once, back in 1993 in NYC when it first come out.
it's not on amazon or any other on-line video shop (if you know otherwise, please post the address and let me know!), and i can still remember it so clearly.as so many others here have already mentioned, the "sweat of my balls" and "straight outta lokash" are the high points, along with a funny sex scene i remember when our hero says something like "i ain't goin' down there!!"if anyone knows where i can lay my hands on a copy, PLEASE let me know!.
This movie is one of my favorite satirical comedies right up there with Airplane...that's right, up there with the big 'A'.
The satirical rap songs in the movie are so well-written (parodies of old-school hits) that it's easy to finish watching this movie and find yourself humming the songs.
Of course, this movie has its share of sex jokes (Rip as a phone sex operator and Chris Rock sleeping with the big-haired groupie are a hoot) and lewd language (warning: f-word some 78 times).Go into the movie with a eye towards lambasting the rap industry and you should get some good laughs.
Remember this was made still EARLY in Chris Rock's career, the humor in this is not as fine-tuned as some of his newer stuff.
I've heard Chris Rock thinks of this movie as his "one bad movie", but if you know even a little about the rap industry, you'll love it.
A fictional documentary about three middle class kids turned gangster rappers as told by A.
White (played by Chris Elliot) in the spirit of Spinal Tap.A very entertaining and funny, yet very offensive movie.
Spinal Rap.....
Albert Brown and his buddies Rip and Otis are aspiring rappers who have tried every gimmick to break into the music business.
Eventually, Albert and the boys decide to go into gangster rap, with Albert assuming the identity of M.C. Gusto, who is really a local crime lord who is serving time in prison.
Eventually, Gusto finds out about the boys scheme and seeks revenge as well as a share of the profits......When this film was released back in the day, I was just turning sixteen, and music and movies were a huge part of my life.
Hip Hop and Gangster Rap were just really becoming big in the UK, thanks to NWA, Cypress Hill, and Ice Cube, saw I saw this movie a lot differently than I did over twenty years ago.Seeing it now, there are flashes of genius, and Rock has never been better, but some of the sight gags really, really detract you away from the story and the narrative.The music is still wonderful, and although the makers are poking fun at some of the artists who claim to be from South Central or wherever is cool at the time, but really middle class citizens with comfortable upbringings, it never forgets the fundamental reason that Gangster Rap is so successful.Its funny, Murphy proves that only one sibling should work, but it's not as genius as I remember..
Chris Rock: Say No More..
This Movie Is The Most.....Craziest and Stupidest films I have seen.
But there's more...The Movie is funny and entertaining and a good rap genre musical.The movie has: Sex Scene. |
tt0255305 | Khiladi 420 | Shyam Prasad Bhardwaj (Alok Nath) is a multi-millionaire industrialist, and his business is spread worldwide. He has a daughter, Ritu (Mahima Chaudhry), who is of marriageable age. He hires Dev Kumar (Akshay Kumar) to work for him, and is impressed with the way Dev handles himself. Shyam would like Ritu and Dev to get married. But days after the engagement, Shyam finds that Dev is a con man after his money, since he has taken debt from a criminal (Gulshan Grover).
Dev kills Shyam to bury the secret but Ritu's younger sister Riya sees this. The girl goes in a deep shock & since Dev is constantly watching her the secret cannot come out. Dev plans to kill her as well but Ritu gets an inkling of the truth somehow. Dev tries to kill Ritu on the night of their honeymoon, but Ritu manages to kill him.
A scared Ritu goes to her grandmother who informs her Dev is hurt but alive in hospital. She visits the hospital and gets the shock of her life to see Dev alive - and without a scratch on his body. Dev behaves as if nothing happened. Everyone in the home believes him to be Dev. Finally, when they are left alone Anand tells Ritu his true identity. He tells that he is indeed Dev's twin brother Anand (Akshay Kumar).
Anand explains that Dev had crooked ways, something which Anand disliked. The brothers separated. Dev called Anand just a week ago to tell that he has mended his ways & is going to get married. Dev came there meet Ritu. Dev had given all the information about Ritu & her family to Anand. That night, Anand came to meet Dev just after Ritu had killed him. Anand saw all the mess & realized that something had gone wrong.
But when he saw his ID, he realized that Dev was posing as Anand here. Now Dev was probably dead, for which he is grateful to Ritu as Dev might have had a plan to kill him along with her. Ritu & Anand kept this a secret. However, Inspector Rahul (Sudhanshu Pandey), an old friend of Ritu, became suspicious. Besides, Dev's girlfriend, whom Anand does not recognize, thinks that Dev has dumped her. Dev's another enemy is a criminal (Mukesh Rishi) who is also a rival of his money lender.
Ritu slowly starts falling for Anand, but Anand doesn't reciprocate the feelings. Anand has to live a double life - in front of the bad guys, he is Anand while in front of Ritu's family he is Dev. Rahul becomes suspicious that Ritu & Dev conspired to kill Shyam. To save Ritu, Anand takes the blame on his shoulders.
Meanwhile, when both the criminals try to get even with Dev, Rahul realizes that he has not seen a clear picture. Anand tells him the true story, which he reluctantly believes. As he cannot see an innocent man die, Rahul proposes that Anand can live only if Dev's dead body is found.
Anand escapes from custody as per Rahul's plans & retrieves his brother's body from the place where Ritu hid it. He wants the people to believe that the bad twin died in an accident after the escape while he is the good person. Dev's rivals unite & try to kill Anand. Dev's girlfriend dies in the melee after learning the truth. Anand succeeds in killing the villain. When Dev's body is found, the court closes the case. Anand is exonerated & united with Ritu. | murder | train | wikipedia | Amazing action film.
This movie was brilliant and entertaining but it's really good to be able and enjoyable I love the songs I love the movie so entertaining but I am always happy with it because it was enjoyable to play and I enjoyed watching it too many movie stars because it is really interesting but it's entertaining to me to listen and movie songs on songs that make you listen it to the music you listen too and it's entertaining as you are the only character I ever had before you ever saw a character and I enjoyed the film as a long movie and enjoyable film as a brilliant film as a long movie and enjoyable film of all akshay Kumar did well in his double role playing positive and negative characters mukesh Rishi is superb other were good Overalll 4 star.
below average.
This was the last KHILADI film The first was superhit KHILADI(1992), then SABSE BADA KHILADI(1996) and KHILADIYON KA KHILADI(1996) which worked and then disasters like MRS AND MRS KHILADI(1997) and INTERNATIONAL KHILADI(1999) followedThis film is a supposedly action based thriller on the shades of BAAZIGAR, DON but sadly comes across as a poor filmThe film starts off badly with an out of shape Mahima running around playing with a kid and her prank with newcomer Sudanshu Pandey falls flat but as soon as Akki enters the frame things improve and the film keeps you on the edge till Alok Nath is murdered The entire Akshay- Mahima confrontation at the interval which leads to a murky twist is badly handled Also the second half follows the typical Hindi formula where romance and comedy dominates and the villains just pop in and out The court scenes are a put off and amateurish also the ending is too suddenDirection by Neeraj Vohra is okay in parts only but has a long way to go Music is goodAkshay does well in a negative role after AFLATOON(where he played a dual role too) but tends to overdo it too often In the other role he is good but nothing great because he did it before Mahima shreiks and annoys with her voice and overactive acting Sudhanshu Pandey is adequate in a small role Mukesh Rishi is as usual Gulshan Grover, Sayaji Shinde pop in for one scene and then are forgotten Alok Nath is okay Antra Mali is decent.
Player of Cons.
Khiladi 420 is the 7th installment in the Khiladi series.
Like most of the previous Khiladi movies, Khiladi 420 is an Action- Thriller.
It is directed by Neeraj Vora and stars Akshay Kumar, Akshay Kumar (double- role) and Mahima Choudhary.The movie is about Dev (Akshay), who is a con- man and owes a lot of money to some gangsters.
He hatches a plan to get all the money from Shyam Prasad (Alok Nath) and Ritu (Mahima).
He manages to kill Shyam after he finds out Dev's true colors and tries to kill Ritu as well after she finds out the truth.
Surprisingly, Dev has also written a suicide letter for himself.
Ritu manages to kill Dev and run away.
However, she later sees Dev again at home without any wounds and injuries.
The movie has some twists and turns which keep you glued to the movie.
However, some of the scenes are dragged and get boring.
The songs are OK.
Direction by Neeraj is fine but can be better.
The script is good.
The camera- work is not that good.
Mahima Choudhary is fine.
Alok Nath is good.
The goons are fine.
The main hero of the movie is Akshay Kumar.
He performs both the negative and positive roles brilliantly.
The other best thing about the movie is its stunts.
Khiladi 420 has one of the best and most dangerous stunts ever seen in Bollywood.
Keep your eyes open for the plan stunt..
Super Flop Khiladi.
This was the last Khiladi of Akki after the last two disaster Khiladi's.
The movie tries to be a thriller but ends up as a badly made thriller.
The story is all about crime, death, action, gangsters, and debt.
Akki is hired by Alok and he gets married to Alok's daughter ad Alok dies in murder.
After this, Akki solves all the problems dispit being a negative character and there are many twists.
Akki does good in his negative role but overacts frequently.
Mamta just shouts and annoys with her done to death arguments with Akki.
The villains are all annoying and basically typecast.
The direction is okay at times but very rough mostly.
The script is good but the direction and acting ruins it.
Akki was considered a bad actor in the late 90's but after Janwaar and Sangharsh, he made his back to back hits comback.
These kind of movies ruined him and his career.
The movie is another disaster in the 2000 and another typical Hindi movie.
Overall, another movie that was a disaster from the early 20's..
Confusing but interesting.
It was fantastic.
His action movies are so good.
He can really fight.
It was confusing bc I couldn't tell which one was which.
I figured it out.
The action scenes when he jumped from the plane and car was good.
When he was fighting in the air ballon that was good too..
Decent action thriller totally ruined by ridiculous stunts.
The story was nothing original, but it was sufficient to make this into a decent action-thriller.
But the insane amounts of totally unnecessary and completely absurd stunts turned this movie into total garbage.
Just because Akshay is known for his stunts does not mean that the filmmakers have to cram every ridiculous stunt that they can think of into the movie.
The final chase scene is cringeworthy.The acting by pretty much everyone is either sub-par or outright bad.
Akshay is the only one who does a good job in his negative role.
But even then he tends to sway more into comedy than villainy.
The "good Akshay" is overly good, to the point of being annoying.
He talks and behaves like some overly-saintly mythological hero. |
tt0066579 | Women in Love | The film takes place in 1920, in the Midlands mining town of Beldover. Two sisters, Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen, discuss marriage on their way to the wedding of Laura Crich, daughter of the town's wealthy mine owner, Thomas Crich, to Tibby Lupton, a naval officer. At the village's church, each sister is fascinated by a particular member of the wedding party – Gudrun by Laura's brother, Gerald, and Ursula by Gerald's best friend, Rupert Birkin. Ursula is a school teacher and Rupert is a school inspector; she remembers his visit to her classroom, interrupting her botany lesson to discourse on the sexual nature of the catkin.
The four are later brought together at a house party at the estate of Hermione Roddice, a rich woman whose relationship with Rupert is falling apart. When Hermione devises, as entertainment for her guests, a dance in the "style of the Russian ballet", Rupert becomes impatient with her pretensions and tells the pianist to play some ragtime. This sets off spontaneous dancing among the whole group and angers Hermione. She leaves. When Birkin follows her into the next room, she smashes a glass paperweight against his head, and he staggers outside. He discards his clothes and wanders through the woods. Later, at the Criches' annual picnic, to which most of the town is invited, Ursula and Gudrun find a secluded spot, and Gudrun dances before some Highland cattle while Ursula sings "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles". When Gerald and Rupert appear, Gerald calls Gudrun's behaviour "impossible and ridiculous", and then says he loves her. "That's one way of putting it", she replies. Ursula and Birkin wander away discussing death and love. They make love in the woods. The day ends in tragedy when Laura and Tibby drown while swimming in the lake.
During one of Gerald and Rupert's discussions, Rupert suggests Japanese-style wrestling. They strip and wrestle in the firelight. Rupert enjoys their closeness and says they should swear to love each other, but Gerald cannot understand Rupert's idea of wanting to have an emotional union with a man as well as an emotional and physical union with a woman. Ursula and Birkin decide to marry while Gudrun and Gerald continue to see each other. One evening, emotionally exhausted after his father's illness and death, Gerald sneaks into the Brangwen house to spend the night with Gudrun in her bed, then leaves at dawn.
Later, after Ursula and Birkin's marriage, Gerald suggests that the four of them go to the Alps for Christmas. At their inn in the Alps, Gudrun irritates Gerald with her interest in Loerke, a gay German sculptor. An artist herself, Gudrun is fascinated with Loerke's idea that brutality is necessary to create art. While Gerald grows increasingly jealous and angry, Gudrun only derides and ridicules him. Finally, he can endure it no longer. After attempting to strangle her, he trudges off into the snow to die. Rupert and Ursula and Gudrun return to their cottage in England where he grieves for his dead friend. As Ursula and Rupert discuss love, Ursula says there can't be two kinds of love. She asks, "Why should you?"
"It seems as if I can't," Rupert responds, "yet I wanted it." | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073042 | The Ghoul | In 1920s England, a group of upper-class people take part in an automobile race to Land's End. One couple, Billy and Daphne, get lost in heavy fog and run out of petrol. Billy goes to look for fuel, but takes so long that Daphne strikes out on her own. She eventually locates a rural estate owned by Dr. Lawrence, a former priest. He receives her kindly and sends his disturbed gardener, Tom, to find Billy. Tom finds and murders Billy, and pushes the car into a ravine; it is implied that he acted on his employer's orders.
Meanwhile, Dr. Lawrence tells Daphne about a trip his family took to India; his experiences with certain cults there so horrified him that he renounced religion in general. This decision was heavily influenced by the fate of his wife and son, who were converted to a new faith by a local nobleman. The former was afterwards so horrified by the things she had done that she committed suicide. Still waiting for Billy, Daphne falls asleep in a guest room. Seeing this, the doctor's Indian housekeeper, Ayah, goes to the house's attic and lets out a bloated, bloodstained man in a priest's mantle. He kills Daphne with a sacrificial knife, and Ayah ritually cooks the girl's flesh for him to eat and burns the girl's clothes.
The first couple's friends, Geoffrey and Angela, learn of Billy's death from the police and set out on a private mission to find Daphne. They too wreck their car in the fog and are separated in the search for help. The local police refuse to search the marshland as it is too dangerous. Angela locates the Lawrence estate first, and is abducted by Tom, who obviously hopes to rape her. When Dr. Lawrence discovers her presence, he reluctantly decides to offer her as another sacrifice to the ghoul in his attic. She is saved from molestation when Tom is sent out to get rid of Geoffrey, who also found the house and was convinced by Dr. Lawrence that Angela and Daphne were both conveyed safely back to town.
Tom botches the attempt to kill Geoffrey, and is half sucked into a bog in his attempt to flee. Ordered to explain himself before he is rescued, he admits that Daphne was fed to something living in Lawrence's house. Geoffrey returns to the estate and confronts Lawrence, who admits that the ghoul is his own son; the man has been a cannibal ever since his conversion, and Ayah is another cult adherent who came from India to prepare his food. The agonized Lawrence has tended to and protected his son because he promised his wife he would do so.
Geoffrey barges into the attic and confronts the ghoul, who kills him. Meanwhile, Tom sneaks into the room where Angela is imprisoned and again tries to assault her. He is interrupted and killed by the ghoul, who has gotten out of control. The creature rounds on Angela, but Lawrence enters with a pistol and fatally wounds it. Angela runs screaming from the house. Dr. Lawrence, his heart broken by what has happened, goes to his study and shoots himself through the head. | murder | train | wikipedia | I have noticed a lot of rubbish written about this movie: its NOT a Hammer production (it's from Tyburn) although a lot of Hammer-regulars are involved in it; director Freddie Francis is NOT the brother of producer Kevin Francis, but his father; the only similarities between Alfred Hitchock's Psycho and this movie are a female lead-actress (Veronica Carlson of Hammer's Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and Frankenstein Must be Destroyed-fame) who is killed halfway through the movie after we have become to root for her and who's disappearance is investigated by people who knew her, and an atmospheric house which contains a supposedly hideous secret.
Peter Cushing gives a great performance, mixing real-life emotions with acting (his sadness about his departed wife of which he show photographs to Veronica Carlson and which are photographs of his real wife who had died in 1971, is really hard to watch if you are familiar with the background-information); John Hurt is also great although his character is nothing more then a red herring; Gwen Watford gives a nice performance of a Hindu-housekeeper which is not sinister in herself but treated as sinister because Hindoes were considered sinister in the time-period the movie is set in.
"The Ghoul" was produced by Tyburn Films - one of the British Horror Companies that spurted up in response to Hammer Studio's worldwide Gothic horror movie success.
This one should be of immediate interest to anyone who likes those films as it stars Hammer veteran Peter Cushing, Hammer starlet Veronica Carlson and is written and directed by Hammer stalwarts Anthony Hinds and Freddie Francis.
Ghoul begins at a roaring 1920's party where four bored guests decide to go drag racing and wind up at a strange mansion in the forest where a former priest (Cushing) resides with his creepy Indian housekeeper (brilliantly portrayed by Gwen Watford), and sadistic groundskeeper (a very early role by John Hurt).
This is the first film from Tyburn Productions (a supposed latter-day successor to Hammer and Amicus; they also had Peter Cushing starring in Legend of the Werewolf(1975) and Masks of Death(1984)).This has to rank as one of Peter Cushing's most memorable performances - his role is portrayed with such dedicated nervousness and emotion, that the viewer immediately gets his sympathy.The female photographs used in the movie are of his real wife Helen, who had passed away in 1971.
The tears that Peter Cushing sheds in this film are for real and it did affect the rest of the cast quite deeply.Aside from this, the plot stumbles along with yawning gaps of pointless dialogue and actionless scenes, until the Ghoul is revealed at the end.
But then she is killed by the bald,cadaverous man that Lawrence keeps locked in an upstairs room and her companion is pushed over the cliff in the car.Their friends come looking for them and refuse to believe Lawrence's explanation that it was an accident.Interesting British production from Tyburn Films,founded by Kevin Francis.Not much is ever explained about cannibalistic ghoul hidden on the attic.The atmosphere of strangeness amid the mist-flowing moors is certainly well evoked and Peter Cushing gives a memorable performance as always.I have seen this film for the first time as a kid and it really creeped me out.8 out of 10..
I enjoyed "The Ghoul" in the main,but felt that it pandered to some annoying stereotypes.Firstly,and most obviously I think,is that of India,or of the East in general being a home of sinister pagan beliefs and of rituals that engender evil.Now,I am aware that the film is set during the British Raj,and it would be perfectly fine if the characters in the film were to hold ignorant and arrogant views about Hinduism as being basically a kind of devil-worship,views which the character played by Peter Cushing(a former clergyman who stayed for a considerable time in India,where he encountered local religion in which he says he found only depravity) does indeed hold;but,the film was set in that age,not made during it,and these frankly racist attitudes are reinforced,as in the film it is made pretty evident that the source of the main unhappiness that has beset the household is India and Indian ways.Indeed,even the eponymous character,whenever he appears,is donning Indian clothes,when he is actually English.
Another stereotype which is perpetuated is a class one.The character played by John Hurt is a scruffy ex-soldier(although it is suggested at one particular point that he had been a deserter) who murders people,abducts women,beats them and attempts to rape them.By his strong West Country accent,the fact that he was a private,and other peoples' manner towards him,it is obvious that he is a pleb.The upper-class characters on the other hand,are better-looking,more self-confident,and( particularly the character played by Peter Cushing and the character of the ex-army officer),generally nobler.
The movie is worth watching if you like horror.Fourth: The sad trivia behind Peter Cushing's performance: There is a photo in the film which is/was Cushing's wife Veronica Carlson who died in 1971 - so Cushing's emotions were real at this point and not an acting job.
We get to see an exciting car race, Veronica Carlson is great to watch and listen to, the misty setting provides a great atmospheric backdrop, there's a very creepy vibe in the scenes where the ghoul appears or is about to appear and there's never a dull moment.
Along the way, they become lost and one of them finds herself in a house owned by a former Clergyman who harbours a secret.Peter Cushing delivers one of his most moving performances in this film (second only to TALES FROM THE CRYPT).
First of all let me correct some informations given in other comments : this is NOT a hammer film , but a tyburn production , produced by Kevin Francis & directed by his brother Freddie (yes that Freddie Francis).It was a refuge for disenchanted hammer regulars trying to make better films than what was being made by hammer productions.In that optical it can be considered a half failure , sure the francis patented photography is there , the sets are nice , the foggy atmosphere , Cushing's masterfull presence but the story is uninvolving and the ghoul is barely seen.It resembles a period drama with just a hint of macabre.
Founded by Freddie Francis' son Kevin, Tyburn Films clearly had the right lineage but their appearance on the scene was woefully ill-timed; by the mid-Seventies the Gothic brand of English horror was on its way out and this proved to be their last venture until briefly resuming operations during the following decade.A decent enough cast was roped in for this Edwardian-era horror piece: Peter Cushing, John Hurt, Hammer starlet Veronica Carlson, Ian McCulloch – later to star in Lucio Fulci's ZOMBIE (1979) – and Alexandra Bastedo – who had earlier appeared in the cult Horror item, THE BLOOD-SPATTERED BRIDE (1972).
Despite the lamest of scripts (courtesy of regular Hammer scribe Anthony Hinds), Cushing (who even won a Best Actor award at an international Horror film festival!) and Hurt are quite good here in the roles of, respectively, an embittered, widowed and defrocked clergyman with a skeleton in his closet and his crazed, homicidal gardener.Despite the title or its alternative, NIGHT OF THE GHOUL, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the archaic, all-star British horror flick of 1933 nor Ed Wood's 1960 cheapie; the titular creature, in fact, is Cushing's inexplicably cannibalistic giant of a son whose body sports a green tinge and has something like a nappy for a costume!
Cushing's late beloved wife makes an appearance in the film via a photograph as his own character's deceased spouse: she had died four years earlier and the toll its death had taken on the inconsolable star is already clearly evident here in his skeletal facial features; even so, the character's similar predicament ensures that Cushing the actor is, as always, the consummate professional.After the "McGuffin-esque" opening of the old dark house variety, the film's first 20 minutes are taken up by a depiction of what England's society life was like in the Jazz Age as four well-bred socialites let their hair down during a party and, after having partaken of one drink too many, engage in an impromptu car chase in the fog-shrouded countryside.
The girl eventually ends up on the ghoul's menu with McCulloch and Bastedo consequently calling on Cushing and Hurt to look for their relatives – Bastedo almost shares Carlson's fate (a still of which I recall seeing in Alan Frank's "Horror Films"), while both McCulloch and Hurt nearly perish in quicksand!
By the way, Cushing's belligerent Indian house-keeper is also on hand to add some spice to the film with a touch of irrelevant exoticism.At least in the version I watched, the film is a disappointingly bloodless affair even during the ghoul's infrequent rampages – a notable exception occurs when McCulloch gets a meat cleaver in the face!
I'm usually a big sucker for typically British 70's horror and Freddie Francis' film perfectly features all the necessary ingredients, like multiple fog-enshrouded Moorlands and dark secrets that are kept locked up in the attic of a gigantic countryside mansion, but somehow it just wasn't good enough.
Trapped in the impenetrable Moors and low on petrol, the first couple arrives at the eerie secluded mansion owned by ex-missionary Dr. Lawrence (Peter Cushing) and his oddly behaving staff members Tom (John Hurt) and Ayah (Gwen Watford).
Francis was one of the most prominent horror directors of the British "golden" area and he made more than a dozen classics that are all a lot better than "The Ghoul", like "The Creeping Flesh", "Tales from the Crypt", "Torture Garden", "The Evil of Frankenstein" and "Paranoiac".
The film benefits from nice sets and costumes, good performances by the leads Peter Cushing, John Hurt, and Veronica Carlson, and the sure hand of Freddie Francis at the helm.
Snooty partygoers get drunk on champagne and make an ill-advised effort to "race" their cars to Land's End.It doesn't really go as planned, however, and one couple breaks down near the manse of Peter Cushing, which houses "The Ghoul"--Cushing's insane son who is into cannibalism.
But hey, it'll at least be worth including for my 'Family Un-friendly' series of reviews.It starts out quite well as a young woman we will later learn is named Daphne(Veronica Carlson) creeps through a mansion with a candle to strange screams and gurgling noises, luxurious architecture and flickering shadows build suspense, establishing a good-looking film at least(Surprise, surprise, the director is our old friend Freddie Francis), she gets closer and the cries grow louder!
After being warned, and then almost raped by a creepy handyman(A younger John Hurt) near a mansion, Daphne meets the mysterious owner of the mansion, Dr. Lawrence(Peter Cushing)and his Indian maid, Ayah.
After some drama between the Handyman and Ayah, Daphne's friends search for her and all get killed off(I do have to mention an absolutely incredible murder scene involving a hatchet to the face that is the high point of the film)before Lawrence kills the killer(The titular 'ghoul')before shooting himself.Peter Cushing had an almost masochistic tendency after his wife's death to play grieving widowers, and he clearly wasn't in a very good state of mental health, his performance is mostly routine, but eventually Cushing had a breakdown and his fit was recorded.
However, The Ghoul is an extremely disappointing horror entry in which the performances of Peter Cushing and John Hurt are the only noteworthy factors.
This film is noteworthy only because of the presence of longtime Hammer veteran Peter Cushing and a young John Hurt, who would go on to experience an unpleasant dining experience in 1979's Alien.
Peter Cushing, Veronica Carlson, make-up man Roy Ashton, Director Freddie Francis and screenwriter John Elder – all names associated with Hammer are here.
This is what happens in "The Ghoul" but the film comes out in an inferior level than that you might expect in its first half an hour or so.The secret in the attic here is the son of a Reverend (Peter Cushing) that while in India with his father has been driven into cannibalism by mysterious ancient cults followers and has to be fed accordingly.
While her date sits in the car waiting for her to return (being pushed off a cliff to his death by the deranged John Hurt), Carlson heads into a mysterious looking mansion and after a violent encounter with Hurt meets the dashing Peter Cushing who allows her to spend the night.
It suffers from a few pacing issues and the script owes more than a little debt to Hitchcock's Psycho, but despite the odd lull in action and lack of originality, I can't help but like The Ghoul, an atmospheric chiller set in the Roaring Twenties that stars Hammer/Amicus stalwart Peter Cushing, and Ian McCulloch, hero of Italian horror classics Zombie Flesh Eaters and Zombie Holocaust.The film kicks off in fine style with beautiful blonde Daphne (Veronica Carlson) being lured to a gloomy attic by eerie voices where she is confronted by a corpse with a meat hook through the neck hanging from the rafters; this turns out to be a macabre jape perpetrated by the woman's playful socialite friends, who proceed to party like its 1929, downing copious glasses of champers and kicking up their heels to the Charleston.
But none of them make it to their intended destination, instead winding up at the fog-bound marshland estate of Doctor Lawrence (Cushing) who keeps his son, a crazed flesh-eating ghoul, locked in the attic.Daphne is the first to arrive at the doctor's creepy house, Billy having vanished into the fog only to be dispatched by wicked gardener Tom Rawlings (a pre-fame John Hurt).
They split up & Daphne meets a sinister guy named Tom Rawlings (John Hurt) who tries to stop her going to a large isolated house deep within some marshland owned by one Dr. Lawrence (Peter Cushing) but to no avail, at first Dr. Lawrence seems nice enough but that night Daphne discovers that there is something nasty lurking in the attic which feeds on human flesh...This English production was made by the short lived Tyburn Films who only ever made three films all of which were horror, Persecution (1974), the cool Legend of the Werewolf (1974) & this The Ghoul in '75 before they went out of business, if I'm honest that's not actually a bad resume of films.
Directed by Freddie Francis for some reason I have always wanted to see The Ghoul, I recently admitted defeat in trying to see it for free & actually spent some of my hard earned money on a copy & while it's a decent little horror film for sure it did end up disappointing me although I suspect a large part of that is down to the fact I had high expectations for it.
The script by Anthony Hinds as John Elder has all the necessary ingredients to be a top British period horror film, the fog enshrouded marshes, the period setting & the attention to detail, the large ominous isolated house that holds a gruesome secret, evil religious ceremonies, some killing & the fabulous Peter Cushing.
Having said that it moves along at a nice pace, is certainly watchable with some effective scenes & unusually has the balls to unexpectedly kill off one of it's stars about halfway through.Director Francis knows how to turn in a decent horror film with plenty of atmosphere & fog, the house sets are also excellent & very detailed with great attention to period detail.
Peter Cushing is great as always & the rest of the cast is good to that includes John Hurt & Ian McCulloch who would both go on to arguably bigger & better things...The Ghoul is good film & I won't say it isn't but the story & it's ideas are never really tied together in any sort of convincing way, it's worth a watch but I think my expectations were just too high..
Peter Cushing gives an okay performance as an affable gentleman with something to hide and John Hurt makes for a skin crawling villain and perhaps the relative lack of gore is a nice change from the type of torture porn we've become used to in the 21st Century but anyone who can remember this film with childhood affection will be disappointed by it in 2012.
But, Geoffrey will not stop until he finds answers..which could place his life in jeopardy as the thing in the attic isn't done killing just yet.Mean-spirited and cruel, I was surprised at how director Freddie Francis goes right for the jugular with this one..the way characters are dispatched, having the misfortune of leaving the party atmosphere of sophisticates enjoying bubbly and music, to wind up in the creepy, malevolent environment of this mansion in the marshland moors with characters harboring ugly secrets, willing to commit evil acts to innocents without worry because the local police and citizens are too frightened(..the marshlands have dangerous quicksand, fog that's difficult to see through, and a devastating cliff)to come anywhere near.
John Hurt, Peter Cushing and Don Henderson have certainly seen better movies.
Well we find out this dark secret is John Henderson dressed as a Krishna and proceeds to kill all the yuppies that went to the mansion when finally Cushing blows his own head off.I didn't think too much of it because it was just really dumb, with all the buildup to the actual Ghoul, I was laughing at it because it was such a let-down, like this movie4 out of 10.
However, if you are a fan of hammer, peter cushing or john hurt then you will most probably enjoy this film.
john hurt features as a thoroughly weird groundskeeper who wouldn't be out of place in "the league of gentlemen" the film looks great, all of the sets are very convincing the ever present fog really adds to the feel.in conclusion - if your'e a fan of hammer, hurt or cushing - give it a chance, if not - give it a miss..
He saves the movie of total disaster with a pretty good performance as Doctor Lawrence,who lives in a house in the middle of nowhere with an Indian(!) housekeeper and another help Tom Rawlings(John Hurt,not bad either in this movie). |
tt0100112 | Le mari de la coiffeuse | The film begins in a flashback from the titular character, Antoine. We are introduced to his fixation with female hairdressers which began at a young age. The film uses flashbacks throughout and there are frequent parallels drawn with the past. Though Antoine tells Mathilde that 'the past is dead', his life is evidence that on some level the past repeats itself. As a young boy he fantasised about a hairdresser who committed suicide and as a man in his 50s he begins an affair with a hairdresser which ends after ten years in her suicide. However there are differences, Mathilde commits suicide because she is so happy she is afraid of the happiness she has found with Antoine ending.
We are unsure what Antoine has done with his life; we know, however, that he has fulfilled his childhood ambition: to marry a haidresser. The reality proves to be every bit as wonderful as the fantasy and the two enjoy an enigmatic, enclosed and enchanting relationship. The final sequence shows Antoine, in the salon, dancing to Eastern music just as he has done throughout his life. His last line is the enigmatic comment that the hairdresser will return. | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0109447 | Clifford | At a Catholic school in 2050, a troublesome boy named Roger (Ben Savage) is running away after blowing up the gym due to not being allowed to play on the basketball team—he was accepted onto the team but his parents have forbidden contact sports. He is stopped by Father Clifford Daniels (Martin Short), an old priest, who tries to persuade him to change his ways by telling him a story of his own youth.
In a flashback, 11-year-old Clifford is a deceptive, sneaky, devious, obnoxious, evil, weird-looking boy who never lets go of a toy dinosaur named Steffen. He talks to and blames him for his own actions. He loves dinosaurs and his dream is to visit Dinosaur World, a theme park in California.
While flying with his parents to Honolulu, Clifford purposely causes a catastrophe on board that puts everyone on the plane in danger and forces the pilot to make an emergency landing in Los Angeles. His father, Julian, scolds him because he is not allowed to get back on the plane, though he has an important engagement to attend. He phones his brother, Martin (Charles Grodin)—who resides in Los Angeles—to propose the idea of Clifford staying with him temporarily. Martin thinks that this is the perfect opportunity to prove to his fiancee, Sarah Davis (Mary Steenburgen), how well he interacts with children. He has not seen Clifford since his baptism.
Upon their reunion, Martin reveals to Clifford that he designed Larry the Scary Rex (a Dinosaur World attraction) and can get into the park free of charge, which strengthens Clifford's obsession to visit. Martin promises to take him there, but is ultimately forced to break it because of work.
Clifford becomes enraged and sabotages Martin's life, jeopardizing his career and his relationship with Sarah. He compliments Martin's boss, Mr. Ellis (Dabney Coleman), on his toupee and humiliates Martin at Sarah's parents' 35th wedding anniversary party by replacing his Bloody Mary with Tabasco sauce, ruining an unprepared toast that Martin is giving. Clifford gets Martin arrested in front of Sarah's family after calling in a bomb threat and gets Martin fired by bombing a presentation during a press conference.
Martin's sanity snaps. He finally takes Clifford to Dinosaur World after hours and makes him ride Larry the Scary Rex until he can no longer take it. After going through it once, Clifford seems to enjoy himself, so Martin increases the ride's speed repeatedly. It malfunctions and Clifford's cart crashes, leaving him dangling above the jaws of a robotic dinosaur. He cries out for Martin to save him. Martin hesitates—worried about the future of mankind if he saves Clifford and fact that Clifford has so completely ruined his life—but ultimately risks his own life. Clifford finally apologizes for his behavior, but Martin is fed up. He tells Clifford that he is a selfish and destructive thing, not a human and that if he continues to be the way he is people will just end up hating him. Clifford, who was upset, decides not to go home with Martin.
Back in the future, Father Clifford says that this experience made him turn his life around. He wrote hundreds of letters asking Martin's forgiveness. Eventually, Martin invited him to his and Sarah's wedding, finally forgiving him.
Roger decides to not run away and to write hundreds of letters, asking for forgiveness. Father Clifford then takes Steffen saying, "Mission accomplished, old friend." | revenge, flashback | train | wikipedia | In this funny, but slightly crude film, Martin Short uses his young face and tricky camera angles, I think, to play the part of a ten year old boy.
The only way a goofy plot like the one in this film could possibly work is if the lead actor was a true genius of comedy, a man among Canadians, a charming elf-like creature I like to call Martin Shortman.
Martin Short relies heavily on facial movement and voice tonal changes to make his character Clifford funny.
Through the annoyance of his dear Uncle Martin surely we all can get along and laugh together as a family of opinionated movie viewers just looking for a good time, a few chuckles now and then to make us forget that we have low paying jobs and live in shoddily built ranch-style homes overlooking well built but poorly placed sewage treatment plants.
Bottom line is that if you really like Martin Short then you will think this movie is hilarious, if you don't then don't waste your time because you can't have it back..
On one hand we have films like "Clifford," the 1994 box office disaster starring Charles Grodin and Martin Short, that everyone claimed was one of the worst films of all time.
It's just with all the crap I've seen in my days, "Clifford" is not only a pretty good movie when compared to others, but also a refreshingly naughty comedy.
In LA, Clifford's parents drop him off with his Uncle Martin (Charles Grodin), an aspiring architect, busy with his fiancee (Mary Steenburgen) and plans for a new Los Angeles subway route.
Everyone knows someone like Clifford, but Martin Short stretches his character a bit more.
He responds with gleeful joy and says things like, "Oh, yes, my dear Uncle Martin!" We are supposed to sympathize with Clifford by the end of the film, but the problem is that we don't know how or what to sympathize with.
This is a movie about a 10 year old boy, Clifford, who is very mischievous and raises hell everywhere he goes.
Sick of his mischiefs, his parents leave him with his Uncle who is a middle-aged man and is trying to convince her fiancée that he likes kids and that's the reason why he agrees to keep Clifford with him.
As the movie goes on, Clifford completely destroys his Uncle's life with his pranks because he didn't take him to the local Dinosaur Park.
Martin Short was staggeringly hateful in this movie, and even though I suppose that was the whole point, it really is hard to be entertained when the main character is SO irritating.
Personally, I would have loved to see his character get decapitated at the end, for it would have turned the film into a feel-good movie.
Clifford is generally considered to have fallen into that category.Martin Short portrays a 90 year old priest, and a 10 year old holy terror of a child who will do anything he can (and what he can do is formidable) to get to Dinosaur World to fulfill his dream.I found this work amusing.
Lots of funny scenes about a very self-centered boy who drives adults crazy.I am sure a lot of adults can see some familiar behavior in their kids and themselves.Some the funny things they show Clifford doing remind me of myself when I was a boy; eating lots of sugar, watching videos of naked African women; drooling over the chance to go to a theme park, trying to fool adults and not getting away with it.Martin Daniels is especially funny as a middle-aged bachelor who is trying to convince his fiancé who wants children, that he appreciates children, so he has Clifford at his place to prove that point to his finance, in the meantime, Clifford ruins Martin's career, his house, and causes the breakup of the marriage engagement.Clifford is truly an evil menace, the bane of every adult, much worse than Dennis the Menace..
Martin Short stars as the title character who is apparently a ten year old boy.
Hopefully bonding with the young man will show his lady that he is in fact a good catch.The first time you look at Martin Short, and accept the premise that he is in fact a little boy, you begin to expect to laugh.
People believe me: It is NOT funny and - even more obvious - Martin Short is NOT a 10-year-old boy!
In the beginning Martin Short/Clifford is a priest some time in the 21st century and tells his story to a nasty boy.
Major annoying over-actors, always yelling everything they say in such a strained, exaggerated, draining way, especially Clifford's dad Richard Kind, Clifford's uncle Charles Grodin, and other characters in the movie.
Then there's a big problem with Clifford himself (played by Martin Short).
And then there's the way Clifford talks, with the looks on his face, it made me cringe (and that's bad enough without him saying things like "my no-no place" and many other embarrassing things) Then, if that's not all enough, there are some awful jokes thrown in, such as a couple of transvestites showing up right after a character says "I can spot a phony a mile away".
Not "Clifford".This comedy was anything but funny, in fact the longer the film went on, the more angry and frustrated I got.
Martin Short was completely unfunny (perhaps not as much his fault as the writer's) and Charles Grodin was insufferable with acting that was less animated than an Al Gore speech.If there is a God, and I'd like to think there is, I can only ask that everyone who was involved with this film in any way - actors, producers, writers, distributors, key grips, best boys, even the popcorn salesmen employed by the theater at the time the movie was playing - should burn in the pits of Gehenna for all eternity --- and made to watch "Clifford" again, and again, and again, and again......
I think that Clifford is the most excellent funny movie ever I've been watching it since it came out in 1994 and I watch it almost everyday and i crack up every time I watch it.I think it is an absolute riot that a man plays a 10 year old boy let alone martin short.I think this is martin shorts beat movie yet he was perfect for the part so was Charles Groton when ever I see him or the lady who played Sara I say hey look there's uncle martin and ms.
Short's comedic talents go to great waste in this awful comedy about a troublesome boy (Short) who terrorizes the life out ofCharles Grodin, who in the film looks disappointed in the sophomoric, unfunny material.
This movie is only 5 years old and yet Martin Short looks so young.
(BTW, Martin Short plays the funniest priest in the history of film besides the funniest child character ever!) Charles Grodin is perfect as Clifford's poor frustrated uncle!
How can people say that Martin Short isn't a ten year old boy??
Just looking at Martin Short dressed up as Clifford makes me burst out laughing.
HAHAHA great movie :) and Martin Short actually looks like a ten-year-old!
1,000,000,000,000 stars for Clifford, the outstanding movie that WILL and I reassure u, WILLLLLLLL make u laugh.Short is a random guy...
or have seen it and wanna see movies like it watch either Rushmore or Uncle Buck or in extreme cases Raising Arizona (for the same zany comedy purposes)As for a rating for clifford...
Charles Grodin was good in "Midnight Run" and "Real Life", Martin Short is funny too.
Martin Short plays a kid who really wants to ride his uncle's roller coaster or something like that, and the ENTIRE movie is Short doing cruel things to Grodin in order to get to ride.
Clifford (Martin Short) is an obnoxious child who is making his parents' lives a living hell.
Imagine making a film very much like "Problem Child" but with an adult inexplicably playing the kid and you have "Clifford".
I have a hard time seeing how this film has an almost average rating, as there is literally nothing about the movie I liked..
Martin Short and Charles Grodin pair up for a hilarious movie about a naughty little boy who's only desire in life is to take a trip to Dinosaur World.
It's not hard to buy Martin Short as a 10 year old child thanks to his brilliant acting methods based off of, what I believe is, pain-in-the-rear little brothers.
Horrible plot horrible script I mean a 40 yr old man playing a kid...,,,, But yet short somehow makes this work it's a light hearted comedy that I found Rather enjoyable you need to not be so uptight and just be like what the hell To enjoy this movie if you can't do that if you take yourself to seriously you won't like it And you be like a few reviewers on here and hate on the movie Be warned it is normal to loathe the character of Clifford Your either gonna love the character of Clifford or want to kill him lol.
The film revolves around its titular character, played by Martin Short at his most chaotic; a destructive, menacing, and spoiled brat of a ten-year-old who carries around his toy dinosaur everywhere he goes and dreams of going to the themepark Dinosaur World in California.
While on a flight to Hawaii with his parents, the plane makes an emergency landing in Los Angeles because of Clifford's rowdy behavior, leaving his mother and father stranded without a way to get to his father's important conference.His father decides to dump Clifford off with his Uncle Martin and his fiancée Sarah (Charles Grodin and Mary Steenburgen) at their home in Los Angeles while both him and his wife catch another flight to Hawaii.
He's the kind that you cannot leave unattended for more than five minutes or else your home, your possessions, and your life will be in shambles.Clifford winds up making life a living hell for Uncle Martin, going as far as to ruin an important business meeting, in addition to embarrassing him in front of clients among other things, all while Sarah doesn't believe a boy so innocuous could ever be up to no good.
If nothing else, the film itself is a testament to the real comedic talent and energy of Martin Short, who, at 44 at the time this film was made, plays a convincing ten-year-old menace, with no social tact or grace whatsoever.
The scene is one of the few where there is literally nothing besides Grodin, Short, and the matter at hand (if you don't count Clifford's toy dinosaur), and because of it, the screenwriters have time to regain their composure and march on accordingly before diving into more ridiculous antics.With that, Clifford is, at the very least, an interesting film, despite boasting the "maximum antics, minimum laughter" idea of their being a lot going on narratively, but little occurring in a comedic sense.
Cut out Short's energetic performance and Grodin's restraint and what you have remaining is a film that has difficultly standing on its own two legs thanks to a feeble and overall redundant premise that, like the character, breeds little more than contempt by the time it's over.Starring: Martin Short, Charles Grodin, Mary Steenburgen, Richard Kind, and Jennifer Savidge.
Martin Short plays a 10-year-old troublemaker who makes life miserable for all who come in contact with him (namely uncle Charles Grodin and aunt Mary Steenburgen) in this stinky dog of a flick.
It feels like the film-makers were trying to fool their audience with Short's character and the big idea fell flat on its face within the first few minutes.
One of Cliffords many funny lines was changed around a bit and used in this summary.The family really enjoyed this movie and for quite awhile afterwards we would use some of Cliffords lines,like..."Shame on your eyes" "Got any of that chok-lat" and "No-no nothings".Martin Short makes the character really work because it seems like he's not using a script but letting the boy character take over him.Like many characters in movies he's enjoyable to watch but I wouldn't want to be around him for more than 30 seconds in real life.The bad qualities of many children have been taken and put into one funny Clifford.He's self-centered,peseta,untruthful and hyper/bratty.------Several years ago I saw a movie about a person that invented a halloween mask for children,every time a certain commercial jingle played on TV any child wearing one of the masks would go into trauma.Although the children's faces weren't shown after the viewer does know a large spider comes out of the mask's eye opening in one scene.Torturing little children,now that's pretty wicked.For me a movie like that is horrible,maybe one of the worst of all time and would not recommend it to other people.This brings up the other part of my summary"something going on here".The negative comments that are so strong against "Clifford" would seem more suited for the above mask movie.Since sequels were made to that mask movie maybe it was enjoyed by some of the anti-Clifford crowd.Clifford has my vote no matter how many just-can't-figure-it-out negative comments are made.A family friend asked to view our Clifford tape out of curiosity,they couldn't go five minutes without laughing,said it was one of the funniest movies they ever seen..
So, you see, I guess you have to be a little strange to understand - and be amused by - this sort of material.Funniest moment for me - at the dinner, when some older lady kept making over how "adorable" Clifford was - and he just loses it!Funniest line - "Oh Ms. Sarah - Uncle Martin's gone Nutty-Nuts!
I don't understand the negative remarks about this movie, but If your child is like Clifford, They will learn that if you destroy anyone that stands in the way of your dreams, you will be alone, and lose all of your dreams.
The even worse part is that none of those films were really worth the wait and this Martin Short/Charles Grodin family oriented comedy ranks as one of them.
The mirthless plot has to do with the misadventures of Clifford (Short) and his Uncle Martin (Grodin) on a day when the kid hating man has to babysit his unruly nephew.
Martin Short, Charles Grodin, Mary Steenburgen, Dabney Coleman, Richard Kind, Ben Savage.
Very funny Martin Short vehicle features him as a 10-year old boy who makes life a living hell for his uncle during a visit.
Martin Short rocks as Clifford, and the jokes in the movie are so random and Un-10-year old that you just have to laugh!
The combination of Martin short (as a 10 year old!) and the ever great Charles Grodin, make for ONE FUNNY ZANY COMEDY!
Clifford is a very funny movie if u get the oddball comedy of martin short.
I have seen this film several times and am amazed by Martin Short's performance as a young boy.
While Charles Grodin isn't that fantastic as Uncle Martin, it's worth watching him so you can see the insanity that is Martin Short as Clifford.
Martin Short's performance as the 10-year-old trouble maker is believable and hilarious and in my opinion his best work.
Charles Grodin gives the best performance since the HeartBreak Kid playing the nerve-wracked Uncle Martin who is forced to watch over Clifford as he makes his life a living hell.
The movie is droll and smart, and is typical of the funniness of Flaherty and Short, with classic Grodin thrown in.Mary Steenburgen isnt really that big of a role, and she is NO reason to get it.
But if you liked the Martin Short Show (not the talk show) and SCTV (where are those DVDs anyway?), then you will love this film.The best scene is after Grodin gets arrested and talks to Short.
Martin Short plays Clifford, who is one of the most annoying characters ever.
Seriously, Clifford does not at all look like a ten year old as SHort is playing him.
"Why can't you just sit there and listen to me like a real little boy," Grodin's character says something along those lines as we see Clifford attempt to look "normal." I love this movie and hope many people out there see how dry, strange and wonderful this film and Martin's performance is.
Turns out, whatever Martin Short, Charles Grodin, Mary Steenburgen, & the others were saying weren't really that bad.
The best comedy of the early 90's, Martin Short is a genius as the 10 year old Clifford.
That is the interpretation I choose to believe, because it makes Clifford's apparent bad behavior much easier to understand.Martin Short is a remarkable actor and actually ends up being a very believable 10-year-old, although a very weird one!.
People that enjoy "Clifford" may find it to their liking, but "The Loved One" makes you REALLY think.Movies such as "Clifford" are obviously an acquired taste, for sure, and I simply found it wanting.
Now, in conclusion, to all you Martin Short, Charles Grodin, or Mary Steenburgen fans who have not seen this excellent comedy about a ten-year-old menace from hell, I highly recommend it..
Martin Short is a genius in this movie.
I really love Martin Short and he makes the Clifford character so, so funny.
Being a fan of Martin Short, not so much of his movies, but rather of his work on SCTV, I went into watching 'Clifford' with more of a sense of dread than hope.
As Clifford, Martin Short and Paul Flaherty seem to be playing the character straight, that Clifford is in fact a little boy.
Part of the reason begins with Martin Short who plays a 10-year old brat, who doesn't look, talk, act or dress like any little boy that I have ever seen.The movie begins far in the future as Short plays an elderly man working in a home for unruly kids. |
tt2125423 | Five Broken Cameras | There are five cameras — each with its own story. When his fourth son, Gibreel, is born in 2005, self-taught cameraman Emad Burnat, a Palestinian villager, gets his first camera. At the same time in his village of Bil’in, the Israelis begin bulldozing village olive groves to build a barrier to separate Bil'in from the Jewish Settlement Modi'in Illit. The barrier's route cuts off 60% of Bil'in farmland and the villagers resist this seizure of more of their land by the settlers.
During the next year, Burnat films this struggle, which is led by two of his best friends including his brother Iyad, while at the same time recording the growth of his son. Very soon, these events begin to affect his family and his own life. Emad films the Army and Police beating and arresting villagers and activists who come to support them. Settlers destroy Palestinian olive trees and attack Burnat when he tries to film them. The Army raids the village in the middle of the night to arrest children. He, his friends, and brothers are arrested or shot; some are killed. Each camera used to document these events is shot or smashed.
Eventually, in 2009, Burnat approaches Guy Davidi – an Israeli filmmaker and together, from these five broken cameras and the stories that they represent, these two filmmakers create the film. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | Hundreds of villages were ethnically cleansed, and several of them today have Israeli Jews living in the old houses owned by Palestinians (not having paid for them of course).
The film shows the Israeli occupation through the eyes of a small village and its people from 2005 to 2010.
It's a very honest film that depicts the struggle the Palestinians live through every day being treated like animals and sometimes worse by the young Israeli soldiers who daily harasses them.
This is a very important film that I recommend to everybody that wishes to see how daily life is like on occupied territories in Palestine..
And in the noise of all the marketing campaigns that try to target the greater population to adopt the next best product or service, it is becoming more difficult to be influenced by perspectives that are not mainstream but at the same time important in helping people see what it means to be human, in its challenges and struggles of life.
His documentary 5 Broken Cameras brings about a view of his life that is rarely ever made conscious in the mainstream lives of the western world.
Although many people have heard about the long withstanding history of Israeli-Palistenian conflict over the West Bank, the documentary brings about a quality of humanity to the conflict through a first person perspective of using non-violence protest strategies to prevent Israeli developer's from building onto the land of their village of Bil'in.
Through six years worth of film, Emad is able to show a personable and affective-filled battle of many people in his village that risk their lives in protecting the land of their people.
Emad has used his five broken cameras to give a voice to the village people of Bil'in and is helping people understand that not everyone in this world has stability even in the basic needs of food and shelter.
Being able to see even this one perspective, is likely to help people realize that there are more important issues at hand in the world other than obtaining the latest gadget or wearing the latest fashion trend.
It is therefore critical that people understand the power they possess living in the western world and how they can use it to give a voice to those who need help and do not have a voice..
I admire the bravery of this Palestinian man in getting his message across despite so many hardships.Tell me why would the Israelis shoot at the unarmed Palestinians with live ammunition - particularly when they're on the Palestinian side of the fence?Bravo Emad!
Emad Burnat's documentary about the on-the-ground reality for the people inside the West Bank is a very disturbing portrait of life under military occupation.
