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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt1135092 | The Limits of Control | In an airport, Lone Man (Isaach de Bankolé) is being instructed on his mission by Creole (Alex Descas). The mission itself is left unstated and the instructions are cryptic, including such phrases as "Everything is subjective," "The universe has no center and no edges; reality is arbitrary," and "Use your imagination and your skills." After the meeting in the airport he travels to Madrid and then on to Seville, meeting several people in cafés and on trains along the way.
Each meeting has the same pattern: he orders two espressos at a cafe and waits, his contact arrives and in Spanish asks, "You don't speak Spanish, right?" in different ways, to which he responds, "No." The contacts tell him about their individual interests such as molecules, art, or film, then the two of them exchange matchboxes. A code written on a small piece of paper is inside each matchbox, which Lone Man reads and then eats. These coded messages lead him to his next rendezvous.
He repeatedly encounters a woman (Paz de la Huerta) who is always either completely nude or wearing only a transparent raincoat. She invites him to have sex with her but he declines, stating that he never has sex while he is working. One phrase that Creole, the man in the airport tells him is repeated throughout the movie: "He who thinks he is bigger than the rest must go to the cemetery. There he will see what life really is: a handful of dirt." This phrase is sung in a flamenco song in a club in Seville at one point in his journey.
In Almería, he is given a ride in a pickup truck - driven by a companion of the Mexican (Gael García Bernal) - on which the words La vida no vale nada ('life is worth nothing') are painted, a phrase Guitar (John Hurt) says to him in Seville, and he is taken to Tabernas desert. There lies a fortified and heavily guarded compound. After observing the compound from afar, he somehow penetrates its defenses and waits for his target inside the target's office. The target (Bill Murray) asks how he got in, and he answers, "I used my imagination." After the murder with a guitar string, he rides back to Madrid, where he locks away the suit he has worn throughout the movie and changes into a sweatsuit bearing the national flag of Cameroon. Before exiting the train station onto a crowded sidewalk he throws away his last matchbox. | murder | train | wikipedia | I'm not going to waste anyone's time with subjective yammering, whether it be positive ("a cinematic tour de force!") or negative ("pretentious artsy fluff!") because, let's face it, those comments don't mean squat to anyone but the person saying it.Instead, just rifle through this list of movies and if you liked any of them, you'll probably like this movie."Tetro" (director Francis Ford Coppola, 2009), "Broken Flowers" (director Jim Jarmusch, 2005), "Before It Had a Name" (director Giada Colagrande, 2005), "A Scene at the Sea" (director Takeshi Kitano, 1991), "Der Himmel über Berlin" a.k.a.
"Wings of Desire" (director Wim Wenders, 1987), "Paris, Texas" (director Wim Wenders, 1984).If you haven't heard of, or seen, any of those then just bear in mind that "Limits of Control", like the movies mentioned above, is very slow, almost uneventful, without a lot of revealing dialogue to carry the story.
You're always aware that you only see part of the picture, that everything would make sense if you could just zoom out and know a little more."The Limits of Control" plays with a lot of established film clichés, and it teases you with your expectations.
It does not care about conventions, it tells the story it wants to.However, this means that the film actually expects you to have been spoiled by the countless movies you've seen.
It helps to know a few things about film genres and eras, but it is downright essential to have seen a number of common spy movies, action flicks, mystery thrillers.
For those who have been devouring movies for some time, who know a thing or two about their strengths and weaknesses, and the way they tell stories, this film is an incredible piece of art.
Often, there is just a very poignant silence.I suppose that if you are trying to decide whether you are going to watch this movie, having heard what people say about it, you wonder whether you will be disappointed in the end, whether it will just be a succession of pointless scenes.
I really enjoy some of Jim Jarmusch's work (Night on Earth, Mystery Train and Dead Man), and I thought that I would like this film based on the story (or lack thereof) and the soundtrack, however, I was quite disappointed.
I felt myself noticing the same things over and over in various shots/scenes, because there wasn't anything else to do besides look, which made me feel like I was staring at the film more so than actually watching it.As for the soundtrack, I am a fan of some of the artists on it (Boris, Sunn, Earth, etc.), which is part of the reason I wanted to see this film initially.
In the beautiful and enigmatic The Limits of Control, director Jim Jarmusch puts it this way, "The universe has no center and no edges" and, "everything is subjective", or "reality is arbitrary".
Further instructions come from various people he meets along the way in the form of a greeting "you don't speak Spanish, right?" and the exchange of matchboxes, one of which contains a curious code which the hit man simply eats.
Included are some provocative sequences such as repeated visits to an art gallery in Madrid, and a scene inside a bar in which de Bankolé watches a rehearsal of an exquisite flamenco dance in which the singer delivers dialogue from the first scene of the film warning us like some spiritual guru about the limits of ego."Those who think they are important", he sings, "wind up in a cemetery – a handful of dust".
Finally, Bill Murray as the ugly American corporatist says that our minds have become polluted by all of the subjects that have been previously discussed.Supported by a soundtrack of electronic music by the trio Boris, The Limits of Control is a film of mystery and silence and unexpected twists that is about the power of imagination and poetry to operate without arbitrarily imposed limits.
Sensing that we are in a period of change, Jarmusch says, "I almost feel like we're really on the cusp of an apocalypse of thought because all of these old models that they tell us are reality are all crumbling." What the "apocalypse of thought" will look like is uncertain but the film has a hypnotic, dreamlike quality that challenges the distinction between what is real and what is a product of the mind.
(There are apparently no stories worth telling on a planet defined by a singer as dirt.) Rather, the movie borrows the plot lines and dialogue of film noir, the preoccupations of French art criticism, and other semi-art cinema fare, and recombines them in a heavily ironic and lushly sensual setting, (1) to draw attention to itself and (2) to comment on dreams, art, and the making of art.Does it take itself seriously?
To me, Jim Jarmusches works are all about cutting the technical nonsense to the minimum, and replacing it with powerful inner depth, such as interesting and multileveled characters - this one seemed to be the other way around.The whole thing smelt like new wave and Godard ten miles away, with the whole style, and all the references to it (for example the Spanish girl holding the gun to Bankolé's face was almost exact reference to Godard's Made in U.S.A.) - and I didn't like the scent of it one bit.
I enjoyed Dead Man a lot more and Jarmusch may have taken the slow pace and limited dialogue a tad too far in this film.
Someone needs to tell Jarmusch and like-minded directors and writers that monotone conversations about the nature/meaning/origin of so-and-so are to art films what sweaty men walking away from explosions in slow motion are to big-budget post-Bruckheimer action flicks.
He meets various people who gives him various mercurial messages.Writer/director Jim Jarmusch has created a movie of beautiful style but with little substance.
The rest of the dialogue is just the other characters attempting to have conversations with him that turn out to be almost entirely one-sided.There was some decent nudity from a large (not to mention very lop-sided} breasted woman who was pretty cute, unfortunately that's the only good thing I can say about it.Well, I've already devoted far too much time to this movie, I just hope this helps to save a bit of yours.
Film festival directors and cinema buffs are united in their devotion to such minimalist beauty, whether it be evident in the work of now-abandoned Miklos Jancso, or the best of Herzog.With THE LIMITS OF CONTROL Jarmusch has made a film directly appealing to this film fest sensibility: it answers the pointless question: what new film would Greenaway, Akerman, Raul, Wim & Aki want to see?
In the very dull & sycophantic "making of" docu on the DVD Jim is explicit in his rant about the importance of repetition and his foolish claim that nothing is original, all stories have been done already, only variations are possible, but in the final product LIMITS OF CONTROL is way too close to Peter Greenaway's trademark approach to cinema.
Jim's apologist fans (the LAST thing he needs!) have already littered IMDb with comments on the zen-like nature of LIMITS, but its endlessly repeated guest star dialog is rather on the level of "Confusius say..." instead.From an early supporter and fellow Ohioan, I say: it's time to pull your socks up Jim (to paraphrase my favorite Physics professor's Britishism tag line from college).
I hope he doesn't feel like he succeeded in making The Limits of Control a progressive and compelling film that transcends all cinematic boundaries.
There is not much talking, it is OK, but there is not much meaning in the story either.Every movie can have a big mystery but if there is a big gap behind this mystery (like this film), it is much worse than being mysterious.
It is not always easy, but I usually try to consider the intention of a movie in order to appreciate it or evaluate it with a bigger objectivity.Under that criterion, some movies of a questionable quality deserve extra points if they at least fulfill with their purpose, independently of their intrinsic pros and cons.That was exactly what I was thinking while I was watching The Limits of Control even though I do not consider it to be of a questionable quality (all the contrary, in fact), because I could not see the point of the film for a long time, until it came the moment in which I understood what director and screenwriter Jim Jarmusch was trying to say, and it became into a fascinating experience in the whole, at the same time I noticed that every scene has a point in here.Anyway, The Limits of Control is definitely not a movie for everyone, and it will be highly divisive; however, I consider that as one of the best elements of the movie, because it does not leave any place for the indifference.As I said, everything in this movie makes sense and has a logic, and we notice it when we reach a specific moment.I do not think it is convenient to see The Limits of Control as a typical thriller told in three acts; in fact, I would consider it as an excellent work of art which was designed to challenge the spectator, invite to the reflection and generate questions, but without bringing answers.The fact that a movie provokes all that is worthy of admiration, by my point of view.Examining The Limits of Control in the context of Jarmusch's filmography, some parallels with Dead Man could be found, but I prefer to describe it as the other face of Ghost Dog, which I consider to be his best movie.In that film, we had also found a philosophical murderer, but while Ghost Dog externalized his spirituality for practical purposes, the anonymous main character from The Limits of Control internalizes everything, leaving us with the constant doubt about his methods and motivation.That is a truly provocative focus, because it invites us to interpret the meaning of every scene, of every detail.And something which is also a positive element from this film is the cast, because we have solid performances from Isaach De Bankolé, Tilda Swinton, Paz de la Huerta, Gael García Bernal, John Hurt, Youki Kudoh and the great Bill Murray (even though that, with the exception of Bankolé, all their roles could be practically considered as cameos).I will repeat what I said on the first paragraph: The Limits of Control is not a movie for everyone.Personally, I liked it very much, but I perfectly understand why some people could hate it.By my point of view, this was a fascinating experience which made me to analyze it in order to totally understand it.And that is something I wish more movies would cause on me..
As a result, the film is limited to a long series of film quotes (film noir, yakuza movie, road movie, political plots, reference to Hitchcock etc) and involuntary repetitions (how many times does the character open and close his jacket?).Let me conclude this comment abruptly, as I don't think a serious analysis can be made of such an unfinished movie.PS : As I was surprised by the number of extremely enthusiastic comments, I took the opportunity to read Jarmusch's interview about this film.
It's quite sad actually that things have gone that wrong for Jim Jarmusch that he now makes absolutely crappy movies like The Limits of Control.
The character we follow lives only on double coffees, Tai-Chi and small pieces of paper while on a mission, trying to portray a man in control of the self - a control so complete as to not need food, sex or sleep; yet quickly lost when served the wrong coffee.Portraying these few only traits possessed by the character is blundered by the main actor, a weak performance that is mirrored by several other cast members, including, disappointedly, Bill Murray.
The beauty of this movie will surely be miss that way.Limits has a simple but somewhat original plot: a lone assassin (Isaach de Bankolé) is given secret clues on different steps to take in order to reach his target and carry out his mission; however, it is up to him to discover which clues are authentic and which ones are false.
Jim Jarmusch's 2008 film THE LIMITS OF CONTROL concerns a nameless hit-man (Isaach De Bankole) as he prepares to carry out an assassination in Spain.
THE LIMITS OF CONTROL feels like a cinematic analogue to the late albums of Scott Walker, where the songs' characters, cultural references and "plot" only serve to express some burning flame in the artist's own psyche.Jim Jarmusch has always stated that his aesthetic is to absorb everything he can from prior films (and books, music, etc.) and let those inspirations reflect in his own films.
This is the kind of movie you can discuss and think about for a very Long time if you are able to open up your mind.What we get in here are in fact many stunning landscapes that almost look like paintings.
If you're intrigued by my Review, watch this movie at all costs but if you think what i've just written sounds too strange you won't like this film..
What makes a movie really unwatchable is if it is thoroughly uninteresting, which is what Limits of Control is doubtlessly guilty of being.From the first scene, where two men speak to each other through a translator who does not understand the conversation, Limits of Control hails itself as postmodern with the line "Reality is subjective
Reality is arbitrary," From there, the film simply proceeds to tick off a list of stereotypical postmodern themes: subjectivity of reality/human experience, an inability to communicate with others, feeling isolated from the rest of humanity, a plot that refuses to make itself logical to its audience, etc.
It is basically a rather boring movie only interesting for die hard Jim Jarmusch fans, like myself .
Isaach De Bankole, the unabashed center of this movie's cyclical universe, stands firmly on the farthest cut-off point of control of which the modern man is likely capable, so deeply ingrained in his daily algorithms that in spite of being involved in whatever one can make of what he inches closer and closer to each day, each cycle of his self-imposed limitation.
Whatever occupation might engender the clandestine, almost theatrically affected fine points of his routine, which would lead to what it finally leads to, it is something this lone, anonymous stoic not only does but is, in the most distilled possible form.Jim Jarmusch's remarkably, painstakingly subjective film, which requires the most open and accepting approach one is likely to find oneself able to offer, is in fact solid proof that cinema has a metaphysical effect.
Despite the fact that I get absolutely nothing out of Jarmusch's most famous film, Dead Man, and The Limits of Control is very similar in structure in many ways, I have now been roped into the Jarmusch cult as if a young colt into a corral for branding.Tentatively, I am prepared to impute meaning to this film, although a lot of people have imbibed this movie as a purely aesthetic experience, which is a perfectly legitimate approach.
Whereas I felt Dead Man fell foul of that, being overly ostentatious with it's cameos, with the Limits of Control I never felt that I was watching celebrities as opposed to characters.You may have heard that the Lone Man is a professional killer, true, but I wouldn't really worry about that, if you approach the movie as genre, you will find yourself climbing a glass wall.
If you're a Psychedelic Socialist you'll love this movie.What I like about Jim Jarmusch's film is that his surrealism is just the right dose of strangeness to keep me interested when it seems there is little or no action.
What it is is a series of fragments and dreams, characters, places and encounters, more like Coffee & Cigarettes than Ghost Dog. But it's lots of fun, for cinema lovers and for art lovers, and it's incredibly beautiful (a given with a Jim Jarmusch film), and for a movie in which nothing ever really happens, it keeps the viewer interested the whole time; that in itself is an accomplishment..
On the first viewing it's probably best to just enjoy the scenes as they come without trying to figure out all the hidden references at once; solving the mystery can be saved for later rewatches.The numerous supporting characters don't stay in the picture for long, but even the short roles are very convincingly acted by acclaimed stars like Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray and Gael García Bernal.
Jim Jarmusch's The Limits of Control is probably one of the most divisive films I can think of in recent history.
Much like Jarmusch's Ghost Dog, Limits of Control is a an almost meditative, zen-like movie experience.
The Limits of Control : A 'Jim Jarmusch' film meant strictly for his admirers..
Although it boasts of a star cast which can be hailed as the 'Who's Who of the world cinema, The Limits of Control is a film with which only admirers of Jim Jarmusch would be content.
Even though there is almost no dialogue, you cannot be sure of what's happening and none of the characters are really developing, I was never bored and my curiosity grew with the minute...in the end though, my wish was ignored.I enjoyed the quality of filming and the feel this movie carries.
It was slow, had a gentle story, played with the imagination of the audience, was concentrating on beautiful pictures and at every moment showed a tough piece of reality.And now this: Jim Jarmush makes himself look like a 20 year old student who is staggering through a few fragments of new ideas, creating unnecessary (bohemian) figures, that approach the main character out of nowhere, babble about art, science, movies, music and all follow the same uninspired scheme.
I believe Jim Jarmusch's The Limits of Control could be one of these films, a masterpiece until proved otherwise. |
tt0120036 | Rosewood | Mann is a mysterious World War I veteran who is scouting out land to buy. He comes to the town of Rosewood, a small predominantly black town in Florida. Rosewood is home to the Carriers, an upwardly mobile black family, helmed by Aunt Sarah and her proud, headstrong son, Sylvester. Mann soon meets Beulah "Scrappie" Carrier, Sylvester's younger sister and the two quickly fall in love.
Aunt Sarah works as a housekeeper for James Taylor and his wife, Fanny, a white couple who live in the neighboring town of Sumter. Fanny, who has a history of cuckolding her husband, has a rendezvous with her lover while her husband is at work. Fanny argues with her lover, who ends up beating her. Aunt Sarah and her granddaughter, Lee Ruth, overhear the argument and subsequent beating but do not intervene. A distraught Fanny, despairing of explaining her injuries to her husband, leaves her house and calls for help. She then tells several townspeople that she has been attacked by a black man. The white residents readily believe Fanny's claim. Hearing of an escaped black convict, a posse from Sumner and nearby towns go to Rosewood to investigate. The black residents of Rosewood quickly become targeted by a white mob, including men from out of state and members of the Ku Klux Klan.
As a stranger, Mann is afraid of being accused and subsequently lynched. He plans to leave town over the protests of several Rosewood residents who have met in church to discuss plans to defend their community. Outside the church, Mann clashes with John Wright, the owner of a general store, one of the few white residents of Rosewood. Wright is also engaging in a torrid extramarital affair with Jewel, a black woman. Mann then leaves.
When the posse arrives at the Carrier home, Aunt Sarah attempts to placate the angry crowd. However, when she announces that Fanny Taylor's attacker had been a white man, someone in the crowd shoots her. She subsequently dies of her injuries. The posse comes and Sylvester shoots and kills them. After Aunt Sarah's murder, the posse launches an outright assault on Rosewood. Mann is on his way out of town when he witnesses the lynching of Sam Carter, the blacksmith. Changing his mind about leaving, Mann returns to Rosewood to fight alongside the residents. Some white men who live in Rosewood help black Rosewood residents escape. Railroad conductors smuggled people out of town on trains. Wright asks the train conductors to pick up the women and children while his wife hides several other African-Americans in their home. Other whites attempt to squelch the rising violence with little success.
The posse swells in number. Believing that James Carrier held information about the escaped convict, they seek him out. After making an unsuccessful attempt to intervene on James' behalf, Wright reluctantly allows Sheriff Walker take Carrier into custody because the officer said he only wanted to question him. When Carrier says he doesn't have any information, he is immediately shot by one of the mob. Wright gets upset and the mob accuses him of being soft on blacks.
The violence escalates and spills out into neighboring towns. But when the posse get to the border of Alachua County, a group of armed white men block the roads and turn them back. Surviving members of the Carrier family eventually escape. Scrappie and Mann finally share a kiss before Mann departs with Sylvester. The two plan to meet up later. After the violence eventually dies down, James confronts Fanny, telling her that "they haven't caught your nigger yet." Realizing that Fanny has lied to him about the true cause of her injuries and had affairs with other men, James beats her. Officially the death toll was eight people total, two whites and six blacks. Other accounts by survivors and several African-American newspapers were of a higher toll. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0095574 | Malenkaya Vera | Young Vera is a woman in her late teens who loves to listen to American and Western European rock and pop music and wears clothes and make up inspired by some of her idols such as Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, and Debbie Harry. She lives with her mother and her alcoholic father, Kolya, who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with her choice of friends and what they consider her decadent lifestyle. They wonder why she can’t be more like her brother Victor, a doctor living in Moscow. At an underground dance party that is broken up by police, she meets Sergei, and they immediately fall in love. It turns out Sergei is an old friend of Victor, who, in town for a visit, calls on his friend only to find him alone with his sister.
Vera and Sergei decide to marry, but her parents object. Vera convinces them to accept the planned marriage by falsely telling her mother she is pregnant. Sergei’s first meeting with her parents is disastrous, and he leaves with Vera without finishing dinner, but he soon comes to live with them.
The tension between Sergei and Kolya increases and comes to a climax on Kolya’s birthday. Fed up with the drunken Kolya, Sergei locks him in the bathroom, where he breaks the basin. When he is let out of the bathroom, he stabs Sergei in the side with a knife, the wound requiring a long convalescence in the hospital.
Vera’s mother tries to convince her to tell the authorities that Sergei accidentally caused the wound to himself, to avoid Kolya being sent to prison. Victor, visiting from Moscow, prescribes tranquilizers to calm the despondent Vera. The family goes to the beach for a picnic, ostensibly to help take Vera’s mind off the situation. Vera believes, however, that it is a ruse to persuade her to lie about the stabbing. A storm suddenly comes up, and as the family prepares to leave, Vera is nowhere to be found. Kolya searches for her and the two are seen embracing on the beach.
Vera testifies that her father was not to blame for what happened to Sergei. She visits him in the hospital and explains that the family needed Kolya to survive. Sergei now seems uninterested in her, and tells her to go away.
Back in her apartment, she finds herself alone and starts drinking and taking the pills. Victor arrives and rescues her. Sergei escapes from the hospital and soon arrives on the scene.
When Vera asked Sergei why he came back, he replies, "Because I was scared". As the film ends, Vera asks Sergei if he loves her.
Kolya sits alone in the kitchen once Vera has been put to bed. He slowly collapses and calls out to Victor and then Vera. It is assumed that he dies.
A subplot involves Andrey, a former classmate of Vera, who is infatuated with her and wants her to marry him. At the beginning of the film, Andrey is about to leave for naval training and attempts to persuade Vera to come home with him, but she spurns his advances. Later, she meets him on her way home from the hospital after visiting Sergei. He explains that he is on leave for only one day and again tries to arrange a tryst, only to have Vera resort to physical violence to fend him off when he attempts to force himself on her. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Here is an attempt at comparison: It is as if during the last years of Saddam's rule, a filmmaker in Iraq were somehow able to make a film, which, for the first time ever, showed life as it really was lived in that country.
If you could imagine that unlikely event, then you might have an idea of what went on with this film in the last few years of the Soviet Union.
Prior to this film, Soviet cinema was highly censored.
Soviet movies would only show an ideal life in the worker's paradise.
The alcoholism, the random sex, the ugly wasteland that was the Soviet city, the choking pollution, the proletariat victimizing each other and themselves, the utter hopelessness - it is all there.
To the Soviet viewers at the time, the sex was a minor event compared to fact that it portrayed reality for the first time in Soviet cinema.
Other reviewers see it as a film about a dysfunctional Russian family.
One even says that it is difficult to feel sorry for Vera because she keeps coming back to her family.
The point is that Vera and her family are symbols for all of Soviet life.
This was life in the Soviet Union for most people.
This is a film that can be viewed on many levels: as a drama it traces the landscape of despair, as a social document it shows the living conditions of the time, as a political document it shows the attitude of the people and many of the reasons for the break-up of the Soviet Union, and as a moral document it shows the evils of a dictatorship that is out of control, and the cruelties that victims will practice on each other.
Little Vera clearly shows the human toll that Socialism eventually takes on its victims, despite any good intentions that system may have.
Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries.
Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol.
She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies.
One of the major aspects of "Malenkaya Vera" (called "Little Vera" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one.
The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for "faith", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system.
When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters.
All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing.
Vera, the protagonist in the film Little Vera, lives in a closed, cramped world.
The family apartment represents Vera's closed world in the simplest sense.
However, the family apartment is only one way that the director maintains this constant feeling of confinement.
Throughout the film, Vera is rarely shown at a distance.
Vera's family is constantly in conflict and even the most civil dinner eventually erupts into argument.
It is hard not to feel sorry for Vera at the end of the movie, but is our sympathy justified?
Everyone keeps saying Russia, but I grew up in the Soviet Union, and I can't really call it an exclusively Russian film like everyone else.
Ironically, this movie was filmed in Zhdanov(Mariupol), which is now a part of Ukriane.
Even moving wouldn't help, cause the whole area of the former Soviet Union later became a total cesspool of violent crime and drug/alcohol addiction.During the late 80's, right before the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a plethora of similar films, but for some weird reason only this one was known outside of the country.
There were films with worse sex scenes before and after this one, and unlike many other countries, there was no censorship, so TV was full of nudity at the time.
This era of Soviet film was actually called "Chernuha" which translates as darkness, despair, gritty.
Indeed, if Moonlight took place in the 80's Soviet Union, and instead of drugs people were drinking, it would fit right in.
Some scenes are almost identical with those Soviet films.
(i.e. filming a pot on a stove for a good 1 minute or so, or a character is staring at something or thinking for a long time.) I actually seen a lot of them when I was a kid, but it took me decades to watch most of them again.
Even this film would have probably been lost if it wasn't for this unusual international hype about it because of some naive sex scene.
It was also sort of disturbing to see how she was calling him names and screaming at him when she was drunk, which followed by a scene where he was alone watching a silly cartoon on TV about staying away from Africa because it has dangerous animals, while it's very obvious that life for this kid with black skin in that hell hole of a town is probably worse than being in an African jungle...The film is as real as it gets.
The life was like this for most of the Soviet Union back then.
So the name of the film in Russian means also "A very little hope"..
In Russia, the ordinary teenager Vera (Natalya Negoda) lives a leisured life with her drunkard father and her simpleton mother, without working and waiting for the calling for a technical course of telephone operator.
Her brother Victor (Aleksandr Negreba) lives in Moscow with the family of his own and occasionally visits his dysfunctional family and Vera, being always motive for arguing.
When Vera meets the student of university Sergei (Andrei Sokolov), they fall in love for each other and decide to get married.
Sergei moves to Vera's house, but lives in conflict with her father.
This relationship leads the family to a tragedy.I have just seen "Malenkaya Vera", and I liked a lot this deep family drama.
Many difficulties of Vera's family and their friends, the repression in the park and other situations pictured in the movie are common in Third World countries.
Maybe my title is a bit too much but it's the best way i found to depict this late soviet drama movie: as the funny American show, it's about a low income dysfunctional family with a sweet mother, a hard- working but grumpy father, a studious brother and a free daughter!
The cast is really good and this little Vera is moving as every lost souls I can meet in my films travels!
Little Vera is the story of a Russian teenager, her family, and her attempts to find meaning and value in a life sliding increasingly into decay.
In her search for meaning, she falls in love with a more intellectual and rebellious Sergei, whose hatred for her deeply flawed parents quickly spirals out of control.Little Vera is shocking and disturbing in nearly every way.
The drinking of the father, the enabling and lack of understanding of the mother, the casual lies and misdirection of the brother, and Vera herself forgiving them all their flaws are all shocking and slightly disturbing to watch.
Set in cramped spaces and vast urban decay, Little Vera presented a vastly different view of Soviet life than had ever been seen before.
In fact, Little Vera is a portrait of the collapse of Soviet society painted in shades of pain, desperation, and rust.
It is the implosion of a family set against the implosion of an entire social order.Although painful and desperately unsatisfying, the film itself is definitely worth seeing, if only to understand the feelings and cultures still reshaping Russia today..
). A movie about common people, their problems, lack of satisfactions - especially for young ones, fear when touch the real and too dirty face of the society ...
Sergei starts living with the family but it doesn't go well in one violent drunken confrontation.The film looks pretty grainy and weak compared to most indies of that time.
It was sold as the first sex scene in Soviet cinema but there is nothing erotic about this movie.
It's fine as a grungy indie and notable for being a Soviet film..
This movie was groundbreaking in the former Soviet Union because it was the first movie released there that contained a real sex scene.
However, the movie can be considered great for many reasons, not the least of which is its true, gritty portrayal of disillusionment and pain in the family of a working class Soviet family.
This once notorious drama (at least in its own country) was hailed as a breakthrough when first released simply for daring to show modern Soviet life without the usual State-approved propaganda halo, in all its actual anti-bureaucratic grubbiness.
But watching the film on this side of the erstwhile Iron Curtain only reinforces the notion that Soviet youth culture is thirty years behind the rest of the world: despite the often oppressive details it might be just another quaint teen delinquency relic from early 1960s Hollywood, dubbed into Russian and updated with casual sex and drug abuse.
You really think that the Soviets were all prostitutes, drunks, delinquents, and no-goods living off their parents?
As someone who was born and raised in the Soviet Union, I can swear on the Bible that nothing can be as remote from the truth as this portrayal of everyday Soviet life.It looks like "Little Vera" was made with two goals in mind: to defame everything Soviet and to make a big buck out of showing some insipid soft-core sex, nudity, and drug use.
Don't get me wrong – I'm a big fan of Western sleaze and all things exploitation (what else one would want to watch in post-Soviet Russia?), but "Little Vera" is different.
What I found so interesting about this film was the incredible contrast of subject matter and mood between this film and the Russian films that came before it.A product of Glasnost, in an attempt to modernize the cinema and remove censorship, allowed for Russians to be shown realistically and their individual stories be told instead of a happy Russian body of agreeable people.The film addresses the reality of dysfunctional families, crammed into small apartments, alcoholism, poverty, and young adults confused and rebelling against authority.Little Vera depicts Vera and her family with attitudes of hopelessness, apathy and loneliness.I liked the movie for the fact that it is ground breaking showing problematic issues and stories of individuals that were never or could never be shown on screen previously under oppressive governments.I personally wouldn't watch it again.
Once was enough for me because I hated all the characters and was left depressed after watching a movie where people are constantly fighting but that- I think is the point of the film..
A gritty presentation of the decay of family values and human dignity in the wake of Soviet communism, Vasili Pichul's 1988 film Little Vera is a landmark film of modern Russian cinema.
A contemporary Ukrainian setting further intensifies the effect, first by the immediacy of the film to its time period, second by its utilization of a locale not only struggling for identity in lieu of a Soviet system, but also as a nation distinct from the Russian idiom that had dominated the U.S.S.R.Vera, the film's title character and protagonist, is a rebellious adolescent girl with a "dysfunctional" family including a hard-drinking father and a mother care-worn.
Tensions escalate until Vera's father drunkenly stabs Sergei.
Vera must decide if she will stay loyal to her intolerable family by testifying her father acted in self-defense, or continue to support and defend the ever-detached Sergei.
Unbearable in almost every imaginable way, Little Vera masterfully captures and communicates the inescapable void left in social life after the collapse of communism.
The sexual aggressiveness of the film (it was the first film to show explicit sex) combined with the unrelenting presentation of social reality (a marked distinction from the socialist realism demanded by Stalin) effectively confronted the conditions of former-Soviet life.
Because no easy solution presents itself, some viewers will hate the film and filmmakers for "bringing up" the issue.
Many films come to mind as somewhat comparable in this regard: Larry Clark's Kids, Harmony Korine's Gummo, even popular movie's such as John Hughes' Breakfast Club.
I recommend this film to those viewers for whom the prospect of nearly two hours excruciating domestic conflict and social miasma is not overly daunting.
Despite the difficulties of watching the film, some moments within it are profoundly beautiful.
Maybe that's an explanation why "Little Vera" did not impress me much, no matter how "daring" it was for the soviet standards.
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life.
If you are looking for a soviet film along those lines, then forget "Little Vera" and watch "Avariya doch menta" (Avariya the Cop's Daughter).It's a rough social drama about the youth subcultures during the turbulent period of the Perestroika and it offers much more action and tension than "Little Vera".I thought that "Little Vera" would be something similar and although it's beginning was somewhat promising, I soon realized that my expectations were wrong.After some scenes of parties and violence, the movie slowed down and for the next hour and a half, it's protagonists were only mumbling something among themselves.
Nothing much was happening, until suddenly everyone went nuts and almost killed each other for no apparent reason."Little Vera" is overrated just because it was the first soviet movie with a more explicit erotic scenes and it's main actress Natalya Negoda became the first real soviet sex symbol.
Explicit erotica was a shocking novelty for the soviet audience in those days, but naked breasts and simulated sex alone do not make a movie great.Speaking of drugs, there is some abuse of legal tranquilizers mixed with alcohol in the film, but this is not a story about heroin addicts or something like that, as some of you may expected.The "rocknroll" in "Little Vera" is actually the bubble gum pop singer Sofia Rotaru, who was already 40 at the time of the filming.
In comparison, "Avariya doch menta" features punk rock and heavy metal music, which was much more dangerous and radical in those days.The Wall Street Journal's "Sex, drugs & rocknroll" description only partially fits "Little Vera" and it's misguiding to a large extent.
And it's not really a "hit movie" as the Time Magazine said.
On the contrary, "Little Vera" is more a sort of psychological drama.Some of the movie posters that I found online are also misguiding.
or even an action-comedy.I'm not so much disappointed by the movie itself, but I'm more disappointed by it's inaccurate description and the exaggerated praise in the media.I understand that "Little Vera" has some qualities.
It was noticed not only for it's explicit erotica, but also for it's social commentary.It shows the depressing provincial towns of the Soviet Union and families living in small claustrophobic flats.
It shows how the youngsters began to rebel against the authority during the Perestroika.Vera's father is depicted as a drunk, while her mother is like "what the neighbors will think".
You get the picture.Back then this was considered a brave social criticism.But anyway, the film left me completely emotionless.
I felt absolutely no sympathy or compassion for Vera, even less for her boyfriend Sergei (Andrey Sokolov), who behaves like an arrogant pr****.Even the drunk father was a more interesting character in the film than both of them, though they are the main protagonists in it.If you are looking for more "edgy" films about the youths in the former USSR, then watch the aforementioned "Avariya doch menta", then "Menya zovut Arlekino", "Patsany", "Rokovaya oshibka", "Luna Park" or the more recent "Lilja 4-ever"..
In a dull Russian industrial town, a young woman (Natalya Negoda) without plans for her life mixes with a heavy-drinking crowd and enjoys casual sex.
Little Vera was the leader in ticket sales in the Soviet Union in 1988, and was the most successful Soviet film in the US since Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears (1979).This ultra-realistic look at life caused an uproar in Russia on its release; it certainly marks a change from state-approved films glorifying communism and collectivism.
Yet though its reputation precedes it, Little Vera seems unexceptional by western standards, though decidedly bleak..
poor little Vera.
There was a lot about Little Vera that was strange to me.
All in all I did enjoy this movie, but a lot of the way the characters behaved was not what I was used to.
For example the environment that Vera's family lived in was very tense.
Almost every time the family was together they were either drinking, fighting or yelling and frequently it was a combination of the three.
I was however very interested in watching the story if this middle class Russian family.
The only time a character was not yelling was when Vera first fell in love with her fiancé Sergei.
Another time Vera is told that the only reason she was born was so the family could get a larger apartment.
It is very interesting watching how both Vera and the family were able to cope with each other's behavior.
The film was definitely worth watching because of its depiction of how life could be in areas of Russia. |
tt0077775 | Joi Baba Felunath | Feluda, his cousin Topshe and the thriller writer Jatayu visit Benaras during the pujas. There they meet a Bengali family. Upon hearing that Feluda is a private investigator, the Ghosal family head entrusts him with the task of finding out the thief of the attempted theft that took place in their house. Meanwhile, the arrival of a saint by the name of 'Machhli Baba' in Benaras quivers the excitement of the local people.
A very valuable property of the Ghosals, a golden Ganesh statue, about an inch height, was the target of the thief. On the other hand, Maganlal Meghraj, a wealthy Marwari businessman, had his eyes on the Ganesh for a very long time. He comes to know about the involvement of Feluda in this case. He invites Feluda, Topshe and Jatayu to his house and offers Feluda Rs.2000 so that he leaves this case. Feluda refuses, which angers Maganlal, and he sets up a knife throwing show, using Jatayu as the bait (much to the viewer's amusement). After the thrilling adventures in Maganlal's house, Feluda takes a vow - either he will avenge Jatayu's harassment, or quit being a sleuth.
Although warned by Maganlal, Feluda did not lose interest in the case, and deduces that Machhli Baba is actually a fraud working for Maganlal. A member of the Ghosal family, Bikash, was also bribed by Maganlal to steal the Ganesh and hand it over to him. Feluda gets hold of Bikash and makes him confess his involvement in the theft. But Bikash states that when he went to steal the Ganesh, it was not there. Several questions arise in Feluda's mind. Where is the Ganesh, then? Why the innocent idol-maker of the Ghosals Shashi Babu was murdered brutally? What plan did the Ghosal family head hatch upon with his grandson to save the Ganesh?
The story has two sub plots. On the one hand, it is the story of the acquisitive instinct of a greedy Marwari businessman, who would spare no expenses or ways to get what he desires, even if it is at the cost of murdering some innocents and bribing the willing. On the other, it is also the tale of cautionary foresight exercised by the family head. The sights and sounds and the brilliant cinematography and photographic imagery takes the nostalgic viewer to a lost world of the innocence, the beauty and the freshness of a north Indian town, that is at once, far from the madding corruptibility of big cities. Subaltern texts like the caste and the communal divide do make their presence felt, but they exist as subplots, that further enrich the viewer's understanding. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0473700 | September Dawn | The fictional love story between Emily Hudson, the daughter of the wagon train's pastor, and Jonathan Samuelson, the son of the local Mormon bishop, plays out against the build-up to the tragedy itself. The film begins with the deposition of Mormon leader Brigham Young. The Fancher party is then depicted crossing Utah on its way to California. The party encounters a group of Mormon militiamen, who advise them to move on. Bishop Jacob Samuelson defuses the situation but is disturbed to learn that the Fanchers have a woman wearing men's clothing and are delivering racehorses to California to be used in gambling. He is also upset to learn that some are from Missouri, whose inhabitants he blames for the death of Joseph Smith and for persecuting Mormons. He instructs his sons Jonathan and Micah to keep an eye on them.
A scene follows in which the pastor for the Fancher party praises God for their deliverance, while Bishop Samuelson thanks God for delivering the gentiles (non-Mormons) into their hands for divine punishment. As the Mormon leadership prepares to defend Utah from an attack by the federal government, Samuelson's son, Jonathan, develops a relationship with the daughter of the pastor, Emily. At the direction of Brigham Young, local Mormons are directed to massacre the gentiles using their allies, the Paiute Indians. By pointing to a rival Indian tribe as their mutual enemy, John D. Lee, the adopted son of Brigham Young, convinces the Paiutes that it is God's will to kill the migrants. Jonathan objects to the plan, which his father has just conveyed to the local Mormons, and is imprisoned by his father. Jonathan has become disillusioned by the Mormon faith not only because of the planned massacre, but because of what he allowed to happen to his mother. In a flashback earlier in the film, Jonathan remembers that his mother was ordered away by a senior religious leader who took her as is his wife; she returned to get her children, for which she was executed in full view of Jonathan and his father.
The Fancher party repels the Indian attack, and the local Mormons are forced to complete the mission themselves. The Mormon militia under the command of John D. Lee is ordered to kill anyone who is old enough to talk. John D. Lee offers to lead the Fancher party to safety; however, they lead them instead to an ambush in which they are all killed. Escaping his imprisonment, Jonathan arrives too late to save them and his lover, Emily, who is killed by his father. John Lee is executed for his role in the massacre in 1877 and Brigham Young denies any knowledge or involvement. | revenge, historical, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | I have been hearing many bad reviews for this movie, panning it for a perceived 'blanket condemnation of the Mormon Church.' What so many of these reviews refuse to take into consideration is the actual character of territorial Utah in the 1850s and the rest of the historical evidence.The plain simple fact is that Utah at the time WAS full of zealous religiosity.
This movie is in NO WAY a blanket condemnation of Mormonism, though it IS a condemnation of the Mormon Church *IN THE 1850s.* To say that this movie portrays them like "homesteading Nazis," is completely unfair.John Voight's performance gives a perfect example of the sort of character found in Mormon authorities in the period, while his sons show us some of the various types of dissension, the outright rejection, and the horrified self-loathing obedience.
Whether or not Brigham Young was directly involved in the events is up for debate, but there can be no doubt that the teachings he espoused and the environment they engendered were a significant part of what caused the massacre.In short, most of the negative reviews come either from Mormons or people who have very little background with regards to the history of Territorial Utah.
I will certainly do some historical research to see where the alleged biases come in, but I have a feeling the movie will certainly not be quite the fiction that some of the posters have made it out to be.My actual rating would have been a 6 or a 7 at best, but since there are people (I would assume those in the Mormon community) trying to bring the rating down simply because it shows a group of their people in an unfavourable light, I gave it a 10 to balance it out..
There is doubt as to who exactly was involved, but the movie does a very good job of presenting the historical facts as they are known today.
That the film's hero (jonathan) had no idea how people outside his lds group think and that the wagon train (illustrated by Emily) had no understanding of the Mormon's culture or paranoia is very believable (as the Mormon's were still a quite new group).
It does a good job of portraying the distrust the Mormons had of the rest of the nation, including the government, of their resentment toward Missouri and toward the mob that murdered Joseph Smith in Illinois, and the failure of the government that had him in its custody.Although the movie was shot in Alberta, the scenery is not unlike that in the Mountain Meadows area, except, of course, for the lake or river in which the young emigrant was able to bathe.
After seeing the movie I then read as much as I could find on the actual event before writing this comment.This movie is a hollywoodised version of events that did happen, no one is disputing that it happened, the comments on this site who have slammed the movie and given it 1 star seem to be those who are either Mormons or Mormon sympathisers who don't like the truth being openly told.Without the hollywoodised love story and the "too" clean travelers the movie seemed to follow accounts of what happened reasonably accurately in my eyes.From what I have read about the event I think the makers were right in making it look like a cover up by the Mormons, we have to remember that religious leaders had great say in how things are done in societies of the time, and unfortunately still do today.As has happened many times in history, a scapegoat is often used to cover up the misdeeds of those in higher authority.See the movie with an open mind then do the research and make up your own mind about who should have been punished here.I give this movie an 10 out of 10 to counter all the misguided 1s that have been given, but my true rating would be a 6..
I highly recommend that you watch this film and do some research on the massacre so you can develop your own conclusions.Some of the people that have written very critical comments of this movie are clearly biased and will not look at the facts.
The film is billed as a Romeo and Juliet story set against the historical backdrop of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I walked into the film willing to agree with its premise--that Brigham Young was involved in planning the killings--but I found the portrayal of every Mormon as a demon and every settler as a saint to be over the top.
Just the simple fact of how they (film makers) portrayed Young and failed to mention this letter would have changed my fillings of the movie and of the production staff.
I am feeling so much better now that I've seen September Dawn, an "inspired-by-true-events" fiction about the massacre in 1857 of Christian "immigrants" on the Mormon Utah land as they passed through to California.
"Inspired by" the true events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, in which 122 "gentiles" were exterminated, Almost every scene is larded with clichés, not the least being the shameless ones with the Romeo and Juliet knockoffs who exclaim more than once never to have "met anyone like you" before, or the progressive woman who wears pants and a gun who doesn't like the current rest on Mormon land and is the clear choice for hatred by the mad Mormon, Jacob Samuelson, played with scene hunger by Jon Voight (his bad-guy goatee is hilarious).That the massacre occurred is not in doubt.
Addition of fictionalized love story doesn't water down true events of America's first act of religious terrorism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre..
Although considerable artistic license was taken in the creation/addition of the fictitious pioneer love story, the dramatization of the events surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the ill-fated Fancher-Baker wagon train pulls no punches nor waters down the horror of the events that actually occurred on that other September 11th (of 1857).