Indeed, the settlers and army do some absolutely evil things, such as burning an olive tree."5 Broken Cameras" (whose title refers to the different cameras that Burnat had to use after the army kept breaking them) is a documentary that everyone should see.
I watched this documentary and had a total change in my view and support of Israel.
This documentary taken by Emad, who live in Bil'in, near the border of Israeli settlement, with his family.
Although some rabbis have protested against these uproarious excesses (raucous stomping and deafening ratcheting), considering them to be a disturbance of public worship, nevertheless, these two customs in particular, have continued to be universally carried out in almost all Synagogues on Purim.Just a thought ?!I wonder if during the Oscars, the Zionists of Hollywood plan to conduct an 'L.A. Festival of Burning', wherein all copies of the "Un-Israeli" film '5 Broken Cameras' will be incinerated, not unlike that conducted by the Nazis in May of 1933, during which upwards of 25,000 volumes of "Un-German" books (predominantly Jewish) were burned ?!Or worse yet, publicly humiliate themselves during the announcement of the film's nomination for an Oscar award, by stomping their feet and twirling permitted Ra'ashans, in a feeble attempt to 'Blot It Out'?!After all, just the other day, they did attempt to prevent the film-maker Emad Burnat, together with his wife and 8 year old son, from attending, by way of harassment and intimidation at the hands of Immigration Officials at L.A.X.Perhaps, it was because a 'Film' or even a 'Broken Camera' in the hands of a Palestinian now constitutes a potential 'Terrorist Threat' ?!.
5 Broken Cameras (2011) is a Palestinian documentary film directed by Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi.
The movie is narrated by Emad Burnat, who films life and strife in his village in the occupied West Bank.Living in an occupied territory will always be frustrating and, at times, humiliating.
(The "settlements" look like large, fortress-like, apartment complexes.)Although we have all seen footage of Palestinians throwing rocks, and Israeli soldiers responding with teargas and rubber bullets, Burnat films less dramatic instances of nonviolent resistance by Palestinian villagers.
(Some of the cameras were purposely destroyed, while others were hit by rubber bullets.)Whatever your position is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's useful to see a film that presents the Palestinian perspective.
A personal and intimate portrait of the progressing encroaching of Palestinian land by the Israeli state and their Zionist cavaliers, is filmed over a period of several years.
Starting in 2005, camera after camera, "5 Broken Cameras" is frank in its portraying of the startling injustice that has beholden an entire populace.A clear indictment of Israel as a country as well as the crazy people who claim right to the land based on biblical scripture, the olive farmer Emad Burnat films his side of the story.
this documentary was a true and honest eyes to what really happening in the occupied territories by the Zions in Palestine, the events show how the people of the small village Bil'in suffered by the army of the Zions that burned and killed and brook the laws, not humans laws, not world's laws, but them own laws.
it has a very real touching scenes witch can make a one shed the tears without he knows, when I watched those scenes and slices from lives of real people I seen those Zions as really they are, not what their press and media whas trying to show us every day in every movie we see.
Fortunately, that mystery is solved instantaneously when you find out the film maker's journey through a Palestinian's point of view about the erecting of Israeli wall.
If you are a documentary lover, you will enjoy this movie, even if you are not - and just curious about Palestinian life - it's worth a look.
Two of the five documentary films competing for the Academy Awards ('Oscars') that will be distributed a few days from now deal with the conflict between Jews and Arabs, between Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land.
This is a good thing, and for the Israeli audiences both movies are highly relevant, as they show different aspects and different perspective of the conflict.
There are many differences of course in styles, approaches, characters but the reality is the same, a complex reality with many pieces of puzzle and the more you know, the better.The concept and the story of the making of '5 Broken Cameras' is pretty unusual.
Israeli film-maker Guy Davidi met in 2005 Emad Burat, a Palestinian inhabitant of the village of Bil'in.
This place is well known in the area because the wall of separation between Israel and the Palestinian territories passes in the neighborhood, separating inhabitants from their fields and orchards, and this led to several lawsuits and permanent protests and confrontations with the army some of which turned violent, which were also widely covered by the Israeli and international press and TV.
Emad received in 2005 a first camera from Davidi, a camera which covered not only the incidents around the construction of the wall, but also the life of the inhabitants and of the family, the permanent tension between occupation, protests and the need to run normal lives.
This is a well-made documentary that allows you to experience the life of Palestinian villagers under the unjust Israeli occupation.
What touched me the most about this film was the bravery of these unarmed Palestinians--every man, every woman and every child--who stand up day after day to the illegal confiscation of their farm land,their olive trees, and to the soldiers who support usurping settlers and shoot live and rubber ammunition at unarmed protesters.
This is about Israeli becoming violent masters over the poor and helpless Palestinians in a small village which the extremists in power have decided to turn into a new Jewish settlement area.
All Israeli cultivated and reasonable people should watch it, because one day no one will be able to say: we didn't know...
"5 Broken Cameras won the World Cinema Directing Award at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival.
The story of the 5 cameras is a film pictured by a Palestinian who is violently fighting Israel, each and every weekend.Each of the 5 cameras was broken in the midst of a brutal attack on the peaceful Israeli soldiers that just stand there quietly and try to avoid any response to the videotaped provocations.
The director is taking the camera to a provocation against the peaceful soldiers, the Palestinians get violence, the army is acting with no choice, and the camera is being broken.
I suffered a lot just to see how it ends, but for nothing.The video cameras and the film was supported by the European Union, which is providing finance to anti-Israeli activities worldwide and specifically in Israel, taking a position which is totally one sided in this conflict.I praise the Israeli soldiers, which are standing against a well- financed violent mob, full of hatred.
Even facing this tough situation there are not fast on shooting, and they provide human care to any human been, even if he's on the other side of the front, like the director that was evacuated to an Israeli hospital after having a self-made accident where he was confronting the soldiers.
This movie takes a very biased look on the conflict, which is full of hate to Israel.
Its so wonderful to see one story come out of palestine, that is not blocked, censored or tainted by the israeli propoganda machine about the daily struggles of an oppressed people in the 21st century.
Emad Burnat is a Palestinian farmer living in Bil'in, a small village close to the West Bank.
Along with his son's childhood he captures the building of a wall that cuts through the village's olive groves and the violence that befalls the villagers as they use nonviolent protest against the taking of their land by the Israeli government.
The title of the documentary gets its name from the fact that Burnat has five different cameras destroyed in one way or another by Israeli soldiers as he films what is happening to his village.
Were it not for movies like this one that show what greed and disregard for human life is really all about, one might reasonably argue that the State of Israel possibly has some rights in the area that was formerly all Palestine.This movie is really about the rapacious and greedy nature of Israel and its determination to take over lands that it was never given any mandate to occupy; in this case the West Bank.This is s story in documentary and indisputably factual style of the brutality which is daily meted out to the people of Palestine who have had their lands conquered by a force that is pretty well irresistible to them, the Israeli Army.
It is a story of the struggle of basically defenceless people against an occupation of their lands that they have no hope of winning in the absence of concerted public opinion from the world outside the occupied territories.
Tragically, that is the only possible hope that the Palestinian people have of resisting the further rape and occupation of their traditional lands.
How very ironic that a people who suffered terribly under the Nazis during WWII should treat the people of Palestine in much the same way that they were themselves treated by the Nazis.This movie demonstrates, in the most graphic way possible, the struggle and sacrifice of a people who have been oppressed by the State of Israel and the Israeli Army since 1967.
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is against international law and in blatant defiance and disregard of the United Nations and its many resolutions over the last 49 years.See this movie please and know that it is a true portrayal of the struggle of the Palestinian people against naked aggression and the infliction of death and injury, most disproportionately in the face of the peaceful protests of these Palestinians.
This movie is a true story about the hardships of Palestinians living in a city bordering Israel.
The story depicts the atrocities of the Israeli military and citizens towards the Palestinians, and the courage, bravery and the dexterity of the Palestinian people who protest against the cages which Israel has created around them, treating them like animals.The story revolves one man, protecting his beautiful family consisting of his wife and small children, while pursuing his passion of videography..
a PERSONAL story of a man and his village protesting a wall.
This is a film about the personal story of man named Emad and his experience protesting in Bil'in, a small village in the West Bank.
I think the film would have suffered from it.Because of the lack of context, a politically sharp-eyed, skeptical and unsettled viewer (unsettled on the Israel-Palestine conflict) like myself need to take some of the film with a grain of salt.
Regardless of your position on the struggle, this kind of footage should make you angry.I think the film is definitely worth watching, not because it's an "unbiased" (whatever that means) view of a political struggle, but precisely because it is biased.
This extraordinary documentary depicts a village's struggle against an ever-encroaching Israeli settlement, and the security barrier which deprives them of half their land.
Not just tear-gas; one casually shocking moment witnesses a Palestinian prisoner being shot in the leg by his Israeli captor, with other soldiers standing by his side.
The film is co-directed by an Israeli, and it's claim to greatness lies in its often implicit depiction of the inextricable entwinement of Palestinian and Israeli lives.
It starts with Palestinians protesting and "yelling loudly" at the Israeli soldiers.
I started watching this movie knowing only that it was going to be about dissidents protesting or fighting back against Israeli people and military.
The villagers start protesting every Friday, and the narrator starts filming it and other local events involving Israelis.So with that in mind, at first I felt like the movie is biased and leading.
At one point early on the narrator says "Gibreel's first words were a joyous event" or something like that, and then the next thing shown is his son Gibreel saying "wall" (referring to the Israeli-built barrier around the narrator's village) while walking outside near the wall...except in the same scene the son is speaking several other words...i felt like that is leading the viewer when that was almost definitely not when Gibreel spoke his first words.But then the thoughts of bias give way to the shocking events that take place during the film.
If you know about the stuff that goes on over there involving Israel and the occupied territories, it isn't surprising per se...Israel is so hated over there...but seeing several people shot, and at least one killed on camera is pretty intense.I'd rather not pick sides on what is right or wrong in the actions that take place, because although the narrator claims they are non-violent there are many instances of rocks being thrown at people and especially cars...so many rocks are thrown at the cars at the same time in one moment that you can really see how much the Israelis are hated by a lot of the local people...and who knows what isn't shown in the movie.Instead I'll just say that this is a very interesting documentary and if you are interested in that area of the world, or if you just enjoy seeing a part of the world you don't normally get a glimpse of, I highly recommend checking this documentary out..
I tell this because 5 Broken Cameras, while it is a heart-breaking and harrowing look at the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli army, left me with questions about it's veracity as a documentary.
Another problem I had with this movie was the discrepancy between being told that the Bil'in demonstrators are nonviolent and later seeing them throw rocks at an Israeli army truck.
Just another PLO/PA movie showing an anti-Israeli viewpoint while avoiding any criticism of the PLO/PA and its lack of any effort at even trying to get along with the Government of Israel and its Jews.
Luckily, he is an Israeli, because Arab film makers who show things like 5 Broken Cameras get killed.
It would have been better had the film shown what was happening in the area when all the cameras were broken.
It is hard not to notice that the creator of this movie decided not to simply document the state of his life, but to create a propaganda film for the Palestinian side regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This film captures how that is experienced by the rural villagers -- with no understanding of the urban view, or understanding of how to deal with it, except to see it as a violation that requires resistance.Rather besides the filmmaker's story is what it portends for later: he brings his three-year-old to the barrier demonstrations, which we have already seen to become dangerous; he frames perception of the police as life-threatening outsiders; he frames the whole narrative of his sons' lives in terms of what indignities Israel was perpetrating.
I'm pretty neutral on many political issues and like watching documentaries from different parts of the world. |
tt0067168 | A Gunfight | Will Tenneray and Abe Cross are two aging, famous gunfighters, both in need of money. Cross rides into town, having failed as a gold prospector. His reputation is such that everyone expects him to shoot it out with Tenneray, who capitalizes on his legend by working at the saloon to "sucker fools into buying drinks." To the town's surprise, Tenneray and Cross take a liking to one another. There is no hostility between them whatsoever.
Tenneray is desperate for money, however. He comes up with the idea to stage a duel to the death in a bullfight arena, with the ticket proceeds going to the winner. Unfortunately, by killing Cross, he reasons to Nora, his wife, "I could lose my best friend." The actual gunfight is shot in a low-key and unromanticised fashion, and is over in a couple of seconds, Cross killing Tenneray with the first bullet. (This defies conventions with the "man in black" winning.)
There is an extended fantasy sequence near the end, where we see what might have happened if Tenneray had won, which may have confused some viewers. It may be open to interpretation if this is Cross's fantasy or Tenneray's widow's fantasy. | violence | train | wikipedia | A Gunfight is directed by Lamont Johnson and written by Harold Jack Bloom.
It stars Kirk Douglas, Johnny Cash, Jane Alexander, Karen Black and Raf Vallone.
Will Tenneray (Douglas) and Abe Cross (Cash) are two ageing gunfighters who after meeting each other in town hit it of straight away and actually like and respect each other.
However, with both men in need of money and the whole town intrigued as to who would win in a gunfight between them, Tenneray hits upon the idea of the two of them having the gunfight and selling tickets to the event, with the winner receiving the ticket proceeds
It was the first mainstream American film to be financed by American Indians—the Jicarilla Apaches—but this in now way was a propaganda move since the narrative has nothing to do with Native Americans.
It's a most unusual Western in a lot of ways, off beat and deliberately played for fun at times, yet it pulses with dark thematics involving the human condition.
Director Johnson keeps the pacing smooth as we get to know both men and watch their relationship unfold.
Whoever that is doesn't really matter, the caustic insertion of a dream sequence at film's end leaves us in no doubt that the winner really hasn't won at all.
With great performances from Douglas and Alexander, and good ones from Cash and Black, film also holds up well on the acting front.
Peculiar character studio and spectacular gun battle between Douglas and Cash.
When an outcast gunfighter (a recently deceased Johnny Cash) with battered hat and black dressed goes to a Western small town called Rio Bajo , he meets an old time gunslinger named Tenneray (Kirk Douglas) stranded in the location along with his wife (Jane Alexander) and son (Eric Douglas) .
Meanwhile the drifter named Will falls in love with a Saloon girl (Karen Black) , the girl who could give the big guy a hard time .
The two gunmen get a friendship ; Tenneray says him that he earns in a month it that he spent in one day and which killed the famous gunfighter Ringo .
Before they paid to see a man murder a bull , nowadays they pay to see killing men .
They're got to face a gunfight once more to live up to their legend once more to win just once more time and more money .
They've nothing like'em together in a duel but in the heat and hate of the small town nothing can tear'em apart .
It's a serious , mature Hollywood Western with particular character studio about an aging gunslinger looking for peace and quiet , but also money and unable to avoid his reputation and the duel-challenges it invites against the baby-faced gun-fisted kid (Keith Carradine).
Wilke , Keith Carradine , Dana Elcar among them , consent to appear in what amount small roles , besides make their film debut Johnny Cash and Eric Douglas (Kirk's true son and recently deceased for drug abuse).
The lion's share of the acting meat deservedly goes to Johnny Cash in spite of his first film .
There is , in addition , Johnny Cash's catchy theme and equally an impressive roaring climax with an amazing final showdown .
Cashs performance alone merits a 'must see' rating for this movie.
Kirk Douglas is a natural pick for the role of a flashy, boastful, gunslinger who feels trapped by his retirement as saloon owner and family man in a small town.
Will Tenneray(Douglas) yearns for the glory of his past as a feared and known name amongst gunfighters of the West.
Abe Cross, his deeds and past are shrouded by a persona that shuns gossip and towns while Will Tennerays' exploits are well known and self-promoted.
When Cross rides into town and has a drink in Tennerays' saloon, the tension is immediate and keeps climbing as every townsman whisper their expectations each time the two meet.
The inevitable confrontation is a twist on the usual 'meet you at noon duel' that sets this Western apart..
I think one should watch A Gunfight after seeing Gregory Peck's classic film The Gunfighter.
It gives you definitely an alternative vision.Imagine Peck's character of Jim Ringo not being killed by back-shooting Skip Homeier, but actually settling down with his wife and son.
That's essentially what you've got in Kirk Douglas's character of Will Tenneray who finds retired life not what it's cracked up to be.The days of the wild west are over and Douglas now makes a living appearing at the local saloon and encouraging folks to spend there.
But it's one dull life even with wife Jane Alexander and young son Eric Douglas.Along comes Johnny Cash playing another gunfighter relic whose horse gets bit by a rattler.
Now he's stuck in this New Mexico border town and with two legends of the west in this place, the gossip commences.Cash is similarly bored by his existence and the two of them, both cash poor decide on a duel to the death with admission charged at a bullfight arena across the border in Mexico.
These guys must have felt like gladiators.A Gunfight is certainly an interesting spin on some of the western nostrums that prevailed in Hollywood.
Douglas and Cash are perfectly cast in the leads and get good support from the rest of the players.
Keith Carradine has a good role as a young punk who wants to take on the winner and Karen Black is fine as a saloon girl who Cash spends some time with.I also never expected to find Raf Vallone in a western.
But the Italian actor plays a Mexican store keeper who had been keeping discreet company with Alexander while Douglas was roaming the west.
But in the end did it really matter as the film brings you an interesting conclusion..
One of Cash's Best Film Performances.
As one of Cash's most ardent music fans, I have unfortunately almost always been disappointed with his performances on the silver screen.
Though Cash was not a disciplined actor he had his charisma, and the director, for all his faults recognized this and seemed less inclined to dictate him and just let The Man say his lines the way Cash himself would say them.
Though this film is not for everyone, those who appreciate westerns and those especially inclined towards the late, great Man In Black will appreciate it.
I have to confess to being a lifelong fan of Johnny Cash,although never convinced as to his acting skills.Still,he does convince here as Abe Cross and the whole story comes across well.
True,not that much action but some Westerns don't need it.
Kirk Douglas is great too and the questions raised about growing old,loneliness,love,money and how an "Outsider" faces up to it all,are explored well.
A strange western but a minor masterpiece,a B movie(I love 'em!)in some ways but one that stays with you.
The old shooting times are over, the gunfighters are just a live legend - perhaps only a curiosity - for borrachos and mean people.
In this complex, sober, highly undervalued movie, Douglas (the real one, not Michael) and Cash accomplish with their destiny, it does not matter who will be the winner, who will be the loser: both are doomed and they know it.
But they are not the worst in town: this role is left to the bloodthirsty people who do not even have the guts to run personally the risk but enjoy the killing.
I think I just enjoy this movie because of the actors.
But, if you're a fan of Douglas and Cash and would like to see a few other notables on screen, sit back and enjoy the flick with a few beers..
Kirk Douglas and Johnny Cash (that's right, as in "Walk the Line" Johnny Cash) play two retired gunmen who agree to duel to the death in front of a sold-out crowd for money.
The film is similar in concept to "The Quick and the Dead," and the viewer must wait until the climactic ending to see who lives and who dies.
But perhaps the main question is whether this is a western or a character study.
The movie is a bit slow and the ending is a bit abrupt, but seeing Johnny Cash as a gunslinger is well worth the watch..
An acceptable western movie starring two iconic American characters.
The line that separates this movie from the classic battered western movie is its peculiar choice of actors.
Starring Johnny Cash and Kirk Duglas, the plot is based on the expectation of the town folk for knowing who of the two is the best gunman, when Abe Cross arrives at the town where Will Tenneray is trying to set a quiet life for himself.
All in all, it's one of those acceptable movies, except in this case there are two iconic American characters..
The Western showdown is a duel, a matching of gunplay skills in which the faster, more professional gunman wins...
The logical extension of the show is without doubt a gladiatorial Roman circus combat between two fighters and such is the elemental structure of Lamont Johnson's film...Kirk Douglas is a retired gunman sick enough of his life, and Johnny Cash is a weary gunslinger who knows that even if he wins, he will eventually lose...
The auditorium chosen is a bullfight ring...Whether the two men are considered as gladiators or bullfighters, the film deplorably smashes the traditional conception of the showdown, twisting it from a clash between good and bad into a show of a very poor quality...The situation exposed is certainly ambiguous, implausible and anti-climactic against popular blood lust...The film captures the viewer with a double-ended showdown...
One with Douglas as the winner, and the other with Cash...Our feeling is that the strands of myth and honest re-creation which connect the American Western to the real American West are being cut by those whose roots are far removed from the actual frontier...
Spoiler Alert I think, there is no "double-end showdown" in the final sequence of this wonderful movie.
Tenneray (Douglas) is the less lovable character, he's the one who made a (pretty poor) living from his fame before, he's the one to come out with the idea to kill one another for money, and he's the one who actually dies in the end.
Not the greatest of revisionist westerns, but good enough.
I like westerns and I figured these would be good enough entertainment and wouldn't force me to use my brain after I get home from work.This was the first one of the movies I decided to watch, probably because I was intrigued by seeing Cash in a western.
I did notice that a clip from the movie made its way into Cash's video for "Hurt".I guess this was sort of typical for a movie from the revisionist era of westerns.
These are men who are past their need for quick adrenaline fixes.The film puts much focus on the blood thirst of the townsfolk, which is in its way also a comment on the audience.
The images of the bull being killed and afterwards slaughtered were a nice reminder of what the people were truly after.The ending isn't a real double ending.
The part in which Tenneray actually won the duel, was just a fantasy by Cross.
The idea was to show that even if it had ended differently, things wouldn't have been better for the Tenneray family.Also, any fan of the genre can appreciate the man in black actually winning the final duel.
It wasn't the mind-numbing stuff I was looking for, but it wasn't the great artistic movie experience I look for when I'm not totally tired by work either.
Hearing Johnny Cash's tremendous "American Series" albums for the first time last year with a friend,one of the main things which would coming up when we talked about the music,was wondering how Johnny Cash would be in a real Western movie.Feeling one day that I should take a look to see if Cash had actually done a Westen,I was pleasantly surprised to find,that not only had Cash starred in a Western,but he had actually starred in one alongside "Spartacus" himself!:Kirk Douglas.
The plot:Slowly heading to the near by town,out law Abe Cross has to make pace when his horses legs suddenly become injured.Taking the struggling horse to a near by vet,Abe tries to pass the time by introducing himself to the local residents.Being standoffish over a stranger having entered "their" town,the residents begin to let their guard down,when sheriff Will Tenneray appears and tells Cross that he will not allow any trouble to occur in this peaceful town.Initially showing a mutual respect towards each other,Will and Abe start to hear whispers around the town over people placing bets for who is the best gunslinger out of the two.Noticing the piles of cash that the betters are gathering,Will and Abe relies the they could get all the cash that they could ever dream of,if they take part in a winner takes all shoot out between each other.View on the film:Featuring in almost every scene of the film,Johnny Cash and Kirk Douglas make Will and Abe into a terrific double act,with Douglas's calculating,calm family man Will being a complete contrast to Cash's rugged,rumbling loner cowboy Abe.Despite the dialogue feeling slightly tied,and lacking the "livly" feel which the two lead actors bring to the movie,screenwriter Harold Jack Bloom cleverly uses the building up of the "main event" to show the worrying effect that hype can have on people.as Will and Abe are almost made obsolete,due to the residents being more focused on bloodsport and money than the personality's of the two individual's.Smartly turning the final shoot out into a blink and you'll miss it boxing KO style match,director Lamont Johnson wonderfully turns the films ending upside down,and leads it into a terrific fantasy area,which allows the movie to end on a mysterious note of "What if ?.".
If you like "spaghetti westerns" then this might not be for you ...................
"A Gunfight" seems very tame and watered down when compared to an above average "spaghetti western" like "The Big Gundown".
The problem is not the acting by Kirk Douglas and Johnny Cash.
The problem is the script telegraphs everything early on, and then it is simply a matter of waiting another hour for the inevitable gunfight.
A double outcome ending seems like nothing more than a cop out, to ensure a plain vanilla conclusion.
In summary, "A Gunfight" might be totally acceptable to fans of Johnny Cash and Kirk Douglas, but those fans of brutal Lee Van Cleef - Clint Eastwood westerns will most likely be disappointed.
Kirk Douglas and Johnny Cash fought- who won?.
Will Tenneray and Abe Cross, two aging gunmen decide to fight each other in a bullfight arena.
The winner gets the cash, the loser dies.
Lamont Johnson's western A Gunfight from 1971 takes death pretty lightly.
Of course western movies usually do, but I have a particular problem with this one.
Both of these men, Will and Abe are pretty likable guys, and they're both friendly to each other.
So why risk everything with a pointless gunfight, where you know you might lose your life?
And I didn't like the bullfight scenes in this movie.
But sure there are some good things in this movie, too.
The legendary, now 101 years old Kirk Douglas plays Will.
And then you have Johnny Cash (1932-2003) as Abe. The man could really act.
Kirk's late son Eric Douglas is here in his movie debut as the son Bud. Karen Black, who we lost about five years ago, gives an outstanding performance as Jenny Sims.
Keith Carradine plays Young Gunfighter.
The western view is great as always.
When you see the camera move with Johnny Cash in that western town, it's really something.
And I liked the what if- part in the end.
Abe wins the real battle, but in a slow motion moment with Abe and Nora looking at each other you see a glimpse of how things would have turned out, if Will had won.
Not the best western, but also not the worst..
Gunfight starred Kirk Douglas as Wil, Johnny Cash as Abe, and Karen Black as Jenny.SUMMARY: A Gunfight was the first mainstream American film to be produced by an Indian tribe -- specifically, the Jicarilla Apaches of New Mexico.
Kirk Douglas and Johnny Cash star as Will and Abe, two long-in...
Although Will and Abe are fast friends, they agree to a winner-take-all showdown, selling tickets to the momentous event.
The townspeople are certain that Will is going to win the shootout, but he knows that it would be a fatal mistake to underestimate Abe. Standing on the sidelines is Will's wife Nora (Jane Alexander), who seems curiously disinterested in the outcome, even though she may become a widow before the day is over.
The movie opens with Abe riding through the countryside singing when a rattlesnake bites his horse.
After fixing the horse Abe goes to the nearest town to get him fix.
When Abe enters the town, some of the people recognize him as Abe Cross the gunfighter.
Also leaving in the town is ex gunfighter Wil Tenneray with his wife and son.
Wil works at the local saloon to support his family.
While walking around town people start to wonder will Wil and Abe fight each other.QUESTIONS: How did Wil get his reputation?
What part did Jenny play in this movie?
MY THOUGHTS: This was another movie that had a great build up and only to have fall on its face.
This movie had no build up and it was boring right from the start.
Sure Kirk Douglas was good in his role as Wil. Johnny Cash was just as good in his role as Abe. Karen Black talents and pretty body was wasted in this movie.
She played the role as a bar house cleaner and her talents were missed used in this movie. |
tt0116345 | The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders | Moll is born in Newgate to a convict woman, who is transported immediately after giving birth. After being passed around, the child ends up with gypsies, from whom she runs away when about seven years old. She is taken in by the Mayor of Colchester and brought up in his household as "almost" one of the family. When they become young men both his sons are attracted to Moll and make advances to her. She succumbs to the eldest son, who promises her love and marriage and gives her money and presents, but then encourages her to marry his younger brother when the latter proposes to her. The parents are concerned but allow the marriage. After several years Moll's husband dies and she leaves Colchester and her children to seek a new and more exciting life in London. She mixes in society and finally marries a wealthy young man who has come into an inheritance. Intoxicated with each other and spending money for their enjoyment Moll and her new husband live a reckless and exorbitant lifestyle.
Her husband having disappeared after they have spent his fortune and the bailliffs arrive, Moll puts on her finery and goes in search of another wealthy husband. She attracts a young sea Captain from Virginia, who owns a ship and plantations and she too is attracted to him. They marry and Moll travels with him to Virginia. There she meets his mother, who, after some initial hostility to Moll gets on well with her. Several years later, and now with two children, Moll's contentment and happiness is destroyed when she discovers that her mother-in-law is actually her own transported mother and that she is married to her own half-brother. He and Moll separate and she returns to England. However, most of her possessions are lost during bad storms and she arrives with little income. Again, she spends her money on clothes and creating the impression that she is a wealthy lady and goes to Lancaster in search of a new husband - attracting one instantly.
Moll marries the love of her life, but after setting off on honeymoon soon discovers that neither of them has been telling the truth.
Alone and virtually penniless, Moll continues her life of crime. She meets fellow thief Lucy and they become partners in crime and best friends. After Lucy is caught and hanged, Moll's heart is not in her thieving and she is easily caught. | intrigue, satire | train | wikipedia | One of the best I've seen.
Alex Kingston IS Moll Flanders.
Please, forget the cotton-candy version that has Morgan Freeman in the cast (though, I _adore_ Stockard Channing).
This is the real thing!
We get to see the real, harsh struggles of Moll in this adaptation, and how out of the muck and grime Moll finds herself.
There is no happy ending here, you can bet that, but at least you get a real story that is more appropriate to the times.
That is worth much more to me than a smiling happy face, in the end.
This is a real, gritty film - not cheap.
Highly recommended..
Archetypal Bodice Ripper.
The novel is the archetypal bodice ripper but the Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders is far more than that.
It is a well constructed, well acted, well directed period drama of the type the British TV Industry does so well.Alex Kingston is exceptional in the title roll, her defection to the States from the UK is a real loss and the cast list is like a who's who of British TV.
Particularly good is Diana Rigg.All in all my words cannot really do it justice, if you get the opportunity to see it then please do.
It is really well worth it..
Fun and moving social commentary.
You may find yourself watching this entire 4-hour movie all in one sitting like I did.
Although it is a Mobil Masterpiece Theater presentation, it is also available on video.
If you think you're in for some boring English drama, brace yourself, as it is very fast-paced, erotic, and often shockingly funny.
Alex Kingston (now on "ER") delves into this role with a ferocity we rarely see on the screen.
Although Moll does many bad things, we root for her the whole way.
Diana Rigg is also a hoot as a mother-in-law that reveals herself to be something more.
Daniel Defoe's condemnation of society as unforgiving of the monsters it creates is still as relevant today as when it was written.
As long as you have an open mind about sex, nudity and immoral behavior onscreen, prepare to be fascinated..
Entertaining version based on title character from Daniel Defoe , setting in the 18th century , London town.
A fun romp set from Daniel Defoe's 1722 novel focusing a poor orphan girl who seeks wealthy life in England .
Born in London's Newgate prison , at the beginning she becomes a house servant , and after that , Moll embarks on her first marriage , but being soon widowed and then she decides to make her own way and fortune as well as misfortunes .
As Moll (Alex Kingstone) is a beautiful female chased around every bedchamber in London town .
Moll Flanders (female derivative of Tom Jones) plots to get ahead through an advantageous series of romances and marriages .
Moll ulteriorly marries various lovers , and briefly finds happiness in America until she to be aware by her actual mother (Diana Rigg) that married to a brother , committing incest .
But Moll's plans are ruined again when she falls in love for a mysterious aristocrat , who results to be a wanted highway man (Daniel Craig) .
As she falls for an impoverished stagecoach robber and she flees from him .
Her ulterior life as a whore and thief leads her to drink and near suicide , despite the unwavering friendship of another robber female , and subsequently , things get dreary , landing in prison and a likely candidate for the gallows .
However , the ever-enterprising Flanders always finds her way .
Not surprisingly , love , cash and marriages conquer all .
As at the end , Sir James and lady Molly Seagrave became very rich and well respected citizens , one of the foremost families in America , and quite forgot their former crimes...
and rightly so .
We cannot always be wringing our hands over the past .
In truth , we do what we must , get by any way we can .
We are all on the Wheel of Fortune .
TV Mini-series in four episodes well played , compellingly made and adequately setting .
A series much after the style of ¨Tom Jones¨ and ¨Fanny Hill¨ with bag of incident and color .
This period piece turns out to be the 4th on-screen adaptation of Daniel Defoe's 1722 novel , though it misses of the lip-smacking period relish spoiled with abundant sexual scenes , nudism and mediocre photography .
Being pretty faithfully to Defoe novel in telling the fortunes and misfortunes of this lively hustler who eventually finds herself working at the brothel of greed and with a scheming landlady .
This adaptation moves the setting of the novel forward a few decades .
In the novel, adding up the dates reveals that Moll first goes up to London in the late 1630s , and begins her career as a thief in the 1660s ; in this series, however, these events are associated with Moll attending two plays "The Country Wife" (1675) and "The Way of the World" (1700) ; as the costumes are appropriate to this later period .
Nice acting from Alex Kingstone as the wickedly seductive Moll , a spirited heroine who becomes a robber , a prostitute , marries several times and eventually winds up in prison .
Alex Kingstone holds everything together with help a talented supporting casting .
As the secondary cast is frankly good such as Christopher Fulford , James Fleet , Diana Rigg , Tom Ward , Roger Ashton-Griffiths , Ronald Frazer and Daniel Craig who years later would star in the James Bond films .
Other films based on the bawdy , rousing retelling from Daniel Defoe's novel are the followings : ¨ The amorous adventures of Moll Flanders¨ (1965) by Terence Young with Kim Novak , Richard Johnson , Lilli Palmer , Vittorio De Sica , George Sanders , Leo McKern ; and ¨Moll Flanders¨ (1996) by Pen Densham with Robin Wright Penn , Stockard Channing , Brenda Fricker , John Lynch and Morgan Freeman as a dignified servant .
Furthermore , TV rendition (1976) ¨Moll Flanders¨ with Julia Foster , Kenneth Haigh , Barry Jackson and Ian Ogilvy ..
smutty, funny, and well-performed.
The story of Moll Flanders, thief and whore, is brought to the screen in four episodes written by period drama specialist Andrew Davies and performed by the peerless Alex Kingston.When we first meet Moll, she lives in the house of the Mayor of Colchester, coquettishly flirting with his two sons.
By the time we leave her she's been through five husbands, found the story of her origins, and turned to stealing and prostitution.
But will she ultimately triumph?
This drama is fairly explicit - there's nudity and sex scenes galore.
But Kingston is terrific as Moll and there are many other pleasures - Daniel Craig, Diana Rigg.
Put the children in bed early and enjoy a fun nd well-done adaptation for the grown-ups..
great movie.
I've seen this 4-part film at once (230 min.) and surprisingly it wasn't tiring or boring at all.
On the contrary, the movie caught my attention readily, as it tells this story very well.
Alex Kingston is great in the part of this young woman who struggles to be a wealthy gentlelady, even if it requires surrendering her virtue in any way.
It's a wonderful movie and I strongly recommend it..
An outline of the story of Moll Flanders, an excellent film..
This is a delightful tale of an orphan born in Newgate prison where her mother was waiting to be hanged.
This film is NOT to be confused with the disappointing film, "Moll Flanders", also released in 1996.
Gypsies take the infant, Moll, to a small town where she is raised by a wealthy family with two sons.
One is her first love, but he passes her to his brother who marries her.
After he dies, she marries a businessman, who leaves her when his fortune is depleted.
Moll then marries a ship's captain, who takes her to his prosperous Virginia plantation.
She learns a shocking family secret so she returns to England alone to begin a new life.
She meets and marries again, but this time her true love, Jemmy, is not what he appears.
He has no fortune and makes a living as a highwayman.
They part and she marries again.
When the next husband dies, she is left a pauper.
In desperation she becomes a thief.
She is imprisoned in the place of her birth, awaiting the a sentence to be carried out.
Moll is a survivor.
Will she cheat the hangman?
I enjoyed this film very much because of its refreshing blend of drama and humor..
Local PBS Station Chopped it up!.
Years ago when this aired on Baton Rouge's WLPB PBS station it was HEAVILY edited!
Only after someone reminded me that it was being re-shown on WYES in New Orleans UNCUT I eagerly tuned in!
Totally changed the entire direction of the movie!
I don't think stations should be allowed to run cut movies.
Show it at a later time but don't hack up good movies, especially a classic just for someones Puritanical nonsense!
Have to say...even cut up as it was the first time I saw it, it was still a 10..
Entertaining but flawed.
Entertaining but flawed screen version of Dafoe's novel.
Kingston is excellent as Flanders and the rest of the cast does well also.
The claustrophobic sets and many close-in shots add to the personal (and earthy!) nature of the story.The only problem I have with the movie is the pacing (I didn't read the book, but most movies based on books seem to have this same problem).
Some sequences are given too much screen time and other elements are glossed over.
The "theme" is given more importance than the story, which is a shame because there are some really good things here..
I love this movie..
I love this movie, it's excellent.
I give it a 10.Alex Kingston is great.
Sexy and funny.
Her best performance..
Explicit Warning Needed.
Good story.
I am glad I didn't invite the kids to watch with me.
Should have been warned though.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same," is the thought I had after viewing the 18th century set drama.
Loved Diana Rigg..
Moll Flanders F***athon.
At least the host of PBS's MT admits that liberties were taken with the original work.
A potentially poignant film is - per usual- smeared with cinematic fecal matter so predictably painted like graffiti in a subway.
The larger picture of the societal ills particular to 17/18th century England is marred by pornography (almost to the point of comedy).
I think I've seen more of Alex Kingston's nips than my own in the last six months.
What should have been the Les Miserables of England is reduced to wanton balderdash, having negated the seriousness of the underlying theme.
Though beautifully filmed, the audience's intelligence is mocked by bottom feeder's fodder.
It seems the producer's M.O is H.L. Mencken's slight, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Fortunately, many may read the book to find out the real story - and actually learn something.
My copy is now on order..
Sweat Hog Officianados Gather Round.
This time old Hollywood got it right.
The Kim Novak Moll Flanders version played tongue-in-cheek with an attractive heroine and suggested content was entirely more appreciable.
It was a female Tom Jones and well done as such.
The rendering here starts off on the wrong foot with a repulsive sweat hog of a heroine not credible by any stretch as even attractive, much less alluring to gentlemen.
Just a fleshy bar maid sort.
Many a kitchen or parlor maid could be done up as well.
But we have this flared nostril milch cow being offered as a temptress.
Everything after that is a farce rendered in ribald distaste.
Totally gag version.
Pulp trash.
Avoid..
Delightfully Funny.
ITV's hilariously funny, very bawdy and occasionally moving adaptation of Daniel Defoe's tale about an ordinary woman trying all she can to make her mark upon the world in vice-ridden 18th century London, "'The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders" is a TV production not to be sniffed at.
Alex Kingston stars as the titular heroine, who plays the character with remarkable integrity and gusto, exactly how she is meant to be.
The production spares no details of Moll's dubious careers, and succeeds in angering and moving the audience to tears within minutes of each other.
Top class actors, accurate costumes and wonderful settings combined with a tight script results in an intoxicating concoction of televisual brilliance.
This adaptation made in 1996 is still as popular as ever, and the new Moll Flanders film is not a patch on this.
It is very faithful to the novel and yet still adds its own elements to the original story, adapting it for a more modern audience.
A masterpiece!.
The porn overshadows the art.
(note: not really spoilers, but this review contains basic information about the plot) It IS well directed & acted.
Dialogue is well written.
But the characters bring little sympathy as they are all flawed and selfish.
Everyone was so corrupted by lies and immorality that I couldn't relate personally and I tired of all Moll's bad decisions.
I come away feeling like no one was admirable in this.Sex scene after *explicit* sex scene makes it more like porn that art.
This movie would be NC-17 if it were rated.
There must be 15 sex scenes.
You can get the gist of the fact she's having sex with lots of people without showing us every single one, in detail.If you like period movies, there are many better ones.
Try North and South or Cranford by Gaskell, or there are many excellent Charles Dickens movies like Nicholas Nickleby and the newest Oliver Twist..
disturbing period drama of love and pain and hardship.
It was wonderful,If you are into "English period drama films" with all the gloomy,grey skied ambiance in the backround, this is the movie to watch,based on it's literary counterpart,a novel by Daniel Defoe It's about a woman, and she must live day by day through a struggle, and does many unethical, immoral things to survive, She ends up being sent to prison for her crimes and awaiting a hanging , only to be forgiven and sent to America, In this movie, you will see many "realistic" sexual scenes, and because many of the characters she has these scenes with are very "unattractive people" old men, the like.....It makes the movie quite "realistic" and "believable" for a drama piece,and you can nearly "feel her pain and anguish" If I must say so myself, Even though the movie does at times have a few "happy" moments, they are always the sad moments that follows, hence the "fortunes and misfortunes" of poor Moll Flanders.I cried a few tears for Moll, and the movie gives it a "twist of fate" ending.I liked this version of this film better than any other. |
tt0024100 | Hell Below | When the commander of the United States Navy submarine AL-14 is wounded on its last cruise, Lieutenant Thomas Knowlton (Robert Montgomery), the second in command, hopes to be promoted and take his place. However, Lieutenant Commander T. J. Toler (Walter Huston) shows up and takes over.
Toler orders his officers to attend a ball. The young men dread having to dance with the wives of admirals, but Knowlton and his close friend and shipmate, Lieutenant Ed "Brick" Walters (Robert Young), are pleasantly surprised to discover the beautiful Joan Standish (Madge Evans) among the attendees. When an enemy air raid forces everyone to take shelter, Knowlton takes Joan to his apartment. Though she insists on leaving, he can tell she is attracted to him. However, before anything can happen, Toler shows up to collect his daughter.
On its next patrol, the AL-14 comes upon a German minelayer and hits it with torpedoes. After the Germans abandon ship, Toler sends Brick and a few men to search the sinking vessel for code books. When enemy fighters attack, Toler fights them off, but the arrival of a bomber forces him to leave his detachment behind. Knowlton disobeys his order and remains on deck, manning a machine gun, until he is knocked unconscious and carried below.
Upon returning to port, Knowlton goes to see Joan at the hospital. There he encounters patient Flight Commander Herbert Standish (Edwin Styles), Joan's disabled husband. Knowlton departs, but Joan follows him and confesses she loves him.
Back at sea, Toler tries to get Knowlton to break off the affair, to no avail. Toler has been ordered to merely map where new minelayers, now escorted by destroyers, are planting their mines. However, when Knowlton spots Brick's boat through the periscope, he imagines he sees his friend still alive. He countermands Toler's orders and attacks. Though several enemy ships are sunk, the sole surviving destroyer forces the AL-14 to dive to the sea bottom, 65 feet (20 m) below its maximum safe depth. After a while, Toler decides to surface, preferring to die fighting rather than suffocate. However, a crucial pump will not work. When it appears that they are doomed, one crewman commits suicide. Fortunately, repairs are made and the submarine surfaces, to find the enemy has departed. Eight crewmen are "down" as a result of Knowlton's actions.
He is courtmartialed and discharged from the Navy in disgrace. He and Joan plan to run away together, much to Toler's disgust. When Knowlton goes to the hospital to inform Joan's husband, he learns that a successful operation makes it likely that the man will recover fully. Knowlton puts on an act for Joan and her father, pretending to be so callous that she is repulsed.
Toler is given an extremely hazardous mission. To block the only port in the Adriatic from which German submarines can operate, the AL-14 is loaded with explosives and sent to ram a fortification beside the narrowest point in the channel out of the port. The rubble would block the exit. Knowlton sneaks aboard and reveals his ruse to Toler, who lets him stay. Under cover of a battleship bombardment, the AL-14 surfaces and heads in. The rest of the crew abandon ship as planned, leaving only Toler and Knowlton. Toler orders Knowlton over the side, but he pushes Toler overboard instead and steers the ship to its target, sacrificing his life. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0077742 | Interiors | The film centers around the three children of Arthur (E. G. Marshall), a corporate attorney, and Eve (Geraldine Page), an interior decorator. Renata (Diane Keaton) is a poet whose husband Frederick, a struggling writer, feels eclipsed by her success. Flyn (Kristin Griffith) is a vain actress who is away most of the time filming; the low quality of her films is an object of ridicule behind her back. Joey (Mary Beth Hurt), who is in a relationship with Mike (Sam Waterston), cannot settle on a career, and resents her mother for favoring Renata, while Renata resents their father's concern over Joey's lack of direction.
One morning, Arthur unexpectedly announces that he wants a separation from his wife and would like to live alone. Eve, who is clinically depressed and mentally unstable, attempts suicide. The shock of these two events causes a rift between the sisters. Arthur returns from a trip to Greece with Pearl (Maureen Stapleton), a high-spirited and more "normal" woman, whom he intends to marry. His daughters are disturbed that Arthur would disregard Eve's suicide attempt and find another woman, whom Joey refers to as a "vulgarian".
Arthur and Pearl marry at Arthur and Eve's former summer home, with Renata, Joey and Flyn in attendance. Later in the evening, Joey lashes out at Pearl when Pearl accidentally breaks one of Eve's vases. In the middle of the night, Frederick drunkenly attempts to rape Flyn. Meanwhile, Joey finds Eve in the house, and somberly explains how much she has given up for her mother, and how disdainfully she is treated. Eve walks out onto the beach and into the surf. Joey attempts unsuccessfully to save Eve, but almost herself drowns in the attempt. She in turn is rescued by Mike and brought back to life by Pearl.
The film ends with the family silently attending Eve's funeral, each placing a single white rose, Eve's favourite flower and a symbol of hope to her, on Eve's wooden, perfectly polished coffin. | depressing | train | wikipedia | "Interiors" gets slammed as a forced, awkward, heavy-handed and cheapened imitation of Bergman (most noticeably "Cries and Whispers") and usually discussed in context of "Annie Hall" that preceded it and "Manhattan" that followed.Well, "Annie Hall" was funny as hell and I love "Manhattan" - it's directed with an authority that I don't think was matched in another Woody Allen film ("Crimes and Misdemeanors" had touches of such visual elegance).
Like the multi-character "Hannah and Her Sisters" or the parallelism of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" the stories, relationships and situations rise and build naturally."Interiors" is, essentially, the story of an upper-class family shattered, if not exposed and tested, by the divorce of the parents and the ensuing collapse of the mother.
It does so by not exposing its themes through "situations" (like Woody Allen finding out that he might be dying in "Hannah and her Sisters" and attempting suicide), but rather through realistic psychological observation of familial relations - particularly mother-daughter ones.Like many Bergman films, "Interiors" is psychological to the core, even though I don't recall a single shrink in the film.
"Interiors" is the American film version of early-20th century European theatrical drama - the problems of the well-off, upper-class families not being able to survive social, emotional and psychological instability that they themselves contributed to creating.
It is fair, I suppose, to say that Allen really has succeeded, but not in the remarkable ways he had succeeded so clearly in his earlier films, including his previous nugget, "Annie Hall," which is in my view his first true drama, but which has the benefit of also being funny.Or you can just sit back and take it in for what it does do so well, letting the interior lives of these people seem as shattered and pathetic as they really seem.
Its pace and "tastefulness" of the photography almost seems designed by one of the main characters, the troubled interior decorator mother played with uncanny effectiveness by Geraldine Page.Expect nothing in particular here except a tour-de-force that works on its own depressing terms..
It is very easy to see why people wouldn't like it with how bleak it is and how it's different from much of what Allen has done, but those are hardly reasons to dismiss Interiors because apart from the occasional rambling it is a great film.
Diane Keaton when it comes to Woody Allen films is better in Annie Hall and Manhattan but plays a purposefully shrill character with gusto.
Bergmanesque drama from writer-director Woody Allen, who does not appear or even feel present (Pauline Kael of the New Yorker claims his neuroses have been transposed to the mother-character, but I never felt like I was watching something created by Woody Allen).
It has been an easy observation &/or criticism of Interiors, Woody Allen's first break from acting and comedy as a filmmaker, is an homage of the bleak, spellbinding films of despair of Ingmar Bergman's films.
"Look," the boyfriend's mother remarks, "The shiksa's baked us a Presbyterian Pie!" Ladies and Gents, this is Woody Allen's Presbyterian Pie. In Interiors, we see (but only through his direction, for once) Allen on stilts attempting to reach the stature of a truly great director, Ingmar Bergman.
I would suggest that not only has this character lost her life-it seems to have been stolen from her in some mysterious way by her husband and daughters-but the character itself, down to mannerisms and hairstyle, is simply a late Bibi Andersson impersonation, and as such is enough to throw even the most avid student of films into a tailspin, since the character doesn't derive so much from the plot, such as it is, as from the director/writer's idea of what a Bergmanesque matriarch should look and sound like.
"Interiors" (1978) is the first Woody Allen's attempt to create a straight drama film after the series of hilarious comedies ("Bananas", "Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask", "Sleeper") and one of his most famous dramedies, "Annie Hall".
Arthur (E.G. Marshall), the husband of a Long Island interior designer Eve (Geraldine Page), demanding and imperious, and father of their three grown daughters (Diane Keaton, Marybeth Hurt and Kristin Griffith), informs his wife that he wanted a trial separation.
I respect Allen's homage to Bergman's work but I think he is much more interesting when he combines drama and comedy in his films.
It's pretty obvious that Woody Allen was so resistant in being confined as a comedy filmmaker that in the throes of his success with the wondrous "Annie Hall", he felt a need to make an über-serious drama in the Ingmar Bergman mode.
He has obviously since learned that his best films ("Manhattan", "Hannah and Her Sisters") are served most by his particular balance between comedy and drama.The story concerns an upscale New York family reacting to the news that patriarch Arthur wants to leave his psychologically unstable wife Eve just released from a sanitarium.
Youngest daughter Flyn is the beautiful, emotionally isolated one who moved to Hollywood to become a semi-successful actress.They all respond to their mother Eve's neediness in different ways, and the inevitable turning point comes when Arthur finalizes the divorce and remarries, this time to a passionate, fun-loving widow named Pearl.
Diane Keaton; E.G. Marshall; Sam Waterston; Richard Jordan and Kristin Griffith are equally great.When I get down on myself and question my intellect, thinking of my appreciation of 'Interiors', reminds me of my own potential and love of the cinema.
Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst.
Woody Allen's heavy- handed "drama" comes off like a satire of an Ingmar Bergman film.
He followed it up with Interiors, a dark, melodramatic film with virtually no comedy without Woody Allen in front of the camera.
For any person exploring Woody Allen's filmography right from the beginning, 'Interiors' when it appears, will always prove to be a very intriguing and peculiar film to confront and examine as it is so very different from anything that comes before it.
The existential Bergman-esque themes of silence of God, meaning of life are things that Allen has also always been interested in.In 'Interiors', as the name foreshadows, Allen stages 95% of the scenes in the confines of the rooms of the characters' homes.
The Bergman-esque technique found in films like 'Autumn Sonata' or 'Cries and Whispers' of allowing the suffocating confines of the interiors to gradually propel the repressed inner struggles of the involved characters to the surface inevitably leading to an emotional explosion is used by Allen in this film.
He manages to create a unique cinematic vibe by internalising the austerity of Bergman and blending them with his own sensibilities by creating characters that feel very much like the New York upper class intellectual individuals that many of his films have explored.
This is because in trying to juggle with the sensibilities of so many characters, the film in the end somewhat forgets, abandons and leaves by the wayside, some of the issues in the lives of these characters which were raised and given importance to previously in the narrative,leading to a sense of incompleteness due to lack of closure.The camera doesn't do anything extra-ordinary except for one or two extended sideways tracking shots because Allen deliberately allows the scenes and the dialogue to flow.
I think what Woody Allen was doing, as was the case in Manhattan, was giving us a glimpse into that sort of liberal elitist upper crest society, where these characters in particular are pseudo-intellectuals and wannabe artists, who create their own problems that really don't mean anything.This would explain the introduction of Pearl, the fathers new fiancé.
On top of that, she was a successful interior designer, and her 3 daughters are all "artsy" intellectuals...and you can see why a character like the father is just overwhelmed with them all, and falls in love with a very grounded, relatively simple woman, Pearl.I think it was Woodys purpose to make you feel burdened or overwhelmed by the characters, the mother...hell, almost feel completely alienated, only to suddenly find yourself relating to Pearl when she arrives.Another scene that kind of highlights the pretentiousness of the characters, one of the girls husbands is speaking into a tape recorder about marxism and communism, hinting that he is a supporter of such ideology.
We have Joel Schumacher as the costume designer (before his years as director) and something that amounts to a Bergmanesque family drama, though without the full Scandinavian despair.Vincent Canby wrote, "My problem with Interiors is that although I admire the performances and isolated moments, as well as the techniques and the sheer, headlong courage of this great, comic, film-making philosopher, I haven't any real idea what the film is up to." The criticism aside, Canby calls Allen out for being heavy on the philosophy references, with the dense writing of Allen that he is known for and makes his films his own.
Interiors is Woody Allen's first straight drama, and while most compare the film to Ingmar Bergman (one of Allen's favorite directors), the film's examination of a dysfunctional family struggling for normalcy is a forerunner to such '80s films as Ordinary People and Shoot the Moon, and acclaimed '90s films The Ice Storm, Happiness and American Beauty.
The film focuses on three sisters (not the first time Woody Allen would do this), and their reaction to their parents' sudden divorce and then their father's affair with a less glamorous, but very REAL, woman.Maureen Stapleton plays the new woman and has what I feel is the most heartbreaking scene in the movie.
The movie is mostly memorable as Woody's first serious foray into drama, and two amazing performances by the best there is or ever was - Geraldine Page and Maureen Stapleton.
Able to bring focus to the lives of each character in his film, Woody Allen brings himself even closer to my heart than I ever thought possible.Renata (Diane Keaton), Joey (Mary Beth Hurt), and Flyn (Kristin Griffith) are three sisters in a dysfunctional family trying to navigate through the troubles of their own lives while also attempting to keep the peace in their parents' lives, as well.
Dramatic possibilities are missed by not having Ms. Page and Ms. Stapleton share some explosive, confrontational screen time.******* Interiors (1978) Woody Allen ~ Geraldine Page, Diane Keaton, Maureen Stapleton.
In a huge departure for Allen at the time, who had gone from slapstick to urban comedy, he makes an Ingmar Bergman film, and a fairly good one at that.The acting is first-rate, especially Paige.
GERALDINE PAGE is the mother and she's magnificent as the troubled, perfectionist mother--but whether you connect with the story will depend on acceptance of this sort of grim material from Woody Allen, of all people.The film is well titled "Interiors" because much of the script gives internal monologues to various characters, most particularly DIANE KEATON as a writer with conflicted feelings about her mother and her illness and a disintegrating marriage to RICHARD JORDAN.
Diane Keaton and Kristin Griffith are remarkable in their understated roles as two sisters struggling for affection and success.'Interiors' is Allen's quietest film and it very psychological in nature.
"You only live once, and once is enough if you play your cards right" (Pearl / Maureen Stapleton)Interiors was Woody Allen's first drama.
Woody Allen offered the role to Ingrid but she had to decline it because she was already committed to shoot Höstsonaten (Autumn Sonata) with Ingmar Bergman.There is no music in the film (with the exception of the two pieces played in the scene where everybody but Joey and Renata are dancing and the tacky Pearl breaks the vase).The best: Geraldine Page and Maureen Stapleton.The worst: Renata's weird and "fake" motherhood.
The high points are Gordon Willis's beautiful cinematography that gives the film the roots of its inherent emotion, and the cast is riveting and very much in tune, especially the haunting Geraldine Page, fascinating Diane Keaton whose presence never fails, the very convincingly unaware performance of Maureen Stapleton, Mary Beth Hurt who plays her character's angrily repressed realist with a tremendous personal correspondence that sparks her performance, and the becomingly frustrating Richard Jordan.However, the film is a mystery in an unfulfilling way.
Best character studies in any Woody Allen film.
Describing our Insides Out. Woody Allen succeeds in his imitation of an Ingmar Bergman film with "Interiors."Imagine poor E.G. Marshall.
Diane Keaton is also good, as Renate, and Mary Beth Hurt, who I loved in this movie (I did not like her in "The World According to Garp"; too predictable) she is so much better when given real roles.Maureen Stapleton portrays the new wife, as E.G. Marshall says:..." I'm 69 years old....for God sakes I want to have some fun"...
Interiors is definitely not a funny film, but Allen still manages to make it work courtesy of some good writing and a ensemble of great actors which give life to the characters in his bergmanesque view of a family torn apart by the parents' divorce.
This has the hardest effect on the mother, who is still in love with the father and is afraid of being left alone, but also feeling the strain are the couple's three grown up daughters.The acting is great, and Allen's stalwart muse Diane Keaton stands out the most among them.
Some claim that "Interiors" is sensational proof that Woody Allen is as comfortable directing stark drama as he is intellectual comedies; others say it's nothing more than a cheap imitation of Ingmar Bergman, a film class exercise.
She doesn't have a very large role, so her part of the story isn't a huge detriment to the film, but it could have been handled much better.Overall though, "Interiors" is a very good movie and deserves to be seen not simply as an homage to Bergman, or as a noble effort from a beloved director, but on its own merits as a powerful family drama.Grade: A-.
The three sisters clash and their father returns from Greece with new girlfriend Pearl (Maureen Stapleton).Woody Allen is doing Ingmar Bergman in an artistic family drama.
After the wonderful comedic work of Annie Hall, his Interiors is a delicately observed exploration of a trio of sisters who are impacted deeply by their mother.It's true that he takes a lot of inspiration from Ingmar Bergman in his style here, but it also has that unique touch that only Woody can give a film.
Allen made some very interesting choices in casting the film, combining regulars of his such as Diane Keaton with newcomers like Mary Beth Hurt and heavy dramatic hitters like E.G. Marshall and Geraldine Page, but the end result is a fluid and fully realized portrait of this family.
Interiors is surely one of Woody Allen's best films and such a strong departure for him as a filmmaker.
It's not easy to compare Interiors to other Woody Allen films because it has so little in common with them, especially with his early work (other than Diane Keaton, obviously); which is why a lot of people refer to it as a 'bridge' between Annie Hall and Manhattan.
Even when the script turns needlessly brainy in a way that makes the dialog feel unrealistic, every scene is shot beautifully - more beautifully than any Allen film before, and in that way the bridge to Manhattan is important - and the acting is so fantastic that the dialog somehow works, most of all Geraldine Page in one of the last and best performances in her career.Interiors is essential to Allen fans, and not just for biographical context, though they may be disappointed by not finding any of his trademarks.
The standouts are Diane Keaton as the eldest, a successful poet who can't find the meaning and purpose in her own work, Geraldine Page as the mother who keeps up a positive and hopeful facade but truly lacks almost any kind of hope, and Maureen Stapleton as a lively, energetic and honest type who invades the family by way of the father and tries to fit in but can't seem to do so.I have already praised the film for being brilliant, but I feel its brilliance lies in Allen's ability not only to reinvent himself as a writer and director but also to tackle material that has been covered so many times before and still put a fresh spin on it.
I'm not sure if I would call "Interiors" the finest film of Woody Allen's career.
Eve becomes unstable and suicidal, and the couple's three grown daughters-Renata (Diane Keaton), Joey (Marybeth Hurt), and Flynn (Kristin Griffith)-must deal with this radical life change in their own ways.Interiors, like Woody Allen's subsequent (and extraordinary) dramas, is not a plot driven film.
"Interiors" is a truly remarkable film, that is one of Woody Allen's best..
Woody Allen assembled one of the most brilliant casts ever for his first serious film, "Interiors," made in 1978.
This was GREAT acting.The story concerns basically two young women, Renata (Diane Keaton) and Joey (Mary Beth Hurt), who must cope with the separation and ultimate divorce of their parents Arthur and Eve (Geraldine Page and E.G. Marshall), their mother's emotional and mental instability, and their father's remarriage to a very different woman (Maureen Stapleton).
In his dramatic directorial debut, Woody Allen comes away quite nicely with this story of three sisters (Diane Keaton, Mary Beth Hurt and Kristen Griffith) whose lives take very different turns, due largely in part to the separation of their parents (E.G. Marshall and Geraldine Page) and their mother's subsequent dependency on them, esp. |
tt0063483 | Rachel, Rachel | Rachel Cameron (Joanne Woodward) is a shy, 35-year-old spinster schoolteacher living with her widowed mother in an apartment above the funeral home once owned by her father in a small town in Connecticut. School is out for summer vacation and Rachel figures it will just be another lonely and boring summer for her. (It's implied that she may even hate summer as her job provided somewhat of an escape from her domineering mother who's always trying to compare her to her sister who married a successful man). Fellow unmarried teacher and best friend Calla Mackie (Estelle Parsons) persuades her to attend a revival meeting, where a visiting preacher encourages Rachel to express her need for the love of Jesus Christ. Rachel is overwhelmed by God's grace, baring so much pent-up emotion, that she is humbled after the service; comforting her, Calla suddenly begins to kiss Rachel passionately. Is Calla a lesbian, bisexual, or did she merely react to the emotion of the moment? The film does not answer this question, but Rachel's reaction is to withdraw from the friendship for the time being.
Into the void steps Rachel's high-school classmate Nick Kazlik (James Olson), a fellow teacher who teaches at an inner city school in The Bronx who's in town to visit his parents for a couple weeks. Upon first seeing her in town, Nick had made a crude pass that Rachel rebuffed, but after the episode with Calla, she succumbs to his charms and has her first sexual experience. Mistaking lust for love, she begins to plan a future with Nick, who rejects her once he realizes she views their relationship as more than a casual and temporary affair. He rejects her softly by using a fake photo of a woman and a young child claiming that they are his wife and son back in New York. She later discovers through his mother that he isn't really married.
Believing that she is pregnant, Rachel plans to leave town and raise the child. With Calla's assistance, she finds another teaching job in Oregon, but before the summer ends, she learns that her symptoms actually are due to a benign cyst. She is bitterly disappointed. After undergoing surgery to have the cyst removed, she tells her mother, in the hospital, that she has decided to relocate, and that her mother may accompany her or not, as she wishes. Her mother quickly agrees to go, in a way that suggests she realizes her dependence on Rachel and perhaps even will take her less for granted from now on. Rachel sets out with hope for the future, having learned that she has choices, that she is able to give and receive sexual pleasure, that it is possible for her to take on life actively, rather than wait for it to find her.
The film is punctuated by brief flashbacks to Rachel's lonely childhood with a forbidding undertaker father and rather neglectful mother. Brief daydreaming sequences of the adult Rachel also appear, including those showing her imagining seizing a stolen moment with the school's possibly sexual-harassing principal; taking an underloved boy in her classroom home with her; and rocking the expected baby in a park while children play nearby. | tragedy, psychedelic, flashback | train | wikipedia | Newman's Own. Both the camera and the man behind it were obviously in love with the actress on screen, and, that actress, Joanne Woodward, was arguably never better than she was in "Rachel, Rachel," husband-Paul-Newman's first directing effort.
Trapped in a small apartment above a funeral parlor with her whining possessive mother, Rachel is a schoolteacher with daydreams of having a life and children of her own.Rachel's emotions are written on Woodward's face in a way few actresses have ever conveyed feeling.
Although Kate Harrington, James Olson, and Estelle Parsons provide able support, the film is Woodward's showcase, and Newman's sturdy direction does not detract from his star.
The shifts between Rachel's present and her memories and dreams are seamless, clear, and illuminating rather than distracting.The film requires patience, but that does not imply boring, but rather leisurely paced, much like life in a small town that lies off the main roads.
In a variation on her "Long Hot Summer" role, Woodward plays a sexually repressed schoolteacher in a small New England town who realizes that life is passing her by
She is thirty-five, a virgin, and dominated by her mother
During the summer, she has an affair with an old schoolmate
It proves disappointing, but she now knows that she can be loving, and determines to leave town and do something about her lifea move that seems only tentatively hopeful
Woodward gives her finest performance as the confused, frequently beaten but ultimately indestructible woman
She has an extraordinary ability to look natural or simple and still reveal an inner radiance
There are many touching moments: her timidness at the religious meeting; her awkward experiences with men; her late-night discussion with a likable male friend; and, most unforgettable, her face causing change from joyous expectancy to merely suppressed hysteria to a painful outburst of tears when she discovers that, contrary to her hopes, she is not pregnant...
Newman shows a natural cinematic sense in his perceptive depictions of small town life, the frenzied activity of a revival meeting and the anxieties of a first sexual experience; and in his clever, rarely impressive juxtaposition of Rachel's present with her fantasies and childhood memories
He gets excellent performances from Estelle Parsons as another lonely teacher and James Olson as the cynical big-city man who lets Rachel down
Both Newman and Woodward won Golden Globe Awards
Woodward won the coveted New York Film Critics' Award, and was nominated for an Oscar.
Not exactly an atmosphere to encourage romance of any kind.After a night on the town with James Olson who quite frankly was just looking to make an easy score on a sex starved spinster, Woodward has to make a few life altering decisions.Rachel Rachel got 3 other Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress for Joanne Woodward and Best Supporting Actress for Estelle Parsons.
She definitely should have gotten some Academy recognition.Rachel Rachel is a fine character study and a great vehicle for Joanne Woodward.
Based on the novel "A Jest of God" by Canadian novelist Margaret Laurence, "Rachel, Rachel" is the story of Rachel Cameron (beautifully played by Joanne Woodward), a middle-aged schoolteacher who tries to come out of her shell before it's too late.
Rachel's friend is Calla Mackie (Estelle Parsons), an equally lonely, repressed fellow teacher who has some issues in her life as well.
As Rachel mentioned at the beginning of the film, she's middle-aged, she's lived half of her life, what can she do now?This was Paul Newman's debut as director.
Including Estelle Parsons, Kate Harrington and James Olson, Donald Moffat as Rachel's very scary father and two very charismatic performances by Geraldine Fitzgerald as the local reverend and Terry Kiser as a traveling faith healer.Although it received four Oscar nominations, "Rachel, Rachel" seems to have fallen off the radar screen.
At each of those times the movie reflected stages of transition in my own life, and that is what makes it so riveting, scarily so, even today almost 40 years after I first saw it.This movie, like Midnight Cowboy and others, effectively demonstrates how small-town repression and childhood experiences invariably seep into our adult lives and influence them in ways not always recognizable or to our benefit.
Here is a repressed girl in a repressive small town (often New England is a symbol of suffocating, inbred, isolated, deep-level collective cultural phantoms.) doing her best to essentially stay that way, despite the well-intentioned but misdirected efforts of Calla (did Estelle Parsons play the cantankerous sister in "I Never Sang for my Father"?).
The flashbacks to childhood, especially the dying boy and her own experience in the basket in the mortuary prep room, are chillingly effective in conveying the grip her youth's experiences still have on her.As for the picture the man shows Woodward, I thought it was his dead twin brother, or it could have been his son.
And that may bring Rachel dangerously close to the hold that her childhood could still have on her.Finally, Rachel's decision to go to Oregon (a symbol of liberation from past miasmas, a "coming into one's own light a la the free-standing Kouros, a Jungian "individuation") makes this film very satisfying to watch.
In pretty much every movie where I've seen Joanne Woodward, she does a great role, and "Rachel, Rachel" (directed by her husband Paul Newman) is no exception.
Woodward plays Rachel Cameron, a schoolteacher in a conservative, repressive small town.
But things just might change when childhood friend Nick (James Olson) returns to town after spending many years in the big city.By barely moving her face, Woodward conveys many emotions in this movie: anguish, cynicism, hope, and more.
Paul Newman directed his wife Joanne Woodward in this adaptation of Margaret Laurence's book "A Jest of God", and does a pretty good job envisioning the plight of a small town spinster schoolteacher who is aching to break free from a life with no prospects.
Newman's inherent good taste (the pastoral town, the neighborly feel) works against the need to show this woman's personal suffocation, and though we can see that romance might bring her happiness, the film is unsatisfactory in tying up this loose end in Rachel's life.
However, Woodward pulls out all the stops in conveying a repressed woman, on the road to a grim spinsterhood, in the tradition of Olivia DeHavilland's "The Heiress."Paul Newman is great in his directing debut.Estelle Parsons, having won the supporting actress award the year before for "Bonnie and Clyde," was nominated again in this category as another frustrated teacher.
This film clearly shows the strong and loving relationship between Joanne Woodward and the film's director and her husband, Paul Newman.
With this being Paul Newman's directorial debut, and starring Joanne Woodward, you would think it would be better known than it is.
Joanne Woodward effectively plays a bored and boring middle-aged school teacher who still lives with her mother at a funeral home in Connecticut.
A guy from her childhood comes to town from the big city (James Olson) and her appetite for change comes to the fore.This potent drama was Paul Newman's first stab at directing and it's the best cinematic depiction of the inward struggle of flesh and spirit -- id and superego -- I've ever seen.
Various outside factors encourage this lifeless state: Disturbing childhood memories of living in a funeral home, a mother who essentially views Rachel as her personal servant and a genuine friend who's love is starting to become unhealthy (Estelle Parsons).The film features a mind-blowing pentecostal church sequence that lasts 10-12 minutes.
Nevertheless, the film deserves credit for having the gonads to show real life and refusing to be politically correct -- an amazing drama.In case you didn't know, Newman and Woodward were husband & wife for 50 years, up to his death in 2008.The film runs 101 minutes and was shot in Connecticut.GRADE: A-.
He directed, she starred in this character study of a 35 year old second grade school teacher (Woodward) who realizes at the beginning of the summer season that she's middle aged and, in her words, it's all downhill into the grave from here.We've seen this kind of character study before, most notably in David Lean's splendid "Summertime" with Katherine Hepburn.
The problem is that she's such a pleasant and pretty woman that it's difficult to understand why she's so lonely or has allowed herself to withdraw so completely.As for the rest of the small cast, Estelle Parsons plays her only friend and fellow school teacher who might be hiding more than she's letting on.
...covered me like a gloved hand"...; Sylvia Plath wrote this in the "Bell Jar" and it aptly portrays Paul Newman's brilliant direction of Joanne Woodward, living out her life in the idyllic American suburbs.What is addressed is quiet desperation, the rage and powerlessness Rachel feels over her own life.
A good deal of credit must, undoubtedly, go to Paul Newman, director, who as a marvelous actor, knows how to give marvelous performances and how to use the camera to highlight those performances.The problem is that, given those marvelous performances, the story consists of a couple of days in which Miss Woodward's character recognizes that her life stinks.
Perhaps you'll feel different about .it...I just didn't care very much for the movie.This movie is unusual because Joanne Woodward's husband, Paul Newman, directed the film--and it was his first directorial job.
Rachel, Rachel (1968)*** 1/2 (out of 4) Mature, adult drama has Joanne Woodward playing Rachel, a 35-year-old school teacher living with her mother in a small town.
That fifth slot went to "Rachel, Rachel," in which Paul Newman directed his wife, Joanne Woodward, to a Best Actress nomination."Rachel, Rachel" certainly did not deserve a place at the Oscar podium above those titles just mentioned that weren't even nominated, but it does have much to recommend it, and the themes it's about speak more to a modern-day audience than those of many of its contemporaries, because they're both universal and timeless.
The movie is melancholy and sad, but it's also hopeful in its conclusion that it's never too late to at least make a grab for, if not happiness, then at least contentment.In addition to its nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress, the film also received nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Estelle Parsons, as Rachel's closet lesbian friend), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Stewart Stern).
The film is based on Margaret Laurence's novel A JEST OF GOD, it is all about Rachel (Woodward), an unassuming spinster in her 30s, living with her dependent widowed mother May (Harrington) in a rural town in Connecticut.
Remarkably, the film takes a rather unbiased prospect towards all its characters, not just Rachel, even May, Nick and Calla, each has their defects but Newman injects humane realism into their behaviour and mind patterns, never let the drama stand in the way of characterisation, we might not agree with them, but we cannot blame them either.
This is one of those so called ground breaking 60's dramas which uses the familiar device of a hopeless, frustrated spinster, (such as Jane Wyman would have played 10 or 15 years earlier, think "Miracle in the Rain") in an attempt to propagandize the audience into thinking the solution to her dilemma is sexual liberation.Thus we have plain jane school-teacher Woodward finding carnal knowledge with a former classmate who's on a brief return visit to her home town.Woodward sees sky rockets, marriage and children, and of course suffers the inevitable disillusionment of desertion.Exceedingly well acted by all concerned, with many precise observations of small town life, (including a brilliant evocation of an old ladies bridge club) , the film uses these strengths to cloak, (make respectable?) distasteful scenes of Woodward's ruination in the hay, along with a highly improbable Lesbianic interlude with Estelle Parsons.How interesting it would have been to have seen this theme treated the way Francois Mauriac would have realized it--and yet nowhere is the moral, much less, supernatural dimension even fleetingly evoked much less alluded to.Indeed the films' only reference to religion is a depiction of a revival meeting featuring a wild eyed snake handler.And so, in the end, (like so many other late sixties pretensions), all that we are left with here is mere, dreary, sociological naturalism, a melo but with the same basic ends as a Norman Lear comedy (all you squares need to unshackle all of your old wives tale repressions)--and not the lyrical star dust of Tennesse Williams who explored the same themes in "Summer and Smoke".Not the sort of role Loretta Young would have played!.
My own favorite story of a lonely woman is SUMMERTIME with Katharine Hepburn which had a lot more flavor as well as a genuinely entertaining and moving story.However, RACHEL, RACHEL drags along at an interminably slow pace with many close-ups of star Joanne Woodward as she reflects on the emptiness of her dull, spinisterish life in a small town.
Most of the scenes are played too long to hold viewer interest.As a result, I found it tedious and somewhat boring at times because nothing of real interest seemed to happen, except in a few flashbacks showing the effect her disturbing childhood had on her upbringing.The acting is competent but I never found the story involving enough to care about the fate of the main character or the few supporting characters for that matter.
This is Paul Newman's directorial debut starring his wife Joanne Woodward.
This character study of New England spinster schoolteacher "Rachel Cameron" played by Joanne Woodward was husband Paul Newman's directorial debut.
Presently, "Rachel" lives with catty, demanding mother Kate Harrington and is fairly close to co-teacher Estelle Parsons (as Calla Mackie), who attends Christian revival meetings.
Newman and Woodward won a "triple crown" of top awards for the drama, being cited by "The New York Film Critics", "Film Daily", and the "Golden Globes" as the "Best Director" and "Best Actress" of the year.******* Rachel, Rachel (8/26/68) Paul Newman ~ Joanne Woodward, James Olson, Kate Harrington, Estelle Parsons.
Newman directed his wife Joanne Woodward in the title role, and he repeatedly praised her acting, saying at times it was difficult to watch because it was so real.
exploration of feelings nuances , force of an actress, a gray story, a splendid acting.salted flavor of a life who begins later and one of the greatest role of Joanne Woodward, the precise work of Paul Newman and something else, who seduce and fascinate the viewer.a story of balance between past and present, dream and reality, fear and need to be yourself.its secret - the precision of performance for discover, step by step, the character, the possibility to discover slices from yours existences and the measure of each scene.
While Obsessing with Death and Contemplating a Worthless Life, She Discovers Sex and a Possible, Positive Change in Her Completely Unsatisfying Life.Joanne Woodward Gives a Powerful Performance and the Movie is Directed with Restraint by Paul Newman.
The film allows us into her inner thought processes, and we realize that she has suicidal fantasies that she herself characterizes as "morbid." She feels that she is at the exact middle of her life, and that this is her last "ascending summer." During the course of the film, we see that a revival meeting at a church cannot get Rachel "reborn," and are happy when the lonely woman enters into her first sexual relationship, with an old acquaintance visiting from out of town.
Newman's direction is sensitive and assured, especially for a beginner, and the supporting players (most particularly James Olson as Nick, the new man in Rachel's life, and Oscar-nominated Estelle Parsons as Rachel's lesbian gal pal, Calla) are all very fine.
When one has not really lived, life is actually a sort of slow death.That is a pretty morbid thought, but it is the painful conclusion that Rachel (Joanne Woodward) comes to in the beginning of this film; her life isn't really a life, but a slow, lonely march to the grave.
In the end, for the first time in her life, she makes a decision for herself, and sets about to potentially change the course of her life -- to make that journey toward the grave a little more meaningful.Joanne Woodward is perfect in this film; there are no missteps in her work, and she is able to convey so much without ever overdoing it.
A film that draws its greatest power from its most subtle, fragile moments, "Rachel, Rachel" is a sweet coming-of-age drama where the subject is a woman neither in her teens or early twenties, but of an age where she has begun giving up on anything special ever happening to her.Joanne Woodward embodies the title role with disarming ease, a frumpy small-town teacher who lives with her mother above a funeral parlor.
"How polite and well brought-up you are," he tells Rachel in one of many uncomfortable moments Olson delivers well.Terry Kiser, best known today as the title walking-dead guy from the "Weekend At Bernie's" series, shines as a charismatic preacher, while Donald Moffat plays Rachel's father in a series of enigmatic, effective flashbacks with Woodward and Newman's real-life daughter Nell Potts as Rachel.
It's a real family affair; Newman himself can be heard if not seen as a character in a scary movie Rachel and Nick go see.On the whole, this is a solid and worthwhile film, very much a product of its times yet ahead of them, too.
Director Newman reveals a wonderful sensitivity matched by his eye for pictorial images, the small New England town is captured to perfection yet is light years away from Peyton Place and the theme of time passing is conveyed subtly in scenes of pastoral/agricultural life following the seasons.
But when you've got Paul Newman as director, and his real-life wife Joanne Woodward playing a small town New England school teacher who is facing her problems of loneliness, that's made for the big screen, and "Rachel, Rachel" was one of 1968's most anticipated dramas. |
tt2056659 | My Super Psycho Sweet 16: Part 3 | Two years after the events of the previous film, Skye Rotter (Lauren McKnight) is moving out of her boyfriend, Brigg (Chris Zylka), and his family's house to New York City for college with her new friend, the free spirited Sienna, (Jillian Rose Reed), whom she met on Craigslist. As she is on the road, Skye receives a call from her estranged sister, Alex Bell (Kirsten Prout), who Skye has not spoken to in the past two years. Alex is surprised that Skye wasn't going to tell her that she was leaving. She begs Skye to come see her at her grandparent's country house to say goodbye before she leaves. Initially, Skye refuses, but is convinced by Sienna to tie up all loose ends before moving on with her life. Upon arriving back in Mill Basin, Skye and Sienna are greeted by Nathan (Ryan Sypek), a 22-year-old man who shows them the way to Alex's after getting lost. At Alex's grandparents house (Bell Manor), Nathan is asked to immediately leave the estate by two of Alex's guests: Leo, Alex's love interest, and Nico, who is ready to have fun no matter what. Skye goes inside to find Alex. Alex reveals that today is actually her "Sweet 16."
Stunned and confused at Alex's actions, Skye almost leaves the party but decides to stay for a while longer when Alex becomes worried when she hears Nathan came along with them and unknowingly reveals her location to him. She then meets Ami, Alex's friend who tells Skye to lose the drama. Alex tells Skye in private that she wanted her over because it is a special day for her, and Skye is the only one who could ever understand what it is like to live with the stigma from being Charlie Rotter's daughter.
Brynn, a spoiled girl and Nico's girlfriend walks in on the two and is annoyed. As day turns into night, Alex tells Skye of how she met Nathan at Zoe's funeral. He later became obsessed with her, and is willing to do anything for her love and admiration. Nico, Leo, Ami and Brynn tell their perspective of Nathan as "South Basin trash". Sienna comes in to tell Skye that Nathan must have ditched the place. After trying to talk to Skye, she is forced to wait outside on the top of her car so that Alex can get more bonding time with Skye before they leave. Brynn is outside in the back trying to make a call.
When Nathan startles her, Brynn tells him that Alex will never love a freak like him. An angered Nathan chases her down with a knife before striking a lamp post to her skull, apparently killing her. Nathan tosses her body in the pool. At this time, Nico looks around one of the rooms in the house. Nathan threatens Nico with the use of speakers installed in the room and has the doors electronically locked on him. Nico shoots the door with a shotgun causing everyone to worry. He unlocks the door only to find a bloody piece of clothing of Brynn's and shows it to the others. Brynn, who crawled out of the pool with her brain severely damaged, walks around the house aimlessly till she crashes on a pool table, throws up blood on Ami, then dies from her wound.
Everyone goes inside the room only to have all the doors and windows locked by Nathan, who has complete control over the house as he watches them from one of many cameras installed in the house. A door near Ami opens and she runs for escape but before Skye and the others could get out, the door locks behind Ami. As she calls the cops, the police think she is making a prank call. She trips and her phone falls underneath a table.
While trying to reach it someone claiming to be the police knock on the front door. When she opens the door, the "cop" is revealed to be Nathan, who shoots her with a nail gun. In shock she runs off but is locked out of the living room where Skye, Alex, Nico and Leo are. Nathan then continues to shoot her with nails, pinning her against the door.
Meanwhile, Leo has unlocked another door upstairs. Alex and him run off for escape, leaving Skye and Nico to hunt them down. Skye gets separated from Nico when she heads into the theater room where she finds a mask resembling the one her father used. Nathan walks in and has a film playing all the events from Skye and Alex's life. He reveals that he has known about Charlie Rotter for a long time and admires his doings. He seeks to copycat him and do exactly what he did in his murder sprees; killing Skye's friend and taking her for himself. Skye calls her father sick for the things he has done, but Nathan expresses his beliefs that her father was a genius for murdering spoiled teenagers. She is sickened and is stalled as Nathan locks her in the room. Meanwhile, Alex and Leo reunite and find themselves being stalked by Nathan in the dark. Leo points a gun in that direction but before he can shoot, Alex unexpectedly pulls a knife out and kills him by slitting his throat.
Alex holds the knife close in defense as she sees a man in a mask walking out from the darkness to her. He pulls off the mask to her. Then he pulls her in and begins to romantically make out with her. As their lips part, Alex smiles. It is now revealed that Skye's little sister is the mastermind behind the horrors; Nathan is her accomplise. Later Nico, who is upstairs, jumps out of an opened window with a knife in hand. When he falls he is wounded by his own knife as Nathan comes out and kills him.
Sienna, who is now frustrated from waiting too long, finds Nathan hiding Nico's body. She gets help from him to start her car up, which has died out on her. As he has her checking under the hood, he continually slams the roof on her till she isn't moving any more, making Nathan believe she is dead. After telling her that this has nothing to do with her, Nathan goes back inside the house. Skye, who has managed to escape, has found a scythe in another room. She hears Alex scream and sees her crying over Leo's dead body. Skye tries to comfort her, but Alex, whose face is hidden from her, turns from sad to disgust at the mere touch of her sister.
Nathan shows up and Skye passes out when Alex (who is behind her) chloroforms her. Skye wakes up tied to a chair at a dinner table. The other seats are occupied with the bloody corpses of Brynn, Ami, Leo and Nico. Alex is on the lap of Nathan, kissing him. Skye asks what she is doing. Alex happily replies that she is celebrating her birthday. Alex then changes drastically and admits she is hurting on the inside, suffering from the death of her parents and blames her for leading Charlie to their demise. She then claims that no one would believe Alex as the killer as she just lost her parents and has great recommendations from her therapist, whom Alex had been playing the whole time.
Alex and Nathan go back to making out until Skye starts talking and plays on Nathan's emotions. She tells him that he should feel proud for succeeding in the event of getting both of the Rotter daughters in one room. She also tells him that Charlie never knew Alex had existed and would always want Skye to be protected. Realizing that these facts are accurate, he unties her. When Nathan refuses Alex's orders to stop, Alex grabs the scythe and kills Nathan by slitting his chest open. Alex charges for Skye. They duke it out and run outside.
After seeing an unconscious Sienna has made it to the gates, Skye is chased by Alex in her brand new car, and they head into a wooded area, which is too narrow for Alex to drive through. Alex gets out of the car and they fight it out till Skye uses pepper spray on Alex's face, then gets up and grabs the scythe. Alex taunts Skye to kill her, telling her she's just like their father. Skye strikes the scythe down to the ground, without killing her, then kicks her in the face, which knocks Alex out. Skye finds Sienna stumbling around, in desperate need of hospital attention. Skye sees that a police car has actually reacted to the call made earlier and drives around to check if things are well at the Bell estate. Skye is unable to get their attention in the foggy rain. Skye finds a flare in the trunk of Alex's nearby car and uses it. That still doesn't get their attention, so she sticks the flare in the gas tank, then runs for cover and shields Sienna. Skye walks off, victoriously, as the police have stopped to rescue them.
Time has passed since the party and Skye is looking through a window, where she sees Alex at a mental institution in a straitjacket. Skye tells her that she wishes to go back and prevent everything from ever happening, but knows that she can't. She goes on saying that everything that happened because of Charlie Rotter has to end with them and tells her that she will always be there for her because they are family and that she truly does love her. Alex, listening and bewildered with anger, immediately slams her face into the window in a failed attempt to attack Skye. Skye finally leaves her past behind as she heads out. Skye and Sienna are later seen at an art opening, showing off Skye's art, including one based on her and Alex, which displays the pain they went through together. Skye doesn't want to stay for the opening, as she feels that this gallery wasn't for them, but for her and her accomplishments. Outside she is surprised to see Brigg, who has come from his own college, where he finally tells her he loves her. They walk off together hand in hand as Skye is truly happy. | revenge, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Bogeyman's gone and the party is smaller. With Charlie Rotter dead, Skye (Lauren McKnight) has lived a peaceful life with Brigg's parents. Sister Alex Bell (Kirsten Prout) has stopped communicating with her. She is going to college and hitching a ride with Sienna (Jillian Rose Reed) after answering an ad on Craigslist. On the way, she receives a call from Alex. She goes to see her and picks up Nathan (Ryan Sypek) who shows them the way to her mansion. It turns out that Nathan has been stalking Alex ever since Zoe's funeral. It's Alex's 16th birthday and she invited a few of her friends.Most horror franchises need their bogeyman. The death of Charlie Rotter left a big hole. This one is a little different than the other two. There is no big party. I'm fine with a switch. However the kills aren't quite as good. The killer isn't as scary. It could have ended with some great girl on girl fighting, but even that is inferior. It ran too long and didn't have good style. It still has its moments and worth a watch for people who have been following these characters. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend this.. way better than the last but not as good as the first. I'd be lying if I said that this was a good movie. I'd also be lying if I said it was a terrible one, in actually its a decent movie that manages to start off horrendously before becoming surprisingly entertaining. Unbeknowest to many of you this little MTV franchise got it's start a few years ago. Me and my friend tuned into the first chapter unintentionally for the most part hoping for a good laugh and found ourselves completely immersed in it. The original was fun, entertaining with some great death scenes, sparky dialogue, a likable heroine and was even a little scary. The second one which I was actually excited about ending up being the opposite of that experience it was dreadfully boring and just kind of awful. Still I crossed my fingers for this entry especially after hearing the positive buzz around it. Well I'm happy to say I liked it way more than the second but it's still not as good as the first. This time around our smart, kick ass heroine Sky is on her way to college when she receives a call from her little sister asking her to come say goodbye before she leaves. She decides to accommodate her when her ride suggests they stop and see her before starting their new lives at college. Upon reaching her house she discovers that it's her sister Alex's sweet 16 and she has invited 5 other firends to join along in the festivities. Up until than it's been cute and than we are introduced to this cast of mostly terrible actors whose actual characters are annoying. That being said the cute guy with the curly hair isn't so bad and even though the young woman who plays Alex herself is not great they do manage some good moments from most of them, well except from the girl with faux fur coat. After the killing begins the movie picks up again cleverly I might add and although the victims make a ton of annoying mistakes it all comes down to an inspired finale and a zesty fight scene. And while I'm complimenting the film I must bring up the beautiful camera work going on here. sure most of it is unnecessary especially in a film like this but it's hard not to appreciate those wonderfully suspenseful angles and hitchcockian tracking shots of surprising density and quality for a movie like this. So the movie is a mixed bag as most movies are but if they do decide on another entry which I wouldn't be against we might think of changing the title. After all how many super psycho sweet 16s can you have but Sky's story is something I'd def be interested in seeing continue. |
tt0469263 | The Astronaut Farmer | Charles Farmer is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and astronaut-in-training who reluctantly resigned from the space program and was discharged from the military before he could fulfill his dream of becoming a vital part of NASA. He did so in order to take over his family's failing ranch in Texas after his financially strapped father's suicide prior to the ranch being foreclosed on.
Having missed the opportunity to travel into space, he decides to build a working replica of the historic Mercury-Atlas rocket and spacecraft in the barn on his secluded ranch in the fictional town of Story, Texas, using all his assets and facing his own foreclosure of the ranch as a result. But he has done so with the ongoing support of his wife Audrey, his teenage son Shepard, and young daughters Stanley and Sunshine. When he begins making inquiries about purchasing rocket fuel, the FBI and FAA step in to investigate, and the ensuing publicity thrusts Farmer into the spotlight and makes him a media darling.
Farmer's launch is delayed by endless red tape created by U.S. government officials from the FAA, FBI, CIA, NASA and the Department of Defense, who seek to stall him beyond his deadline and force his creditors to foreclose on the farm. Farmer was counting on publicity to help him financially. He is denied the hydrazine fuel he requires, with government officials claiming he is a security risk and that it is too dangerous to allow a private citizen to launch a space vehicle. Facing financial ruin, he panics, climbs aboard, and, using a less-than-optimal substitute fuel, he somehow launches the rocket. However, after only a foot or two of vertical lift, the rocket descends back down, falls over, and horizontally blasts out of the old wooden barn where it was constructed.
Farmer nearly dies from head trauma and other injuries after his capsule is thrown from the rocket. News media, spectators and all their vehicles are nearly crushed in the process. During the months he spends recuperating, public interest in his project wanes, and while he recovers slowly, he is depressed at the failure of the project and of his dream.
Fortunately, an inheritance from her father, Hal, is unexpectedly left to Audrey after his death, which allows them to bring their debts current. Audrey, realizing how much Charles' dream means to the entire family, encourages Charles to construct another rocket, financing it with the rest of her inheritance. He is able to do so in relative privacy.
Using a ruse to distract snooping government officials, Charles succeeds in launching the rocket, while the FAA claims no such thing has occurred. As the rocket rises out of the barn, the locals and law enforcement authorities in the area are amazed to watch it rise into space. After orbiting Earth nine times and suffering a brief period of a communication blackout, Charles returns safely and is given a hero's welcome home, appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and as seen in still photos shown during the end credits. | satire | train | wikipedia | Of course you'll need to suspend your disbelief for a story that seems so far fetched, a man launching himself into space, although I have read of 2 rocket men who have attempted this same idea-- but every time you walk into a movie theater you have to surrender some logic.
When I first heard there was a movie in which my buddy Billy Bob builds a rocket in his barn, I thought for sure it must be a comedy or some sort of spoof or slapstick.
I'm giving it an 8 on the basis of pure solid family entertainment value.(If this movie were a car it would probably be a Toyota Camry)At the start of the screening, Billy Bob Thorton proudly (and accurately, IMHO) characterized this film as a feel-good Frank Capraesque popcorn flick - the sort of film that would have been on the "A" side of a double bill back in the days of his youth.Billy Bob and Virginia Madsen do terrific jobs with their characters.
I think the timelessly beautiful Ms. Madsen is particularly effective as Farmer's patient, loving, and somewhat exasperated wife.(and if I were Stephen Colbert interviewing Billy Bob Thorton, I would probably ask this question - "Virginia Madsen: hot co-star, or *the hottest* co-star?").The story and the arc of the film bring strong elements of "Field of Dreams" and "October Sky" to mind; but absent the mysticism of the former and the somewhat dysfunctional family dynamics of the latter.
As a large, tasty helping of pure western Americana I don't doubt for a minute that this film will be a huge hit in Japan.This movie pays light homage to films like "The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13." Space fanatics, rocket scientists, and other members of the pocket-protector crowd might experience a few "oh please, you've got to be kidding" moments, but because of its charm, likable characters, and strong acting, this movie requires a lot less disbelief suspension than a film like, oh I don't know, let's say "Armageddon," for example.Speaking of baby-boomer asteroid wranglers, I was also pleasantly surprised to see Bruce Willis in a small, but key supporting role.
It was nice of him to do that.All of the other members of the well-casted supporting ensemble (including some young members of the Polish tribe) delivered solid performances as well.I won't give you a synopsis of the film here (others are better than me at that sort of thing); but I will tell you that I plan to take my wife and 4, 7, and 12 year old kids to see this film for the pure joy of watching a fun, happy, and slightly quirky movie together as a family..
While inspirational, follow your dream movies usually don't work for me, this one does, it has such an amazingly goofy charm that only the stiffest of film critics could resist it (and alas, according to that well-known movie review site, as I write this just under 40% don't get it.) If this movie in not on most 10-best lists at year-end, it is going to be one heck of a year.
The Polish brothers (director, writers) achieve that state possibly because the modest $13 million budget is still much more than they ever had and their approach is too reverential to the hero, who by any standards pursues a quixotic goal of launching himself at the risk of jettisoning his family and close friends.Charles Farmer (Billie Bob Thornton) is determined to achieve his goal in the face of losing his too well ordered and clean farm and his loving, dutiful, and way too accepting wife, Audrey (Virginia Madsen).
Only two characters ring true all the time: Farmer's son, Shephard (Max Thierot), who is cool as a teen mission controller; and an uncredited Bruce Willis, who plays an ex-astronaut friend of Farmer trying to talk him out of a potentially disastrous launch.
Billy Bob Thornton stars as the title character, a farmer who wants to go to space but faces resistance wherever he goes except for his family and even they sometimes have doubts.
A middle-aged rancher named Farmer (you know a movie's heading into seriously pretentious waters when it starts dispensing heavily allegorical names to its characters), has decided to fulfill his lifelong dream of flying into outer space.
Heck, for sheer grandiosity and technological ingenuity, Farmer's homemade rocket makes Ray Kinsella's backyard baseball stadium look like erector-set kids' stuff in comparison.In a film shamelessly bucking for the "feel-good movie of the year" stamp-of-approval, Farmer is obviously intended to be an inspirational figure, a little man with a Big Dream who is determined to make that dream come true at any and all costs and despite the seemingly insurmountable odds stacked against him.
Unfortunately, in "The Astronaut Farmer," we find ourselves more often siding with the derisive skeptics and cynical killjoys from NASA, the FBI, and the nearby town - who, of course, are portrayed as the villains of the piece - than with Farmer and his preposterously supportive family who already seem to be living on another planet anyway (which tends to negate the need for any such trip in the first place).Indeed, questions of mental balance are never far from our minds when we see Farmer (well played by Billy Bob Thornton) bankrupting his ranch to finance his quest and dragging his 15-year-old son and two pre-pubescent daughters out of school so that they can function as his Mission Control team of "experts," who are going to be responsible for not only launching him into space but returning him safely back therefrom (not too much undue pressure there, eh?).
Even his wife (Virginia Madsen), who is portrayed as a relatively clear-thinking, level-headed pragmatist, is really little more than an enabler who, instead of putting the brakes on her husband's obvious foolishness, encourages him to ever more dangerous heights of certifiable insanity.The actors - Thornton, Madsen, Bruce Willis, Bruce Dern, Max Thieriot - do what they can with what they've been handed, but the screenplay by Mark and Michael Polish is so filled with sappy, a-guy's-gotta-dream inspirational speeches and cued-up musical crescendos that we feel worked-over and manipulated from first moment to last.
Yet, you know a movie isn't working when, instead of rooting for the protagonist to succeed in his adventure, you find yourself hoping that some trained, licensed professional will step in and perform an intervention on him before he does serious injury to himself and his loved ones.I have been a great admirer of the Polish Brothers' work in the past - "Twin Falls Idaho," "Northfork" etc.
Even when events transpire that prove the government correct, where he could've potentially killed people it's treated like almost nothing.The moral of this story is that you should put yourself at risk, ignore your family to the extent of ruining them financially and emotionally crippling them, and do things that could potentially kill your neighbors in the pursuit of your 'dreams'..
I settled into my seat and let the magic begin.Astronaut Farmer is the story of Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thorton), a man who used to work for the military, but was forced to retire to save his family farm.
So he sets out building a rocket in his backyard, which soon draws the attention of NASA, FAA, FBI, CIA, and the press.When you go into Astronaut Farmer, be prepared to throw the laws of physics and logic out the window, as this one tries to be real, but suffers from a few flaws.
"If we don't have our dreams, we have nothing," goes the story's underlying refrain a mantra that might sound like pure cheese were it not delivered with such note-perfect gravity by Thornton, who stars as Charlie Farmer.
Although The Astronaut Farmer feels something like a throwback to a gentler time, what makes the film work is its utter sincerity and perfect command of the overall tone.
Yes, it is preposterous, per the premise that one can build a functional rocket in ones' barn, but if we discounted movies with far fetched plots, at least half would qualify, including such greats as "Wizard of Oz" and any based on fantasy, let alone sci-fi.
Simply put, the faith/love of a family backing up the Don Quitote dream of a tinkerer father, in this case a tinkerer who builds rockets in his yard, planning to create his own manned mission into space.
But, Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) had a dream to go into space.
Those of u who have been lucky enough not to watch this till now and are craving for a "Pursue ur Dreams and don't give up hope" sort of cinema, watch October Sky. You'll get more than your money's worth.A movie like this works when you can identify with the aspirations of the lead and sympathies with his limitations and difficulties faced in achieving them.
Third, he makes his 15 yr old bald son controller of his mission, a work that's usually done by people double PHd in aeronautics or its like...Fourth, he decides to launch his rocket out of his barn, as if that wont incinerate his the damn barn, his house, ranch, his cattle and his family who watch from a few meters away from a rickety trailer!
Characters are fleshed out so you really care about them; their fully realized scripts demonstrate how impossible dreams are achieved in a way that makes you want to believe; they don't cheat the audience."Astronaut Farmer" is just a terribly lazy script.
The movie is basically about a family who believes in their father's dream to go in space and they support him 98% of the time.
It will rip itself apart due to the concussion reflecting off the ground if you tried that.The laughingly named "Farmer" character (Oh hey & did you guess he's a farmer, oh how funny!) that Billy Bob Thronton plays is selfish to the extreme & places his entire family & their future in jeopardy for his own self centered reasons (which fits in the Ronald Reagan's vision of America for sure).I admit to one thing, I didn't see the end.
The plot is about a man played by Billy Bob Thornton and he builds a homemade rocket that he plans to launch into space.
Billy Bob Thornton does well as an ex-astronaut who builds a rocket in his barn(!) This may sound like the perfect recipe for a comedy but, the film is utterly serious.
The key here is my family, that a big score for being able to sit through a movie these days with my son and husband and each of us being able to speak highly of it in the end.Being a space enthusiast for years it was enjoyable to watch a man and his family pursue his dreams of orbiting the earht without the NASA price tag.
Especially if that dream is expensive, dangerous, maybe a bit psychotic, and possibly illegal ...or all four.When a man named Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton, THE ICE HARVEST) from Texas wants to blast a space rocket out of his barn and into orbit, one might think "cool idea." But how far can one man's dream go before it becomes a damaging obsession?
His wife realizes what must be done, for without the dream her husband no longer exists.Being a HUGE Polish brothers fan (NORTHFORK is one of my all-time favorite films), I expected much from identical twins Mark and Michael, but they sadly disappointed me with THE ASTRONAUT FARMER.
Billy Bob Thornton dose a mind blowing performance in this film.Sean The Movie Guy. A feel-good fantasy.
Because as Billy Bob Thornton' s character said to a kid: "you can better know what you wanna become when you are young, otherwise somebody else might choose for you".Adults can also enjoy this feel good flick, about some crazy american farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) who is building his own real space rocket in his barn.
but as the movie devolved into trite, feel-good, sentimental mush I went from enjoyment to frustration.I know people will say this is a family film, but I like my family to have good role models - not some dreamer who pursues his desires at all expenses.
This movie will bring the whole family together and inspire young minds to a feeling that has been lost in so many other films.
If a movie is to take place in the real world, with real people, there has to be SOME semblance of plausibility in the action portrayed.No, a man cannot build and launch an Atlas rocket by himself in his barn and orbit the earth in it.
Billy Bob Thornton shines as Charles Farmer, a former military man who gave up his chance for space following a family tragedy.
Slow in spots, but held together by the twin performances of Thornton and Virginia Madsen as his wife Audrey, who come to realize Farmer's consuming dream of space was not destroying their family, but, bringing them closer together.
This film features a close knit family, a supportive wife and grand father, two little daughters who love their daddy and also his life long dream to launch into orbit with his own privately built rocket constructed on his Texas ranch.
It's probably unbelievable that a farmer, despite having graduated with engineering skills and being a former NASA astronaut, can build a homemade rocket in his backyard and launch it into space.
Building a rocket is very much possible, it's just extremely hard and any miscalculation could kill you by blowing you up on the launch or send you hurling uncontrollably through space.The Astronaut Farmer is a great movie, very well paced, and it's hardly ever boring because you're always waiting to see what Charlie Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) is going to do next.
The only thing is that the son wasn't given enough screen time or dialogue, but perhaps that's just his character, who talks very little.Take no regard of the ignorant people who dismiss this film as cheesy, corny, unrealistic or morally wrong.
The film will most likely be under-appreciated by many, but for those who ever had dreams of attempting the impossible, this movie will be an inspiration.
Even with the unbelievable idea of the spaceflight, they do their best, and mostly succeed in making you believe it for that 1 and a half or so you're watching.I thought the acting was pretty well done, and the story was too.You'll enjoy the movie if you choose to accept the story and just enjoy it.Good Family Film.
Charlie Farmer(Billy Bob Thornton) was once a promising Astronaut, who almost went up in space, but couldn't because of a family tragedy.
Everyone else was kind of one-dimensional and the story was very slow.Basically, the movie is about a man who tries to launch his own rocket (with him in it) into space.
Twin brothers Michael and Mark Polish ('Northfork', 'Twin Falls Idaho', 'Jackpot') wrote and directed this work and have a style that begs indulgence on the part of the viewer, but the style is unique and consistent and is proving to be a fascinating source of art house movie making.Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) is a retired military man who trained as an astronaut but retired to save his family farm in Texas.
He dreams of a life as an astronaut and with the encouragement of his wife Audie (Virginia Madsen), grandfather Hal (Bruce Dern), son Shepard (Max Thieriot) and other children, Farmer has built a rocket and a space ship, going against all odds to be the first citizen astronaut.
But you just might feel like believing a bit more in the power of dreams at the end of the movie than you did at the beginning, and for me, that was worth it..
Determined not to be a quitter like his dad, he keeps fighting overwhelming odds to build his rocket.Now this, combined with the acting and directing skills of Billy Bob Thornton, gave a great feeling to the movie.
The result is an interesting and moving drama about pursuing your dreams and never giving up.Charles Farmer, played by Billy Bob Thornton, is a soft-spoken, wellliked, small town family man who has spent years building a rocket ship in his barn.
An enjoyable little family movie not intended to be great film literature.
Part of it is that it is so well-acted, but mostly it is because unlike many modern sentimentalist films such as "Cinderella Man" or "Little Miss Sunshine", it asks only to be taken on its own terms and not as competition for more artistic, cynical fare such as "Mystic River" or "The Departed".Billy Bob Thornton stars as Charlie Farmer, who was in training to be an astronaut when his father committed suicide and he had to leave the program to take over the family's Texas ranch.
{come to think of it, cross your fingers.}) in the other genuflection to the Hollywood Left, Thornton, responding to a rumor that violent force will be used by the US government to prevent his launch, says something like, ~they're pretty good at killing people with dreams.~ (conspiracy theories, anyone?) the ever-radiant Virginia Madsen (why hasn't her career been at least as big as, for example, Jessica Lange's?) plays Thornton's wife, who stands by her man.
"If we don't have our dreams, we have nothing." These are the words of Billy Bob Thornton in Astronaut Farmer, and thus the message behind the movie.
This movie is a wonderful feel good film with great heart.
Not necessarily a bad thing, just kind of disappointing since there are so few creative forces in Hollywood these days.Billy Bob Thornton stars as Charles Farmer and likable, small town family man who is chasing his dream of flying his handmade rocket into space.