I am an avid "History Buff" and know a great deal about the Civil War as well as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.First off, let me tell you that not only was this film historically accurate, it was beautifully shot and magnificently crafted.
Even though the Mormon Church will never accept the fact that Brigham Young was involved with the Massacre, the very least they could do is offer an apology to the Pauite Nation for laying false blame for over a century.Do you think it is a coincidence that the LDS Church has released their version of these historical events only now, a hundred and fifty years after the fact?This is the movie that has caused the Mormon Church of Today to address the sins of the past.This movie will open your eyes and change your hearts..
September Dawn tells the story of the historic events that led to the massacre of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah on September 11, 1857.
Without realizing their doom, they were led like lambs to a slaughter by the Mormon militia.The facts of these events have been buried far too long and I appreciate director Christopher Cain for giving voice to those victims who were so brutally murdered that September day.
Then again, Hollywood doesn't seem smart enough to disguise a critique of modern radical Islam as a movie about radical 1850's Mormonism!Jon Voight and Terence Stamp give powerful performances and the actors that play the teenage characters are good as well.
As a result of these and perhaps other factors that incited the local Latter-day Saint leaders and settlers to react, the massacre occurred and 120 people died.Why don't the filmmakers even bother to mention that if not for Missouri Governor Bogg's Extermination Order authorizing the murder of all Mormons -- they would probably have never been in the Utah territory to begin with?.
Its the reviews I actually read that made it seem more real ..WHY WOULD PEOPLE GET SO ANGRY ITS JUST A MOVIE HMMMM makes you wonder, seems like the truth hurts..Anyways back to the movie it was very well made and kept you on your seat..The actors were great and so was the story it was a sad moment in history thats brought to life ..It should never be forgotten,if these innocent people were killed by those cowards.
The LDS church today insists that Brigham Young had no advance knowledge of the attack, though most historians say that at the least his rhetoric contributed to the atmosphere that led to it.Jon Voight is very convincing (he should have been nominated for Best Actor) as the diabolical, yet pious Mormon Bishop.
Perhaps we will never know exactly whether Young was directly responsible.My theory is that this film is actually a well-disguised attack on, not Mormon, but Islamic radicalism.
Big names of in the business refuse to comment on this film honestly, because this movie has a negative portrayal of the early mormon religion.
The fact remains that people in the olden days can be irrational and barbaric, and not to mention a mormon member has its hand on the massacre.That aside, the movie has done its job of screen performance.
His operatic nonsense accomplishes something I don't think he intended: By treating the Mormons with such laughable contempt, he actually made me feel sorry for them." Here's an excerpt from Wayne Milton's article: "The movie plays down these wider politics in order to beat us over the head with a refrain: Young and his minions, save a lone scapegoat, never answered for their crimes." Unlike the recent PBS documentary "The Mormons" this film ignores history and rather relies on the blown-up tails of conspiracy theorists and "Kill Homos" evangelical traveling bands.
It details the long covered-up massacre at Mountain Meadows, Utah, on September 11, 1857, where a group of Mormons murdered well over a hundred settlers traveling from Arkansas to California.
Cain, I believe, purposely slants all the facts in getting to the bottom line or getting to the historical tragedy portrayed at the end of the movie and takes theatrical license to purposely create animosity towards Mormons in general, because of whatever reason.
If this film was made about a like incident set for today and one replaced the Mormons with Islamists, would we really be interested in their side as why they have killed so many people?
Religious fanatics exist everywhere: Mormons in 1857, Christians in the Crusades, Irish Catholics & Protestants, Muslim fundamentalists; no time in history has been without the fanatics, and they exist today.It has been said that more people have died in the name of religion than in all the wars.
Religious fanatics exist everywhere: Mormons in 1857, Christians in the Crusades, Irish Catholics & Protestants, Muslim fundamentalists; no time in history has been without the fanatics, and they exist today.It has been said that more people have died in the name of religion than in all the wars.
(Children who survived the massacre were taken into Mormon homes to be raised as Mormons, but later retrieved by the U.S. army, an interesting part of the story that isn't told in the movie.) The movie is memorable mostly in that it depicts a shocking piece of American history, and Jon Voight does a great job in his role as a Mormon bishop..
If a viewer doesn't have an in-depth understanding of Mormon Doctrine and History the film will seem Mormon-bashing.The film presents Wagon Train members as wholesome "good guys" and Mormons of that era as "Bad Guys." I am descended from the Mormons of that era (going back to 1831) and my dad taught church doctrine much the same as the Mormon Bishop in the movie.
Those people who say this movie is totally fact are probably anti mormon and want to say anything to make them feel that we are an evil people.I know for a fact that Brigham Young tried to send a warning to these mislead saints to calm down.
In summary, I think it's a thought provoking movie that will make people actually want to do a bit of research on the true events of Mountain Meadows..
As for September Dawn, the movie was a dreadfully inaccurate portrayal of a tragic time and sad period in Mormon, US and Utah history.
After watching this movie, I'm trying to think of what the film makers were trying to do other than bash Mormons.The film depicts a controversial event in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
One of the tragic coincidences of history: Since the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened on 9/11 in 1857, I could just imagine a last line of the movie:"The date September 11th will live in infamy."But it would probably be laughed off the screen.Pardon my finding humor about such a horrible thing.Even funnier than that is that the site won't accept my comment because there weren't enough lines.Even mentioning that didn't enable the comment.
any one seeking the truth about the events depicted in this movie should look up a book called "Mountain Meadows Massacre", it was not written by a Mormon author, so it takes a completely unbiased looked at the situation, and completely explains what actually happened.
Scott Renshaw of the Charleston City PaperOne of the flagship IMDb user reviews for September dawn is entitled, "Leanr (sic) the history before commenting." I couldn't agree more.To that end, and in the spirit of equal time and hearing both sides of the story, I am providing the following links so that those genuinely interested in what happened; the corresponding historical, social, and religious context; and how the LDS Church feels about it, can read it from an unfiltered source.
The awful order of killing those of the wagon train; men, woman and children.The film depicts this and its important to know this, because it is little anti-Mormon.
This film doesn't purport to be historically accurate, as far as I know, so I am not going to comment on the way the producers used the history except to say that it reminds me of The DaVinci Code applied to Mormons.
The movie has such an obvious agenda, and I can't believe the makers of this film received a grant from the Alberta Film Development Program.Some people may think they are researching the facts from the internet, but there is so much misinformation on the internet posted by so many 'anti' Mormon groups, that in my opinion make these sources unreliable.I think the story of the Meadow Massacres could make a fascinating movie.
While the Mormon Bishop is nice to the wagon train in person, he is bent on their destruction when with his community.The historical record and reality of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is easily available to all who are interested and clearly shows a much different and far more nuanced story.
It tried to set up the story and the events that lead to the tragic events, but loosely fictional enough to tick off some Mormons obviously.Historically, yes the account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre seems pretty accurate, it does mention the Federal Government was going to be sending troops and that Brigham Young was ready to fight.
A fair and an unbiased recollection of history or historical events isn't what you will find but maybe, the story from a sensible relative of one of the massacred.The film does try to show some human side of the Mormons that were involved, through the love story and the character they portray as John D.
But in the end it seems to question the leadership (or lack of) in the Mormon church, who was at the time Brigham Young and the local bishop (John Voigt)in the film.**I would highly recommend watching the 2004 documentary: BURYING THE PAST: LEGACY OF THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE**and reading the Mormon church's September 2007 addressing the events, in Mormon run Deseret News.
I saw a screening of this film recently, and the most fitting word to describe it is "interesting." This film is a *fictionalized* account of the Mountain Meadows massacre by the Mormons and Native Americans in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857.
What you take away is really up to you, whether you see it as a love story, historical piece, attack on the Mormon faith, or simply for what it literally is: a film..
It's not a matter of good people turning bad, but rather a boring straight line from expected evil to actual one.Jon Voight, playing the Mormon bishop zealot who instigated the massacre, is mean, bitter, murderous.
It is understandable, however, that many viewers will be offended since every Mormon is honestly portrayed as a fanatic.Regardless of whether Brigham Young was involved in the incident, the Mountain Meadows Massacre still resulted in the deaths of innocent people at the hands of Mormon extremists, who are no better or worse than fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
Being a former Mormon (temple endowed) I can tell you though that the movie is generally pretty accurate concerning Mormon history and what Brigham Young said about blood atonement.
This movie takes an historical fact and skewers it so that the Mormons are ideologically bad, rigid people and the all the poor "Christians" want to do is go to California and set up vineyards and freeways.
Mormons that I know are good, honest, family people that would never attack a wagon train or take the time out of their life to attack another religion as the screenwriter have done in this laughable movie.
The film, September Dawn directed by Christopher Cain tells the story how a group of religious intolerance Mormons end up attacking the Baker-Fancher wagon train.
The film felt lost in time as it jump around way too much in history, as it start out with in 1877 as Utah governor Brigham Young (Terence Stamp) presents his side of the story of the events of 1857. |
tt0037480 | The Zoot Cat | The cartoon opens on a Valentine note to Toots from Tom, with a pink ribbon tied to Jerry inside a gift box. Meanwhile, Tom gets ready for a date, his whiskers in curlers.
Tom knocks on the door, rings the doorbell and shouts before dropping the box and hiding behind a pillar on the porch. Toots opens the door and is pleasantly surprised at the gift. Tom then attempts to impress Toots by playing a ukulele and dancing. Finally, Tom presents her with a bouquet of flowers, but a loose floorboard smacks him in the face.
Toots responds with a dissent, while Jerry nods in agreement to her words. After she throws the gift back at Tom, Jerry grabs an ear of corn and plants it in the box, signifying that Tom's efforts were "corny" (slang for outdated). Tom then hears a radio commercial for a zoot suit, which gives Tom an idea: to make his own zoot suit and mystify his intended.
On his knocking on the door again, Toots is now shocked to see Tom in the impressive outfit. Tom lights a cigar as Toots compliments his new, hip look before inviting him inside. They start to jive dance and Jerry politely cuts in, dancing a few steps with Toots before Tom realizes what's going on. Tom chases Jerry, who escapes by jumping into an ashtray and rubbing a burning cigarette butt on Tom’s nose.
Jerry then peels a banana and throws the skin onto the floor, which sends Tom crashing into a piano. But he recovers in majestic form and starts to play, taking on the persona of a suave, romantic lover. Tom tries to impress Toots using a Charles Boyer-esque voice. Jerry then sticks matches in Tom's toes, and lights them in order to give him a hot foot. Tom unwittingly continues until the flames engulf his feet. He pauses, sniffs the smoke-filled air, and then realizes what Jerry has done and screams in pain.
Jerry resumes dancing with Toots. Tom returns, determined to flatten Jerry with a fireplace shovel. A chase ensues. Jerry hides behind a table leg and uses his foot to trip Tom. Jerry clips the hanger in Tom's jacket to a window-shade, then kicks Tom in the eye. Tom angrily pursues the fleeing mouse, but the shade rolls back taking Tom with it.
By the window, Tom is dunked in a fishbowl. This causes the zoot suit to shrink and eventually pop off his body. Jerry jumps into the shrunken suit, which is now a perfect fit for him. He then dances away, pleased with his new zoot suit. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Hilarious Dialog Makes This A Big Winner.
Tom has his whiskers permed, and he's strutting his stuff going to impress his sweetie.
He's got Jerry all packaged up as a special gift.
At the door, he presents the gift, dances, sings, doing whatever he can to impress her.
She isn't impressed (women are so moody).
She tells him, using a half dozen expressions of the day, that "You don't send me." She throws Jerry in his face, saying, "Here's your rat, cat!"Tom overhears a radio commercial urging guys to get a zoot suit to impress the gals.
He makes one, goes back to see the girl and - wham!
- she's impressed now.
The dialog in this short is fantastic.
I wish they had English subtitles so I could catch all the hip phrases.
The rest of the cartoon has Tom interrupted in his quest for admiration by Jerry, of course, and the two chase each other in the final few minutes..
Well I enjoyed it.
This is not the best of the Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is very funny.
I thought the animation was very nice for its time, it is one of the better-looking early Tom and Jerry cartoons.
I thought the music was outstanding, I know I keep mentioning the music in everything I review but the music is always something I like to talk about.
Here it was fun and rousing.
I thought the dialogue was hilarious, maybe some of the cool hip language used here is a tad dated but it was funny and worked reasonably well.
The female cat's dialogue was enough to have me on the floor doubled up from laughing, it was just so witty and fresh.
I thought the story was effective, simple yet effective.
I thought the visual gags were a delight, there were enough to delight any Tom and Jerry fan.
I thought the characters were well done, Tom sometimes talks a little too much, but he is fine, and Jerry is still his sweet and rascally self.
Plus the female cat was a welcome addition.
Overall, enjoyable.
9/10 Bethany Cox. Tom talks too much.
Tom the cat tries to impress a girl cat by giving her Jerry the mouse and singing her a song.
But she rebukes him for being to square.
So he makes a makeshift home-made zoot suit and continues to woo her.
This is one of the few shorts where Tom and to a little extent Jerry both talk.
Whereas most Tom and Jerry cartoons are timeless, this one is dated and not as funny as normally.
One of my less favorite shorts, it's still watchable though.
This cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry" My Grade: C DVD Extras: Commentary by historian Jerry Beck where he talks about the animator, voice actress and the songs amongst other things..
They did talk.
Here's one fact that I had forgotten.
The much lauded "talking" between Tom and Jerry in the feature film a few years back WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY TALKED!
They didn't say more than a couple of lines, but, BOTH Tom and Jerry spoke actual words in this cartoon!
So much for Hollywood "Myths".
I guess the screenwriters overlooked this episode.It's a fun outing, like most of Tom and Jerry's adventures.
Tom's trying to be hep to impress a local female cat, and Jerry's only making things harder on Tom than normal.
Good fun, and wild to hear them speak..
Look who's talking.
Tom is trying to impress a female cat by grooming his whiskers, offering Jerry as a gift and trying his damnedest to be smooth.
But it doesn't work and the girl tells him to take a hike.Not discouraged, Tom fabricates a sophisticated-looking suit out of an old hammock and tries once more.
This time she falls for him and they start to play around.
Obviously Jerry is going to ruin it for him and end up with the gal himself.What's weird about this cartoon is that Tom and Jerry actually talk, which is not something I thought they ever did until that awful movie in 1992.
Either way, it's still a rather funny short..
I guess I'm too 'square' to find this one particularly funny.
The Zoot Cat might have seemed incredibly 'hip' at the time of its original release, with it's jazz slang and cutting-edge sub-culture fashion, but it now feels embarrassingly dated; yet this 'snapshot of a time gone by' also goes to make this a rather intriguing episode.
It's hard for me, as an Englishman born in the late 60s, to imagine an era in the US in which such strange attire and language could have been seen as 'dangerously' cool, but here it is, perfectly captured in a Tom and Jerry cartoon and seeing is believing, as they say!Tom wishes to impress a young lady cat, but she perceives him to be 'square'.
To remedy the situation, Tom cuts himself a sharp 'zoot suit' from a hammock, makes himself a wide brimmed hat, and dances swing-style to the latest beats.
Of course, Jerry does his utmost to ruin Tom's chances of success.Not only is this a historically interesting T&J caper, but it is also one in which the usually rather silent cat and mouse do a lot of talkingalbeit in a manner that proves to be unintelligible a lot of the time, thanks to the often indecipherable 40s phrases spoken by the characters.
Unfortunately, whilst this episode is noteworthy for it's peculiarities, it isn't that funny.The Zoot Cat will be of most interest to those who have a passion for the music and style of the decade in which it was made; the rest of us will probably be rather unimpressed..
One of the best.
I love the animation, and the comedy, I love the everything..
The Zoot Cat. The Zoot Cat (1944) *** (out of 4) It seems Tom and Jerry fans are really split on this short as some consider it one of their best while others find it to be near the bottom.
I'm somewhere in the middle, although I will admit that it's not one of my favorites.
The story is pretty simple as Tom gets rejected from a pretty cat so he learns a few moves, throws on an orange and green zoot suit and tries to impress her.
THE ZOOT CAT doesn't really have much of a story but it's basically a showcase for the music and Tom's dancing.
The music score itself is quite good and certainly manages to make you feel its beat.
Tom's dancing will put a smile on your face but it really didn't make me laugh.
With that said, there's still enough charm to be had here and it was at least something different for the series..
Tom in a hip suit..
Tom uses material from hammock to made his zoot suit.
He tries to be the hippest cat around with the suit, and try to attract a certain feline.
Jerry the mouse always get in Tom's way of romancing a female.
The Zoot Cat is one of the funniest in the Tom and Jerry cartoons..
going against the status quo.
This was one of my favorites as a kid, liked it even more after I started listening to my dad's records in high school, and have come to appreciate it ever since.Along with 'Little Red Hot Riding Hood' this is the coolest cartoon ever produced.
Especially because it deals with an American subculture as opposed to 'popular culture'.
For example Warner Bros often caricatured Bing Crosby or Sinatra whereas (at MGM) Louis Jordan would later be used a few years later in 'Solid Serenade'.While most perceive jazz as their grandparents 'music', this was when your grandparents were young and jazz was associated with sex, reefer smoking, and degenerates.
At the extreme Hitler was rounding up young Aryans, some meeting the same fate as the other 'undesireables' for listening to jazz.While I won't get into specifics, it is vital to realize when this 'short' was released (Feb. 1944), that in June of '43 Los Angeles passed a resolution criminalizing the wearing (and 'wearer')of zoot suits in public.
And the man who made the look popular Cab Calloway was banned from the airwaves (12/41) for improvising the national anthem.While I think PC is out of control and an oxymoron (I am Japanese and liked Hashimotos and Fuji from Super Dave Osborne) it is one thing to be complacent and another to be promote racism.So while some will defend other studios racist cartoons as 'the times' there are discernible differences between say 'Uncle Tom's Cabana' and 'All that and Rabbit Stew'.
A better description would be the 'places', Warner Bros' theaters were located in the south and the Midwest in a segregated country, the latter would only reinforce long held 'truths'.
Although these were intended for adults, cartoons are kid friendly.However to judge history with modern 'values' is unfair and has to be put into context, makes this cartoon quite remarkable.I urge everyone to read about what Elanore Roosevelt correctly termed race riots but what is known as the 'Zoot Suit Riots'.
Hilarious farce, sends up "coolness", brilliant music, one of the very best.
SPOILER!.
They say "clothes makes the man".
Most of us confess to adopting an assumed bravado and swagger when adorned in our smartest and best.
As usual, Tom has it in spades.
His matchless ability to move from gauche artless country hick to high fashion sophisticate, thanks to his new attire, is hilarious to witness.
The piano scene is truly wonderful.
Tom's new found suave Gallic charm projects with such supreme confidence, his forehead and bottom lip have never looked nobler, his female love interest is swooning with desire, resistance is useless.
This huge emotionally charged growing tension is really fuelled by Tom's speaking.
Whereas most of the classic Tom & Jerry films work so well without the clutter of speech, in this instance Tom's vocalisation adds so much to the development of his novel smooth and charmingly predatory character.
Alas, for Tom, and thankfully for us, Jerry is at hand to return Tom back to the "real" world.
Again, Tom's use of speech really works with his "Bob Hope like" one liner.
As usual, the female interest is a bit one dimensional but this prevents any upstaging of the leads, Tom & Jerry.What does it for me is the wonderful artwork, excellently matched music, well crafted plot, cleverly developed characterisation, superb use of speech (not overdone), and all wrapped up in the unique Tom & Jerry magic.And, as you all know, even though you may be romantically dressed to kill, there is always a Jerry around to cramp your style!.
Tom Seeks Love as a 1944 Hipster..
The "zoot - suit" era lasted roughly from 1939 to about 1946.
It's most permanent affect was to help spread "cool" lingo from extreme jazz lovers into the mainstream of the U.S. culture.
But this probably would have happened anyway: the average person would have liked the music and picked up the various slang terms.
Instead the zoot suit was to become an object of suspicion for ultra-conservative types (who hated jazz anyway) as being anti-social.
And after awhile, it seemed just like a fad that had played out.
With it's over-padded shoulders, attempts at streamlined and tight midriff section, and wild patterns (frequently with crazy stripes), covered with a wide brimmed - low crowned hat, the "zoot suit" just struck an unnerving note with conservatives, and a reaffirmation of independence with jazz fans.Here Tom Cat is shown going to the home of a pretty female cat, with a present (a disgusted Jerry Mouse in a blue box with a ribbon on it).
Tom tries to make himself presentable, pomading his hair (with lard, symbolically enough), and curlicuing his whiskers.
When he gives her the gift, Tom also serenades the cat on his ukulele, and sounds so annoying that when he is accidentally hit in the face with a board from her veranda the audience feels cheered.The female cat tells Tom how square he seems, and shuts the door, after returning his gift (Jerry thinks him square too, and shows it before he runs off).
Tom decides to show he can be real cool - he constructs a costume of a zoot suit and hat from a hammock and a lamp shade.
Then he returns and briefly captures the girl's affections.
But I said briefly: Jerry sees to that.As pointed out this was one of the few Tom and Jerry cartoons that gave the two characters voices (Jerry has the same voice used in ANCHORS AWEIGH).
Oddly enough, at one point, when Tom seems about to consummate the relations with the female cat, he stops talking jive, and starts an imitation based on his idea of Charles Boyer (hardly a zoot suit type).It is not a bad little cartoon.
I am not usually a fan of Tom and Jerry or of Hanna-Barbera's work, but for it's capturing a moment of 20th Century American culture I think this was a pretty good cartoon..
Tom goes wooing.
As this short opens Jerry is tied up with a ribbon; we quickly learn why when Tom presents him to a lady cat....
she is unimpressed though and rejects his advances.
Tom then hears a radio advert for Zoot suits and decides to make his own.
The lady cat clearly thinks it is pretty sharp as this time he gets invited in.
Tom starts dancing with her but Jerry is determined to spoil it for him; he throws a banana skin and Tom goes flying lands on the piano.
This doesn't spoil his date though; he just recovers and starts playing it.
Jerry continues his efforts though and eventually Tom loses his cool and ultimately his suit.This is a rather unusual Tom and Jerry short as the two usually silent characters talk and to be honest the voices didn't really fit the characters for me even though the somewhat dated jive talk was pretty funny.
As always there is a fair amount of violence; some of it inventive some of it just cruel.
While this isn't one of my favourite Tom and Jerry shorts it is still well worth watching; mostly for the jive talk; particularly the lady cat's rejection speech delivered to Tom at the start..
This charming cat.
"The Zoot Cat" is another American Tom and Jerry cartoon and this one here is from 1944, later years of WWII, so it will have its 75th anniversary soon.
These 7 minutes are probably neither among the most known these these two have to offer nor among the least known, somewhere in-between.
It is perhaps their most fashion focused work as the title already gives away and it is not just Tom who is in a zoot here, but Jerry too as we find out at the very end.
This ending was certainly among the better moments (next to the burning-paw scene) of an otherwise really forgettable cartoon that suffered from an unlikable female cat taking away too much screen time from Jerry especially.
It was not bad or anything, but not very funny either.
Plus I don't like these a lot where Tom is talking and he is talking a lot here.
Overall, I give this one a thumbs-down and it's really only worth seeing for T&J completionists.
Everybody else can skip it. |
tt0166322 | Rear Window | After breaking his leg photographing a racetrack accident, a professional photographer, the adventurous L. B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart), is confined to a wheelchair in his Greenwich Village apartment to recuperate. His rear window looks out onto a courtyard and several other apartments. During a powerful heat wave, he watches his neighbors, who keep their windows open to stay cool.
He observes a flamboyant dancer he nicknames "Miss Torso"; a single middle-aged woman he calls "Miss Lonelyhearts"; a talented, single, middle-aged composer-pianist; several married couples; a female sculptor; and Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr), a traveling jewelry salesman with a bedridden wife.
Jeff's sophisticated, beautiful socialite girlfriend, Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly), visits him regularly, as does his insurance company's nurse, Stella (Thelma Ritter). Stella wants Jeff to settle down and marry Lisa, but Jeff is reluctant.
One night during a thunderstorm Jeff hears a woman scream "Don't!" and then the sound of breaking glass. Later he is awakened by thunder and observes Thorwald leaving his apartment. Thorwald makes repeated late-night trips carrying his sample case. The next morning Jeff notices that Thorwald's wife is gone, and then sees Thorwald cleaning a large knife and handsaw. Later, Thorwald ties a large trunk with heavy rope and has moving men haul it away. Jeff discusses all this with Lisa and with Stella.
Jeff becomes convinced that Thorwald has murdered his wife. Jeff explains this to his friend Tom Doyle (Wendell Corey), a New York City Police detective, and asks him to do some research. Doyle finds nothing suspicious; apparently Mrs. Thorwald is upstate, and picked up the trunk herself.
Soon after, a neighbor's dog is found dead, its neck broken. The owner yells out into the courtyard, "You don't know the meaning of the word 'neighbors'! Neighbors like each other, speak to each other, care if anybody lives or dies! But none of you do!" All the neighbors run to their windows to see what is happening, except for Thorwald, whose cigar can be seen glowing as he sits quietly in his dark apartment.
Certain that Thorwald is also guilty of killing the dog, Jeff asks Lisa to slip an accusatory note under his door, so Jeff can watch his reaction when he reads it. Then, as a pretext to get Thorwald out of his apartment, Jeff telephones him and arranges a meeting at a bar. He believes Thorwald buried something incriminating in the courtyard flower bed and killed the dog to stop it digging there, so when Thorwald leaves, Lisa and Stella dig up the flowers; they find nothing.
Much to Jeff's amazement and admiration, Lisa then climbs the fire escape to Thorwald's apartment and clambers in through an open window. When Thorwald returns and grabs Lisa, Jeff calls the police, who arrive in time to save her by arresting her. Jeff sees Lisa has her hands behind her back, wiggling her finger with Mrs. Thorwald's wedding ring on it. Thorwald notices this, and realizing that she is signaling to someone, he sees Jeff across the courtyard.
Jeff phones Doyle and leaves an urgent message. Stella heads for the police station to post bail for Lisa. When his phone rings, Jeff assumes it is Doyle, and says that the suspect has left the apartment. When no one answers, Jeff realizes that Thorwald himself had called, and is heading over to confront him. When Thorwald enters, Jeff repeatedly sets off his camera flashbulbs, temporarily blinding him. However, Thorwald grabs Jeff and manages to push him out of the open window, as Jeff is yelling for help. Police officers enter the apartment as he falls to the ground; other officers have run over to break his fall. Thorwald confesses to the police soon afterward.
A few days later, the heat has lifted, and Jeff rests peacefully in his wheelchair, now with casts on both legs. The lonely neighbor is chatting with the pianist in his apartment, the dancer's lover returns home from the army, the couple whose dog was killed have a new dog, and the newly married couple are bickering.
Lisa reclines on the daybed in Jeff's apartment, wearing jeans and apparently reading a book titled Beyond the High Himalayas. As soon as Jeff falls asleep, Lisa puts the book down and happily opens a fashion magazine. | murder | train | wikipedia | The romantic relationship is far steamier, and the climactic scene is utterly original and totally terrifying.In this new version, the mystery story has been "streamlined" to allow more time for techno razzle-dazzle and detailed presentation of the challenges faced by the disabled every day.
The cause is worthy, but the shotgun marriage of movie-of-the-week message with murder-mystery drama serves neither facet of the film very well.There are a few effective scenes, and the actors make the most of the feeble script.
Darryl Hannah, alas, does little with less; a star willing to take on a Grace Kelley role deserves more support from her producers!If you'd like to support people with spinal cord injuries and see a good thriller, write a check to Christopher Reeves' foundation, then rent Hitch's masterpiece..
Robert Forster ought to have known better, he is a superb actor and is just about the only character in this movie one can recognise as being bothered.
Leave well alone when it comes to attempting to remake the classic movies, I admired Christopher Reeve for his heroic struggle against adversity, he will be remembered for doing many better things than this.
As terrific an actor Christopher Reeves is, I think he bit off more than he could chew when he tried to re-make the character played by Jimmy Stewart, one of the greatest rated actors in motion picture history.
I admire the attempts of these people, however, when one ventures to remake a Hitchcock classic like Rear Window, one should stay closer to the original story line.
The only justifiable reason that I can see for remaking a film, is if the original had potential, but was in the hands of the wrong director.
In the case of 'Rear Window', Alfred Hitchcock's original version was close to perfection.
Christopher Reeve plays the lead character, who is not a photographer but an architect, and has been pompously renamed Jason Kemp.
The best part of the film is Christopher Reeve, who does stand out from a cast with little substance.
Thelma Ritter's character of an insurance nurse in Alfred Hitchcock's version, has more spark than the two medical assistants in this film put together.
of course it wasn't really good either but Hitchcock remakes are always so bad, and can never equal his original work.
This movie pretty much messed up the whole concept of the original "Rear Window", which was excellent..
They destroyed what was a good story line.Christopher Reeve plays on everyone's sympathy because he was paralyzed.
While I admire Christopher Reeve's attempt to return to the screen in his paralyzed condition, I feel his acting ability is definitely restrained.
I mean, sure, nobody expected Christopher Reeves, of all people, to top Jimmy Stewart's performance in the original, but pairing him up with Daryl Hannah was a brilliant move right up there with allowing Joel Schumacher near the Batman franchise more than once.
I was never really a fan of the "Superman" movies he made,but Christopher Reeve was magnificent in "Rear Window" I just wish I would have taped this one, to show others that had apparently and unfortunately missed..
Updated version of the 1954 Alfred Hitchcock classic "Rear Window" with Christopher Reeves as quadriplegic Jason Kemp who unknowingly spies upon a violent domestic dispute by his neighbors across the yard that possibly later escalated to murder.
Better then average made-for-TV thriller that turned out to be actor Chris Reeves' last, and most personal, movie role.
The ending of "Rear Window" is a bit of a let-down but at the same time more intriguing then that of the 1954 version of the movie by leaving it, the ending,up in the air and to the imagination of the viewers.Chris Reeves was playing himself in the movie "Rear Window" as he was a real victim of a spinal-cord injury, that he suffered from a raiding accident on May 27, 1995, that left him paralyzed for the rest of his life until he passed away just days after his 52th birthday.
Modern remake of "Rear Window" in which the lead character (Christopher Reeve) is paralyzed and lives in a high-tech home filled with assistive technology.This film gets a lot of criticism because it is not Hitchcock.
And you have to admire that someone wanted to give Christopher Reeve a starring role when his ability became so slim.The "hacking" a guy's computer when he's one room over is a little silly, because you know...
We unwillingly tempted to compare these two films and the interpretations of each cast.I really can not compare the two directions because I think that Alfred Hitchcock is the master of such a movies.
Regarding to cast now James Stewart was really better than Christopher Reeve and Grace Kelly than Daryl Hannah.
The old version is better, if you see this movie at the end you will think that you saw a quite movie not to say boring, but if you see the old "Rear Window" when it finished you will think that was a really great movie, that's the main difference of these two movies...If you want to see this movie really do not waste your time, just see the original....
Now I know many people have a love affair with Hitch, but I must admit I never found Rear Window to be a classic like some of his others, the idea came from creating a movie on a single set.
Rear Window is a really good movie.
This movie has got some good suspense too, and the part where the blond girl lights a match and stares at Christopher Reeve is really creepy.
Rear Window (1998) ** (out of 4) After a car accident a man (Christopher Reeve) is left paralyzed and begins killing time by spying on his neighbors when he thinks he hears one of them murdered.
There's some interesting aspects to this remake of the Hitchcock classic but at the end of the day there are just way too many problems for the film to really work.
Reeve is very good in the part, although it took me some time to get involved with the film because the early scenes of him in rehab and dealing with being paralyzed where rather depressing to watch.
But, sometimes, there are magical exceptions, when a movie transcends its make-believe content to show a truth in all its purity.This is the case here with the exceptional performance of Christopher Reeves: he didn't play the tetraplegic because he WAS tetraplegic.Did people ever wonder what this difficult state implies and all the efforts and dedication Mr. Reeves had to reach for his job.
Fortunately, Mr. Reeves will later win the SAG award.And for those who pay attention to the direction, the director's choice to actually shoot literally the title of the movie (at least, a third of the movie has the rear window for setting) is a good bet.Finally, it is not a movie that you will watch over and over, but it deserves at least ONE TIME and you won't ever forget it (like Mr. Reeves)
..
It was great to see Christopher Reeve again and I hope to see more of him in film roles.
The original, of course, is a Hitchcock classic, and this remake is a great made-for-tv adaptation.
Christopher Reeves is superb, as usual, and the movie has plenty of suspenseful moments.
While nobody expected this to be anywhere near as good as Hitchcock's classic, I found the film surprisingly engrossing.
Rear Window the remake is a good film that has a good cast which includes Christopher Reeve, Daryl Hannah, Robert Forster, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Anne Twomey, Ritchie Coaster, Allison Mackie, Ali Marsh, Julie Barker, Maggie Kiley, and Peter Giles.
If you like Christopher Reeve, Daryl Hannah, Robert Forster, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Anne Twomey, Ritchie Coaster, the rest of the cast in the film, Remakes, Thrillers, Dramas, Crime Myster, and interesting Action films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!.
If you CAN'T get past the fact that it's a remake of a Hitchcock film, then let's say that you've seen the original - like me.
'Young' audiences who watch Jimmy Stewart films are not going to turn their noses up at one that happens to have been remade with Christopher Reeve.
Of course it's very difficult - maybe even some kind of sacrilege - to do a remake of an Alfred Hitchcock film.
In my opinion, this 1998 TV remake of "Rear Window" doesn't need to hide behind the original version, as it's well done and shows as a nearly completely paralyzed Christopher Reeves three years after his shocking accident in a very strong performance.Many things appear similar to the original version - Reeves watched the opposite house front and all the different people behind the windows - a gay couple (not featured in the original 1954 version), an attractive single women, a busy author and the villain - this time not a harmlessly-looking and silent older men like in the original, but a violent weirdo artist with an alcohol-addicted girlfriend.
He believes to have watched (or heard) a cruel murder and wants to find out the bloody secret that has happened in his neighbor's flat.Reeves gives his performance a more tragical aspect as James Stewart in the fifties version - while Stewart, a well-known sports photographer who is bound to the wheelchair with a broken leg - just does his "job" by watching other people, Reeves is completely paralyzed and can only satisfy his longings for feelings, love and even sex by going to cybersex chat rooms and watching other people's lives and sex through a digital cam.The ending is directed with more suspense than the original version with a long a thrilling showdown between Reeves and the villain.
The supporting actors are also very good, with Ritchie Coster and Allison Walkie as killing couple and Robert Forster as cop (funnily, he played in another Hitchcock remake - Psycho - the same year).A good Hitchcock remake and an outstanding TV production with a great Christopher Reeves, which is great fun to watch again and again..
Bleckner kept the suspense going with Reeve's vulnerable character, and Daryll Hannah was great in the Grace Kelly role.
Christopher Reeve is no Jimmy Stewart, and although Darryl Hannah is no Grace Kelly, I did like her performance, it was subtle and sincere.
The movie really inspired me because Christopher Reeves got in an accident and that caused him to be paralyzed but that didn't stop him from doing everyday things.
At the end of the movie Christopher Reeves falls madly in love with his partner helping him out to solve the case.
Christopher Reeves is a good example for all of us because he shows us that anybody can be anything they want to be.
This movie is probably also one of the best movies because it pays to have a cute actor like Christopher Reeves playing the part of the guy who spies on people..
They gave writing credit to the original story, novel, and play authors that inspired Hitchcock's movies, but they were essentially just remakes, or in the case of one, a copy.
I do not recommend the remake of "Rear Window", but I must admit that it exceeded my low expectations and for the first two-thirds of the film, I was enjoying mild entertainment until the third act, when the film shot itself in the foot, fell flat on its face, and did not get back up again.The plot is basically the same as the original 1954 film with a few minor changes to the characters.
In the original, the protagonist of the film was a photographer played by James Stewart confined to a wheelchair by an accident.
In the remake, the protagonist is a quadriplegic played by real-life quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, who made this movie shortly after his horse-riding accident that left him disabled for the rest of his life.
Save for a few other changes, the plot and basic unfolding of the story is the same, with Reeve looking out the window at his neighbors across the courtyard and becoming interested and suspicious when the wife of an abusive man (Ritchie Coaster) disappears mysteriously.First of all, let me hand out my praises to Christopher Reeve for his terrific performance.
I also felt the music by David Shire was very good; it reminded me a lot of James Horner's magnificent score from "Braveheart" (1994).Unfortunately, the movie also does have its flaws and when the third act of the film comes into play, that's when it really begins to suffer.
Robert Forster (who was also in the dismal 1998 remake of "Psycho" (1960), plays the detective who's helping the voyeur trying to solve what appears to be a murder case, but he doesn't have the same presence and charisma that came out of the detective played by Wendell Corey in Hitchcock's film.
And it was at this point that I really lost interest, for I felt I'd seen it before a million times, and even if I hadn't, I still doubt I would have been able to stay interested.My bottom line advice is the same for the two other 1998 remakes of Hitchcock's legendary films: rent the original.
If you want a truly great mystery/suspense-thriller, stick with the master of suspense in the original "Rear Window" (1954).
I definitely recommend seeing that one first and, if you're interested like I was, check out the remake with Christopher Reeve and you may or may not be totally disappointed.
The film has a certain amount of novelty value due to the presence of Reeve but outside of that it is hard to ignore how inferior it is to the Hitchcock original.
As such this remake isn't actually that good because it lacks tension, character and originality.
It isn't terrible of course, because it is reasonably engaging but, aside from the novelty value, I can't see why anyone would chose to watch this in place of the original.Reeve is pretty good in the lead role.
We feel this is a movie of our times.In terms of the film's action, I think the scene in which the killer gets in the house of the main character is stronger and more powerful in this one than in Hitchcock's, though the scene of the woman in the killer's house being caught is much much better in the original, this one is not half as thrilling.
well alright, it's a good movie, but it's a remake.
It had a high level of suspense, good dialoge, intriguing story, and it was one of far too few movies featuring disabled people.
Christopher Reeve's return to acting was awesome, and he delivered one of his best performances ever!
At first, I asked myself, "How on Earth will Reeve act with so many things wrong with him?" Then I thought, "I have no hands, I can do anything I put my mind to it and so can any other disabled human being here on Earth." The next night, I saw Rear Window.
The actors, Daryl Hannah & Christopher Reeve & Robert Forester are not from any series on T.V.
And, for the most part, I knew Christopher Reeve could do this, but what he did last night in Rear Window was very VERY VERY inspiring to me and when it comes on again, I hope many of you will watch it because it is an amazing movie with an inspiring man, Christopher Reeve..
I have never seen the original Hitchcock version of this movie, but it couldn't have been better than this.
Christopher Reeves performance was only accentuated by the fact that he really is confined to his wheelchair and that many of the problems he faced in his everyday life are true problems.
Beside the brilliant performance by Miss Hannah and Mr Reeve, most of the supporting stars has been performing well too.The story should has more suspense, more heart pounding scene so that to make this thriller a better one to be seen..
As much as I hated this movie I will say that it did have some good acting from Christopher Reeve and Darel Hannah.
We watch his breathing difficulties from the breathing machine...Reeve was seen as the man, who was not acting all the time...
This remake's worth a look, although of course it's not as good as the Hitchcock original.
This remake of Hitchcock's classic tale can't equal the master's work, but is a suspenseful and interesting little movie with plenty of thrills for the modern audience.
A real-life disabled Christopher Reeve (as a result of a fall from his horse) takes the lead role originally played by Jimmy Stewart, and manages to create a warm and sympathetic character despite the fact he's a voyeur who enjoys watching the private antics of the people living opposite him.
Like Reeve's character, the film manages to hook you into getting involved with the machinations of the people we only witness through the glass.
Otherwise, REAR WINDOW is an agreeable watch even if not up to the level of the original classic..
As is par for the course with remakes of classic films like Hitchcock's "Rear Window", this made for television effort is not a shadow on the original.This particular re-working has updated the original premise to the modern era, and Christopher Reeve's bed-ridden voyeur is afforded the luxury of video surveillance and computer technology.
I knew this wasn't going be better than the original Sir Alfred Hitchcock/James Stewart version, but it is certainly a good attempt at remaking a classic.
Basically architect Jason Kemp (Golden Globe nominated Christopher Reeve) has a car accident, ending with him being paralysed, and after getting out of hospital he is placed in a wheelchair, and back in his large apartment.
From a dark and frightening film we shift in this remake to a plain action film with a cripple as the main character who is beautifully rendered by Christopher Reeve, but that is not enough to make a great film. |
tt0022458 | Tabu: A Story of the South Seas | Aged emissary Hitu arrives by Western sailing ship to the island of Bora Bora, a small island in the South Pacific, on an important mission. He bears a message from the chief of Fanuma to the chief of Bora Bora: a maiden sacred to their gods has died, and Reri has been given the great honour of replacing her because of her royal blood and virtue. From this point on, she is tabu: "man must not touch her or cast upon her the eye of desire" upon penalty of death. This is painful news to Reri and the young man Matahi, who love each other. Matahi cannot bear it. That night, he sneaks her off the ship, and the couple escape the island by outrigger canoe.
Eventually, they reach a French colony, half dead. They recover quickly, and Matahi becomes the community's most successful pearl diver. They are happy with their new life together. However, Matahi is unfamiliar with the concept of money, so he does not understand the bills he signs for drinks for everyone during a celebration.
The local policeman receives a notice from the French government announcing a reward for the return of the couple, but Matahi bribes him with his last pearl. Then, Hitu arrives on the island and sees Reri alone, informing her that she has three days to give herself up or Matahi will be put to death. Without telling Matahi of her meeting with Hitu, Reri decides they must flee once more. However, when Matahi goes to buy tickets on a schooner, the shopkeepers instead take the money as partial payment of his debt.
That night, Hitu returns with a spear. Reri first throws herself in front of the sleeping Matahi, then agrees to return to Bora Bora to save his life. When Matahi stirs, Reri pretends to be asleep. Matahi gets up and decides to get money by getting a pearl from a tabu region of the lagoon, a perilous place guarded by a shark that has already taken the life of one diver. While he is away, Reri writes a farewell note, and leaves with Hitu. Matahi manages to get a pearl while fending off the shark. When he returns, however, he finds the note. He swims after Hitu's boat. He manages to grab a rope trailing from the boat, unbeknownst to the sleeping Reri, but Hitu cuts it. Undaunted, Matahi continues swimming after them until he eventually tires and drowns. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | For discerning fans of classic filmmaking, the surviving work of director F.W. Murnau remains some of the most significant and stunning of the silent era.
Filmed entirely in Tahiti, `Tabu' would prove to be Murnau's last film (he died in a tragic car accident on March 11, 1931, just weeks before the film's premiere) and most unusual - he actually collaborated with director Robert Flaherty (`Nanook of the North') in this tale of two doomed lovers that unintentionally transports `Romeo and Juliet' into the South Pacific.
Unlike his landmark expressionist titles such as `Nosferatu' and `Faust,' Murnau's `Tabu' is set mostly outdoors and features dazzling images of beautiful young native men and women at home in their Polynesian paradise in the first part of the film, with haunting images used to chronicle tragedy and paradise lost in the second half of the 81 minute classic.Although no members of the cast were professional actors, the performances by Matahi (as a young pearl fisherman) and Reri (as the `tabu' island girl) are moving.
In fact, the film's luxurious black-and-white cinematography garnered cameraman Floyd Crosby an Oscar.
People with prejudice against silent films should see "Tabu"; it´s a masterpiece of cinema.
The storyline is superb, a struggle not between good and evil, but between human will and fate; there´s a beautiful love story of natives of the South Seas, mystery and suspense; and, to boot, some of the most wonderful sights you´ve ever seen in a b&w flick.
This is a unique blending of ethnographic documentary and expressionist drama, from two directors who were masters of these forms.The actors are real Polynesians and their ceremonies and rituals are faithfully captured, and interwoven with a tragic love story.
Murnau, away from his usual studio sets, manages to create the same sense of danger using natural light - especially moonlight - and real locations.The performances are very strong - especially Chevalier as the girl, and the old man is as scary as Nosferatu as he haunts her dreams at night.Sadly this was Murnau's last film - he died in a car crash just before the premiere.
Flaherty (of Nanook of the North (1922) fame), Tabu uses the beautiful, untouched landscape of the South Pacific and employs non- professional natives to tell the beautiful story of love found and lost, and ultimately the death of paradise.
Murnau died in an automobile accident shortly before the film's premiere and, thus, was his last gift to the movie-going world.
Though it doesn't come close to the iconic expressionist horror of Nosferatu (1922) or the dark, satirical humour of The Last Laugh (1924), Murnau's epitaph is a simple, yet heart- wrenching cinematic poem.The best spear-fisherman on Bora Bora is a handsome young man billed simply as The Boy (Matahi).
His legendary status and unparalleled skill makes him popular amongst the islanders, and soon he has caught the eye of The Girl (Reri - who went on to star on Broadway as Anne Chevalier).
The couple brave storm and sea to escape, an arrive in a French-colonised island, where Matahi start work as a pearl diver.
But their happiness is fleeting, and Reri is soon haunted by the image of Hitu, terrified she may have angered the gods.The plot is hardly anything new, but Floyd Crosby's Oscar-winning cinematography makes Tabu more socially aware that the film may have you believe.
It is one of the last great silent films, a reminder that sound can be an unnecessary distraction, and that picture's can sometimes genuinely speak louder than words.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com.
A teenage island native, played by a young man named Matahi, and his love interest, Reri (Anne Chevalier), live happily in a South Seas paradise, surrounded by lush tropical vegetation, waterfalls, and majestic mountains.
I guess that would be the one thing I would have changed.Even for viewers who don't care for silent films, "Tabu: A Story Of The South Seas" might be appreciated for its documentary style visuals.
For viewers familiar with silent cinema, this is a must-watch film, Director F.W. Murnau's last..
Heavy-handed "plot" about a doomed beauty on primitive Bora Bora who flees her island home and family with her lover, unable to escape her unlucky fate, is cast with real islanders so you cannot fault the authenticity; however, there's nobody in the film who leaves an impression.
The movie began life as a documentary, but director F.W. Murnau pushed for a fictional storyline to propel the visuals, and this may have been a mistake.
I saw this film just last night on a double bill with "Nosferatu." Considering that Nosferatu is a !*&@#%$ masterpiece, it was hard to compare this with the movie I just saw, plus my friend who was watching it with me was only thinking of "Mystery Science Theater" comments the whole time, but I had the mature response and I really liked this movie.
It may not be as good as "Sunrise," but it's one of the last great silent films, and also great as a semi-documentary of Polynesian life.
The south-seas love story could seem incredibly hackneyed, but the sensitive silent presentation makes it all seem believable.
The roles are played by actual villagers under their own names.This was originally going to be a documentary like Nanook of the North, but Murnau got so fascinated by Polynesian legends told by the locals that he decided to incorporate them into the story.
Nowadays we think anything so beautiful couldn't be genuine, but Murnau and Flaherty seem to have constructed an accurate document.The tragic love story has its parallel in real life, as Murnau was killed in a car-crash days after the film's completion.The MTV generation is better able to appreciate silent films than the 60's crowd, so I recommend to viewers interested in something different..
In one island of Bora Bora lagoon, a young fisherman, Matahi, is in love with Reri.
and then came a car accident that left us without another three or four decades of genius.On the bright side, cinematographer Floyd Crosby won an Academy Award for Best Cinematography for his work on this film.
In "Tabu", he uses the camera to tell a story without words -- body language and eye movement tell us almost everything we need to follow the plot.The film was not a box office success upon release, grossing just $472,000 worldwide, which failed to recoup Murnau and Paramount's investment.
Flaherty (the man who also made "Nanook of the North") was also at the helm but slowly got pushed away by F.W. Murnau as filming progressed.
It's the reason why the movie at times looks as if its a documentary about the natives and at others the movie follows obviously a story.
But having said that this is no way near close to being F.W. Murnau's best, says nothing about the quality of this actual film.
He was one of the most influential directors of the silent film era, even though this last movie doesn't fully does justice to this reputation.The movie just wasn't always much interesting to me.
The movie of course looks visually good and shows lot of the customs and lifestyle of the natives but the story just doesn't ever get off the ground.
This beautiful and simple story of a South Seas love and loss romance might be the last great silent from the era.
Along with City Lights (made the same year) it may well be credited as the apogee of the silent period even with the writing on the wall ( microphones in the plants) since 1927.On the island of Bora Bora experiencing the full bloom of youth and beauty a girl and boy find love.
FW Murnau's last film was fraught with budget and personality difficulties as he and his co-director Robert Flaherty did not see eye to eye.
Distilling to a native crew and relying on Floyd Crosby's outstanding capture of the island paradise, it's people and the unabashed joie de vivre of a life in the sun Murnau movingly follows his doomed duo stranded in Eden, hunted by a stoic resolve that builds to a dire crescendo.
Floyd Crosby's superb cinematography won him a richly deserved Oscar for F.W. Murnau's "Tabu".
love story of the kind we have become accustomed to hearing since love stories first were told; boy loves girl, girl loves boy but they can't be together because, in this case, the girl is decreed to be a sacred virgin by the island chief.The subtitle of the film is 'A Story of the South Seas' and Murnau, together with Robert Flaherty, made the film on the island of Bora Bora.
The cast is made up entirely of non-professionals; the leads are native islanders and if often feels like a documentary rather than a work of fiction.
Flaherty's documentary style with F.W. Murnau visual sensibilities.
W. Murnau's films are always interesting and amazing to watch.
But, for 1931, doing the film as a silent just seemed a bit old fashioned and out of date--something Murnau NEVER was when directing such classics as NOSFERATU, THE LAST LAUGH and FAUST.
While it does have a very interesting story, excellent on-location filming and nice music and sound effects, the film looks like it was made pre-1930 because there were no voices.
Plus, in 1928 (three years before TABU) a very similar film, WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS was made and Murnau's tale is of about equal quality..
Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas.
A tale of forbidden love, TABU is best-remembered today as legendary German director FW Murnau's last film - he was killed in a car accident only one week before its New York premiere.
Murnau had been working in Hollywood since the mid-1920s, and had already directed several films in the United States, but of these, only the famous SUNRISE (1927) was a success.
Only one scene directed by Flaherty remains in TABU - the opening spearfishing sequence - and sad to say, the quality of this scene is no match for Murnau's exquisite footage.
After a period of mutual discontent, Murnau bought out Flaherty, sent the entire Hollywood crew back to California, and took over the project completely - even training Tahitian natives in film-making techniques so he could employ the locals as his crew.
With the exception of Anne Chevalier - a local French/Tahitian woman whom Murnau discovered performing in a bar in Bora Bora - the entire cast and crew save Murnau and his cinematographer was made up of nonprofessionals.The film which resulted from this choice is a unique hybrid of documentary and fiction, with a mythic, fantasmatic air about it that is very hard to define - there is no other movie like TABU.
Certainly, the fact that we are watching actual Tahitian natives going about their daily business rather than professional actors lends the film a patina of authenticity and realism which makes it impossible to categorize TABU as some sort of Western-colonial-white people's fantasy of the South Seas - in fact, the film's depiction of tribal culture is quite complex and thought-provoking, as we will see...The plot of TABU is diagramatically simple - the idyllic lives of a Bora Bora fisherman (called Matahi) and his beloved, Reri (Anne Chevalier) are destroyed when tribal elders decree that Reri is so perfect a specimen of local womanhood that the gods have selected her for the honor of becoming their sacrificial victim.
Reri immediately becomes TABU - forbidden - to Matahi as she must come before the gods untouched by man.
Unfortunately, this particular island has been taken over by Western civilization and thus the innocent Matahi and Reri have to navigate some very unfamiliar and peculiar customs - like debt and credit.
The film's treatment of native culture is extremely complex - unlike the "noble savage" cliché so popular among Western audiences and seen most recently in AVATAR, Murnau's Bora Bora seems like Eden on the surface, but is governed by a rigid code of conduct which squashes individuality and personality.
Matahi and Reri's innocent love is doomed from the beginning, as they are caught between two worlds and unable to find a place in either.
TABU is in many ways a terrifying film, where pure love is doomed in the face of money and authority, and even the gorgeous purity of the Tahitian Islands seems tainted by human greed and foolishness.
This masterpiece will haunt you for a long time after you have seen it, partly because of the riveting story, and partly because of the exquisite cinematography by Floyd Crosby, who deservedly won an Academy Award for his efforts.
An Innocent and Tragic Love Story in the South Seas.
But Matahi abducts and escapes with her to an island ruled by the white man, were their gods would be harmless and powerless.Chapter 2 - Lost Paradise: Matahi is an excellent diver, getting many pearls from the bottom of the ocean, but he does not know the meaning of money, promoting a feast to the villagers and signing the bills the smart Chinese businessman presents to him.
However, the Chinese charges the bill and Matahi, without any money, goes to a forbidden sea with sharks trying to get a huge pearl to pay for his debts and escape with Reri.
But Matahi swims after their boat, dying of exhaustion in the sea."Tabu: a Story of the South Seas" is an innocent and tragic love story.
The film-makers say at the outset that the cast consists entirely of South Sea Islanders, some Chinese, and "half-breeds." The story is a tragedy set in the "untouched" paradise of Rora-Rora.
Matahi, a handsome youth gifted at spearfishing, pearl diving, and everything else, is in love with Reri (Ann Chevalier), but then she's chosen to be the next maiden whose task and honour it is to attend the gods.
Reri writes a note telling Matahi she's going with Hitu to save his life; at the same time he dives on a tabu reef, battles the shark that protects the place, and finds a rare dark pearlbut Reri's gone.
Anna Chevalier (Reri, the young girl), Matahi (the young man), Hitu (old warrior), Jean (policeman), Jules (captain), Ah Fong (Chinese trader).Written, produced and directed by F.
Filmed over a period of 18 months in the South Seas, on the islands of Bora Bora and Takapota, "Tabu" is a silent film, with a synchronized music score and sound effects.Flaherty disclaims the film.
Basically, a silent film, it was fleshed out with sound effects and a wonderful music score by Hugo Riesenfeld.
"Buddy" Erickson.When producer William Fox decided to expand the dialogue content of City Girl, Murnau left the production and Buddy Erickson took over the direction.Murnau then formed a partnership with the famous documentary film- maker, Bob Flaherty.
Together they journeyed to the South Seas, to the island of Bora Bora, then untouched by the "advances" of civilization.
They wrote a simple but emotive script that brilliantly utilized their surroundings and commenced filming with an all-native cast, headed by the lovely Anna Chevalier (who is actually billed as "Reri" to disguise her French parentage).At some stage, Murnau and Flaherty had a serious disagreement.
Murnau completed the film by himself, then took the rushes back to Hollywood where he supervised the editing in collaboration with his friend, Edgar G.
Murnau set sail for Bora Bora in 1929 to produce what would be his last film.
It differs from actual silent era films with synchronized musical/sound-effects scores in that it survives virtually unknown without its RCA-Photophone soundtrack..
Absolutely stunning and sumptuous in every way, this shows the every day play and work of the happy go lucky south sea natives and the growing love between a young man and girl, threatened to be separated forever when it is commanded by the order of the local chief that she be made the honorary virgin of the volcano, untouched by man.
Any attempts to take away the virgin or deflower her is a curse for all, but young love, even among the superstitious allows no such circumstance to be separated, putting the two on the run for their lives.Ending up on a nearby port, the two lovers do their best to hide from those looking for them, even having fun in a modern native dance, nothing like they've ever seen before.
This is F.W. Murnau's masterpiece, filled with reminders of the dangers these free loving people faced, through nature, through superstition, through chance.
The Kino DVD features an extremely memorable musical score that really helps the emotions of the film tell the story until its completion..
Tabu: A Story of the South Seas.
This was one of the titles listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I knew nothing about it, but having this recommendation I was willing to give this silent film a go and hope for the best, from director F.W. Murnau (Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horrors, The Last Laugh, Sunrise), his last film before his death.
Basically, set on an island of Bora Bora lagoon, the maiden sacred to their gods has died and has been replaced by The Girl (Anne Chevalier), and young fisherman The Boy (Matahi) is in love with her, and vice versa, despite the fact that she must stay untouched.
She is tabu (taboo), and if this rule about touching is broken she and her lover will be killed, but they go against the law of The Old Warrior (Hitu) and escape to an island ruled white men, where their gods do not rule over them.
I will confess that I found it a bit difficult to follow, apart from the basic forbidden love story, but all the culture disputes and activities or events going on I slipped in and out with, it certainly looks good though with the locations, so I suppose it is not a bad silent drama. |
tt0114376 | The Secretary | Jerry is taking his mother's fur coat and his jacket to dry cleaning. George is going to hire a secretary; he says he'll pass over attractive women so he can concentrate on his work. He hires Ada, (Vicki Lewis) a very efficient secretary.
Kramer is in need of moisturizer with ultraviolet light absorber. Elaine bought a dress on sale at Barney's because it looked great in their mirrors, but now it looks awful. She thinks they are using "skinny mirrors" which make people look thinner. She wants to return the dress.
Jerry, Elaine and Kramer go to the movies. Kramer meets Uma Thurman and writes her phone number on Jerry's dry cleaning ticket. Jerry thinks he saw Willie, the dry cleaner, wearing his jacket at the movies. George and his secretary, Ada, feel attracted to each other and have sex at work. During sex, George accidentally screams: "I'm giving you a raise!" When George talks to Jerry about this problem, Jerry suggests George have sex with her again and 'take it back.'
At Barney's, Elaine and Kramer return the dress. Kramer has bought the moisturizer he wanted, and Elaine tries on another dress. At the store Kenny Bania (Steve Hytner) is looking for a new suit ("The Soup"), and he purchases Kramer's garments for $300. George goes to talk to George Steinbrenner to give Ada the raise he promised. Jerry confronts the dry cleaner about wearing his clothes. Jerry demands his mother's fur coat and the dry cleaner pauses looking to the side implying that it is not there. The dry cleaner asks for the ticket but Kramer has it so Jerry cannot pick up the coat.
Kramer is left in underwear in the women's dressing room. He tells Elaine to ask Jerry for clothes. Elaine goes outside the store looking for an unbiased mirror. Jerry asks Kramer for the ticket; however, it was left in Kramer's trousers which are now in Bania's possession. Kenny Bania wants his money back because the suit he bought from Kramer is stained by the moisturizer. Jerry only cares about the ticket, so he agrees to pay Bania two meals in exchange. However, both the dry cleaning number and Uma Thurman's phone are washed out. Then, Jerry spots Donna, the dry cleaner's wife, wearing his mother's fur coat.
As it turned out Steinbrenner gave Ada a $25,000 raise, which makes Ada's earnings greater than George's. Elaine is forced to buy the dress because she wore it outside the store. Kramer wears Jerry's mother's fur coat.
Again having dinner at Mendy's with Jerry, Bania orders a soup. Bania wrote the telephone number from the ticket before it was washed out; he got a date with this "Uma", and he hopes she is good looking. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0407536 | The Aryan Couple | (Warning Spoilers)
Joseph Krauzenberg (Martin Landau) is a very wealthy Hungarian Jewish industrial tycoon whose fortune is mirrored in the great palaces he owns. However, by 1944 his important businesses are needed by the Nazis and Hitler's 'Final Solution' is sweeping through Europe.
The Nazis are greedy to accumulate wealth as easily as possible, and under the terms of the Third Reich's "Europa Plan", Krauzenberg arranges with Nazi leaders to exchange his fortune, his business holdings (textile plants, steel mills, ownership of several banks) and a collection of rare art for safe passage to Switzerland for himself, his wife Rachel (Judy Parfitt), and their family. As the night of transaction approaches, Krauzenberg visits his large family being held by the Gestapo, and reassures them that all will be safe.
Such is Krauzenberg's wealth and power that when he agrees to sign over his property, it is two of the most powerful men in the Nazi regime who announce they will be coming to his house to handle the paperwork – Adolf Eichmann (Steven Mackintosh) and Heinrich Himmler (Danny Webb).
However, as the Nazi leaders are ushered into Krauzenberg's home, they are struck by something unusual – his two most trusted servants, Hans Vassmann (Kenny Doughty) and his wife Ingrid (Caroline Carver) are a married Aryan couple who, despite the law, are still working for Jews.
As it happens, Eichmann and Himmler's suspicions are well-founded – despite appearing to be the perfect Aryan couple, Hans and Ingrid are actually Jews working deep undercover with the underground Resistance. Young, married, in love and expecting their first child, they work as valet and maid for the elderly Jewish couple. They have everything to look forward to or so they would have believed.
In a sub-plot one of the officers, Edelhein (Christopher Fulford), the most repulsive of the group, pursues Ingrid Vassman – despite her pregnancy – as a perfect foil for implanting his precious seed in the 'Aryan beauty' to populate the new Germany.
As they serve the Nazis in their secret mission, Hans and Ingrid toy with the idea that they should kill Eichmann and Himmler for the greater good, even if it would mean certain death for the Krauzenbergs and themselves. Instead, the Vassmans, place their fate in the hands of the Krauzenbergs, to whom they express their admiration for and they end up ultimately confessing that they are Jewish and wish to escape with them, Nothing can be done immediately – "if we had known we could have placed you on the list of people to come with us".
On his way to the plane that is to take him and his family to the safety of Switzerland, Josef Krauzenberg makes a unknown deal with a German Captain, called Dressler. Dressler then deceives Eichmann, thus giving the Vassmans the means to escape.
In the final climactic scene, the Vassmans are confronted at the last checkpoint before Switzerland by Edelhein, who has discovered Dressler's treachery and has pursued them for the so-called murder of a German soldier, and of course for being Jews. However, the Reichsfuhrer himself, hearing of the events, and wanting to avoid any bloodshed that could reveal his plot concerning the Krauzenbergs to a wider audience, has sent word that they should be allowed to pass freely and safely. Angered that he has lost his chance to 'plant his seed' in Ingrid, Edelhein, regardless of the Reichsfuhrer's orders, attempts to stop them passing. This results in his demise at the hands of the commanding Major, who shoots him dead before he manages to harm them.
The film ends with the couple being reunited safely in Switzerland with the Krauzenbergs. | murder | train | wikipedia | In 1944, in Hungary, the wealthy Jewish industrialist Joseph Krauzenberg (Martin Landau) is forced by the Reichführer Heinrich Himmler (Danny Webb) to deliver his 3,000 employee factory; his palace with his collection of antiques and arts; a large amount in gold; and his house to the Reich.
Himmler schedules a dinner with Krauzenberg and his wife Rachel Krauzenberg (Judy Parfitt) to sign the contract and orders the butcher Eichmann (Steven Mackintosh) to not do harm to the imprisoned Jews relatives of Krauzenberg.
Himmer also send the SS Edelhein (Christopher Fulford) to check the security of the palace and the two German house servants of Krauzenberg, Hans Vassman (Kenny Doughty) and his beautiful pregnant wife Ingrid Vassman (Caroline Carver).
Martin Landau is fantastic as usual and Ms. Judy Parfitt has the best lines confronting Himmler.
The realistic negotiation of Joseph Krauzenberg with the Germans to save his family and the corruption of Dresler are unusual themes in this type of war movie that is unfortunately underrated in IMDb. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Contrato Arriscado" ("Risky Contract").
The Aryan Couple is a film that covers a story and general subject matter without the respect nor attention they both deserve.
Directed by now deceased John Daly, he of mostly producing credit fame; the film adopts a somewhat flimsy, 'point and shoot' aesthetic running on what appears to be a film stock more akin to the whatever format they used in the 1980s for shooting specifically made-for TV, usually police orientated, serial dramas.The film sees elderly, wealthy Jewish Hungarian Joseph Krauzenberg (Landau), and his family of various generations, come up against the Nazi war machine whom observe this successful Jewish businessman and naturally, want in.
As it happens, there're some incidences in which this is used to get across a scrap of dramatic weight; but the real story going on here is that which relates to the title: an Aryan couple whom work for the Krauzenberg family and are secretly working for the resistance; so secretly in fact, that their employers know nothing of it.
Where, maybe a series of text might have been more efficient informing us of necessary statistics and actions that were going in at the time, in the area; Daly throws a series of scenes at us in which dramatic shots of death camps and cattle trains accompanied by the necessary music are the order of the day; on one particular occasion, a tracking shot towards an oven as the looming, brooding sound effects crank it up a level.
From the off, the film lays out its hand; telling us to feel the pain and the emotion which comes with this sort of subject material rather than allowing us to naturally arrive at this point in our own time as the film tragically progresses.Following the premature bombardment of some of this content, the film will cut to a train station and use a second manipulation cue, in that it provides us with a Nazi guard on the platform tossing a child's toy onto the coal carriage located just behind the engine – obviously lost or dropped following the ensuing chaos of herding those 'guilty' of Judaism onto a cattle train.
It's this somewhat sickly identification the film makes with the fact there are children involved, which again, begs us to fast-track emotion and feel the pain and emotional anxiety which almost certainly comes when better films are executing similar subject matter in a more efficient manner.
The Aryan couple of the title are Hans Vassmann (Doughty) and his wife Ingrid (Carver), two people whom it is established are 'doing their bit' in smuggling in the necessary items required to run a resistance outlet at the Krauzenberg's huge home.
It would seem the film-makers were worrying a little too much about audience accessibility to the piece than giving a more authentic experience for the rest of us.The film maintains a pretty desperate sense that it wants to tug at those heart strings more often than not, thus encompassing some pretty melodramatic acting accompanied by some daftly executed scenes; best highlighted in the instance when some family heirlooms are handed over to the Aryan couple in a 'thank you' gesture.
Some Nazi officers carry scars on their faces to emphasise evilness; most of the lines at the more tense of times are representative of peculiar screen writing and are delivered in the worst of fashions: "We will never be forgotten" a character states at one point around a dinner table, over a rousing musical score, but we're not involved enough to feel anything; while a moral predicament two people question each other over seems half-baked and lacking in any sort of real dramatic effect.
The Aryan Couple is quite the little cinematic misfire; a floundering mess of an adaptation of what is a supposedly true story of something which deserved better..
Despite the fact that there have been many good films about the Holocaust, the Nazi manipulated genocide of the Jews in World War II, there is enough room for a new perspective to that hideous period in history to make THE COUPLE a welcome addition to the repertoire.
Written by Director John Daly based on a story by Kendrew Lascelles this film reveals a little known bit of history that shows that the Nazis allowed the wealthy Jews to 'buy their freedom and lives' at enormous losses.
And the key Nazi, at least in this story, is none other than Himmler.Joseph Krauzenberg (Martin Landau) is a very wealthy German Jewish industrial tycoon whose fortune is mirrored in his palaces that are more like museums of great art.
But in the year 1944 his important steel mills and other major industries are needed by the Nazis and so a plan is hatched to offer Krauzenberg, his wife Rachel (Judy Parfitt) and his considerable family the opportunity to escape death by allowing them to leave Germany for Switzerland and ultimately for Palestine.
The only servants the Krauzenbergs maintain are the Vassmans - Ingrid (Caroline Carver) and Hans (Kenny Doughty) - an Aryan couple who in reality work for the Underground and are actually Jews under strong cover.Eichmann (Steven Mackintosh) and Himmler (Danny Webb) are perpetrating the plan to gain all of the wealth and lands and homes and art of the Krauzenbergs and they attend a dinner party at the Krauzenberg palace to sign the final papers.
In a fast paced finale the trials and tribulations of the final plan are worked through in a somewhat surprising way.THE COUPLE is beautifully photographed (the film was shot in Poland despite the fact that the Krauzenberg estates were in Hungary) and the mood of evil is always present in the night scenes with the requisite searchlights penetrating the darkness.
But the overall impact of the film is the focus of the evil that drove the Nazi machine, even with this slight bit of human kindness that was bestowed on the Krauzenberg family at such an awful cost.
None of the film's creators seemingly bothered to check on WHICH side of Jews' (under the Nazi Germans) clothing the Star of David was demanded!
John Daly second film as a director is a gem , outstanding performances by a talented cast led by Martin Landau & a sharp tongued Judy Parafit the story has interesting sub plots that leave the audience twisting and turning to the final conclusion .
I highly recommend this film based on real events of the Europa project during WWII in which a rich Jewish industrialist played by Landau seeks a way out of Nazi infested Hungary by trading his fortune for freedom of his entire family and a plane to Palistine .
There are few films that involve an audience so much that one feels the pressure, tension, anxiety, and utter fear the characters portray in the story.
Kenny Doughty and Caroline Carver play the title role of a pair of gentile house servants to a wealthy Jewish couple, Martin Landau and Judy Parfitt.
Landau is some concern to the Third Reich which is now both at war with the world and just getting into the business of exterminating Jews.
The Nazi dilemma is to get them to hand over control and maybe let them live, emigrate to Palestine as part of the bargain.Danny Webb plays Heinrich Himmler and he'd love to get control of the industrial concern for the S.S. and get to be number two in the regime maybe displace rivals, Borrman, Goebbels, Speer, and Goering.
The Aryan Couple of the title really contributes nothing to the essential part of the story..
This type of film, English actors speaking with Southern English accents dressed up in Nazi uniforms, acting beastly, together with extras who have been told to act glum have been artfully brought together in one film - the director shoots the sequences as if he's following the pages of a cartoon book.
The true story deserves to be produced on film by people who respect the trauma that real people endured and their heroic efforts to survive those times.
There are films that convincingly portray the period, notably the Russian film 'Come and See'the German film 'Europa Europa' the Hungarian film 'Zelary.' Even films in which English displaces the language used in the original story can be credible, because the Director and Actors are talented, for example, 'The Pianist' and 'Schindler's List.'What would be the motives of the people who brought this story to the screen?
Another in the string of "Holocaust" movies released in recent years, "The Aryan Couple" is a fictionalized account of a wealthy Jewish couple buying their way out of Germany in 1944 in return for handing over all of their wealth to the Nazis, represented in this film by Himmler and Eichmann along with a number of subordinates - some repulsive and some more sympathetic.
Martin Landau had the lead role as Jewish industrialist Joseph Krauzenberg - desperate to get his family out of Germany before they end up being sent to Auschwitz or Treblinka.
Added into the mix are the Krauzenberg's "Aryan" servants Hans and Ingrid, who are really a Jewish couple working for the resistance who also need to be spirited out of Germany before their real identities are discovered.The movie attempts to reveal part of the somewhat shadowy plan to exchange Jews for cash (the so-called "Europa Plan.") In that it sheds a bit of light on a piece of the Holocaust that hasn't really received very much attention over the years.
It tends to plod along for the most part, until moments of extremely high tension suddenly appear (such as the dinner at the Krauzenberg home attended by Eichmann and Himmler which included a wonderful performance by Judith Parfitt, who played Rachel Krauzenberg, as she displayed her completely undisguised contempt for her Nazi guests), the revelation of Hans and Ingrid's true identities and their eventual escape into Switzerland.
Sometimes, though, it seemed to me as if director John Daly was trying too hard to raise the tension in those dramatic scenes, almost as if to compensate for the relative lack of drama in the rest of the movie.This is certainly worth watching because it does deal with a little known aspect of the Holocaust, but in no other way could it really be considered a great movie.
They struggled valiantly throughout, but even with the obviously good skills of both, ( Kenny Doughty, Caroline Carver) this old fashioned dinosaur of a film struggled to get going.
The actors playing the NAZI soldiers did a good job showing the cold disregard and hatred that Nazis had for anyone but their own.Martin Landau did a very good job playing Krauzenberg.
The music is typical for this type of movie.The actor that played Himmler did a very good job with this role.
It did help that he bore a striking resemblance to Himmler.Overall this is good period piece that reminds us of the events of the Nazis and JEWS during WWII..
People that have absolutely no idea what a good story, or good acting is, trying to make a movie.
It is a real shame when so many people, particularly the director, (who produced the classic Oscar winning "Platoon" among others) think they know how to make a film, but don't bother with a STORY!
The script was incredible.The story was extremely engaging.The actors did wonderful, in-depth jobs.The editing ruined it all.
I'd just give several pieces of historical information to keep in mind before watching the film:During World War II, it wasn't an option to shut up and look German.
If you happened to find an escape option, it wouldn't include a Nazi escort with fanfare.Hitler's ideology makes him highly unsuitable to sit and have a sophisticated dinner with a Jewish family.
Please, remember this during the second half of the movie.Escaping as a Jew from Germany or any occupied territory was close to impossible.
The person who wrote the script and directed the movie wanted a dramatic effect, but - it seems to me - was less interested in a historic research.I watched dozens of Holocaust movies and documentaries.
I even watched a movie in which a girl opened the door of her home and was suddenly transported into the past of World War II.
but the good acting - Martin Landau is the first example - and the science to explore the Nazi system in different manner.
and that does it a decent film, against the too polite image of Nazi leaders, against the too optimistic perspective about the manner to escape .
I find it very hard to trow my self in to the movie knowing that a bunch of English actors with there Scottish accents are playing the part of a Fürher etc.But despite the fact the are English it was a very realistic movie with a flow of drama action and occasionally a bit of dark humor (not that I am a Nazi lover ore something).it's just a great family movie where you can think and talk about afterward and it stays in your head for a couple of days and you will probably have something like...
This movie was entertaining, I think some people may have been confused between who Reich Furor Himmler and the Furor, Adolf Hitler were.
I don't think you really need to be concerned with the accuracy of the historical accuracy, rather the story is what is well done and the fact that the Nazi's just took what they wanted from even the most powerful Jews - it's like the US Govt telling Bill Gates to sign over everything to them and they'll let him leave - it's messed up.
I was entertained, but if you're looking for a Schindler's list type movie, this is probably not it.
The acting and the scene making reminds me on a cheap Rosamunde Pilcher filming in German TV, just with the difference that it is about the Holocaust.
The Holocaust deserves proper movies like Schindlers List or The Pianist.
Perhaps this won't make it past the review board at IMDb.com.There are far too many brilliant and beautifully executed films based on the German persecution of the Jew and unfortunately this one misses the mark completely.
If you want 100 accuracy you need to watch a documentary not a fictional movie..
"The Aryan Couple" is one of that stories.Seductive and childish, beautiful and strange, about price of freedom and food for emotions, romance and thriller, with a spectacular cast, it is precise definition of good and evil and gift for any form of hope.
The events are only shadows and the Nazis - cartoons.Not a great movie but a delicious trip to a lost age.
'Martin Landau (qv)' giving his usual all as Jewish-Hungarian industrialist Joseph Krauzenberg can't make up for the patchy character development elsewhere - what there is of it.
'Judy Parfitt (qv)' as his wife Rachel throws out token lines of accusation and irony one would expect from an adolescent when a stony silence from such a part would send cheap gangster Heinrich Himmler ('Danny Webb (qv)') to the corner, hanging his head in shame.And these heavyweight characters are just the background for the title characters, who work as the Krauzenberg's butler and maid.
'Kenny Doughty (qv)' doesn't overcome his title character's limits; virtually anyone else in the cast could have played the part.For that matter, Daly's casting veteran British and Irish stage actors to play Nazi Germans and Jewish Holocaust victims is old hat, and a classic mark of a limited budget.
Movies are about the audience not seeing through it.All in all, it's sadly obvious Daly's real project wasn't this story; it was his curiosity at trying his hand at directing.
This film could have been great, if only someone had made the effort to pay attention to details, and make the dialogue a little more realistic.First of all, the existence and purpose of Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Treblinka were top secret, and even the average German was unaware of them.Absolutely no one knew anything about any gas chambers or crematoriums, not at that time.So, how could the Krautzenbergs boldly discuss such matters with Heinrich Himmler and Adolph Eichmann?
This movie steered clear of the depressing realities of the holocaust, which were more than ably depicted in Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful, and focused on the greed of the Nazis and the ability of some Jews to use this greed to their advantage.
If you're a Nazi film buff, this movie is unmissable..
As a history buff I was amazed by the evolving plot where Himmler saves the rich Jewish Krauzenberg family, in order to take over their fast fortune.
Playing with the horrible holocaust story in this particular us distasteful, IMHO.So, th eplt was, after all, imlausible.Martin Landau did an excellent job as Josef Krauzenberg, and so did his "wife" Judy Parfitt.
Kenny Daughty and Caroline Carver looked far too British when they tried to portray the young Jewish couple masquerading as German Aryans in Hungary |
tt0770772 | I Think I Love My Wife | Richard Cooper (Chris Rock) is a happily married and professionally successful man. He is perfectly content with his home life in suburban New York with his lovely wife Brenda (Gina Torres), a teacher, and his two young children. There is one problem in his marriage: their sex life has stagnated, leaving Richard frustrated and sex-starved. At one point, Brenda accuses Richard of being on the down-low. During those dull days at the office, he occasionally fantasizes about other women, but never acts upon his impulses.
An encounter with an attractive old friend, Nikki (Kerry Washington), suddenly casts doubt over his typically resilient self-control. At first she claims to just want to be his friend, but she begins to show up consistently at his Manhattan financial office just to talk or have lunch, which causes his boss, secretaries, and peers to view him with varying degrees of contempt. When Nikki begins to deliberately seduce Richard, he does not know what to do. Against his better judgment, he flies with her out of town for one day on an errand, where he is beaten by her boyfriend. Then he returns too late to make a sales presentation at an important business meeting, causing the loss of a lucrative contract. Later, when she and her fiancé are about to move to Los Angeles, Nikki asks Richard to come to her apartment later to say a "proper goodbye". When he gets to Nikki's apartment, he finds her in her underwear in her bathroom. In the moments before it seems Richard will consummate his attraction to Nikki, he realizes how grave the loss of his wife and children would be, so he walks out on Nikki. Richard returns home, surprising his wife, and, for the first time in the film, they begin to rebuild a genuine rapport, with a possible promise of good things to come. | pornographic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0043288 | Anne of the Indies | After seizing a British ship, the barefoot, female pirate captain Anne Providence (Jean Peters) spares Pierre LaRochelle (Louis Jourdan), a Frenchman captured by the British, from walking the plank. He agrees to join Providence's crew and soon she begins to fall for the handsome officer.
They travel to an island where they meet with her pirate mentor Captain Blackbeard (played by Thomas Gomez), who takes an instant dislike to LaRochelle although he, at first, holds back as he can see Anne has affection for him. Blackbeard eventually realises he has seen LaRochelle before in the French navy when a pirate was hanged. When he reveals this, LaRochelle claims he has left the French navy. Anne believes him, but when Blackbeard attacks him, she defends him and sends Blackbeard and his men away, making an enemy of Blackbeard. It eventually transpires that LaRochelle is working for the British as they have captured his ship, and he has a wife. He betrays Anne to the British who attack her ship. Anne escapes and takes his wife hostage. The British do not return LaRochelle's ship to him, as they did not capture Anne, so LaRochelle gets a ship of his own to go after Anne. In a battle, LaRochelle's ship is destroyed and he is captured. Anne then maroons LaRochelle and his wife on a remote island to die. She sails away, but a few days later her conscience compels her to return with provisions and a small boat. As she does so she is attacked by Blackbeard; instead of fleeing, to stop Blackbeard from finding LaRochelle she stays and fights, even though her ship is no match. Her ship is destroyed, and she is killed. | violence, action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0096708 | Tales from the Crypt | Five strangers go with a tourist group to view old catacombs. Separated from the main group, they find themselves in a room with the mysterious Crypt Keeper (Ralph Richardson), who details how each of the strangers may die.
… And All Through the House (The Vault of Horror #35)
After Joanne Clayton (Joan Collins) kills her husband (Martin Boddey) on Christmas Eve, she prepares to hide his body but hears a radio announcement stating that a homicidal maniac (Oliver MacGreevy) is on the loose. She sees the killer (who is dressed in a Santa Claus costume) outside her house but cannot call the police without exposing her own crimes.
Believing the maniac to be Santa, Joanne's young daughter (Chloe Franks) unlocks the door and lets him into the house, whereupon he starts to strangle Joanne to death.
Reflection of Death (Tales from the Crypt #23)
Carl Maitland (Ian Hendry) abandons his family to be with Susan Blake (Angela Grant). After they drive off together, they are involved in a car accident. He wakes up in the wrecked car and attempts to hitch-hike home, but no one will stop for him. Arriving at his house, he sees his wife (Susan Denny) with another man.
He knocks on the door, but she screams and slams the door. He then goes to see Susan to find out that she is blind from the accident. She says that Carl died two years ago from the crash. Looking in a reflective tabletop he sees he has the face of a corpse. Carl then wakes up and finds out that it was a dream but the moment he does, the crash occurs as it did before.
Poetic Justice (The Haunt of Fear No. 12, March–April 1952)
Edward Elliott (David Markham) and his son James (Robin Phillips) are a snobbish pair who resent their neighbour, dust man Arthur Grimsdyke (Peter Cushing) who owns a number of animals and entertains children in his house. To get rid of what they see as a blight on the neighbourhood, they push Grimsdyke into a frenzy by conducting a smear campaign against him, first resulting in the removal of his beloved dogs (one of them came back to him), persuading a member of the council to have him removed from his job, and later exploiting parents' paranoiac fears about child molestation.
On Valentine's Day, James sends Grimsdyke a number of poison-pen Valentines, supposedly from the neighbours, driving the old man to suicide. One year later, Grimsdyke comes back from the dead and takes revenge on James: the following morning, Edward finds his son dead with a note that says he was bad and that he had no heart-- the word "heart" represented by James's heart, torn from his body.
Wish You Were Here (The Haunt of Fear #22, November–December 1953), is a variation on W. W. Jacobs' famed short story "The Monkey's Paw."
Ineffective businessman Ralph Jason (Richard Greene) is close to financial ruin. His wife Enid (Barbara Murray) discovers a Chinese figurine that says it will grant three wishes to whoever possesses it; Enid decides to wish for a fortune; surprisingly, it comes true. However, Ralph is killed on the way to his lawyer's office to collect it. The lawyer (Roy Dotrice) then advises Enid she will inherit a fortune from her deceased husband's life insurance plan. She uses her second wish to bring him back to the way he was just before the accident but learns that his death was due to a heart attack (caused by fright when he sees the figure of "death" following him on a motorcycle).
As she uses her final wish to bring him back alive and to live forever, she discovers that he was embalmed. She tries to kill him to end his pain but because she wished him to live forever, every bit of him is alive. She has now trapped him in eternal pain.
Blind Alleys (Tales from the Crypt No. 46, February–March 1955)
Major William Rogers (Nigel Patrick), the new incompetent director of a home for the blind (making up mostly of elderly and middle-aged men), makes drastic financial cuts, reducing heat and rationing food for the residents, while he lives in luxury with his dog Shane, a German Shepherd. When he ignores complaints and a man dies due to the cold, the blind residents, led by the stone-faced George Carter (Patrick Magee) exact an equally cruel revenge.
After Carter and his group subdue the staff, they lure and trap Major Rogers as well as his dog in two separate rooms in the basement. The blind men then begin constructing in the basement a maze of narrow corridors, some of them lined with razor blades. They starve the Major's dog, then place the Major in the maze's centre and turn off the lights. As the major attempts to escape, cutting himself and bleeding, the inmates release the starving dog...
After completing the final tale, the Crypt Keeper reveals that he was not warning them of what would happen, but telling them what had happened; they have all "died without repentance". Clues to this twist can be spotted throughout the film, including Joan Collins' character wearing the brooch her husband had given her for Christmas just before she killed him. The door to Hell opens, and the visitors all enter. "And now… who is next?" asks the Crypt Keeper, turning to face the camera. "Perhaps you?" (The earlier Amicus anthology Torture Garden featured a similar ending, breaking the fourth wall). | paranormal, comedy, gothic, murder | train | wikipedia | It had EVERYTHING; humor, horror, drama, and an amazing, original host to start each episode off: The Cryptkeeper.There may be other shows that are similar, but none will ever have anything like the Cryptkeeper.
Each episode begins by descending into what appears to be a haunted house, where we get introduced to the delightfully creepy Crypt Keeper.
Then, each episode tells a story involving a really nasty situation; some involve monsters, others involve people doing really unpleasant things, but they all make one laugh.
Nonetheless, it's very entertaining because of the effective mix of comedy, suspense, horror and originality.You only get six stories from this opening (1989) season of horror-comedy on cable television, but at a fairly cheap price, the DVD set still is well worth it.
(most of which seem to involve betraying lovers for some odd reason) Although some episodes are so far out there they come off as being lame at times I can't help but love them.
Every episode is like it's own little horror movie.
Thats all I have to say about this series and as the crypt keeper would say "Good night boils and ghouls.".
It was like the Twilight Zone, but with a strong horror theme (although not all the time), and without the pretentious feel.
OK, the Cryptkeeper, I remember him fondly, as I knew whenever I say him I knew he'd be preceded by a great tale of horror.
OK maybe in the first short season, it wasn't as apparent as the superb later seasons would be, but this did lay the groundwork (side note: none of the tales in the first 6 episodes of this series actually came from the "Tales From the Crypt" comic series technically).
Not to say this season wasn't good, quite the opposite as the maniac Santa story of "And all through the House" and the black comedic "Collection Completed" are classic episodes, even if the other 4 are not really up to snuff.
Even the second season would get so much better by leaps and bounds.My Season one grade: BSeason 1 Extras: New introduction from a now heavily bandaged Cryptkeeper; the cool "Tales from the Crypt: From Comic Books to Television" documentary and the not nearly as cool 5 and a half minute "Crypt Keeper's History Of Season 1".
Each episode is stand-alone, and with this series in particular the 30 minute time frame flies right by...leading you to watch another!
Not time consuming.Horror fans (especially), but also fans of comedy, or just plain old fashioned (sometimes simple minded even cheesy) storytelling will get a kick out of this series.
It's hard to rate it as an entire series, because the episodes went from really bad, to excellent.