Billy Bob Thornton plays an ex-astronaut trainee, now a Texas rancher, who never made it to space, so he builds a rocket in his barn.
Boy, if all of us could only have such a supporting spouse and great kids like "Charles Farmer" had in this movie. |
tt0303785 | Bollywood/Hollywood | Bollywood/Hollywood centres on the character of Rahul Seth (Rahul Khanna), a young, rich, Indo-Canadian living in Toronto whose widowed mother (Moushumi Chatterjee) is eager to get him married after the freak-accidental death of his white pop singer girlfriend, Kimberly (Jessica Paré). Furthermore, the mother proclaims that the impending wedding of her daughter Twinky (Rishma Malik) and Bobby will not take place until Rahul has found himself a bride first. The pressure mounts on Rahul as he finds out that Twinky must get married to preserve the family's reputation because she is pregnant. Rahul goes to a bar and there meets Sue (Lisa Ray). Thinking she is a Spanish escort, he hires her to pose as his fiancée. Rahul eventually discovers that Sue is actually Indian (her name is short for Sunita). Despite his initial anger at her lie, the two grow closer—due in no small part to a confidence boost Sue gave to Rahul's tormented younger brother, Govind, who incorrectly believes that no one cares about his welfare—and eventually consider one another a fit match. Pleased, Mrs. Seth agrees to sanction Twinky's wedding. Rahul and Sue grow more intimate, later to share stories about their pasts. It is revealed that Sue was once offered as a bride to the well-meaning but dim-witted prizefighter known as Killer Khalsa; offended that her parents would even consider such a match, she has been playing mischief in revenge. This mischief is not fully explained, but her liking for it is suggested by her audacity. Sue is quite immune to social norms; she speaks bluntly to all, particularly to Rocky, Rahul's driver, who she knows as a famous drag queen. The blossoming romance is shaken, however, when Rahul is told that Sue was not only an escort, but a prostitute as well by a drunken friend at Bobby's bachelor party. Sue is so hurt that he would question her honesty and integrity that she leaves him. He is forced to confess to his family that he never really courted Sue but merely bribed her to act the part of his fiancée. His mother is forced to withdraw her sponsorship of Twinky's wedding, due to her promise—but she need not; Twinky's wedding has already taken place, well before the planned date. Prodded by his understanding, Shakespeare-quoting grandmother (Dina Pathak), Rahul goes after Sue and professes his true opinion of her, and proposes marriage to her as well. Sue initially turns him down, only to be found later in the driver seat of his limo to show her acceptance of his proposal. | satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0248271 | Our Friend, Martin | Miles (Robert Ri'chard) is a wisecracking African American boy who is an avid fan of sports, particularly baseball icon Hank Aaron, but is failing at school. His teacher Miss Clark (Susan Sarandon) threatens Miles that she will make him repeat 6th grade should his grades not improve. He and his class, including his friends, two Caucasian boys Randy (Lucas Black) and former bully Kyle (Zachary Leigh) and a Latino girl Maria (Jessica Garcia), visit a museum, dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr.. Randy and Miles explore Martin's bedroom, and are caught by the museum's curator Mrs. Peck (Whoopi Goldberg), who winds up an old watch. The boys hold Martin's baseball glove and the two are transported back to 1941 and encounter a 12-year-old Martin (Theodore Borders) playing with his friends, Sam and Skip Dale (Adam Wylie), until their mother (Ashley Judd) arrives and reprimands her sons for integrating with the "coloreds". Martin explains to Miles and Randy that Mrs. Dale's hatred of black people stems from the fact she regards them as "different", but violence would only worsen things.
The boys then travel 3 years in time and meet a teenage Martin (Jaleel White) on a segregated train. He explains to them that blacks and whites are unable to integrate and must use separate bathrooms, restaurants, and waiting rooms. They later have dinner with Martin's family and while he goes to do shut in rounds with his father (James Earl Jones), the boys travel forward 11 years and meet Martin (LeVar Burton), who by now is in his 20's and works as a minister at the church. He is holding a meeting about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, set off after Rosa Parks, a black seamstress refused to give up her seat on a bus and was put in prison for it. As a result, no black adults or children will ride the buses. Just then, Turner (Samuel L. Jackson), Martin's friend, alerts him his house has been bombed. He races home, but fortunately his wife Coretta Scott King and newborn daughter Yolanda escape unharmed.
Turner announces that in retaliation, they will attack the perpetrators with bricks, guns, Molotov cocktails and knives, but Martin stops him, reminding the crowd of Gandhi peacefully standing his ground to exile the British colonies from India and of Jesus teaching love for his enemies. Miles and Randy then travel to the Birmingham riot of 1963 and witness firemen and police officers squirt black protesters with hoses and set German Shepherds on them. The boys are later transported back to the museum and join their class back at school. The following day, Miles and Randy tell Miss Clark about the events prior to Martin's work and later the class watch a VHS tape of Martin's work. After the class leaves, Maria and Kyle decide to investigate for themselves how Miles and Randy got the information. When the boys arrive at the museum, Mrs. Peck lets them stay but warns them that when one messes with the past, this can affect the present.
Maria and Kyle follow the two boys in and catch them in Martin's bedroom. The four children are then transported to the March on Washington Movement and meets Martin who is in his 30's (Dexter Scott King) and a young Miss Clark, who at this time is a member of the movement and not yet married. When they return, Miles discovers that Martin was murdered. The children travel back to 1941 and bring the 12-year-old Martin back to the present. When they return, only Miles and Martin return together and the present is different. They discover that the museum is now just a burned down house. They also find out Randy and Kyle are also racists and no longer friends with Miles or know him. His middle school is segregated and named after Robert E. Lee, Miss Clark is treated poorly by the principal and Maria works as a maid and can't speak English. He and his mother (Angela Bassett) live in poverty as she now works as a cleaning lady. The next day Miles can't understand what is going on but Martin figures out because he left his own time, it created an alternate timeline where his civil rights work never happened. Miles realizes the error of his ways and must sacrifice his plans to rescue Martin. Miles bids a tearful farewell, but realizes he still has Martin's watch and begs for him to come out of his house. Martin returns to his time, where he is shot and killed at his hotel. This results in the present reverting to normal and Miles is reunited with Randy, Maria, and Kyle. Mrs. Peck knows about Miles time traveling and tells him that while they can't change the past as long as they remember Martin and what he stood for he will always be with them. He receives an A+ on his history test, allowing him to progress to 7th grade. He and his friends then vow to continue Martin's work. At the end of the film, Mrs. Peck closes the door to Martin's bedroom as the credits roll. | alternate reality | train | wikipedia | Great movie!.
I just showed this movie to my 5th Grade classes as part of a series of Social Studies lessons on Martin Luther King, Jr.
We had just finished reading a book in which many of MLK's accomplishments and honors were explained, so the movie really helped tie it all together for them.
They were absolutely entranced by it!
(I had to stop 45 minutes into it so we could go to gym class and they were so upset- they almost didn't want to go!) The combination of animation and real footage was very well done.
The students also enjoyed the hip music and famous voices..
A little bit of history.
I adore the movie "Our Friend Martin".
It talks about the life of Martin Luther King Jr.
(which I think is done extremely well in this movie).
It shows a video of when MLK gave his "I have a dream speech".
It reviews other parts of Martins life, when he was killed, and when his house burned down etc.
I enjoyed watching the cartoon version of this.
All of the characters in the movie are cool- Martin Luther King Jr., Miles (who loves baseball), Randy (Miles best friend) Maria (smart kid) and Kyle (bully).
Miles, Randy, Maria, and Kyle take an adventure through time to meet Martin Luther King Junior and learn about him and that's when the story is told about Martin Luther King Jr. Another thing that I liked about the movie is that Kyle turned from a bully to a nice kid (probably because he was around Martin Luther King a little bit).
If you are racist DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.
Other than that I recommend this movie to everyone.
It is a great story!!.
Elementary School Video.
I think that this video should be used to show elementary school students.
The reason why I say that is because it teaches about the life of Martin Luther King Jr. by making a cartoon out of it (that way it would seem less brutal for youngsters when telling about the horrors that African Americans faced).
Our Friend, Martin does show some actual scenes taken but it is mainly a cartoon video.
I think this video was successful at talking about Martin Luther King Jr. and why he has made a huge difference today.
For example, when Miles and Mr. King travel through time to the year 1998, and since Martin has been taken out of the past and into the future, he wasn't there to fight in the past (it erased everything that Martin did in the past).
When Miles and Martin arrive in 1998 African Americans were going through the same turmoil as they did before Martin Luther King Jr. could fight for them.
This is when you know that Martin Luther King Jr. had a great affect on the relationships of blacks and whites today.
I like the movie because like I said it teaches, in a less brutal way, about the horrors faced by African Americans before Martin Luther King Jr. could fight for them.
I rate this video ten out of ten and recommend it to everyone..
Martin, You Led A Wonderful Life--In Your Original Time Period!.
This may be a "cartoon," but it gets me reaching for the tissue just as much as It's A Wonderful Life does!!!
There's a sort of Bedford Falls feel to this mini-movie--especially, when you've seen it before--where you're seeing Miles (a twelve year old boy who would rather be playing baseball than studying) waking up in his "loaded" room.His business-owner mother tells him that there won't be any baseball practice until he does his homework--which doesn't set well with him.She reminds him to take his permission slip in for the field trip, and he mumbles something about going to "that dumb museum." And so his day begins--first with running from Kyle, the local bully.
Of course, Miles gets away from him when he hops on the bus going to school, and the bus driver won't let Kyle get on, meaning that he'll be showing up for class late, because his disagreeable dad has to drive him there.In class, Miles is happy to see his very best friend, Randy and is even more glad when Randy becomes part of his team for reporting on the field trip.Other members of the team will be Kyle and Maria (a gifted young lady who has gotten into this class by being skipped a couple of grades--and who thinks that she's gotten stuck with three immature boys).Mrs. Clark, their teacher, takes Miles aside and warns him that he's going to have to repeat a grade if he doesn't bring his grades up--starting with a report on the day's field trip, which is going to a museum about some guy who lived in "prehistoric times" who did some nice things "back then" but didn't have much relevancy in his own life (or so he thinks).That man, as it turns out, is Martin Luther King, and the museum is the home in which he grew up.
Because he sees a ball and bat in there, along with a picture of Martin playing baseball, Miles begins to develop a little interest in him.
He and Randy decide to explore the room (which has been roped off), but are caught by the museum director.But she's nice about it and tells them to go ahead and look around, saying that there's something magic about the room, and that she always likes to wind up this old watch in there for some reason.In short, Miles and Randy go back in time and get to know Martin in different stages of his life--starting back when he was their age.Eventually, Kyle and Maria will be sharing part of that journey with them.I won't spoil this for you except to say that it will remind you of It's A Wonderful Life.Things about his life that Miles took for granted suddenly become very precious to him, and he realizes how important Martin Luther King, Jr. was way back before he was born in shaping his present day world.Also, that it's important for him to carry on his dream.Even Kyle, the former bully, changes for the better by the end of the movie, and Maria (who also owes a lot to Dr. King for where she is today) becomes more tolerant of those "immature" boys.At only a little over an hour long, it isn't too time consuming--and, if you're like me, you'll want to see it again and again!.
Stereotypes.
I'm not gonna spoil this movie because I want this to be what you expect from the movie.
The movie is kind of ehh.
It would avoid the problem if the characters weren't stereotypical 90s kids.
Every character is just a rehashed "cool" kid from every 90s show..
HOW IS THIS A EDUCATIONAL FILM?!
An insult towards History!.
"Our Friend, Martian" is a film that is according to my research, is quite shown is a-lot of Elementary Schools, now me, I never seen this when I was in Elementary, but I do still have a nostalgic memory of seeing this film's trailer in one of the previews of Dr. Doodle with Eddie Murphy (On the film's VHS tape), and from the trailer, it looks interesting, but unfortunately I never got around seeing this, until just this pass weekend, it was just so happened to the weekend of MLK's birthday.
I got to admit, this movie was not at all a great movie.
Now I know I shouldn't done this review on MLK day, but of-course I didn't, but that still would not stop me from reviewing this cheese fest.Basically the story is that a African-American Middle Schooler named Miles, is failing his History Class, and his teacher, Ms. Clark, wants him to try to keep his grade up or else he will have to repeat a grade because of her class, so to do that, Miles and his classmates, especially his Caucasian friend Randy and a bully named Kyle, and a sassy but yet intelligent Hispanic girl named Maria, went on a trip to the childhood home of Martin Luther King in their city of Atlanta, where Miles, Randy, Kyle, and Maria were allowed inside of King's bedroom by the owner of the Museum (Who is voiced by Whoopi Goldberg) where then they both time-travel through-out King's life to explored it and learned how he became famous for what he done with African-Americans, as-well the struggles he went through which lead to him doing what so.
Sounds like a good film, but unfortunately the downfall is how this is all shown.Firstly I want to talked about the Characters, now Miles kinda comes-up like a idiot in this movie, which is no wonder why he is failing a class, in one notorious part of the movie is when the kids decide to bring young Martin into their present, but when they do so, only Miles is back along with Martin.
Randy, Kyle, and Maria are all there too, but completely different, now Randy and Kyle are two typical Racists who don't even know Miles because he's black and Maria is like a typical poor Hispanic Citizen who doesn't know how to speak English or even understand it.
This is all because they created a Alternate Timeline in which King's Civil Rights movements never happens, and that there still the racial rules going on in the South such as Whites and Blacks have to go to separate schools that Blacks have to walk, and plus other stuff like the water fountain rule, and etc.
now I don't really like this alternate timeline at all, mainly because is that there certain things that have nothing to do with Martin Luther King, like there child labor, what?
How in the world Child Labor have anything to do with Martin Luther King, that was something that was taken care of in the 1910s, hey before King was even born or when the racial laws were happening in the south, and back to the whole fact of Maria not able to speak English and is treated poorly because of her Ethnicity all because of Martin Luther King work never happens, when did King ever do something to the Hispanics, yeah it is proven he wants to have everyone of different color joining into one, but that pretty much because how the African-Americans were being treated in the South, not the Hispanics, that more of Cesar Chavez's job, like didn't he even exists in this timeline either, I don't think so, it only Martin that wasn't around, and the same goes with other civil rights' leaders like where Malcolm X, would he or anyone else in general would've done anything about this instead of Martin, it literally makes zero sense, and this is why I considered this film a-bit of an insult towards history because there just screw it all up with having stuff in this alternate timeline that really ain't anything Martin Luther King would do about it, but instead someone else like Cesar Chavez or Malcolm X, but instead they just to forget about them, and want to be more focusing on Martin here which technically they're just insulting History, along with Child Labor.
Another thing, Sexism often occurs because of Martin being gone, yes probably other issue to do with Sociology beside Racism is occuring because of Martin's absent, I guess other issues such as Homophobia still occurs, that might mean Harvey Milk is absent for no good reason.
Now sorry I was complaining about how just terrible they did with the Alternate reality, I probably want to go back talking about how ignorant Miles is with this, he literally does not know what going on, like he doesn't realizes right away he and his friends along with Martin created an Alternate Timeline, how more stupid you can even get, that just makes this character more unlikable and just forgettable.
Randy, seems like a joke as he's like a skateboarder with a southern Accent, which kinda confuses me because he only white character who is from the South that talks like that, not Kyle nor Ms. Clark, now Kyle is another character who is basically just a weak character, especially a bully character, it just seems like he really a innocent kid who is often get disrespect by the others, which doesn't makes him looks more of a bully, and when he's racist in the alternate timeline, he seems kinda less racist to be honest.
Now Maria, I literally can't get started with this ungrateful brat.
I literally hates this character, how her smartness is portrayed is ruined by she treats Miles, Randy, and especially Kyle.
In this film, sorta shows us there's going to be bad happening to her, but unfortunately we didn't got that, if you even count the pointless "Can't speak English" scene.So over-all this movie is just a big slob of a mess, just offend the knowledges of anyone who knows about History.
I still don't get how there Elementary schools that shows this film, which like 50% wrong about History and the Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s, and I can only imagined how anyone who sees this movie as a kid in Elementary School, and literally thoughts this is what Martin Luther King, prepared to be wrong later in life.
There some positive stuff I can say like the story I kinda like, and the whole feel of the 90s I thought that was good too, and it was a-bit interesting going through King's life, except for the Civil Rights March, where they met a young Ms. Clark, which doesn't makes sense, because that was the 60s and this is mainly set in 1999, so how a woman in her 40s and would've been in her 20s back then, like just Calculate it.
So that basically it, if you want to see a Martin Luther King movie, I guess this is it, but if you're a history person, I would say you stay away from this..
Pretty dumb..
I can't even count how many years in a row we had to watch this movie at school.
The story is kinda dumb.
The characters are stupid and unlikable.
Its boring.
The animation is ok I guess.
I don't know how accurate this movie is to history but based on the other reviews I don't think that it is.
I wouldn't really recommend watching this movie. |
tt0119832 | One Night Stand | The movie starts off with a flashback that's being narrated by Urvil (Tanuj Virwani). It is the flashback and a series of events from his past that has defined his today. The flashback starts off with a fashion show organised by his event management agency in Phuket, Thailand. And after completing the event successfully, Urvil and his colleagues go drinking to celebrate. It is here that his friends challenge him to speak to a rank stranger (Sunny Leone) for a few thousand rupees. An attempt to win the bet gets him introduced to the stranger who, in turn, introduces herself as Celina. What follows after that, is unlimited liquor drinking by the two of them, which ultimately lands them up in bed together. But, the very next day, when Urvil gets up, he finds out that Celina has already left the room, without leaving any details of her whereabouts. And when Urvil comes back to his home in Pune, he is welcomed by his beautiful and dutiful wife Simran (Nyra Banerjee). Things are absolutely smooth between the couple, until one day Urvil accidentally spots Celina in the same mall wherein he has gone for shopping with his wife Simran. That very sight of Celina freshens up his 'one night stand' with her, which, in turn, gets translated into his desperation to meet her again. Thereafter begins his unending quest to hunt down Celina from the length and the breadth of the world. Amidst all this, Urvil gets extremely busy with his company's big-budget event of a product launch.
It is here where he gets introduced to his rich client Adhiraj kapoor (Khalid Siddiqui)and his family, which takes the daylights out of Urvil. The mysterious lady Celina is none other than Ambar, wife of Adhiraj, who along with their young son Jahaan (Rehan Pathan) and Adhiraj's father Raghav (Kanwaljeet Singh) stay in their posh villa in Koregaon Park, Pune. Urvil loses interest in his job and wife and stalks Celina/ Ambar. His colleague David (Ninad Kamat) advises him to forget Celina in order to save his marriage but he ignores his advice. Urvil tails Ambar continuously. Being fed up, she asks him to leave her alone and forget whatever happened between them as 'one night stand' but he refuses to do so and Ambar haunts him so much that he reaches their home and embarrasses Ambar. He misbehaves with Simran, uttering Celina's name. She picks up a fight with him and on the pretext of dropping him to his office, she races their car in the busy street asking Urvil to confess as to who is Celina and about their affair. He is terrified due to the rashly driven speeding car and admits to Simran about the illegitimate affair with Celina. She drops him on the road-side and tells him that it's all over between them. He returns home and begs her to pardon him for his folly but Simran is firm in refusing. Ultimately, Ambar calls Urvil to a spot on the highway to inform him that he should forget whatever happened between them and leave her alone. Urvil blames her for his marriage turmoil but she retorts that he was himself responsible. When Urvil threatens her that he would reveal the secret to Adhiraj, she informs him that she would do so herself irrespective of the consequence. She leaves him alone brooding about his future. The film ends with Urvil quitting his job and moving ahead in life in search of a new beginning. | romantic | train | wikipedia | This movie at least provokes that kind of thought, though in a very simple way.Ming-Na Wen and Wesley Snipes were over-acting on some occasions.
However, Robert Downey Jr.'s part was superb, though his character was not directly related to the movie's main story.
One suggestion for all the people who give it a bad review: Rent the DVD and listen to the track with the directors commentary (the full length movie).
The title of this movie(One Night Stand) may suggest that it's about "Cheating" but is something else,is about an instant attraction,the things occur spontaneously between Karen(Ms Kinski )and Max(Wesley Snipes)THEN just a memory of that perfect woman,then the re- encounter,the desire and passion appears again and then
surprise!LOVE!Max and Karen are drawn together with both of them finding something in each other that had been lacking in their own relationships BUT is Robert Downey jr who steals the show HE IS THE GLUE that represents human connection in the film,believe me HE ROCKS!!!.Wonderful performances by the cool Wesley Snipes,Ming Na Wen,Nastassja Kinski(she is so smooth!!!),OK I got to say something about this actress,Kinski,she's a true woman.She doesn't has the vulgarity of Jennifer Lopez(Oops!).I also liked the two sex scenes of our protagonist with this two woman(the difference of how they make love
),even the film has some cameos from Ione Skye(remember that actress of Say Anything?);His real life brother ,the musician Donovan Leitch,OK Mike Figgis is the Director but he also is responsible of the wonderful music in this film.I hate to say it,but Roger Ebert was right in saying that Kinski has the best line of the movie: "What do you do, Karen?" asks Mimi(Max's wife).
In this excellent movie we are told an apparently very simple story where life meets death, success crosses with failure, conjugal life redounds in adultery and love triumphs over it all though in a somewhat strange way.
Life is really an orange like the dying man tells his best friend in his deathbed.
And one last warning: prudes, abstain from seeing this movie because you will hate it not so much for certain scenes (as a matter of fact we have seen a lot of more explicit ones in a lot of famous movies) but because you won't be able to lay your moral prejudice aside in order to admire the beauty of this true love story or to understand its rather odd end.
Is it important to say that the lovers' couple is here composed of a black man and a white woman (Wesley Snipes and Nastassja Kinski who perform their roles very well)?
It shows a very shapley Wesley Snipes playing a very sympathetic role, different for him, plus the best friend of Robert Downey Jr,.
The latter didn't receive half the aclaim of the first, but somehow despite 'Las Vegas' being the more technically perfect film 'One Night Stand' was more a more interesting study of Human relationships and how real life is.I don't think I have seen a better performance from Snipes and Robert Downey Jnr leaves me stunned at why he hasn't been given more leading roles.
There are only a few actors that leave me wanting more because of the insight they brought to the character, Pacino, De Niro, Duvall, Hopkins, to name some, but also, strange as it may be, based on the few decent roles he has had, Downey Jnr.Figgis brings to this film a mood that captivates.
The dialogue levels are appalling in places (sound recordists when are you going to learn its no good spending millions on a movie and people working their guts out if we cant hear the bloody thing!) and the story a little rushed at times.
Then it struck me, when you look at the two dinner scenes it was plain that the foursome only worked with the second arrangement and the end was inevitable thus the attempt by Figgis to make a twist was lost on an audience who were already half expecting that to happen at the first dinner scene, me included.So flaws aside I still enjoyed this film immensely and certainly give it an above average rating.On a a final note has anyone seen so many lowly parts played by such reputable British actors, namely Julian Sands, Amanda Donohue, and Ione Skye!.
Figgis' enthusiasm for jazz is well in evidence here and there's even a neat use of Nina Simone's 'Exactly Like You'.Natassja Kinski and Ming Na Wen don't hurt none either..
The movie didn't appeal to my wont for pure "feel-good" escapism - but then again neither did Leaving Las Vegas - and the movie follows a similar vein in exposing the uncomfortable nature of unadorned life littered with human flaws and gifts.
As a Canadian living in rainbow land - Vancouver - seeing mixed racial or ethnic pairings was no remarkable thing - and it didn't hit me what a large role that feature in the movie plays to American audiences.
Even if I can't stand both the movie title and the basic, braindamaged plot idea, this is not at all a film about playboys and playgirls.
He, in this wisdom people get when they know they have to die soon, tries to kick everyone of his friends that they should look for their happiness, for "this life is not just a test or movie.
you have no time to waste."The whole plot is written out of the perspective of Max Carlyle (Wesley Snipes), the upcoming movie director, which, already happily married and having two children with his wife, by a number of bad circumstances, notably the trauma of a very violent inroad by a ganster on the street, ends up to have a one night stand with a different woman, Karen (Nastasia Kinski), which is also already married, against his and her will and plans.
I really liked the funny end, where everyone was finally happy.Charly is the center of the whole film, the motor of the story, which makes it work, which pushes the people to change their situation for the better.
I've becoming a fan of both dear Nastasia Kinski and cool Wesley Snipes while seeing this movie..
LEAVING LAS VEGAS affected me like almost no other movie has, so I was bound to find this film somewhat of a let-down, but even I was surprised by how much.
The men come off better; Snipes and MacLachlan are good, but really, the main reason this is worth watching is Robert Downey Jr., who avoids cliche even when his character is dying.
It definitely is a fitting follow-up to Leaving Las Vegas for Figgis and I think Robert Downey Jr's performance as Charlie is an excellent portrayal of a young man dying so tragically early.
Wesley Snipes manages well with the lead part and Natasha Kinsky is pretty good, although MF never gives particulary interesting roles for the women in his movies.
Blame it on me, but the only reason I wanted to see this film for was that Nastassja Kinski plays in it.
Wesley has a perfect familylife, two kids, a dog and a lovely wife Ming-Na. Everything goes fine till he misses his flight and bumps onto Karen (Nastassja Kinski, with blonde hair this time!).
The day after Wesley flies back home and his life changes...the most interesting part of the movie by the way as the dog smells something...!
"One night stand" certainly isn't a bad movie, it even doesn't bore one minute, but it's just a bit too empty and you can't blame the actors as Wesley Snipes plays his role perfect but actors are bound to the script, a script that is a bit too much like those telemovies that are based on true stories.
It's all a bit too manipulative and unlikely -- but the subtlety of each character's performance, and the way the film is woven together (including some wonderful music choices) makes this movie a pleasure for me.If you regard this film as an experience rather than a narrative, then I think it has a lot to offer.
Los Angeles commercial director Wesley Snipes goes to New York to visit dying childhood friend Robert Downey, Jr.
Their secret seems safe until one year later Snipes returns to New York with his erotic, but oft-times mean-spirited wife (Ming Na-Wen) and they meet Kinski by chance when they find out that she is actually married to Downey Jr.'s older brother (a cold and seemingly unfeeling Kyle MacLachlan, even equipped with latex gloves because of his fear of catching AIDS).
However, it is almost like he is in the wrong film as his part just basically is used as a bridge on more than one occasion between Snipes and Kinski.
Writer/director Mike Figgis (who was fresh off "Leaving Las Vegas" in 1995) tends to use coincidence, chance, and splintered relationships between major roles to get his points across.
I don't really like the film that much either but when it comes on TV i never miss it because of Robert Downey Jr. His role as a man dying of AIDS touched me deeply.
I'm surprised; I'm thankful that someone like Figgis actually has a presence in Hollywood, the home of superficial characters, simplistic plots, and unbelievable dialogue.
Figgis doesn't fall into any of these traps.Instead, he goes against the grain by presenting a character, Max, played by Snipes (who does a superb job at understatement - who knew?) who is not entirely likable.
And complex or nuanced charcters in a Hollywood movie are unfamiliar creatures.I respect Figgis for giving us characters whose next move you can't predict.
Ming-Na Wen is by far my absolute favorite actor, and I have always enjoyed watching Wesley Snipes' action movies.I've read the reviews and have concluded that this movie is getting far too much credit for it's "artsy" side.
As I said, my favorite actor is in the movie, and I really enjoy most of the roles the other main actors have played in other films.
Keep in mind, that the director (Michael Figgis) has a thing for infidelity (Does "Internal Affairs" ring any bells?), so just go into it knowing that.I'm sad to say it, but "One Night Stand" was a downer, despite all of the great actors and acting.
If you enjoy being cheated on and watching it happen to other people as well, then you'll probably love this movie.
Come to think about, the audience in the theaters probably needed oxygen masks to keep from fainting at this poor flock.I even found the sex scenes uninteresting.What exactly was the theme or idea, or plot of this movie.
If you love director commentaries, you'll love this one, too.If you want a straight-forward flick, you'll hate "One Night Stand." The editing was rushed and the story was encumbered by all the extra-curriculars: Black Husband/Asian Wife, two-way extra-marital affairs, bi-coastal stereotyping, the Gay/AIDS "agenda." Whoo boy.
Most films are 4, 5, or 6).Wesley Snipes: Great Dramatic Acting about a man torn between where he is and where he wants to be in life.Ming-Na: excellent "American neglected wife" who happens to be Asian.
I won't spoil it but if you've seen "The Player" and remember the fictionalized "film within the film" that was in it, well, you'll get it.Still, the reason I'd recommend a rental is to see the cast; one of the most interesting casts ever put together:Wesley Snipes - usually you'll see him in action-comedies, action-thrillers or any other action- film but he looks very uncomfortable doing drama, despite his roles in such films before.
Maybe he was wondering what the heck he was doing in such a maudlin project like this.Ming-Na Wen and Nastassja Kinski - they play Snipes' wife and the lady who shares in the title deed, respectively.
Ming-Na plays the same role she did when she appeared on "Friends", Kinski plays the same person she has played in every film she's appeared.Kyle McLachlan - Ditto.
Plummer is a pretty good supporting actor.But the real reason to see this film are the next three guys.Robert Downey Jr.
- Yes, the controversial actor plays a major subplot as a dying AIDS patient who's a friend of Snipes.
There's no movie here, just images and sounds
a faint idea, but a bad one, an idea that had best been tossed into the dustbin shortly after Joe Eszterhas conceived it.We should have been so lucky.Coming off the enormous success of Leaving Las Vegas, Mike Figgis goes toe-to-toe with M.
After God knows how many rewrites and studio-made casting decisions we're left with something that makes little sense, and likely little resemblance to the original..As is Figgis' nature, the film tries hard to be stylish.
It is LA, a land where Mandingo can have not only intelligence and success, but a beautiful Asian wife, kids, dog, AND a gay best friend dying of Aids.
Why anyone would leave Ming Na-Wen for Nastassia Kinski it not even for us to ponder.Hanging precariously already, the film now loses all sense of itself, of any connection with reality, even L.A. reality.Wonderful actors like Glenn Plummer, Amanda Donahoe, Thomas Haden Church, and John Ratzenberger are needlessly underused.Figgis' own sense of personal failure in the finished product, is exacerbated as he over-cooks his own score.
There is no hint of the subtle support his wonderful musical touch brought us in Leaving Las Vegas.I think back to the movie The Big Picture'.
I first was surprised because of the Wesley Snipes appearance in these kind of movie.
He normally plays main characters in some mediocre action movies like Blade, making me doubt of his skills as an actor.
Great acting by the way in the two meetings of the couples in New York, I already smelted that something odd was going to happen.I didn't noticed any plot holes but finally we don't know nearly anything about the characters.
The whole film was centered into that ''One Night Stand'', we don't know anything about Max and Mimi's children, about Max past (we know that he likes to smoke joints with his friend Charlie), about Vernon, nothing.
This movie is made only for the art of movie-making, nothing else.Each scene isn't connected to the other by the common way, it's like each and every one of them are separated by days or maybe years.
The movie opens with Wesley Snipes (playing a confused TV ad director) talking to the camera.
After a night of sex with a strange woman, ol' Wesley could use a rest, but no, his wife jumps him like there's no tomorrow.
The doomed man is played by Robert Downey Jr., and he's really the best thing in the movie.
Snipes' ad man is a jerk, and Kinski is a bore, even in the love scenes (maybe she should have taken lessons from Wen).
How could Mike Figgis, after creating a masterpiece like "Leaving Las Vegas" create something so disjointed with this movie?
It wastes Wesley Snipes, Nastassja Kinski, Kyle MacLachlan, Ming-Na, Robert Downey Jr and John Ratzenberger on complete nonsense.
If this movie has any redeeming qualities, it's that it gave Thomas Haden Church an early starring role, paving the way for him to star in "Sideways".So, in conclusion, Wesley Snipes's character says that anything's better than LA.
I thought this film is good to watch if you like human drama.
It begins with Max (Wesley Snipes) visiting a gay friend who is dying of aids.
When he was on his visit, he has an passionate affair with a white, blond woman (Nastassja Kinski), who turns out to be the wife of his friend.This film has a daring take on interracial relation.
While racial words were hardly mentioned in this film, the racial difference was apparent in the love scene between Snipes and Miss Kinski.
The difference of skin color was even more explicitly apparent in the love scene when both characters are in bed together, and Snipes puts his black hands onto Nastassja Kinski's white breasts.
Life can be a series of happenstance which is what Mike Figgis has strung together into the plot of this movie.
The cast is more than adequate and does quite well with Robert Downey jr., giving the best performance in the movie.
When it all comes out in the wash, I simply don't see the chemistry between Nastassja Kinski and Wesley Snipes and without that the movie makes no sense and ultimately falls apart..
(And I love Robert Downey Jr. as an actor; but this was definitely not one of his best roles.).
Back when he did things like the Crazy "To Wong Foo".He is great in this movie.
I found it a feel-good movie even though there gut wrenching scenes of loss, mostly thanks to the brilliant Downey.
Part of my problem with it is the typical Hollywood sympathetic portrayal of the Saintly AIDS-stricken Homosexual Wise Man. Part of my problem with it is that I just don't like Wesley Snipes much as an actor; to me, the same arrogant personality is present in every movie I've seen him in.
In this, he's very much the center of the movie - yet quite understated and somewhat disagreeable -- in somehow an appealing way.As fine a performance as Downey gives, I don't like the plot point of a dying man causing others to "seize the day".
It's simply too obvious - and although I know this is the movie's central theme, I don't like it because I don't believe "seizing the day" should ever mean jettisoning those to whom one has pledged to be faithful throughout life.
Unlike a few others commenting, I did find Snipes and Kinski to have a chemistry together - and found the pairing of white Pole and black American intriguing.I loved MacLachlan's performance (so many of those around a homosexual dying of AIDS do NOT fit - and yet they are always shown in drama as being happily approving of homosexuality).Well Maclachlan isn't - yet amazingly the movie doesn't demonize him. |
tt0091635 | Nine 1/2 Weeks | The title of the film refers to the duration of a relationship between Wall Street arbitrageur John Gray and divorced SoHo art gallery employee Elizabeth McGraw. John initiates and controls the various experimental sexual practices of this volatile relationship to push Elizabeth's boundaries. In doing so, Elizabeth experiences a gradual downward spiral toward emotional breakdown.
Elizabeth first sees John in New York City where she grocery shops and again at a street market where she decides against buying an expensive scarf. John wins her heart when he eventually produces that scarf. They start dating, and Elizabeth is increasingly subjected to John's behavioral peculiarities; he blindfolds Elizabeth, who is at first reluctant to comply with his sexual fantasy demands. Yet she sees him as loving and playful. He gives her an expensive gold watch, and instructs her to use it to think about him at noon. She takes this imperative even further by masturbating at her workplace at the designated time. However, he ultimately confuses Elizabeth by his reluctance to meet her friends despite the intimacy of their sexual relations.
Elizabeth's confusion about John increases when he leaves her alone at his apartment. She examines his closet until she discovers a photograph of him with another woman. John asks her if she went through his stuff, declaring that he will punish her. Their ensuing altercation escalates into sexual assault until she blissfully concedes to his struggle to overpower her. Their sexual intensity grows as they start having sex in public places.
Elizabeth's heightened need for psychosexual stimulation drives her to stalk John to his office and to obey his injunction to cross-dress herself for a rendezvous. On leaving the establishment, two men hurl a homophobic slur when they mistake John and Elizabeth for a gay couple. A fight ensues. Elizabeth picks up a knife from one of the attackers and stabs one of them in the buttocks and both attackers flee. After the fight, Elizabeth reveals a wet tank-top and has sex onsite with John with intensely visceral passion. Following this encounter, John's sexual games acquire sadomasochistic elements.
Rather than satisfying or empowering Elizabeth, such experiences intensify her emotional vulnerability. While meeting at a hotel room, John blindfolds her. A prostitute starts caressing Elizabeth as John observes them. The prostitute removes Elizabeth's blindfold and starts working on John. Elizabeth violently intervenes, and flees the hotel, with John pursuing her. They run until they find themselves in an adult entertainment venue. Moments later, John and Elizabeth gravitate towards each other, finding themselves interlocked in each other's seemingly inescapable embrace.
The following morning, John senses that he will never see her again. He attempts to share with her details about his life. Elizabeth tells him that it is too late as she leaves the apartment. John begins his mental countdown to 50, hoping she will come back by the time he is finished. | violence, cult, sadist | train | wikipedia | All people seem to talk about when it comes to this movie is about the sex scenes and the nudity in the film.
Rourke and Basinger make a steamy couple and the ending and the events that unfolded in the film lingered with me long afterwards and left me thinking for a while.
For an established actress like Kim Basinger to accept this role and play it as naturally as she did speaks to her talent as well at to her willingness to explore alternate "romantic" ideas on film.
At first it seems like a game, but later on the intensity is too much for the relationship to withstand, largely because if love and caring are sacrificed for the sex, it will die.You almost couldn't find more suitable casting than Mickey Roarke and Kim Bassinger.
Despite what may appear to be pornography, there is a point to the film I think, and that is that constant sexual control and nurturing relationships mix like oil and water.
My favorite part is when Elizabeth goes to visit Fransworth, the artist.If you really think about it just as he is at the gallery opening of his show, so is she "a fish out of water".It can't survive and in the end neither can she.I love the way this film was shot.This movie is more about stepping out side your comfort zone.
You know about her family and life, but you don't learn about his until it is to late.People need to get passed the sex scenes and realize this movie is about human limits.All of us feel this inside, but are afraid, like Elizabeth to try it..
I don't know how anyone could call it boring, but we all see different things when we watch a movie.I thought the much-vaunted "sex" scenes were pretty tame, actually, but really, really fun to watch!
Yes, I think it was more about power than sex, and when the moment of truth came for the balance of power to shift - as the Rourke character had planned for it to do - he had scared off his true love.
Still this is a film that is fun and very enjoyable to watch as it proves just how complex and tense that love making can be really this film showcased it as a dangerous and mysterious game of obsession.Set in New York City, with the hustle and rush of big city life you see Elizabeth(Kim Basinger) a young single and attractive woman who works at an art gallery showcase.
This film really proved just how fun love making can be true it pushed the limits, but it showed just how far someone will go like the John character who was so emotionally and physically empty for so long.
Overall good film that may be a little to dated, still it's a nice treat for it's take of pushing love making to new erotic and obsessive heights.
I guess one could say this is kind of a "Last Tango in Paris" of my generation; maybe not as deep and bleak but Lynn packaged this film like one long music video or long commercial; there is so much eye candy shots and that is just to get your attention so he can draw into this relationship that develops slow into a kind of dark and sad area.
The first time John and Liz meet each other; John takes her back to a boat house and while there he kind of gives a her subtle glimpse of his sadistic nature; and all the other scenes that follow are all like a building blocks of John's dark character who according to Liz "She can't figure what he is about".There is a scene where John takes Liz to buy her the outfit that he likes and while paying the cashier Liz asks John, "don't want to know what I think about it?"and John smiles and says "No".
Each time she gives into his demands he goes further to manipulate her into something that he likes and that last request in the hotel room with the Hooker was the breaking point for Liz where she runs into a porn store and kisses a complete stranger to get a kind of even with John and yet deep in turmoil on the inside of what is happening to her.I think to me the last scene its still the very best part of this whole film; when Liz gets out of bed while John still sleeping and she is in tears.
I think what I like the best is what Liz says: "we both knew it will be over if one of us said stop, but you wouldn't say it, and I waited too long"; she has had enough; as much as she is in love I guess there is a part of her that can still find reason and see the damage this relationship can do to her; I don't think the audience didn't expect this to happen or how it will end so fast in just 9 1/2 weeks, for most of us takes so much longer to realize how unhealthy a relationship is because we are too busy having fun and focusing on sex as love; this is where this film truly becomes of a substance and takes a huge turn by Liz ending it not John; this time she took control and left John hoping she will return as all others did when he counted to 50, this is how self absorbed his character was.
When Liz leaves the apartment while walking and crying in the street there is one last shot of her turning back one more time maybe hoping John had followed her and then she turns because its over; this part still holds up today as it did 18 years ago when I first saw it and I still get the same feeling.This film really should have been longer and from what I read here it was originally about 3 hours and I like others would Mr. Lynn does someday release it as a director's cut.
Its sad really because this could have been like "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" sequels; although Mickey Rourke may not as appealing or as popular he once was back in the 80's after his acting career took a dive to his boxing career but I still think he is a great actor and I personally would like to see another sequel with both Bassinger and Rourke to this dark romantic masterpiece...you never know it may still happen?.
Kim Basinger plays Liz, an art gallery employee who meets Wall Street trader John, played by Mickey Rourke.
What one realizes while watching this is how limited and ultimately unsatisfactory is a relationship based purely on sex.I imagine that the familiar dominance/submissive psychology at the heart of this visually stunning movie--and it really is beautifully shot--comes from the novel by Elizabeth MacNeil.
I say that, not having read the novel, because the seduction of Manhattan art dealer Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) by the smooth and supremely confident financier John (Mickey Rourke) is so very well done with the expensive presents, the well-timed flower deliveries, little endearments, etc., that it amounts to a woman's fantasy.
The partial debasement of Elizabeth and her eventual triumph over her darker instincts and her realization that there is a difference between love and submission is also something that one might expect to find in a woman's point-of-view novel.However when we get to the actual sexuality and how it is acted out, it is unclear who dreamed up the scenes, MacNeil or director Adrian Lyne or the scriptwriters.
And then to have Elizabeth and John stop in the middle of the street to allow the bashers they have outrun to catch up was just plain stupid, not to mention the phony fight that followed.Not only were the sexual scenes predictable but clearly Lyne was in harness (and I am glad of that) since he stops well short of what might happen if this sort of theme were fully played out.Putting all that aside what makes this movie worth seeing is Kim Basinger.
Before seeing this film I thought she was a rather ordinary actress, but her ability to combine grown-up New York chic with little-girl vulnerability and to make absolutely clear the psychological dilemma her character's heart faced really held the movie together.Lyne's insistence on whispered dialogue difficult to hear was consistent with the theme of the movie but not kind to these ears.
And that was doubly good because again it is the visuals that make this movie worth seeing, not the originality of the story and its development.To those viewers who thought that this was some sort of high class pornography, I can only say you missed the point entirely, and indeed, you may be projecting your own sorry mentality.
For those others who were not, shall we say, sufficiently stimulated, I can point you to a graphic novel with a similar theme (written by a man) entitled The Story of O which will NOT be coming to a theater near you anytime soon.See this for Kim Basinger whose sensitive and robust beauty dominated the screen.(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!).
There isn't much about "9 1/2 Weeks" that is warm or inviting; the central relationship between Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke is there to be busted up, and director Adrian Lyne doesn't appear to be concerned with the characters anyway--his thing seems to be chilly atmospherics and stylish furniture.
(the recent popularity of such movies as matrix, fight club, american beauty all cater this feeling in us that there is something more to life than going to the mall and drinking lattes)I guess this movie starts on this positive note, this connection and infatuation between the two people, but than the fetishes dominate as the excitement of the relationship must sustain it's "high", the relationship comes to an end as the two were not intertwined in society in a "normal" fashion.
John, the guru of sensuality, can think of nothing more original than continually blindfolding Liz.The film desperately wants to be a badass New York movie-with-attitude.
After watching the film a couple of times I am far less fascinated by Kim Basinger than by Rourke's character Jon. Sure Jon was very aggressive sexually with Elizabeth, and many seem to understand this as being crude or offensive.
Yeah, while Jon lives in a fancy apartment and buys Elizabeth nice things, it is clear that he is not a trust-fund baby but a guy who worked his way to the top with determination and balls.That helps explain the most difficult scene in the movie.
The rest of the movie, all of the sexual escapades, including the sex scene at the end with the prostitute is Jon trying to determine how much he should really give himself to Elizabeth.
This movie was about all of the things that sex communicates, and ultimately Rourke brilliantly pulls off a complicated character who is unabashedly male and dying to be vulnerable at the same time..
Mickey Rourke is above all effective as a guy who is willing to take risks and wants the woman to do the same, and I'm sure if I was a woman I would find him irresistible in this role ...A much-maligned film which deserves re-evaluation as a masterpiece of its kind.
"Nine 1/2 weeks" is one of my favourite movies and I wish people understood the idea of the film correctly.
One from our best director who always present sex and lust movie,Adrian Lyne.But,it'll be the great different style of erotica movie!!This movie told about so many dark(or beautiful?)side of sex that led to abuse and obsesive sex game.they played sex like a pinball game..so many hot and desire scenes.i really like it!if you watch it once,you could never forget...
The Director so great and still brilliant to made another different of xxx-movie..and all star (especially) kim basinger and mickey rourke totally awesome in the game what they played it together!!kim basinger is hot..
This is confirmed and creates a parallel in the painting exhibition, when Liz is already broken because of her relationship with John, she sees and empathizes with the painter who is totally lost and baffled at the art gallery exhibition.I do not want to get into analyze what happens to the relationship between main characters (although actually it's quite simple) because like many of the films in which there is shown or suggested sex, we should try to see a little further.8/10.
throughout the film i kept hoping that the two main characters(kim basinger and micky rourke) would find something deeper(love) but they don't except and it led me to believe that maybe this film was just about sex even though the people watching may have wanted it to be more..
Suffice it to say, this film fascinated the core 18-32 movie market audience!!Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger are WONDERFUL!
Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate.
The way Kim Basinger walks away from Mickey Rourke, after 9,5 weeks, in a long shot that lasts a minute or so, is definitely very worthwhile to see and not that easy to play as it might look.
It is a Film about Control and Submission and Their Relationship is Built on that Foundation and while it is Relinquished it is Right, but when the Blindfold is Lifted and the Servitude is No Longer Welcomed the Result is Inevitable.This Sleight of Hand from Director Adrian Lyne is Hypnotic and Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger do Well Managing the Difficult Roles.
now now, let's not do too much thinkin.' lets face it, it's one of the last movies made during the time mickey rourke was still hot - and kim bassinger never looked better.
I've seen this film for the first time again after 30 years and I can say it is like a good wine, gets better with age.
Ultimately, she finds this strange relationship taking dominance in her life."Nine 1/2 Weeks" is a largely two character film that is not degrading or "pornographic" as some people might have you believe.
Also, for a film running close to two hours, it doesn't seem to have all that much story going for it.The sex scenes will stick in the mind, even if most of them aren't particularly imaginative.
At the same time (especially to the ones that only understand the sex content of the movie) it shows that even the most exciting fantasy (let's at least admit we all have them) falls into routine eventually.
The way it was filmed was a great way of showing just how much of a actor Mickey Rourke is and how Kim Basinger can really heat up a scene.
For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing.
Kim Basinger's character Elizabeth in one scene is dressed in (shabby) drag, and as she and John (Mickey Rourke) leave the restaurant, they are gay-bashed.
One of the perks of Nine 1/2 Weeks is that the stars, Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger, provide audiences of male and female sexes to come together; they are both eye candy for each sex, and they didn't look much better than they did here.
9 ½ WeeksThe best thing about a one-night stand is that you don't have to sleep at the shelter.The lucky devil in this erotic drama, in fact, has been living cot-free for months.When Wall Street financial whiz John Gray (Mickey Rourke) encounters art galley employee Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) they have an instant sexual connection that will soon find Elizabeth stepping outside her boundaries.Over the coming weeks, John enforces his dominance over his new submissive, yet is unwilling to meet her friends socially.
It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke).
Mickey Rourke was the best thing that happened to this movie however they should have never tried to duplicate the sex appeal of my favorite bad boy in the second and third installment.
Maybe people are disappointed because the film doesn't really score in the "erotic" department: Mickey Rourke is magnetic but Basinger just doesn't cut it - her only really "hot" scene is her strip-tease, which is also the least explicit one.
To be a little crude, he seems to have the common problem of getting excited too early; and then the audience - much like the familiar frustrated female - is left whining "Is that it?" Contravening normal rules for a movie of this type, the sex scenes don't get more exciting, they get more DULL as the film progresses, despite Lyne's pathetic attempt to excite us by throwing in bondage and rape elements.
The story is pretty simple as a man and woman (Mickey Rourke, Kim Basinger) enter a dangerous sexual game and soon it starts to have a toll on both of them.
As for the sex scenes, viewed today none of them are all too shocking but I guess you could say, for the time, Rourke and Basinger were brave for taking on their roles.
He has his world under his control and that includes his sexuality towards her.Some say that this film doesn't really have a point or that it has no plot but to show a lot of soft core sex scenes. |
tt4108170 | Il Trovatore | Place: Biscay and Aragon (Spain)
Time: Fifteenth century.
=== Act 1: The Duel ===
Scene 1: The guard room in the castle of Luna (The Palace of Aljafería, Zaragoza, Spain)
Ferrando, the captain of the guards, orders his men to keep watch while Count di Luna wanders restlessly beneath the windows of Leonora, lady-in-waiting to the Princess. Di Luna loves Leonora and is jealous of his successful rival, a troubadour whose identity he does not know. In order to keep the guards awake, Ferrando narrates the history of the count (Aria: Di due figli vivea padre beato / "The good Count di Luna lived happily, the father of two sons"): many years ago, a gypsy was wrongfully accused of having bewitched the youngest of the di Luna children; the child had fallen sick and for this the gypsy had been burnt alive as a witch, her protests of innocence ignored. Dying, she had commanded her daughter Azucena to avenge her, which she did by abducting the baby. Although the burnt bones of a child were found in the ashes of the pyre, the father refused to believe in his son's death; dying, he commanded his firstborn, the new Count di Luna, to seek Azucena.
Scene 2: Garden in the palace of the princess
Leonora confesses her love for the Troubadour to her confidante, Ines (Tacea la notte placida / "The peaceful night lay silent"... Di tale amor / "A love that words can scarcely describe"), in which she tells how she fell in love with a mystery knight, victor at a tournament: lost track of him when a civil war broke out: then encountered him again, in disguise as a wandering troubadour who sang beneath her window. When they have gone, Count di Luna enters, intending to pay court to Leonora himself, but hears the voice of his rival, in the distance: (Deserto sulla terra / "Alone upon this earth"). Leonora in the darkness briefly mistakes the count for her lover, until the Troubadour himself enters the garden, and she rushes to his arms. The Count challenges his rival to reveal his true identity, which he does: Manrico, a knight now outlawed and under death sentence for his allegiance to a rival prince. Manrico in turn challenges him to call the guards, but the Count regards this encounter as a personal rather than political matter, and challenges Manrico instead to a duel over their common love. Leonora tries to intervene, but cannot stop them from fighting (Trio: Di geloso amor sprezzato / "The fire of jealous love" ).
=== Act 2: The Gypsy Woman ===
Scene 1: The gypsies' camp
The gypsies sing the Anvil Chorus: Vedi le fosche notturne / "See! The endless sky casts off her sombre nightly garb...". Azucena, the daughter of the Gypsy burnt by the count, is still haunted by her duty to avenge her mother (Aria: Stride la vampa / "The flames are roaring!"). The Gypsies break camp while Azucena confesses to Manrico that after stealing the di Luna baby she had intended to burn the count's little son along with her mother, but overwhelmed by the screams and the gruesome scene of her mother's execution, she became confused and threw her own child into the flames instead (Aria: Condotta ell'era in ceppi / "They dragged her in bonds").