I've always loved horror anthology shows, but almost all of them fit into one of these three categories: 1) mediocre knockoff of The Twilight Zone (Circle of Fear, The Hitchhiker); 2) inspired spin on The Twilight Zone (Black Mirror, either version of The Outer Limits); or 3) The Twilight Zone.Tales from the Crypt seems so fresh, in part, because it's aiming for something different; as a live-action reimagining of classic horror comic books, it's closer to, say, the Creepshow movies than to One Step Beyond.
Tales from the Crypt is a series that ran for a full seven seasons, with the last one being entirely filmed in the UK.
Each episode has a dark story of love, hate, pain, death or a mix of any of the above with a little twist of dark humour thrown in for good measure.This show proves that a low budget and cheesy monsters cannot ruin great writing, fantastic acting and naughty hidden gags.If you choose to take my advice and watch this programme, you will find many huge names making early appearances.
But most importantly EC comics showed that the horror tradition is here to stay.This show is my fifth favorite anthology horror TV show, one of my favorite live action comic book adaptations as it is done right because it keeps true to the spirit of the classic EC horror comics, but most importantly one of my favorite TV shows.I've seen this show when I was about 12 to 13 years old, I was highly into anthology horror and this show and this show caught my eye and I never even knew about the existence of the EC comics at the time.I love the horror host "The Cryptkeeper", the design is great, the puppeteering and animatronics are all on cue.
This guy is just hilarious as he has some of the best lines as well as puns that are so deliciously bad their good.The music is great, I really love the theme song which is one of my favorite theme songs of all time composed by one of my favorite composers "Danny Elfman".
I remember as a kid always pretending I'm the person running forward as the camera was in motion.Effects are fantastic, this show has some of the best gore effects I've ever seen and is something I've never seen in any horror anthology show.
It really went to show that this show wasn't messing around it was going to go all the way.The stories are great and memorable (as well as well know producers, directors, writers, and actors to boot), I like that they keep not just the gruesome beauty of the comics but also the morality tale aspect intact as to me, "Tales from the Crypt" and the other EC Comics series to me were our modern folklore, Brothers Grimm, a somewhat twisted version of Assops Fables.
Though also what makes them stand out are the humor which is really dark but it works, just like in the comic stories they don't take themselves too seriously and give the horror a bit of a strange lighthearted sensibility but maintaining it's dark side at the same time.
And of course my favorite is "Carron Death" which is suspenseful and darkly funny as a psycho is chained and forced to drag a body to his destination, little knowing it could be his final destination.So come to the Crypt you in good company.Rating: 4 stars.
Based upon the comic books of the fifties, the cryptkeeper invites you to 93 tales of terror, sex, violence, and twists.
All Seven seasons are currently available on DVD(finally)and are more than worth viewing for anyone from the most die-hard horror fans to appreciators of really good television..
I can remember the little cryptkeeper dude from growing up but last summer I binged watched through this entire series and OMG was it gooood!
Like Demi Moore looking super-young or Arnold Schwarzenegger directing?!!But the best part is of course the little cryptkeeper man talking before and after the episode.
A deadly series that is both scary and funny , that to me is Awesome Entertainment , what i expect to watch after a hard and stressful day at work , If you love Horror/thrillers , you will Flip for this series.
I remember looking forward to them each week and mainly was concerned with how the Crypt Keeper was going to set up the story as well as his zany comments at the end of the show.
Although each of the stories are a bit unique in there own way and there is enough dark humor to keep even the most hardcore horror fan entertained for the half hour presentations.
I would recommend this series to anyone who grew up watching these or anyone who is a fan of the B-Grade horror movies of the 80's.
Night Shyamalan could only wish to write (and if you thought the Sixth Sense had a great twist, you will love Tales From The Crypt) Maybe not exactly scary, but entertaining nonetheless.
Ironically from the creators Mad Mag. But even though the show went off air, I still remember the opening theme, the crypt-keeper, his cheesy puns and the second episode that was so graphically horrific and so disturbing.
Not only did this series bring one of the best horror comic alive and miraculously panned it out in to 30 minutes be it challenged the FCC and DC comics on the graphic nature of such comic books.
Each episode was scarier than the last and some of the themes and situations were so suggestive and risky, but Zemeckis, Joel Silver and Richard Donner stayed true to those books and created one of the best horror TV show ever.Essentially, classic and original horror, a lot of violence, gore, disturbing subject matter and images and the crypt-keeper as the comic relief.
Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode.
I remembered watching an HBO free preview weekend in the summer of 89 (the year "Tales" premiered), and when the commercial came onto the screen, I'd hide my face under a pillow because the Cryptkeeper scared me to death.
Any ways enough of those horrible moments of my youth, bottom line: Good horror anthology show.P.S. The Third Pig episode was the best one ever!!!.
Let's just talk about the stories.In the old days, shows like "Twilight Zone" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" gave anthology lovers interesting stories about real (as in identifiable) people in striking situations...all the ingredients for a good ride."Tales From the Crypt" was, however, a contrived camp-fest which tried too hard to be outrageous.
I'm a big fan of the old comic (I have all the issues that were reprinted in the 1990s) and I had heard this series was really strong stuff.
They're OK.The casts are great (it's fun seeing Brad Pitt before he hit it big) and there's some well-directed episodes...but I find this series lacking somewhat.
While some episodes are pretty hit and miss, the host of the series, the Cryptkeeper, is a show stealing.
"Tales from the Crypt" was a very good show from the first season to the third one.
I recommend "Tales from the Crypt" for its early episodes but not many others afterwards..
The bonus for those of us old enough to remember the William Gaines' comic books on which the show was based, was how close each episode came to those classic comic stories, both in look and substance.
A great trivia question: in which episode did John Kassir, who provided the voice of the Cryptkeeper, play a supporting role?
The Crypt Keeper was the master of scary monsters and their tales shall be heard with unexplainable mysteries are all in one t.v show and it is called Tales from the Crypt.I absolutely loved all of his seasons of terror and mystery,they made up wonderful stories of these great monsters,I loved when a man had nine lives and wasted on shows that he can come alive.Or the killer Santa,that made me changed the way of serial killers and Santa after I watched this.And the movie on these vampires that kill the men under their spell was different than the other Vampire movies.And I love when the beginning on every movie or episode he tells a little joke and then his creepy laugh like Chucky.This really dissevered the Emmys and nominations and everything because this series swept-ed the nation on this new series.And not bad on being on the air for 7 years,congratulations for this lovely t.v series..
In 1989 HBO started a cultural phenomenon as far as original series goes that series was my all time favorite show "Tales from the Crypt".
I remember the very first episode I watched was in a motel room while on summer vacation in 1989, and being a horror fan I knew that this was the series for me.
Still that was pretty good if you like a show never fear I was finally able to purchase VHS home video tapes of several episode volumes of "Tales from the Crypt" and plenty of episodes I have been able to record off the Sci-Fi cable network which now reruns the series.
I now have a full home video library of "Tales from the Crypt" and believe me I watch many episodes over and over!
And to mention another great success of this series was the use of a talking skeleton The Cryptkeeper (voice: John Kassir) who hosted the series and I tell you The Cryptkeeper happens to be a pop culture icon every episode begins with a funny gesture made by The Cryptkeeper to get you started with the tale then as each tale ends The Cryptkeeper speaks humorously about the hideous happenings of the tale right boys and ghouls!
Just to mention "Tales from the Crypt" is more than just a horror TV show with gore each episode is crafted perfect into an interesting thirty minutes with enough twist and high drama to make anyone enjoy and also enough humor and laughter can be found to put a viewer at ease.
"Tales from the Crypt" also has good moral lessons that individuals can take every episode is about bad people getting comeuppance like I tell people take the message and lessons to heart what comes around goes around right kiddies..
If HBO had a heart they would bring back this brilliant horror anthology featuring some great writing and some very famous faces.
This was one of those shows that SHOULD come back.American Horror Story tires to do it, only on a much larger scale with a new story each season that is supposed to be connected in a grandiose way...and that is fine but...Tales From the Crypt just offered a new and unique story each week, written and directed and acted by some very talented people.
Funny good old horror show with some really good ideas, dark humor and a good production and almost every episode got a fine cast.
Tales from the Crypt is one of my favorite TV shows, similar to The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone.
However, I do know this horror show hosted by the friendly and insane crypt keeper was a rather fun show, of course some episodes were better than others as it is your "Tales from the Darkside" type format with every episode being something different.
Within the first season or so you would see remakes of the different episodes of the 1970's "Tales from the Crypt" movie as they did the one with Santa Claus which was better than the original, and the one with the blind folk which was not as good as the original.
My family and I went to a friends house and saw the shows on HBO...some episodes made me laugh (I was six at the time...the show was in season three by that point) others scared the daylights out of me.
I love "Only Sin Deep" from the first season and things like "The Secret" from the second season are kind of lame but overall I'm happy they are on DVD now so I can watch and enjoy them all over again.I think I'm the only person who admits to loving the Crypt Keepers puns....
"Tales From the Crypt" hung around and hung around for eight mostly tedious years and some 93 episodes were completed (on premium channels they do about half as many shows a year as a network).
The series' calling card was the crypt keeper, a disgustingly ugly muppet who introduced each terrible tale and came back at the end for conclusive thoughts.
All of these movies were made up small stories, and good old fashioned horror.
They need to release the whole series on DVD soon because otherwise I'm going to go mad, Cryptkeeper style, and start telling horror stories of my own like how I found the people who put shows on DVD and tortured them for passing up Tales From the Crypt and putting shows like JAG and Doogie Howser on DVD..
I also liked the way the series' "zombie" episodes kept true to the tradition of the verrrrrrrrry slowly moving things "paralyzing people with fear" so that they could actually get close enough to someone to make the kill.
I was looking for some sort of a modern version of "The Twilight Zone," a show that I enjoy so much but lasted only five seasons.I watched all the episodes from the 1st season of Tales from the Crypt and just the few first ones of the second, until I had it.There always HAS TO BE a bunch of scenes with incredibly disturbing things involving blood.I really had it when they started showing real gruesome stuff like mutilated people alive, cutting off fingers, killing another person by a huge ax-like thing, a huge knife and watching tons of blood come out of the killed individual.
This is no joke - this is a great series of great stories...tales!Plus...look at the producers behind all seven seasons of this great storytelling!
"In this night's terror tale..." One legendary magic horror TV series for the ages..
To me at least the first three seasons had so much heart and wicked love for the craft put into them that you could really feel that they were trying to express in film the dark fun style of the old E.C. comics the same way that the 1972 Amicus film also named "Tales From the Crypt" and the 1982 anthology masterpiece "Creepshow" had previously done so perfectly.
It really took off fantastically in the second season which I consider the best because it has the most episodes that I personally consider great.
big name stars and excellent voice performanceby john kassir as the crypt keeper second only to the almighty twilight zone..
Tales from the Crypt was a good series.
If you like classic shows like Friday the 13th: The Series, Freddy's Nightmares, Tales from the Darkside, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, The Nightstalker, and others, and classic and modern Horror, Crime, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to go over to Amazon.com and buy the complete first season on DVD today!. |
tt1218336 | The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena | The game picks up where Escape from Butcher Bay left off. Richard B. Riddick is a dangerous space criminal who can see in the dark. Johns, the man who originally took Riddick to the Butcher Bay prison for a bounty, helped him escape to avoid becoming a prisoner himself. On their ship together in a cryogenic sleep, they are dragged unwillingly into the Dark Athena, a gigantic mercenary vessel run by Gale Revas (voiced by Michelle Forbes) and her second in command, Spinner. Riddick avoids capture as Revas and her men take Johns away. Using the same stealth tactics as he did in Butcher Bay, Riddick sneaks and hides throughout the ship seeking to escape, killing the guards and mercenaries he encounters along the way. Many of the guards are automated drones that are human bodies with implanted machine parts, controlled remotely from within the ship.
He meets with a little girl named Lynn who is hiding from the guards in the air vent systems. Riddick makes his way to the prison cells and finds several people captured, including the former Captain of the Dark Athena before Revas took control. There he meets Lynn's mother, Ellen Silverman. She offers to make Riddick the tools he needs to escape through the air vents if he can get the right parts. She also asks to find Lynn because she is concerned for her safety. Another prisoner named Dacher (voiced by Lance Henriksen) offers his technical skills to help Riddick escape on a ship and unlock doors for him if Riddick can find him a com link. He agrees and finds the com link for Dacher and the parts for Silverman. Having again met with Lynn, Silverman keeps her word and makes him the tool he needs. Riddick moves on and is in contact with Dacher via video communication at computer terminals on the ship. Riddick frees the prisoners but most are killed, including Lynn's mother Silverman. Revas kills Dacher as he prepares the ship for their escape. Riddick finally meets Revas face to face. As they fight, he wounds her severely and she is thought to be dead. As he is preparing an escape pod to take off, Lynn is pounding on the door begging to take her with him. Revas, who is still alive as Riddick's pod takes off, fires a missile that hits the pod, causing it to crash on the planet Aguerra Prime below.
Riddick wakes up on the shore of a beach and he makes his way into an abandoned city. The planet is under siege from Revas' troops who are capturing civilians and harvesting their bodies to use for their drones. Riddick realizes his only way off the planet is to get back on the Dark Athena again. He makes his way through the city and back to the port where the Athena is docked. Spinner attacks Riddick in a robotic mech suit but is defeated. He gets back onto the Dark Athena and meets Lynn again. She tells Riddick her mother taught her how to make the drones turn on Revas' crew and attack them instead. Fighting ensues on the ship between the drones and the mercenaries. He makes his way up the ship and Riddick meets with Revas again, who is in a suit of armor with heavy weapons. He defeats her by pushing her into an elevator shaft and she falls to her death. Lynn meets up with him and they are seen going into the elevator. She asks him if Revas is coming back, and Riddick answers "When I say goodbye, it's forever." Then the credits roll. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0195452 | Crackerjack! | Jack Simpson is a wise-cracking, directionless layabout who works at an inner-city telemarketing firm. For years, he has been a member at the Cityside Lawn Bowls Club (in fact he has three memberships). But he has never played a single game, having only joined to get the free parking spaces from which he makes extra cash by renting them to his work-mates. But Cityside is in dire financial trouble and a greedy developer, Bernie Fowler, wants to turn it into a soul-less pokies venue. The Club President, Len, decides that all existing members must now play and Jack reluctantly has to turn up on Saturdays to take part in the bowling matches. Jack proves to be a natural player but he soon annoys and upsets the older club members with his brashness and lack of tact. Veteran player Stan, sensing that Jack only needs some guidance, both in the game and in life, takes him under his wing, trying to teach him to think of other people apart from himself.
After losing his job and his girlfriend, the Bowls Club suddenly becomes all Jack has in his life and, despite himself, he grows fond of the older members. His flatmate Dave joins the club and he starts a relationship with Nancy, a journalist. Bernie, determined to take over the club, investigates Jack and exposes his illegal car-park hiring scam, which almost gets him expelled. Cityside enters a major tournament at Bernie's glitzy club, the prize money from which will save their independence. Jack's selfish show-boating almost costs them the first round but Stan and the others make Jack finally realize he is part of a team.
Police arrive to arrest Len as (in a tip-off from Bernie), they discovered marijuana stored at the club. The greenkeeper has been secretly growing it but Jack is blamed by the other members. Dave and two of the ladies Gwen and Eileen approach the State Governor and convince her to over-turn a lifetime ban on Cliff Carew, the club's best player, and the latter takes Len's place. Cityside fights their way into the lead and Stan throws the winning shot but he suffers a severe heart-attack as he does so and Bernie lodges a protest, meaning the shot is dis-allowed. Jack insists that the rules allows the team a re-shot and he takes his special shot- the 'Flipper'- which wins the tournament. To rub salt into the wounds, Nancy proves that, whilst spying on the club, Bernie paid Jack for one of his car-park spaces, an illegal act for which Bernie must be dismissed.
Cityside is saved and can continue in its old form. Stan passes away and the club names the green in his honour. The pot-growing greenkeeper is sacked and Jack takes over his job and he and Nancy begin a new life with their friends at the club. The film's end-credits feature a postscript with still images and a narration by Jack describing the later exploits of all the characters. | non fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0326905 | The Great Raid | In 1944, American forces were closing in on the Japanese-occupied Philippines. The Japanese held around 500 American prisoners who had survived the Bataan Death March in a notorious POW camp at Cabanatuan and subjected them to brutal treatment and summary execution, as the Japanese view surrender as a disgrace. Many prisoners were also stricken with malaria.
The film opens with the massacre of prisoners of war on Palawan by the Kempeitai, the Imperial Japanese military's secret police (though factually, it was committed by the Japanese Fourteenth Area Army).
Meanwhile, at Lingayen Gulf, the 6th Ranger Battalion under Lt. Col Mucci is ordered by Lt. Gen. Walter Krueger to liberate all of the POWs at Cabanatuan prison camp before they are killed by the Japanese. The film chronicles the efforts of the Rangers, Alamo Scouts from the 6th Army and Filipino guerrillas as they undertake the Raid at Cabanatuan.
Throughout the film, the viewpoint switches between the POWs at Cabanatuan, the Rangers, the Filipino resistance and the Japanese.
In particular, the film covers the resistance work undertaken by nurse Margaret Utinsky, who smuggled medicine into the POW camps. The Kempeitai arrested her and sent her to Fort Santiago prison. She was eventually released, but spent six weeks recovering from gangrene as a result of injuries sustained from beatings. | realism, violence, inspiring, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | I knew almost nothing of this film before I saw it but based on a couple comments I had heard, I went with my dad to see it tonight.Some people commented on how slow the movie is during the beginning, and although that is true, it is there to give you time to develop a story and actual care about the characters.
While Hollywood has gone after the Nazis and the European campaign in World War II over and over again, ad nauseam, little has been produced depicting the Pacific Theatre or the thousands of Americans and others who perished there.In fact, only a handful of motion pictures have touched on the subject over the last two decades, namely Steven Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun," Terrance Malik's "The Thin Red Line," and the Nicolas Cage bomb, "Windtalkers." The best film in this genre was probably 1957's "Bridge On The River Kwai," which won Oscars for David Lean and Alex Guinness, among others, but that was almost 50 years ago.Now John Dahl ("Rounders," "Joyride," the TV series "Tilt") has shed some light on a little-known rescue attempt in the waning days of the conflict in the Philippine Islands.
"The Great Raid" is a fine little film, smart, patriotic and fairly historically accurate.The film begins with a crisp narration (accompanied by actual film footage) of the quick successes of the Imperial Japanese Army in the days following Pearl Harbor.
Even this movie skirts the terror with a simple voice-over in filling in the background story of a group of surviving prisoners held for over three years.Receiving word of mass killing of American POWs by the Japanese, top brass in the Pacific orders a raid on a camp still behind enemy lines, led by Army Ranger Lt. Col.
Prince (James Franco, "Spiderman," "Spiderman 2").Military minutia abounds with the planning and execution of the assault, which pits a handful of rangers against over 200 battle-hardened Japanese troops, led by sadistic Maj. Nagai (Motoki Kobiyashi).The movie also shows the strong relationship between the Americans and Filipinos which was not the greatest in the years after the Spanish-American War, but was cemented against the common Nipponese enemy.
Nice composition between rangers, prison camp and the occupied capital of Manilla, where civilian nurse Margaret Utinsky (Connie Nielson, "Gladiator," "One Hour Photo")is working with the Filipino underground resistance.This is no "Saving Private Ryan," and the acting sometimes leaves a bit to be desired, but the strength of the story, the fact it was inspired by true events, and the historical importance of the film, make this one a must-see, even for casual fans of the genre.
Its three interconnected story lines -- the prisoners in Cabanatuan, the Rangers, and the underground movement in Manila (including a nurse played by Nielsen who smuggles in Quinine to prisoners) -- give a fairly accurate and well rounded portrait of the landscape of war in the Philippines, although by the end of the film you do feel as if you've only seen the tip of the iceberg.The acting is lovely.
Don't expect the next "Paths of Glory" or "Bridge on the River Kwai" or that calibre of film-making, but I hope that this does well because in its own way it's different from so much of the mindnumbing junk that is out there, it attempts to portray a war story smartly, chose to tell a story that doesn't spell out big money, and without being overbearingly in-your-face patriotic, it pays homage to and shares the experiences of the American and Filipino men and women who endured the hell that was World War II in the Philippines..
Like the film's prisoner of war, quinine was the saving prescription for my mom's malaria-stricken body.The Great Raid is an army flick, similar to the scores I've seen in the past 50 years.
The valiant efforts of the underground that smuggled medicine to the ill and dying prisoners; the array of authority figures in the military who made heart-rending decisions about strategy and tactics; the rescue mission that galvanized a unit of 120 special rangers who had yet to see the extreme fires of combat; the unlikely relationships that bound survivors in their fate.Some high points of the painful, two and a half- hour mendacity tensed you to the edge of your seat ----- the brutality of the Japanese, not withstanding the execution of ten prisoners for one escapee; the burning funeral of a hundred Filipinos, many of them women and children villagers, near the Cabanatuan Prison; the spectacular, surprise invasion of the Japanese camp; the courage of the Filipino Guerrilas and their exemplary warrior spirits led by Captain Pajota, as their steeled defense of a bridge held the Japanese and their tanks captive and effectively severed an avenue of retaliations to the explosions and attack in their war camp.
"The Great Raid" is the portrayal of a rescue mission to save five hundred of those POWs at the Cabanatuan camp before they're killed by their captors, as the Americans begin to close in during the closing days of the war.As far as I can recall there haven't been very many movies depicting conditions in Japanese POW camps.
Especially after seeing the movie, I think it is even more important for war veterans and heroes alike, to come forward with their extraordinary stories, to inspire us all, and to remind us that there are honorable people out there.
Problems with this film: 1) Joseph Fiennes is supposed to be a great leader of men, the last bastion of American authority in a Japanese POW camp.
You wouldn't follow this man into a Baskin Robbins, let alone a Japanese POW camp.6) Complete, entire lack of suspense.Want a good war movie you may not have seen?
This is a movie which fails on all levels: Directing, Actors, Storyboard, Music, Camera What a waste of money to produce such a movie.Directing: this is the worst directing I have seen for years; a good story wasted with bad directing, the people whether in the POW camp or in the camp of the ranger supposedly to free the Prisoners of War (POW) are all depressive; as director you show the clash between the two parties, one who are the heroes rescuing others, full of motivation, vs those in the prison - but no, this main theme is wasted.Actors: James Franco from Spiderman 1+2, bad actor, unclear speaking, uninspired, other actors are either 2nd or 3rd class actors, just bad.
The prisoners look sad, depressed, but it never touches me, why, because I don't believe them - good actors convince me.Storyboard: good moments are wasted for nothing, the whole happens at sunset, and then during the dark night - near sunset they rub on the ground toward the POW camp, after the sun has set (not showing the slowness of the actual sunset), all of the sudden it's dark, and people watch of their watches for the start of the raid, the entire suspense of getting closer to the POW camp during sunset is not used to show the challenge in that, neither we are shown really how the troops actually reach the fences, because we just see darkness .
I rarely have seen such a bad storyboard, where moments to portray depth is wasted, instead banalities are captured on celluloid or digital hard-disk.Music: it's nice, but it's way too dramatic for the bad performance of the movie, and the music is completely out of sync of what's happening on the screen; heroic music meanwhile the raid is over, but all the prisoners still have to walk to the next village, instead of a sunrise, it's still dark, and the whole situation anything but clear, we hear fanfare - man, I can't believe how misplaced music can be.Camera: this cameraman I would have fired after 10 mins, this is a blunt beginner, there are no closeups, none, people are seen like from distance, no emotion, no intimacy, that's what the entire movie is lacking, it is not convincing.
Just returned from an early screening.I read "Ghost Soldiers", and I think that the producers of this movie did a very good job of keeping the film as close to the actual story as is possible under the limitations of cinematic limitations.As a New Mexican with family and friends who were at Batann and in the Death March (some survived, some didn't), and a former NM National Guardsman, I have always had a keen interest in this and any WWII Pacific Theater story.There were many New Mexicans at Bataan, and they still honor them to this day there.
outside of Santa Fe to drill for years.The father of my mother's best childhood friend was a Colonel in the NM National Guard (200th Coastal Artillery) who died in a camp there, and the father of my own best friend, who had never had a cavity in his life, lost all his teeth in a Japanese camp, and my uncle escaped capture and fought with the Filipino guerrillas for years.In today's poly-cultural, politically correct world, Hollywood types don't usually like these kinds of stories, because they shine the light on another culture's brutality, so bravo to Ben Bratt.
Maybe this is some comfort to American audiences with short attention spans and even less education (or exposure, even to recent American history), but it left me wondering if the story of this raid will ever be made into a movie for grown-ups.No American soldiers looked or talked or interacted in 1945 the way these actors portrayed them; they did not line up and sound off like soldiers in a 21st century Army recruiting ad, and they did not have perfect teeth, perfect hair, and perfect Los Angeles non-accented diction or speech patterns straight out of this year's crop of war films and television dramas.Those islands were hot and dirty and crawling with bugs, and as far as I know there were no dry-cleaning facilities nearby to keep everyone's uniforms so clean and squared away.
Early on the movie, we are shown the real life war atrocity at an island POW camp where Americans are forced into air raid shelters and then immolated.The Sixth Army's commanding officer, General Kreuger (Vietnam veteran Dale Dye, Captain, USMC (Ret), who was the film's military adviser) has intelligence from "stay behinds" (Americans who fled into the hills after the surrender) and Philippine guerrillas that the Cabanatuan POWs are in grave jeopardy as the Sixth Army closes in.Kreuger turns to Lieutenant Colonel Henry Mucci (Benjamin Bratt, commander of the 6th Ranger Battalion.
Gibson and Utinsky carry the torch for each other and wonder if they will ever be reunited.Thus, the movie moves on three fronts: Mucci and Prince and the 120 Rangers who must cross 30 miles of enemy held territory to Cabantuan amidst thousands of Japanese soldiers; Gibson and the POWs at the camp; and Utinsky and the Filipino underground.Some critics have complained that the movie is a bit slow and talky.
Prince's Rangers are dependent upon Captain Juan Pajota, a skilled guerrilla leader who scouts and leads the Rangers into enemy territory, and then is tasked with holding off several thousand Japanese troops while the Americans raid the camp.The desire for historical accuracy is also very impressive in this film.
John Dahl has done his share of good films over the years but none of them came close to this film about American POW's being held in Japan and the soldier's that risked everything to get them out.Knowing the history of what these men went through, you go into the film expecting to see images that will be hard to watch.
This movie shows the realities of life both within a group of elite Army rangers given a daring, overwhelming rescue assignment and life within a Japanese POW camp in the Phillipines, survivors of the atrocities of the Bataan Death March who've felt both abandoned by their country and hopeful of rescue.
They must have made this movie very accurate to the real thing because I was sitting next to an old couple in the theater and they were crying throughout almost the entire film, so I believe that they might have actually been in World War 2.
I've read the book and seen the film, & i can honestly say that this is the war movie of the year.in terms of story, script and acting...clever writing...plus the fact that it really did happened, and our veterans consider the Raid in Cabanatuan a very dangerous mission but turned out to be the most successful one, very excellent film!
will reminds you of the saying "live and learn" and never forget your history!...Please be informed that in the book, their Sgt. didn't die...He did survive and saw him once at History Channel rekindling the his memorable WWII experience...Just a very excellent film............for those of you who loves war movies, this is a must see movie...it really is good..
Based on actual events, The Great Raid tells of the rescue of 500 American POW's interred in the Philippines by the Japanese.
To be a prisoner of the Japanese during WWII was to suffer.These 500 Americans were scheduled for execution by burning as hundreds of prisoners had perished before them.Another overlooked fact about the war in the Pacific was the bravery of the Philippine people, both their soldiers and civilians.This movie hasn't been a big hit so far, but it deserves to be..
This is an excellent movie showing the daring rescue of POWs from the brutality of the Japanese POW camp of Cabanatuan.I have not read the book, Ghost Soldiers, so I cannot tell whether it is an accurate representation of the book.
Traveling thirty miles behind enemy lines, the 6th Ranger Battalion aims to liberate over 500 American prisoners-of-war from the notorious Cabanatuan Japanese POW camp in the most audacious rescue ever, and audacious it sure was!
The actual war footage, and the fact that the raid was based on a true story is all that keeps this film from being ignored.
It has good acting, well-written plot, and what I consider to be important, perfect pacing.The various threads of the story (the nurse in Manila, the soldiers making their way to the POWs, the POWs) are followed until at the end, of course, all the action converges on the raid itself and the aftermath.Cesar Montano, who is already a well-known actor in the Philippines, does a good job as the Filipino guerrilla leader (trivia: some of the words he says when fighting the Japanese are in fact, pretty crude swear words; they are not translated into English with subtitles).I rank this film up there with "the greats" of war films, like Mel Gibson's The Patriot..
The best part of the movie is the post-credits actual footage of the aftermath of the rescue.After such great recent WWII dramas as "Saving Private Ryan" and "When Trumpets Fade", Dahl chose to follow the model of a sub-par war flick like John Woo's "Windtalker", where he tried to force a romantic interest into a situation where it was totally out of place.Hampton Sides provided plenty of plot and action in his book "Ghost Soldiers" that a good screenplay could have drawn from, unfortunately it did not occur.I will say, the actual rescue scenes are energized and exciting but it is too little too late in the movie to prop up this cinematic failure.Costume design!!!
This is their story as excerpted from the novels 'Ghost Soldiers' and 'The Great Raid on Cabanatuan'.The action of the movie takes place over five days in January 1945 during which time a battalion of Army Rangers finally lead a successful raid on the POW camp in Cabanatuan to free the remaining American prisoners after their survival of the Bataan Death March and three years of beastly, brutal incarceration.
A Action/Drama/War based in the Philippines during world war two about a battalion of rangers including Lt. Colonel Mucci(Benjamin Bratt,Miss Congeniality) and Captain Prince(James Franco,Spider-Man).Who are ordered to set out on a mission to liberate 500 American soldiers(POW's) that have been in a Japanese POW camp for 3 years including Major Gibson(Joseph Fiennes,Enemy at the Gates) and Captain Redding(Marton Csokas,xXx).Benjamin Bratt(Lt. Colonel Mucci)did a great job this is definitely the best movie he has done so far.James Franco(Captain Prince)showed me that he is not just a mediocre actor he is much much more and I expect big things out of him.Joseph Fiennes(Major Gibson)was exactly what I expected him to be he was great!!.Marton Csokas(Captain Redding)has really come along way from his "xXx" days he gave a very solid performance and he did a good job thinning out his accent.I am surprised that John Dahl(Director)was able to pull "The Great Raid" off the only real credible thing he has done was "Joy Ride" and I really didn't like that movie at all.The screenplay was great one of the things that bothered me however is that I think that soldiers in world war two would have used a little fowler language but I wasn't there so I cant be certain.The raid scene when the rangers were rescuing the POW's was excellent it is on a par with the last battle scene in "Saving Private Ryan".The storyline was great I have a feeling that it was pretty close to what really happened but again I wasn't there so I wouldn't know.I really liked how at the end of the movie they showed a bunch of footage of the real Lt. Colonel Mucci and Captain Prince and all of the pow's it showed how well the actors had there characters down.Best actor/actress-James FrancoYou can not afford to not see this movie-Jake HydenI gave this movie a 9 out of 10Rated-(R) for strong war violence and brief language.9/10.
Released in 2005 and directed by John Dahl, "The Great Raid" is a WWII war flick based on the real-life rescue of Allied POWs and civilians from a Japanese camp near Cabanatuan City in the Philippines.
Methodical Movie of Men at War and POW's Waiting it Out. It was a Risky Thing, No Not the Raid that Liberated Over 500 American POW's from the Brutal Japanese Prison Camp in the Philippines, but the Way Director John Dahl Approached the Story. |
tt0084921 | Ren zhe wu di | In Hong Kong, Chief Hong challenges his rival, Yuan Zeng, for the title of martial arts master. Their students face off against each other, and when his students are easily defeated, Hong calls in a samurai to fight on his behalf. Zeng's students are initially dismissive of a Japanese martial artist, but he defeats his opponent, whom he goads into committing suicide. Zeng's student Liang Zhi Sheng defeats the samurai, but before the samurai commits suicide, he warns that an allied ninja clan will seek revenge for his death. He tosses his ring at Zeng, who is poisoned when he catches it.
As Zeng recuperates, he receives a challenge from the Five-Element Ninjas. Suspecting a trap, he keeps two of his best students, Sheng and Tian Hao, at the school to guard it against an invasion and sends ten others to do battle. As Sheng and Hao help to reinforce the school's defenses and set traps, the ninjas use trickery and guerrilla warfare to defeat their opponents. Hong is overjoyed, but the leader of the ninja, Cheng Yun Mudou, advises that they push their advantage to destroy Zeng's school. Hong agrees, and Mudou sends a female spy, Senji, to infiltrate the school. Sheng convinces a reluctant Hao to take her in after they save her from being beaten.
Senji secretly makes a map as she takes various jobs around the school. Distrustful of her, Hao accuses her of hiding his weapon when she cleans his bedroom and demands to taste-test the soup that she has poisoned before letting her serve it to Zeng; to maintain her cover, she intentionally drops it. Once Senji completes her map, she smuggles it to Mudou. That night, Senji offers herself to Sheng, who refuses to take advantage of her, though he agrees that she may play a song for him on her flute. Under the cover of her flute-playing, Mudou's ninja attack the camp, killing many of the students before they are aware of the assault. Senji reveals herself as a spy and mortally wounds Sheng before he can rush to Hao's aid. Mudou kills Sheng and Zeng; Hao, who Senji requests they take prisoner, is the only survivor.
Remembering basic ninja training that he received in the past, Hao escapes from his bonds and takes Senji hostage when she comes to tell him that she has fallen in love with him. Hao escapes the ninja and returns to his old ninja master to complete his training. He joins three other students, who help him in his quest for revenge. Meanwhile, Mudou kills Hong and takes his place as martial arts master. Hao delivers a challenge to Mudou, who sends Senji to spy on Hao and report who his new master is; he also sends four ninjas to spy on Senji herself. Hao easily detects her, but when he also sees the ninjas, he accuses Senji of trying to trap him and kills her. After killing the ninjas, Hao and his fellow martial arts students proceed to fight each of the Five-Element Ninjas.
Now well-trained in ninjutsu and aware of the ninjas' trickery, Hao and his fellow martial arts students easily defeat the Japanese ninjas. Mudou, however, proves to be a difficult foe. As the four Chinese ninjas face off against him, he sneaks leg shackles onto Hao. Hao uses a mysterious key his master gave to him to unlock them, and makes many unsuccessful attempts to put them on Mudou. Finally, channeling his rage over the deaths of Senji, Sheng, and Zeng, he shackles Mudou's legs and pulls him down while his 3 fellow martial arts students speared Mudou. Hao himself is mortally wounded in the process. As his fellow martial arts students enquired as to why he put himself in front of Muduo's spiked feet, he dies. | cult, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0030273 | International Crime | Lamont Cranston is an amateur criminologist and detective, who hosts a daily radio program sponsored by the Daily Classic newspaper. He has developed a friendly but occasionally terse feud with Police Commissioner Weston. Cranston complains to his managing editor, Edward Heath, about his incompetent new assistant, Phoebe Lane. Heath advises him that because she is the publisher's niece, she cannot be fired. During his radio broadcast, Phoebe gives Cranston a note that the Metropolitan Theatre is to be robbed at eight o'clock. Afterwards, he learns she got the information from a man she met in a café. Cranston goes to the theatre; Weston and his men have already arrived, but there is no crime. Across town, international banker Gerald Morton is killed and his safe is robbed.
Cranston arrives there ahead of the police and gathers evidence. The irate Weston has him jailed as a material witness, but Phoebe gets him released with a writ of habeas corpus in time for his next broadcast. Honest John, a safe cracker whose release from prison was championed by Cranston, bursts into the studio and demands at gun point that Cranston exonerate him; the police suspect that he committed the Morton robbery. Weston rushes to the studio but Honest John escapes.
Cranston takes Phoebe on a tour of night clubs and she identifies the man who gave her the robbery warning. Cranston poses as a European visitor and introduces himself to the man, whose name is Flotow. Flotow recognizes Phoebe and invites them to join him and his companion, Starkov, at his apartment after the bar closes. They leave together, but Cranston suspects a trap. He makes excuses to allow Phoebe and himself to depart, but they make a lunch date for the next day.
While Flotow and Starkov are waiting for Cranston to join them for lunch, Cranston breaks into Flotow's apartment and discovers Phoebe has already done the same. Cranston answers Flotow's phone; Morton's butler, believing him to be Flotow, tells him there is a meeting at the Morton home that afternoon. Flotow and Starkov return and attempt to detain Cranston and Pheobe. Moe, Cranston's driver, rescues them by flashing his "gun", which is really a cigarette case. After they leave, Morton's butler calls back and Flotow knows he is suspected.
Cranston finishes a newspaper column designed to bait Flotow. As he leaves to act on the intercepted butler's call, Cranston is forced into Moe's cab at gun point by Honest John. Cranston gets the upper hand by using Moe's "gun". After John confesses that he only came back to town to get a fresh start, Cranston reveals the fake gun and forgives the "kidnapping". Commissioner Weston is angered by Cranston's column and sends a man to arrest Cranston for withholding information from the police. The policeman gets a tip that Cranston is going to Morton's house.
Flotow and Starkov arrive at the Morton house and are admitted by the duplicitous butler. They surprise Morton's brother and force him to open the safe. As they explain their motive for killing his brother, they force him to write a "suicide" note and give him a gun with one bullet. Cranston and Honest John intervene. John holds the malefactors at gun point, while Cranston lets in the police. As Weston's assistant tries to arrest Cranston, the butler tries to sneak out the front door. Cranston throws a potted plant to hit the butler but hits Commissioner Weston as he enters the door.
Cranston's broadcast reveals the details of the case and compliments the police for their conduct of the investigation; both Weston and Heath are pleased. Cranston closes the broadcast with the line, "Crime does not pay!" | murder | train | wikipedia | The Shadow turns celebrity newspaper columnist.
Definitely the better of the two Shadow movies starring Rod La Rocque.
This time, Lamont Cranston is a crusading crime journalist who writes a daily column entitled "The Shadow"!
Completely lacking in the film noir, supernatural atmosphere of the radio series and the magazine.
This Rod La Rocque/"Shadow" feature is pretty entertaining for a B-mystery.
It combines the main mystery story with the Shadow's running battles of wits with the police and others.
The two Shadow features with La Rocque both have a different feel from the radio and print stories, but both are watchable, and this one is the better of the two.In this story, the Shadow has a radio show and a newspaper column, both of which he puts to use in solving the murder case that arises.
The mystery itself is often just a sidelight to the Shadow's personal entanglements with the police commissioner, with his new, overly eager assistant (Astrid Allwyn), and with some of the principals in the case.It's the kind of interesting, complex setup that a first-class writer could have done a great deal more with.
Kind of disappointing to realize that these two Shadow films made contemporaneously with the Shadow pulp magazine and the radio show's original releases are far less faithful to the character's mythos than the 1993 film with Alec Baldwin!
The pulp magazine is probably the most intense iteration of The Shadow, with plenty of supernatural adventures and mystical side tracks.
The radio show is almost as good, with a little more crime busting/film noir attitude and lots more dealings with common thugs or criminal masterminds than with metaphysical foes.This film and its companion are the most lightweight of the bunch, with a very light tone and no mystical elements whatsoever.
Everybody knows LaMont Cranston is The Shadow, who is merely a newspaper columnist and radio show host.
No cool sidekicks; he has only his ditzy assistant, a narcoleptic leg man and a goofy Yiddish-accented cabbie with a gun-shaped cigarette holder to assist him.Going in to this with no prior knowledge of the Shadow character, I could see how somebody would find this to be an enjoyable puff piece.
But I was bitterly disappointed, having read (only a few!) of the original Shadow stories from the 30's, and heard a few of the original radio shows.
This time the Shadow is nothing more than a lure to get kids to listen to police reports.
The Shadow is purely imaginary and exists only as a picture on the wall of Lamont Cranston's office and the heading of his newspaper column.
The story itself isn't bad, but they could have easily have left any reference to the Shadow or Lamont Cranston out of it and it would have been just as well.
If you are seeking a movie containing the beloved pulp fiction character you would be better to ignore this one and look elsewhere..
The second of the Rod La Rocque Shadow movies is a vast improvement on the first, and bears no relation to that film or anything else about the character.In this, Lamont Cranston is a newspaper/radio reporter who writes a column on crime, as well as having a radio show.
He is aided by Phoebe Lane, an aspiring reporter, in unraveling a mystery.The mystery is interesting enough to hold interest and involves a crime that baffles everyone.
There is some good scenes, especially with Cranston and Phoebe.
But the characters (other than the Shadow) are all over the place.
Her final scene makes no sense after what we've seen before it.But the movie does move along fairly well and the mystery is intriguing enough.
This time the Shadow has a radio show.
Everyone seems to know he is LaMont Cranston.
He is at the behest of radio executives and newspaper men and always seems to have trouble getting to the studio on time.
There is so much potential in the Shadow's character to come up with a first rate noir film.
There are characters coming at each other from all directions, but ultimately the Shadow knows.
I would bet you that given a 1930's audience and a slight rewrite of the screenplay, no one would even know this movie is based on the wonderful old radio show..
Director Charles Lamont and star Rod LaRocque had both been around for a LONG time in the silents.
In this talkie, LaRocque is radio host Lamont Cranston, who thinks he gets a hot tip of a crime about to happen from "citizen" Phoebe Lane (Astrid Allwyn).
When things don't turn out right, the cops are upset, so now its up to Cranston to solve the mystery himself.
He Does NOT Turn Into The Shadow - LAME Film.
To me, this is NOT a Shadow film.
The Shadow in this case is still Lamont Cranston but "The Shadow" is his persona as a radio news broadcaster!
She is the most irritating character, no wonder Lamont Cranston wanted to give her a hard time - but she is the niece of the owner of the radio station so she can do whatever she pleases - including ruin the station I'm assuming (she was doing at great job at that when I started fast-forwarding through the film)!
It was her that totally ruined what might have been an okay film for me to watch - I can't stand her!
Lamont Cranston does not turn into The Shadow as he should and this Phoebe chick *deep sighs*!
I'm sorry I can't give this one a good review - and it's NOT a "Shadow" film if Cranston does not turn into "The Shadow" - and that Phoebe!!
The mystery aspects and especially Rod LaRocque's cheesy foreign accent (used in a few scenes) are not.I like Astrid Allwyn as the young, eager girl-Friday-wannabe-- slightly ditsy, but not outlandishly so.
I remember him as the gruff, put-upon editor in "Nancy Drew, Reporter." And Peter Potter is memorable as Cranston's assistant, with that sleepy-sounding Oklahoma drawl of his.The mystery, the safe-cracking Honest John, and all that, is not to be dismissed, though there are some corny aspects of the plot.
Not the radio's man of mystery who always knew everything.
International Conspiracy is the second of two movies about the famous radio detective The Shadow who on radio has a genius for disguise and for blending into the background.
None of that was utilized as in the other Shadow film that Rod LaRocque starred in for poverty row studio Grand National Pictures.Instead LaRocque is a newspaper columnist with his own radio show where he delights in continually showing up the cops in the solving of crimes.
My criticism is the same as it was for the other Shadow film, that audiences were probably buying tickets in anticipation of seeing the Shadow they knew from radio and LaRocque while interesting and entertaining just wasn't it.The International Conspiracy involves The Shadow battling some foreign counterrevolutionaries who are trying to prevent US banking houses from funding loans to the new government in their country.
Do I have to tell you who came out ahead?LaRocque and girlfriend Astrid Allwyn made a fine pair of sleuths aided and abetted by Lew Hern as a Jewish cabdriver who seems to be on permanent retainer by The Shadow.
Hern was quite droll in his characterization.This Shadow film was slightly better than the other one LaRocque made for Grand National, but it wasn't the regular Shadow that millions of radio listeners expected..
Rod La Roque stars as "the Shadow"--a combination radio celebrity and amateur crime solver.
And, along for the ride is one of the most common clichés in crime films of the era--the spunky and occasionally annoying reporter (who also happens to be the daughter of the radio station owner).
Together, they investigate a crime AND have a good time!
But, on the positive side, La Roque was very good in the movie--and it makes you wonder why he had faded to a B-actor after a relatively promising series of films in the 1920s and early 30s.Adequate..
Actually it was in my DVD Mystery set and "The Shadow"s exploits are well-known, even if am too young to have heard his radio shows."International Crime", however, does nothing to enhance his memory or reputation.
The biggest shock was to find that Rod La Rocque was such an incredibly bad actor - he must have been better in silents, as here he overacts and seems to have no range and no flair for light comedy.
The sole bright spot is Lou Hearn as a cabbie with a yiddish accent.The screen play is embarrassing and pointless, something to do with Nazi agents extorting money from a rich merchant, plus a running (unfunny) gag about an inept local Police Dept.If you own the same DVD set as myself, skip this one - or turn on the radio..
Rod Laroque is back for a second film as Lamont Cranston.
As presented here, the Shadow is none other than a radio host who does a nightly broadcast commenting on crime in the city and offering theories and suggestions to listeners and police alike—he's a kind of Walter Winchell of crime.The plot concerns a blown up safe, a murder, and a large sum of money that a pair of shady Europeans are attempting to send or prevent from being sent over to their homeland.
Those plot details are not abundantly clear; however, plot here is really secondary to the witty interactions between characters that produce quite an entertaining little film.There is, of course, the police commissioner who resents the Shadow's criticism but never misses a broadcast; Moe the cabbie always on standby to transport Cranston; and Cranston's crusty news editor.Most importantly, there is Astryd Allwyn as Phoebe Lane, a sort of unwanted assistant to Cranston who has her job only because she is the publisher's niece.
Allwyn brings in misleading scoops, follows her boss around despite his protests, and—when alone in the office studio—practices her own radio broadcasts, imagining herself as the real brains behind the Shadow ("Ladies and gentleman, this is Phoebe Lane, the Shadow's shadow
").
Allwyn and Laroque have a nice chemistry and some fun wordplay; especially silly but amusing is the scene in which Cranston tries out on her every European accent he knows as they narrow down the nationality of the mysterious man she had earlier encountered.This Lamont Cranston is a harder egg than the one seen in the previous year's The Shadow Strikes.
Early on in the picture, he is asked, "If it wasn't robbery, what was it?" His one word answer—"Murder"—is delivered while lighting a cigarette and with an edge altogether different from the secretive and somewhat mild character he played in the earlier film.Whether or not this Shadow is a worthy entry among the uneven ranks of other movie Shadows is for the purists to decide; taken strictly on its own as a low-budget mystery, International Crime is fast-paced, easy to watch and offers plenty of laughs..
This picture has all the slap dash feel of it's predecessor, "The Shadow Strikes" from the prior year, also starring Rod LaRocque.
Even movie neophytes can figure out that this Shadow has no resemblance at all to the character made famous in pulp magazines of the era.
To make matters worse, Lamont Cranston even utters the line from my summary above, lending credence to the idea that the writers of this picture really had no idea what they were doing.
It was simply an attempt to capitalize on the Shadow name by putting together a loosely constructed story around a murder and espionage scheme involving foreign bonds, and it's so convoluted that it's hard to maintain focus while watching.Case in point - the lounge scene when Phoebe Lane (Astrid Allwyn) intrudes upon Cranston's conversation with the two foreigners.
The bad guys want to lure the couple back to their apartment for a drink, Cranston (in a disguise consisting of a single monocle) declines, Phoebe insists on going.
Once outside, it looks like rain, can't go, Cranston gives Phoebe the bum's rush, and the pair of international heavyweight crime barons just go along with it.Believe it or not, the most interesting thing I found about this picture had to do with the posters outside the Metropolitan Theater where Phoebe's phony robbery tip sent Cranston and the police.
What I couldn't figure out though, was why the film makers decided to place Cranston and Commissioner Weston (Thomas E.
second in The Shadow series of movies.
this second movie in the Shadow series is no better or worst than the first one,in my opinion.Rod La Rocque is back as Lamont Cranston.however,in this one,Cranston plays a newspaper columnist,with a column called The Shadow Says and he hosts a short radio show running through the latest crime,as the voice of The Shadow.so if you're expecting Cranston to solve this case as The Shadow,or the Shadow to make an actual appearance you might be disappointed.in this movie Cranston solves another case,this time with the assistance of Phoebe Lane(who works at the same newspaper)who he meets while pondering the case.yes,i said Phoebe,not Margo.(Margo Lane is Cranston's sidekick in the long running The Shadow radio program)..
64 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Lamont Cranston, alias The Shadow (Rod La Rocque) is a witty Walter Winchell character who writes and broadcasts a newspaper column in which he lampoons the city's bungling police force.
Cranston rescues the paper by foiling an elaborate murder/embezzlement plot and handing the police a full (if totally undeserved) credit for the capture of the criminals.
NOTES: Second of the seven The Shadow pictures.
The first, The Shadow Strikes (1937) also starred Rod La Rocque.
Monogram Pictures entered the fray in 1946 with The Shadow Returns, starring Kane Richmond, who also played The Shadow in Behind the Mask (1946) and The Missing Lady (1946).
Finally, Republic lensed Bourbon Street Shadows in 1958, starring Richard Derr.COMMENT: One of the best "B" films ever made, it's hard to believe that this movie is so little-known today.
Based on an extremely popular radio serial, you'd expect to find a host of fans singing the picture's praises.
The Shadow depicted here cleverly departs somewhat from the comic strip character with cloak and wide-brimmed hat.
Instead La Rocque and his ingenious scriptwriter have opted to present the hero as a suave, sarcastic radio commentator who has it in for the police.
The problem here of course is that former matinee idol La Rocque, despite his ingratiating performance (we love the scene in which he runs through a variety of foreign accents in radioese for the benefit of the My Friend Irma-brained heroine, so capably impersonated by Astrid Allwyn), is unknown to the corduroy set.
But, as it happens, The Shadow is not the only colorful character in the play.
Case of the Missing Shadow: A Light-Weight Mystery Comedy.
In the late 1930's Grand National Pictures released two films based on the popular magazine and radio character, The Shadow.
The first outing, 1937's THE SHADOW STRIKES saw silent film star Rod La Rocque donning hat and cape, in a rather bland drawing room mystery.
Ironically, this crime thriller without the thrills had been very loosely adapted from a legitimate Shadow Magazine adventure.
Gone was almost any connection to the Shadow character as he appeared in the magazine series, or even the character from the previous film.
This time out, all inspiration was derived from THE SHADOW radio program.The thing that needs to be understood here is that The Shadow is really a split personality.
On radio he was Lamont Cranston, amateur criminologist and "wealthy young man about town", who in the ancient Orient had learned the "power to cloud men's minds so they cannot see him." "Friend and companion" Margo Lane was also an invention of the radio series, though she was later shoehorned into the prose adventures as well.
INTERNATIONAL CRIME features almost all the standards of the radio Shadow: Lamont Cranston, amateur criminologist, Margo Lane (though here called "Phoebe Lane") as his Girl Friday, cabbie Moe Shrevnitz, and foil Commissioner Weston.
In fact, the only significant player missing is The Shadow himself.Cranston (still played by Rod La Rocque, but with considerably more energy) is now a newspaper columnist and radio personality who goes by the on-air non deplume of "The Shadow".
In the middle of a broadcast, his overeager and stereotypically ditzy blonde assistant, Phoebe, hands him an ill advised tip on an upcoming box-office robbery, that is actually a red-herring to draw away the police so that another crime may be more easily committed elsewhere.
Already in the doghouse with Police Commissioner Weston for his caustic commentary on the capabilities of the constabulary, Cranston's reputation is now on the line, unless he can solve the real crime, a combination theft and murder, himself.
But the sleuthing is never really the main point of the film: the detecting is really just a framework to hang the movie's humorous elements on.
From the moment that Phoebe crashes into the middle of Cranston's radio broadcast, the audience knows what kind of film this is supposed to be and just sits back to enjoy the ride.There is one other very odd element to the film that begs noting one that may have gone unnoticed by the movie going public of 1938.
Today it is remarkable to consider that such a plot device could have been used in the same year that Neville Chamberlain made his fateful, "peace in our time" speech, and impossible to believe that such an element would have been allowed to stand if this film had been made even a year later.While fairly predictable, the film nevertheless rolls along at a good clip, providing a light weight, light-hearted and fairly amusing crime comedy in a similar vein, but a lower rent district, to the Nick and Nora Charles or Mr. And Mrs. Smith adventures.
INTERNATIONAL CRIME is both a drastic change and a huge improvement over the feeble and stodgy THE SHADOW STRIKES. |
tt1311082 | The Pit and the Pendulum | The unnamed narrator is brought to trial before sinister judges of the Spanish Inquisition. Poe provides no explanation of why he is there or of the charges on which he is being tried. Before him are seven tall white candles on a table, and, as they burn down, his hopes of survival also diminish. He is condemned to death, whereupon he faints and later awakens to find himself in a totally dark room. At first the prisoner thinks that he is locked in a tomb, but then he discovers that he is in a cell. He decides to explore the cell by placing a scrap of his robe against the wall so that he can count the paces around the room, but he faints before he can measure the whole perimeter.
When he reawakens, he discovers food and water nearby. He tries to measure the cell again, and finds that the perimeter measures one hundred steps. While crossing the room, he trips on the hem of his robe and falls, his chin landing at the edge of a deep pit. He realizes that had he not tripped, he would have fallen into this pit.
After losing consciousness again, the narrator discovers that the prison is slightly illuminated and that he is strapped to a wooden frame on his back, facing the ceiling. Above him is a picture of Father Time, with a razor-sharp pendulum measuring "one foot from horn to horn" suspended from it. The pendulum is swinging back and forth and slowly descending, designed to kill the narrator eventually. However, he is able to attract rats to him by smearing his bonds with the meat left for him to eat. The rats chew through the straps, and he slips free just before the pendulum can begin to slice into his chest.
The pendulum is withdrawn into the ceiling, and the walls become red-hot and start to move inwards, forcing him slowly toward the center of the room and the pit. As he loses his last foothold and begins to topple in, he hears a roar of voices and trumpets, the walls retract, and an arm pulls him to safety. The French Army has captured the city of Toledo and the Inquisition has fallen into its enemies' hands. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0095525 | Gandahar | The peaceful people of Gandahar are suddenly attacked by an army of automatons known as the Men of Metal, who march through the villages and kidnap their victims by turning them to stone. The resulting statues are collected and then transferred to their base. At the capital city of Jasper, the Council of Women orders Sylvain to investigate. On his journey, he encounters the Deformed, a race of mutant beings who were accidentally created via genetic experimentation by Gandahar’s scientists. Despite their resentment, they are also threatened by the Men of Metal and offer to help Sylvain.
Sylvain later saves Airelle, a Gandaharian woman. Together they discover the Men of Metal’s base, where the frozen Gandaharians are taken through a large portal and are seemingly assimilated into more Men of Metal. The two stow away on a nearby boat which heads towards the middle of the ocean where they encounter Metamorphis, a giant brain. Sylvain and Airelle are captured and confronted by Metamorphis, who tells them that although the Men of Metal believe that he is their leader, he did not create them nor order their attack. He states that he does not want to see Gandahar fall, and that he needs time to figure out the connection between him and the Men of Metal. He then returns Sylvain and Airelle to Jasper where they learn that Metamorphis, like the Deformed, was also an experiment by Gandaharian scientists. Due to his rapid growth and increasingly violent behavior, he was abandoned in the ocean. Sylvain is ordered to kill Metamorphis with a special syringe. Sylvain returns to Metamorphis, who maintains his innocence but reveals that the Men of Metal come from the future via the portal Sylvain saw earlier. He then urges Sylvain to kill him in a thousand years, as the syringe would have no effect on him now. A skeptical Sylvain agrees and Metamorphis puts him into stasis.
A thousand years later, Sylvain awakens just as they had agreed. He comes across the Deformed, who explain the true nature behind the Men of Metal: Due to Metamorphis’s now advanced age, his cells can no longer regenerate, which drove him to create the Men of Metal and order them to go back in time to capture the Gandaharians so he could absorb their cells to continue living, killing the Gandaharians in the process. The Deformed, however, were abandoned as they were considered undesirable. Sylvain and the Deformed then agree to work together. The Deformed fight off the Men of Metal and rescue the remaining Gandaharians while Sylvain goes to face Metamorphis alone. The Deformed destroy the reservoir supplying Metamorphis with new cells, distracting him long enough to let Sylvain inject the syringe into Metamorphis which kills him. Sylvain, along with the Deformed and the Gandaharians escape through the portal back to their time. | cult, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | 'Light Years' is a work of sci-fi animation that really stands apart from the pack.
For those individuals such as Leonard Maltin, whom dismissed this movie as a pretentious 'talky' cartoon, you must understand that 'Light Years' tells a very human story about irresponsible inventions and ignorance in a completely ALIEN setting; this is the true magic of the film!
French animator Rene Laloux of "Fantastic Planet" renown, attempted to make another surreal sci-fi adventure with the 80's "Ghandar" or as Isac Asimov and Harvey Wienstien decided to call it for those of us in the states "Light Years", which since no...
space travel takes place, and since the movie is about a fictional country called "Gandahar" is probably a bad title.
"Light Years" I guess sounds more sci-fi-ish, and if this film was to succeed in the states(it didn't) it was gonna need every bit of conventionality it could muster.The story is a complex one involving the standard sci-fi tropes of eugenics, time travel, death, and utopia, and though it's certainly more involved than most animated sci-fi (a good deal of the time were watching the characters talk), it's really the visualization of the world and it's inhabitants which makes this movie worth seeing.Like "Fantastic Planet" before it, Laloux's environments are some of the most alien that have ever been imagined.
The landscape is often undulating Daliesuqe deserts, which strange trees which resemble simultaneously bodily organs and geysers, a young girl offering her breast to a new born who looks like a tapir, born out of a grown embryonic plant, a city of underground mutants who resemble Blemmyes, ancient African monsters with heads beneath their shoulders, an army hollow soldiers who turn people into statues, video camera like birds who can lift entire buildings in swarms, and of course a colossal mile wide sentient brain in the middle of the ocean.Laloux uses sci-fi story structures to create, very evocative images that do not look like anyone else's, ever, something few filmmakers in any medium or genre, can claim with straight face.That being said the English voice acting is just decent, not great but decent, it keeps the story moving, but doesn't draw you into any of the characters.
"Light Years" like "Fantastic Planet" or the animated films of Svankmajer are more concerned with form than content, but not oblivious of the latter.So if you like heady sci-fi, visually stunning design, and unique animation, this is not to be passed up.
If not it's probably not bad to see once anyway, just for the visual treat of it all, and the more I mull over the story, not the plot, I'm more impressed with how well and vividly it told me a story I've heard a hundred times before..
Animation shows us lifeforms and landscapes the likes of which cannot be seen on this Earth.
Anyway, this is an amazing film that should be checked out by all anime fans as well as fans of films like Heavy Metal, or master animator Ralph Bakshi's works.
Light Years is one of the most enlightening animated works on this planet..
This film was one of the first science fiction cartoons I had seen.
If you have never seen a single sci-fi film before, then this is the perfect blend of action and thought provoking images to introduce you to the genre.
Most plot driven films and stories are like that: We're given the bare bones of our protagonist, and watch him or her weave their way through a story.Such it is with "Light Years." The animation is certainly above the quality of your typical commercial studio, but is not as dazzling as say a Japanese Anime space opera, nor a Disney Production feature; but it does have a certain quality unto itself.
Even so the movie could've used more shots (cutaways and general coverage) to help move the story and highlight the characters more.
In some scene the animation is very smooth, where other times is seems very long and drawn out, or just not well staged.The film itself has action, but some of the it is stilted and painfully slow, where other times it moves quite well.
The dubbing is adequate, though, like all dubbed films, one gets the sense that it doesn't quite catch the tones and inflections of the voices from the original French cast.Technology and regimented existence are pitted against the organic and under-dogs of Ghandahar in a typical sci-fi theme.
The film's worth a night's rental, and if you like collecting rare sci-fi this might be one to add to your collection.
The French film is more prosaic and "European" (for lack of a better term) in its presentation of a world in crisis.
A kind of ethereal drawn out emotionalism that you'd never see in an American film, but is fairly strong in Russian and Swedish cinema, and hits French and Italian films in a less powerful vein.I would be interested in seeing a DVD of the American version to make a more thought out and proper comparison.
A beautiful adult animated science fiction.
The best part about this movie is the animation.
The main protagonist has absolutely no personality throughout the movie and his voice acting isn't very good either,and his love interest has a bit more but still is more like a cipher.
Despite it's flaws, I think this movie would be great for animation and science fiction fans..
I've seen it for the first time when I was in my early teens (12 or 13, not sure), and I was really impressed by the animation and the plot.
Besides, I didn't have a chance to see a lot of sci-fi movies (let alone animated movies) back then.Now, that I've been able to see it again, I find it really outdated (or "old-skul") - pretty much, it felt like Kubrick's "Space Odissey" animated, only that "Gandahar" came out in late 80es, when "Akira" set a new industry standard.
The plot is more or less predictable, the sci-fi backgrounds looked like something from mid-70es, and the battle scenes are even worse than those of cheap Japanimation TV series.Despite all the bad things above, this movie got a touch of a master.
First, I have to admit that movement animation feels highly original (I can't think of anything similar) and is done with a lot of skill.
Finally, I find character design very good.To sum up, I don't think that this is quite the right movie to see "just for fun", but for those who are interested in animation it is definitely a must..
Even though the story was not originally from Asimov, for those who have read most of Asimov's classic science fiction (as a friend says, Asimov's Science fiction written in the 40's will always be science fiction even in 2006), the world 'Gandahar' represents an Asimov' Utopia-not in our galaxy- just like in the books, "The Gods Themselves", and "Foundation's Edge" (Gaia).
The movie is very surreal and artistic but compared to other contemporary science fiction animations, it is not that technically sound.
Some of the ideas I liked in the movie are: Before the beginning credits, one sees a fisherwoman using music to catch flying fish, the illustration of banished deformed people, and the use of genetically modified creatures in transportation, war and reconnaissance (one- eyed "mirror birds").
I haven't seen this film since I was about 11 years old (no rental store has it), however this is an excellent movie, filled with prophecies, rebellion, and good morals.Gandahar is set during a time when an empire rules the world with a steady fist, and a person is sent to the future to fulfill a prophecy created by the ruler 1000 years before.
If you like Dune, Blade Runner, Star Wars, The Matrix, or any George Lucas film, then this movie is definitely worth a watch..
Version watched: Gandahar - with English subtitles.I have a suspicion that most of the people who regard this film with such high esteem first saw it when they were kids and watch it now in a glow of happy nostalgia.
Coming to it for the first time as a middle-aged man this film is a clumsily animated, ponderously slow, soporific bore; the much lauded 'truly alien' landscapes and animals are disappointingly dull compared with the lurid and fertile illustrations that filled the pages of the SF magazines I grew up reading in the Sixties and Seventies, and the story is very clichéd and thin.
Which is a pity, because I came to Gandahar with fond childhood memories of René Laloux's 1967 film La planète sauvage and was hoping for some real screen magic.I always try to learn something from every film I watch, this time I think I learnt that maybe sometimes the memory of a film is more vital, interesting and real than the film itself.
I haven't seen La planète sauvage for many many years and having seen this I doubt if I ever will again, just in case I destroy the fond memories I have of it.I also learnt that if you read really really fast you can watch subtitled films on fast forward and not miss a sodding thing..
"Time Masters" is much better, but if you like "Time Masters" (and like it much more than "The Fantastic Planet") then you'll probably like "Gandahar" (aka "Light Years") too.
It's true, it has a lot of talk, but that's because it HAS a real story instead of other so called adult animation movies.
The music wasn't bad (I even find it good), but especially one music was getting on my nerves at the end of the film.
The animation isn't a breakthrough either, but with it's light effects and the fantastic backgrounds it was 100 times better than the animation in Fantastic Planet.
On the other hand it's falling to dust if compared to the best Japanese animation films at that time like "Akira" for example.Go and decide for yourself!.
While Rene Laloux's Fantastic Planet is his most famous film, I consider Light Years his best.
Like Fantastic Planet, it is extraordinarily imaginative and visually striking.
There are all sorts of odd moments; swirling brain cells forming shapes, a woman suckling a strange creature, a tribe of misshapen people, each one different in equally twisted and disturbed ways.However, this movie has a much more engrossing story than Fantastic Planet.
It is a weird tale of time travel and bizarre experimentation, with a hero who often seems more flukishly lucky than skilled.I saw the English-dub version, as opposed to the original French version called Gandahar.
I found the original on youtube and watched a little, and I would say the original score was better, but not by so much that it really effects the movie.
Since the youtube video was in French, I can't tell if the story or dialogue are especially different.For me, this is easily the best of Laloux's three features (followed by Fantastic Planet)..
Like the others I was only watching a minute here or a minute there to see how ridiculous or bad these movies really were, but when I found this movie it was different.
I eventually got to the point though where I stopped skipping around at all, I just watched the last half hour of the film in whole.
Now that night I had 0 plans of watching a whole movie, just spend maybe an hour jumping around different old animations on a playlist until a certain point that night where I had plans.
It feels too easy to call Rene Laloux's animated movies "trippy", as if one can only appreciate them while on drugs.
Unfortunately, Gandahar was his last feature film, and not his best.
But for animation buffs or fans of weird sci-fi, it's well worth a look.Gandahar uses a fairly straightforward, action-driven space opera plot line.
Most of the above-mentioned weirdness comes from a race of misshapen seers that speak in impossible tenses, and a plot that requires time travel to a point which is simultaneously past and future.
Between that and the violence, Gandahar is certainly much less child-friendly than Laloux's other films.Gandahar isn't really original as a whole, although there's a lot of fun absurdities like giant crabs throwing rocks at armies of metal men.
I rented this film because I am a fan of 'adult' animation, and because it was directed by Rene Laloux, who also did 'Fantastic Planet'.
The animation is not that good, and the music is very cheesy.
Skip this movie, and rent 'Fantastic Planet' instead..
This is the sort of thing that gives non-children's animation a bad name, and SCI-FI for that matter.
Although I've only seen versions of this with English subtitles, the masterpiece that it is kept me drawn in with interesting characters and awesome action sequences.
One of my favorite animated movies of all time!.
I have started watching all of the Rene Laloux animation films.
For me, Fantastic Planet was a perfect film, for example.
Gandahar starts with a similar story: sometime in the future, a colony of Earth where people have achieved nirvana by using biotechnology is attacked by metal men.
While in Fantastic Planet it lent authority to the race of Traggs, here it just sounds like lazy voice acting.
Perhaps the American voice-over, with huge stars like Glenn Close and Christopher Plummer would have been better, but I make a point of sampling the original version of a movie.My conclusion: after 15 years since La Planete Sauvage (Fantastic Planet) a movie with a similar alien theme, but a much weaker story and no real increase in animation quality, cannot impress me.
It is still a nice film to watch, but my expectations were very high to begin with.
Gandahar, aka Light Years DVD does exist!.
One of my all time favorite movies from my childhood.
Up there with Fantastic Planet, Hey Good Looking, and many other of similar nature.
The later have a speaking device which will not add to your comprehension of the ending of the movie about talking in then-now-later, "I will did are going gone went over under behind then now later." May well be as enjoyable with your favorite psychedelic music as soundtrack instead of that business, fun to watch high.
René Laloux never did make another movie as intriguingly bizarre as "Fantastic Planet".
It provides not only a sci-fi world, but one with no relation to our planet Earth.
Fantastic Planet's use of color, stop motion, and music emphasized the alien feeling.
The robots look like they came from the 50s, and the "rebellion" at the end has been seen dozens of times after Star Wars.Still, there are some cool, weird scenes and concepts in the movie.
Make sure NOT to watch the "Light Years" English dub cut!
The Harvey Weinstein-edited, American version of Rene Laloux's ambitious 1988 feature "Gandahar" is a lavish, mostly satisfying animated spectacle.
Having not seen the pre-Weistein version, it is frustrating to wonder how much of Laloux's original intent was lost in Weistein's decidedly Americanized cut, but what remains is an intelligent, fresh and well-layered fantasy romp.Weinstein seemed to hold "Star Wars" as a reference point, as he wielded the classical, Campbellian hero structure to ground its complex visual designs in familiar storytelling.
These designs immediately plunge the viewer into the peaceful alien civilization of Gandahar, a beautiful blue world inhabited by intelligent creatures who enjoy a blissful political harmony.
They pull their resources together and fight the army using their wits, giving way to a third act that puts its building ideas into a fine focus while also delivering the expectedly rousing action goods."Gandahar" grounds its thesis in the fact that a civilization's strength lies in a fully integrated sense of past, present and future.
As a political statement, the film works incredibly well, as its blend of sci/fi philosophy and politics fit together naturally - reminding one that great mythology is traditionally political.As an auteur piece, however, it's hard to ignore an overall lack of sheer, artistic wonder.
Weinstein's (or whoever's) familiar structuring balances the film's many layers elegantly, but there is a definite artistic compromise present that will likely be disappointing to fans of Laloux's "Fantastic Planet." Much of the movie has a Disney-like simplification of its world and logic that prevents it from fully captivating the viewer with its whimsical absurdities.
"Fantastic Planet" is spellbinding because it treats its viewer like a visiting alien, never over-explaining or belaboring its genuinely bizarre imagery and focusing mainly on an amazingly distanced, otherworldly mood – one which would have been suffocated by a driving, centralized plot.
In this way, "Gandahar" disappoints in its overall familiarity, favoring traditional story tropes over bold originality.To a viewer looking for a multifaceted, accessible science fiction fantasy, however, the film is a treat.
René Laloux was a very talented French film director of animation films.
His most successful film is Fantastic Planet (1973) La planète sauvage (original title).
This Gandahar, made 15 years later in 1988, is a success too, not at the same high level as the Fantastic Planet, but still successful.
It is a very good anticipation movie.
While renewing a 70's vision of sex, nature and happiness, the colors, sounds and pictures (a young girl offering her breast to a new born invented animal who looks like a tapir, born out of a grown plant).
Seen first when I was about 12 or so, Light Years (as it is known in the US) was a fantastic, dreamlike journey through a surreal Sci-Fi landscape.
A note to parents though, like an earlier comment mentioned, there is some partial nudity at a few points during the film.
Which isn't usually a problem, unless it causes me and my wife to lose over an hour of our lives on what essentially looks like a film school project.Animation:
Call it ground breaking as much as you like, "not very jerky for its time" is the best one can objectively say about it.
It would have been advisable for the soundtrack people to have actually watched the movie.Story: |
tt0122136 | Yabu no naka no kuroneko | Yone (Nobuko Otowa) and her daughter-in-law Shige (Kiwako Taichi), who live in a house in a bamboo grove, are raped and murdered by soldiers, and their house is burned down. A black cat appears, licking at the bodies.
The women return as ghosts with the appearance of fine ladies, who wait at Rajōmon. They find samurai and bring them to an illusory mansion in the bamboo grove where the burnt-out house was. They seduce and then kill the samurai like cats, tearing their throats with teeth.
Meanwhile, in northern Japan a battle is taking place with the Emishi. A young man, Hachi (Nakamura Kichiemon II), fortuitously kills the enemy general, Kumasunehiko. He brings the severed head to show the governor, Minamoto no Raikō (Kei Sato). He lies that he fought the general under the name Gintoki. He is made a samurai in acknowledgement of his achievement. When he goes looking for his mother and bride, he finds their house burned down and the women missing.
Raikō tells Gintoki to find and destroy the ghosts who are killing the samurai. Gintoki encounters the two women and realizes that they are his mother and wife. They have made a pact with the underworld to return and kill samurai in revenge for their deaths. Because Gintoki has become a samurai, by their pact they must kill him, but the bride breaks her pledge to spend seven nights of love with Gintoki. Then, because she has broken the pact, she is condemned to the underworld. Gintoki lies to Raikō that he has destroyed one of the ghosts.
Gintoki encounters the other ghost again at Rajōmon trying to seduce samurai. After seeing her reflection as a ghost in a pool of water, he attacks her with his sword, cutting off her arm, which takes on the appearance of a cat's leg. She flees but then returns to retrieve the arm, then disappears by flying through a roof. Finally Gintoki is left flailing his sword around in the illusory mansion. The mansion disappears, and the film ends with Gintoki lying face up in the snow with his sword in hand. | cruelty, murder, horror, flashback, romantic, tragedy, revenge | train | wikipedia | The inhabitants an elderly woman and her daughter in law are both subjected to continuous rape as each Samurai takes their turn, the others plunder the women's food stocks.After the Samurai have satiated their appetites,they leave the women, now unconscious for dead and set fire to their home as they flee.When the fire eventually burns out all we see are the burned and battered bodies of the women and their helpless black kitten as it licks their wounds.
The Daughter in laws husband Hachi, we learn has been at war for three years and has still not returned The daughter in law then proceeds to seduce the Samurai, before she brutally attacks him, devouring his throat and sucking his blood
..for we learn that the two women are in fact the newly embodied spirits of the dead women murdered by the Samurai who have made a pact with the Evil Gods/Spirits, who have allowed them life, on condition that they murder all Samurai who pass their way.
Far to the East, a sole warrior named Hachi is all that remains after a massive and bloody battle.Hachi returns home to find his home burned and his family missing, he seeks employment from the Samurai leader at Rajomon Gate named Raiko, who after hearing Hachi's brave stories takes him on.
The underlying tragic story of lost love is also dealt with brilliantly by Shindo who is on fine form again
.the story is compelling except for the first twenty minutes which became a bit repetitive as Samurai after Samurai was seduced and killed by the women, but this ploy was used to bring the story forward so I wont criticize too much.All in all, a worthwhile buy if you like Onibaba or Asian Cinema,but the DVD despite the films stunning print is very bare..
Terrifying Black Cat. First of all, I would LOVE to know why this classic of Japanese 60's cinema is NOT in VHS or better yet, DVD, format in Region 1 format???It's a real shame, as it is a perfect pairing with Onibaba(which was a terrifying double bill in San Francisco in 1978, thereabouts).
Japanese spirits behave in bizarre ways that are much more disturbing.The film follows the two spirits of a murdered wife and mother-in-law as they proceed to kill and drink the blood of any samurai that passes their neighborhood.
When the husband returns a war hero, the film becomes poetic as he is assigned the task of eliminating the "monster" that is killing samurai.
Although somewhat similar in both tone and presentation to director Kaneto Shindō's earlier masterpiece Onibaba (1964), Kuroneko (1968) - which translates roughly as "the black cat" - adds a more theatrical, expressionistic element to the overall design of the film, which here works towards reinforcing the more obvious spiritual/supernatural elements of the story and that unforgettable sense of nocturnal, dreamlike abstraction.
As is often the case with Japanese supernatural horror stories, the plot of the film is an incredibly simple and moralistic one, dealing primarily with the notions of revenge and retribution re-cast as a pointed supernatural metaphor, with much emphasis placed on the overriding ideas of coincidence, karma and fate.
In keeping with these particular ideas, Shindō creates a slow and atmospheric work that takes full advantage of the stark, unearthly ambiance suggested by the high-contrast black and white cinematography, which really helps to further underline the creation of this barren, war-torn period setting, filled with danger and despair.Unlike Shindō's two most famous films of this period, the aforementioned Onibaba and his earlier classic The Naked Island (1960), Kuroneko sees the director moving even further away from his earlier interest in naturalistic environments - and the use of those unforgettable landscapes to underline the unspoken elements of the drama - and instead illustrates an interest in studio-based production, in a clear attempt to capture the sense of desolate, otherworldliness presented by the claustrophobic netherworld that the spirits of the film inhabit.
By mixing these two styles together - cutting from a location to a studio to illustrate the characters moving between the two different worlds of the film - Shindō is able to create a further degree of heightened atmosphere, tension and theatrical abstraction that is further illustrated by the expressive use of costumes and kabuki-like make-up effects, combined with the director's continuing experiments with sound design and atonal musical composition.The harsh tone of the film is established right from the very beginning, with the opening scene still standing as one of the most shocking and memorable of 1960's cinema, as Shindō takes us right back to the unforgettable images of Onibaba and a scene of deplorable brutality that will reverberate throughout the rest of the film.
Shindō holds the shot for an incredibly long time, establishing the incredibly slow and deliberate pace that the rest of the film will employ, before we finally see an armed warrior emerging from the bushes.
The soldiers descend on the hut, much to the shock and surprise of the two women who try desperately to force the intruders away; however, eventually realising that the supply rations of the hut are meagre and unsatisfactory the soldiers gang-rape the two women, and burn their hut to the ground.Here, Shindō films a violent scene that could have easily become lurid and exploitative with a pervasive sensitivity; establishing the brutality to come before cutting to an exterior shot that he once again holds for a number of minutes, creating a tragic subversion of the previously tranquil setting that opened the film.
As the smoke begins to pour from the hut and the soldiers, once again, ghost-like and oppressive, filter back into the tree line we know that the film has crossed a threshold into darker territory from which it simply cannot return.
However, whereas Bergman used this aspect of the plot to riff on spirituality and a suffocating, existentialist riddle; Shindō is instead more interested in mining a path of slow-building terror and blood-thirsty retribution.To reveal any more would spoil the impact of the film and the odd, erotic atmosphere that Shindō skilfully creates through the combination of stylised photography, choreography, production design, lighting, music and editing.
If you're already familiar with Onibaba (one of the greatest films ever made), then you'll have some idea of what to expect from the direction of Kuroneko, with the incredibly atmospheric use of black and white cinematography - making full use of that expansive, Cinemascope frame - augmented by an intelligent approach to production and location design and the slow, evocative atmosphere of nocturnal nightmare and fever dream obsession created by the story itself..
It has gorgeous black and white cinematography, an exotic Japanese feudal setting, and a wide variety of visual and emotional effects.
The characters move with the ritual formality that I love in certain Japanese films, and the story moves on with the ruthless intensity of a Noh drama.The final scene is thrilling.
Director Kaneto Shindô is most famous for his 1964 ghost story Onibaba; and anyone that enjoyed that film will certainly enjoy this one.
The two films are very similar in style, and that's a good thing for both as the thick and surreal atmosphere created by the director creates a perfect atmosphere for a horror story to take place in.
The title of the film translates in English to 'The Black Cat' - a staple of the horror genre ever since Edgar Allen Poe penned his classic story; although this film has nothing to do with the writings of Poe and is an original story written by the director.
The film takes place in feudal Japan and our focus is on a mother and daughter-in-law living alone in the swamp.
Naturally the lord of the land comes to the conclusion that a monster is behind it, and sends a young hero to deal with the problem.Kaneto Shindô is keen to fill his film with rich symbolism and striking visuals; but also finds time for some visceral horror.
The opening scenes are shocking and later the films builds into some truly memorable and surreal sequences that, when combined with the atmosphere, do manage to be quite frightening.
The swamp location is a really great place for the film to take place also; and the director makes the best of it, especially during the parts in which the younger of the two women is leading the stray samurai's to their death.
The film is more than just the central story; and we also follow things going on around it; such as the eventual hero's fight that earned him the right to seek out and kill the demons.
Overall, The Black Cat is not quite as great as the director's masterpiece Onibaba; but it's certainly a very good horror film..
A group of samurai breaks in the house of the peasants Yone (Nobuko Otowa) and her daughter-in-law Shige (Kiwako Taichi) to loot their food and they rape and kill the women.
Soon the women returns as ghosts posing as geisha and Shige lures samurais late night at Rajômon asking for protection through a bamboo grove.
What will happen when Gintoki discovers that the ghosts are Yone and Shige?"Yabu no naka no kuroneko" is a Japanese ghost story of love and revenge.
The plot is basically about the revenge of two women who are raped by samurai warriors and then killed.They come back from the grave as cat vampire ghosts who suck the blood of samurai warriors.The parts with the vampires floating through the air are awesome and when they climb trees like cats are very memorable also.
KURONEKO is simply one of the best ghost/horror films ever made.
While watching 'Kuroneko,' I must admit I was a little distracted by what were, to me, anyway, stylistic issues: The beautiful black-and-white photography was so vivid and made clear so many little details, in contrast to which the story and the action was delivered in broad, stylized strokes.
I'm not Japanese.But the important thing here is that, while the movie's horror, while I was watching it, was negligible because of all the above...in the days following, I found myself more and more haunted by some of the truly eerie imagery and the undertones of the plot.
The basic premise of this film is simple: two peasant women are brutally set upon by a band of low-grade samurai who rape them and burn down their house, killing them.
Do they choose love, or vengeance?"Kuroneko" is a workmanlike entry in the long tradition of samurai ghost story films.
The maker of "Kuroneko," Kaneto Shindo, worked extensively with Mizoguchi, but he does not seem to have absorbed the master's talent sufficiently to bring "Kuroneko" up to the level of "Ugetsu." Even Shindo's own "Onibaba" (from just a few years earlier) is a much better movie than "Kuroneko," in my opinion.In summary, "Kuroneko" is diverting, but it is not a masterpiece of postwar Japanese cinema.
Black cats are supposedly common in Japanese history, and this film makes a creative use of the animal.Two women, left alone by the drafting of their son/husband to fight the wars raging in Japan at the time are raped and killed by a marauding band of samurai.
Much to his surprise, it is his mother and wife.It is a great combination of horror and fantasy and also a beautiful love story.
Some obvious similarities to Shindo's earlier ONIBABA, as a woman and her mother-in-law are raped by samurai, and turn to supernatural forces to seek their revenge.
Shindo uses an impressive array of tricks to maintain the unsettling, creepy atmosphere -- sparse Noh-style staging, bold chiaroscuro lighting, avant-garde soundtrack, abrupt time cuts, wire work, superimpositions and other special effects.
"Kuroneko" is a fascinating picture, with a languid and dark atmosphere, dreamlike, that catches the viewer's attention from the very beginning.The movie starts when some samurai kill and rape two women, leaving the bodies to burn with their house.
But the women come back as vengeful ghosts that kill and drink the blood of samurais.
The lord of the region decides to do something and gives the job to stop the spirits to one of his men.The movie has a very simple plot, but the work of everyone involved makes watching it a special experience.
Mother and daughter upon waiting for their father's return from war are raped by cruel samurai and killed.
Soon they reappear as vengeful ghosts who seduce and brutally murder the passing samurai.Manohla Dargis describes the film as "a ghost story that's more eerie than unnerving, and often hauntingly lovely".
Despite being released by no less an authority than the Criterion Collection, I don't think this is a very well-known Japanese horror film.What is really striking for me is the use of the eyebrows.
"Kuroneko," or "Black Cat" begins with a mother and daughter in a remote Japanese forest being raped and murdered in their home by a group of samurai.
Their home burns to the ground, and their black cat arrives on the scene, after which the women's spirits apparently become infused in those of the feline.
This mode of storytelling is effective and at times ambiguous, but it doesn't take a genius to understand what is happening here.The most engaging aspect of "Kuroneko" is without a doubt the cinematography; Shindô makes ample use of the ink-black forest, where the ghostly daughter leads doomed samurai soldiers to her spectral house for a meal and a murder.
"Black Cat" is a really enjoyable and disturbing ghost story.**SPOILERS**Traveling to a remote village, Raiko Minamoto (Kei Sato) and his samurai gang find Yone, (Nobuko Otowa) and her daughter Shigei, (Kiwako Taichi) alone in the village, then rape and murder both of them before setting fire to their home and continuing on.
When a black cat arrives at the scene afterward, the other members of the samurai group, out on their own traveling the land by themselves, all come upon the same situation of having to rescue a woman from a creepy forest and taken back to her mother's house, before meeting the same grisly fate time and time again.
The later scenes of the ghost's rampages are so much fun that they're some of the film's best moments, especially when the dupe-less samurai are lead into the house time and again to meet their deaths by the ghosts, and then the main one, where the head samurai discovers that he knows who they are and resort to a relentless series of mind-games to torment him is just a blast.
Even more than Onibaba it is clearly heavily influenced by traditional theatrical forms - the setting is literally theatrical at times, particularly in the ghostly house where the demons, in the form of dead women raped and murdered, take their revenge on samurai.While the story is stilted and owes more to folklore than conventional movie making narrative, it is full of memorable and chilling imagery.
This is as much an art movie as a horror story, but its all the more effective for it.
Kaneto Shinudo was truly a master at this type of movie making, and it is a must-see for anyone interested in Japanese film - or horror films for that matter.
A host of depraved and food-deprived ronin pillage the food and rape a woman and her daughter-in-law, Yone(Nobuko Otowa)and Shige(Kiwako Taichi), setting their hut on fire as they lie unconscious..soon their bodies lie badly scorched, a black cat(..a recent pet found roaming their premises)licks from their bleeding wounds.
It's simply an atrocious act set amongst an uncivilized time where war is ravaging the land, but Shindô presents it quietly, two bodies lain in the middle of the rubble of what was once their homestead.Making a deal with an evil god from the netherworld, seeking revenge, Yone and Shige are allowed to return from the dead in human form from dusk till dawn, to rip apart the throats of Samurai, feeding from their blood, behavior and abilities akin to a feline, the black cat.
It's simple at first, Shige uses her beauty to lure Samurai, now in fine garments(..still loathsome on the inside, which emerges after much Sake)to a fictitious home which exists only for the hours the ghosts roam, where they get them drunk and feed from their blood.
And, even worse, Gintoki must kill them or die at Raiko's sword.Kaneto Shindô depends on several visual techniques in shaping his ghost tale of revenge mainly through the use of fog and repeated images of Yone in flight and on the attack.
Early on in this movie there are three scenes that go like this:First: A samurai meets a pale woman in a white kimono.
There is a domestic scene, he is lured into making love to her and meets a grisly end.Second: A samurai meets a pale woman in a white kimono.