Manrico realises that he is not the son of Azucena, but loves her as if she were indeed his mother, as she has always been faithful and loving to him - and, indeed, saved his life only recently, discovering him left for dead on a battlefield after being caught in ambush. Manrico tells Azucena that he defeated di Luna in their earlier duel, but was held back from killing him by a mysterious power (Duet: Mal reggendo / "He was helpless under my savage attack"): and Azucena reproaches him for having stayed his hand then, especially since it was the Count's forces that defeated him in the subsequent battle of Pelilla. A messenger arrives and reports that Manrico's allies have taken Castle Castellor, which Manrico is ordered to hold in the name of his prince: and also that Leonora, who believes Manrico dead, is about to enter a convent and take the veil that night. Although Azucena tries to prevent him from leaving in his weak state (Ferma! Son io che parlo a te! / "I must talk to you"), Manrico rushes away to prevent her from carrying out this intent.
Scene 2: In front of the convent
Di Luna and his attendants intend to abduct Leonora and the Count sings of his love for her (Aria: Il balen del suo sorriso / "The light of her smile" ... Per me ora fatale / "Fatal hour of my life"). Leonora and the nuns appear in procession, but Manrico prevents di Luna from carrying out his plans and takes Leonora away with him, although once again leaving the Count behind unharmed, as the soldiers on both sides back down from bloodshed, the Count being held back by his own men.
=== Act 3: The Son of the Gypsy Woman ===
Scene 1: Di Luna's camp
Di Luna and his army are attacking the fortress Castellor where Manrico has taken refuge with Leonora (Chorus: Or co' dadi ma fra poco / "Now we play at dice"). Ferrando drags in Azucena, who has been captured wandering near the camp. When she hears di Luna’s name, Azucena’s reactions arouse suspicion and Ferrando recognizes her as the supposed murderer of the count’s brother. Azucena cries out to her son Manrico to rescue her and the count realizes that he has the means to flush his enemy out of the fortress. He orders his men to build a pyre and burn Azucena before the walls.
Scene 2: A chamber in the castle
Inside the castle, Manrico and Leonora are preparing to be married. She is frightened; the battle with di Luna is imminent and Manrico’s forces are outnumbered. He assures her of his love (Aria, Manrico: Ah sì, ben mio, coll'essere / "Ah, yes, my love, in being yours"), even in the face of death. When news of Azucena’s capture reaches him, he summons his men and desperately prepares to attack (Stretta: Di quella pira l'orrendo foco / "The horrid flames of that pyre"). Leonora faints.
=== Act 4: The Punishment ===
Scene 1: Before the dungeon keep
Manrico has failed to free Azucena and has been imprisoned himself. Leonora attempts to free him (Aria: D'amor sull'ali rosee / "On the rosy wings of love"; Chorus & Duet: Miserere / "Lord, thy mercy on this soul") by begging di Luna for mercy and offers herself in place of her lover. She promises to give herself to the count, but secretly swallows poison from her ring in order to die before di Luna can possess her (Duet: Mira, d'acerbe lagrime / "See the bitter tears I shed").
Scene 2: In the dungeon
Manrico and Azucena are awaiting their execution. Manrico attempts to soothe Azucena, whose mind wanders to happier days in the mountains (Duet: Ai nostri monti ritorneremo / "Again to our mountains we shall return"). At last the gypsy slumbers. Leonora comes to Manrico and tells him that he is saved, begging him to escape. When he discovers she cannot accompany him, he refuses to leave his prison. He believes Leonora has betrayed him until he realizes that she has taken poison to remain true to him. As she dies in agony in Manrico's arms she confesses that she prefers to die with him than to marry another (Trio: Prima che d'altri vivere / "Rather than live as another's"). The count has heard Leonora's last words and orders Manrico's execution. Azucena awakes and tries to stop di Luna. Once Manrico is dead, she cries: Egli era tuo fratello! Sei vendicata, o madre. / "He was your brother ... You are avenged, oh mother!" | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0129111 | The Gambler | Axel Freed is a New York City Harvard University–educated English professor and author with a gambling addiction that begins to spiral out of control. In the classroom, Freed inspires his college students with his interpretations of Fyodor Dostoevsky's work. In his personal life, Axel has the affection of the beautiful Billie and the admiration of his family, including his mother Naomi, who is a doctor, and his grandfather, a wealthy businessman.
Unbeknownst to them, Axel's reckless gambling has left him with a huge debt. His bookie, Hips, likes the professor personally but threatens grave consequences if he does not pay up. When Billie, having been informed by Axel that he owes $44,000, questions the wisdom of her associating with him, Axel confidently tells her she loves his life's dangers, including "the possibility of blood".
After obtaining the $44,000 from his mortified mother, Axel goes with Billie to Las Vegas and gambles it into a small fortune, only to blow it all again on basketball bets. He takes out his anger on Billie, who does not appreciate having loan sharks come to their apartment in the middle of the night. Expecting help from his grandfather, Axel gets nothing but the older man's disappointment and disgust.
Axel's only way to avoid the debt is to lure one of his students, a basketball star, into accepting a bribe from Axel's creditors to shave points in a game. He does so. When the game has ended in accordance with the plan, Axel says good-night to Hips by wandering off into a black ghetto near the gymnasium where the game has been played; he ignores a warning from Hips that the area is a jungle.
Axel proceeds to lure a pimp into a life-or-death fight by refusing to pay a prostitute. As Axel beats him, nearly to death, the prostitute slashes him across the face. As Axel is leaving the scene of the fight, he studies himself in a mirror and smiles enigmatically at the blood coming from the wound. | romantic, autobiographical, flashback | train | wikipedia | an entertaining period piece & biography.
I do not know how close to Dostoyevsky's real life this setting was, but I do know that he was jailed as a political activist in his youth, flung in with the struggles & downtrodden lives of anyone from petty criminals to hardened murderers, in extremely oppressive jails that were often a source for the characters in his novels.This movie does an admirable job of portraying the addictive aspect of gambling, tempting & drawing the characters as well as the viewer, into the world of casinos frequently by the rich, the curious & the desperate.
But just as intriguing is the secondary plot of this movie, which looks in the complexities of relationships of some of the characters involved in the gambling & how easily it escalates beyond the imagination of those partaking in such thrills.
Amidst all this, we gain a glimpse into the underlying passions, the romance, the ambiguous motives, even of Dostoyevsky & this young lady presented as of much more ethical substance than one who'd governed Dostoyevsky's heart from his youth.I thought the acting is also very good, both from Michael Gambon as the author & Jodhi May as Anna, his pen.
The street & casino settings are likewise impressive.
All in all, "The Gambler" is a worthy detour for a couple of hours, into the lives of the protagonists & those they portray..
Forget Travolta, forget Burt Reynolds, forget Robert Forster...this is the real comeback.
Luise Rainer more or less vanished after winning a couple of Oscars for Louis B.
Mayer in the thirties.
My biographical snooping doesn't yield much in the way of clues, but it seems likely that, Louise Brooks-like, Rainer had simply had it with the movie colony.
She has been plucked out of retirement only on brief occasions since the end of the Second World War, but never so spectacularly as in Karoly Makk's adaptation of Dostoevsky's THE GAMBLER.As the antihero's dowager-empress grandma, Rainer has two big scenes: they're all about the strange, giddy, self-annihilating glee the old bat experiences discovering what the fun of roulette is all about.
Rainer looks and feels like a jaunty, no-cares twenty-five-year-old girl in old-age makeup.
(This performance may, for all I know, be a Bowfinger-like stunt by Angelina Jolie.) Rainer, who came into pictures just as sound came in, has a post-Stanislavskian snap that you can't explain.
She should be paraded across the screen like a bull elephant, as with Gloria Stuart in TITANIC or James Cagney in RAGTIME, but she gives an electrifying performance.
You can feel the audience come alive every minute her face fills the screen.The rest of this threadbare period piece is ruins.
At a curt but not brisk 97 minutes, the movie seems to have been hacked down to cable-softcore-movie length by the front office.
Karoly Makk gets special dispensation for that crime, but in honesty it doesn't look as if there were much here in the first place.
The movie details the 27 days in which Dostoevsky had to write THE GAMBLER or lose all rights to his future work, and it manages to convey exactly nothing about obsession, creation, lust, destitution, joy, connivance, religiosity, or gambling.
(It does scarcely better with epilepsy and foot fetishism.) Michael Gambon, a hangdog piece of British baggage who gave great performances in the works of Peter Greenaway and Dennis Potter, gives a stagy, self-absorbed performance as Dostoevsky.
The other non-Rainer personnel fare scarcely better--except for a couple of weirdly out-of-place Page Six hotties who seem contrived to be a duet of existential Spice Girls..
Still scene stealing after 50 years..
Makk's take on the 27 days Dostoyevsky worked to complete the novel 'Rouletenberg' is a mediocre attempt to inject some kind of passion into a direly dull subject.
Themes of obsession and lust are all there bubbling under the surface but we never get under the skin of it, we never really go through the experience with Dostoyevsky, which ultimately means we hardly give a care.The saving grace in amongst some incredibly earnest, yet unaffecting performances, is Luise Rainer's mesmerising ten, or so, minutes on screen.
All wide-eyed and full of charm, she steals the movie,as the Grandmother relishing the chance to play at roulette for the first time.
The anticipation, delight, and despair in this brief appearance leave you wanting more.
Sadly, there isn't any!Makk's film looks good, with the requisite period detail, and atmospheric slo-mo, and overlapping repeat shots, but with such a lacklustre story it didn't really ignite any enthusiasm in this viewer..
A Gambler's Gambler but don't try these working habits at home.
I ran to see this at its initial release, because I'd read most of Dostoevski's work and could not resist a film with such high credentials.
My second viewing confirms the film as a masterful lie like truth.
It must have been this way, even if it wasn't.
The scenes of the novel reflect those of the writing, but palely, as the collaborators construct an engaging and deeply felt film out of the writing of a pretty darn good work of fiction, which Dostoevski created out of his own experience and insight.Makk and the screenwriters have followed the wise course of giving the best actors, most naturalistic style and deepest characters to the frame tale: The saga of the life-ravaged writer's race to finish his novel or lose his future.
The writer's story, of obsessed gamblers at a casino in Germany, is stylistically distanced in performance as well as character depth and cinematography.As the novelist's deadline approaches and the novel's characters meet their fates, the two merge in a delicately hallucinatory interaction which is carried into a deeply satisfying and complex conclusion..
A surprisingly engaging story.
Based on the true events of the writing of The Gambler, Dostoyevsky meets the much younger Anna when she comes to him as stenographer.
This is as much a tale of chaste love as it is romantic, and the interweaving of the fiction they scramble to put together in order to keep him out of debt (and avoid losing the rights to all his works, both present and future!) with the elements of their reality is seamless and thoroughly engaging.
The incomprable Louis Ranier shows up long enough to lose her fortune at the roulette table -- and the entire movie in three short scenes.
I highly recommend this for fans of unconventional love stories and Masterpiece Theater.
Those whose tastes run a bit faster may find themselves bored by the pacing and lack of flesh (but for Polly Walker's beautiful backside in one spicy scene).
All in all, this one was much better than anticipated and I wouldn't mind keeping it in my collection..
Luck Be A Lady To Fyodor.
Someone decided that the story of Fyodor Dostoyevsky writing The Gambler might be a better story than the novella itself.
Thus this film The Gambler came into being.
Michael Gambon plays Dostoyevsky who is really under the gun.
He should have had a lawyer looking over the contract he signed with a publisher.
He had a year to deliver a novel to them and if he didn't everything word he ever would write would belong to that selfsame publisher.
Of course our friend Fyodor spent the advance quite liberally on his pleasures and now he's got only a month to deliver a book.
So Gambon takes the unusual step of hiring a live-in stenographer to take down his words played by Jodhi May. She gets to live and observe the Dostoyevsky family their talents and their excesses.
From which came the novella The Gambler.Gambon plays Dostoyevsky as a man like a lot of gifted people, someone whose talents seem to entitle them to excessive behavior.
To be sure this also was a man survived Siberian exile and is probably enjoying the fleshpots of Moscow as much as he can.The Gambler is also the final appearance of recent centenarian Luise Rainer.
She plays the live person who became the grandmother in the novella who threw her fortune away at roulette.
Unless someone gets the idea to team Luise with upcoming centenarian Gloria Stuart and wouldn't that be an interesting film, I doubt she's doing another.
It's worth it to see her give one bravura performance.Great literature gets born under unusual circumstances.
Talk about publish or perish.
The Gambler is an interesting piece on the life of its creator Fyodor Doestoyevsky..
Below par biography, poor adaptation of the novel.
This movie was very disappointing.
The scenes which were adapted from the novel were brief (none lasted more than three minutes) and gave NO details.
Had I not read the book, these scenes would have made no sense at all.
Even having read the book, they were worthless to the overall film, especially since they lacked Dostoevsky's narration which is probably even more important to the novel than the bare sketches of the scenes.As far as the biographical scenes, which made up most of the film, they were decent enough but not good in any sense of the word.
The dialogue was limited and a bit contrived.
The acting was unnatural and mediocre.Another reason this movie was bad is the casting.
Gambon, especially without Dostoevsky's trademark beard, was pretty unsuited to the role.
Polly Walker, Jodhi May, Dominic West and Luise Rainer were good, but the rest of the actors just didn't seem well-suited to their roles.Finally, the sound was poorly done.
One minute they'd whisper and I'd have to turn the volume to 25, the next they were shouting so loud I had to turn it to 7.
The music also was too loud compared to dialogue.Overall, a poor film.
If you're a fan of the novel or Dostoevsky, this movie is horrid.
If you're looking for an introduction to Dostoevsky, this movie gives the entire wrong impression.P.S. What was up with the panty-sniffing scene?
That was so not in the book....
good movie.
Though I had not previously heard of this movie "The Gambler", I found it a very pleasant surprise as a late night TV movie.
Though I had not previously heard of this movie "The Gambler", I found it a very pleasant surprise as a late night TV movie.
It told the story of a Russian author & portrayed some of the characters significant to his life & writings, & that his secretary Anna, who was penning his manuscript for him.
It told the story of a Russian author & portrayed some of the characters significant to his life & writings, & that his secretary Anna, who was penning his manuscript for him.
I do not know how close to Dostoyevsky's real life this setting was, but I do know that he was jailed as a political activist in his youth, flung in with the struggles & downtrodden lives of anyone from petty criminals to hardened murderers, in extremely oppressive jails that were often a source for the characters in his novels. |
tt0104466 | Husbands and Wives | The film is about two couples: Jack (Pollack) and Sally (Davis), and Gabe (Allen) and Judy (Farrow). The film starts when Jack and Sally arrive at Gabe and Judy's apartment and announce their separation. Gabe is shocked, but Judy takes the news personally and is very hurt. Still confused, they go out for dinner at a Chinese restaurant.
A few weeks later Sally goes to the apartment of a colleague. They plan to go out together to the opera and then to dinner. Sally asks if she can use his phone, and calls Jack. Learning from him that he has met someone, she accuses him of having had an affair during their marriage.
Judy and Gabe are introduced to Jack's new girlfriend, Sam, an aerobics trainer. While Judy and Sam shop, Gabe calls Jack's new girlfriend a "cocktail waitress" and tells him that he is crazy for leaving Sally for her. About a week later, Judy introduces Sally to Michael (Neeson), Judy's magazine colleague who she clearly is interested in herself. Michael asks Sally out, and they begin dating; Michael is smitten, but Judy is dissatisfied with the relationship.
Meanwhile, Gabe has developed a friendship with a young student of his, Rain, and has her read the manuscript for his working novel. She comments on its brilliance, though has several criticisms, to which Gabe reacts defensively.
At a party, Jack learns from a friend that Sally is seeing someone, and flies into a jealous rage. He and Sam break up after an intense argument, and Jack drives back to his house to find Sally in bed with Michael. He asks Sally to give their marriage another chance, but she tells him to leave.
Less than two weeks later, however, Jack and Sally are back together and the couple meet Judy and Gabe for dinner like old times. After dinner, Judy and Gabe get into an argument about her not sharing her poetry. After Gabe makes a failed pass at her, Judy tells him that she thinks the relationship was over; a week later Gabe moves out. Judy begins seeing Michael.
Gabe goes to Rain's 21st birthday party, and gives her a music box as a present. She asks him to kiss her, and though the two share a passionate romantic moment, Gabe tells her that they should not pursue it any further. As he walks home in the rain, he realizes that he has ruined his relationship with Judy.
Michael tells Judy he needs time alone, then says he can't help still having feelings for Sally. Angry and hurt, Judy walks out into the rain. Highlighting her "passive aggressiveness," Michael follows and begs her to stay with him. A year and a half later they marry.
At the end, the audience sees a pensive Jack and Sally back together. Jack and Sally admit their marital problems still exist (her frigidity is not solved), but they find they accept their problems as simply the price they have to pay to remain together.
Gabe is living alone because he says he is not dating for the time being, as he does not want to hurt anyone. The film ends with an immediate cut to black after Gabe asks the unseen documentary crew, "Can I go? Is this over?" | satire, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0041592 | The Little Orphan | Nibbles arrives at Jerry's mousehole, and as he tries to snatch cheese from a trap, Jerry discovers he has been asked to have Nibbles as a guest for Thanksgiving, with a note attached saying "he's always hungry." Jerry's cupboards are empty, so he leads Nibbles to a bowl of cream where Tom is sleeping. After Nibbles sips the cream, Mammy Two Shoes places a turkey on the table. Nibbles proceeds to eat certain foods from the table, while Jerry dresses him and Nibbles as pilgrims, but after Nibbles swallows an orange and inflates, Jerry hits Nibbles with a knife and the orange flies into Tom's mouth, waking him up.
Tom, now wearing a feather duster as a headdress, catches Nibbles, but Jerry pops a champagne cork into Tom's face. Tom then grabs Jerry, but Nibbles launches off jelly and stabs Tom with a fork. Tom then hurls the fork to catch Nibbles, but Jerry, porched on candlestick, whacks Tom in the face with a spoon.
Tom then sets pussy willows on fire and melts Jerry and Nibbles' hiding places, but Jerry lifts a lid and the willow ricochets back into Tom's mouth. Tom then knocks Jerry out with a knife, but Nibbles launches a pie into Tom's face, knocking the cat off the table. Nibbles then launches a candle into Tom's tail, burning him, before launching a champagne bottle into Tom, after which Tom crashes into a cabinet and surrenders.
Tom, Jerry and Nibbles then say grace at the table and prepare to eat a turkey, but Nibbles devours the entire turkey before Tom and Jerry can pick up their cutlery. Nibbles, now with a full stomach, pats his stomach in delight. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | A classic cartoon with Tom, Jerry and Nibbles.
This classic, Oscar-winning cartoon has the little grey orphan mouse Nibbles visit Jerry.
Nibbles has a little note asking Jerry to feed him, as he's always hungry.
A veritable banquet has just been prepared by Mammy Two Shoes, the black maid, and Nibbles starts to go into overdrive at the sight of so much food!
It's not long, however, before Tom, dressed up as an Indian (as in Cowboy enemy, rather than person from India), gets in on the act.This cartoon is so cool, has plenty of laughs, especially when Nibbles' appetite gets out of hand.The version of 'The Little Orphan' that I am reviewing here is the uncensored original that I have been fortunate enough to see and appreciate before the political-correctness brigade supposedly forced the distributor to cut a scene where a candle scorches Tom and turns him black.
The cut is very clumsy and the result is that this section of the cartoon no longer makes much sense.
(Some versions have Mammy Two Shoes' fleeting appearance removed for similar racial reasons).Great cartoon, but definitely preferable in the uncut version..
'Nibbles' Does A Lot More Than That.
Jerry is relaxing in his little house reading "Good Mousekeeping" magazine when someone knocks on his door (to the outside of the house).
It's a little gray mouse with a note attached to it.
It reads: "This is Nibbles, the little orphan you agreed to have as your guest for dinner on Thanksgiving Day. Thank you, Bide- A-Wee Mose Home.
P.S. He's always hungry."Jerry's cupboards are bare so he and Nibbles wander outside the hole to cat (Tom) country, looking for food and drink.....and the trouble begins.
All I can say is that this little creature has an appetite that's unbelievable!Nothing super, but an entertaining short..
White-washing history AGAIN.
Nibbles, the little orphan mouse from "The Milky Waif" returns to celebrate Thanksgiving with Jerry, and he's very VERY hungry.
It's up to Tom to navigate past the sleeping Tom and get Nibbles something to quench his unsatisfiable appetite.
This animated short is one of the classics, but again censorship rears it's ugly head again under the guise of trying to be PC, as one of the gags of Tom getting burnt by a candle is cut out.
Whenever they censor old cartoons like that it really gets my goat.
This award winning cartoon (minus the one gag) can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry" My grade for the original: A+ My grade for the bastardized version on the DVD: B-.
Good Mousekeeping.
Despite winning an Oscar the PC Brigade still managed to have this short censored to keep us sheltered people in the 21st century safe from whatever material was appropriate in 1948.Jerry babysits little Nibbles for Thanksgiving, trouble is the baby mouse likes to eat a bit too much, and after they help themselves to Tom's milk a small war begins with Nibbles and Jerry dressed as settlers and Tom dressed as an Native American.
The dinner table (set for guests unknown) is their battleground and the cutlery are their weapons.The cuts made to this cartoon are very noticeable, but it doesn't distract too much from the overall enjoyment..
One of the first appearances of the little mouse, called Nibbles here.
This cartoon, an Oscar winner (with good reason, as it's marvelous) features one of the early appearances of the little mouse named Nibbles primarily (although sometimes called Tuffy), he is rather cute and endearing.
But I'd hate to pay his grocery bills!
Nibbles became a very frequent and popular character and this was his second cartoon appearance, after The Milky Waif.
Most highly recommended..
One of the best Tom & Jerry Movies.
The Academy are doing right to give an OSCAR to this picture.Jerry´s nephew is coming to Thanksgiving Day and he is very, very, very, very hungry !The "little orphan" is fearless and eat all things on Thanksgiving-Day-Table.
One of the best scenes is when Jerry and the orphan are Pilgrim Fathers and Tom is an Indian.
There weapons are forks and spoons and all other things at home Tom & Jerry need to make a strong life to another.There´s a remake of the film on the Sixties done by Chuck Jones with the same story and choreography, but in his own style.
Look the Original !!!.
cutesy Tom and Jerry short.
This short features Nibbles as Jerry's nephew.
In some other cartoons he's referred to by other names and is generally SUPER-cutesy, but in this case the little white mouse is a little more entertaining and less cloying.
This time, the white mouse has an amazing appetite--eating a whole orange at once!
Well, after getting him to cough it up, Jerry takes Nibbles for some real food.
And, being Thanksgiving, they dress up in costumes and raid the humans' feast.
But, these cute little mice dressed as pilgrims are foiled by Tom who appears in Indian head dress.
And, the rest of the cartoon consists of Tom trying to kill the little rodents.
An exceptional cartoon with some good laughs and excellent animation..
Oscar winning Tom and Jerry cartoon has Thanksgiving theme....
You can't say the Hanna/Barbera people didn't have imagination with their Tom and Jerry cartoons.
This is an especially appealing one with great animation and an amusing plot about an orphaned mouse called Nibbles from the Bide-A-Wee Mouse Home who arrives on Jerry's doorstep with a note reading that he's always hungry.This sets up a string of sight gags in which the tiny critter demonstrates his enormous appetite by eating every edible in sight on the Thanksgiving table prepared by Mammy Two Shoes.
Of course their biggest chore is keeping out of sight of Tom after stealing sips of his milk, but he's soon roused out of sleep when a smack on Nibble's face sends food flying toward the sleeping Tom. Thereafter, the trio get involved in some madcap chases with some inventive touches involving the Pilgrim decorations and Tom wearing a feather duster turned into an Indian headdress.Very amusing and richly deserving of the Academy's award..
Fast, funny, beautiful to look at.
Jerry gets a little orphan mouse named Nibbles for Thanksgiving dinner.
The problem is Nibbles LOVES to eat and Jerry has no food.
So him and Nibbles have to sneak around to get food without Tom getting them.I'm no big fan of Tom & Jerry cartoons.
I find the cartoon violence in most of their shorts way TOO violent.
Also I happen to love cats and Tom is always the one being hurt.
Still I do like this one.
It's just beautiful to watch with bright strong colors and the violence has been toned down (a little).
Also the views of the huge Thanksgiving meal set out for the humans are actually mouth-watering:) And Nibbles isn't TOO cutesy.
Fast and funny.
Recommended..
A fun, if not particular daring, T&J caper..
Poor Tom: as if one mouse giving him hassle wasn't enough, he now has to deal with Jerry's ward, little orphan Nibbles, whose insatiable hunger leads into the house where a Thanksgiving dinner awaits.Little Nibbles is a little overly cutesy for my liking, but the fact that he is always hungry does lead to some satisfyingly sadistic violence with the dinner table as battleground, including Tom getting a fork rammed into his butt and Jerry almost being decapitated when he runs into a knife.
It's all a little predictable perhaps, and doesn't really do anything that hasn't been done before, but by the end of the cartoon, a satisfying amount of chaos has ensued..
Wow, even my brother doesn't have that big of an appetite!.
One of my personal favourite Thanksgiving cartoons, and very deserving of an Oscar.
It has a simple concept, and works very well.
The animation is absolutely beautiful and detailed, and the music is jaunty, playful and fun with some moments of beauty as well.
The cartoon moves very fast, and is filled with sight gags that will delight the fussiest kid and adult, including one where Tom gets a fork in his bottom and when Nibbles eats a WHOLE chicken/turkey on his own.
Even my brother doesn't eat that much and he used to eat a lot.
And the characters are still as likable as ever, Tom is funny, Jerry is sweet and caring and Nibbles pretty much steals the cartoon not only with his cuteness but his appetite.
Overall, a great Thanksgiving cartoon.
9/10 Bethany Cox. Nibbles and WW.
Thanksgiving Day. A rich of food table.
Nibbles has an endless appetite and Jerry is taking care of him.
See how Nibbles is a potential candidate for eating the whole table.
However, his intentions didn't come true, because Tom wanted to join, but in his own manner, as a provocator...
At first,Tom tries to get the mice individually, but when they prove to act together, he starts attacking both of them, and loses.
Notice how Jerry takes care of Nibbles, but they both get into trouble twice.
Nibbles might be naive and stupid, but he surely can destroy this table, as opposed to Jerry.
We can see how both sides progress from a decorative gun to these burning things.
We see Nibbles crossing the line way too far by burning Tom with a candle and rocketing the champagne, though Tom is no longer trying to eat the mice, he is scared, but Nibbles won't stop, he doesn't even look.
Finally, Tom destroys the cupboard, and raises the white flag, being buried in the ruins.
There's barely anything left of the food, except for the turkey they then want to share and some leftovers.
When I am watching it, I first think about why is Tom trying to fight on the table that he is probably supposed to guard, then why Jerry is overreacting.
When Nibbles goes crazy, I pity Tom...
Notice how while Jerry is saying the prayers and Tom is listening, Nibbles is only concentrated on being the first to get to the interesting part.
And yes, he gets it as soon as the other two only touch the cutlery.
Who wins this fight?
Nibbles, because he gets the prize, and he does so because that's all he cares about :) The cartoon ends with finally full and happy Nibbles.
He is the winner, and what matters to him matters to everyone in the end.
Poor unsung hero Jerry.
Notice how the music changes and always "defends" the mice team.
Poor loser Tom. To me this is a 1948 lesson from WW I/II explained in a way that is possible to understand as a child.
That's how I understand it, and I think it deserves 10/10.
I really enjoyed this..
Nibbles visits for Thanksgiving.
This Oscar winning short opens with Jerry eating cheese that he picks off a mousetrap; he is disturbed when the bell rings.
He investigates and finds that the orphan Nibbles has come to visit; an accompanying note warns of his prodigious appetite and indeed he soon wants food.
Jerry searches the house but the cupboards are bare; there is only one thing for it; they fill have to go out and find some food in the house.
After failing to steal Tom's milk they notice the Thanksgiving feast that Mammy Two Shoes has left on the table.
Soon the two of them are wearing the hats taken from the 'pilgrim placeholders' and Nibbles is munching away but an accident with an orange wakes Tom. He dons a duster which looks like an Indian headdress.
An inevitable fight ensues but Tom is no match for the two mice and it isn't long before he is battered and burnt waving a white flag.If you aren't keen on cartoon violence or non-PC jokes then this short isn't for you but if you don't mind that you should have a good laugh.
Nibbles is a good occasional character; it is fun watching Jerry constantly trying to save him from his own recklessness.
There are plenty of great sight gags; my favourite being when Nibbles got on to the table by eating his way up a string of spaghetti.
The gag where Tom is burnt black having been shot with a candle has apparently been cut from some versions which is a pity as it was a fairly funny gag...
it is certainly less offensive than many blackface gags. |
tt0098725 | Sweetie | The film focuses on Kay's relationships with her boyfriend Louis, her parents and her emotionally unhealthy sister, Sweetie. Kay is quiet and superstitious, loving Louis because of the words of a fortune teller and experiencing deep foreboding towards a tree he attempted to plant in their yard. Sweetie, from Kay's perspective, is selfish in her severe mental illness. Kay's father chooses to ignore most of the erratic, childish behavior (though she has been hospitalized before) because he loves her as a little girl. Throughout, there are flashbacks of Sweetie dancing, singing and performing small, circus-like tricks with his assistance; he wants the family to remain close and dislikes when Kay acts enraged with Sweetie. The mother admits he indulges her. Louis, however, has found some freedom from his increasingly disconnected relationship with Kay because Sweetie lives uninhibited, with vigor and emotion (though extreme). Throughout, Sweetie's physically destructive nature (ruining Kay's clothes, breaking furniture) reflects the inner disruption she has caused her family. After a series of circular fights (variable rage and delusions, her family's forgiveness, proceeded by her sweetness and fun persona), she finally overextends the limit, stripping off her clothes, painting her body black and bouncing in her childhood tree house. Though her family begs her to come down, she refuses, continuing teasing, tormenting and shaking the fort until it falls from the tree, injuring her mother and killing Sweetie. The family appears resolved, no longer scattered. They no longer feel manipulated and agitated by her presence. However, the best of Sweetie's personality persists, as Kay and her parents maintain an image of her in her most accurate form, that of a little girl. | insanity, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Saw this film a long time ago, but remember it like it was yesterday.
This film left a lasting impression on me from when I saw it aged about 15.
The super-ego is fraught with a sense of place in the world, and trying to make the best of the values it finds directly around it, and the id is a tangle of senses and memories, caught up in the deepest recesses of childhood.
It is not a fun film.
I must get a copy and watch it again, to see if it's like I remember it.
I thought that the acting, editing, dialogue and general sense of timing were totally bewitching.
For a week after watching this film I still felt as though I had returned home from a strange, alien world.
Quite a dark film that seems to lack the catharsis (or uplifting tones) of the later Campion's films.
The film concentrates on psychological problems of Kay, strange, detached young women which, seemingly calm and shy, is able to shamelessly steal a just-engaged man from his fiancee.
Kay's life with the boyfriend, however, turns out to be far from happy.
We do not know that until her younger sister Dawn, aka Sweetie, appears on the scene almost halfway through the film.
Dawn has apparently been a spoiled baby in the family.
The father even now speaks about her "talents", although he too must see that, in reality, she is a mentally handicapped person whose intellectual and emotional development has been arrested at the level of a 4-year old.
Sometimes she is charming, sometimes threatening, but, most importantly, she is uninhibited and free (among other things, free to act on her whims).
With the arrival of Dawn, Kay's great animosity towards her sister is immediately apparent.
Instead of help and compassion of a "normal" older sister she only offers criticism and open hatred.
Little by little we find what Kay wants: she wants to be Dawn.
Deep psychological analysis of abnormal relations between sisters reminds me of some Ingmar Bergman's works although "Sweetie" does not have the nordic broodiness..
The humour is what sets this film apart (as well as lush and particular style of framing/lighting) that makes the film world of "Sweetie" feel idiosyncratic, nightmarish and lurid.
Along with contemporary Australian classics "The Night The Prowler" "Strictly Ballroom" "Starstruck" and "The Cars that Ate Paris" this film was the innovator of what later became a formula for Australian funding models vis a vis...quirky.
This is one of the most hilarious movies I have ever seen that deals with such dark issues.
It focuses on two sisters, Dawn a.k.a.
" Sweetie" and Kay, who both (as we see it) struggle with their psychological health.
Kay seems somewhat conscious of, but at the same time unwilling to express her psychological problems.
Dawn, on the other hand, seems completely oblivious to the fact that she has problems, and seems to live her life freely and spontaneously.
We see the interaction between these characters as a struggle between stifling repression and an out-of-control, externally-destructive unleashing of feelings.
The film seems to reconcile these aspects until we reach some sort of balance at the end.While the film deals with these serious subjects, it is in no way (as far as I'm concerned) a depressing movie.
The actress who plays Sweetie is an established comedian and her comedic acting is hilarious and convincing.
Sweetie freely expresses herself, in ways that might seem childish to some, but are secretly ways we might like to act if it were accepted.
Her character tells us that it's possibly to be so free and unfettered and survive, up to a point.I love the scene where Sweetie's new, wasted "talent manager" boyfriend is taken to a cafe, by Sweetie's father, in order to get rid of him.
At this point the father tries to remove the boyfriend's coat, which is actually Louis's (Kay's husband), and which they have been trying to get him out of for a long time.
The boyfriend, still asleep, then falls to the floor dragging the contents of the table top with him, and ends splayed out on the floor in a baroque mess.There are numerous comedic scenes like the one above, that weave in and out of the movies' main issues (i.e. control of oneself).
Dawn's boyfriend, like Dawn (Sweetie), lacks control over his expression, in this case his actual, physical body.To add to these delights, the movie is beautifully, artfully photographed and the sets are also artistically satisfying.
Campion's Brilliant Direction Works Again.
This film is one of the best films ever written and shot about the effects of mental illness on the psycho-dynamics of a family.
Shot with a strongly claustrophobic sense of misé-en-scene, the extended family of Louis, Mom, Dad, Kay and Sweetie always crowd and clutter the frame, unable to extricate themselves physically and emotionally from one another.
Geneviève Lemon's performance of a mentally ill young women (Sweetie/Dawn) sends chills up the spine of anyone who has worked with those who suffer like this.
Although it does contain some nudity and slight sexual content, the dramatic push of the film as a whole makes this an extremely moving film even for teenagers, especially for families who are coping with mental illness.
Campion's writing and above all her directing soars in this profound and compelling film..
Things couldn't get crazier.
"Sweetie" (Australian, 1989): Jane Campion is one of my favorite "newer" film makers.
(See "An Angel at my Table" if you like this one!) She has a unique vision on life, and most every aspect of the film is hers - from concept and writing to the directing.
"Sweetie" is the story of Kay, a highly neurotic young woman who is totally uncomfortable with the "everyday" world.
THEN her sister arrives - Sweetie, with a mystery man.
Australian filmmaker Jane Campion's unorthodox daydream of family ties will likely infuriate more people than it pleases, defeating expectations as easily as it defies casual analysis.
Describing it in any detail would only spoil the joy of discovery, for both the story and the idiosyncratic style of the film itself, which turns an already cockeyed domestic melodrama (introducing the oddball in-laws of an estranged young couple) into a sometimes grotesque but strangely compassionate portrait of sad, eccentric people living on the fringes of Down Under society.Campion challenges the viewer's perception of what is or isn't real, using a portentous, artfully composed visual scheme, emphasizing in every shot her eye for geometry and deadpan comic detail.
And then, mid-way through the story, along comes Sweetie herself to upset all the symmetry.
Her younger sister calls her "a dark force"; her father treats her (affectionately) as the child she'll always be to him; and her mother, out of exasperation, simply walks away from all the subsequent turmoil.
In a nutshell, Sweetie is the loose cannon in every family closet, and as played by newcomer Geneviève Lemon she's one of the more obscene and compelling characters ever to crash a movie scenario.
Her story is, by turns, tender, pathetic, amusing, ominous, totally unique, and just plain weird..
Restrained and never reaching for obvious sympathy, not interested in scoring easy points with viewers and featuring a truly extraordinary central performance, "Sweetie" is essential viewing for the serious film-goer.Fast-forward through the feminist empowerment bits which feature tree roots growing through concrete.
This foreshadowing of the impossibly artsy-pretentious Campion of "In the Cut" will leave you wanting to throw the remote at your television set.Stick with this one.
First of all, I loved how this film was wholly unapologetic.
It feels like the work of someone who's done what they wanted, without compromise.
While the film stands out as odd and, as such, interesting without knowing more about it, I feel that it could have gained by using more traditional work on the plot, a little like Wim Wenders did on "Paris, Texas", or by Gus van Sant's "Paranoid Park", which are both odd films where the somewhat straightforward plots worked wonders without taking away from the unusual contents.
Having said that, this film is filled with wonderful, everyday, never-before-seen imagery with wonderful human beings, a fresh view of presenting a film, photography where the object of a shot is rarely in the center of the image and a storyline that goes a bit all over the place - thank Bog for that.
All in all: recommendable, and gets better as the film progresses..
Jane Campion's first theatrical feature explores a dysfunctional family.
When it starts off with the eccentric and shy Kay (Karen Colston) falling in love with the handsome Louis (Tom Lycos), Jane Campion's 1988 film SWEETIE promises a romantic comedy.
When Kay's mentally ill sister Dawn (Genevieve Lemon) drops in, the film develops in a very different direction.
Some element of comedy, very black humour, remains but overall the film is a family tragedy.The tragedy is that this disturbed young woman nicknamed "Sweetie" is simultaneously a victim of her own illness and an unwilling aggressor against her family, who feign love and acceptance but clearly would like to do without her.
The strongest aspect of the film is Lemon's performance, one of the best screen portrayals of mental illness since Bergman's IN A GLASS DARKLY.
That said, I would not list "Sweetie" among my favourite films: it is overall well-made and memorable but not quite at the level of effusive praise..
Jane Campion tortures both her characters and the audience in this excruciatingly bad black comedy/drama about a - to say the least - dysfunctional family.
Comes off as a pretentious film school final project that reeks like a rancid cross-contamination between David Lynch and John Waters.
In bits, I detect fine cinematography, but even there, it's mostly shot in a way that casts long shadows over the scenes.
Jane Campion's Best Film.
Jane Campion's Best Film.
Based solely on a tea leaf reading, superstitious and introspective Kay believes she and Louis are destined to fall in love with each other, he who she is able to convince of the same despite he just having gotten engaged to her co-worker, Cheryl.
That destiny may change with the fortunes of what she sees as the next symbol of their relationship, a somewhat sickly elder tree Louis plants in their garden for their one year anniversary.This is Jane Campion's first feature, and her best.
Some might point to "Angel at my Table", but I personally thought that film was terrible.
"Sweetie" is funny, and has an interesting sense about it.
It is sort of like Wes Anderson lite, and one has to wonder if he didn't draw some influence from Campion..
An unbeatable gem for those with discerning film taste.
This film is very thoughtful and heartbreaking with unique characters you don't forget.
Visually it is rather astounding, especially for a first feature film.
This is a fantastic film.
This is a fantastic film.
Elements of this film are nightmarish and reminiscent of the work of David Lynch.
Campion successfully captures the emotions of the protagonist and the dislike she feels toward her sister, Dawn.
You can sense the hate/love relationship the family feels toward Dawn.
The most powerful scene in this film is at the end.
Overall this film is one of Campion's most original and interesting pieces of work..
And I thought my family....
This film was one of the strangest I've seen.
Once again I admire Campion's courage to take art in a variety of directions.
I was amazed by this film for no other reason than it's complete lack of boundaries.
"Sweetie" takes a long, sober, and plaintive look at the dregs of a splintered Aussie family with two adult daughters one of which is a brittle, simple-minded fat woman, the title character (Lemon).
An uneventful, plodding, and peculiar story and Campion brain fart, "Sweetie" offers little save peculiar heaped on peculiar ad nauseam.
Director Jane Campion once said in an interview that while she was writing "The Piano" she thought that before she made such an adult film like that she would make a smaller and more personal film.
So "Sweetie" is her most personal film and its about two sisters.
The film starts out about Kay (Karen Colston) who is a shy and somewhat dysfunctional woman who has her tea leaves read and is told to look for signs of love and see's them in her friends fiance'.
Somehow she manages to convince him to leave his fiance' and become her boyfriend.
Later in the film as the two live together (But no sex!) Kays sister Dawn (Genevieve Lemon) drops in and creates all sorts of havoc.
Dawn (AKA Sweetie) is also dysfunctional but mentally ill.
Shifts in moods and very erratic behavior dominate the last quarter of the film and its here that we can somewhat see that one of the reasons Kay doesn't get along with Dawn is because she is such a free wheeler and Kay is not.
Kay is jealous of this quality that Dawn possesses.
The film is very offbeat but also uneven.
Kays relationship with her boyfriend is curious.
I wish their could have been more scenes of Kay and Dawn together in a more coherent fashion but mostly its scenes of Kay reacting in frustration at her sisters antics.
I did like the way the film ended.
The ending seems to establish the overall drive of the film and its leaves a dramatic mark on the story.
Film is interesting to watch due to the fact that it was made a few years before "The Piano" so while die hard Campion fans will enjoy this more, the rest of you will have to depend on your open mind..
Sort of a watered-down John Waters-type movie, this Australian film is not for everyone's taste.
Talk about a dysfunctional family: Kay is a cold fish who steals a man who just announced his engagement to someone else, all because of a fortune-teller.
"Sweetie", her younger sister, is a nymphomaniac, mentally unstable, selfish, and seemingly has the mind of a spoiled little brat.
Her parents try to act as if all is not as bad as it seems.
But life sucks in this family.
I wondered how, with two seemingly "normal" parents, these two girls ended up the way they did.
Usually I like Jane Campion.
The first 5 minutes seemed interesting especially the music, but as soon as the main character steals the boyfriends newly planted tree the picture quickly dies.
Yes Sweetie is somewhat key to the movie and it's titled after her, but showing 5-6 of her fits got to be too redundant..
Who's afraid of her Family Tree?.
The film is bizarre.
We're introduced to our main character through fragmented shots of her from her knees down, then of her face off-center, and of her feet while walking on cracked pavement.
We also see her walking the sidewalk past manicured bushes and trees, a shot that is repeated throughout the movie.While the opening credits are playing, we hear soulful music.
Then, the music stops and contrasts with the stark bleakness of shots that immediately make us feel off-center.
We are at the mercy of the cinematographer just as much as the narrator, waiting for them to divulge the story, a story for which we somehow know there is much to come.Immediately after the opening credits we are told by Kay, our narrator and protagonist, of her fear of trees.
In particular, the tree in the backyard of her parents' home where her sister was "princess;" she feared the roots of the tree would reach the house.
This tree is to serve as a metaphor for the entire film.The first few scenes lead us to believe this film is about romance and destiny as Kay visits a psychic who tells her about the man with a question mark on his forehead.
She finds the man and they begin their romance on the concrete floor of a parking garage.Tree Oblivious to Kay's fear of trees, the ever-innocent boyfriend plants a sapling in their backyard to commemorate their 13 month (I think) anniversary.
Their backyard, a barren ground full of cracks, is a reflection of Kay's soul.
She has kept herself unattached from others; the coworkers at work who mock her, her family and, after this tree incident, her boyfriend.
But this tree is an infestation on Kay's life.The sapling is a foreshadowing of Kay's loss of control as her sister, Sweetie, enters her home.
As soon as we meet Sweetie, she consumes the attention of all the characters.
The life and roots of the tree represent the evils of attention-seeking Sweetie and of Kay's broken childhood coming back to haunt her.Let's not give any more attention to Sweetie.There is something truly unique and charismatic about this film.
I didn't leave the film feeling as if the makers tried too hard; they didn't experiment for the sake of feeling like an art film.
They moved the story forward in ways that a simple plot unfolding could not have.
I watched Sweetie on the recommendation of a friend infuriated by Breaking the Waves; she had in turn received this recommendation from a high school friend of mine who I introduced to weed, and who then lived in Korea for too many years.
Sweetie could have been weirder.
Main character Kay gets her tea leaves read alongside her psychic's aphasic son.
Kay flips out over the particularly dreary leaves of a tree her boyfriend has decided to plant smack dab in the center of their driveway.
Sadly, most of the film's oddities are eventually subdued by a fairly neat and orderly story, which even provides a nice family backdrop to explain away the quirks of sisters Kay and Sweetie.
I would still recommend watching this for its striking visual palette and the fact that the aforementioned psychic's spastic son is never explained. |
tt0406977 | Masti | Masti revolves around three bachelors, Meet (Vivek Oberoi), Prem (Aftab Shivdasani) and Amar (Ritesh Deshmukh). Their lives are carefree until they each get married and turn into bitter, unsatisfied husbands. Meet marries Anchal (Amrita Rao) who is obsessively possessive about her husband. Prem marries Geeta (Tara Sharma) who is overly religious and thus their sex life suffers. Amar marries Bindiya (Genelia D'Souza) who is dominating and they live with her equally aggressive mother (Archana Puran Singh). Fed up, the man get together one day and make plans to reintroduce the fun and excitement back into their lives. They set their sights on other women but eventually realize they have all been seeing the same girl, Monica (Lara Dutta). She blackmails the trio, threatening to expose the affairs to their wives unless they give her Rs.10 lakhs.
Having gathered the money, the terrified men arrive at the drop off location, only to find Monica dead in her car. They panic and try to hide her body, in order to aviod blame, but are interrupted by police officer Sikander (Ajay Devgan), who is suspicious of them. The trio goes to Monica's house for further investigation, and they hide in Monica's veranda after they realise that Sikander had followed them there. The next morning, a mysterious man finds them and reveals that he killed Monica, demanding a ransom to cover the crime. The guilt-ridden men go to their respective wives to apologise, since they feel like the truth is bound to be revealed. The very next day, the killer pursues the men, resulting in a shoot out in which they unintentionally kill the mysterious man. Afterwards, they are arrested and imprisoned. Their wives arrive at the jail and the men emotionally reveal the truth. After some time, the women reveal that the entire situation was set up by them - Monica is alive and the 'killer' is Sikander himself. The women wanted to teach their husband's a lesson and remind them to be appreciative. The men then apologise their wives and promise to never do "masti" again. | humor, murder, adult comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2178470 | Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani | Naina Talwar (Deepika Padukone) is a shy and nerdy medical student. She studies constantly and always tops her classes, but she feels like an outcast due to her introverted nature. An encounter with an old classmate, Aditi Mehra (Kalki Koechlin), makes her realize that she wants more from life than high marks. Thus, she makes an impulsive decision to follow Aditi on a hiking trip into the Himalayas, up to Manali without informing anyone. During the hike, she renews her friendship with other former classmates, Kabir "Bunny" Thapar (Ranbir Kapoor) and Avinash "Avi" Yog (Aditya Roy Kapur). Kabir is a handsome charmer whose dream is to wander and discover the world. He does not plan to marry or settle down. He lives with his supporting father whom he loves very much, and his step-mother. During their trip, seeing Aditi's silent reactions to Avi's constant flirting with other girls, Kabir and Naina realize that she is secretly in love with Avi, but do not bring the matter to surface.
In the course of the mountain trek, Kabir and Naina come closer to each other. Kabir teaches Naina to laugh, to play, and more importantly, to love. At the end of the trip, she is close to telling him how she feels but is interrupted by Avi. He accidentally finds a letter accepting Kabir into a graduate school in journalism, at Northwestern University in Chicago. Kabir explains that the trip is his last hometown adventure before he leaves. He is sad to leave his friends but happy to start a career that will lead to travelling, which he dreams of, and thus wanted to bring them along to Manali to give them a surprise. Naina realises that love and marriage have no part in Kabir's plans and remains silent about her feelings but is happy for him as he is following his passion.
Eight years pass with Naina finishing medical school and working in a clinic while Kabir works as a videographer for a travel show on FOX network and travels the world, as he had planned. It is shown that Kabir's father has died and due to Kabir's job in remote areas, he was not able to attend his last rites. Naina has moved ahead in life and is not waiting to meet Kabir, but they meet in Udaipur, for Aditi's lavish wedding to Taran (Kunaal Roy Kapur), an awkward but sweet engineer. At the wedding, Kabir and Avi renew their lost friendship.
Naina and Kabir are strongly attracted to each other again. Both resist love – Kabir, because he is not able to figure out that he is in love with Naina and Naina, as she doesn't want to get her heart broken again. A day before the wedding, Kabir sees Naina with another man, Vikram (Rana Daggubati), who is the wedding photographer. He is Naina's friend, but Kabir assumes him to be her boyfriend, feels jealous and argues with him, finally sending him away. Kabir and Naina meet, argue, and reveal their feelings by a kiss. Yet neither of them is willing to give up a career to follow the other. It seems that their romance is over. Kabir also confronts Aditi on her past crush on Avi. She admits that she had feelings for Avi but says that she has gotten over him and is extremely happy with Taran. Kabir leaves for home on the night of Aditi's wedding and will leave for Paris three weeks later for his dream job as a travel show host. On New Year's Eve, as Naina sits alone at home along with her dog, someone knocks on her door and it's Kabir. He surprises her with a kiss. He has turned down his dream job to be with Naina and proposes to her, but Naina fears that he might regret his decision in the future. However, Kabir says that he is happy with Naina and wants to continue travelling but with her. He argues that somehow they can make a life together. Naina agrees. Kabir and Naina then get engaged and finally declare their love properly for one another. They have a conference call between Aditi and Avi. Avi is at his bar and Aditi is at the airport as a newlywed leaving for her honeymoon with Taran. The friends find out about Kabir and Naina and are overwhelmed. Aditi states that she always kind of knew about the sparks between them. They all wish each other a Happy New Year and the film ends with Kabir and Naina smiling and embracing each other. | romantic, entertaining | train | wikipedia | Like all rom-coms, YEH JAWAANI HAI DEEWANI sparkles with romance, merriment and heartache, is brightly glossy and boasts of crackling chemistry between its lead actors, but Ayan makes sure the heady concoction never waters down.
YJHD does through the typical roller coaster of a Bollywood romance, but where it differs from those that have failed, is that it has the star power of Ranbir and Deepika at the top of their game, alongside lovely music by Pritam and fantastic direction by Ayan Mukherjee.
Honestly, I expected a more polished story from Ayan Mukherji who had given us a thoughtful and feel-good coming-of-age film like Wake Up Sid earlier.
What Ayan Mukherji succeeds at is how he neatly etched the four characters of Ranbir Kapoor, Deepika, Aditya Roy Kapur and Kalki Koechlin.
Juxtaposed with heavy numbers, life elements, relationships, romance & social conflicts, Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani only appeals till midway.Ranbir (who the film is almost based upon with the decisions he has to make as a complelling life of a nomad) & Deepike jazz up the screen with no mistake at all; yet Deepika's sudden shift from a pious, studious dame to her usual party- girl avatar is fishy , while Kalki & Aditya pass, with the script not letting them explore their insights.
Get a life, Ayan!BOTTOM LINE: A feel-good movie terribly gone wrong and is only watchable to the people who are blindly in love, and because of Ranbir.
Ayan Mukherjee seems spot on in his direction and execution as well as in the selection of the cast.What is good about this movie is that the approach to many things is fresh and is no cliché(The ending is kinda inescapable though).The plot seems perfectly plausible.
They pretty much get back to their lives without any drama.It is circumstances that later makes things happen.' Yeh Jawaani hai Deewani' is definitely good entertainment overall.
Their performances do give a fresh and joyous sense to the film.Coming to the plot, there is nothing you do not expect, A guy who lives a carefree and adventure filled life (Ranbir) and a girl who is like the one friend we all have and know is a book o'holic.(Deepika).
This film does not surprise you with the plot or gives a twist or takes unexpected turns, but the actors and the screenplay makes up for it.Like almost each and every Karan Johar film, this one has that first half fun filled and second half emotion filled plot, if you know what I mean......The soundtrack delivered by Pritam is really foot tapping and catchy.