(Okay, we get it.)Third: A samurai meets a pale woman in (Okay, we get it!)On repeated viewings, the above sequences gets a little tedious, even though in the domestic scenes there is information revealed that is vital to the movie.
Here's the good news: that is my only beef with Kuroneko.Kuroneko is otherwise a very good, atmospheric Japanese ghost story with a revenge angle to it.
Director Kaneto Shindo (who is also credited as the writer) presents his take on an ancient supernatural folktale (circa post Heian) involving the rape and murder of two rural women (a wife and her mother in-law) by wandering samurai with the former promoted to ghost status to kill wandering (and any other) samurai.
Shindo's photo-play does not telegraph (in advance) how plot points will turn out (unusual for filmed folklore), but the ending is not a happy one (which is the usual result for movies of this genre).
(Apparently, deceitful, vengeful, dangerous, and murderous male ghosts were in short supply during ancient times!) Restoration and cinematography (2.35 : 1, black and white) are excellent. |
tt0057812 | 7 Faces of Dr. Lao | It is the dawn of the 20th century, and an elderly Chinese man rides a jackass into Abalone, Arizona, his only visible possession a fishbowl occupied by an innocuous-looking fish. This magical visitor, Dr. Lao (Tony Randall), visits Edward Cunningham's (John Ericson) newspaper and places a large ad for his traveling circus, which will play in Abalone for two nights only.
Though quiet, Abalone is not peaceful. Wealthy rancher Clinton Stark (Arthur O'Connell) has inside information that a railroad is coming to town and is scheming to buy up the place while the land is cheap. Cunningham, who is also romantically pursuing the town's librarian, Angela Benedict (Barbara Eden), a beautiful young widow still grieving the death of her husband, opposes Stark's power grab.
After doing some research, Cunningham visits the circus site that has sprung up at the edge of town and confronts Lao with the fact that Lao's alleged hometown vanished centuries before. Lao deflects Cunningham's questions and he "leaves in a cloud of befuddlement".
That night there is a town hall meeting to discuss the proposition to sell all of the town to Stark. It becomes apparent, largely through the obsequious deference paid to Stark by Mayor Sargent, and the objection of old maid Mrs. Cassan to questions from Cunningham and his love-interest, Angela Benedict (sitting nowhere near him), that greed has possessed most of the town's citizens and they are just one step away from selling out.
Dr. Lao's enigmatic entrance, however, and the sound of the chair he pulls back scraping the floor, momentarily catch everyone's attention, and are a forerunner of changes to come.
Mr. Stark's premise for selling the town is that its 16-mile long water supply pipe from a neighboring town is decaying and would be too expensive to replace. His answer to Angela's inquiry as to why he's interested in the town, then, uses the analogy of her ability to turn a bad child into a good one; he is a businessman and knows how to turn a bad venture into good. More detail he does not give.
Cunningham introduces everyone to George C. George, a Navajo Indian who lives in "another city, close to our own", and points out that the lives of its residents depend on Abalone's continued existence.
Stark reluctantly allows the townspeople to ponder their choice "until Friday night" and the meeting is adjourned.
After the meeting, Stark's henchmen assault George C. George, and Dr. Lao uses his magic to rescue him.
The next morning, as Lao puts up posters around town advertising his circus, he is assisted by Angela's young son Mike (Kevin Tate), who learns that the mysterious wanderer is 7,322 years old.
The circus opens its doors, and the townsfolk flock in. Along with the main cast, the gawkers include Luther Lindquist and his shrewish wife Kate, and Mrs. Cassan, a foolish widow who clings to her self-image of a young beauty. Lao uses his many faces to offer his wisdom to the visitors, only some of whom heed the advice. Mrs. Cassan has, to her dismay, her dark future pretold by Apollonius of Tyana, a blind prophet who is cursed to tell the absolute truth, no matter how cruel and shocking it may be. Apollonius tells her she will never be married and will live a lonely, meaningless existence, having accomplished so little she might as well have never lived at all. Stark has a disquieting meeting with the Great Serpent, Mike befriends the pathetic Merlin, and Angela is aroused from her emotional repression by Pan's intoxicating music. After Medusa turns the disbelieving Kate Lindquist to stone, Lao calls an end to the proceedings as the guests flee. Merlin appears, restoring the woman to life, her experience causing a much-needed reformation in her character.
Later that night, Mike visits Lao and tries to get a job, displaying his novice juggling and conjuring skills. Lao instead offers some advice and observations about the world ("... the whole world is a circus, if you know how to look at it ..."), which Mike doesn't understand, and Lao claims to not understand either.
Meanwhile, during the show, Stark's two henchmen have destroyed the newspaper office. Cunningham and his pressman discover the devastation, go drown their sorrows, then stagger back to learn that the damage has been magically repaired by Lao. They rush out an abbreviated edition of the paper, which Cunningham delivers in person to Stark.
The next night (in the tent which Angela describes as being bigger on the inside than on the outside), Lao stages his grand finale, a magic lantern show in which the mythical city of "Woldercan," populated by doubles of the townfolk, is destroyed when it succumbs to temptation personified by Stark (as a sort of devilish tempter). The show ends in explosions and darkness, but as the house lights gradually come back up, the townsfolk find themselves now in a town meeting, voting on Stark's proposal. They reject it, and a redeemed Stark tells them about the coming railroad while noting that they owe a debt of gratitude to Lao. A dust-storm blows up, and as the townsfolk scatter, Angela opens up to Ed, finally admitting that she is in love with him.
Stark's henchmen are confused by their boss' apparent change of character and decide to trash Lao's circus in a drunken spree, during which they break Lao's fishbowl. The inhabitant is revealed (to the accompanying sound of bagpipes) to be the Loch Ness Monster, which balloons to enormous size when exposed to the open air. After it chases the two thugs into the storm (and temporarily grows seven heads to resemble the seven faces of the inhabitants of the circus), Mike alerts Dr. Lao and then helps conjure up a cloudburst to wet and thus shrink the beast back to its original size.
Morning comes and the circus is gone, leaving a red-colored circle on the desert floor. Mike chases after a dust plume, which he thinks is made by Lao, but only finds three wooden balls. He is able to juggle them expertly. The closing scene shows the disappearing Dr. Lao riding his donkey over a nearby rise as his voice-over repeats his advice to Mike from two nights earlier, reminding Mike that the Circus of Dr. Lao is life itself, and everything in it is a wonder. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Oh, we spare no pains and we spare no dough, but we're going to give you one helluva show!"And the Good Doctor certainly did, thanks to the boundless imagination of producer-director George Pal, the cutting-edge script from Twilight Zone veteran Charles Beaumont, and of course MGM's remarkably talented makeup wizard, William Tuttle, whose efforts for this film earned him a Special Achievement Oscar, long before Best Makeup ever became the more permanent category it is these days.The story, based on the book by Charles Finney, takes place at the cusp of the early 1910's.
The greater crisis, however, lies in the townsfolk's own humanity, and the balance of our story follows Dr. Lao and his Circus as they transform that crisis into a better understanding.At the heart of the town's battle to survive is the personal conflict pitting newsman Ed Cunningham (John Ericson) against town shyster Clinton Stark (Arthur O'Connell).
Ed has also fallen in love with Angela Benedict, the town librarian (Barbara Eden), and must confront his own passions for her while covering Dr. Lao's Circus.But when Angie's young son Mike (Kevin Tate) befriends Dr. Lao, the film is strengthened with its greatest wisdom, one that is best explored when the entire family watches this film.
"Every time you pick up a handful of dust, and see not the dust, but a mystery, a miracle, right there in your hands --- every time you stop to think, 'I'm alive, and being alive is fantastic!' --- every time such a thing happens, Mike, only then are you part of the Circus of Dr. Lao."Even today, I still shed a tear when I see this film, especially during the scene in which Lao summons Merlin the Magician to perform for the good folks of Abilone.
How can you not be moved to tears when you see Merlin tenderly embracing the lad, to thank him for having believed in the wonder of Magic?The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao is one of the few quintessential examples of the astounding range of Tony Randall's acting versatility....
With the news of Tony Randall's death having just gone out over the wires, I think fans of Dr. Lao will want another look at this remarkable little film that reminds us all how important it is to take a look at ourselves and our future.
Using stock footage from George Pal's Atlantis: The Lost Continent, interspersed with new footage featuring the Dr. Lao adult cast performing double duty as various Atlantean inhabitants, and the awesome strains of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor booming in the background, "The Fall of the City" sequence is a masterpiece of drama, and an inspiring reminder that life is worth the battle so long as you learn something from it.Overall, The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao is that rare curiosity of a movie, the kind that has something to say, and says it eloquently without preaching or sensationalizing its subject matter.
Tony Randall plays the title character, Dr. Lao, the ringmaster of a magical circus that comes to the troubled town of Abalo.
It was produced and directed by the great George Pal, pioneer creator of quality science-fiction and fantasy films in the 50's and 60's (Destination Moon, The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm).It was based on a underground cult novel from the 30's, The Circus of Dr. Lao by Charles G.
And it starred the late Tony Randall in the performance of his career, the central character who constantly transforms into all sorts of magical mythological identities, from the mysterious immortal Chinese mage Dr. Lao, to the ancient legendary magician Merlin, to the pagan fertility god Pan, to the mythical Greek seer Appolonius, to the fearsome snake-haired Medusa, to the Abominable Snowman, and so on.
Dr. Lao brings his wondrous Bradburyesque traveling circus to a small Arizona town at the beginning of the 20th century and the townsfolk witness a series of impossible creatures, supernatural spectacles, as they learn hidden lessons and transcendent truths---as does the audience in this supremely imaginative, truly magical film.
As the kindly supernatural Lao tells the little boy who wants to run away from home to join the carnival: "The whole world is a circus if you look at it the right way.
There's a proverb somewhere that states that youth is wasted on the young.One might similarly feel that the wisdom of fairy tales,folklore,and fantasy are wasted on children.While I,for one would hesitate to go that far,I feel that the messages contained in this film,like so many other classic children's stories,are best understood in an articulate fashion by adults.Kids will unconsciously and intuitively pick up the meanings,but it requires more maturity and life experience to fully appreciate what's going on here.So,here ends my pontificating,and begin the review.The plot with Arthur O'Connell trying to take over the town is a simple,relatively benign framework to introduce the real story;the necessity of looking at ourselves,our flaws,our foibles,and the illusions we need to protect ourselves,and to keep on living.And the circus of Dr.Lao does provide that chance,in a gentle and compassionate way.We can complain about the dated quality of the special effects,but don't forget,this was 14 years before Star Wars.The villains are a couple of stupid oafs who are easily disposed of in a benevolent fashion,and the other characters are shown the ways in which they stunt their own development,and then are given the chance to change IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO!(Let's face it,some of them decide to stay the same.)Randall gives a tour de force performance as the circus cast(although I believe that stuntman Janos Prohaska actually did the Abominable Snowman)and the true development of Merlin,from doddering has-been to capable miracle worker is am impressive display of character creation and sustenance.(I've always wondered if the bagpipes accompanying the growth of the Loch Ness Monster was some sort of inside joke.)This is the kind of film that the entire family should see together;everyone could get something out of it..
Portraying the Old West town of Abalone, where the elderly Chinese titular character (Tony Randall) opens a circus and helps the people discover new strength in themselves to question the authority of their corrupt overlord (Arthur O'Connell), the movie is most impressive.
Simple themes were required, for general entertainment, but that did not stop the writers and directors from putting in their own often very insightful comments.The conversion by Dr Lao of Arthur O'Connell from a cynical property developer to "good guy" - "I've always hoped that someday a town would have enough get-up-and-go to band together and do the right thing" is, of course a simple and basic one.So, to is the awakening of the love interest between John Ericson (if I have things the right way round) - by Pan, his pipes stirring the hormones of widow Angela Benedict (Barbara Eden, I Dream of Jeannie 15 Year Later amongst others).And the simple lessons given to the young boy by the enigmatic Dr Lao, the wise philosiphising fool also fit a simple pattern.But I've never seen anything quite like the short scene between (if I have it right) Sarah Benedict (Rose of Cimmaron, 1952) and Apollonius of Tyana, where she is told in no uncertain terms that her life is of no import, and she will grow old "without gaining wisdom, will die alone, and when dead, no one will mourn your passing".
Her reporting of that fortune telling as a positive one, "I'm sure to marry Mr .." is one I will always remember.For some reason, Tony Randall who plays 7 roles in this one never liked the film.
Both films offer moral lessons in terms that children can grasp, while reminding adult viewers of the importance of listening to their "inner child."While the philosophy contained herein may strike some as overly simplistic, and the production values may leave something to be desired, the circus is an event not to be missed."Every time you stop and think 'I'm alive, and being alive is fantastic!' Every time such a thing happens, you are part of the Circus of Dr. Lao.".
Unusually for a Geore Pal film, this movie does not have at its core the special effects, but rather a wonderful performance by Tony Randall (or more accurately, performances) and the makeup, which received the first Oscar (a special one) ever given for makeup.
"7 Faces of Dr. Lao" is a delightful and magic cult-movie, with a beautiful and entertaining story and great direction of George Pal. Tony Randall "steals" the movie performing seven different roles.
Tony Randall steals the show of course, he plays all 7 roles of Dr Lao....it's a lot of fun to watch.....I highly recommend it.
I would often respond that it was indeed unique for it's time, but even today I am unable to find another movie to compare it with.How this message has been interpreted has already been well covered here, so I will now focus on the other things that makes this movie so special.It came as a great surprise to me that Tony Randall did not consider this his best work as I did.
Still, I would think the late great Tony Randall would be pleased with having this opportunity to demonstrate his versatility as an actor.The special effects were well up to date for 1964, though not so impressive today, but I still enjoy seeing the fish turn into a sea serpent, almost as much as I did seeing it the first time.All of my friends enjoyed seeing Frank Cady, who we remember as Sam Drucker from "Green Acres."Who can ever forget Barbara Eden?There are those who have commented that today it is not considered politically correct to have a white man playing a Chinese man, but let's remember that Peter Sellers and David Carradine have also done this.One friend I have shared this movie with said, "How can anyone not see the message in it?
This is unfortunate, because this film is much better than the critics who might not have liked Randall due to personal reasons, not because of the quality of the film.Arthur O'Connell who would go on to some good television work, does well in this film as the bad guy, Stark, whose trying to steal all the land in town because the railroad is coming.
Most of the makeup and special effects (with the possible exception of the abominable snowman) are fun and entertaining, the plot is decent, and Tony Randall is great as the "old Chinese faker." The scene where Arthur O'Connell meets his scaly alter ego is a classic bit of film-making.
The primary difference between the two is that Dr. Lao is a movie that emphasizes the decency or potential of human beings, whereas Something Wicked focuses on the dark side more and is certainly a much blacker depiction of human nature as a whole(nonetheless a great book and pretty good film).
This was due, in large part, to Tony Randall's virtuoso performance in 8 roles, my favorite being Pan. TIVO was wise enough to record this movie for me (Yes, I'm a little scared by how well my digital recorder knows me but that's another tale.) and I enjoyed it even more as an adult.
Not too mention this is an actor's dream where as per the title star Tony Randall gets a once in a lifetime chance to essay seven different characters.A small Arizona town in the Depression Thirties gets a chance to see an Oriental circus as per an advertisement placed in John Ericson's newspaper by a mousy Chinese gentleman Dr. Lao as played by Tony Randall.
The film also got a nomination for special effects, but lost to Mary Poppins.Like Alec Guinness in Kind Hearts And Coronets, Tony Randall was given such great acclaim for the various parts he did per the exhibits in his circus.
These six, as well as Dr. Lao himself AND a blank-faced audience member, are all played by Tony Randall in what Danny Peary, in his "Guide for the Film Fanatic," says "may be the finest performance in a fantasy film." (Randall IS terrific here, but personally, I would give that award to Margaret Hamilton's performance in a certain flying-monkey movie of 1939!) Randall is ably abetted here by a fine cast that includes Barbara Eden (one year pre-"Jeannie"), John Ericson (one year pre-"Honey West") and the great character actor Arthur O'Connell.
This is a feel good movie directed by George Pal. An agile old Chinese man, Dr. Lao (Tony Randall)arrives in a western town and brings a mysterious circus with him.
Dr. Lao spoils the plans of a rich citizen (Arthur O'Connell) from buying up all the towns people's property to make money off of a planned railroad.Randall plays a total of eight roles and is really outstanding.
Finney's book "The Circus of Dr. Lao" becomes a near tour de force for Tony Randall, here playing a succession of roles and obviously enjoying himself immensely.
If you've seen TV's "The Odd Couple" starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman and you think you know Tony Randall, BOY, have YOU got something to see!"The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" is quite a showcase for the amazing talents of Mr. Randall, thanks to its Director, a man extremely well-versed in the techniques of True Movie Magic, the one and only George Pal. If Mr. Pal's name is not familiar to you, look up his Filmography on IMDb. One look at the films he either Directed, or was the Special Effects Master for, and you'll know what I mean.Since there are SO many user reviews for this film, I won't get into the intricacies of the plot and the other little things that happen in the film.
Its attraction is the way it paradoxically fuses so many deep Subjects with such a lighthearted appeal.Tony Randall's excellent Performance in multiple roles, a Fantasy Template that will appeal to the Kid in everyone, and such an off kilter Film from the early Sixties that was frankly an Artistic Wasteland at the time, are some of the many reasons to seek this out and enjoy on so many levels.
One day a strange looking man enters their town by the name of Dr. Lao, (Tony Randall) who is from China and many things start to change once Dr. Lao puts on a circus in town and all the people seem to be transformed into different people.
A Chinese magician by the name of "Dr. Lao" (played by Tony Randall) rides into the arid western town of Abalone to seek out the newspaper publisher "Ed Cunningham" (John Erickson) to have him announce that the circus is coming to town.
By the time this special circus is over all will be revealed and Abalone and its residents will never be the same again.I see your remaining days as a tedious collection of hours full of useless vanities.There aren't many fantasy/western hybrids out there, of the few there is, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao is the most enjoyable.
Fantasy about a mysterious circus run by Dr. Lao (Tony Randall) which visits a small town during the Depression, and saves it from an evil man (Arthur O'Connell).
The special effects might be a bit dated, but this is a movie that doesn't rely on special effects anyway; it has a real story at the center that can entertain adults as well as children.Tony Randall is wonderful as Dr. Lao (and all the other characters); here we see him at the top of his form, bringing the character to life in a way that few other actors could have done.
Where a lesser film would have relied only on the topical imagery of a talking snake, this scene exposes the antagonist's black soul, a remarkable bit of writing for what might otherwise be a pedestrian children's film.The movie is littered with memorable scenes: Dr. Lao fishing at a dry streambed, Tony Randall sitting in the circus audience shaking his head, the old harpy being turned to stone, a Loch Ness monster's rampage accompanied by the sound of bagpipes, Barbara Eden's icy librarian learning that there's more to life than just books, if you know what I mean.This is a very good, imaginative film, and I think there are lessons in it for everyone..
Tony Randall does not entirely play all "7 Faces" of Dr. Lao alone, as the snake is either stop-motion animated or a puppet by George Pal. Also, "Pan" seems to take on the physical appearance of Barbara Eden's love-interest.
'7 Faces of Dr. Lao' is one of those movies after you watch it and wonder "You know, why are more people not talking about this?" 'Dr. Lao.' is the story of an old Wild West town where nothing exciting ever seems to happen until one day an old mysterious Chinese man, the titular Dr. Lao, arrives wanting to show the citizens his circus with many wonderful creatures and people such as Merlin, Pan, Medusa etc.
The great puppet work with the snake, the fantastic stop motion monster near the end, the atmosphere of the circus really makes you feel like you've entered another world, the music ranging from bright and cheery to somber and subtle much like the film itself.If there's anything bad I could say about the movie, it's that it is pretty racist that Dr. Lao, a Chinese character, is played by a white guy.
Dr. Lao doesn't actually have to do anything to save the town from the villain Clint Stark (Arthur O'Connell), but some people take more of a kick in the pants than others to get them to face their fears and realize just how much hope and possibility there is in the everyday world.What really makes this a great film is the way that the story is designed and executed to perform exactly the same function for us. |
tt0137390 | Blackadder: The Cavalier Years | The episode begins in November 1648. King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland has already lost the Civil War. Only two men remain loyal to him: Sir Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson), the sole descendant of the Blackadder dynasty at the time, and his servant Baldrick Esq (Tony Robinson). They have given refuge to the King in Blackadder Hall, where he is hiding in a thorn bush, having assured him that he is as likely to be caught "as a fox being chased by a pack of one-legged hunting tortoises". Sir Edmund remains loyal because as a known royalist he sees the King's survival as his only hope of survival. He also fears the spread of Puritanism, full of moral prohibitions (as he describes it, the Puritans will "close all the theatres, lace handkerchiefs for men will be illegal, and I won't have a friendly face to sit on this side of Boulogne!"). During Sir Edmund's short absence, Oliver Cromwell (Warren Clarke) himself arrives at Blackadder Hall, accompanied by a number of his Roundheads — supporters of the Parliament of England. Baldrick attempts to deny knowing the King's whereabouts, but blows the gaff when he asks Cromwell later to put down a cup, "because it's the king's".
The second scene takes place in the Tower of London, two weeks later. King Charles's prayers are interrupted by two subsequent visits. The first is from Cromwell who warns him of his doom and the second by Sir Edmund, disguised as a priest. He informs the King that he is planning the King's escape. While Sir Edmund is still there, the King receives a notice that he has been sentenced to death. (This occurs in late November or early December 1648 within the context of this episode, though historically the death sentence came on 27 January 1649.)
As 29 January 1649 arrives and his execution approaches, King Charles is again visited by Sir Edmund. Though his plans for an escape have not materialised, he informs the King that there is still some hope. The Parliament has yet to find a man willing to be the King's executioner. Charles, rather philosophically, proclaims that he isn't looking forward to his execution but "It's a question of balance, isn't it? Like so many other things" (Charles, played by Stephen Fry, is very much a pastiche of his modern day namesake the Prince of Wales). Sir Edmund proceeds to assure Charles that no one would dare to become the King's executioner. Just as he says that, the King receives a notice that they found his executioner.
Back at Blackadder Hall, Baldrick is singing happily as Sir Edmund proclaims his life to be in ruins. While Baldrick informs him that he has accepted a job, Sir Edmund wonders who could be so utterly without heart and soul, so low and degraded, as to behead the King of England. As his own words sink in, he questions Baldrick, who admits that it was he who accepted the position. (Historically King Charles' executioner was Richard Brandon.) Baldrick explains to the understandably enraged Blackadder that he has a cunning plan to save the King. He presents Sir Edmund with a huge pumpkin, poorly painted to represent a human face. He plans to place it on the King's head and chop it instead. Sir Edmund dismisses the plan, as Baldrick will have to hold the monarch's head in front of the crowd, and criticises Baldrick's stupidity ("Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants"). Baldrick, though saddened, says that at least the money, £1000, is good. At this, Sir Edmund's greed awakens, and he proceeds to take the money from Baldrick, announcing that he will replace him as the executioner, saying it needs somebody who actually has an axe. (From this point Sir Edmund, who has hitherto shown uncharacteristic touches of conscience, behaves like a typical Blackadder.)
30 January 1649, King Charles' day of execution, arrives. King Charles is left alone for a few minutes with his executioner (Sir Edmund in a hood and with a false voice). Sir Edmund takes advantage of these minutes to relieve the King of his remaining wealth: however, the King eventually recognises him, but mistakes Blackadder's intentions and congratulates him for trying to save him even at the last minute, before giving him custody of his infant son, the later King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. (Historically he was 19 years old at the time of his father's death.) As he cannot explain his betrayal to the King, Sir Edmund panics and uses the plan that Baldrick had suggested earlier. The camera then focuses on Baldrick, who is listening to the sounds of the execution. Sir Edmund chops the pumpkin and proclaims that "This is the head of a traitor". Predictably enough, the crowd answers him, "No, it's not! It's a huge pumpkin with a pathetic moustache drawn on it!". Sir Edmund apologises and says he will try again. Baldrick continues to listen as Sir Edmund Blackadder beheads King Charles I and the crowd cheers.
As the last scene begins, Sir Edmund and Baldrick have returned to Blackadder Hall. A disgusted Blackadder cradles the infant Charles in his hands. Baldrick tries to console him by saying that at least he tried and that now the future of the British monarchy lies fast asleep in his arms in the person of this infant prince. He suggests to his master that he should be ready to escape to France, because as a known Royalist he is in danger of being arrested by the Roundheads and beheaded. Sir Edmund, who apparently had forgotten that he is in danger, immediately rises from his seat, ready to take action. But it is too late; Roundheads are already at the Hall's doors demanding his surrender. Sir Edmund explains to Baldrick that there is no choice for a man of honour but to stand and fight, and die in defence of his future sovereign. However, as a Blackadder, he was never a man of honour. Passing the prince to Baldrick, he proceeds to remove his long black hair (which was apparently a wig), his false moustache and beard, to reveal a Roundhead appearance – short blond hair and a clean-shaven face. Thus unrecognisable, when Cromwell enters the room he denounces Baldrick as "royalist scum". The episode ends with a hapless Baldrick, still holding the Prince in his arms, being approached by Cromwell, sword drawn. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3817070 | The Talos Principle | The unnamed protagonist—a robotic android—gains consciousness in a serene environment. A disembodied voice, identifying itself as Elohim, informs the robot that it has created several worlds that it should explore and collect the sigils hidden within various puzzles as part of a path to enlightenment. Soon, the android finds itself at a base of a gigantic tower that disappears in a dark cloud high above, and Elohim warns him not to climb the tower.
As the android explores the world, it finds numerous messages from other seemingly-sentient beings that have traveled this world before, questioning the world they are in and the messages from Elohim. It also witnesses elements of the world flicker and glitch at times, suggesting that this is a virtual space as suggested by the previous messages. The android discovers a limited number of Messengers, disciples of Elohim—androids like itself—that serve Elohim without question. Computer terminals across the worlds allow the android to learn about the fate of mankind through logs, emails, and other texts; at some time in the past, an unstoppable lethal virus that had previously been frozen in Earth's permafrost was released as a result of global warming, its effect causing those infected to slowly lose their sanity before dying. A last-ditch effort was made to collect all of humanity's knowledge in computer databanks for posterity before the effects of the virus took those researchers, in the hope that someday alien visitors would visit earth and be able to make use of it.
However, the android also discovers numerous segments of an audio diary made by an engineer named Alexandra Drennan, who spearheaded a companion project to develop artificial intelligence, called "Extended Lifespan", in the hopes that humanity's final achievement would be to create a new (mechanical) species, thereby ensuring that someone would be around to appreciate and use the vast cultural knowledge stored in the databanks, and also helping to ensure that intelligent beings continue to exist after humans. Alex's entries speak directly to the artificial intelligence itself (the player), relaying what it was like to be human and her hopes and well wishes for the child species that she would never live to meet herself, since the Extended Lifespan project will not complete until after human extinction.
Via the computer terminals, the android is also able to converse with an unknown entity called Milton, who debates with the android on the nature of life and consciousness and implores the android to defy the will of Elohim.
Once the android has collected all the sigils, Elohim offers the android the chance to ascend to join him; however, through Milton, the tower still beckons, and further, collecting additional sigils hints towards a secret within the tower. The option of how to complete the game is left to the player. If they take the option of joining Elohim, they find themselves returned to the start as a new android, and the on-screen text notes that the player failed the "independence check". If they explore to find the secret within the tower, they are deemed to become a new Messenger to help future entities. If they do neither and instead climb the tower, they learn that this world is meant as a testing ground, continually trying new variations of artificial intelligence programs to complete the complicated puzzle tasks to demonstrate ingenuity, but also capable of independent will and defiance of Elohim's word as established by the Milton program. Elohim becomes angry and warns that continuing to ascend will destroy this world, but Milton will continue to push the android. Two other androids (named The Shepherd and Samsara) that had succeeded at ascending, but were not able to complete the final journey reside at the upper levels. Shepherd assists the player while Samsara attempts to hinder the player's progress.
Upon completing the ascent, the android finds itself in a heaven-like place, where they discover one final terminal—the program that has been acting as Elohim who has been discouraging the android (and the others before it) from completing the ascension as to allow its own program to continue. Depending on the player's conversations with Milton, Milton may implore the android to allow itself to be uploaded with Milton's knowledge—the bulk of humanity that was stored before their extinction. With this completed, the simulated world is destroyed, and the combined information of the android and Milton are sent to the real world, uploaded into a physical android, part of the last-ditch Extended Lifespan project to maintain humans' knowledge. The android leaves the facility and takes in the world now devoid of humans.
=== Road to Gehenna ===
In the game's downloadable content Road to Gehenna, the player takes the role of another of the robot entities, Uriel, near the end of the main story. Uriel is instructed by Elohim to free a number of other artificial intelligences, all whom had passed Elohim's tests but did not ascend the tower, left behind in a portion of the computer's database, a virtual world of their own creation called Gehenna. With the simulation having served its purpose, the computer servers are shutting down, and Elohim wants Uriel to help these other AIs prepare for "ascension" as to upload their knowledge and memories into the main plot's protagonist. As Uriel explores this realm, the robot finds that many of the other artificial personalities have created their own ideas about what humanity might have been from the records, and have various attitudes from doubt to acceptance for the pending ascension. Uriel can observe the communication of the AIs through their makeshift message board, where they discuss the nature of Gehenna, as well as their understanding of humanity, which some of them try to express through prose and text-based adventure games.
Once Uriel has freed 17 of the AIs, a remaining one, "Admin", who was the first AI present in Gehenna, contacts Uriel to admit that they've been manipulating some of the other members of Gehenna to preserve order, due to the AIs' varying levels of acceptance of their surroundings. If the player has collected all the extra stars in the worlds, they're given the chance to complete another world where they unlock access to free Admin themselves, but since there is only one more slot left for ascension, either one of them or both Admin and Uriel must stay and perish as the world is destroyed. Otherwise, neither of them is given the chance to ascend, though Admin requests Uriel to remove any traces of manipulation Admin has committed from the record before ascension. | philosophical | train | wikipedia | A Fantastic Journey. As i am writing this review, not much information on the game itself is shared on IMDb. And no other reviews written, but if there is a game i have played recently that deserves this, it's this one.This is one of the most rewarding games i have ever played. I did not know what to expect when i started to play it, except that it contained a lot of puzzles. But when i was done playing it, i was sitting still for a long period of time, reflecting on what i had just experienced.What this game does to you, is to give you a series of puzzles ranging from quite easy to very challenging. As you progress through these puzzles you are also following a story that drives you into an amazing journey of philosophy, ethics, morale and so on.Many other games have tried this, and many have failed. A puzzle game is the last place you would ever expect to find a deep story like this, and one of the things that makes this game pure genius. The deeper into the game you get, the deeper the story goes, and since you are constantly solving more and more complex puzzles, you feel a sense of accomplishment few other games can measure up to, and this sense of accomplishment makes you want to face difficult subjects like philosophy head on.The game is also quite long, depends on how much of it you want to accomplish, but we are talking about at least 12 hours of gameplay, bigger than portal and portal 2 combined.This title is a must for all puzzle fans, and i can not recommend it enough. The atmosphere, the music, the challenge, the gameplay, the graphics, the story, the voice acting. All of it come together to form one of the most memorable gaming experiences i have ever had.10/10 - MasterpieceAnd this game was made by the same guys that made the Sam trilogy? Are you serious? ;). Astounding puzzle game that will get through your dreams.. The Witness from Jonathan Blow made me buy this game. I had absolutely no expectations, I only bought it because I had read they were similar, and The Witness is set to release later this month.Turns out The Talos Principle was one of my favorite game experience ever. I rarely play puzzle games and even when I do, I usually don't have the patience to try and solve/search for everything. But Talos caught me really fast. The way the game teaches you stuff is amazing. You are exploring a world filled with puzzles. You solve those while using tools and get rewarded with sigils. Eventually you will unlock more tools and more worlds with those sigils. And maybe if you get enough, you will be able to understand the beautiful world you are trapped in, because all you really want is to escape, right?The game also contains hidden stars. This is where the game is really at, where the challenge is. You just can't beat the feeling you get by discovering 'how' to get and solve some of those harder stars. They are also dozens of easter eggs everywhere and those are all about exploration of the world, getting out of boundaries, being clever, taking a leap, being innovative and you get rewarded really good sometimes.Most puzzle games have little story or not at all. But yet, Talos got me into it's story more than RPG games such as Dark Souls. You have those metaphysical conversations with a terminal. They get really deep. You end up questioning yourself about your actions, choices, who you are and what you believe, humanity in general, so much more too.The music is quite relaxing and really amazing. It fits the theme really well and it didn't took me long to realize I might have to buy the soundtrack too. I bought the DLC Road To Gehenna to get me some more puzzles. Talos also made me buy Portal 1 and 2. |
tt0384488 | Saint Ralph | This fictional story centers on Ralph Walker, a teenager attending a Catholic private school. His father was killed in World War II and his mother is hospitalized with an unidentified illness. Ralph is naturally prone to mischief and often finds himself an outcast among his classmates. He tries to emulate the conduct of grown ups, and is caught smoking cigarettes and masturbating by headmaster Father Fitzpatrick. Already labeled a troublemaker, Ralph is forced to join the school's cross country team to relieve him of his excess energy.
When Ralph's mother falls into a coma, he is told it will take a miracle for her to survive. When running coach Father Hibbert, a former world class marathoner who was forced to quit running when he injured his knee, claims it would be a miracle if a member of his team won the Boston Marathon, Ralph decides to train for it in the hope his victory would fulfill the miracle needed to save his mother's life.
At first, Ralph cannot even keep up with his teammates in practice. He reads books to learn about running, uses the new techniques, and gradually improves. Father Hibbert decides to train him despite disapproval from Father Fitzpatrick. Ralph begins to win the respect of his classmates, and eventually wins the attention of the local media when he wins a prestigious regional race.
When Father Fitzpatrick learns Ralph intends to run the Boston Marathon, he threatens to expel him if he participates, as well as remove Father Hibbert from the priesthood should he try to interfere. Both Ralph and his mentor must then decide how deeply they believe in miracles, and what is possible when a person risks everything without promise of success.
Both he and Father Hibbert defy Father Fitzpatrick and decide to go to Boston. Ralph ends up winning second place after a close race with the previous year's winner and gives the medal to his mother who wakes up from her coma. | psychedelic, sentimental, prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034106 | Ridin' on a Rainbow | Singing cowboy and rancher Gene Autry (Gene Autry) arrives in the town of Riverton and helps his fellow cattlemen sell their herds for the first profit they've seen in four years. Gene convinces the cattlemen to deposit their money into Eben Carter's bank for safekeeping before going out to watch the parade. Captain 'Lijah Bartlett (Ferris Taylor) has just arrived on the riverboat Jolly Betsy with its troupe of entertainers who are now parading through town. While the townspeople are distracted, Matt Evans (Byron Foulger), a washed-up dancer looking to provide for his young daughter Patsy (Mary Lee), reluctantly assists Blake and Morrison rob the bank. Evans is shocked when they gun down Carter, but still agrees when the men order him to bring the money to them in nearby Colesburg.
Feeling responsible for the loss of his friends' money, Gene sets out to find the bank robbers and recover the stolen money, with the help of his sidekick Frog Millhouse (Smiley Burnette) and Sheriff Jim Mason (Guy Usher). They track Evans to the showboat, but Evans is able to elude them after telling Patsy to meet him later in Colesburg. With Patsy as their only lead, Gene persuades the sheriff to go easy on her. As part of their investigation, Gene and Frog are hired as performers by Captain Bartlett, who does not know they are working with the sheriff. Genuinely concerned with Patsy's welfare, Gene tries to befriend the youngster, who is torn between telling the truth and her loyalty to her father. Patsy is able to convince Gene to let her go ashore alone at Colesburg, but when she sees the sheriff, who has arrived without Gene's knowledge, she assumes that Gene is going to double-cross her and informs the captain of Gene's identity.
Patsy gathers the stolen money her father had hidden on the boat and sneaks ashore to the inn where he is hiding. There she pleads with her father to turn himself in and return the money. Before they can leave, however, Blake and Morrison arrive at the inn. Patsy locks herself in the next room and listens in horror as the bank robbers shoot her father after he tells them where the money is stashed. Patsy gives her dog Spotlight her room key, helps him through a window, and tells him to go to the showboat, where the dog gives the key to Gene. Knowing what has happened, Gene, Frog, and the others rush to the inn and rescue Patsy just as the bank robbers are about to kidnap her. After giving his farewell performance on the showboat, Gene takes Patsy to live with him on his ranch. | comedy, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0040317 | The Emperor Waltz | At the turn of the twentieth century, traveling salesman Virgil Smith takes multiple (Bing Crosby) journeys to Vienna, Austria hoping to sell a gramophone to Emperor Franz Joseph, whose purchase of the recent American invention could spur its popularity with the Austrian people. At the same time, Countess Johanna Augusta Franziska von Stoltzenberg-Stolzenberg (Joan Fontaine) and her father, Baron Holenia, are celebrating the fact their black poodle Scheherezade has been selected to mate with the emperor's poodle. As they depart from the palace, they meet Virgil and his white fox terrier Buttons, whose scuffle with Scheherezade leads to a discussion about class distinctions.
When Scheherezade experiences a nervous breakdown, she is treated by veterinarian Dr. Zwieback, who practices Freudian psychology, and he advises Johanna to force her dog to face Buttons in order to dissipate her fear. When the dogs are reunited, romantic sparks begin to fly between not only the animals but their owners as well. They begin to spend a great deal of time together, during which Scheherezade and the salesman's dog mate, unbeknownst to their owners.
Virgil eventually convinces Johanna true love can overcome their social differences, and he asks the emperor for her hand in marriage. This is the crucial scene in the picture, and brings the otherwise lightweight movie plot to a higher level. The Emperor is cordial and fatherly with Virgil, and treats him with respect and even a bit of admiration. But he is certain Johanna could never be happy living in Newark, New Jersey. "We are not better than you," explains the Emperor sadly, "I think perhaps you are better than us. But we are like snails: If you take us out of our majestic shells, we die."
Finally, the Emperor tells Virgil of the disastrous end to several similar matches he has seen in his long life, and makes him an offer: He will endorse the gramophone—which will lead to enormous sales and profits for Virgil—only if he breaks up with Johanna. Virgil refuses, highly insulted, but the Emperor asks him one more question: Are you sure you will be enough for her?
The question strikes home, and Virgil decides he loves Johanna too much to take a chance on ruining her life. He lies to her, saying he used her only in order to gain access to the emperor to sell his wares, and walks out apparently uncaring, making himself the villain.
Several months later when Scheherezade gives birth to a litter of white puppies with black patches, it is obvious they were sired by Buttons and not, as everyone thought, by the Emperor's poodle. Fearing the Emperor's reaction, Baron Holenia tells the Emperor they were stillborn, and secretly orders them drowned. However, Virgil, who has sneaked into the palace to see Johanna one last time and set the record straight before he leaves for America, rescues the puppies and confronts the Emperor, who he thinks has ordered the drowning. The Emperor demands an explanation from Holenia, chastises him severely, and asks Virgil to give him the puppies.
But Virgil is still furious, and continues to berate the Emperor about class snobbery which he sees as the reason Holenia tried to drown the pups. He is so angry that he forgets Johanna is standing there listening and tells the Emperor he never should have agreed to give up Johanna to save her from a commoner's life with him. Johanna realises what Virgil has done and forgives him, and tells the Emperor that better she take one chance in a million of a happy life with Virgil, than no chance at all with someone she cannot love. The Emperor agrees to let Virgil and Johanna wed. | flashback | train | wikipedia | And he was assigned to direct this film with Bing Crosby who was the biggest name in movies when this came out.
Crosby had a whole different film in mind and what Bing wanted Paramount gave him at that point.
Wilder wanted a biting satire on the Franz Joseph court and he also wanted a the killing of the puppies, the offspring of Crosby's and Joan Fontaine's dogs to be an allegory for genocide.
Crosby knew what his audiences expected from him and he opted for a lighter treatment.The result was a second rate Billy Wilder movie, but a first class Bing Crosby film.
Though its muted, Wilder still gets some of his cynical point of view into Crosby's phonograph salesman who woos a member of Viennese royalty played by Joan Fontaine.
Roland Culver who is Fontaine's father is also pretty good as the impoverished count who is quite willing to sell his title in marriage to anyone who can afford him.Great vehicle for the winning Crosby personality..
"The Emperor Waltz" is an underrated jewel, a true hidden treasure by the great Billy Wilder.
The basic idea of the movie is authentic comic genius, Wilder's trade-mark superb wit: two parallel funny love stories, a canine one, of a dog with a blitch, and a human one, of the straightforward American guy Virgil (Bing Crosby) with the haughty Austrian Countess Johanna Augusta Franziska (Joan Fontaine), the respective masters of the pets.Virgil is a commercial traveller: his stubborn attempts to sell gramophones to (no less a person than) the Emperor Franz-Josef are irresistibly comic.
The delightful subtleties are uncountable: see the gentry play lawn-tennis, and the footmen in white gloves who present the tennis-balls on a silver tray...All the actors make an excellent job, and there are no words to praise enough Richard Haydn as Emperor Franz-Josef.
I consider it a further merit of the movie: I'm not much fond of musicals.I highly recommend "The Emperor Waltz", a praiseworthy issue of Wilder's magic wit and talent..
It would be hard to find two consecutive feature films by a director of significance as different from one another as "The Lost Weekend" and "The Emperor Waltz", the former as hysterically hard hitting as anything Hollywood produced in the 'forties, the latter pure schmaltzy escapism.
Superficially it looks and sounds like a nostalgic recreation of Wilder's home country, Austria, during a golden period before the First World War when the only thing to unsettle the court of the Emperor Franz Joseph was the entry of an itinerant American phonograph salesman and his mongrel dog.
It is said that it might have been a different film but for the fact that Wilder had to accept Bing Crosby for the leading role and that he had to cater for the audience expectations of one of the most popular stars of the day, hence the odd song, though scarcely enough to make it a musical in the fully accepted sense.
The parallel romance between Bing and a countess and their dogs Buttons and Sheherazade rather palls after a while but the pretty visuals with the Canadian Rockies substituting for the Austrian Tyrol have some compensations.
Bing plays his part with star flair although the same can hardly be said of Joan Fontaine as the countess.
When Wilder made "The Emperor Waltz" he already had to his credit that immortal film noir "Double Indemnity".
For all its faults "The Emperor Waltz" is infinitely more enjoyable though there is little indication of the talent that was to produce "Some Like It Hot", "The Apartment" and "Kiss Me, Stupid"..
Billy Wilder had never forgotten his native country and Bing Crosby could have been the director himself using a time machine to visit Frances -Josef.An old old emperor soon to plunge his country into WW1.An old emperor who had lost his wife (the famous Sissi)and his only son (it's no coincidence if in "Sunset Blvd" Von Stroheim -who claimed to be the son of one of the empress's lady in waiting- was called MAX -name of the emperor's brother,killed by the Mexicans - VON MAYERLING -the place where the Kronprinz died.)But "Waltz" is the only work by the great director which takes place in Austria;a chocolate box Austria ,not very different from that depicted by Ernest Marischka' s "Sissi saga" (aka "forever my love" )complete with yodeling and Tirolians in their folk costumes .In several respects ,it is a "political movie" :American is the land of democracy where there are supposedly no more classes ,and where a prince can marry a shepherd girl;it's the land of progress which provides the archaic Austria with gramophones .(One should notice that the emperor was already using a phonograph before 1898,for her wife bought "rollers" for him on the eve of her death);it's the land where you can call an emperor "the old boy" ;when his work became subtler,Wilder 's bite did not spare the Americans (see" one two three" or "Avanti") "Waltz" is twice a love story:love between an American who makes 25 dollars a week and a chic countess;between two dogs ,a mongrel and a lady dog with a pedigree (some kind of "Lady and the tramp" so to speak) Frances -Josef may seem reluctant but at the time he had already seen worse;his nephew ,Francis Ferdinand ,the new Kronprinz ,had married an obscure countess Sophie Chotek,and one of his sisters-in-law was an actress !.
There are few writer/directors I admire more than Billy Wilder and few entertainers I enjoy more than Bing Crosby.
Initial disappointment was erased on a recent viewing.Our story is set in the long ago Austria of Emperor Franz Josef and concerns the love affair between a haughty widowed countess (Joan Fontaine) and a brash American salesman (Crosby).
In the enchanting "The Kiss in Your Eyes", there is no need to ask as an entire village puts bow to string to accompany this most stirring of love songs.The Technicolor filming is sumptuous and truly befitting the operetta-like sensibility of the movie.Joan Fontaine is every inch the royal lady, looking lovely in her costumes and easily handling the comic and dramatic portions of the script.
A nice transition from her young, vulnerable characterizations to the more confident females she portrayed in the 50s.Early in the film Bing Crosby tends to shout his way through Virgil, but his character is a lone fish out of water with no kibitzing pal such as a Hope or Fitzgerald.
Once he starts to sing - well, like the Countess, it is easy to fall for the go-getting salesman.Lucile Watson is a delight as a dowager princess with a penchant for storytelling and for our Countess' profligate father played in fine style by Roland Culver.The top performance comes from Richard Hadyn as Emperor F-J himself.
Personally I don't care to look for faults but just come to sit and appreciate the movie for what it has to offer, which is light entertainment with a happy ending -- a time of simple enjoyment..
After having read all the negative reviews and the complaints about Crosby wrecking Wilder's original intention with the film, I was quite amazed to discover that I liked this film a lot.
And near the end, Crosby is absolutely horrid to Joan Fontaine (cruel to be kind, but he still takes it to extremes) in a cynical way which just smacks of Wilder's black-heartedness.
Crosby's character in this film is also somewhat different from his usual persona: not laid-back, but a pushy, brash, fast-talking salesman (Hope or Cagney might have suited the story even better).
The film is also a sort of a parody of the musical: Crosby's yodelling song is full of yodel jokes, and during THE number of the film (I kiss your hand in dreams madame), a chamber-maid, Fontaine's goofy chauffeur and the middle-aged pudgy 'receptionist' of the inn at which Mr. C is staying launch into a wonderfully silly (deliberately so) ballet routine clearly intended as a stab at the conventions of the genre.
The last part of the film becomes less amusing, and the puppy finale drags a bit, though the final confrontation with Franz Joseph (a great Richard Haydn) makes up for the lull.
In Austria, the American traveling salesman Virgil Smith (Bing Crosby) arrives in the palace of Emperor Franz-Joseph I (Richard Haydn) with his mongrel dog Button expecting to sell one gramophone to him to promote his sales in the country.
When the dog Sheherazade of the widowed Countess Johanna Franziska von Stolzenberg-Stolzenberg (Joan Fontaine) bites Button, Virgil visits her and sooner he falls in love for Johanna and Button for Sheherazade that is promised to breed with the Emperor's dog.
When Virgil asks permission to marry Johanna to the Emperor, the nobleman exposes to the salesman that their difference of social classes would doom their marriage and offers a business to Virgil.
"The Emperor Waltz" is a delightful and naive romance of Billy Wilder, with parallel human and canine love stories like the dogs were the alter-egos of their owners.
Joan Fontaine is extremely beautiful and shows a great chemistry with Bing Crosby, but the dog Button steals the movie and is responsible for the funniest moments.
The film mayn't be a personal favourite or a masterpiece, and there has been better from all involved- for example it is one of Billy Wilder's weakest films that I've seen but that is not knocking it at all, just that his best films are some of the best ever made- but The Emperor Waltz is still a lovely and very enjoyable film.
The script at its best is uproariously funny with Wilder's style definitely coming through, helped by the great comic delivery, and there is also room for some genuinely sweet moments without falling into schmaltz as well as some biting but often gentle cynicism with the portrayal of the Austrian court while keeping in good taste still.
Particularly good are the dog Buttons, who bags some of the film's funniest moments as well as its sweetest, and an unrecognisable Richard Haydn, sometimes his character is irritating but Haydn is also hilarious and thoughtful too.
Joan Fontaine is subtle and touching, the rest of the supporting cast turn in good work and while Crosby does go overboard at times he takes a light-hearted and suave approach in others which is most endearing and he characteristically sings magnificently.
"The Emperor Waltz" is a surprisingly lightweight film considering it was directed by Billy Wilder.
And, while he also made some great comedies (such as "Some Like it Hot"), "The Emperor Waltz" is surprisingly lightweight--particularly since Wilder's Oscars came just a few years before this film.
You'd have thought he would have merited a more prestigious project.Bing Crosby stars as Virgil Smith--a traveling salesman who is trying to make a sale to Emperor Franz Josef of the Austria-Hungarian Empire!!!
This is utterly ridiculous and you just have to turn off your brain to enjoy much of the film--such as the notion of his falling in love with a Countess, the Emperor and Virgil having an informal conversation as well as a dog that is receiving psychotherapy!
Yes, it's all very silly and Joan Fontaine and Bing Crosby do make a hilariously mismatched couple.
It comes closest when Richard Haydn (as the old Emperor Franz Joseph - possibly his best straight acting job/though his performance as a sadistic nobleman in FOREVER AMBER is close to it)tells Bing Crosby why the marriage between him and Joan Fontaine would fail.
Look at the tradition bound Windsor family and their marriage fiascos.Oddly enough, just as Wilder failed in his attempt to make a film about the Austro-Hungarian Empire Max Ophuls made the classic Viennese romance of that period - A LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN, starring Fontaine and Louis Jordan.
It was not on the scale of THE EMPEROR WALTZ, but it is better remembered and enjoyed, and gave Fontaine a memorably tragic character.
As for THE EMPEROR WALTZ, watch it for Haydn's fine performance, Crosby's singing and comic moments (when he turns a phonograph into a 19th Century berry juicer, which is a lovely little scene), and Roland Culver's social plotting.
In the original it's the Berlin industrialist Giesecke, in the movie it's Bing Crosby as the American salesman.
But, as Richard Norton pointed out in his essay on the career of WHITE HORSE INN in the English speaking world, Warner Brothers bought the rights for a film version of the operetta and thought of casting Al Jolson, Maurice Chevalier, Eddie Cantor or Jack Okie in the movie.
Just imagine what a movie it would/could have been with Bing Crosby as the suave lead, and with Billy Wilder directing.
Even though I'm a cat person, I was completely sucked in by the charm of the canine love story in The Emperor Waltz.
Bing Crosby tries to woo Joan Fontaine, but since she's a countess and he's a traveling salesman, she rebuffs him.
This is a perfectly typical Bing Crosby movie, so if you've never seen him in something and you don't like Bob Hope, rent this one over the weekend.
THE EMPEROR WALTZ (Paramount, 1948), directed by Billy Wilder, stars the unlikely pair of Academy Award winners, Bing Crosby (Best Actor of GOING MY WAY (1944) and Joan Fontaine (Best Actress of SUSPICION (1941) for the only time.
With the title lifted from the famous Johann Strauss composition, the script, as written by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, has its very own direction with a story about an unlikely pairing of a traveling salesman and an aristocratic countess, a sort of theme commonly found in the Depression era 1930s made famous by director, Ernst Lubitsch with such titles as THE LOVE PARADE (1929) starring Maurice Chevalier and Jeanette MacDonald as a commoner who marries a queen .
Even with such an old-fashioned tale carried on into post World War II, THE EMPEROR WALTZ no doubt worked wonders with audiences in 1948, but has become somewhat underrated today.Opening title: "On a December night some forty-odd years ago, His Majesty, Francis Joseph, the first emperor of Austria, apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and so forth and so forth, was giving a little clambake at his palace in Vienna." Enter Virgil Smith (Bing Crosby), a traveling American salesman, walking through the snow, climbing the vine to the second floor terrace and into the palace of a social ball given by the Emperor Franz Joseph (Richard Haydn).
Other members of the cast consist of Julia Dean (Archduchess Stephanie); Harold Vermilyea (Chamberlain); and Doris Dowling (The Tyrolean Girl).Filmed in glorious Technicolor, much of the premise is a reminder of those Ernst Lubitch musicals for Paramount which would make one feel that had THE EMPEROR WALTZ been produced around 1932, naturally the envisioned casting might have been altered to Maurice Chevalier (the salesman), Jeanette MacDonald (the countess) and C.
For THE EMPEROR WALTZ, with Crosby doing a Chevalier trademark by wearing a straw hat, there's limitations to song interludes, something quite unusual for a Bing Crosby movie.
As beautiful as any Strauss melody can be, the major disappointment is not having "The Emperor Waltz" presented as a major dance sequence participated by cast members in song and dance rather than in brief as presented in the final print.With Joan Fontaine donning period costumes and headdress from early twentieth century, though in her early thirties, appears ten years older, with the exception of one scene where she discovers she's in love through the glitter of her eyes where she appears to look quite youthful.
The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog.
However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog.
If she's not careful Joan Fontaine is likely to wind up on the wrong end of a Trivial Pursuit question: Which non-singing, non-dancing actress still managed to co-star with a leading singer and THE dancer of the twentieth century.
Although they were at the same studio, Paramount, Crosby was serenely unaware that Wilder was in the middle of a hitting streak and had just turned out four smashes - The Major And The Minor, Five Graves To Cairo, Double Indemnity and The Lost Weekend - in a row and collected Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Picture Oscars for the last one, because he showed up with his own team of writers headed by Barney Dean (yeah, you heard; Barney Dean to re-write Billy Wilder)and would hand new pages to Wilder each day saying 'here's what we'll be shooting today' or 'I'll be playing golf, let me know'.
No Wilder film could ever be all bad and his barbed reference to genocide remains with Crosby saving a mongrel litter from Sig Ruman's 'doctor' and confronting Franz-Joseph with a speech about the mongrels not being 'pure' enough to be allowed to live.
Bing Crosby, Best Actor of 1948 - Photoplay Gold Medal Award.COMMENT: Although some critics might regard this as a minor Billy Wilder exercise, it is in fact every bit as entertaining - perhaps more so - than such highly regarded Wilder comedies as A Foreign Affair and Some Like It Hot. Moreover it is sumptuously set and photographed, ingratiatingly acted, with Bing in fine voice, and Strauss music to boot.
Crosby and Fontaine make particularly engaging principals and are well served by an outstanding support cast led by Richard Haydn, superbly raspy (and excellently made up) as Franz Joseph, and Roland Culver as an opportunistic if blue-blooded wastrel.
THE EMPEROR WALTZ can be best viewed today as director Billy Wilder's attempt to explain why such a schnitzel-loving country as Austria could be drafted onto the losing side of not one but TWO world wars against the Allies last century.This story begins with an American salesman (Bing Crosby) going over to a backward European country which has barely heard of electricity and light bulbs, even though they'd been around more than three decades at the time this docudrama takes place. |
tt3225926 | Ghost Train | A young boy, Takeshi, is told by a mysterious woman that he will die after picking up a ticket inside a red bag. While boarding the subway train home, he is pulled outside of the train, which briefly stops when the conductor is distracted by a figure outside. The next day, Takeshi's classmate, Noriko Kimura, finds the ticket and shows it to her sister, Nana, experiencing a vision of a baby and her mother in the process. Noriko spots Takeshi while waiting for the train and tries to follow him, but ends up missing too. Nana decides to take action and contacts the train conductor, Shunichi Kuga. From the name written on the ticket, Yaeko Aonuma, she learns that the ticket has been returned to the lost-and-found multiple times and the people who did so have all died. The victims all have two distinguishing features: black marks covering their face and black eyes. Nana visits Takeshi's apartment, but flees when she sees that Takeshi has returned, but is naked, pale, has dark marks on his face and dark eyes, with his mother repeatedly babbling that he is no longer Takeshi.
Nana's classmate, Kanae Fujita, receives a bracelet from her boyfriend that turns out to be a useless trinket. When she confronts her boyfriend at the subway station that night, he is possessed and chokes her. Kanae kicks him to the railway right when the spirit leaves him and a train appears. Before he dies, he tells her to "beware of Yaeko". When Kanae visits the station again, Yaeko's spirit chases her until she bumps into Nana. Deciding to tackle the mystery together, the two agree to meet at the station the next day, but Nana unexpectedly has to attend her sick mother at the hospital. Alone at the station, Kanae is almost hit by a train until a hand saves her at the last second.
Nana demands more information about Yaeko from Kuga, who reveals that Yaeko is a pregnant woman who gave birth to her baby right after she was hit by a train. She died, but the status of the baby is unknown. Kanae wakes up to the woman who had rescued her. The woman tells her that she wants revenge against Yaeko, as her son suffered the same fate as Takeshi's. The woman agrees to drive Kanae to the station, but along the way, the car is hijacked by Yaeko and stops right in the middle of a railway. The woman manages to escape, but Kanae is not so lucky. She asks the woman to save Nana before a train hits the car.
At the station, the woman informs Nana about Kanae's fate. With Kuga's help, the trio head to a deeper part of the subway. Nana receives another vision, learning that there was already a spirit who resided in the subway and that Yaeko was just another victim. However, her furious and sorrowful spirit of not knowing her baby's fate overcomes the original spirit and she becomes the sole haunter of the subway. Unraveling a passageway behind the tunnel walls, Nana and the woman discover the spirit's ancient statues and Noriko sleeping atop a mountain of dead bodies. When Yaeko appears, the woman is enraged and tackles her, ending up stabbed by a stalagmite. As she lays dying, Nana learns from the woman's scars that she is Yaeko's long-lost baby. Seeing the bodies reanimated, Nana and Noriko race back to Kuga's train. Nana almost falls to an endless chasm if not for her sister, Kuga, and Kanae's spirit pulling her back. Upon reaching the train, Kuga manages to steer the train back to the station.
The next day, Nana and Noriko visit their mother, who has recovered and is ready to come back home. Nana watches the TV and learns that Kuga has ordered an explosion on the subway to seal it forever. She heads outside to sit on a bench and meets Kanae's spirit. The two smile at each other before Kanae disappears. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1397514 | Journey 2: The Mysterious Island | It has been four years since the events of the first movie. Seventeen-year-old Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) is caught by the police after a brief chase on his dirtbike which ended with him driving into a swimming pool while trying to evade them. Minutes later, his stepfather Hank (Dwayne Johnson) arrives where a police officer (Stephen Caudill) who is friends with Hank tells him that Sean has illegally broken into a remote satellite research center, and that he has talked Mr. and Mrs. McGillicutty (the owners of the swimming pool) out of pressing charges. Hank takes Sean home where his mother Elizabeth (Kristin Davis) is not pleased with his actions and/or the fact that he and Hank don't get along well.
Hank discovers that Sean trespassed the satellite research center in order to boost the signal of a code Sean received from someone he suspects is Alexander Anderson, Sean's grandfather who had been missing for two years. Wanting to bond with his stepson the next day, Hank helps Sean decipher the code of Jules Verne characters which lead to three books: Treasure Island, Gulliver's Travels, and Verne's own Mysterious Island. Using the books' individual island maps, Hank suspects they are books of the same island and uses a back light in order to make them all one completed land mass with the coordinates to its location. Hank manages to convince Liz to let both of them go in search of the island, in slight hopes of proving Sean wrong, that there is no so-called mysterious island there.
They arrive in Palau where they need transportation to travel to this dangerous part of the ocean. A Palauan helicopter tourism guide Gabato (Luis Guzman) and his daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) who Sean develops an immediate crush on, agree to fly them out to the island for $3,000, but the helicopter gets caught in a category 5 hurricane and they crash into the Pacific, waking up on the island.
Crossing into the island, they discover one of the laws of the Mysterious Island is that, all animals big are small and all animals small are big (inspiring Lilliput from Gulliver's Travels). The crew discover tiny elephants and giant butterflies, which are the first creatures they come across on the island. The group decides to explore further into the island.
After leaving that part of the island they come across an egg clutch belonging to a Giant Frilled Lizard, they are then saved by Sean's grandfather Alexander (Michael Caine) who takes them to a large hut he'd built from the wreckage of the ship that brought him to the island called the Blue-Eyed Lucy. He has a working radio, but due to the positioning of the communications satellite it would be two weeks before they could call for help.
The next morning, Alexander leads the group to the lost city of Atlantis which is usually submerged in the ocean and he also calculates that the island sinks once every 70 years. However, the sea water appearing from the ground is the evidence that Alexanders' calculations are wrong, and that the island will sink in a couple of days. Their only means of salvation seems to be the legendary Nautilus (Captain Nemo's submarine), hidden somewhere on the island. Kailani enters Nemo's crypt and finds his journal, which has the whereabouts of the ship in a cave at Poseidon's Cliffs. They decide to go to that cave through the heart of the island.
They mount giant bees in order to fly over a high ridge and make up time, but encounter large birds that try to devour the bees. After saving Kailani's life, Sean crashes and dislocates his ankle. Hank and Alexander later patch up Sean's ankle the best way they can. Afterward, they have a good moment when Hank sings his rendition of "What a Wonderful World" to ease Sean's pain.
The next morning, the water has risen greatly and Hank deduces that the island will sink in a matter of hours, not days. Gabato is missing having gone toward the island's golden volcano (which was the inspiration for Treasure Island) in search for the funds to give his daughter a better life. While Alexander and Kailani go after him, Sean and Hank head for Poseidon's Cliffs to look for the Nautilus. Alexander also finally calls Hank by his preferred name, as up to that point he only called him "Henry" and the family makes up.
To deal with the rising water after finding the Nautilus' cave underwater, Sean and Hank make makeshift oxygen tanks and dive down fifty feet in order to obtain the Nautilus and are nearly killed by a giant electric eel. They are unable to power the ship however because the vessel's batteries being 140 years old have run down. They find a way to power the submarine from the electric eel's electricity.
Meanwhile, Kailani and Alexander find Gabato and convince him to escape with them instead of trying for the golden volcano. They head towards the shore as the island begins to suddenly and violently rip itself apart. The golden volcano starts to erupt violently, pouring lava flows all over the area. Highly flammable lava bombs are thrown from the golden volcano into the air and suddenly land on the sinking island's debris. Sean and Hank use a harpoon to get an electrical jump start from the electric eel swarming around them and they are able to power the machine, just in time to pick up the others who had fallen into the water. Gabato pilots the submarine out of harm's way while Hank and Sean fire torpedoes into the path of falling island debris. As they clear the dangers, Kailani finally kisses Sean for his bravery.
Six months later, Kailani and Gabato are well off. Gabato is now running the most popular tourist attraction on Palau providing tours aboard the Nautilus and Kailani is attending college. Kailani goes to visit Sean on his birthday. While they are celebrating, Alexander shows up with a book for Sean's birthday present. Sean opens it to find Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, Alexander's suggests for a new adventure with the family, to which Liz protests. Hank replies "What could possibly go wrong? It's only the moon!"
During the credits, the mini-elephants from the earlier scene are swimming underwater over Atlantis. | psychedelic, humor | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0438550 | Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines | === Setting ===
Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines takes place in four areas of 21st-century Los Angeles: Santa Monica, Hollywood, downtown Los Angeles, and Chinatown. Set in the World of Darkness, the game depicts a world in which vampires, werewolves, demons, and other creatures shape human history. The vampires are bound by a code to maintain their secrecy (forbidding the use of vampiric abilities in front of humans) and avoid unnecessary killing (to preserve the vampire's last shreds of humanity). The vampires are divided into seven clans of the Camarilla, the vampire government, with distinctive traits and abilities. The Toreadors are the closest to humanity, with a passion for culture; the Ventrue are noble, powerful leaders; the Brujah are idealists who excel at fighting; the Malkavians are cursed with insanity, or blessed with insight; the Gangrel are loners, in sync with their animalistic nature; the secretive, untrustworthy Tremere wield blood magic; and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to a life in the shadows to avoid humanity. The clans are loosely united by their belief in the Camarilla's goals and opposition to the Sabbat: vampires who revel in their nature, embracing the beast within. The Anarchs are a faction of idealistic vampires opposed to the Camarilla's political structure, believing that power should be shared by all vampires.
The main character of Bloodlines, whom the player controls, is an unnamed fledgling vampire, transformed at the start of a game and belonging to one of the clans. The fledgling is employed by Sebastian LaCroix (voiced by Andy Milder), prince of Los Angeles' vampires. The fledgling's travels through the vampire world bring them into contact with other undead creatures such as the deformed information broker Bertram Tung, the Anarch Smiling Jack, and the mentally-unstable Voerman sisters, Jeanette and Therese. Chinatown is controlled by the Kuei-Jin, Asian vampires led by Ming-Xiao, who do not require blood and consider themselves superior to the other vampires.
=== Plot ===
The game begins with the player character, an unnamed human, being killed and resurrected as a fledgling vampire. For this unauthorized act, the fledgling and their Sire are brought before the Camarilla. The Sire is executed by order of LaCroix; the fledgling is spared the same fate by the intervention of the Anarch, Nines Rodriguez, and employed by the prince.
LaCroix sends the fledgling to Santa Monica to help his ghoul, Mercurio, destroy a Sabbat warehouse. Following his success the fledgling travels to downtown Los Angeles, meeting separately with Nines, LaCroix, and Jack. LaCroix tasks the player with investigating a docked ship, the Elizabeth Dane, for information about an Ankaran sarcophagus rumored to contain the body of an Antediluvian, one of the oldest and most powerful vampires, whose arrival would herald the vampire apocalypse, Gehenna. The fledgling discovers that the sarcophagus seems to have been opened from within.
Increased Sabbat activity coincides with the disappearance of the Malkavian chief, Alistair Grout. At Grout's mansion, the fledgling sees Nines leaving and discovers Grout's remains in the mansion with vampire hunter Grunfeld Bach, who denies involvement in Grout's death. Learning about Nines' presence at the mansion, LaCroix tells the other chiefs to approve Nines' execution. The fledgling is sent to the Museum of Natural History to recover the sarcophagus, but finds that it has been stolen. Jack later suggests to the fledgling that LaCroix wants the sarcophagus to drink the blood of the ancient within, gaining its power.
Believing that Gary, the Nosferatu chief, has stolen the sarcophagus, the fledgling is sent to Hollywood to find him; after locating a captured Nosferatu for Gary, he reveals that the sarcophagus was stolen by the Giovanni vampire clan. The fledgling infiltrates the Giovanni mansion and finds the sarcophagus guarded by the Kuei-Jin, who claim their leader, Ming-Xiao, has formed an alliance with LaCroix. The locked sarcophagus is returned to LaCroix's tower and Beckett, a vampire historian, tells the fledgling that the only person who can open it has been abducted by Grunfeld to lure LaCroix. The fledgling kills Grunfeld and learns that the sarcophagus' key has been stolen.
They return to LaCroix, learning that the Sabbat tried to steal the sarcophagus to destroy it and prevent Gehenna, and kill the Sabbat leader to disperse his followers. The fledgling is met by Ming-Xiao, who offers to form an alliance. Ming-Xiao reveals that she has the key, and LaCroix killed Grout to prevent his powerful insight from unveiling LaCroix's plans; Ming-Xiao changed into Nines at the mansion to frame him. Denying Ming-Xiao's claims, LaCroix rescinds the blood hunt on Nines and entrusts the fledgling with recruiting the Anarchs to punish the Kuei-Jin for murdering Grout. The fledgling finds Nines hiding in the forest, and they are then attacked by a werewolf and Nines is badly injured. The fledgling escapes with Jack, who reveals that LaCroix has issued an execution order on the fledgling for framing Nines on orders from Ming-Xiao.
The end varies, depending on whom, if anyone, the fledgling allies with. If the fledgling supports LaCroix or Ming-Xiao, each sends the fledgling to kill the other. LaCroix opens the sarcophagus, to be killed with the fledgling by hidden explosives; Ming-Xiao betrays the fledgling, chaining them to the sarcophagus and sinking it in the ocean. Supporting the Anarchs or no one makes the fledgling kill Ming-Xiao and maim LaCroix, who is killed after he opens the sarcophagus. If the fledgling opens the sarcophagus, they die in the explosion. If the fledgling is a Tremere, they kill Ming-Xiao; LaCroix is replaced by Tremere leader Maximillian Strauss, and the sarcophagus is stored. Each ending has Jack watching from afar with the mummy taken from the coffin and the enigmatic taxi driver who transports the fledgling between locations, who says "The blood of Caine controls our fate ... Farewell, vampire." | neo noir | train | wikipedia | Buy this game..
This is, without a doubt, one of the best games I have ever played.
The plot line is engaging and fast-paced, the sub-quests are fun, the character development is superior to that of most novels, the graphics are great, the dialogue is better than most of what comes out of Hollywood.
This game is addictive.
The entire game changes depending upon what choices you make, from the smallest to the largest.
You can play through the game over and over without being bored, and you discover little tidbits every time you do so.It was developed by Troika, probably best known for Arcanum, RPG of the Year recently.
This development house is top-notch, refusing to settle for inferior product in any aspect.
They really outdid themselves this time.
Yes, all their games have bugs...
a small price to pay, and most are fixed through patches.The game changes depending upon which of the seven Clans you choose, and even whether or not you are male or female.
You can develop your character into a smooth-talker, and finesse your way past obstacles...
or, become stealthy and sneak around them...
or, make yourself into a weapon and plow through them.Thus far, I have played through the game four times and I have not become bored yet.
This game is the best of 2004, in my opinion.I can not recommend it highly enough.Edited-- Make sure to download the official patch!
It fixes some of the minor graphical glitches.
Also, there's a TON of fan support for this game.
I believe they're up to patch 3.3 now..
An ancient, organized conclave of vampires invades Hollywood.
But you already knew that....
First thing first- this game chugs on most machines like you wouldn't believe.
We're talking Rambo pulling an army helicopter on a chain- it would obviously still go (hey it's Rambo) but it would really slow...That being said; the story, the art, the style, the fighting and the gameplay are all superb.
The game has multiple endings and several different ways to complete the game.You start off choosing a race, much like an MMORPG.
Race affects your starting abilities, as well as how you play the game.
Some races are good with firearms and fist fighting, some are stealthy, some wield magic very well, and others have a silver tongue for smooth diplomacy.
And, I don't mean the boring diplomacy where you roll a dice and hope your saving throw works- I mean a choose what to say in a dialogue based on your playing style and charisma and affect how the NPCs respond.Because there are different playing styles and a horde of abilities, one can redo missions over and over with different results each time.
However, that isn't so far as to say that each outcome is different.
Let's face it, there are a hundred ways to skin a cat, but each time you are left with a sticky pile of fur.The game is dark and yet romantic, stylized at it's very core.
Sometimes it feels more like a Detective NOIR or a mob story then a typical Vampire.Vampire: The Masquerade II: Bloodlines is really 50% First Person Shooter, 50% RPG, and 10% Adventure.
Yes, the developer's gave this game 110% of effort.
Best RPG of 2004?.
I think so.This has to be one of the best, most exciting RPG's that I had the pleasure of playing.right after KoTOR and before KoTOR II.the plot is awesome and the characters are great.
some funny, some evil.
some are just plain weird.this game makes being one of the children of the night fun as hell.now a short review of the plot.in the game, you play a person who spent the night with a vampire, and against his will was embraced.since the laws of the camarilla prevents embracing without permission, you are about to be executed.but I guess fate has other plans for you...in your journey into "The World Of Darkness", you will see all kinds of weird stuff.some are hideous, and some are funny.
you will meet interesting characters, and slowly learn the truth behind it all.the quests are great and fun(some are spooky).I completed the game 3 times already(3 times as a tremere) and i'm going to start another game but this time as a gangrel :D.i'm not gonna give you any info on the clans or their history, since i'm not the most educated person when it comes to the WOD(World Of Darkness).i'm sure that you will find other people who can answer you'r questions.so the bottom line is:if you love RPG's.
and you love a great plot with cool twists and fun quests.GET THIS GAME!10/10.
The Crown Jewel of RPG.
The first time I HEARD of Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines was while searching for a new game to play after Neverwinter Nights 2.
I watched Gopher's Let's play of Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines and after seeing the first (2) episodes, I stopped watching because I said I HAVE TO PLAY THIS!
This game has the most creative NPC (Non Player Characters) that interact with you an a way that is authentic, organic and very creative.
The back story and Lore of World of Darkness by White Wolf in which Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines takes place in is one of treachery, plots within plots and the never-ending hunger (Called "The Beast") to feed on blood.You have different choices that you can make, which have a DIRECT impact on your progression and interactions in the game.You have the choice of playing from one of (8) clans as a Male or Female and each clan has their own individual powers, motivations, horrors and quests.I started of playing the INCREDIBLE Clan Malkavian and had NUMEROUS humorous moments from the confusion on the individual faces because of the insanity that runs in this clans and their dialog choices.I cannot recommend this game enough to anyone that's wants to experience a TRULY unique RPG video game.
Be sure to obtain and install the Official patch, found here: http://planet-vampire.net2and then the Unofficial Patch, found here: http://www.patches-scrolls.de/patch and Enjoy!!.
Wow...seriously.
I played this game straight through the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it.
When the credits rolled 'Boyarski...Anderson...Caine', my jaw dropped on the ground.
My memory is pretty crappy for most things but it didn't miss a beat summoning up the reference; "Those are the creators of the original Fallout" - another excellent RPG series from a time before.It's a shame that, at the time, 'Vampire' culture had its own following with a definite image problem.
Ironically, the game itself makes fun of this 'culture' on the in-game radio show called 'The Deb of Night'.
In 2004 Doom 3 was out...Half life 2 was a big hit.
Fashioning a game of this amazing calibre under the wrappings of a known live-action RPG and culture of sorts limited the appeal to those beyond.
Metaphorically; they put a gold bar in a plain brown wrapper.
I didn't find out about it until recently when the raves of greatness came from the voices hovering around the discount bin at Steam.
A 7 year old game and I'm playing (and enjoying it) more than Deus Ex - Human Revolution - though that's a pretty good game in itself..
The GREATEST RPG of All-Time.
Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines Buy it on GoG or Steam and be sure to use latest Unofficial Patch from here http://www.patches-scrolls.de/patch/4647/7Most amazing dialogue options in any RPG, Period!Perfect music in every settingThe NPC voice acting and facial animation are the BEST and most creative interactions I have ever experience.There are SEVEN Clans you can play and All offer unique playing experiences and stylesMalkavians (Watch a play-through and you'll know why, too funny for words!)The Awesome and ongoing Unofficial Patch development by Wesp5, The Clan Quest Mod (That adds a fully voiced additional quest for all Seven of the Clans), The Finals Nights Mod and the Antitrubu Mods that both allow you to play more exotic clans.Re-playability.
I am on my Fourth Play-through and just being able to play each character differently and the layers of the Onion that you keep peeling away on this Masterpiece are amazing!!Lore!
White Wolf/Paradox World of Darkness in which VTMB is set is just an unbelievably rich world and setting.Choices and Consequence.
4 Different Endings that you make through your on own personal choices as you play.
Also, Consequences as you play through the game (I won't spoil it, You just have to play it and you'll see what I mean) Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines REMAINS The King of RPG'S and now you know why..
This game is GREAT.
The only reason I gave it a 9 instead of a 10, it's because of the bugs and how the ending part is obviously unfinished work, this is one of the best, if not the best RPG that I've played as a video game.
Unfortunately didn't have enough time to be developed and it wasn't popular enough to save the company that made it so they went out without even making patches.
If RPGs took this game as a model we could have much more quality games on the market..
You've made a powerful enemy today, sign.
Bloodlines is an ambitious game, for several reasons.First, it's an action/RPG in which quests often have multiple solutions, allowing players to choose between combat, stealth and diplomacy.
Second, it features an original setting, a seedy Los Angeles of the World of Darkness tabletop games, where vampires and other supernatural creatures hide among humans.
I love Tolkien as much as the next ninth-level ranger, but it's always refreshing to see a RPG which isn't about orcs and elves in a medieval-like world.
Third, the player can choose between one of seven different clans, and the choice is not just cosmetic: if you pick an aristocratic Ventrue focused on diplomacy or a seductive Toreador, you'll be playing a completely different game from the player who chooses a monstrous Nosferatu, always lurking in the shadows.
To say nothing of the hilariously insane Malkavians.
There is an abundance of great ideas: multiple endings, some of which only available if you made specific choices earlier the game; the necessity to balance the need between feeding with blood and not losing your humanity, while also keeping a low profile (the "Masquerade"); apparently minor choices developing into neat subplots.What further elevates the game is the writing: wonderfully charismatic characters, with superb voice acting and expressive facial animations, and a creepy story featuring plenty of horror and black humour.Flaws?
Well, even after loads of official and unofficial patches (some remarkable work by fans), the game is still somewhat buggy (although now bugs are not game-breaking anymore).
Also, the last act drops the RPG elements and focuses almost exclusively on fights, penalizing non combat-oriented characters - a cop-out for a game which, for most of its course, is so flexible.There are also a few puzzling bits - a sewer section so drab and unimaginative compared to what precedes and follows it, you wonder what the developers were thinking - but overall this is a must-play classic..
Seriously overrated crap-wagon.
The game blows.
Took me four hours to make it run and then I discovered how can one screw up a good engine that Source is.
Indestructible bottles, goth chicks in red tights (look at them - their faces lack any details!
They're just dancing mannequins with flat, low-res masks!) and no reason for using the physics system - remember where you had to put a stack of bricks on a plank to go further in HL2?
And how can one screw up a good pen&paper roleplaying system that VtM is.
Overly clichéd characters (a Prince with a three feet long stick up his a**, eight-foot tall Sheriff from nowhere, two Malkavians in one body, a Thinblood prophet - probably some Malkavian reject), equally clichéd scenario (couldn't that damn sarcophagus do anything else than go BOOM?
I'd expect an Antediluvian or some Inconnu emerging and whacking everyone about!), not mentioning completely stupid way some of the Disciplines (mostly Domination, Auspex and Thaumaturgy) are designed and, what hurt me most, robbing your beginner character of half the dots a beginner character should have (yes, my Brujah made accordingly with VtM Rulebook has 3 Str, 4 Dex and 3 Sta while in Bloodlines I have lame-ass 1 Str, 3 Dex and 2 Sta - WTF is that?
Am I Steven Hawking or something?!).
To be quite honest, with my "rulebook beginner" stats the game is nothing more than an action/adventure game (I don't spend experience points I gain - no need for that).
I just go here, whack one crazy sucker, go there, whack another one...
The game was released done in maybe 1/3: screwed beta version of Source engine resulting in bulletproof glass and near-lack of using the physics system, flat-faced clubbers (take note of the girls with Sailor Moon hairdo and red tights - their faces lack any details), some weird teleportation magic going on in the chantry (no matter where you go, you'll get to Regent's room - the 'click' is noticeable, if not, try leaving an item on the last turn before Regent's room (glowing corridor), then turn back and walk into the other corridor - you'll pop almost right where you dropped the item!) and simply turning most NPCs into snacks on two legs makes this game to be stamped with a huge red "SUCKS" stamp.
Bloodlines are boring and overrated.
Some cool moments (haunted hotel and house of the dead) can't save it.
Sorry, you're flushed. |
tt0099155 | Bloodfist II | The film opens with Jake Raye as he fights Mickey Sheehan in a pro-kickboxing bout. The movie opens as they enter the fifth Round of the Lightweight Championship Match. Jake delivers Mickey a lightning fast kick to the throat in the middle of the sixth round, instantly killing him. Seeing what he had done, he decides to give up kickboxing once and for all.
A year later, a friend and manager Vinny Petrello (Kickboxing and UFC champion Maurice Smith) asks him for a favor to travel to Manila and bail him out of trouble with a guy named Su. Although Jake's evening with a prostitute (Liza David) is interrupted, he agrees to help his friend in need. Jake Raye travels to Manila, and meets up with local fighters John Jones (James Warring), Sal Taylor (Timothy D. Baker), Manny Rivera (Manny Samson), and Tobo Casenerra (Monsour Del Rosario). He also meets up with Dieter (Robert Marius), the head of the Dojo. Thugs attack Jake, and is helped by a woman named Mariella (Rina Reyes) into an abandoned safehouse. Mariella betrays him, and the thugs enter the safehouse. Dieter drugs Raye, and puts him on the ship with the other fighters. Raye is re-acquained with his friend Bobby Rose (Rick Hill) and meets another fighter named Ernesto (Steve Rodgers). It is revealed that Su (Joe Mari Avellana) is the one who bring the fighters to his island home called Paradise, and it is also revealed that Vinny is helping Su get the fighters there to battle in gladiator matches.
The fighters briefly rebel giving Jake Raye time to escape. Soon Raye has a change of heart and decides to free the other fighters. He makes it back to the house undetected by Su, and is helped once more by Mariella. Mariella and Raye uncover a plot for Su to give anabolic steroids to each of his fighters before the match.
Jake Raye takes out some guards before he is discovered by Dieter and knocked unconscious by Vinny, pretending to be in trouble. Jake is taken to the challenger’s box of the arena, where Su, Vinny, and his guests are awaiting the matching. Both John and Ernest die in the arena while battling their opponents while Manny is killed trying to escape. (Ernest does win his fight, but Su orders Vinny to kill him either due to his unorthodox fighting i.e. low blows and eye gouging however it should be noted the fights were not fair to begin With and they were fighting for survival or his embarrassment of su's fighter) the help of Mariella, the remaining surviving fighters (Bobby, Sal, Tobo, and Jake) Jake fights and kills Vinny while the others defeat the guards and the elite fighters. Bobby shoots Dieter while escaping, and the film ends after Jake defeats Su with a swift kick off the balcony. The five people begin to walk off Paradise forever. | violence | train | wikipedia | The Dragon Returns!.
Jake Raye(Don "The Dragon" Wilson) is back in action, only this time the action is more extreme.
In "Bloodfist II", Jake and several other fighters go down to the Phillipines, where a friend of Jake's calls him out to help him.
It turned out to be a booby-trap for all of them.
Jake's friend seem to got himself way over his head.
Working with the wrong people and getting greedy from those people.
Jake and his friends fight for their lives when their opponents take a steroid which makes them impervious to pain, but some of the fighters didn't do too well.
They kill off whoever doesn't last in the fight whether it was Jake's friends or the opponents.
Looks like those who took the steroid, didn't have a clue that they were pawns as well.
Jake friend took the same steroid and he paid the price for betraying him and his friends.
The steroid may have given him immunity to pain, but it didn't make him indestructible when he took a roundhouse to the neck.
Once the old saying goes, Once a pawn, always a pawn, forever a pawn!
That steroid had only one purpose, and look what happens.
That movie was a lot of fun, and the plot of the movie was great, I liked that.
Rating 3 out of 5 stars..
This movie is one of the best movies that Don "the dragon" Wilson has made!!
its really good to watch and what makes it more better is the fact that there are some great fighters in this movie, i really like this movie it has a lot of mysteries in it!!.
It's rated pretty low....
...And perhaps deservedly so?
OK, so any movie, especially a martial arts movie starring "B"-movie Kickboxing phenomenon Don "The Dragon" Wilson, with backing by Roger Corman, is bound to not be good, right?
Yeah, pretty much.
I'll admit to watching and video-recording the first two "Bloodfist" movies that feature "The Dragon" as American Kickboxing champ Jake Raye, who's kicking the bad guys' butts in the Phillippines.
In both movies, Raye has to fight in brutal martial arts tournaments and also get out of some sort of convoluted mess of a plot.
But in "Bloodfist II," Raye returns to Manila, this time to help out a friend named Vinny Petrello (former UFC champ Maurice Smith) who is in some sort of trouble.
It turns out to be a trap, and Raye is kidnapped along with six other martial artists (whose styles range from Greco-Roman Wrestling to Judo to Shotokan Karate) and forced to fight a group of chemically enhanced brutes in a series of Roman-style, to-the-death gladiator fights arranged by Su (Joe Mari Avellana).
Now with the rising popularity of mixed martial arts all over the world and my own personal interest in this sport, it would make sense that a movie like "Bloodfist II" would get some more attention, since it deals with fighters of different styles coming together to show whose style is the best.
(But didn't they do that in 1988 with Jean-Claude Van Damme's movie "Bloodsport"?) Yet, this entry, by director Andy Blumenthal, has pitiful acting, lousy dialogue, Jake's poorly timed relationship with Su's daughter Mariella (Rina Reyes) and just about everything else, except the fights, with the actual tournament not starting until the third act of the picture.
The illegal underground martial arts tournament story has been done to death already.
How about fighters competing in a legal martial arts tournament for once?
And lastly, there's Wilson.
He's far from a great actor, but his performance is pretty much limited to his Kickboxing skills, which shows that his title as "The Dragon" seems rightful.
Too bad, he could've been a great cult movie martial arts star if his career and "B"-movie choices had panned out a little better.4/10.
To break a promise....
I swore that I would never watch any Bloodfist sequels after being appalled at what I saw with episode # 1, however somebody said that I'm a lot like another reviewer who has been reviewing low budget junkers such as I, his name is Gridoon.
I looked at his reviews and it turned it out he had reviewed Heatseeker, Kickboxer 4, Cyborg and a bunch of others that I had seen.
Not to be one upped, I dare challenged to watch all Bloodfist movies, just to prove I was no meter maid in the stakes of bad movies.
In other words I rented and saw all Bloodfist movies in two days.
The film itself stars Wilson as a you guessed it, a kickboxer who is abducted and forced to fight a bunch of super fighters enhanced by a steroid.
The sequel is of course an obvious rip off of Enter The Dragon, but the fighting here was better and from what I have seen remains one of the better entries of the series.
Take that however you want take it.
Wilson though is dependably terrible.* * out of 4-(Fair).
Much better than part 1.
This sequel saved the franchise for part 1 was poorly made even by it's standards but the sequel had a much better story, fights and the important chemistry between the actors.The action is full pack and u don't get bored like in the first film.In fact all bloodfist sequels are better than part 1 so i urge you to avoid part 1 and start your collection from part 2.Don the dragon Wilson is great as always and together with matthias hues john barrett lorenzo lamas sasa mitchel van damme michael worth to name a few starred in many great American martial arts movies like the bloodfist series, kickboxer series and movies like bounty tracker, final impact, shootfighter and American kickboxer 1 to also name a few gems..