I was very much excited for yeh jawaani hai diwaani.Of course i am a Ranbir Kapoor fan after his two back to back super hits.It is also an Ayan Mukerji movie.Now i must say the movie was awesome.The story revolves around four friends bunny(Ranbir Kapoor) Avi(Aditya Roy Kapur)Billi(Deepika Padukone) and Aditi (Kalki Koechlin).Bunny is an adventure and fun loving guy where as Billi is a good nature d girl who loves to study.The movie revolves around four friends who take a road trip in their holidays to cherish their life.
Don't get me wrong, I love Ranbir and Deepika as actors but this seemed like they gave it no thought when they decided to act in it and only went in it for the chance to somewhat flirt with one another all in the name of a "movie".
The second half was made slightly better by the stronger dialogue.What I'm wondering is how a movie can be made that's almost three hours long but still gives you the feeling at the end of the day that the allegedly sumptuous meal you've just eaten hasn't filled half your belly.I'm not going to watch any more coming-of-age Bollywood movies.
Deepika Padukone is utterly miscast as a woman with her head in books and unaware of her stunner looks.Aditya Roy Kapoor as the resident lush and Kalki Koechlin as the bindaas gal are good but then the movie is not really about them.This is the nth time that Hindi film directors have tried and failed to recapture the Dil Chahhta Hai sort of chemistry between protagonists.
Ayan Mukherjee's Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani may not be as path breaking as his first venture Wake Up Sid, but it still manages to keep the viewer intrigued.Truth is, if you've had a stressful week and want a full on entertainer that not only enlightens but also educates about life - YJHD is absolutely what you need.Naina is a nerd who has spent most of her life in books and probably has done nothing exciting in her life.
A refreshing and revitalizing take on romance, Director Ayaan Mukherjee's second outing "Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani" offers us with ample dose of love and our endearing philosophies - lead your life meaningfully, live your dreams.
The journey starts off with the mountain-trek adventure of three best friends - Bunny,Avi and Aditi (with Naina being the add-on) to Manali and we observe the metamorphosis of these youngsters into mature individuals, tracing their contours of self-discovery.'Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani' touches upon various subjects - friendship,desires ,dreams,ambitions,love and the roadblocks.Deepika's Naina is quite in contrast with Ranbir's Bunny and Ayaan conveniently employs the logic of 'opposites attract', it takes them a span of 8 years to realize their love for each other.The basic premise has been witnessed in umpteen romantic flicks, some of which belong to Dharma Productions itself, but its Ayaan's directorial dexterity that restores the buoyancy in the formula-ridden template.His characters are much more realistic and reflect the sensibilities of the modern day generation, much reminiscent of the sensitive flashes of 'Wake up Sid'.Dazzling landscapes, opulent sets,extended Indian weddings have always been the trademark of Karan Johar films and this time, its Manali and Udaipur which is captured with flourish.The cinematography is spectacular.Music is peppy,soulful and the dance numbers are already a rage topping the chartbusters.
Dialogues are cleverly written, spiced up with lots of hilarity.The film's meandering narrative,particularly in the 2nd half, is effectively bolstered by some spunky performances.The RK-DP pair set the screen ablaze, their chemistry is even more combustible towards the later reels.While Ranbir portrays the spirit and indomitable energy of Bunny with utmost ease, Deepika depicts the studious, scholarly Naina with perfection.
Yeh Jawani hai Deewani ,despite its bearable flaw of working on clichés, is a remarkably well executed film.Ayaan has provided us with an innocuous candy, an occasional bite won't hurt.While I hope this review makes for an interesting post-lunch read , do find your time out for this movie please..
YEH JAWAANI HAI DEEWANI is a film directed by Ayan Mukherji, starring Ranbir Kapoor, Deepika Paudkone, Kalki Koechlin & Aditya Roy Kapoor.The film revolves around the lives of 4 friends: Bunny, Avi and Aditi, and how Naina meets them.
I am a huge ranbir deepika fan,so it comes as no surprise that I can watch this movie n number of times.well ayan is an excellent director and the screenplay is awesome.The story is not great since its old formula but its presented well.The director has made sure that he gives enough screen presence to all his characters but this somewhere eats into the lead pairs love story which is the crux of the movie.
Our brave girl Naina slips out the next day and joins Aditi for the trip but Aditi isn't alone – she's with Bunny and Avi. We're already introduced to these two chaps – Bunny is the photographer who dreams of travelling around the world (for some reason, Ayan can't think outside the box; Ranbir Kapoor in Wake Up Sid = photographer, Ranbir Kapoor in Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani = photographer) while Avi is an alcoholic who loses lots on gambling (no idea how he gets the money).
After a week of its release and crossing the 80 crore mark and racing towards the 100 crore mark i finally decided to give the film a watch and i would say i wasn't disappointed.After a very long time i saw a movie which is fresh!If not for Ranbir Kapoor or for Deepika Padukone then you can actually watch the movie for Ayan Mukherji who has such a brilliant way to express his story.The way he has put forward his story which is quite simple but indeed so powerful because of the way he has described the film.One thing is for sure that while writing the script of the film he had actually pictured Ranbir Kapoor for the role because trust me no one else would fit into the role ever,even he would have you would actually want to watch Ranbir in the film because he has been so wonderful in the film.He is the finest actor we have now in bollywood and you can actually see that in his performance in the film throughout.It is really a question that how many actors be it Veterans or the youngsters of his age could actually perform like him!His lady in the film Deepika also got a chance to shine in the film.According to me its her best performance till date!She has beautifully described "Naina Talwar" a geeky girl who is bored with her life and needs a change!Recollecting an interview of hers she mentioned how did Ayan make her cry on the sets when she cracked a joke saying it was too cold and she didn't want to shoot and how Ayan scolded her saying that she didn't know what was this film gonna do for her career,it indeed is true!Talking about other actors Aditya Roy kappoor was OK throughout,it seemed he couldn't get out of the hangover of Aashiqui-2 where he was a troubled musician lost in alcohol and it continued in this film too.Talking about Kalki Koechlin she was kind of OK too and her better half a healthy cameo by Kunal roy kapoor was good too!
Not missing out the powerpacked performance of Farooq shaikh who returned to the industry after quite sometime was brilliant.Both of the scenes he was in was actually quite incredible.All the songs in the film are quite wonderful and you want to keep on humming it once you leave the theatre.So its a must watch for youngsters who are bored of the high action packed flicks running adjacent to the film Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani.I rate it 8 out of 10.P.s this is not a script where i would rather disclose the script of the film!
it is a good movie for first 1hr but after 1 hr its kind off boring.and deepika was looking beautiful and ranbir is looking handsome as-usual.and kalki acting was very enjoyable..and avinash was OK-OK.but story was expectable and locations in movie was very awesome..in the beginning we thought its a very funny film but by the the film going and by the interval its just seem like a emotional movie.and at the end it was a package of a good movie.and manali trek tour in the movie was the best part.and the wedding part both are the best scenes.and i thought it was ayan mukherjee film i thought ayan was come with the new story.but film is not as enjoyable as i am expecting.
Tone, Script & Story: The movie celebrates friendship of three friends played by Ranbir Kapoor, Aditya Roy Kapoor, Kalki Koechlin.
This movie was so bad it compelled me to warn others and to write my first review.Can't imagine that a USD 8 Million could be spent on such rubbish let alone it appalls when some thing of this nature hits a usd 48 Million on box office.This was my first movie of Ranbir Kapoor and Ayan Mukharji and both didn't give me that important first impression.I wanted to deliberately have patience to give it a chance to take something out of it but it was just down hill.There was no likability factor about Bunny's character and I don't have a clue as to why Naina should fall for him.It wasn't the same Deepika Pandukone I saw in Chennai Express either.Neither it gave me laughter nor tears but left with an emotionless soul through out.So naive to think that problems can be solved by a mere kiss and it really pisses me off.
Directed by Ayan Mukerji, whose last venture was the impressive Wake Up Sid, Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani has all the elements required to make a good film.
MOVIE REVIEW: YEH JAWAANI HAI DEEWANIRecently,A lot of ROM-COMs and COMING-OF-AGE movies have been released in Bollywood and many of them have been given a HARSH treatment by the public.So,there is immense pressure on the directors and writers because they know that they'll need to come up with something UNIQUE.Ayan Mukerji (Director) seems to have handled the pressure quite well and has indeed created something UNIQUE.Hats off to him for that.After watching Wake Up Sid,one can never expect him to make something like YEH JAWAANI HAI DEEWANI.He not only wrote a WONDERFUL story that contains a STRONG message and bitter REALITIES of life but has also managed to present it in a very GRACEFUL manner by writing the SCREENPLAY himself as well .He surely has GROWN as a director and knows exactly how to speak his heart out in a way that settles well with the audience.When he is calling shots,expect no prolonged MELODRAMA or any uncalled for TWISTS.REMARKABLE work by this 1 film old director.
*KUDOS* YEH JAWAANI HAI DEEWANI is a REFRESHING tale that revolves around four friends----Bunny (Ranbir),Naina (Deepika),Avi (Aditya) and Aditi (Kalki).They are having all sorts of fun together on a trek trip until they realize that they're growing older and life has started turning to an unlikeable direction.Ranbir Kapoor plays an IMPETUOUS,FLIRTATIOUS,FUN-LOVING and INTREPID guy,with a STEP-MOM issue,who wants to live his life to the fullest.He dreams of exploring the world and he is quite OBSTINATE concerning that.He is just UNSTOPPABLE throughout the movie.Ayan Mukerji has capitalized Ranbir's abilities very SMARTLY.Firstly,He'll give you a stomach-ache with his WITTINESS,EXASPERATION and STRANGE GESTURES and then he'll make you wanna jump up your seat and DANCE alongside him in a number of up-beat songs.After all of that,he'll show you his CONSIDERATE,INTROSPECTIVE and EMOTIONAL side which will melt your HEARTS.He has done an AMAZING job as usual.Undoubtedly,he is the NEXT BIG THING in Bollywood.
Aditya Roy Kapur's (of Aashiqui 2 fame) role is of a GOOFY guy who is addicted to gambling,fails in almost everything,has no sense of achievement and LOVES his friends.There isn't much for him in the screenplay but whenever he is on the screen,he is DELIGHTFUL.Kalki Koechlin is the new TOMBOY of Bollywood.Her performance is very CONVINCING and ALLURING.She holds her own SIGNIFICANCE even though the film clearly belongs to RANBIR and DEEPIKA.Once again,Pritam has produced a CHART-BUSTER ALBUM.This guy is a GENIUS.Almost all the songs are hits and have been choreographed SUPERBLY by Remo D'Souza and Farah Khan.BATAMEEZ DIL,BALAM PICHKARI,DILLIWALI GIRLFRIEND and GHAGRA are there to ROCK UP the place while KABIRA and SUBHAN-ALLAH are the songs with SOOTHING TUNES and TOUCHING LYRICS.
Also, the chemistry between the lead pair Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone is downright FIERY, and Deepika wildly excels in her subtle yet meaningful and deep performance as the introvert Naina.The dialogue is hilarious at times, and the movie has it share of well- written scenes, which almost perfectly depict every character's emotions.
The music is simply grand.YJHD isn't all that ambitious, and may seem like a bit of a departure from director Ayan Mukherji's last directorial venture, Wake Up Sid. But for those of you reading this review and are not living in India, you should really start with this film, if you want to check out some of Bollywood.Great performances, simple story, fiery song-and-dance sequences, funny lines, and a romantic soul, YJHD is a fine successor to DDLJ, for the youth..
Similarly Evelyn Sharma looks sexy & appealing in her small role but Rana Daggubati just comes and goes without making his presence felt.However, apart from everyone else in the film, the scenes I enjoyed the most were the ones between Ranbir Kapoor and Farooq Sheikh who is simply adorable as the loving father of his passionate son, eager to follow his dreams.
Apart from Arijit Singh's songs Kabira and Ilahi, there's nothing good in this film..the characters aren't developed, the narration is passe, and the story threadbare.The movie starts in flashback and there the characters go on a tour..while Deepika's annoying character falls for Ranbir Kapoor's character ..
Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani is the second movie of Wake up Sid fame Ayan Mukherjee.
Continue reading below to know the answer !!THE MOVIE: The story is all about friendship & love, shown through the main leads; Bunny (Ranbir Kapoor), Naina (Deepika Padukone), Aditi (Kalki Koechlin) & Avi (Aditya Roy Kapoor).Shot in the immaculate locations of Manali, Udaipur & Paris, the film primarily shows how the male & female leads affect each other's attitude, supported with a permutation of light/heavy emotions + peppy dance numbers & quirky dialogues !!'UP's : All the lead characters, as well as supporting casts precisely stole the show.Cinematography (V.Manikandan) & Editing (S.Rahmathulla) were superb, whereas Music (Pritam) & Direction (Ayan Mukerji) conveniently delved deep into viewer's soul !!'DOWN's : So many absurd scenes were there..For example: 1) In trekking, one needs to be physically fit & for physical fitness, regular workout is essential.As displayed here, the character of Naina is like a bookworm, who is not at all into gymming or such activities.Then how come she effortlessly climbs the difficult mountain peaks, when the so called audacious Bunny feels tired every now & then ? |
tt0430912 | Basic Instinct 2 | Set in London, the film opens with American best-selling author Catherine Tramell in a speeding car with her companion, Kevin Franks, a famous English football star. Tramell takes the man's hand and begins masturbating with it, all the while increasing her vehicle's speed. At the point of orgasm, Tramell veers off the road and crashes into the West India Docks in Canary Wharf. She attempts to save her partner but, as she says while being questioned by the police, "When it came down to it, I guess my life was more important to me than his".
Tramell is interrogated by Scotland Yard Detective Supt. Roy Washburn, who notes that D-Tubocurarine, a neuromuscular blocking agent used to relax muscles during general anaesthesia, was found in her car and in her companion's body, and the companion wasn't breathing at the time of the crash, and that a man named "Dicky Pep" said that he sold Tramell "15 milliliters of DTC last Thursday". Tramell counters by saying that this Dicky Pep must be lying because "you've got him on some other charge and he's trying to deal his way out, if he even exists".
Tramell begins therapy sessions with Dr. Michael Glass, who has conducted a court-ordered psychiatric exam and given testimony in her case. Glass strongly suspects that Catherine is a narcissist incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Tramell begins to play mind games with Glass, who becomes increasingly frustrated with, yet intrigued by, this mysterious woman. Soon, Glass's own life begins a spiral of destruction.
One night, Glass goes on a date with Michelle Broadwin, and has rough, violent sex with her after dealings with Tramell. Glass receives a phone call from his ex-wife, Denise, in a state of distress. Her partner, Adam Towers, a journalist writing a negative story about Dr. Glass, has been found strangled to death. Glass suspects that Tramell committed the murder and is attempting to frame him for it. More murders begin to surface around Glass as his obsession with Tramell grows and his career and life are threatened – he finds his ex-wife in a bathroom with her throat slit after they have an altercation in a bar. Later, Dicky Pep is killed – eventually, he himself can no longer tell right from wrong, and the police begin to suspect Glass of involvement in the crimes. He confronts Tramell at her apartment where they engage in passionate sex.
The situations comes to a head during a confrontation between Glass and Tramell at her apartment where, after a struggle, Glass attempts to kill Tramell. Tramell gives Glass a copy of the draft of her next novel, titled The Analyst. After reading it, he realises that Catherine has novelised most of the recent events with herself and other people related to Glass, even himself, as characters. Then it turns out that the character based on herself is going to kill a therapist based on Glass's colleague, Dr. Milena Gardosh.
Glass runs to Gardosh's apartment to warn her, finding Tramell there to his dismay. Gardosh tells him that he is no longer in charge of Tramell's therapy and that he's going to have his license revoked, due to bad practice regarding Tramell's treatment. There is a struggle between Glass and Gardosh, in which the latter is knocked out. Catherine then threatens Glass with a gun she carries, but Glass takes it away from her. When Washburn arrives at the scene, Glass shoots him because Tramell told him he had killed the girlfriend of one of Glass's patients just to "nail him".
In the final scene, Tramell pays a visit to Glass at a local mental hospital where he has been institutionalised, and he learns from her that the subject of her latest best-selling novel was a man very much like him. Tramell claims that she manipulated Glass into committing all those murders for her own amusement, and flashbacks are shown of Glass committing the murders. Tramell leaves with a wicked smirk on her face, while Glass continues to sit silently in his wheelchair, stymied by frustration and rage. | psychological, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend.
Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators..
There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits!
Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"!
It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life!
I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy.
Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments.
If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care..
More on this later, right now let's move onto the review.Basic Instinct 2 is the long-awaited sequel, at least by Sharon Stone, of a raunchy classic that was released back in 1992.
I guess we'll have to wait until the "unrated" DVD to be released to see all of the goods, which may be very shortly from the looks of it.Since the announcement of the movie, people have been trashing it before the production even began.
She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start.
(Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub."Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too..
I expected an absolute disaster, and got something which is easily one of the most exciting films I have seen in a long time.It is alarming to read such negative reviews from respected film critics who quite frankly, do nothing but romanticise the original - as we all know, time makes the heart grow fonder.
She a fine actress, but surrounding her with unfamiliar actors in London, and handling a script that lacks everything witty and tight that Joe Eszterhas weaved in the original picture, is just disastrous.Our story here has Ms. Tramell, notorious author from Basic Instinct at the epicenter of a death, accidental, or perhaps...intentional???
Rather than prance around with her sexuality tugging at the police, and seducing them blindly, she is more a bully here, and she pushes authoritative figures, especially Michael Glass the professional assigned to her case, into her game this time around.Sharon Stone turns in a mostly witty and sharp (no pun intended) continuation of Catherine Tramell, Complete with incomparable physique, sexy sultry voice, and some more blonde poison.
We have very stiff European authoritative figures, bent on the unraveling of the case, as well they should be, except it doesn't feel like Basic Instinct, and the good moments that are had, are reminders that it might have been better had they stuck with the original idea which was to have been set in NYC.The production design and art direction are diabolical though (again, no pun intended), and it's a scene set greatly, if only the expectations were met.
Whatever they have for every one else is a more or less lacking shadow of what the original was.Michael Caton-Jones is okay, but this flick, released in 2006, looks like EVERY other action thriller from that time period, and that's sad.
Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want.
I went out of my way to pay attention to why people were saying this was one of the worst movies and/or sequels of all times, and I was very happy to realize that are all dead wrong.
Michael Douglas wasn't all that subtle if you remember correctly.The sequel was darker and more focuses on the mind games than the first movie, which I prefer.A lot of criticism has been placed on the sex scenes (or rather, the chopped and butchered ones in the R rated cut).
The fact that people think the idea of two men falling in love as "radical" or "envelope pushing" or "new" should probably stick their heads back in the sand.If this movie had been released in a less restrictive time, it would have done better.
It's really a shame actually, and it's also very telling of major issues within our overly judgmental and uneducated culture.If for some odd reason Sharon Stone, ot some one from her team reads this review, I have seen "Basic Instinct 2" three times now.
The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels.
Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot.
All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying.
I have a very different opinion to what i have seen so far, i believe this movie was brilliant, yes Sharon stone was cringey at times, but i think she was brilliant, but she could have been seen as annoying at times.Throughout the film there was an obvious thought which meant Sharon was the killer, but the twist was good because it was obviously not going to be the person who you thought it was from the beginning or there would be no point watching the end.
This film has been savaged by our local (South African) and foreign critics, but this is one sequel I think is on a par with the original, if not better.Sharon Stone is mesmerising in the title role.
Sharon Stone is 48 but she looks nothing like a 48 yr old woman.I loved Basic Instinct not because of the sex, or coz she gets naked.
The acting is first rate, Sharon Stone is in my opinion just divine to look at, and the development of the plot is slow enough for the characters to take on real flesh but without losing tension.
The British cast, Charlotte Rampling and the handsome David Morrisey especially, provide the perfect moments in the film to send Stone/Tramell into her evil ways.
I think it's the same with every movie the original is always the best one, but in my opinion Basic Instinct 2 isn't that bad.
Sharon stone is a great actress and the kind of moody character she plays in Basic Instinct 2 suits her pretty good.
The acting is great from pretty much all accounts, even Sharon Stone does a good job.David Morrissey captures the 'reluctant hero' role, and Charlotte Rampling does well as his friend.
However when I saw it the second time , everything has changed and now BI2 is surely better than first for me.I do not understand why a lot of people have great objections to this movie and too many negative comments.
3) It is true that the absence of Michael Douglas can not be filled because he is a great actor and he caught a very good combination with Sharon Stone in 1992.
and he looks 60 maybe more than 60 but Sharon doesn't so whoever has a good or close to good acting talent replacing his role would be OK for this movie and so is David Morissey.He is not great , even sometimes boring but what does it matter ?
He could also catch a good connection with Stone and he did in some ways especially in the end.4) Charlotte Rampling was a great supporter and gave seriousness to the movie.5) The score was great , even greater than the first one.
Sharon Stone in her ripe age of 48?-50, looks exquisite and Davide Morissey...well let's say the sex scenes were very,very, very hot!!!
The sequel of Basic Instinct won't be for sure a remarkable movie, as the original one, but we cannot say it's awful, because it isn't.
Of course Sharon Stone is not so "hot" in this sequel as she was in the original, nor either exist any "unusual sexy scene" (cross legs' scene), but on the other hand I think she has refined her "killer instinct"!
The way she manipulates the psychologist and the way she looks at him, is really cold, wicked, in a word: evil!So, generally, I don't think this movie is brilliant - in fact, it's far away from that - but it's not as bad as some people told!.
(The lamest, most over-hyped movie I've ever watched) Like some others have noticed, I think most of the reviewers that gave this film a negative review were just uneasy with the sex symbol/seductress being 40+++ and not 19.
The movie, Sharon Stone, and David Morrisey all look good.
If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more.
It clearly all comes out in the ending of this movie.I was also amazed on how beautiful Sharon Stone still looks.Anyways.
The twists are just devices that make no sense, and their explanations are weak.The acting was OK not great, The British actors do better than Stone though.I did like the first one it was sexy and kept you wondering "Is she the Killer?" This one made me think man when is this movie going to be over?If you going to see this movie hoping for a good thriller don't bother.
Basic instinct 2 is simply a great thriller and suspense movie,Sharon Stone is simply hotter than most of the ladies at age of 20s and 30s,and i don't know why they keep saying that it did not success,except USA,basic instinct 2 ranked number 2 in each of the following countries,France,Italy,Spain,Russia,hong Kong,and many others European countries,and number 1 in Lebanon for 2 consecutive weeks,and according to the vote,i mean come on people cat woman got more than 3.3 over 10,basic instinct 2 at least it should take 6.5 - 7 over 10.
According to Sharon Stone,she is brilliant and very hot and sexy,she has been created to do this rule,about David i think he has a good future in cinema..
Now the movie did manage to raise a lot of heat during its release using Sharon Stone as the "venture catalyst" but somehow,Michael Caton Jones failed to deliver that degree of brilliance and trill that he promised his audience through the trailers of B I 2.Insted it turned out to be something like watching soft-porn on the big screen!
She really caught the character.People will look back on this movie and say how good it is..
Hi, Basic Instinct was a movie that has dominance on my personality , every time I watch I run my imagination to set another plot, another motive
and this is why Basic Instinct become a hit and not only because the fact Sharon stone didn't wear any underwear.Basic Instinct 2 comes after 14 years without the original crew.
Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time..
I love Sharon Stone and she was so beautiful and dangerous in the first movie, why not give the sequel a chance?
I thought the acting wasn't too bad and the story worked, although I have to admit the psychiatrist screaming at the end was a little over the top, but it was a fun movie to watch.Catherine is back and while her and an athlete are in a car getting stoned and having sex, they crash and Catherine gets out in time, but the athlete does not.
The difference is that Michael Douglas was really ugly in 1992, while Sharon Stone still looks pretty good to me.
No, this is not my favorite movie of all time, and not as good as the original (but really how many sequels really are), but I still enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure.
It's not a great movie - true, but i'm SURE that it would gotten five times better reviews if it wasn't a sequel.
After having read a few comments on this film (amongst other places here on IMDb), I really didn't have high hopes for this movie, and maybe that is the reason for me being positively surprised.This is by no means a great movie, but it's OK, and it will certainly have an appeal to people who would like to see another movie like the first "Basic Instinct".
The history is good and, the acting is great, I would to see Sharon Stone.
While Sharon Stone is a good-looking fortysomething, those watching it for sexy thrills may be disappointed..
Sharon Stone at times looks like she walked off the set of Basic Instinct straight on to this one, OK maybe off the set of Sliver, but she looks great and Catherine is as seductive as ever.
Who wants to be trapped in a Christian family movie when you get Sharon Stone reprising her role as the Catherine Tramell character?
With that said, here is my two cents regarding what could be considered a controversial film for the wrong reasons: Basic Instinct 2.Let's start with Sharon Stone since she seems to be the source of all the commotion (how fitting- just like the movie!) .
Sharon Stone does a good job bringing her character back to life although the performance seemed somewhat repetitive.The thing this movie did best was building up sexual tension between characters.
I am by no means saying this is a great film, but if your looking for something risky, sexual, raw, entertaining at times, and completely different than whats out there, then this is the movie to see..
In my opinion the sequel is better than the first Basic Instinct, the sequel stayed true to the 1st with music and everything besides Sharon Stone looks hotter in the new clothes she has in this one.
The only thing better about the 1st is that there is more sex scenes and that was the unrated version of the 1st film so it is oblivious that they are going to release a unrated DVD of this movie when it comes out on DVD.
Right after I saw Basic Instinct 2 at the theater(there were only 6 people in the theater 3 women & 3 men) I went home and watched the 1st one on DVD (unrated) and Sharon Stone looks amazing still, she was 31 in the 1st film and she is 46 in the second film (theoretically she is 48 now but BI2 was filmed in 2004).
I'm angry that people were like "there's no point for a sequel" good or not everyone should be happy they at least continued the franchise especially with the ending of the 1st film.
I enjoyed that aspect of the film, even if it's far, very very far from a masterpiece.Sharon Stone camps it up big time compared to her performance in the original, but I thought she was fun to watch, and even though she definitely doesn't look 30 anymore, she's still good as the evil temptress.. |
tt1028550 | Love Machine | Robin Stone, a handsome, ambitious newsman for a New York television station, attracts the attention of Judith Austin, wife of Gregory Austin, the head of the IBC network. Concerned about ratings, Greg is encouraged by Judith to hire Robin as IBC's new anchorman. Although he opposes Greg's decision, Danton Miller, the head of programming, is unable to overrule his boss. Soon afterward, feeling threatened by Greg's support of Robin's plan to take his newscast to prime-time, Dan decides to build a variety show around second-rate comedian Christie Lane to prove that the audience prefers crass entertainment to more cerebral programming.
Christie is a hit in the ratings, and Jerry Nelson, a homosexual friend of Robin, arranges for the show's sponsor to hire Amanda, a fashion model and Robin's occasional girlfriend, as the on-air representative of its product. After her first spot airs, Amanda skips a celebratory party and goes to Robin. Shattered when she finds Robin with a nude woman, she attends the party alone. Christie Lane, smitten with Amanda, proposes marriage when a drunken Amanda agrees to go home with him.
Judith persuades Robin to have lunch with her, but they end up in bed instead. During their rendezvous, Greg suffers a severe heart attack. Judith, who holds Greg's power of attorney, appoints Robin to act as head of the network while she takes her husband to Switzerland to recuperate.
Soon afterward, having rejected Amanda yet again, Robin is shaken by the news of Amanda's suicide. He goes out for a walk. Propositioned by a prostitute, he accompanies her to his room, but then changes his mind, and beats up the hooker. He then confesses to Jerry, who agrees to provide an alibi for Robin. In return, Jerry asks for a slave bracelet engraved with Robin's name.
Judith returns to New York with Greg, now recovered. When Robin refuses to resume their affair, Judith convinces her husband to reclaim control of the network, thereby demoting Robin. In response, Robin threatens to quit entirely, a move which would result in problems between Greg and the shareholders.
When Robin visits Los Angeles, Jerry persuades him to attend a party at the home of the actor Alfie Knight, Jerry's new boyfriend. Robin, in turn, invites Judith who is also in the city. At the party, Robin is pleased to see aspiring actress Maggie Stewart, who rebuffs him. Judith, meanwhile, becomes annoyed when Robin neglects her for Jerry and Alfie.
After most of the guests have gone, Judith, still angry, finds Jerry's slave bracelet on the floor. Reading the inscription, she threatens to expose Robin. Jerry and Alfie try to retrieve the bracelet, which leads to a brawl. Soon the police arrive, and Robin explains the fight by claiming that he had instigated it by making a drunken pass at Judith. Later, as Robin leaves the police station, his reputation in ruins, Maggie Stewart pulls up in her car and asks him if he needs a ride. He declines. | romantic | train | wikipedia | great material for analyses of robots, AI, and ethics. I saw this movie last week, hosted by Peter Asaro, one of the film makers. Much more than just a "gee-whiz" description of current developments in robotics and artificial intelligence, the film provides really rich material for thinking about the delegation of all sorts of labor (including emotional and/or sexual work) to socio-technical systems. It includes examples (both technical and philosophical) that could serve as very useful materials for university courses on social, ethical, and legal issues and technology. With a running time of 110 minutes, it could be a bit much for most undergraduates, and some of the montage sequences can feel a bit long. But apart from this, I found the interviews with Manuel Delanda, Daniel Dennett, and Hubert Dreyfus particular insightful, and the images and soundtrack (including material by Blonde Redhead) provide much needed pacing for reflecting on the issues raised during the film.. A great survey of Human/Machine Interaction. I finally managed to see this film, thanks to the filmmaker Peter Asaro. This film will appeal to others like me who are interested in the history of technology. It explores the general topic of human/machine interaction especially are regards one of the most complex of human interactions, love, from filial to sexual. The film is an excellent survey of the opinions of key individuals ranging from philosophers to engineers as well as a catalog of a variety of high and low technology devices aimed at providing 'love', broadly defined. Some of the material is becoming dated, such as the MIT work, but it will be difficult to find as complete a collection of material as is presented here anywhere else.I recommend viewing this film if you can arrange it. |
tt0037001 | Lady in the Death House | Mary Kirk Logan is led from her cell to the electric chair, to be "killed by the hand of the man I love."
A psychologist and criminologist, Charles Finch, tells her story. They first meet in a bar when Mary's dress catches fire. Dr. Bradford, having drinks with Finch, helps extinguish the fire. He takes Mary home and they fall in love.
Bradford is a scientist who hopes to develop a way to revive dead tissue. He works as an executioner for the state. Mary won't marry him unless he quits this profession.
A blackmailer is killed in Mary's apartment and she is arrested and tried. Her teenaged sister Suzy is the key to the case. Finch gets her to identify the real killer, but a race against time begins to find the governor so he can stop the execution. Bradford holds off the warden and guards until Finch can save the day. | murder | train | wikipedia | This tautly constructed little movie should serve as a model for those modern film authors who cannot unfold the simplest story line in less than two hours.The movie opens with Mary Kirk being led from her cell to walk to the death chamber.
Half way into the movie he has reached the point at which Mary was convicted and sentenced to death.
He still has not succeeded by the time we have caught up to the opening of the movie and see Mary finish her walk to the electric chair.
The remaining few minutes are a desperate race against the clock played more or less in real time.The movie does not waste an inch of film.
Particularly effective is the way in which the character of Mary's younger sister, Suzy, is handled.
Her appearances are almost always incidental to the main action, but as the movie progresses it becomes clear that she is somehow central to the solution.The nature of the plot means that the title character plays a passive rather than an active role.
Marcia Mae Jones' porcelain-doll prettiness frequently led to her being cast as a vain and foolish little madam, and her role here as Suzy suits her talents.
Lionel Atwill makes a convincing sleuth, neatly conveying a blend of scientific detachment, humanitarian concern, and an occasional twinkle of humour.Anybody who thinks that "first class B movie" is an oxymoron should study this film and learn better..
Lionel Atwill plays the hero for a change in serious-minded mystery.
Opening scene: Jean Parker walks into the death chamber to be electrocuted
and the action cuts to Lionel Atwill and a roomful of reporters apparently congratulating him on cracking the case.
He tells them the tale of how he met Parker, how she came to be convicted of killing a blackmailer by whacking him over the head, and how Atwill himself grew convinced of her innocence and set about investigating.Atwill is quite smooth as Charles Finch, a well knows criminologist who says, "I keep insisting I'm a psychologist." Lionel Atwill didn't get to play the good guy every day, and he does well as the insightful and wise but also quick-thinking detective capable of decisive action.
Jean Parker is sympathetic as the earnest young woman who has a family secret from which it's hard to hide.
The role doesn't offer a lot of opportunities for showing her character's fun side, but Parker does a capable job of playing it smart and attractive
.She is also the responsible one in a family that includes a wild younger sister (Marcia Mae Jones) who is obviously concealing information vital to solving the mystery.Douglas Fowley is the other lead, a young doctor ("I prefer to think of myself as a scientist") who has some bold ideas (he is developing a method to revive dead things) but is obliged to raise research money doing a job he hates down at the prison—he throws the switch when a convict is put in the electric chair.
Fun to see Atwill in a central good guy role
.In the early scene where Fowley tells him his mad-scientist-type idea, I was half expecting Atwill to say something like, "Yes, I've tried that in one or two of my other films"
.
But when the blackmailer ends up dead on the floor, and some people saw this unfold through the window, Parker is arrested and ends up on death row.
Shortly before all this happened, she met scientist researcher Douglas Fowley and criminologist Lionel Atwill, and Fowley fell in love with her.
Atwill doesn't believe Parker is guilty, and thinks Parker's sister Marcia Mae Jones, whom he caught lying on the night of the murder, holds the key to finding the real killer.The movie is told in flashback by Atwill as he recounts the story to some of his colleagues, using a letter Parker wrote shortly before walking to the chair.
It is told & shot in the typical fashion employed by the low-budget studios, PRC in this case, where pace and economics mattered more than logic (that is: if you have time to think about a plot hole while watching a movie, the movie needs more trimming).
It doesn't have a lot of noir visuals, and the movie works better as a mystery, but it's a decent effort that does tick a few boxes.It's not a movie that really demands multiple viewings, but as a quick time-waster, it holds up decently well.
Lady in the Death House I'm sure is a movie publicist's wet dream.
It's up to a criminologist, er, psychologist to figure out who really killed the shady friend of the prisoner's sister, AND has to get a hold of the Governor somehow Before It's Too Late!
This movie is somewhat fun, but fairly predictable, Jean Parker as the lady in question and Lionel Atwill are good here, but nothing really remarkable.
I mean, shouldn't he be AVAILIBLE for last minute clemency phone calls and what have you instead of ordering Denver Sandwiches ("smothered in onions!").
Jean Parker may have the worst sister but she's got a friend in Lionel Atwill, so it'll be OK.
Poverty row cheapie starring Lionel Atwill as a criminologist who tries to stop an innocent girl from being executed in the electric chair.
Told through flashback, the story begins with Atwill befriending Doug Fowley's character, a scientist who's going to do big things someday but until then he has to make ends meet as the executioner at the state pen!
He wants to marry Jean Parker but she refuses, having pretty strong opinions on capital punishment on account of her dearly departed dad being a criminal.
Things get even more melodramatic when a guy who was blackmailing Jean winds up murdered and she's tried and convicted for the crime.
Leave it to Lionel Atwill to solve everything, albeit taking his sweet time to do so.
An interesting whodunit that suffers mainly from flaws in motivational logic for the characters, as well as unbelievable legal procedures, but that is part of the sense of disbelief that has to be suspended for many B-movie crime dramas of the era.Lionel Atwill is the state executioner, who needs his job to finance his research which is ironically, brining the dead back to life.
He feels he has to keep his job though because of the importance of it to his work, particularly financing it, despite the fact that his fiancée finds the job abhorrent and refuses to marry him when she finds out what he does.In the opening scene you have seen her walking to the death chamber, with the story told in flashbacks by the detective played by Cy Kendall.
Lionel Atwill's character you figure out early is in the unenviable position of being required to pull the switch on his girlfriend.
As time is running out, Kendall tries to gather evidence to clear her.Since it is told in flashbacks, some things that are to happen you learn early on, but the film telegraphs too much that it doesn't intend you to know, at least not for sure.
With a little work on the script, this could have been a much better movie.All in all not bad, and with a runtime of 56 minutes doesn't have time for you to grow weary waiting for the solution.One aspect that seems amusingly dated today though is the crime Mary's father was convicted of when she was a child: Pinball racketeering.
Mary (Jean Parker) is due to die on the electric chair.
The story is told by Charles Finch (Lionel Atwill) in flashback.
Will Mary be saved for a crime that she didn't commit...?...While Atwill is quite good, the acting is all rather forgettable.
The cast are uninspiring to watch with Marcia Mae Jones's character as Suzi, Parker's sister, being the standout performance.
The short-lived P.R.C. movie production company had a history of making junk in a really short period of time, and other than the classic film noir "Detour", most of their films are quickly forgettable.
Like the slightly more well known Monogram, they produced a ton of Z grade westerns, some action films that took clichéd looks at the enemies of World War II, and a smaller amount of horror, dramas and comedies.
This is a sort of exploitation drama about a young lady (Jean Parker) who faces the electric chair where her own boyfriend is the one who will pull the switch.
Kindly psychiatrist Lionel Atwill rushes to prove her innocence of murder with the help of Parker's younger sister Marcia Mae Jones who truly believed her to be guilty.
This is one of those times where I give two thumbs up to what was once considered the one movie studio where serious actors did not want to work..
A suspenseful, enjoyable and very melodramatic mystery movie, with Jean Parker, Marcia Mae Jones and Atwill, chilling as usual, and directed by Steve Sekely, peopled also by a few unlikable characters (the dedicated scientist, the fat sergeant), and made in a bombastic style reminiscent of Soviet cinema or silent movies, while Atwill only enhances this atmosphere of mayhem; Atwill didn't seem convinced that his character was not only a good guy, but also a nice one, so that his cordial smiles don't seem very reassuring.
Marcia and Atwill give kindred performances, in the same popular expressive vein; Jean was above this kind of powerhouse role, and her acting has some class and even perhaps a resigned charm.
"Lady In The Death House" is an interesting crime tale, largely told in flashbacks.
And although some of the supporting performances (particularly from the police inspector and the wide-eyed little sister) are a bit amateurish, Jean Parker gives an affecting performance as the doomed-to-die heroine (a 180 degrees different role for her from Kitty O'Day, whom she played the same year), and Lionel Atwill gives a solid center to the film in a rare, for him, good-guy role.
In fact, if we can accept the somewhat unbelievable manipulations of the plot (e.g. the doomed heroine's boyfriend just happens to the state's official executioner) and the implied but strong criticism of the U.S.A. justice system, it's quite a revelation.
Fortunately, Lionel Atwill manages to hold the plot together and, despite all, the film does emerge as a second feature winner.
Jean Parker makes an attractively convincing heroine, while Douglas Fowley holds down an unusual role as the sympathetic executioner.
This low-budget but entertaining crime thriller about a dame scheduled to die in the electric chair for a murder that she didn't commit is a fine example of a movie that impugns the death penalty.
Mary Kirk Logan (Jean Parker)has been shielding her younger sister Suzy and herself from the truth that her father was a criminal in the pin-ball racket.
Actually, Mary's boss at the bank, who hired her because he needed somebody who he could trust to handle confidential information, played a crucial role in a law and order crusade to put her father behind bars.
Ironically, the villain who is blackmailing Mary is considered a low-life even by his own kind.
Mary has managed to fool Gregory about her checkered past for five years."Lady in the Death House" opens with Mary taking the final 39 steps of her life to the electric chair.
Happily for Mary, she knows a tenacious criminologist Charles Finch (Lionel Atwill) who uses his skills to set her free."Revenge of the Zombies" director Steve Sekely tells the story in flashback for maximum suspense and doesn't have Mary exonerated until the last three minutes..
LADY IN THE DEATH HOUSE is an economical and familiar thriller of the 1940s, centred around a young woman who ends up wrongfully accused and put on Death Row awaiting her imminent execution.
There are touches of science fiction and horror in the premise alongside a supporting role for villainous old-hand Lionel Atwill, but otherwise this is a straight-up thriller with a predictable outcome..
I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwill—plus I really liked the title.
Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interesting—sort of like a bizarre soap opera).
Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hours—a common thing for such studios.The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago.
But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution.
Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocence—and prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly.
While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby.
This movie begins with a young woman by the name of "Mary Kirk Logan" (Jean Parker) writing a letter in prison minutes before she is supposed to be executed for murder.
The scene then shifts to a criminologist named "Charles Finch" (Lionel Atwill) as he is reading a portion of the letter to a small group of men who are interested in the story he has to tell.
It's at this point that the movie backtracks to the day that the murder occurred.
However, rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that it contained an adequate amount of mystery and suspense but it was too short (only 56 minutes) and compact to be as effective as it could have been.
Of course, a number of movies produced during this particular time were rather abbreviated due to budget constraints so this particular film isn't necessarily an anomaly.
****SPOILERS**** With his girlfriend Mary Kirk Logan, Jean Parker,to be executed that evening at 11:00 PM sharp the Sing Sing Prison executioner Dr. Brad Bradford, Douglas Fowley, is finding it more and more difficult to do his job in juicing her, by pulling the switch, in the prison's hot seat.
It's then that the movie goes into back or forward mode, were not quite sure which one, with famed psychologist Charles Finch, Lionel Atwill, telling a group of friends about a letter he received from Mary just before she was to be executed.
In it Mary explains how she's been framed in killing the person who was blackmailing her, in revealing her dad's criminal past to her boss, mobster Willy Mullin, Dick Curtis, by someone who did him in while she was locked up in another room in her apartment.The flashback scene comes across as if it were in the present making it more and more difficult to gage what time is taking place in the movie.
We slowly get the message that it was Mary's kid sister the bug eyed and spaced out Suzy, Marcia Mea Jones, who knew who killed Millen and is covering it up at the expense of her older sister Mary's life.
It's Finch who slowly uncovers the person, through a number of clues, who killed Millen but as usual in movies like this, working against the clock, time is running out for Mary to be saved from being zapped.
With the only person who can save her Governor Harrison, Sam Flint, nowhere to be found and contacted before 11:00 PM the time for Bradford to pull the switch.****SPOILERS**** Lionel Atwill in one of his last appearances, he passed away two years later, is excellent as both psychologist and part time private eye Charles Finch who saves the day as well as Mary Kirk's life by getting the Governor, through a radio broadcast, to get the news that Mary is innocent and stop her execution.
But it was Mary's boyfriend Brad Bradford that made that all possible by at the very last moment refusing to pull the switch and locking himself up in the power room that gave Finch the needed time to get the word out to Gov. Harrison about her being innocent.
Thus stopping in the nick of time Mary's impending execution..
As the movie opens, Mary (Jean Parker) is making her way to the electric chair.
Crimanologist/psychologist Charles Finch (Lionel Atwill) believes Mary to be innocent, but is running out of time to prove it.
To make matter worse, Mary's boyfriend is the State's executioner and will throw the switch on Mary.
Can Mary be saved in time?
Lady in the Death House is far from the worst of the Poverty Row films I've seen, but it still has a number or problems.
To start with, Mary's boyfriend is (conveniently) the executioner.
The witnesses used at the trial that help convict Mary saw the murder through a solid shade, meaning they only saw a silhouette.
Next, as evidence is gathered that will clear Mary, the Governor, the only person who can stop her execution, has (inconveniently) stopped for a Denver sandwich and can't be reached.
Lady in the Death House does feature better than expected (at least for this kind of movie) acting.
Lionel Atwill is the kind of actor that's always good.
Jean Parker, Douglas Fowley, and Marcia Mae Jones hold up their end and give solid performances.
A lot of these Poverty Row films look like they were shot on the same dirty, poorly lit set.
Finally, I thought the use of flashbacks was a nice way to tell the story of Lady in the Death House.
We see Mary headed to the electric chair, but have to wait 50+ minutes to see if she really is put to death.
Quite nice.Overall, the bad outweighs the good and I'm left rating the movie a 4/10. |
tt0059460 | The Money Trap | Joe Baron (Glenn Ford) is an under-appreciated, under paid cop who lives a life of luxury because of his very wealthy, beautiful and much younger wife, Lisa Baron (Elke Sommer), and the stock that her father left behind. Unfortunately for the happy couple, when their stock's dividends stop coming in, Joe finds himself in some serious need of cash to continue his life style. To further heighten Joe's concerns, Lisa intimates she is unwilling to lower her standard of living.
Soon after Joe realizes he has a cash flow problem, he and his partner Pete Delanos (Ricardo Montalban) are ordered to perform a routine investigation whereby a rich and well connected doctor, Horace Van Tilden (Joseph Cotten) has shot an intruder, Phil Kenny, in his home. When the duo visit the crime scene, they find an opened wall safe and the intruder laying on the floor, but still breathing. Joe rides in the ambulance and during the trip to the hospital, Kenny reveals that he was after two bags of cash containing $500,000. He also gives Joe a piece of paper with the combination of the safe on it, after which, Kenny expires. Joe decides to keep this to himself and continues his own personal research on the case to find more information.
During his intense search for more clues about the bags of cash and the intruder, Joe visits Phil Kenny's Wife, Rosalie Kenny (Rita Hayworth), who is now working in a bar as a waitress. When Joe sees Kenny's wife he realizes that she is none other than his former friend and lover from the old neighborhood. They have a brief and awkward conversation, ending with Rosalie asking Joe to leave her alone. Joe leaves the bar, not knowing that his partner, Pete, has followed him there.
Later that night, when Joe arrives home he finds Lisa and one of his neighbors having a drink. Lisa explains the neighbor is there because he wants to meet with Joe. It turns out the neighbor wants Joe to fix a traffic ticket. Believing instead, that his neighbor was there to make a move on Lisa, Joe orders his neighbor to leave. Lisa and Joe argue. Joe storms out of his house and ends up meeting up with Rosalie. By now, Rosalie's mood has softened. They reminisce about their past relationship and it becomes clear that Rosalie still has feelings for Joe. Joe's intentions are clear - he wants Rosalie to divulge how much she knew regarding Kenny's plan to rob Van Tilden. Rosalie claims she knew very little. Suddenly, Rosalie hears a sound from the street below and she appears alarmed and frightened. Joe calms her down, but realizes that she could be in danger if Van Tilden suspects she knows too much. That night Joe and Rosalie make love. In the morning as Joe is about to leave, Rosalie tells him that Van Tilden has a business dealing in drugs and that Kenny was an employee and an addict who was looking for a way to get some more drugs. She validates Kenny's claim that he was after $500,000. Joe gives Rosalie some money and tells her to leave town. That morning, Joe returns home and Lisa apologizes for the night before.
Later, in the police gymnasium as Joe and Pete work out, Pete reveals to Joe that he knows Joe is up to something and that he "wants in". Joe reluctantly agrees and shares with Pete his idea to go after Van Tilden's ill-gotten loot. They both work together and organize a plan to steal the bags of cash.
To their surprise, Van Tilden requests to see them. When they meet with Van Tilden he inquires if they know the whereabouts of Phil Kenny's widow. Van Tilden explains he wants to give her money. Joe feigns ignorance. Before the meeting ends, Van Tilden matter-of-factly mentions he will be in Acapulco for the week, leaving that day. Joe is very suspicious of Van Tilden, but decides to move forward with the planned heist. That night Joe receives a late night call from Rosalie. She has not left town and is calling from the bar where she works. She leaves the bar and walks back to her apartment, not realizing she is being followed by Van Tilden's henchman, Matthews. When Rosalie enters her apartment, she pours herself a drink and then walks up to the rooftop of her apartment to view the skyline and contemplate her lot in life. Later, Joe and Pete are ordered to a potential crime scene - a woman has fallen or been pushed from a rooftop. The arrive to find Rosalie, sprawled on the ground. They are informed by another police officer that the finger marks on the ledge indicate she was pushed. Pete tells Joe that they should call off the heist because Rosalie most likely told her killer what she had told Joe. Joe refuses, believing that Rosalie wouldn't say anything. The next day, Pete checks to make sure that Van Tilden has left for Acapulco.
That night, Joe and Pete enter Van Tilden's house where they encounter and knock unconscious, Matthews. They drill the safe and use nitroglycerin to blow open the safe door. As Pete and Joe are grabbing the bags of loot, Van Tilden and Matthews surprise them. A gunfight ensues and Pete is shot. Joe is able to incapacitate both Van Tilden and Matthews and help Pete to the car for a quick getaway. Joe drives Pete to his house where he is forced to tell Lisa what happened. As Pete lies on the bed, he asks to see the money which is when they discover that one of the bags contains heroin. Joe realizes that Pete's gunshot wound is life-threatening and decides to offer Van Tilden the bag of drugs in exchange for medical attention for Pete. Van Tilden arrives at Joe's house, alone, per Joe's demand. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mattews has followed Van Tilden. During his treatment, Pete accuses Joe of selling him out. He grabs the money and attempts to leave, but the strain is too much and he succumbs to his wound. As Joe's part of the bargain, he now must deliver the drugs to the Van Tilden. He and Van Tilden leave in Van Tilden's car, closely followed by Matthews. They arrive at a closed drugstore and Joe instructs Van Tilden to wait in the car while he retrieves the bag of heroin. Joe knocks on the door and an elderly gentlemen opens the door. Joe asks for the bag he left earlier. It's clear the drugstore is in Joe's old neighborhood and the drugstore owner has known Joe since he was a young man. As the drugstore owner is about to hand Joe the bag, Matthews and Van Tilden enter with drawn guns. Van Tilden orders Matthews to kill both Joe and the drugstore owner as he leaves with the heroin. Joe draws his gun and shots are exchanged. Matthews is killed by Joe. As Joe steps outside, he sees Van Tilden driving off in his limousine. Joe fires several shots hitting Van Tilden and causing his car to crash into a nearby storefront. As Van Tilden stumbles from the car, he and Joe exchange gunfire, hitting each other. Joe grabs his stomach and fires one final round into the prone Van Tilden.
Injured, Joe makes his way back home in Van Tilden's battered limousine. When Lisa attempts to call an ambulance, Joe orders her to call the police, instead. He then turns on the lights to his rear yard, illuminating his spacious swimming pool and well maintained patio. As sirens are heard in the background, Joe leans against the wall and awaits his fate in the arms of his wife. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | Ford, Hayworth paired for last time in last-ditch noir.
The noir cycle had run its course by the early 60s, but a few stragglers made it through the gates before the 70s changed the way movies were made and viewed.
The Money Trap is one of them, and could have been made, in terms of technique and sensibility, in 1956 rather than a decade later.
(Digression: this was a time when a series of European "bombshells," most of whom seem to have learned their lines phonetically, starred in big-budget movies, in Hollywood's dizzy anticipation of multiculturalism.
Here we have to endure Elke Sommer whose eyes all but cross in her attempt to pronounce English).
The theme is the rot at the core of the American Dream (Norman Mailer's novel of that title appeared in 1966, too).
Glenn Ford plays a police detective goaded by Sommer to a higher standard of living than his salary permits.
He allows himself to be lured into the company of some very shady characters, chief among whom is Joseph Cotten, and starts his descent down the primrose path.
Best part of the movie is the return of Rita Hayworth (Ford and she first paired, unforgettably, in Gilda 20 years earlier), as a blowsy waitress with whom Ford once....
Well, you get the picture.
When he asks her how she's been, she grudgingly responds, "I've been around.".
modern noir.
Glenn Ford and Ricardo Montalban are good policemen gone bad who fall into "The Money Trap," a 1965 noir directed by Burt Kennedy.
Ford plays Joe Baron, married to beautiful Lisa (Elke Sommer) who is no longer getting dividends from her father's company.
Downsizing and some yard sales would seem to be in order, but instead, Joe has his eye on a mob doctor's (Joseph Cotten) safe that's filled with money.
Montalban, as his partner Pete, wants in.
One man has already been killed cracking the safe, and there are some surprises in store.This film is just okay, kind of depressing, but it's notable for the performance of Rita Hayworth as the widow of the dead burglar.
She looks pretty used up as her character should, but she's still a stunning woman with true star charisma and great chemistry with Ford, her old co-star.
And, as someone else mentioned, how many 50-year-old women playing character roles get to shack up with the lead in a movie?
Well, if anyone could, it's Rita.Ford was an appealing star without a huge range; this character could have been mined for more depth, but he's fine in the role.
Montalban is very good as his money-obsessed partner.Worth it for Rita..
Jazzy crime drama strains a bit to be a hip, modern noir...great to look at, anyway.
Lionel White's novel becomes an adequate time-filler from rote director Burt Kennedy.
Big city cop Glenn Ford, anxious to hold on to luscious wife Elke Sommer, turns to crime; his partner of six years, Ricardo Montalban, wants in on the action.
Familiar swindling and safe-cracking yarn goosed by Hal Schaefer's beatnik music, Paul Vogel's gorgeously bleak black-and-white cinematography, and interesting performances from an agreeable cast.
Glenn Ford doesn't try hard to flesh out this complicated character, yet his smaller moments (like stroking Sommer's forearm in bed) go a long way to making a connection with the audience; Rita Hayworth (despite a corny send-off) is excellent as an alcoholic, and Montalban simmers with cat-like heat and paranoia.
The dialogue is amusingly gritty ("I'm worried!" ...
"Then worry with your mouth shut!") and the locales are vividly captured, however the M-G-M studio streets and back alleys look as phony as ever.
Unsympathetic Characters.
The Money Trap for me has the distinction of being one of the last B features I ever saw on the big screen as part of a double bill.
It is a film way past its prime as a noir picture.Noir as a genre essentially died little by little as more televisions were in American homes.
The kind of stories that noir does best were now being shown on television every night.
Movies were getting bigger and splashier to compete with TV and films like the Money Trap were just not being made for theaters any more.
Watching it yesterday on TCM, I was struck by the ludicrousness of a letter box version for a black and white noir.
By the way, in 1965 television was about to go full color and black and white feature films were getting rarer each year.But even as a noir film, The Money Trap has no people you really care about.
Glenn Ford is married to a wealthy woman and lives in a lifestyle beyond his cop's salary.
But then wife Elke Sommer gets a letter saying her late Daddy's stock won't be paying any dividends.
Well golly gee, we should all have such problems.
It never occurs to Glenn Ford to tell Elke to tone down her extravagant ways, maybe even move out of that luxurious home they have to something more modest.
Ford's kind of into the good life also.During a homicide investigation involving a wealthy doctor played by Joseph Cotten who allegedly surprised a burglar in his home, Ford and partner Ricardo Montalban suspect something dicey.
Before expiring in the ambulance, the burglar gives Ford the safe combination.Now knowing something is amiss here.
Ford and Montalban decide on a robbery.
Of course the doctor is smarter than the both of them put together.
The whole thing ends in one bloody mess and the viewer doesn't really care.A few years later The Money Trap would have been strictly a made for TV feature if it got made at all.
Probably MGM was busy trying to get rid of long time contractual obligations to Ford and Montalban.
Both of them have sure done better work.But the saddest thing of all is that this is the last feature film partnership of Glenn Ford and Rita Hayworth.
Rita's the best thing in this film, playing a very worn out forty something ex-girlfriend of Ford's and widow of the burglar Cotten shot.
A great acting job and not anything a former reigning sex goddess ever did before.But it ain't enough to save The Money Trap..
Pure TV style '60s Crime Yarn With Extra Groovy Jazz Score....
Was the world ever really like this?Pure 1965 black and white, this time machine of a crime drama takes you back to when Elkie Sommer was young, and Joseph Cotten was'nt dead.
No profanity, blood or sex on the screen, but everywhere in the painlessly stereotypical screenplay.
Predictable to a fault, you seem not to care it's all one big cleche.
The jazzy, pre-groovy background music, a totally orignal score by Hal Schaffer, makes this crime-like thing a nostalgic romp of flat-foot flick..
Sad look at Rita and Ford.
They were looking pretty tired in this.
It was the characters they played but they didn't have to stretch much for the part.
I see why my wife has a poor opinion of Ford.
I always liked him but I had never seen this movie before.
I want to know more about the house that Ford and Elke lived in.
The design of the pool was very unique.
Did anyone notice when Ford was riding in the ambulance (a Buick conversion) talking to the dying burglary suspect, that the car next to them was pacing and passing a code 3 ambulance with its siren on?
The camera was set up to shoot the scene but there was normal traffic flowing next to it, so when Ford signals to the driver that the suspect is dead and he can slow down, nothing changed in the street scene outside the window.
Loved the white 1964 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible that Ford drove.
That model has a value these days of $15K to $20K..
Does the title refer to the paychecks offered to actors for junk like this?.
Great cast.
Might be interesting.
Hmmmm....
Well, it starts with a brassy, obnoxious jazz theme, followed oddly by bongo music.
Our first scene is Ford as a detective at the scene of a crime wherein a woman was hung in a whore house by her husband.
Next scene we have Elke Sommer undressing to go to bed with husband Ford.
This film wastes no time!
But then it goes on and on with crummy characters played by William Campbell, Ricardo Montalban, Hayworth and Cotten.
Dreary all the way to the bitter conclusion.
The post-'Gilda' reteaming of Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford is a sad spectacle.
Ford's haircut is so bad his ears look bat-like.
Hayworth, admittedly is not playing a glamour part, but her degradation is not pleasant to watch.
Together they appear dissipated, like their careers at this point.
Ford really seems bored and uncomfortable throughout.
And Cotten is as dull as usual.
But Montalban does show some energy as fellow cop, and Elke Sommer has never looked better and plays the most likable (maybe only likable) character in the film.
If that valium is making you feel too good, bring yourself down with this movie..
What a Waste of Talent.
Except for the music, THE MONEY TRAP is strictly by the numbers.
Third billed Rita Hayworth has maybe five minutes screen time.
No matter, she bring what little class this movie has to the screen.
My big question is, what is such a terrific cast DOING in this insipid junk?
Drawing a paycheck, I guess.
Certainly, Glenn Ford, Ricardo Montalban and Joseph Cotton (all then under contract to MGM) were strictly drawing paychecks.
This movie SHOULD be seen a reminder of sexual attitudes to which we should NEVER return.
That is, whatever males do is OK, but woe be on to a female whom "transgresses," PARTICULARLY if she enjoys it!
Otherwise, don't waste your time..
Good ingredients that are somewhat wasted.
The cast and quality black-and-white camera work would seem to destine this film for something great but we don't get there.
The problem seems to be the storyline/script which is just too familiar and predictable.
Glen Ford plays a fairly well-to-do cop who feels pressured by his barbie doll young wife, Elke Sommer, to deliver even more affluence.
His partner, Montalban, is more directly avaricious.
Cotten is a corrupt doctor and a very used looking Rita Hayworth is Ford's ex-girlfriend from years ago.
Ford as usual, underplays but nevertheless makes you feel the cold emptiness and disillusionment of the character.
Everyone else delivers well but I think we have all seen these characters, motivations and situations a hundred times before and the script does not give any room for interesting angles or surprises.
We get a very dark (literally and figuratively) and gritty film but not something that is likely to grow on you.
If this had been made in 1932, it would have been a far more significant film.
By the mid 60s, it was tired formula..
Tries very hard to be a hard boiled police drama.
I didn't have any idea what I was getting into when I watched this one.
What I got was a look at Rita Hayworth and the signs of alcoholism and aging....plus a pretty straight forward police drama...with a decent jazz score.I was really looking forward to seeing Hayworth as I like to watch former stars later in their careers.
It was painfully apparent that she wasn't in very good shape for this one.
I don't know if it was the starting of the Alzheimer's she got or alcoholism but she shows her age in this one.
She was easily one of the most beautiful girls on screen in her heyday but I guess we all have to age.
Some just not so gracefully.Glenn Ford is OK in this but the story in itself is just so transparent.
You can pretty much predict every twist and turn.
I wasn't surprised once at any "moment" in this film.Too many stories going on at once with a very average screenplay tells you why this didn't get released on DVD for a while.
It didn't make an impact back in the day I'm willin' to bet.Go with the user ratings on this one.
If you wanna feel like a genius and predict every thing that happens in a film...watch this one.
You'll be the next champ of Jeopardy..
Rita's Hidden Gem. Very 1960's with mid-century houses and Hollywood Hills and convertibles and Elke and her life-like body on display.
Easy to see why Glenn put up with her extravagance and even her unfaithfulness.
The surprise was a used-up, doomed Rita Hayworth, better than Sadie, better than "Fire Down Below." While nobody would believe that Rita was really a down on her luck waitress, she played her exhaustion and disillusionment with the world and especially with men better than any Method actress.
Her scenes with Glenn Ford were genuine chemistry between two old friends with loyalty and affection and honesty.
And, in the 1960's, how many fifty year old down on her luck character actresses were shown "shacking up" with the star of the picture.
Rita established her character so well that, when her sad end was talked about but not seen, it rang true.
A real keeper, especially for the next Rita Retrospective..
Jaded cop sacrifices integrity for beautiful young wife.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
It has smooth, stylish, black & white photography; a peppy but brooding jazz soundtrack and charismatic actors.
It's a simplistic but compelling morality play in glamorous film noir clothing.
Glenn Ford is sexy (in a vulnerable tough guy past his prime sort of way), Rita Hayworth is lovely and sympathetic, Elke Somer is adorable, Ricardo Montalban is stupid and greedy, Joseph Cotten is sleazy and everyone is degraded.
The men suffer from their lack of faith in others; the women through their misguided dependence on virility (they count on men to provide emotional and worldly sustenance).
It's worth seeing just for the glossy cinematography and the early 60's architecture and settings.It is not a film for those who venerate realism or seek a highly original screenplay, nevertheless it is far more slick, attractive and entertaining than a large percentage of current Hollywood film or television.
Like a song sung by Amy Winehouse, you wouldn't use it to tell you how to live, but it sure feels good when you turn it up loud and surrender for a little while. |
tt0104756 | Lorenzo's Oil | Lorenzo (Zack O'Malley Greenburg) is a bright and vibrant young boy living in the Comoro Islands, as his father Augusto (Nick Nolte) works for the World Bank and is stationed there. However, when his parents relocate to the United States, he begins to show neurological problems (such as loss of hearing, tantrums, etc.). The boy is diagnosed as having adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), which is fatal within two years. Failing to find a doctor capable of treating their son's rare disease, Augusto and his wife Michaela (Susan Sarandon) set out on a mission to find a treatment to save their child. In their quest, the Odones clash with doctors, scientists, and support groups, who are skeptical that anything could be done about ALD, much less by laypeople. But they persist, setting up camp in medical libraries, reviewing animal experiments, enlisting the aid of Professor Gus Nikolais (Peter Ustinov), badgering researchers, questioning top doctors all over the world, and even organizing an international symposium about the disease.
Despite research dead-ends, the horror of watching their son's health decline, and being surrounded by skeptics (including the coordinators of the support group they attend), they persist until they finally hit upon a therapy involving adding a certain kind of oil (actually containing two specific long chain fatty acids, isolated from rapeseed oil and olive oil) to their son's diet. They contact over 100 firms around the world until they find an elderly British chemist (Don Suddaby) working for Croda International who is willing to take on the challenge of distilling the proper formula. The oil, erucic acid, proves successful in normalizing the accumulation of the very long chain fatty acids in the brain that had been causing their son's steady decline, thereby halting the progression of the disease. There is still a great deal of neurological damage remaining which could not be reversed unless new treatments could be found to regenerate the myelin sheath (a lipid insulator) around the nerves. The father is seen taking on the new challenge of organizing biomedical efforts to heal myelin damage in patients.
Finally, Lorenzo, at the age of 14, shows definite improvement (swallowing for himself and answering "yes" or "no" questions by blinking) but more medical research is still needed. Ultimately it is revealed that Lorenzo has also regained his sight and is learning to use a computer. | inspiring, romantic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | Nick is convincing in every way in this movie, even though he has a very hard part playing an Italian(Augusto Odone).Susan Sarandon plays the mother of Lorenzo.
It's incredible how she plays the part of a mother near the end of her powers pushing away everybody that does not share the same faith in saving the life of her son.This movie is underrated, and should be given a chance.
This is the true story of Lorenzo Michael Murphy Odone, who, at the age of seven, suffered from a rare, incurable brain disease called ALD.
Lorenzo's parents, Augusto Odone (Nick Nolte) and Michaela Odone (Susan Sarandon) decided to gather all the information they could find on their own.
Eventually, Augusto Odone solved the mystery and invented a prescription- a special form of olive oil which could help boys (the disease is passed on by the mothers to their sons, not their daughters) with ALD.
This movie is based on the true story of Michaela and Agusto Odone, whose child Lorenzo was diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), a degenerative nerve disorder that afflicts only little boys and is always fatal.
My all-time favourite film, this highly emotional true story features peerless acting, especially from Sarandon..
Powerful and educational true life story of Augusto and Michaela Odone who learn their young son is stricken with a devestating and rare disease (adrenoleukodystrophy or ALD) with no cure.
Wow!,what a film.Based on a true story about little boy Lorenzo who gets an incurable disease called ALG.Parents never gives up to get a cure for the disease.And a cure there is,in form of an oil.This is an heartwarming,interesting and very important movie.Great performances all around.Especially Nick Nolte who did a great job with his italian accent.Definately one of his best performances.
As Michaela Odone, the mother of Lorenzo, who has a terminal disease ALD, she perfectly skates that fine line between being a caring parent and a crazed mother obsessed with keeping her son alive, and if the nurses don't like it, too bad.
I am not sure that it is "great film-making"; I do know, however, that it conveyed the story so effectively that even after 5 or 6 years (if not longer) I often remember it and draw inspiration from its story.Susan Sarandon was superb.
Based on the true story of a married couple at their wits' end trying to find a cure for their young son's degenerative disease, "Lorenzo's Oil" chronicles the efforts and challenges of two people who eventually strike out on their own when the established medical profession proves to be a group of naysayers.
Susan Sarandon does her usual sterling job as the mother--the film ends up being a valentine to her valiance and gritty grace--yet the plot-turns are somewhat mechanical despite George Miller's obvious heart and good intentions.
'Lorenzo's Oil' is a rare film that is intelligently produced in a manner that portrays the sadness, poignancy, hope, triumph and courage of the story it tells.It centres on the true story of Augustus and Michaela Odone, a doting couple who cherish their five-year-old son Lorenzo.
However, frustrated by the lack of research into the illness, the Odones' refuse to accept their son's condition is terminal and take on the medical world in their determination to save Lorenzo.The quality of acting in this film is absolutely first class.
Michaela Odone is brought to life by Susan Sarandon in a manner which shows a mother who loves her only son but borders on a stifling obsession to save him due to her mis-placed guilt over the fact the ALD gene is passed onto the afflicted child from their mother.
He gives a harrowing portrayal of a bright, sweet little boy whose mind and body gradually fail as the ALD progresses.'Lorenzo's Oil' successfully captures the grief and devastation that parents must endure upon learning their child has a condition that results in death as well as the determination, spirit and hope of rallying against illness.
It also nicely touches upon many different reactions that parents with a terminally-ill child might display as while the Odones' strive to rise above their son's condition and seek out hope, other parents (especially those with more than one ALD child and have seen their elder children die) are too disenchanted by watching their sons' painful, lingering death to think a cure is possible.
While parents like the Odones' are to be commended, the film does show that the latter group of parents are not this way because they are cruel, heartless monsters but rather they have seen too much pain in their sons that they believe death is only way to give their children release.What this film ultimately shows is that sometimes we cannot just place blind faith in doctors and drugs' companies and we have to fight for the ones we love, and that the bond between parents and their child is enduring.
'Lorenzo's Oil' not only advocates the disease that is not widely-known (although, sadly, in the UK, it has recently gained publicity when three young brothers were diagnosed with the condition) but also presents the subject matter in a way that is quite easy to understand for lay people (I was about fourteen when I first saw the film and was able to understand the jist of how Augusto discovered the Oil).In fact the only reason the film drops a point for me is because of the way the Oil is depicted as the all-time cure for ALD.
I was amazed that the same director could deliver a totally different product in so graceful a style that barely showed its head in Mad Max.Miller has done wonders with Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte and Peter Ustinov (whom I got to meet briefly after Mrs Gandhi's assassination); each of them giving stunning performances.
Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandon portray a fabulous set of parents, who understand that the life of their child is more important to them than anything else is, or ever could be.
I only wish that more people would take the time to watch this movie, especially with their families, so they can understand what true love really is..
Narrating "the true story" (those ominous words...) of a couple whose child fell prey to an obscure brain disease and who, after years of struggle and investigation, found a cure that had eluded doctors and has helped hundreds since, this outline seems not to be the stuff that cinematic masterpieces are made of, but more that of countless, repetitive, melodramatic made-for-tv features that have inundated us for quite some time.But that is because there are four pieces missing in that picture; the names of four people whose talents shine so blindingly brightly here that they manage to transform this treaded premise back into the compelling drama it should be, and make Lorenzo's Oil a joy to behold.
The first two are Nick Enright, writer, and George Miller, writer and director, authors of a magnificent script, superbly helmed by Miller, whose direction is incredibly powerful and energetic, never falling anywhere near cheap sentimentalism or melodramatics, or underestimating the viewer's capacity to follow the intricacies of the investigation, but taking us on an enthusiastic ride of discovery and passion as we join the Odones in their grief and their battle against all odds.And this is also achieved by the simply breathtaking performances of the leads, Nick Nolte and especially Susan Sarandon, who was criminally robbed of what should have been in my opinion the most deserved Oscar of the nineties (and lets not forget Zack O'Malley's equally overwhelming portrayal of Lorenzo's descent into hell).
Nolte, as Lorenzo's father, devotes his life to a cure for his son while Sarandon, as mother, devotes her life as caregiver.The story takes us through beaurocracies, financial problems, uncaring medical professionals, etc.This is a must see for anyone who thinks we don't need universal health coverage in the USA..
these kids might be in for a blood nose and now they think they're going to die !anyway, my hope is that the kids in the paediatric ward weren't awake at 1am when they showed it because i watched it as there was nothing else on and the dumb bitch nurses wouldn't shut up about how fat they were and how terrible their step mothers/fathers were etc anyway, it has ended up affecting me quite a loti have spoken to many people about it and it makes me feel so happy that his family cared about him that much, but when i told my dad he said something along the lines of 'if i'm ever like that, just turn the life support off, there's no way in hell i'm living like that and don't you make me' sort of thing..
Its wonderful how dedicated Susan Sarandon, and Nick Nolte were to their child, there should be many more movies made like this.
'Lorenzo's Oil' is an emotive, yet factual film, showing Lorenzo's parents' struggle in finding a cure for their son's terminal disease; ALD (adrenoleukodystrophy).
This disease, received next-to-no research, due to it only affecting a very small minority of people and not even having a name until recent years; the Odone's (Lorenzo's parents) fight against this.I found this film deeply touching.
Based on courageous the true story of Augusto and Michaela Odone, two parents in a relentless search for a cure for their son Lorenzo's Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), 'Lorenzo's Oil' tells a tale so tragic yet moving, that it turns out to be An Extraordinary Film!
Director George Miller & Actors Nick Nolte & Susan Sarandon bring this true story to life, with sensitivity & maturity.
The movie did a great job making you, the viewer, feel as though you were in the given situations, both good and bad.The acting in this film was outstanding.
The movie is not so much about the little boy Lorenzo, suffering from a 100% fatal illness, but rather his parents' dogged determination to find a cure, despite stern opposition from the medical community and other parents who have basically given up hope.
It's impossible to remain indifferent to this family's sufferings .Susan Sarandon and Nick Nolte -in spite of his fake Italian accent- give superlative performances.That moment when Nolte is crying in his stairs is one of the most harrowing desperate scene I have ever seen.What's really extraordinary is that we do not always side with the parents.Sometimes ,we think they are monsters to carry on a pointless fight.Sometimes we think that maybe the nurse who reads the fairy tale as if she were reading grocery's lists might be right.Two people who did not know anything about biology (aside from what we learn in high school)and who become capable of arguing against leading medical experts after studying books night after night deserve our undivided attention."Laurenzo" is not an easy movie to watch;it's not what you would call "entertaining".For this family,the famous sentence " life is a daily struggle" takes on a terrible meaning.Recommended..
This account of a boy struggling with an unknown illness is intriguing to anyone going into or even interested in the medical field, as well as folks who have been in situations where diagnosis is unclear and good treatments are hard to find.The film is very well-acted by Susan Sarandon and Nick Nolte, although Nolte's attempt at an Italian accent provided occasional much-needed comic relief.
The true story of a boy who was diagnosed with the rare disease adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) and his parents' quest to save him.While doctors gave Lorenzo Odone only a few years to live, his parents Michaela and Augusto, who were not scientists, researched the biology of the disease and ultimately came up with and patented a substance called Lorenzo's Oil that arrested the disease and ultimately saved their son's life.
Today Lorenzo is 28 years old.A great movie for anyone interested in medicine, or if you just want to watch a moving and inspirational story of the determination to save a life..
I can't remember seeing a film as riveting and as moving as Lorenzo,s Oil in a very long time and the cast was awesome the 2 leading were Nick Nolte a Ten star actor if ever there was one and Susan Sarandon an actress of absolute star power.
And basically, "Lorenzo's Oil", directed by George Miller, chronicles the worst situation parents can ever face: an incurable disease.The parents are Augusto (Nick Nolte) and Michaela Odone (Susan Sarandon), the victim of this genetic cruelty is their boy Lorenzo, and the 'evil' has an ugly name: adrenoleukodystrophy (or ALD).
Augusto and Michaela make their own researches in libraries and medical institutes, grabbing any piece of information that can help them to understand, for instance, why the diet ordered by the doctors didn't decrease the level of lipids, but made it worse.Meanwhile, Michaela reads stories to Lorenzo, talks to him, like a normal child, rejecting such advice as putting him in an institute or to 'think of herself'.
But Nick Nolte and George Miller deserved nods for their intense work, Nolte convinced me as a gentle, strong-willed, Italian father who refuses to surrender to fatality.I close the review with these three smiling faces from the poster in my mind, sadly realizing realize that all these three people died in real life, but happy to see that their fight was not in vain, if only, because there's a treatment that saved many boys who were diagnosed early enough, and rightfully called "Lorenzo's Oil"..
The script also doesn't pull any punches when it comes to observing the different reactions and family pressures caused by so-called "incurable diseases".This film offers us all a powerful message of hope, since Lorenzo begins to show signs of recovery, once the rare and precious oil has been identified, manufactured and administered.
If you like adventure but don't normally go for medical films, you will like this.Lorenzo's parents show great determination to investigate the disease and try to reduce its effects, with some success.
Nolte and Sarandon Are the Reasons to See This One. An inspiring true-life account of a husband and wife who, out of desperation, discover a treatment for their son's disease that otherwise had been dismissed by the medical community as untreatable.This is Lifetime movie stuff, and at any number of moments the film threatens to topple over into the overly maudlin and treacly.
'Lorenzo's Oil' tells an extraordinary story of two parents determined to save their son.
Not long after the Odone's move to the States, their son, Lorenzo is diagnosed with ALD, a rare progressive congenital disease that only affects boys.
Stars: Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandan.This film, based on a true story, is about two parents going through the hardships of having a son dying of the disease ALD, and how they try to learn to help him.
Susan Sarandon and Nick Nolte convincingly play the real life parents of a boy afflicted with a rare neurological disease.
Her son (and many other son's) lives because of her tireless passion and never-say-die attitude, even when those closest to her had surrendered to what was considered the inevitable, she persisted--and her son remains because of her strength.This film shows us that the doctors don't always have the answers, and sometimes they don't have the guts to continue into new territory becuase they're blinded by rules, regulations, and their own career-oriented mindset.The more amazing possibility, other than the miracle of a possible cure/treatment for ALD, is that this same technique could one day lead to treatment for a whole host of other disorders, like MS.With this movie, as with life itself, sometimes miracles happen, sometimes the "good guy" wins for real.This story's legacy is that we all may have won.
They would have found it years ago, but it was hiding behind a couple of other genes." - Jonathan KatzSusan Sarandon and Nick Nolte act their hearts out in "Lorenzo's Oil", a drama about a couple whose son suffers from Adrenoleucodystrophy (ALD), a fatal disease that progressively destroys the brain.
Directed by the always reliable George Miller, and based on a true story, the film watches as the couple's son worsens before our eyes, the boy eventually becoming paralysed, blind and unable to speak.With ALD having no cure, and the entire medical profession giving the kid no more than a few months to live, Nolte and Sarandon are thus faced with two choices: accept the fact that this rare genetic disease will soon kill their child, or focus all their efforts on finding a cure.Of course the couple refuse to accept the medical establishment's grim prognosis and instead go off in search of a cure.
Likewise, though the couple's oil has helped other families and sufferers of ALD over the decades, no cure for the disease exists at present.Still, forget about the film's Hollywood ending and melodramatic hurdles.
I like watching true stories, but Lorenzo's Oil was the best I have ever seen!
Oh no, out of some panicked, primal urgency to lessen Lorenzo's suffering and protect the family unit no matter what, the Odones organize their lives around their son's need for round-the-clock care and Augusto Odone out of necessity becomes expert enough to invent a medicine that can ease the suffering of those with ALD and act as a preventative in many cases for those who are predisposed to suffer from the disease, but have not yet experienced the onset of its symptoms.There are many fascinating independent features of interest in this film, but central to is the acting of Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandon as the beleaguered parents.
Hence the title.As we see the angst, sadness, and why me of Lorenzo's parents, played by Nick Nolte with an Italian accent and Susan Sarandon.
The true story of ald (adreno-leukodystrophy) boy Lorenzo Michael Murphy Odone is brought to the screen convincingly thanks to some strong acting performances and a heart rending script.Nick Nolte is good as the determined, tireless father while Susan Sarandon is even better as Lorenzo's brave and courageous mother. |
tt0376784 | My Brother's Keeper | Handcuffed together, George Martin (Jack Warner) and Willie Stannard (George Cole) are two newly convicted criminals being transported to prison. Martin is a hardened, cynical career criminal, while Stannard is a naïve, rather dull-witted youth who has never previously been in trouble with the law, maintains his innocence of the rape for which he has been convicted and is terrified by the prospect of prison. During the journey the pair manage to escape. Martin steals an army corporal's uniform and passes Stannard off as a deserter in his charge, being returned to face a military tribunal.
The escape location has been chosen by Martin for its proximity to a garage run by his mistress Nora Lawrence (Jane Hylton), who provides the pair with overnight shelter. The following day Martin and Stannard take refuge in a derelict isolated cottage. While trying to file their handcuffs apart they are surprised by a hunting man with a gun. A struggle ensues, during which Martin strikes and kills the man. Shortly thereafter they manage to separate the handcuffs and Martin abandons Stannard, going on the run alone while Stannard gives himself up and is promptly charged with murder.
Martin manages to contact his wife in London, asking if she can find a way to get money to him. She arranges to travel by taxi to the woods in which he is hiding. Just as she arrives, the police have tracked Martin down and have him cornered. Rather than give himself up, Martin makes a final doomed attempt to escape through a signed minefield, watched by police, reporters, his wife and mistress and a crowd of sensation-seeking gawkers. | flashback | train | wikipedia | AWESOME!. Thrilling!The director on this one really kicks ass! (hard to believe it's his first feature!) The ashmore brothers are stellar.
Check it out! Well worth it!. Great family movie. Someone recommended this to me and I was pleasantly surprised. Great story, heartwarming and fun for the whole family. I am not a twin, but I would imagine it would be even better if I was. I would recommend this movie to anyone, the problem is finding it at the local blockbuster. If you have it available take the time to watch it you will not be disappointed. Someone recommended this to me and I was pleasantly surprised. Great story, heartwarming and fun for the whole family. I am not a twin, but I would imagine it would be even better if I was. I would recommend this movie to anyone, the problem is finding it at the local blockbuster. If you have it available take the time to watch it you will not be disappointed. |
tt1385956 | Particle Fever | The film is composed of two narrative threads. One follows the large team of experimental physicists at CERN as they try to get the LHC running properly. After a promising initial test run, the LHC suffers a liquid helium leak in 2007 that damages its electromagnets. Fabiola Gianotti, Martin Aleksa, and Monica Dunford are all shown discussing how to handle the negative publicity surrounding the accident, and how to proceed. After repairs in 2009, the LHC begins to run experiments again at half power.
The other thread follows the competing theories of Nima Arkani-Hamed and his mentor Savas Dimopoulos. In the film, Arkani-Hamed advocates for the "multiverse" theory, which predicts the mass of the Higgs boson to be approximately 140 giga-electronvolts. Dimopoulos argues for the more-established supersymmetry theory, which predicts the mass of the Higgs boson to be approximately 115 GeV.
The narrative threads combine at the end of the film, when CERN announces the confirmed existence of a Higgs-like particle, with a mass of approximately 125 GeV. The discovery of the particle is met with a standing ovation, and Peter Higgs is shown wiping away tears. However, neither of the competing theories of the universe is definitively supported by the finding.
Later, Kaplan is shown admitting that none of his theoretical models are supported by this finding, and that the long-term implications of the discovery are unclear. | historical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0499570 | Slipstream | Slipstream is set in a dystopian future, following a global environmental disaster. A voice over at the beginning of the film explains that a doomsday event, the "Convergence, has destroyed the balance of the world's weather systems, with the result that the jet stream has expanded to the planet's surface, with the surface scoured by winds far surpassing anything ever seen before, destroying cities and entire nations. Many bizarre communities have survived in the valleys and caves, some regressing to primitive states, others embracing advanced technologies. Many are isolationist and some are attacked by marauding bandits. Ground transport is no longer possible due to the atmospheric conditions, but skilled pilots can travel by air, following the fierce winds and travelling with their flow, a practice known as "riding the slipstream". The remnants of society have therefore become airborne; most now reside on high precipices or in caves beneath the howling Slipstream. It is also stated that nobody has ever been to the ends of the Slipstream, because atmospheric conditions there make human survival impossible.
The film opens with an unnamed man (Peck), running down a canyon, being harassed by an aeroplane, which drives him onto a precipice. The plane lands and its occupants, two bounty hunters, Will Tasker (Hamill) and Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), chase the man and shoot him through the arm with a grappling hook. The fugitive looks at his arm, but seems intrigued rather than distressed. Tasker pulls on the rope, and the man tumbles down the side of the canyon, but once again is not harmed. Immediately after his fall, the fugitive recites the words of famous World War II aviator and poet John Gillespie Magee, Jr., "I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth - put out my hand and touched the Face of God.", from the poem High Flight.
The bounty hunters take the man prisoner and fly to a busy civilian airstrip, where he stands beside them, handcuffed, as they eat in the airstrip's diner. There they encounter Matt Owens (Paxton), a hustler and smalltime arms dealer. He makes a pass at Belitski and she nearly breaks his arm, and he then tries to sell contraband grenades to Tasker. It is then revealed that Tasker and Belitski are part of the remnants of a law enforcement agency, trying to keep the peace in what is left of society. Byron is wanted for murder, and they are bringing him to justice. Tasker seizes Owens' weapons, but as the pair are leaving, Owens kidnaps Byron so that he can claim the large reward for himself, and they flee, but not before Belitski shoots Owens with a dart, both poisoning him and planting a tracking device in his body, enabling Belitski and Tasker to follow the fugitives.
Owens and Byron first fly to Owen's home, Hell's Kitchen, where Byron heals a boy blinded by cataracts, and Owens begins to wonder if Byron is more than he appears. After getting lost, they land at the home of a cult of cave-dwellers who worship the Slipstream and who have recently been under attack by bandits. Byron attempts to help, lifting a heavy milling stone off the cult's leader, Avatar. Avatar, in his dying breaths, curses Byron as being part of the out-of-control technological advancements that lead to Convergence. The cultists decide to let the wind decide what to do with him, and tie him to a massive kite. The bounty hunters arrive in the middle of a windstorm, and Owens bargains with them to work together to get Byron down. Tasker reveals to Owens that Byron is an android. After a rough landing from the destroyed kite, Belitski allows Byron and Owens to get away, diving back into the deadly windstorm to search for her partner. Another visitor to the valley, Ariel, helps Byron and Owens escape the scouring winds, and convinces them to give her a lift home. Ariel takes them to her people, a group of hedonists, who inhabit a fortified underground museum. Byron's knowledge and appreciation of the museum's ancient contents lead to Ariel becoming emotionally attached to him. Byron and Ariel spend the night together in an African Savannah exhibit, while Owens gets drunk and hooks up with a local girl. The local girl helps Owen decide to free Byron, who has become his friend. Later, Byron explains more of his past, revealing that the man he killed was his master. Byron also excitedly tells Matt that he has slept for the first time, and that he dreamed of a land at the end of the Slipstream, inhabited by other androids.
Soon after, having tracked the trio to the museum, Tasker and Belitski force entry, killing the guards and some of its inhabitants. After beating the Curator (F. Murray Abraham), Tasker forces the rest to find the fugitives. Byron is captured, and Owens is knocked down. Belitski confronts Owens and shoots him in the chest with a dart; Owens retaliates by knocking her out, and handcuffing her to a bed. She wakes and tells him that the dart is the antidote to the poison. He sets off after Tasker. A shootout ensues in which Tasker kills Ariel. Enraged, Byron pursues Tasker to his plane. Tasker shoots Byron, to no effect, so he then tries to run Byron down as he takes off, but Byron manages to jump on, and smash his way into the cockpit. The pair struggle, but as Byron is on the verge of killing him, Tasker quotes the Magee poem and Byron relents. He then attempts to regain control of the damaged aircraft by using the control wires, but he is unsuccessful, and it crashes. Tasker is killed, but Byron, being an android, survives. He returns to the museum to find that Belitski and Owens are now a couple. The film ends with Byron leaving to seek his 'promised land'. | psychedelic, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Hopkins has his own meaning for the film, but we're expected to form our own.This will doubtlessly be a divisive movie.
Don't go into Slipstream expecting a typical Anthony Hopkins film (if there is such a thing), don't go into it expecting any kind conventional narrative, and don't go into it expecting another Muholland Drive.
Sir Anthony Hopkins writes, directs and stars in a good old-fashioned "warped reality" movie.
Needless to say, the line between fiction and reality swiftly blurs as characters from the movie start appearing in his real life, and we keep reliving the same scenes from different angles.
Definitely worth a look if you like this sort of movie, but I don't expect to see it at too many theaters besides the hardcore art-houses..
Slipstream is a film written, directed and financed by Anthony Hopkins.
Towards the very beginning a man runs out of his car and screams, "We've lost the plot!" In a way, that's exactly what this movie is about, but it's never exactly clear what happens in terms of character, or even what the plot is exactly.Like a Lynch film without his signature twist where the "real world" is suddenly revealed, this film barrels onward into an incredibly strange experiment in film.
No wonder many people hate it: one has to open his mind to understand and enjoy it.If you routinely switch your creative self off with the 'play' button on your DVD, you'll most probably hate "Slipstream".
oh, may it be a violet car looking the other side?' Besides, the camera work is just very tasty and sometimes visuals are quite beautiful, the American landscapes near Vegas in particular.Being a rich, thoughtful film of many layers, 'Slipstream' is by no means heavy going or dull - provided you do understand what it is about (see above).
Think of Lynch's 'Twin Peaks', of Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', some 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', some Fellini's Amarcord - these are hardly direct analogies but just what comes to my mind in response to seeing 'Slipstream'.Hopkins is predictably fantastic in his role.
Anthony Hopkins writes, directs,scores and stars in a movie that is like the bastard child of David Lynch and Peter Greenaway.
If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting.
i really wanted to like this movie even knowing that it would be a little complex and abstract.
this is definitely a movie to watch when you're in the right frame of mind and have a general idea of what you're getting into for the next hour and a half..
Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good.
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result.
I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense.
It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music.
Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on.
It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything..
We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself.
Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art)..
Awful movie I want my dollar back I spent at the public library renting this posIt helped some when I watched a few minutes of the movie with Hopkin's voice-over, and he's saying (and I'm not sure I'm quoting 100% accurately), "I made this movie for me.
I saw that Anthony Hopkins, an actor of some really valuable reputation acted in this movie, so i bought it.
It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it..
Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration.
I knew next to nothing about Slipstream when watching it, and was amazed to see a movie where quick editing felt open and refreshing.
He has decided to place it somewhere among "Naked Lunch," "8 1/2" and "Singing Detective." He has — apparently without much control — turned over the editing job to a guy that is a B-lister but who has worked with the Cohens.I am convinced that a better editor could have made up for the fact that Hopkins simply does not understand those three films I note.
Gives Us No Connection To Its Cryptic World So That We Can Feel A Part Of It. What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film.
On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality.
Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it.
Okay there are a couple things you need to know and realize before watching this movie:A: This is a film made by a guy who's entire life has been synthesized through movies and acting and being told what his emotion for a scene is.B:There is a theory that some dreams are actually are a glimpse into one of our past lives.C: This is a story written by a man who possibly knows he doesn't have much time on this earth left and wanted to get his voice out and maybe his own confusion out before the endAnd finally D: the entire concept of the story is explained when the woman tells him about the slipstream towards the beginning of the movie right down to the man saying a dream within a dream.
This idea would also attribute to the movie being played backwards really fast at the end of the movie.In the end do not take this movie too seriously, or try to think of some big meaning of it just sit back and enjoy the fun photography, of actors playing crazy actors and just having fun being each other in that sense it is definitely good for a watch..
Anthony Hopkins has written and directed a stream of consciousness surreal film that allows us, the viewer, to evaluate the actions and scenes for what they mean, which could be something or nothing at all.
Very coherent with the story it tells, the movie puts you there, and makes you experience the same puzzlement and confusion the main character feels.
From what I have since read, THAT movie is a total piece of crap, although I guess I'll have to see it someday (me loves the time travel).So several minutes into the film I'm still convinced there's gonna be something about time travel coming!I thank Anthony Hopkins for being so self-indulgent.
The film is enjoyable on a very different level the second time around.And it made me sad that 93 year old Kevin McCarthy, seen in this movie as being perfectly capable and active, wasn't asked to have a part in the 4th version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers from last year (he did have a cameo in the excellent 70's remake).
If there's a movie, which is directed and written by the same guy who also acts and composes the music in it, of course I'm going to watch it - especially when that man is someone who I admire.After reading about the movie, I was pretty sure I shouldn't expect simple plot, simple storyline.
This basically means that you have to watch the movie at least twice to completely understand it, to figure out perfectly what is happening and what probably isn't happening, etc.
The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here).
Edgar Allan Poe Sir Anthony Hopkins jumps headfirst into the role of tri-fecta by directing, producing, and also creating the music for this random film that demonstrates the power of editing coupled with free thought.
As this being a film by Anthony Hopkins it was surprising, for this critic, it was even a bigger surprise "Slipstream" is a cranial film that kept me on the edge of my couch the entire one hour thirty minutes.We Have Lost the Plot Where did this film come from?
Hopkins creates these scenes further within the film, never quite giving us that full taste of the real plot, but just enough to keep us guessing.
It isn't you straightforward storytelling or compelling characters, and in fact, Hopkins is only in about half the film.
This is a thinking-person's film, Hopkins realizes it, but he doesn't talk down to the average viewer.
Because there is something Oddly Unique about this film.This movie will leave you (from beginning to end) feeling baffled and bewildered.
With that said, years from now you may feel compelled to watch the movie again, as if to look for some form of logic to the story that you already know isn't going to be there!
And this movie is the best i've ever seen, it really accomplish to drag you into it real/surreal worlds of subliming imagery, it uses all the editing techniques and effects, and it make the simplest effects looks great and provoke the exact feeling that Sir Anthony Hopkins wants to.
Slipstream jams as many postmodern cinematographic clichés as possible into a relatively small package - and throughout the film we are vaguely aware that Director/Writer Hopkins is poking fun as the genre, directing, writing and therefore, indirectly, at himself.
Rather than creating a feeling or mental state (like Lynch) through impressionism, or playing clever games with chronology, perception, etc, to enhance an otherwise simple set of concepts and stories, Hopkins plays a kind of insider joke which those who have known hemorrhagic stroke victims and other sufferers of major right hemisphere brain injuries will get.
Though this movie is called Slipstream Dream (with the Dream struck out, giving some evidence that Hopkins may have read "House of Leaves", which is cool), I wouldn't call it very dream-like because it's too excessively cinematic.
A little while into this film I started thinking 'wonder what IMDb message boards' are gonna say about it and am I ever going to figure out what the movie is trying to say.
And while the interviews kinda explained it, it also showed that every one of the actors and people making the movie all couldn't understand the script and had to read it several times.I still haven't really figured out the exact meaning; but then I think there are several ways to look at what happened.
Anthony Hopkins on Slipstream: "I Did It As A Little Joke.".
Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen.
"Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left.
This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters).
Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream".
You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.Watch at your own risk..
Hundreds of brief scenes, some of which are clearly imaginary, others indeterminate, with some wonderful humor sprinkled throughout.In the 'making of' feature on the DVD, one of the actors tells the story of reading the script, then calling the writer/director to ask what the movie's about - after a 40-minute conversation, he claims to have understood.
I think I need to call Sir Hopkins up myself - I'm sure I could use some of that explanation.I strongly prefer representational art, so this movie will never be one of my favorites, but it gets 6 stars for the skill and subtlety with which it was crafted..
If Hopkins isn't insane then this film is just too artsy for me.
I will admit that its nice to watch a movie that you don't even have to see the ending before you know it sucks.
It kind of hurt my brain a bit.I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah.
Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it!
So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again.
If, after watching this film, you feel confused and possibly agitated, then Bravo!
I'm not sure why Anthony Hopkins wanted to make something like this, I would have expected something better from such a great actor.
After all, when great actors like Charles Laughton in his later years directed a movie, it turned out to be excellent.My advice to anyone thinking about watching this?
Although the film was a bit strange, and was not a choice of film my wife would ever watch again, I rather enjoyed the way Mr. Hopkins directed it.
I believe you must watch the film from beginning to end to really appreciate where Mr. Hopkins was going with this film.
Not the usual film Anthony Hopkins would generally star in, but seeing it was his own piece of work, at his cost, I believe he got his point across.
SLIPSTREAM 2007Written and Directed by Anthony Hopkins.
Watching this thing is like looking through the eyes of someone with a worsening case of dementia.What is there to critique about a film like Slipstream?
I watched this film and find it very confusing.
Anthony Hopkins makes a movie that's very good in small doses.
I've always liked Anthony Hopkins.
The movie is a day inside the mind of director Felix Bonhoeffer (Hopkins).
It's a movie that will be good if you watch it 10 minutes by 10 minutes. |
tt0056943 | The Comedy of Terrors | Set in a late 19th century in a New England town, the film tells of unscrupulous undertaker Waldo Trumbull (Price) and his assistant, Felix Gillie (Lorre), who make a habit of re-using the coffins of the people they are supposed to bury. Also a part of the household are Trumball's old (and senile) business partner Mr. Hinchley (Karloff), who originally started the business, and the beautiful Amaryllis (Joyce Jameson), Trumbull's neglected wife and Hinchley's daughter, who has dreams (or rather delusions) of becoming a great opera singer and with whom Gillie is passionately in love.
When customers (and therefore money) begin to become scarce and money-grubbing landlord Mr. Black (Rathbone) begins demanding his unpaid rent, Trumbull and the unwilling Gillie make a nighttime visit to the home of Mr. Phipps, an elderly gentleman with a very young and attractive wife. Trumbull smothers Phipps and in the morning makes a fortuitous return so that the Hinchley and Trumbull funeral parlor will get the job of burying Mr. Phipps. However, on the day of the funeral, Trumbull discovers to his horror that Mrs. Phipps has decamped with all of the money and household furnishings ... and, incidentally, without paying Trumbull's fee.
Receiving another demand for immediate payment of rent, Trumbull and Gillie decide to murder Mr. Black, who has bouts of deathlike sleep, something that Trumbull and Gillie are unaware of.
After discovering Gillie (who had climbed into the house through an upstairs window and escaped the same way), Black seemingly dies of a heart attack but revives in the funeral parlor's cellar. After a prolonged chase and struggle to keep Black inside a coffin, Trumbull knocks Black out with a mallet to the head and places the supposedly deceased Black in his family crypt, returning home to celebrate his new-found wealth. However, Black awakes again, escapes from the coffin and crypt and returns to the funeral parlor, quoting random lines from Shakespeare's Macbeth (from which he was reciting from a script at the time of his first cataleptic attack). Humorous events follow as Black chases Trumbull and Gillie around the house with an ax before (finally) being shot and (presumably) killed by Trumbull after a lengthy monologue.
More complications arise when Amaryllis believes Gillie to be dead (he's only unconscious) and believing Trumbull to have killed both him and Black threatens to go to the police, whereupon Trumbull strangles her. Gillie comes to and seeing Amaryllis' body goes after Trumbull in revenge. The two men engage in a comical fight (Gillie with a sword and Trumbull with a poker) until Trumbull hits Gillie on the head with the poker, knocking him out, and Trumbull collapses in a depressed heap on the floor.
Gillie and Amaryllis come to at the same time and elope together. Hinchley appears and gives Trumbull some "medicine" (actually poison that Trumbull had been attempting to administer to Hinchley earlier in the film). The "medicine" works as intended and Trumbull drops dead as Hinchley makes his way back to bed, oblivious to the fact he has just committed murder.
At the end of the film, Black exhibits an allergic reaction to Cleopatra the cat, indicating that he is still alive. | comedy, murder | train | wikipedia | Fun horror /comedy with an exceptional quartet who provides much fun : Price , Karloff , Lorre and Rathbone .
This supreme adventure in terror and humor based on the novel and screenplay by Richard Matheson deals with two deranged undertakers (Vincent Price and Peter Lorre) who take bad ways to insuring their continued employment , a Funeral Parlor called ¨Wichley and Trumbull¨.
And the end takes place a funny duel between Price and Rathbone.This is more of a satire than a true terror movie , it is immaculately staged , stylishly realized , very literate , rich in atmosphere , confidently made and plenty of eye-popping scenes .
The movie is realized in the same style to the successful adaptation Edgar Allen Poe series , the cycle of ¨Tales of Terror¨ , and especially ¨The Raven¨ also with the trio Price,Lorre,Karloff directed by Roger Corman and produced by James H Nicholson and Samuel Z Arkoff .
The scenes between him and Joyce Jameson (an argument for hearing protectors if ever there was one) are beautiful and absurd in their ingenuousness, as if the 60 year old Peter Lorre was but a smitten schoolboy mooning over a damsel.The scenes at the dinner table are perfect in their comic timing, the decrepit Boris Karloff sitting peacefully unaware of Vincent Price's palpable loathing of him and his daughter, occasionally coming out with gems like "The Egyptians used to pull the brains out through the nose with a hook!" before returning to drinking his milk in a charming and doddering manner.Basil Rathbone, however, is the hammy fist of the production, so to speak.
Lorre turns around and leaves, stating quite audibly, "Ungrateful employer." The line is delivered like it comes from some left wing play of the turn of the 20th Century.It is a funny little movie, and well worth watching..
Boris Karlof is great fun as his aging father in law, and Peter Lorre equally funny as Prices partner!
Also starring is the wonderful Basil Rathbone as the rich landlord who never dies, and Joyce Jameson as the undertakers neglected wife.This is maybe the greatest gothic comedy ever!
The alcoholic director of the Hinchley & Trumbull Funeral Parlor Waldo Trumbull (Vincent Price) is a cheater that has married Amaryllis Trumbull (Joyce Jameson) in a marriage of convenience to get control of the business of her father Amos Hinchley (Boris Karloff).
The veterans Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone have incredibly comic performances.
This delightful horror comedy romp stars horror legends Vincent Price and Peter Lorre as an undertaker and his assistant, who have problems paying the rent due to a lack of customers.
This isn't the first time these three great stars have worked together, but seeing them on screen will always be a treat for the horror fan and it certainly proves to be in this movie, especially since it's done with a big smile on it's face and its obvious that all concerned had a good time making it.Vincent Price isn't an actor that I would expect to blend well with straight comedy, as I'm used to seeing him in more macabre outings, but he is really good at it.
Peter Lorre is disgusting but lovable as the assistant caught between Price's evil ways and his lovely (opera-punishing) wife (played with gusto and terrible audibility by Joyce Jameson).
Vincent Price steals the show and is brilliant, and he is supported wonderfully by Peter Lorre whose character spends a lot of time being demeaned by Price and Basil Rathbone, who is a very suave and charismatic actor and his "what place...is THIS?!" is iconic.
THE COMEDY OF TERRORS Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)Sound format: MonoThe proprietor of a debt-ridden funeral parlor (Vincent Price) seeks to drum up a little business by resorting to murder, but one of his 'victims' (Basil Rathbone) is merely cataleptic and refuses to lie down and die...Eager to re-team their 'triumverate of terror' following the unexpected commercial success of THE RAVEN (1963), AIP assembled Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff for this second helping of macabre black comedy, adding Rathbone to an already potent brew and hiring much of the same production personnel, including cinematographer Floyd Crosby and set designer Daniel Haller (later a director in his own right).
- steals the picture from his high-profile co-stars, playing the dotty, Shakespeare-spouting owner of Price's funeral parlor whose verbal gymnastics alone are worth the price of admission (he warns Price and his cohorts they "face the incommodious prospect of taking up residence in the street" if they don't pay their hefty rent arrears!).But Richard Matheson's tongue-in-cheek script is quite bleak in places: Price plays a sarcastic, bad-tempered drunk who lords it over his hapless assistant (Lorre), treats his untalented, opera-loving wife (Joyce Jameson) with open contempt, and is prepared to commit first degree murder in order to sustain his fortunes!
It's been a long time since I have watched this film - all I remembered was that I liked it - then I re-watched the film recently and I have to say this really is a good dark comedy.Price is quite humorous as the drunken undertaker Waldo Trumbull along with his lock-picking side kick Felix Gillie played by Lorre.
Price and Lorre prove to the viewers they are quite the comedy duo.Jameson plays Amaryllis Trumbull the wife of the staggering drunk Waldo.
LOL -- Rathbone plays Black quite well.Yes if you like older dark comedies then you are sure to enjoy this film.
both movies are dark comedies and star the threesome Price, Karloff and Lorre.9/10.
It's a spoof of itself, through and through, and it looks like the cast had a good time with it.My three favorites are here: Vincent Price plays the unscrupulous mortician, whose impatience brings his floundering business some new customers.
A scheming undertaker named Trumbull (Vincent Price)decides to dig up much-needed business through unscrupulous and deadly means...only certain folks don't seem to want to stay dead!This Dark Comedy featuring an all-star Horror cast with Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone (who actually quotes blank verse throughout the film) is just loads of fun to watch.
Watch this movie with Vincent Price as Waldo the desperate undertaker and his assistant Peter Lorre, the movie also has Boris Karlof who plays a funny part.
Also on hand is Boris Karloff as Price's father-in-law, Basil Rathbone as an obnoxious landlord and Joe E.
Karloff is sadly wasted and Rathbone chews the scenery.So, this is a historic movie for teaming up such great horror stars, but it gives them nothing to work with.
It is obvious that Vincent Price and Peter Lorre were having a great time doing this movie.
Vincent Price and Peter Lorre make quite a funny pair in The Comedy of Terrors.
Okay, so Trumbull (Price) and his funeral associate Felix Gille (Lorre) have to drum up business for Mr. Black (Rathbone) or they'll be thrown in the street along with Trumbull's wife Amaryllis (Jameson), her father Hinchley (Karloff), and the cat Cleopatra (Rhubarb, a.k.a. Orangey).
In something that could only star the three stars of 1963's "The Raven", Amos Hinchley's (Boris Karloff) funeral parlor is short of money due to two factors: not many people are dying, and owner Waldo Trumbull (Vincent Price) is the most incompetent manager ever.
The A.I.P. cycle had edged towards wry humour with "The Raven" and they took another stab at it her, albeit rather more unsuccessfully.The cast of Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone is exceptional, but this film proves that assembling them together in a comedy-horror film was ill-conceived.The plot has potential, but the script is laboured and painfully drawn-out with the odd memorable moment.
Vincent Price and Peter Lorre look comfortable playing things in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but Boris Karloff just doesn't fit in here.
Incredibly, Basil Rathbone plays his role with more ham than Vincent Price - he is the best thing in the film!On a technical note, Price's sword fight with Lorre at the end of the film does not hide the stunt-doubles particularly well, further undermining the film's quality.All in all, a major disappointment, but I have no doubt that individuals will wish to find out for themselves given the quality cast!.
"Comedy of Terrors" features stars like Boris Karloff, Vincent Price and Peter Lorre, the latter one being a favourite actor of mine.
This film is an enjoyable mixture of comedy and horror movie - the kind you preferably watch on Halloween night, but also can watch any other time of the year, of course.
Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone AND Peter Lorre - If this cast does not make a film a must-see for any Horror lover, I don't know what does.
The film's four stars alone guarantee a great time for any Horror lover, and the film is also filled with macabre and yet lovable humor that every friend of old-fashioned black comedy should appreciate.The ruthless Waldo Trumbull (Vincent Price) is the owner of a funeral parlor in 19th century new England.
Trumbull, who treats his wife (the full-bosomed Joyce Jameson), his father in-law (Boris Karloff) and his only employee Felix Gillie(Peter Lorre) with great contempt, is running out of money due to a low death rate.
Since the greedy Trumbull, who has an affection for alcohol and money, has to pay his rent, he has to be imaginative in order to keep his business running...The absolute greatest performance comes, of course, from the great Vincent Price.
The Deity must have sensed something to get Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price altogether in one film.
He came out of retirement for his part, Brown had quit after Some Like It Hot. Both of those films would have been good roles to go out on.Best moment for me, Joyce Jameson caterwauling He Is Not Dead, But Sleeping at Rathbone's funeral and Rhubarb the cat's reactions to it.This is a great film in which a whole bunch of film legends try to top each other with overacting.
Legends of horror cinema Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre and Vincent Price are united once more, after "The Raven" one year earlier, and once more in a film that is primarily a comedy instead of a horror.
With legendary "B" movie director Jacques Tourneur (THE CAT PEOPLE, OUT OF THE PAST) at the helm and Oscar-winning cinematographer Floyd Crosby behind the camera, THE COMEDY OF TERRORS has a lot going for it.Price plays Waldo Trumbull, a less than scrupulous mortician who plays a pro-active role in drumming up business; with his bumbling assistant, Felix Gillie (Lorre), he creates a fresh corpse whenever he needs ready cash.
And given the smart and witty script by Richard Matheson ("Twilight Zone," "The Night Stalker," THE OMEGA MAN, DUEL, etc.), the old troupers seem to relish getting material that is several cuts above what is usually found in "B" movies and episodic TV.Though Tourneur's direction is a bit sluggish and the pace of the comedy a tad slow by contemporary standards, the film nonetheless has a nice feel to it.
Karloff (who, like Lorre, was very ill at the time of production) has limited screen time as Price's addled father-in-law while buxom Joyce Jameson plays Price's torturously off-key opera-singing wife, on whom Lorre has cast a lusting eye.
There is some good material (Price's snide comments are the best parts of the script) but all-in-all, the film is only moderately amusing (in a nostalgic way) and is more interesting as part of the long cinematic farewell to horror icons Lorre and Karloff.
And it was interesting to watch him in a movie such as this."The Comedy of Terrors" had a good cast ensemble, which performed quite well and brought their characters to life nicely on the screen.Hardly a Vincent Price classic movie, but still entertaining enough for what it turned out to be..
Surely there was potential in this to be a TV sitcom, at the short and sweet run time of only 83 minutes it feels like an extended TV episode.Right of the bat the exposition explaining the film's set up is a joy to listen to with the perfect comic timing from Vincent Price mercilessly insulting everyone to Boris Karloff's random one-liners.
Despite the film's macabre tone, it does have an innocent element to it such as Price's reaction to Peter Lorre's poorly made coffin, "No one in their right mind would be caught dead in a thing like that"; nothing beats a distinguished actor delivering a corny pun.Basil Rathbone is presented as the villain of the film, partially due to him being Basil Rathbone acting in an antagonist manner however his character isn't doing anything wrong, he's just trying to collect the debt he is owed from his tenants.
After The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Comedy of Terrors has to be Basil Rathbone's best ever moments on screen, showing off the full range of his talents from his swordsmanship and ability to recite Shakespeare all while hamming it up.Vincent Price's anti-hero is one real bad guy of the film, causing misery to those around him.
It features a group of masters of horror: Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, and Basil Rathbone.
All four stars, who together or apart have appeared in countless film classics, both horror and non, have their moments in this short, but delectable film, which was directed by Jacques Tourneur, who directed such classics as "Cat People" and "Out of the Past," and written by Richard Matheson, whose work included episodes of "The Twilight Zone," "Thriller," and "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour." The low-budget American-International film is set in a vaguely Gothic locale somewhere in Europe in an undetermined past era; fog enshrouds the graveyards, horses still rule, and the local gravediggers, like Joe E.
"The Comedy of Terrors" will delight fans of old horror films, and is a must-see for those who relish campy turns by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone..
Great sets and wonderful performances by Karloff, Lorre and Rathbone don't quite overcome the reliance on unfunny slapstick and Price's hammy delivery of lines that are not very funny.
To make ends meet, he does some dirty deeds and makes his business increase.With Vincent Price starring, Boris Karloff is a smaller supporting role, Basil Rathbone as the antagonist, and Peter Lorre as Price's bumbling sidekick, you know this film has to be great.
Oh, and Orangey the Cat (credited as Rhubarb) appears, too, who has done a fine number of films, including playing Neutron in "This Island Earth".There is a Shakespearean undertone (especially given the title is a play on his "Comedy of Errors"), which I think works well for Rathbone in particular, and Price to a lesser degree (both men are classic actors).
By Price being drunk half the film, his ramblings are perhaps the best of the quips, though Karloff has some good old man lines.
Plus, getting the talents of Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone and a cameo by Joe E.
I'm a collector of CLASSIC horror films and (remembering this trio's triumphs of the past), watching this film was a sad experience.Karloff is absolutely wasted, Rathbone doesn't seem to have the faintest idea what he's doing, and Lorre's acting is as dead as the corpes he's burying!The only thing that keeps this film going is the over-acting of Vincent Price.
Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre AND Basil Rathbone...
If I knew this was a pure comedy and nothing to do with horror, I probably would've skipped the film, but I didn't know Price and Lorre could be just as entertaining as they were in "Tales of Terror", even though the latter is a better film.
Comedy of Terrors, The (1964) ** 1/2 (out of 4) All-star spoof of horror movies features Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone working with a screenplay by Richard Matheson and being director by the great Tourneur.
Lorre is quite good in the film although he too finds himself not doing that much except for looking at Price's wife in the film played by Joyce Jameson.
I'm not sure what the deal is giving a cat named "Orangey" film credit as "Rhubarb" and then calling him "Cleopatra" in the movie itself - probably an in joke by the movie's cast and crew.Anyway - a lot of fun if you like this sort of thing, but don't be expecting "Monty Python" or "Airplane!" - this is all about mood and setting and slow burns and good actors playing bad people..
Every time Vincent Price's character (Waldo Trumbull) thought he murdered his landlord, Mr. Black (Rathbone) he would be wrong.
Not exactly in the same class as A&C Meet Frankenstein, but a great cast with Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Joe E.
His wife (Joyce Jameson), assistant (Peter Lorre) and father in law (Boris Karloff The Great)are all targets of his drunken frustration.
Even though Boris Karloff, Joyce Jameson and Peter Lorre are fantastic, (so is Joe E Brown by the way, "have thee patience, have thee patience)I found Basil Rathbone's performance just gorgeous.
Especial mention should go to Rhubarb who carries off his role with aplomb and holds his own against the divine Messieurs Karloff,Jameson Price, Lorre,Rathbone and Joe.E.Brown.
Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre and Basil Rathbone make this a formidable 'Who's Who' ensemble of frightful character film actors from the early to mid-20th century.
So now for this film, This film starts off with Vincent Price and Peter Lorre finding out that they have run their funeral parlor into the ground,and need to come up with cash to pay their landlord played by Bail Rathbone.
I want to use 'Comedy of Terrors' as a discussion point because I think it is the most blatant example of Price's impact on the horror film.Karloff, Rathbone, and to a lesser extent Peter Lorre were all icons of the horror genre. |
tt0113483 | Joseph | Joseph, a Hebrew, is an Egyptian slave to Potiphar, chief of Pharaoh's palace guard. When Joseph is placed under the charge of Ednan, Potiphar's overseer, Ednan torments Joseph for his refusal to show deference for the Egyptian god Amun. But Joseph eventually earns Ednan's respect when he reveals that he knows how to read, and Ednan starts relying more and more on Joseph.
Joseph is eventually put in charge of Potiphar's home, but his wife begins to desire Joseph and repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, tries to seduce him. She ultimately becomes so angry at Joseph that she falsely accuses him of raping her and demands his execution. But Potiphar, knowing Joseph's trustworthiness—and his wife's infidelity—has his doubts. Potiphar speaks to Joseph in private and demands that Joseph give him some reason to trust him.
Joseph gives Potiphar his life's story from his youth: Joseph is a son of Jacob (aka Israel) and the first of two sons to his mother Rachel, who later died giving birth to his younger full-brother Benjamin. Joseph also had a half-sister, Dinah, and ten half-brothers, Six of which came through his step-mother and aunt Leah, Rachel's older sister.
Jacob and his extended family make a pilgrimage to a fertile plane near the Hivite town of Shechem, where they are visited by the city's king, Hamor, along with his counselor and his son. While Jacob and Hamor make arrangements to pay taxes for the land, Hamor's son, also named Shechem, notices Dinah and takes a liking to her. Hamor invites Jacob and his family to come to a wedding celebration, and asks that Dinah accompany them. Simeon, one of Joseph's half-brothers, disliking the way Shechem looked at Dinah, suggests they resist Hamor by force, but Jacob rebukes him. The night of the wedding celebration, Shechem catches Dinah and rapes her. The next day Hamor and Shechem attempt to make amends by having Shechem marry Dinah. Jacob replies that Dinah can only marry a man who is of her faith. Hamor agrees that all the Shechemite men will convert to Jacob's faith via circumcision. While Jacob is satisfied, Simeon plots revenge against Shechem. While the Shechemites are recovering from their circumcisions, the brothers and other members of the tribe attack the fortified village, setting many of their buildings ablaze and killing many Shechemites including Shechem himself. Jacob is furious with his sons' ruthless actions and announces that now that they have become a stench to the people of the land, they must leave the area. During this ordeal of moving again, at Beth-El, Rachel gives birth to Benjamin, but dies soon afterward from exhaustion.
Nine years later, Reuben, Joseph's oldest half-brother, desires Bilhah, one of Jacob's women. Zilpah, one of Leah's handmaids, sees the couple together and tells Jacob, who angrily declares to Reuben that authority over the family will fall to Joseph instead. This adds even more fuel to Reuben's (and the other brothers') jealous anger toward Joseph. For reasons such as these, Joseph has seen the destruction infidelity can bring, and would never do such a thing, he tells Potiphar.
His story continues that while the brothers are out at work in the fields, they decide to kill and eat one of their own lambs, which is expressly forbidden by Jacob. They later try to tell Jacob that the lamb was killed by a wild animal; Jacob, a lifelong shepherd, is not fooled and he rebukes his sons for disobeying him. The brothers blame Joseph for Jacob's anger and accuse him of being a spy for Jacob.
Jacob is so pleased with Joseph that he gives him a "coat of many colors", which increases the jealousy among the brothers. Further exacerbating their hatred of Joseph is his frequent interpretations of his dreams that one day his brothers and his father will all kneel before him. Spurred on by Simeon, the brothers discuss killing Joseph, but Reuben says he will not have the blood of his brother on his hands. Instead, the brothers throw Joseph into a dry well pit. They then sell Joseph into slavery to a group of Ishmaelite traders. Back at the encampment, the sons then show Jacob the coat (torn and bloodied by the brothers) and tell him that Joseph has been killed by a wild animal. Jacob is overcome with grief.
After listening to Joseph's life story, Potiphar asks him to tell him exactly what happened with his wife; Joseph tells Potiphar of his wife's attempts at seduction and his refusal to accede to her demands. Potiphar then calls in the household. He announces that Joseph will go to Pharaoh's prison; Potiphar's wife complains that he has humiliated her, but he merely responds that one humiliation deserves another.
Seven years later Joseph, now in charge of many of the prisoners, has earned a reputation as a talented interpreter of dreams. He makes two interpretations of the dreams of the Royal cupbearer and the Royal baker, both imprisoned on suspicion of theft. He says the cupbearer's dream means that he will soon be acquitted and returned to his post, whereas the baker's dream means that Pharaoh will have him executed. Both of these interpretations later come to pass just as Joseph prohpesied.
Years later, Pharaoh himself has two disturbing dreams: The first involved seven fat cows being swallowed by seven sickly cows, the second dream is a similar one involving seven full ears of corn consumed by seven withered ears. When his vizier and his staff cannot give Pharaoh an answer, the cupbearer and Potiphar inform Pharaoh of Joseph, so Pharaoh summons him from prison. Joseph's interpretation is that the seven fat cows and the seven full ears of corn mean that there will be seven years of great plenty; the seven sickly cows and the seven thin ears of corn signify that seven years of extreme famine will follow, which could take many lives.
Calling Joseph's interpretations "madness", but more offended that his dreams are being interpreted by a mere slave, Pharaoh orders Joseph thrown back in prison, but that night Pharaoh is again plagued by the same dreams. Now realizing the dreams are too important to ignore, Pharaoh again summons Joseph from prison and asks his advice about what can be done to avoid the deaths. Joseph suggests that Pharaoh appoint a steward to have all the farmers give one-fifth of their crop to Pharaoh for storage for the coming famine, something that has never before been attempted in Egypt. Impressed with Joseph's suggestion, Pharaoh decides that no one, including his own advisers, has the ability to carry out Joseph's plan except for Joseph himself, so Pharaoh appoints him governor over all of Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. He then gives Joseph a new name: Zaphenath-Paneah (translated in the film as "the savior"), and also gives Joseph a wife, Asenath, confidant to Pharaoh's wife and daughter of the high priest of On. Potiphar, who now serves Joseph, gives Ednan into Joseph's charge as his assistant.
By the time the famine begins, Joseph and Asenath have two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. The famine is even more severe in Canaan; when Jacob learns of the abundance in Egypt, he sends all of his sons except for Benjamin to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph recognizes his brothers (though they don't recognize him), but when he notices they haven't changed in the years since they sold him into slavery, Joseph accuses them of spying and has them thrown into prison. Three days later Joseph gives them a chance to prove their innocence by bringing Benjamin with them on their next visit; he also retains Simeon in prison to ensure their return. Initially, Jacob refuses to accept the idea; Benjamin is Jacob's last link to the late Rachel, whom Jacob loved more than Leah. But when their food is again on the verge of running out, Jacob is forced to admit there's no other choice and reluctantly allows Benjamin to go to Egypt.
On their way back home the second time, Joseph's guards, led by Ednan, arrest Benjamin for theft (on Joseph's order, one of his silver cups was planted in Benjamin's grain sack). Joseph, still not recognized by his brothers, declares that Benjamin will stay in Egypt but the rest can leave. Simeon and several others overpower the guards by grabbing their spears, swearing that they would rather die than leave Benjamin behind and be subject to Jacob's wrath. Joseph confronts them about their willingness to put their lives on the line for another brother, but not for the first (meaning himself). After sending Ednan and the guards out of the room, Joseph tearfully reveals his true identity to all of them. Benjamin immediately embraces Joseph, but the others, overwhelmed by shock and shame, drop their spears. Joseph embraces each of them in turn, assuring them all of his love and forgiveness, especially Simeon, who tearfully admits that he is to blame for Joseph having been sold into slavery more than 20 years earlier. As he embraces each of them, Joseph explains that God used their evil intentions for their ultimate good, preparing Joseph for his current position so that he can help and provide for his extended family.
Joseph sends his brothers home to bring Jacob and the entire settlement to Egypt where Joseph can provide for them during the remaining five years of the famine. Jacob and his extended family arrive in Egypt where he is emotionally reunited with Joseph and meets Manasseh and Ephraim for the first time. | revenge, flashback | train | wikipedia | I happened to catch the TV movie Joseph a few weeks ago.
Throughout he portrays the slave role with quiet dignity; his faith and belief in God absolutely marvelous, convincing, pure.
The scene where he reveals himself as Joseph, not as second in command of all Egypt, to his brothers tearfully, poignantly is one of the best acting scenes I have seen in years.
Isn't this the epitome of great film?
The best film of a Bible story I have ever seen.
The film was the most faithful Bible adaptation I have seen.
It kept faithful to the Bible with intelligent in-filling of Biblical gaps of plot and character.
As a teacher of ancient history with an earned doctorate in Biblical theology, I must compliment the producers of 'Joseph' for doing the impossible: staying faithfully true to Biblical text, and holding the attention of young and old alike for three hours.'Joseph' captures the power, pathos, and splendor of the greatest of Bible characterizations--Joseph, the hated brother, becomes not only lord over his entire family, but the second most powerful man in the ancient world.
Ben Kingsley, as he did in 'Moses', and Martin Landau (as Jacob) steal the show, but Paul Mercurio does an admirable job as the main character.
Vincenzo Nicoli is outstanding as the vengeful brother Simeon, and, as the last to confront the powerful Joseph--now his savior, Nicoli does nothing less than reduce us to tears.The film is also true to the many nuances of Egyptian and Hebrew history, which most audiences would neither notice, nor care to notice; yet, such nuances prove highly effective!
To note the Egyptians' penchant for cleanliness, and to depict Joseph's famous coat as not necessarily 'many colored' shows the expert research which went into this film.Although some explicit (though historically accurate) sexual scenes must be screened from the very young, this film captures not only the drama and climactic ascension to a powerful emotional conclusion, but also the characterization of moral goodness so extant in Joseph.
I watched 'Joseph' with my middle school students, and as they busily synthesized their thirty or so 'characteristics of a role model' into an essay, one of them asked why there were no such heroes today.
The question at once revealed not only the impression this film made, but also the perceptive dearth of role-models in our modern society.Though including a few anachronistic liberties (such as Joseph's "My God, my God..." paraphrase of Christ's cry from the cross, 'Joseph' is a winner!
This movie showed very accurately the story of Joseph and all of his trials and unfair mistreatment.
As a minister, I liked this movie which caused the Bible to "come alive".
Martin Landau was very convincing as the aging and often angry Jacob, Ben Kingsley was the one to be chosen for Potipher, Lesley Ann Warren definitely let the viewer(s) see very clearly what a beautiful, sultry, and wicked wife Potipher had.
Paul Mercurio portrayed Joseph a godly man who, in turn, was terribly mistreated by his brothers, Potipher's wife, and Egyptian taskmasters.
Needless to say, it was inspiring to see Joseph "come out on top" in this story.
The movie did follow the Biblical story line very closely.
A great story from the Bible!.
The story of Joseph and his brothers is one of the most impressing and rich of significance stories amongst the many others great legends from the Bible.
Even the Nobel Prize winner - German author Thomas Mann - wrote a novel called 'Joseph and his Brothers' giving his personal interpretation of this intense, gripping and compassionate episode of the Bible.
But the drama of the betrayed Joseph, his suffer among the Egyptians and his conquer of power and fortune, was never at the first line of consideration by the producers of Hollywood.
This movie, produced in Italy, bring to us this entranced story with an average success.
Martin Landau gives a convinced performance as Jacob, Ben Kingsley is correct as Potifar but Paul Mercurio is very bad as Joseph.
Anyway, if you find this one in a DVD/VHS rent store and if you like Biblical movies, don't lose this one.
One of an excellent series of movies that depect events as described in the Bible.
Further, it has a top notch cast, Kingsley, Landau, Warren.
An Accurate and Enriching Bible Film.
This film is far from the epic scale of DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" but its startling accuracy pays homage to the text of Genesis and it is full of drama, bitterness, provocative character, and spiritual development.
The film takes time to address Jacob's family background without taking away from the protagonist's ongoing journey.
Since my school classes covered the story of Joseph with Old Testament commentaries, I am impressed with the remarkable precision in the film from a Jewish perspective.
While some of the brothers dispute with their father Jacob, it is Judah who redeems himself from his errors.The casting is well-credited with Ben Kingsley (superb as ever) as Potiphar.
Paul Mercurio as Joseph is a quiet and righteous man who restrains himself in the face of fear and temptation.
The simple backgrounds and sets work well and while this is not an elaborate film, it is a great biblical one.
Joseph is an excellent dramatisation of the Biblical story.
It's a tale best known in popular culture today as the basis for the Lloyd Webber musical, but I found it refreshing to sit down and watch a thorough and accurate account of the story as it was in the Bible, and without all the glitzy silliness that Webber brought to the table.The production values and script are as great as ever for this series, with the Moroccan locations perfectly standing in for Canaan and Egypt (the depiction of the famine in particular is terrifyingly realised).
What stands out most, though, is the calibre of the cast in this one.Ben Kingsley far and away steals the show as the complicated Potiphar; he's a man you could easily hate when he first shows up, but there's much more to him than that.
Martin Landau, as the ancient elder Jacob, is also outstanding, adding real heart to the production.
Paul Mercurio (STRICTLY BALLROOM) makes a charismatic Joseph, even if he didn't entirely lose his Aussie accent, and it makes you wonder what happened to him..
That is the story of Joseph from the Book of Genesis, the story of a young boy sold into slavery by his envious brothers who overcomes particular hardship and injustice in order to be placed one day over the Pharaoh's house, his people and his entire kingdom, in order to become "Zapaneth Paneah" – a 'saviour' for Egypt and all surrounding lands; finally, in order to embrace his brothers in tears of pardoning.Although the story of Joseph was, for a long time, quite neglected in cinema, the new biblical project in the 1990s could not skip this significant tale after ABRAHAM with Richard Harris and JACOB with Matthew Modine.
Again, critics disappointed us terribly...The entire movie is faithful to the Bible to such extend that there are hardly any changes, even minor ones, which makes it one of the most accurate productions ever.
The story in most part of the film's first half is told 'in media res.' We get the insight into an Egyptian slave market and a slave boy of Canaan who opens his mouth only in prayer bought by a rich master Potiphar (Ben Kingsley).
Joseph (Paul Mercurio) tells his dramatic story to his master just after the unfair accusations have been made up by Potiphar's wife (Lesley Ann Warren) and...
At the same time, Joseph shouts desperately "Lord, my God why have you forsaken me?" Events to come truly prove that his God was with him...However, besides the story that has overwhelmed lots of different people for centuries, "Joseph" offers much more.
When the story itself does not suffice for many (that is the case with all biblical material) what we want, as viewers, is something that will remain in our memories, that will leave us breathless, something awesome within the perfectly familiar walls of our knowledge and experience.
"Joseph" as a movie offers us all of them including lovely cinematography, memorable sets and very good camera work.
While watching the movie for the second time, I paid particular attention to camera work, to single images and I was mesmerized by some moments which are both symbolically and visually significant.The cast...
Paul Mercurio in the lead portrays a man of integrity, a man of forgiveness, a man who has truly seen the evils of rape and vengeance and, consequently, appears to be "endowed with a spirit of God" as poetically described in the script, or, more realistically, very reliable to all the people around, even to such greatness itself like the Pharaoh himself.
All these unique features of Joseph are beautifully portrayed by Paul Mercurio.
The supporting cast include great stars of cinema as well as unknown actors who do equally fine jobs in their roles.
Ben Kingsley as Potiphar focuses on patience, Martin Landau as Jacob emphasizes father's love, Stefano Dionisi as Pharaoh highlights confusion of a ruler and Vincenzo Nicoli as, perhaps, Joseph's most wicked brother, Simeon, stresses integral aspect of jealousy and hatred.
But a nice contrast is highlighted by two women: Valeria Cavalli as Asenath: a subtle, beautiful woman pleasing to Joseph and Lesley Ann Warren as wicked, lustful and cruel Potiphar's wife.In short, for me, Joseph has been a biblical experience on screen, a movie that touched me to tears, a motion picture that addressed my heart.
Timeless story of a gentle heart that brings all worldly revenge, cruelty and jealousy to their knees, which never stops saying "Forgiveness is greater than vengeance; compassion more powerful than anger".
Every time this 1995 version of Joseph's profound story is on TV again, I watch it.
I'm mesmerized by the beautiful Soul of Joseph as depicted by the really likable Paul Mercurio.
He brings Joseph's kind and courageous spirit to life.Also excellent is Ben Kingsley, Martin Landau, Leslie A.
For me it is essential viewing for audiences who want accurate Biblical stories, as well as for those who simply like well-produced movies.Joseph truly has a character to aspire to as followers of the deeper nature of humanity, and his characterization is both believable and amazing in this rendition.
Because it isn't certain who really made this story work, I have to give everyone in the production credit..
Godly principles shown in this story of Joseph.
We all know the story of Joseph being favored of his father and given a coat of many colors.
A true story of how God made provision for Joseph's family during the famine so they would not starve.
It will encourage you in your Faith in God. The whole story can be read in the Bible starting in Genesis 30.
Great film.
Very accessible Bible film.
I take exception to the Christlike "My God...why have you forsaken me" (which would have been more fitting in a film about David) Joseph utters when thrown into prison though.
Major blunder that one - but still well meaning.Mercurio was perfect for the role and Kingsley is always exceptional.
one of films who gives a beautiful, touching story in the right manner, with wise precision.
the story of Joseph is presented with grace and respect.
the bad one - Potiphar by Ben Kingsley remains across the film, the real lead character.
motif, maybe, the small courage of Paul Mercurio to give more substance to his character words and gestures, to be, in fact, Joseph.
the presence of Martin Landau is another support for film.
the film is a good surprise for the art to be more than a religious movie.
an episode of Bible who escapes from religious movies clichés for a real admirable style to introduce the viewer in a world well-known who becomes new at whole.
the levels of story, the faith of Joseph, the nuances of performances, the image, locations, music all, each gives soul to events in a special manner.
it is an universal story, one of mankind cultural history and that soul who becomes present in each scene transforms the Joseph adventure in a touching discovery.
result - a historical movie more than biblical.
I would give it very high marks for Biblical faithfulness and I even gained several insights into the sacred narrative - why the silver was returned to the brothers' sacks the first time, for instance.
I liked the way it brought out Joseph's need to test his brothers, and in the process to bring about necessary change within them.
I felt that the way they played Joseph's "coming out" among his brothers at the end included unnecessary departures.But aside from those minor qualms, this was an exceptionally rewarding film.
The high point of the entire movie was when Pharaoh unexpectedly promotes Joseph.
That and a few other scenes were so well done that they will permanently color the way I now read the text.Landau as Jacob, Kingsley as Potiphar, the guy who played Pharaoh and the woman who became wife to Joseph (wise as well as beautiful) were superb supports to the title role.Also, the musical score to this film is notably beautiful and stirring.
Joseph Provides Great Themes For Viewers.
This Biblical TV movie provides us a great story about Joseph,a moral and upright man who never lost his faith in God amidst all the trials,challenges,injustices and abuses he has received in life.Paul Mercurio plays the title role together with a great and talented cast of supporting actors and actresses such as Martin Landau,Ben Kingsley,Lesley Ann Warren and Monica Belluci playing important roles such as Jacob,Potiphar,Potiphar's Wife and the Pharaoh's wife respectively.This three-hour film takes us to different stages of Joseph's life from his childhood,his life as a slave,his tenure in prison,his promotion as governor in Egypt and when he and his family get reunited together during the period of world famine.This film was definitely inspiring especially to those who is familiar with the story of Joseph.Its themes of faith,hope,forgiveness,compassion,humility and moral uprightness will definitely inspire Christians and non-Christian viewers alike to hold the same virtues in their life especially during tough and challenging periods of their life.Also,the acting of the film was also wonderful especially the talented supporting cast like Ben Kingsley,Martin Landau and Lesley Ann Warren.Mercurio did a commendable job as Joseph.Finally,the soundtrack of Italian film composer Ennio Morricone of the The Good, the Bad and the Ugly fame is also worthy of mention..
Joseph Is A Great TV Movie.
Joseph is a German/Italian/American TV movie, which tells the story of Joseph from the Old Testament.It stars Paul Mercurio as Joseph together with Ben Kingsley,Martin Landau and Lesley Ann Warren.
Roger Young directed this TV movie.This film is Biblically accurate, well-acted, and the producer and director are to be praised for the sound Biblical research.Although some of the sexually explicit scenes,it should be screened from the very young.It is an ideal platform from which teens can search out characteristics of moral uprightness in Joseph.The performances were great.Kingsley steals the show while Mercurio does an admirable job.The only flaw I could find in it is that it isn't powerful as other Biblical films and TV movies.But nevertheless, it still tells a good story of a man who never lost faith in the Lord amidst all the trials and sufferings that he experienced before achieving success in life..
Star--studded biblical story.
Movies like this one almost constitute an Italian TV genre.They are modest budgeted biblical stories,made interesting by ,of course,the quality of the source,and by the cast as well.Joseph (1995) (TV)is not Italian;it's directed by Roger Young,written by Lionel Chetwynd (the author of Peter Hall's Jacob ,as well) and finely,maybe sumptuously, incredibly subtly performed by artists like Ben Kingsley,Martin Landau ,Lesley Ann Warren,Dominique Sanda, Alice Krige and Valeria Cavalli.The Italian element is nonetheless present--the cast includes Monica Bellucci and other Italian actors in small roles;the score is Italian,and many members of the crew.Joseph (1995) (TV) revealed to me Kingsley's non--negligible talent and instantly turned me into a fan of his;I remember I have found something about him in an old almanac, and I was gathering every information available about this unbelievably subtle and endearing actor.His role showed a finesse that it is not so uncommon in some TV productions (I think mostly about Volonte in the TV Charterhouse;or about some roles in the LA PIOVRA series--performed by giants of the screen).In Europe,such finesse is appreciated in the TV movies.As an artist, Kingsley is, much like Landau, uneven; GANDHI is an execrable movie.
Yet he could have had his share with the best; as I remarked him in this Biblical story, it seemed to me he was one of the supplest and imaginative and delicatethat gleam of tenderness and kindness of his
.As a weird ,peculiar looking Egyptian, he gives a gentlemanly performance.
When I first viewed "Joseph" on cable network TNT, I did so only because of my "infatuation" with Paul Mercurio, but found the movie to be a story of rape, betrayal, jealousy, vengeance, and ultimately a tale of redemption and forgiveness (hey, just like the "Good Book" itself).
Paul Mercurio portrays Joseph, whose witness to these sins allows him to grow into a man of unquestionable moral value, along with the ability to forgive even the most grievous actions toward him (witness how he treats Adnan, played by Warren Clark, the foreman who at first abuses him, then helps when it comes out that the man cannot read).Ben Kingsley portrays Potiphar, chief of Pharoah's palace guard.
Martin Landau gives his usual bravura performance as Jacob, head of the tribe of children of Israel.
Jacob is flawed, perhaps naively causing the resentment felt toward Joseph by his brothers, but he is thoroughly justified in the actions he takes after the behavior of his sons.The only misstep in casting, IMO, is that of Lesley Ann Warren as Potiphar's wife. |
tt0387877 | The Black Dahlia | On January 15, 1947, LAPD Detectives Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert and Lee Blanchard investigate the murder and dismemberment of Elizabeth Short, soon dubbed "The Black Dahlia" by the press. Bucky learns that Elizabeth was an aspiring actress who appeared in a pornographic film. Through his investigation, Bucky learns that Elizabeth liked to hang out with lesbians. He goes to a lesbian nightclub and meets Madeleine Linscott, who looks very much like Elizabeth. Madeleine, who comes from a prominent family, tells Bucky that she was 'very close' with Elizabeth but asks him to keep her name out of the papers. In exchange for his silence, she promises him sexual favors. Continuing his relationship with Madeleine, Bucky meets her wealthy parents, Emmett and Ramona.
Bucky's partner, Lee, also becomes obsessed with Elizabeth's murder. Lee's obsession leads him to become erratic and abusive towards his long-time girlfriend Kay Lake, who is also one of Bucky's close friends. After Lee and Bucky have a nasty argument about a previous case, Bucky goes to Lee and Kay's to apologize, only to learn from Kay that Lee was responding to a tip about a recently released convict, Bobby DeWitt. Bucky goes to the location and gets into an altercation with DeWitt in the atrium of the building. DeWitt is gunned down by Lee, standing on the stairs across the atrium. Bucky sees a man sneak up behind Lee, and wrap a rope around Lee's neck. Lee fights back while Bucky, paralyzed with shock, watches from across the atrium as a second shadowy figure steps out and slits Lee's throat. Lee and the man holding the rope fall over the railing to their deaths several floors below. It is then that Bucky is helped by Millard and Morrie Friedman, a friend of Lee's whom Bucky saw with Lee at the New Year's party in 1946.
Dealing with the grief of losing Lee propels Bucky and Kay into a sexual encounter. The next morning, Bucky finds money from a bank robbery hidden in Lee and Kay's bathroom. Kay reveals that she had been DeWitt's girlfriend, that DeWitt had mistreated her, and that DeWitt had done the bank robbery; stealing a large sum of money from one of "Bugsy" Siegel's nightclubs. Lee had rescued Kay and stolen DeWitt's bank robbery money. Lee needed to kill DeWitt now that he was out of prison; leading to the encounter that resulted in Lee's death. Bucky leaves, furious with Lee and Kay for their actions and lies. He returns to Madeleine's family mansion and continues his intense relationship with her. Kay is furious when she discovers the relationship, especially with the fact that Madeleine bears a striking resemblance to the same girl Lee obsessed over before he was killed, and leaves the scene.
Watching an old movie one night, Bucky notices that a bedroom scene matches the set in Elizabeth's pornographic film. The credits at the end of the film includes the statement "Special Thanks to Emmett Linscott", Madeleine's father. Bucky's search for answers leads him to an incomplete housing project that Madeleine's father had started just below the Hollywoodland sign. In one of the empty houses, Bucky recognizes the set that was used to film Elizabeth's pornographic movie. In a barn on the property, Bucky finds where Elizabeth was killed and her body butchered, as well as a drawing of a man with a Glasgow smile. The drawing resembles a painting in Madeleine's family home and matches the disfiguring smile carved into Elizabeth's face during her murder.
Bucky confronts Madeleine and her father in their home, accusing them of murdering Elizabeth. Madeleine's mother Ramona reveals that she was the one to kill Elizabeth, who looked so much like Madeleine. She confesses first that Madeleine was not fathered by Emmett but rather by his best friend, George. She further reveals that George had been on set when Elizabeth's pornographic film was made, becoming infatuated with her. Finally, she felt that Elizabeth looked too much like Madeleine, was bothered that George was going to have sex with someone who looked like his own daughter, and decided to kill Elizabeth first. Upon finishing her confession, Ramona kills herself.
A few days later, remembering something Lee had said during the investigation, Bucky visits Madeleine's sister Martha with some questions. He learns that Lee knew about the lesbian relationship between Madeleine and Elizabeth and was blackmailing Madeleine's father to keep it secret. Bucky finds Madeleine at a seedy motel, and she admits to being the one who slit Lee's throat. Although she insists that Bucky wants to have sex with her rather than kill her, he tells her she is wrong and shoots her dead. Bucky goes to Kay's house. Kay tells him to come in and closes the door. | comedy, mystery, neo noir, murder, boring, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Hitchcock or even Lynch could have shot the same scene, with the same events and dialogue, and made it menacing and creepy, which it needed to be to function in the mystery.Other problems: De Palma uses the lesbian angle of the movie (never a part of the case) to full exploitative advantage, and the actresses seem unable to master to the expressive 1940s style acting that would have come naturally to even a marginal 40s star.Although the film brings a clearcut finale rather than a vague puzzle, too many loose threads come together too neatly and rather than bringing the film to a satisfactory conclusion, it leaves you scratching your head, is this what I spent the last 2 hours waiting to hear?
His noir-ish voice-over was like reading words off the script, making it feel less and less like the artsy film De Palma intended it to be.The only redeeming feature of the flick was Mia Kirshner who had about one minute of screen time as the Dahlia, but was the most memorable character.
It has all the trappings of a first-rate detective novel (James Ellroy) made into a 1940's thriller with appropriately moody music of the soulful trumpet (Mark Isham), lush production design (Dante Ferretti), and equally impressive costuming (Jenny Beavan), all set in a timelessly seedy Los Angeles.There's also the conflicted, sometimes dark hero detective (Josh Hartnett) and the sexy, dangerous femme fatale (Hilary Swank), accompanied by the questionably good voluptuary sex bomb (Scarlett Johansson).
It may not much for people knowing what the Black Dahlia murders were all about or that read the book, but for a movie, it was good.The film has the feel of L.A. Confidential (but it's not that good) or maybe more like Where the Truth Lies and is beautifully shot.
Some of the script scenes were weak, that's one thing an actor can't change.Bottom line: watch it in a slow night, when you feel like seeing a movie that removes you from everyday life.
While Brian De Palma's "The Black Dahlia" has much of the look and feel of Curtis Hanson's 1997 "L.A. Confidential," that far superior film boasted better performances and a well-written screenplay.
Unfortunately, De Palma's movie is equally if not more complex and leaves a few threads dangling or at least badly frayed.Although loosely based on a famous Hollywood murder, "The Black Dahlia" spends more time than necessary in establishing the three-way partnership, if not ménage, between Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, and Aaron Eckhart.
The trailer, which has played in theaters for weeks, was misleading, and the actual murder and resulting investigation do not begin until well into the film after we have witnessed boxing scenes between the police investigators, Hartnett and Eckhart, and some three-way flirtations that do little to advance the proceedings.The film only becomes interesting when the campy upper crust Linscott family enters.
Aaron tries for more, but goes a bit over the top; perhaps he would have been more comfortable playing a cousin of the Linscotts.Although "The Black Dahlia" is not the worst way to spend two hours, the film's pedigree would lead viewers to expect more.
And unfortunately, the film comes with mixed results.After taking part in a boxing match which ends up giving a whole lot more power to the L.A.P.D., Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Leland "Lee" Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart) are promoted to detectives and become partners.
Oh, you can add comic relief, maybe good music, some reasonable horror and nostalgia, but do not do what was done to The Black Dahlia.They obviously didn't intend to make this a serious movie, but rather it was a cheap attempt to imitate a Film Noir sometimes, a TV mystery sometimes and then other times I don't think they knew what they actually wanted to do.When I am sucked into a movie that I believe is going to be a mystery, I want to be able to enjoy the movie throughout and get involved in the mystery.
And honestly, the best and most interesting characters were treated somewhat like extras, though one of those "extras" was by far the best actress in the movie.You can call this an imitation Film Noir Graphic Novel that should have taken a more serious approach to even those genres.I gave it a 4 out of 10 out of generosity..
It was as if the writer wanted to suck the life out of every other genre just so he wouldn't have to deal with the supposedly main story arc, that being something about the dead actress; which doesn't even get a mention until more than half way through the movie, and from then on is nothing more than a footnote in a sidenote of some other black-comedy plot line.Be prepared to suffer through some completely arbitrary scenes.
A highly distracted person (IE, someone who is too busy getting popcorn or continuously getting up to answer the phone or go to the bathroom) is highly apt to give this a poor review, probably based on Aaron Eckharts performance, which does not seem to make sense.A film shows you certain things about what is going on, a good film actually reveals itself in the first few acts, and gives the viewer all kinds of clues as to what is going on.
The girl who played the actual Black Dahlia was an incredible find.If you want to enjoy this film, watch it and pay attention to it- Depalma rarely disappoints.
A lot of people however, might be disturbed by the subject material, and if that is the source of the "public opinion" of this film, than that is understandable.What people do not understand, is that this film is acted and played out just like a black and white film from the late 40's- Early 50's.Classic film buffs probably love this, but I am sure that the person who goes to movies with a lot of explosions, car chases, and fake looking CGI will not like it at all.My only complaint is that it was not filmed in B&W- But the sets, and the locations...
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning A new adaptation of a James Ellroy novel, The Black Dahlia is the story of the titular Hollywood diva Elizabeth Short, who is found brutally murdered on wasteland, plunging the city's police department into disarray and remaining the city's most high profile unsolved murder till this day.
It goes without saying that TBD doesn't come close to matching that film's standards, but that's not to say it's a film with absolutely no intrinsic value whatsoever.Based around a true story (which interestingly, as I said, remains the biggest unsolved crime in L.A.'s history today), the film brings the atmosphere of the time alive quite well, capturing a good period setting and decent film noir-ish style.
More recently true crime authors have gone so far as to speculate that Orson Wells was the killer.Enter novelist James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential) and Director Brian De Palma (The Untouchables, Scarface, Dressed to Kill), who had signed on to bring Ellroy's novel based on the case to the big screen in a film-noir homage to movies like Double Indemnity.
Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that with the talents of these two behind the camera, and the on screen presence of Scarlett Johansson, Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart and Hillary Swank, The Black Dahlia would be a delightfully dark fedora-filled pot boiler that would be entertaining from beginning to end.Sadly, such is not the case.
Instead what gets served up is a muddled, confusing and at times hysterically over-acted movie that seems to treat the actual Dahlia case as mere window dressing for other, less engrossing story lines.
In fact, at times I got the impression that Ellroy's script would rather delve into anything else, other than the actual murder, as if looking for any excuse not to get in sync with the film's title.It's too bad because among this film's few highlights are the screen test clips featuring a glimpse into the soul of Elizabeth (Betty) Short, played mesmerizingly by the stunning Mia Kirshner.I couldn't help but feel that if Ellroy and De Palma had jettisoned some of the extraneous competing plots, and instead placed their focus on telling more of Short's back story rather than the confused gumshoe narrative that they went with, the end result would have been a vastly superior film..
They combine to tell a riveting tale of moral degradation in Hollywood, both within the movies (The "Black Dahlia" character, played wonderfully by Mia Kirschner) and outside of it (Josh Hartnett, very strong in the lead and his best performance to date).
The photography is amazing, the Hitchcock - like use of color and shadow, and the editing all make this a beautiful film to look at...but that's not where it shines (in my opinion).The plot, I believe, is fantastic...that's right, I said it: This is a great story.This is coming from someone who despised "Mullholland Drive" because I found the story impossible to follow and thought that it only appealed to aloof "art film" types who want to show how their "acquired taste" in cinema is one that normal folk are just too simple to appreciate.Simply put: I don't care for complex and confusing story lines.I found this film to be *very* linear and (aside from a few plot details that were mumbled more than highlighted), easy to follow and riveting.I think the acting was excellent as well.
She and Hillery Swank, among the leads played over the top like the lesser characters, and both did an excellent job.Not much suspense, I didn't think; not even much surprise, but of course, I did read the book.We'll never find an acceptable solution to the Black Dahlia Murder; there is none.
It is almost like Mel Brook's "The Producers" in reverse, where they picked everything wrong and came up with a hit, they picked everything right here and came up with a BOMB.I will not even attempt to explain the plot because it was such a convoluted mess, I don't even think the writer knew what was going on...But here's the short version, Crooked cops, boxing matches, payoffs, several murders, a twisted love triangle, a crazy family, lesbian bars, gangsters, stag films, and well, I think there was a Black Dahlia in there somewhere.
Despite the fact that they aren't put on the case, the two become deeply involved, with Blanchard becoming obsessed and Bleichart finding himself deep in the web of lies that surround Elizabeth Short, including Madeleine Linscott (Swank), the lesbian daughter of a rich man willing to trade sexual favours to keep her name out of the paper.Well, I like to think that is what the movie is about.
Hilary Swank goes against type and gets a great femme fatale look, proving she isn't just good for masculine roles, but her fading accent is continually annoying, as is the fact that she doesn't look anything like Mia Kirschner when that is actually a plot point.The one surprise is Mia Kirschner, who, with her ten minutes of screen time, has a much greater impact than the entire cast put together.
Excellent thriller.Fast paced,nuanced,beautiful to look at.There are grisly scenes,often explicit violence,but the overall timbre is that it is paced and not gratuitous.Scarlett Johanssen is wonderful,quite luminous.As is Mia Kirshner,who has a small and slowly fleshed out role,but who manages to layer sadness upon sadness,and seems to exude a foreshadowing of erg ultimate poor outcome from the first few shots.Aron Eckhart is good.Josh Hartnett pulls it off as an idealistic cop who tortures himself as he slowly uncovers his partner's complicated history.Hilary Swank,yet again,is compelling - beautiful yet emanating a cold core.All in all,it is a very watchable film but deserves close attention to detail- the producers have given it that and we need to observe closely to follow the complexity of plot(s).It is worth the admission fee and certainly,if compared with,for example,"Hollywoodland",which it by far exceeds,manages to hit all the right notes as a drama noire set with attention to beauty,nuance and detail.Worth seeing!.
One complaint is that there are so many things going on in this movie it takes away from the Black Dahlia case which we assume the film will be about, but in reality it is only a side story in this film with other characters and story lines being focused on more.
Personally, I would have also liked if this film stuck to a real story and followed the actual accounts of the Elizabeth Short murder, but perhaps seeing as it is unsolved there might not have been enough material to make a movie out of the real story.
Scarlett Johannsen looked like a young Lana Turner on tranquilizers.........very little emotion, so much mumbling.............poor Hilary Swank was just too distracting in her black wig trying to be a 40's vamp ...........I guess we are not accustomed to seeing her that way and she evidently does not do well in sexy, seductive roles............Josh Hartnett did pretty well.........although the constant taking off of clothing of his different ladies seemed a bit tiresome......if I would have had this on video I would have fast forwarded the constant "clothes removal" scenes.
Now I have to tell you that it was a terrible movie and encourage you not to watch it.For those that don't know, the "Black Dahlia" is a true story about the unsolved brutal murder of Elizabeth Short in Los Angeles in 1947.
And the story: It made no sense, bouncing like a pinball from here to there and then wrapping everything up in a nice, tidy package in the last 5 minutes as if DePalma said "Uhoh, running out of film, let's wrap this up!" There are great movies, good movies, mediocre movies, bad movies, and then there's the Black Dahlia..
In the least, it was a bit of a letdown, but unlike many people who despise this film, I didn't think it was nearly as bad as some say it is."The Black Dahlia" is a fictionalized story based around a real-life crime of aspiring actress Elizabeth Short, adapted to the screen from the also fictional novel by James Ellroy.
We will probably never know who really killed the real Elizabeth Short.To sum things up to this long review, "The Black Dahlia" is a great film-noir done with highly stylish direction and topped with near-perfect performances.
Then there is its truly terrible cast, Hartnetts' uncommitted narration lingering over every event, the director's preference of climaxes over continuity, the ostentatious bloated noir atmosphere and finally the fact that we know it cannot possibly live up to the majestic L.A. Confidential, a similar James Ellroy vehicle that received much acclaim in 1997, and rightly so.The Black Dahlia is nothing like the aforementioned, although it sees bouts of the same intrigue, lust, infidelity, murder and corruption within the police bureau in connection with a murder.
Scarlett Johansson, Lee's live-in bad-girl-gone-good, and Hilary Swank, a bisexual temptress with a rich dad and mad mom, between them pave the way to hell and heaven with seductive charms and it's hard to tell which one is femme fatale and which one is genuine (You find out at the end, but your brain will be working overtime by then to keep up, as loose ends are woven together with a speed that makes Hitchcock look positively geriatric).Black Dahlia is De Palma at the height of his artistic auteurship, but his style will so annoy the average viewer that you should think carefully before going to see it..
- and the movie is great!The cast is perfect, the film looks great, the script is well paced - the film has everything you want from a great Film Noir!The Crime Plot revolving around the main characters is based on the true story of the murder of Elizabeth Short (known as "The Black Dahlia") but the characters - and the story of the film - are fictitious!The buddy-stuff between the two cops Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Leland "Lee" Blanchard (Aaron Eckhardt) works great, but a couple of more scenes together would have been even better!
Who knows what DePalma has in store for us in repetitive viewings!I think THE BLACK DAHLIA is (till now) one of the best films of this year (can't wait for Verhoeven's ZWARTBOEK - BLACKBOOK and Scorsese's THE DEPARTED!) and you will like it - either you want to learn something from Grand-Master DePalma or want to see just two hours of great movie making!GreekGeek August-2006Visit my FilmNewsWebsite www.greekgeek.de.
Even though the final act tries to sew up all loose ends of the murder, (that has never been solved in real life), very rapidly and with every character we have met during the duration, I still must admit I enjoyed the ride.With all the trailers showing footage of the beautiful Mia Kirshner as Elizabeth Short in her screen tests and the words "Hollywood's most infamous unsolved murders" I assumed the film was going to be about the crime and its subsequent case.
One always expects so much out of a Brian De Palma film and trust me he does not disappoint at all.Though after The Untouchables it seemed like he has lost his touch and is not the same director anymore but he is back and the movie is amazing.The acting, screenplay and direction were superb.
The film follows two cops Bucky Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Lee Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart) who are investigating the horrific murder of Elizabeth Short.
Set in the late 1920's Black Dahlia sports the likes of Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Hillary Swank and last but not least Aaron Eckhart.
One of the most disappointing films I have ever seen, "The Black Dahlia" spends around 10 minutes of screen time on the actual murder. |
tt0075946 | Dites-lui que je l'aime | Scientist David Kelsey is infatuated with Annabelle, who has married another man, Gerald. Unable to move on from his first love, he labors in the vain hope that she will leave her new husband. He sends her letters and visits her home and asks her to leave her husband even after she has had a son by him. Under the assumed identity of William Neumeister, a freelance journalist who frequently travels, he buys a cabin in the country to serve as their eventual home. He furnishes it for her and spends weekends there as if she were there as well, cooking and serving meals for two. One weekend two of his friends, Wes Carmichael, a coworker who has his own unhappy home life, and Effie Brennan, who is infatuated with Kelsey, secretly follow him to the cabin. David gets into an altercation with Gerald who has tracked him to his weekend hideaway. When they scuffle and Gerald falls and breaks his neck, David reports the death to the police, continuing to identify himself as Neumeister and identifying Gerald as a total stranger to him.
To maintain his two identities, David builds a web of lies, betrayal and denial, relying at key points on the support of others like Effie. He fends off Annabelle's request to meet Neumeister to learn more about the circumstances of her husband's death. He then quits his job, sells his weekend house, and buys a new one nearer to Annabelle in his own name. He repeats his intrusive behavior with Annabell's new beau Grant. Effie and Wes visit David for the weekend. After some heavy drinking and quarreling, their relationships deteriorate rapidly, followed by more violence and David on the lam in New York City pretending to spend the day socializing with Annabelle. When recognized in a restaurant, David runs away, at times suffering from the delusion that Annabelle is fleeing with him. | insanity, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.