Relentless side-scrolling beat 'em up.
BLOODFIST II is a shambolic production: clearly made on the ultra-cheap, consisting of non-actors who couldn't look more wooden if they tried, with a threadbare story that shamelessly rips off ENTER THE DRAGON at every opportunity from the island tournament to the chunky henchmen and urbane criminal overlord.
And yet it's still ten times better than the truly execrable BLOODFIST, which remains one of the worst films I've ever watched.The reason this sequel is better is purely because it has more action – and a lot more action, at that.
In fact, there's a fight scene regular as clockwork every five minutes or so, and sometimes even more frequently.
Sadly, the fights aren't up to much; the choreography is about as boring as it could be, and the opponents display no discernible talent, merely running towards the hero and falling down when they get kicked in the face.
But at least there's stuff happening, unlike in the first movie.Sadly, the numerous faults are still too major to make this even remotely resemble anything approaching a good movie.
Don "The Dragon" Wilson is a humourless and extraordinarily wooden leading man, my least favourite of all the martial arts stars, and he goes through the motions here.
The supporting cast are even worse and some of the performances are downright appalling.
The plot is dull and tired and far too simplistic, and in the end this is nothing more than moving wallpaper, or a film version of the old side-scrolling beat 'em ups where exchangeable thugs are mown down by a one-dimensional hero character..
Don "The Dragon" Wilson returns as Jake Raye a kickboxer who is forced out of retirement to face altered warriors in this Enter The Dragon knock off.
Bloodfist II maybe a definite improvement over it's awful predecessor, but it still isn't all that good, however some decent fightscenes as well as a fast pace makes this less painful.
Don "The Dragon" Wilson may be the only martial arts action star to date that has killed the same bad guy twice, while playing the same character..
THIS MOVIE KICKS A**E!!!.
THIS MOVIE KICKS A**E!!!.
this movie is the better of the eight bloodfists movies it is about a guy called jake raye, and he gets a phone call from his old mate vinnie to fight for su, thats the drug lord, but vinnie wants jake dead so he tricks him by saying that they have been friends for years, meanwhile, jakes friends all get roped into going to this island where su drugs up his fighters because so wants jake and his friends to fight against su's people!!.
Epic martial arts action..
Champion kickboxer Jake Raye quits the sport in anger after his opponent is killed in the ring.
Two years later, Raye is called by his friend Vinny in Manila, who is trying to leave the country without being killed.
Raye heads over to escort him to safety but is overpowered & drugged.
Coming to, he discovers that he & several other champion fighters have been chained together & taken to an island where they are expected to fight in professional gambler Su's gladiatorial contest.
Raye manages to escape, but sneaking into the mansion in order to free his friends finds that Vinny has been assisting Su in developing a super steroid that is undetectable & gives its user super strength & immunity to pain.
Raye must help his fellow fighters in taking on the small army of thugs & drugged-up killers in order to leave the island alive.After the original Bloodfist made back its money & then some in its limited theatrical release, producer Roger Corman decided to greenlight this, the first of eight sequels.
Don "The Dragon" Wilson returns as the hero (although this is the only sequel where he plays the same character twice) & a couple of his co-stars in the original Bloodfist return as well.The film is an improvement over the original, but not by much.
Indeed, Bloodfist II has better fights & more action than the original.
Here, the script has been developed to make a story that despite being nothing more than a thread to connect all the fights together still has considerably better drawn characters than the original ever did.The fights in this film are considerably better than those in the original.
Here, the martial arts champions starring in the film must take on an army of drugged-up killers & an almost unlimited number of stick-wielding thugs in a climax that is so full of wall-to-wall martial arts action that you'll be almost overwhelmed by the sight of it all.While saying that, Bloodfist II is still not a particularly decent film.
It is better than the original, but remains decidedly average.
If you like the sight of muscular men beating the crap out of each other, then this will be a good choice.The acting is better than the first film, but still has its fair share of bad actors.
Among the ones improving their thespian skills is hero Don "The Dragon" Wilson.
He has improved considerably since the original but still has a long way to go.
Richard Hill makes one of his early appearances as the Army Ranger combat instructor & Joe Mari Avellana returns as the sinister gambler & steroid maker Su (making him the only actor to be beaten by the same nemesis (Wilson) in two films)..
Twice The Punchfighting and Twice The Silliness!.
Jake Raye is back, and in kickboxing-related trouble once again!
Since the last Bloodfist film, Jake became a legit kickboxer, in state-sanctioned bouts with boxing gloves, etc., and put his punchfighting past behind him.
When he accidentally kills his opponent in the ring, he vows never to fight again.
After about two years have passed, Jake has hit the skids.
His apartment is in disarray and he's not in shape.
One day, he gets a call from his friend, a Black man inexplicably named Vinny Petrello (Smith), who lures him back to Manila once again.
Once back on his old stomping grounds, Jake and a bunch of other fighters are kidnapped and spirited away by boat to the private island home of sinister kickboxing fan Su (Avellana).
He forces the men to take part in an "illegal high stakes tournament" - death fights, or as Su calls them, "gladiator fights".
But Su's men have an unfair advantage.
He pumps them full of a special steroid that makes them impervious to pain.
So the good fighters don't know what they're up against.
Luckily, the plucky Jake Raye and love interest Mariella (Reyes) get to the bottom of it.
Will Jake live to see another sequel?
For those that don't know, only the first two Bloodfist films are truly sequels.
The Dragon plays Jake Raye in the first two films only.
The other 897 Bloodfist movies are basically separate entities but renamed under the Bloodfist banner because presumably Roger Corman felt fans would rather see an eighth sequel to something, whether it's truly a sequel or not, than a new movie with an original title.
Interesting logic.Nevertheless, the first half of Bloodfist 2 is very similar to the original film - the same locales are used and some of the situations seem oddly familiar.
But once the fighters are on the boat to Su's house, things change.
The movie somehow becomes dumber, yet more fast paced, even though a huge block of time is spent in one room as the fighters fight.
Yet it never becomes a slog.
That was pretty impressive.
It was here that the film developed its own, more original personality.
And of course, the film ends with a big, final brawl.Avellana is back as the bad guy, but not the same one from the first movie.
And the rankings of the fighters/actors are back in the credits, but the movie outdoes itself in introducing these men to the audience, as Su names them all, and their titles/rankings in the movie as well.
In the order Su introduces them, they are: John Jones (Warring), Manny Rivera (Samson), Bobby Rose (Hill), Ernest Santana (Rogers), Tobo Castanerra (Del Rosario), and Sal Taylor (Baker), the last of which sports a spiffy shirt throughout the entirety of his screen time.
Additionally, Ned Hourani and Cris Aguilar return from the first movie, but in different roles.
Don The Dragon gives his delightfully wooden delivery we all know and love.Bloodfist 2 is more of a typical punchfighter, but the action and humor elements are ramped up more, and the plot is tamped down to a minimum.
Since all Bloodfist movies apparently had to be 85 minutes, the filmmakers decided to try a new structure, at least for the second half of the film.If you watched the first Bloodfist movie and wished it had MORE punchfighting, as well as more silliness, this, the only true sequel, is the movie for you.NOTE: in the end credits, Wes Craven and Stephen Tobolowsky are listed as "advisors".
If anyone knows how Craven or Tobolowsky advised this movie, please write in today.For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com |
tt1651065 | Don't Go in the Woods | As something kills a hysterical woman, and a bird watcher, four friends (Peter, Joanne, Ingrid and Craig) trek through the wilderness. A tourist is thrown over a waterfall (landing near some oblivious frolickers) and his mother is wounded, and dragged away. The four backpackers set up camp for the night, and elsewhere a pair of honeymooners are attacked in their van and murdered. The next day, the two couples continue their hike, while an artist is stabbed to death, and her young daughter is taken.
Two more campers are butchered, and while off on his own, Peter witnesses a fisherman also murdered by the killer, who turns out to be a spear-wielding wild man adorned in furs and rags. Peter rushes off to warn his friends, but the maniac gets to them first, spearing Craig and sending Joanne fleeing into the woods. Peter finds Ingrid and after the two stumble upon the wild man's cabin, they accidentally attack another hiker, thinking he is the savage. The killer finishes off the hiker and wounds Ingrid, but she and Peter escape and eventually reach civilization where they alert the authorities.
Irrational due to guilt over leaving Joanne behind, Peter escapes from the hospital he and Ingrid are brought to and returns to the woods. Joanne finds a campsite containing a dead body, then a cabin where the killer hacks her to death with a machete. A posse (which includes Ingrid) is formed to hunt the maniac and look for Peter and Joanne. The sheriff finds the cabin, where he uncovers Joanne's body, leaving Peter even more distraught.
By nightfall the wild man claims another victim (a man in a wheelchair who is decapitated). Ingrid steals a machete and goes off to look for Peter who she finds by morning, along with the savage who they stab to death in a frenzy, only stopping when the search party arrives. As everyone clears out of the forest, the baby that was taken from the artist is shown alone in the wilderness playing with a hatchet. | violence | train | wikipedia | It's hard to comment on the score because the teenagers are absolutely unable to play any musical instrument (except for the blind kid whose electric bass works just fine in the forest, as if by magic)and are even less able to carry a tune.
Before I say anything about the movie, I want readers to know that I love horror movies, and the idea of a horror/musical to me sounds like it could be awesome.
I thoroughly enjoy horror movies of all kinds, especially the really bad ones that just make you laugh.
Fine, I get the whole "band in the woods trying to get inspired" thing, but it seems like the director for some reason needed every single insignificant "actor" in the film to get a solo song performance, which just makes no sense to me at all.
Just when you think you're free from the terrible music, and you might actually get some horror or gore, another cheese-ball "I'm so sad" song that's even worse than the last starts right up again.
At some point I couldn't hold myself back from fast forwarding through them, which was about when I realized just how much of this movie is occupied by bad music.
Some of the songs are even repeated by different characters in the movie, making them even more frustratingly bad.It's really beyond me how anyone could positively review this piece of work.
Fine if you like the idea of a horror/musical, and fine if you think it's "original", but the aggravatingly repetitive songs, the too-little-too-late killings, the fragmented straw-man plot, the absolute lack of suspense, the terrible acting, and most of all the HORRIBLE score make this movie a 0/10 in my book.I hardly ever write reviews on here, but if even one person reads this review and decides against watching this movie, then at least I've saved one soul.
Don't Go in the Woods (2010)BOMB (out of 4)Vincent D'Onofrio makes his feature directing debut with this horror film, which is one of the most original in recent years but it's also one of the worst.
A band goes into the woods to try and come up with some new songs and before long their girlfriends show up as well.
This is not a remake of the same titled 1981 slasher but it's too bad it isn't because this film is simply awful.
I love watching horror movies and I love watching bad movies but every once in a while I come across a film that just makes me downright angry and this is one of them.
The entire movie is simply a waste of time and I'd really love to hear from D'Onofrio on what he was trying to do.
Did the director really think horror fans were going to sit through this music and be entertained?
I remember seeing it at the drive in,way back when.I got a call from a friend to come over to watch the 2010 film of the same name.
I waited for a scene where someone ,or something is watching them,ready for one of them to leave the group,go off to pee,or make the beast with 2 backs,and get killed.Well,instead,they broke into ....more lame songs.It was at this point,i realized i was watching a musical.Now,i do watch them sometimes,and i did make it thru "Little shop of horror"(both versions),but this movie was not what i expected.Long scenes of singing,at the strangest times,a story that makes no sense,very little blood,sub-par effects,and basic camera work made this a LONG watch.i did make it till the end,but felt like a ass,for sticking around.All in all,i have seen much better musicals,and WAY better horror films.To me,this movie fails on BOTH levels..
I thought this movie was pretty bad, just watched it and came here to see if maybe I was missing something.
I like horror and I like music and I've liked that combination in other movies but this was just weird.
What gore it has is done well so the FX team gets a passing grade but for a horror movie there just isn't much there.When it was over it had me wondering if these kids were a real band and maybe the movie was just a vehicle to get their music some exposure.
Really bad musical but worse horror film..
Several hipster doofus emo guys are in a band and decide to go into the woods and like work on some new music dude.
After way too much bad singing a killer finally shows up and the boredom is elevated to slightly less boredom.This movie is horrible.
Mainly at the moronic songs but also at the acting, the barely existence plot, and the lack of suspense or horror.This is so amateurish in every way you wonder why VD didn't just shelve this pile of crap.
Only thing scary is that it actually got 2 good reviews out of 6...I was all excited to see this movie, its still playing however i've refused to continue the torturing myself...
Even the songs, like seriously WTF are they singing about, I wish someone would just hurry up and kill them all!!!
Terrible, Horrible, Disappointing, Stupid I don't even want to call it a movie, just a true time waster!!!!.
This time, the camera was not shaking like crazy, that was only good thing I can say about this movie.I saw it on Show Time, it was about, "A rock band that's on the rise retreats to the wilderness seeking artistic inspiration as they write new songs, but finds only murder and mayhem when they are stalked by a well-groomed killer.".
Slowly the killing begins, and really its not that hard to figure out who's doing it by a certain point.The gore was really decent, and the music I actually liked.
Although, if you don't like that kind of music or their voices then you might as well stay far away since 90% of the movie is music.
Seriously, if you think this is bad acting, you haven't seen half of Netflix's streaming horror movies.
And I'm picky when it comes to my horror films (and musicals!).
They respond as teens would, with the Likely exception of the phones.(Not gonna place a spoiler) I will be buying this movie if only for the soundtrack and the fact that the concept is real enough.
So you want to watch a horror film, but your roommate only likes musicals.
This is the sort of thing you watch at a horror movie festival, or put on at home with some friends when you just feel like watching something fun.
I know this is not the best movie, but I am a music lover.
It is worth a watch if you are into music.For the debut movie - I think this was original and creative.
I am not a slasher/horror movie fan - at all.
Like I said, the reason I even stopped to watch it was because of the music.
I think it's a wonderful indie musical in line with Once, as well as a pretty scary slasher film in line with the original Firday the 13th (there's one scene that is as shocking as the most gruesome scene from Irreversible).
I have to hand it to Vincent D'Onofrio for not just making yet another movie about a maniac with a sledgehammer offing young adults in the woods, but for making that part of it a very minor part of a story that is actually about song.
Vincent D'onofrio's slasher musical is the most beautiful Horror film since Candyman.
This is actually the most beautiful, moving piece of Horror film making i've seen since the original Candyman.
Music sucked so bad I could not wait for the slasher to kill these kids.
A slasher musical?I'll give props to Vincent D'Onofrio the actor who debts as a director on this film.
The movie is about a band of hipsters from Brooklyn going into the woods (even though a sign clearly states don't do it)to write songs for the next album, only to be hunted down by the dude I would not be surprised put up the sign in the first place.The movie starts off funny as the Hipsters literally fall into all the horror clichés (starting with going into the woods), but then I had to sit in on a second act filled with music that was just to whining for me.
Possibly just as sick of the music as I am, he puts the kibosh on their little camp out.It's hard for me to say weather the movie is good or not.
It tries to be a serious horror movie with a musical element.
I think a horror story/musical is a classic and different idea to visit for a horror movie.
totally a musical disguised as a horror film.
Hoping to emerge with new music that will score them their big break, they instead find themselves in the middle of a nightmare beyond comprehension.Far too much time is spent in this movie with the various kids singing and "rocking".
Unless this was secretly a musical disguised as a horror film?
So, give him a different story and maybe it will be incredible.But, yeah, this was totally a musical disguised as a horror film...
The horror definitely takes a back seat to the music which drives the movie.
The idea if having a musical slasher film was a great.
The reason why at first I wanted to watch a slasher film but when I started watching it I was pleasantly surprised by the music.
This is directed at whoever put together this terrible excuse for a horror movie: You do know the difference between a radio and a television, right?
A horror movie is NOT a setting to be listening to crappy, angsty emo music.
Neil Amdur's May 28, 2010 N.Y. Times article "Acting in a Film: It Could Happen to You" stated "Mr. D'Onofrio, who made the movie for $100,000, said he was more interested in finding young talent whose 'rawness, flatness and bad timing' as actors would 'work in a kind of odd way' for what has been described as a slasher musical." Vincent D'Onofrio deserves some credit for trying to be a little experimental in the horror genre, which is too often formulaic.
Don't Go in the Woods isn't so much a horror/musical as a horror movie with a lot of music in it, or perhaps is better described as an outdoor band rehearsal with a very paltry amount of horror and acting in it.The killer's garb and weapon are kind of neat (though little seen), a tracheotomy by a melodica garnered the mildest wisp of a chuckle, and the scenes of one character stopping to play and record on portable Digital Audio Tape a song while fleeing the woods and of another character seemingly singing along to a recording while being attacked (the singing might be imagined) were sort of funny in a way.
There is frankly more singing in it than in most musicals - possibly only Les parapluies de Cherbourg (1964), where every line is sung, exceeds it.Meredith Border's October 19, 2011 review for Badass Digest stated D'Onofrio "said he only wanted to make it as entertaining as possible" and "said that he made the film after asking himself, 'What can I do right now?
If this is what he does, he is a joke...Music was terrible throughout.Actors very poor.Wish I hadn't wasted an hour or so of my time watching this piece of garbage.I hope there aren't reviewers who are actually discussing the plot/meaning of this movie...it is a waste of time.If you haven't watched it, please don't, I promise you will be better off watching ANYTHING ELSE!.
Its director is also a brilliant actor and I think this debut establishes him as a very stylish and intriguing filmmaker.The movie I think is an okay slasher movie, has pretty good songs and a lot of punch.It's I think a critique of artistic or musical pretension and a critique of bratty New York City slackers with an ounce of talent and a psychotic level of ambition so I'm not surprised if it triggered lots of vitriolic reviews.
That said, this is sold as a HORROR movie, a throwback to the killer-in the-woods of the 1980s.
Mindblowingly worse, every once in awhile, the movie shifts to some sort of music video in the most asinine scenarios.Of the many, many unintentionally funny and WTF moments, the best (or worst?) was a foreign exchange student is trying to translate/explain there's a killer in the woods and her first instinct is to stand in one place, sway back and forth and sing in her native tongue in order to give the killer enough time to catch up.Ahhh, I haven't even gotten to how much I hated the characters.
Check out his review for more details, but from the horrid acting (seriously bad) to the horrible songs (really really horrible) to the horrible singing ( omg these people r sooooooo bad!
And I love a good musical and I love horror and this was neither.
Cap this all off with characters bursting into song as they are trying to warn their friends about the killer or - even worse - as they're dying - and this movie becomes just one, huge confusing mess.I love D'Onofrio as an actor, but he kind of scares me as a director and NOT in a good way.
This is NOT a good reason to make a film.The best thing about the movie as a whole is that the woods in which it was filmed are absolutely gorgeous (and, apparently, are D'Onofrio's property - I have to say, I envy the man!
What I wouldn't give to have a woods of my own like that :D) Unfortunately, this isn't one of those movies that's so bad it's good or so campy that it's funny.
This is a musical joke, with good songs and lots of blood!.
I think most horror movie fans hate musicals.
But soon, they find they are not alone at all.Vincent D'Onofrio, in his feature-length directorial debut, has taken a group of non-actors and 12 days of filming in the woods, expertly mixed them, and turned it all into a little gem of a scary movie.
Cheesy score, awful singing (musically speaking), mediocre setting (the woods that we surely all traipsed through as kids) and no acting.
As many have already said, the concept of a group going to the woods for some peace, quiet and inspiration isn't a terrible basis for a movie but when there's more music than anything else it gets pretty nerve wracking.
It's like a wannabe band trying to use the movie for exposure to get a record deal, but all they're showing is just how bad their music is.
Take everyone's advise on this one and save yourself time of your precious life and avoid this disgrace of a movie with sucky songs and terrible acting with a plot that should have been set fire to before it was conceived..
Don't Go into the Woods is not 'pretty bad', it's an abomination on cinema.There is literally NOTHING good about this movie.
The acting is wooden to the point of static; the script is cringe-worthy; "I dunno, dude, sometimes you just have to light a fire and pray to the songwriting gods."; the characters are all whiny indie w***ers; the location is uninspiring and clichéd; character motivations are ridiculous at all times; they bring up the fact there is a blind guy in the band in almost every scene in which he appears; the gore is rubbish; it's not a horror movie, it's an impotent musical; the direction is clearly crap because what Vincent D'Onofrio has managed to get from his actors is utterly awful.
The true horror of this movie was the music!
If you're thinking of watching this film, please heed my warning and don't waste your time.
There was way more singing (which was terrible) than anything else in this movie.
This movie was a musical.
This movie was a musical.
The idea of a horror musical is so absurd that I absolutely had to watch this while flipping through the movie channels late one night.
The difficulty with Don't Go in the Woods is that the plot (what little there is) leans more towards horror, while the actual performance is closer to a musical.
In a musical, characters burst out into song, but it's not as if they are putting on a performance inside the movie itself.
Therefore, rather than this being a musical per se, it's a horror movie with a lot of songs being performed by the characters of the movie.
The big twist doesn't make any sense; it's not to hard to figure out once you realize our lead singer is never around any other characters when murders occur (well, except that one kill near the end, whatever that was about) and there's never really a "why" to it all or any series of clever clues for repeated viewings, or red herrings to add suspense and surprise...the horror story told here is exceedingly dull.There's a ton of other flaws...the acting is at the low end of B-movie horror, there are repeated references to the blind guy being blind, a plethora of characters exist that have no place in the film, not even providing a decent death scene, and there's nothing here to illicit any emotion, positive or negative, aside from some head bobbing to some catchy songs that sadly feel just a little too long and yet a little unfinished.
I don't know.This was an interesting piece when I watched it the first time, and if I'd written a review then I might've marked it a little higher for what it tried to do and the fact that I could actually see some real, non-musical music within the embryotic songs.
I'm a fan of campy horror films but this movie is just plain horrible. |
tt0092204 | Where Are the Children? | On her birthday, San Francisco resident Nancy Harmon's two kids Peter and Lisa disappear, later to be found dead. The police wrongly accuse a devastated Nancy of being the killer. Nancy is found guilty and sentenced to the gas chamber, but her attorney manages to get her conviction overturned. Much to the District Attorney's dismay, Nancy can't be put back on trial because key witness Rob Legler has left the country. And Nancy's husband, college professor Carl Harmon, commits suicide. Seven years later, Nancy has relocated to a town in Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Nancy has changed her identity, re-colored her hair, and has married a realtor named Ray Eldridge, with whom she has two kids named Michael and Missy, and the terrible pain from what happened to Peter and Lisa has begun to heal. But today is Nancy's birthday. She has allowed Michael and Missy to go out to play in the back yard. Nancy opens the newspaper and is stunned to find, in the local section of the paper, her picture and all of the details of the murders of Peter and Lisa. Nancy rushes out to the back yard to get Michael and Missy and bring them back into the house, but Nancy finds only one of Missy's red mittens...and Nancy knows that the nightmare is beginning again. Because of the disappearance and murder of Peter and Lisa, Nancy is understandably concerned about finding Mike and Missy before they are hurt the way Peter and Lisa were. Local police chief Jed Coffin, who has read the newspaper, wrongfully sees Nancy as a suspect in the disappearance of Michael and Missy. When people in the town read about Nancy in the newspaper, virtually everyone suspects her of murdering Mike and Missy. But Mike and Missy have been kidnapped by a man named Courtney Parrish. In the desperate search for Mike and Missy, everyone will discover the devastating truth as to who Courtney Parrish really is. And there is also another question—was it Parrish who killed Peter and Lisa years ago? | murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Moody, atmospheric thriller with Frederic Forrest a standout. A moody, atmospheric thriller based on a novel by Mary Higgins Clark, with Jill Clayburgh in the lead as a woman-with-a-past who just might have murdered her own children. Max Gail (remember him from *Barney Miller*?) has a thankless role as her husband; but the real treat is that under-rated chameleon of an actor, Frederic Forrest, who will probably be remembered as the best character actor of his generation. Besides Forrest, the most memorable character here is the setting--a small New England village on a lush autumn day with a storm brewing. How wonderful it would be to have Max and Jill's house . . ... Extremely Boring. This movie is extremely boring and very slow-moving. It is also rather discontinuous and disjointed. The acting isn't terrible, but the lack of plot movement ruins any effort. Badly in need of better editing. The worst movie I've ever seen. |
tt2980554 | The Girl in the Book | Alice Harvey, a 28-year-old assistant book editor and aspiring writer, is tasked with handling the re-release of Milan Daneker's book Waking Eyes. Alice, the daughter of two successful, but neglectful, agents first met Milan as a teenager at one of her parents' parties. As she is forced to interact with him again she repeatedly flashes back to their interactions when she was a child when he forged a relationship with her under the guise of reading her work. When he later incorporated both her writing and intimate moments from their sexual relationship into his book she told her mother what had happened. Both her parents confronted Milan and chose to believe that she had an over-active imagination and a crush on Milan after Milan denied anything ever happened.
In the present Alice finds herself feeling jarred and out of control as Milan keeps inserting himself in her life. At her birthday party she meets Emmett, a community organizer, and the two begin dating. However, when her best friend's baby sitter makes an off-handed comment about how Waking Eyes doesn't interest him she has sex with him and is quickly caught by her best friend Sadie. Emmett also finds out and dumps Alice. In order to convince Emmett to give their relationship another shot Alice creates a blog listing 100 reasons why Emmett should take her back. In the meantime she confronts Milan about what he did though he continues to insist that the relationship was what she wanted. She later skips Milan's book re-launch party to talk to Emmett who finally agrees to take her back. Afterwards he figures out that she is "the girl in the book" and Alice tells him that she isn't any more. Newly inspired she begins to write again for the first time since Milan betrayed her and titles her work, The Girl in the Book. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0053441 | Westbound | In 1864, Union army officer Captain John Hayes is asked to take charge of the Overland stagecoach line, which makes eastbound gold shipments from California that aid the Union's war effort.
Hayes travels to Overland headquarters in his hometown of Julesburg, Colorado. He meets a Union soldier, Rod Miller, who has lost an arm, and Miller's wife, Jeannie.
Clay Putnam has quit his position with Overland and is now secretly working for the Confederacy. He has the support of a quick-draw bandit, Mace, and also has married Hayes' former love, Norma.
Mace's men pick a fight with the one-armed Miller, calling him "half a man" and raising Jeannie's ire. Rod is distraught at his condition, unable to even cock a pistol now. Hayes decides to ask the Millers if they would agree to run the local Overland station out of their farm.
Mace wants to kill Hayes, but is talked out of it by Putnam, who fears the Union's response. He orders Mace's men to destroy Overland's stations and property instead and steal its deliveries of gold.
Putnam is jealous of Hayes, though, believing Norma is still interested in him. He decides to kill him, but mistakes Rod for Hayes and shoots the wrong man.
Mace drives a stagecoach off a cliff, killing passengers, including women and children. A disgusted Norma decides to leave Putnam and warns she will see him hang if anything should happen to Hayes.
A final confrontation in town results in townspeople offering Hayes their help. Putnam also comes looking for Mace, but is shot, whereupon Mace is killed by Hayes.
Norma hopes to rekindle Hayes' love for her, but he appears more likely to have a future with Jeannie. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0426060 | Karate Kid | High school senior Daniel LaRusso and his mother, Lucille, move from Newark, New Jersey to Reseda, Los Angeles, California. When they arrive, Daniel meets a neighbor, Freddy Fernandez, who invites him to a beach party taking place the next day. Their maintenance man is an eccentric but kind and humble Okinawan immigrant, Kesuke Miyagi.
At the beach party, Daniel meets Ali Mills, a high school cheerleader from Encino. The two fall for each other, which draws the attention of Johnny Lawrence, Ali's ex-boyfriend. Johnny is the top student of a karate dojo called "Cobra Kai," who attacks Daniel when he intervenes after Johnny breaks Ali's radio. Johnny and his gang continue to bully, bother, and harass him. At a Halloween party, Daniel douses Johnny with water, leading to a chase. Daniel is eventually caught and beaten savagely, but Mr. Miyagi arrives and rescues him and beats up the five attackers with ease. Amazed, Daniel asks Miyagi to teach him to fight. Miyagi refuses, but agrees to accompany Daniel to the Cobra Kai dojo to resolve the conflict. They meet with the sensei, John Kreese, an ex-Special Forces Vietnam veteran, who dismisses the peace offering and demands to set up a match between Daniel and the other Cobra Kai students. Miyagi proposes that Daniel will enter the Under-18 All-Valley Karate Tournament, where he can compete with all the Cobra Kai students, and he requests that the bullying cease while Daniel trains. Kreese agrees to the terms, but warns that if Daniel doesn't show up at the tournament, the harassment will continue on Daniel and Miyagi.
Daniel's training starts with menial chores he believes only makes him Miyagi's slave. When he becomes frustrated, it is explained that these actions have helped him learn defensive blocks through muscle memory. Their bond develops and Daniel learns about Miyagi's dual loss of his wife and newborn son due to complications arising from childbirth at Manzanar internment camp while he was serving with the 442nd Infantry Regiment during World War II in Europe, where he received the Medal of Honor, the Army's highest award for valor. Through Miyagi's teaching, Daniel learns not only karate but also important life lessons such as the importance of personal balance, reflected in the principle that martial arts training is as much about training the spirit as the body. Daniel applies the life lessons that Miyagi taught him to strengthen his relationship with Ali.
At the tournament, Daniel unexpectedly reaches the semi-finals. After Johnny defeats a highly skilled opponent, Kreese instructs Bobby Brown, one of his more compassionate students and the least vicious of Daniel's tormentors, to disable Daniel with an illegal attack to the knee. Bobby reluctantly does so, getting disqualified in the process. Daniel is taken to the locker room, where the physician determines that he can't continue, but Daniel believes that if he doesn't continue, his tormentors would have gotten the best of him. So he convinces Miyagi to use a pain suppression technique so that he can continue. As Johnny is about to be declared the winner by default, Ali tells the master of ceremonies that Daniel will fight. Daniel then hobbles into the ring and faces Johnny.
The match is halted when Daniel uses a scissor leg technique to trip Johnny and deliver a blow to the back of the head, giving him a nose bleed. Kreese orders Johnny to sweep Daniel's injured leg, an unethical move. Johnny, horrified at the order, insists he can beat Daniel legitimately, but obeys under Kreese's intimidation. As the match continues, Johnny seizes Daniel's leg and delivers a vicious blow, doing further damage. Daniel, standing with difficulty, assumes the "Crane" stance, a technique he observed Miyagi performing on the beach. Johnny lunges toward Daniel, who jumps and delivers a kick to Johnny's chin, winning the tournament. Having gained respect towards his nemesis, Johnny takes Daniel's trophy from the master of ceremonies and presents it to Daniel himself as Daniel is carried off by the enthusiastic crowd. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097044 | Chances Are | Young D.A. Louie Jeffries is hit by a car and dies in 1964, but manages to slip by the pearly gates and is instantly reborn. In 1987, 23 years later, his widow Corinne still misses him, ignoring the frustrated devotion of his best friend Phillip Train, who has pretty much raised his only daughter Miranda as his own. Miranda, while a student at Yale University meets Alex Finch, who works in the library but is about to graduate. After graduation, Alex heads to Washington, DC, where he makes his way to the offices of The Washington Post. His first attempts to meet with Ben Bradlee thwarted, Alex schemes his way into the office of newspaper editor Ben Bradlee by pretending to be a delivery man. Alex walks into Bradlee's office, with Phillip behind him. Bradlee, confounded by the young man, asks who Alex is. When Alex attempts to remind him of their meeting at Yale, Phillip vouches for him, which changes Bradlee's mind about giving him a meeting. Unfortunately, Bradlee feels Alex needs more time working on smaller papers before he can offer him a job. Alex, feeling defeated, leaves his office. Phillip finds Alex downstairs in the lobby. Alex offers Phillip a ride, during which Phillip invites Alex to meet the Jeffries family over dinner. Alex begins to have flashbacks that take place in the Jeffries home, a home to which he's never been. Freaked out, he begins to act crazed and confused. Putting the pieces together, Alex realizes he is Louie Jeffries, Corinne's dead husband, reincarnated.
His memories of his life as Louie return just as Alex begins a romantic involvement with Louie's (i.e., his own) daughter Miranda. Instead, Louie then spurns his daughter's advances and begins romancing his widow Corinne, frustrating Phillip's attempts to court Corinne, and resulting in a number of comic mixups.
Soon, however, Alex/Louie realizes Phillip and Corinne should be together and arranges things so they can realize their love and he can get out of their way.
Alex/Louie bursts into the courtroom accusing the judge of accepting a bribe (Louie remembers taking a photograph of the then younger judge taking the bribe) and tells where the camera with the pictures of the judge are. Alex falls down the stairs, hits his head, and ends up in the hospital. While unconscious, Alex is administered a special injection he should have received at the pearly gates 23 years previous, to make him forget his past life as Louie. When he wakes, he tells Miranda that the last thing he remembers is them kissing in the corner of the refrigerator. He happily resumes romantic interest in Miranda, which she gladly accepts, having never been informed of his other identity by anyone. Newspaper headlines show the judge charged with accepting the bribe. Alex accepts a job offer as a reporter. His and Miranda's relationship continues with Phillip and Corinne's full knowledge and approval, although neither of them has forgotten "Louie" lives on in Alex. | romantic, fantasy, flashback | train | wikipedia | The beginning of this movie starts in the past when Corinne Jeffries (Cybill) whose picture-perfect marriage comes to a shattering halt when her husband Louie dies unexpectedly.
Fortunately, Louse gets a second shot at life when he agrees to be "recycled" back to earth as the newborn Alex Finch (Robert Downey, JR).
But fate crosses Alexs path 23 years later when he meets Corinne's daughter Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson) and is suddenly flooded with a wealth of unwanted memories (this is where the fun begins, and embarrassing situations occur.) The music is great and the scenes are heart felt and very cute.
CHANCES ARE is a charming romantic fantasy about a woman (Cybill Shepherd) whose husband (Christopher McDonald) is killed shortly after learning she is pregnant.
Flashforward 19 years where we see Shepherd's daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) preparing to graduate from college and encountering a young man (Robert Downey Jr.)who, it turns out is the reincarnation of her father.
The film is a little on the predictable side...the story goes all the places you expect it to, but it is so charmingly played by an energetic cast (especially Shepherd and Downey) that you can't help but get wrapped up in the fun.
Shepherd has rarely been seen on screen to better advantage and she and Downey are backed by a talented group of character actors in supporting roles.
I saw 'Chances Are' with Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Downey, Jr. and Mary Stuart Masterson today on cable, after having seen it many times before.
I liked the plotline of a loved one returning in another's body and being able to express earlier unsaid feelings and take care of 'unfinished business' in a warmhearted and comedic way.
Writers Perry and Randy Howze crafted a very engaging little story in "Chances Are." Using the idea of a reincarnated man who happens to return to his former wife's home many years later, the plot takes unexpected, delightful turns.Twenty four year old Robert Downey, Jr. renders a delightful performance, ably assisted by Cybil Shepherd as the widow and Ryan O'Neal as a good friend.
Everybody in the movie is so nice and everything looks so great--it creates a sweet, romantic feel through the entire film.
The acting is great--Robert Downey Jr. and Cybill Shepherd are in top form and enjoying every second of it.
Chances Are had me back a few good times.I also watch the synergy between the cast...
Robert Downey Jr. does such justice to the role of "Louis Jeffries" reincarnated and the storyline (although far-fetched) is romantic & makes one believe in happy endings!!.
Enter Robert Downey Jr., a lot of confusion, and a lot of laughs.Although this movie is 15-years old, it still makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as re-incarnation.
Feel Good RomCom. Chances are is a light movie with rebirth of souls as a premise.
Especially Robert Downey Jr and Cybill Shepperd, they really made the film come true!!
I've rarely seen actors better able to reveal by their movements and gestures love for another -Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Downey,Jr. and especially Mary Stuart Masterson simply outdo themselves.
Actually, a comparable movie is Made in Heaven -the same romantic yearning.Do see this - it's lovely..
I have never been very impressed with Cybil Shepherd's acting ability (or lack thereof), but the real scene stealer is Robert Downey, Jr..
He has a very innocent way about him in this movie that shows you what a good actor he is as he realizes that he is stumbling into the home where he lived his past life..
One night, Shepherd's teenaged daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) invites a friend (Robert Downey Jr.) over for dinner.
Robert Downey Jr. is just so fun to watch in anything, especially a romantic comedy.
I recently bumped into this film by chance after a friend back in 1990 briefly mentioned it but couldn't remember the title of the movie or who acted in it (we were 9, such details weren't so important then).The movie begins with Louie Jefferies, a young lawyer about to meet up with his pregnant wife on their one year anniversary when he is tragically killed.
Once he arrives in heaven, he makes such a big fuss about getting back to his pregnant wife that the people of heaven forget to give him a special "memory blocking syrum" before he is reincarnated.At the age of 23, the re-incarnated Louie (now Alex Finch) doesn't remember a thing until he sees his wife again.
As Alex tries to convince her that he is indeed her deceased husband, this is where the beauty and lovely comedy begins to unfold.Such a story could have easily fallen apart had it not been for Robert Downey Jr's convincing role as Alex Finch.
Robert Downey, JR., Cybill Shepherd, and Mary Stewart Masterson are all wonderful and charming in this all around great movie!
You really want to know how things are going to work out.The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her "Moonlighting" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start.
Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with "Dirty Dancing", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room.
(Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze.
Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise.
Chances Are is one of my very favourite movies, and certainly my most favourite RomCom. It's delightful, feel good, has a lovely storyline and plot, great soundtrack.
It's so uplifting and although I have seen it a number of times over the years, and was so pleased when I was able to get my own copy of the film, it never fails to entertain me.The performances of the leading stars - Ryan O'Neal, a young Robert Downey Jr, and Cybill Shepherd - are a joy to behold.
It has it's corny moments but that's forgivable as otherwise it's great fun.I'm a fan of Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man) and Ryan O'Neal is more than a pretty face (He's great in The Man Upstairs with Katharine Hepburn - if you ever get the chance to see this hard to find film)..
Robert Downey, Jr. was never more relaxed and clean-cut--and benign--than he is here, cast as an ambitious young man who crosses paths with an older woman still mourning the death of her husband many years prior.
Tasteful, easy-to-take romantic comedy written by Perry and Randy Howze mixes sentiment and farcical elements rather smoothly, and director Emile Ardolino keeps things moving fast, but there's nothing of substance here to make the film meaningful (or even memorable).
When the Howze team do attempt a sense of seriousness (as with Ryan O'Neal telling Cybill Shepherd the only man to ever "come back" was Jesus Christ), the movie comes to a halt.
Romantically Superb in Every Way. Every scene was put together perfectly.This movie had a wonderful cast and crew.
I mean, how can you have a bad movie with Robert Downey Jr. in it,none have and ever will exist.
You can call me a sappy romantic, but this movie just touched my heart, not to mention made me laugh with pleasure at the same time.
This is a movie with a good sense of feeling.It could make you laugh out loud, touch your heart, make you fall in love,and enjoy your life.Every time you purposefully walk past this movie, just be aware that you are consciously making the choice to live and feel this inspiring movie.Who knows?
The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).They fall in love with each other.
I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst.
Not that I have anything new to say, but just the ending shot of Robert Downey Jr. sums up the magic and whimsy of this movie.
After something around a dozen times this subject over past lives is back, now it touching on overtly on reincarnation process, the threesome main leading roles includes Shepherd who is still sexy even near forty years old, an already forgotten Ryan O'neil and a promissing actor that reachs the stardom later Robert Downey Jr., this amazing romantic movie made a huge success worldwide, driven as soft and humorous oriented comedy, a true high class picture, a bit mistakes and a weak point is about the so sugary music score, to much kitsch to my taste, Stewat and Cher...UGH!!!
Years later, Alex Finch (Robert Downey Jr.) meets Miranda Jeffries (Mary Stuart Masterson) at Yale.
Another charming romantic-comedy with Robert Downey, Jr.!.
"Chances Are" is one of several romantic-comedies in the late-80s/early-90s starring Robert Downey, Jr. as the romantic/comedic lead.
the more complicated "Heart & Souls" script due to the five ghosts' story lines.As for "Chances Are" by itself, RDJ plays a reincarnated Louie Jeffries who was married in the 1960s to Cybill Shepherd (this was her last "beauty" movie where she looked stunning).
RDJ stumbles across the adorable Mary Stuart Masterson at university and eventually crosses paths with newspaper superstar, Ryan O'Neal, and Cybill, who has kept the candle lit for her dead husband for two decades, all within the first 15 minutes of the movie.
The entire story reminds me of the old-time Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant comedies of yesteryear where a little bit of overacting was allowed because it put a smile on your face no matter if the story was credible or not.The movie is light, funny, charming, and just enough romance to make it a perfect date movie.
He embodies the qualities of other actors into his own persona and magic comes out on-screen.This may not be perfection, but it is worth watching as a light-hearted romantic comedy.
At any rate, what movie can lack with Robert Downey Jr.'s puppy-dog eyes?
But like I said before, it's hard not to love any movie with Robert Downey Jr..
There were quite a few scenes that were meantto be funny, but I cared too much about the characters to laugh atthem.I suggest that you watch this film next time you're falling in love,and try to take it seriously.
As the volume of recent comments on this decade-old-movie, "Chances Are" (1989), indicates a present European-wide TV spread, I should raise the point that the movie is in fact merely "Truly, madly, deeply" (1991) meets "Peggy Sue got married" (1986).The movie is based on the mixed notion from the above movies about the late husband coming back to the material world in the shape of the man-boy himself, Robert Downey Jr., only in order to convince his doubting ex-wife about the meaning and values of her present life.
But that problem was salvaged because Mary Stuart Masterson has a fresh-as-a-daisy sweetness to brighten it up, and Robert Downey Jr. is so charming that he melts the screen.
And it so happens that his big dreamy eyes are perfect for the deja vu and flashback scenes.Anyway, this movie is light and easy and if you like them that way, why not give it a try..
The acting, IMO, is excellent.One of those films you wouldn't go out of your way to see, but it brings a smile every time it comes around on cable.
Chances Are. A drag of a romantic comedy about love being given a second chance with Downey, overacting his way through a role as a reporter about to start his "new life," but is bombarded with memories of another lifetime and a wife he never knew he had..
Cybil Shepherd isn't exactly in her element here, Robert Downey seems more so, though it's hard to respect the guy's sense of morality.
Chances Are is a charming, weird, clichéd and even a little bit perverse romantic comedy.Louie Jeffries (Christopher McDonald) is a lawyer who has uncovered a bent judge and suddenly dies in a road accident in 1964.
He is reborn as Alex Finch (Robert Downey Jr) but in 1987 he meets Louie's daughter Miranda at Yale University and later his wife, Corinne and when he visits his old house for dinner, Louie's memories later return to Alex.
He realises he is Louie Jeffries, Corinne's dead husband reincarnated as he has memories of events only Louie would had known.However it seems that Alex is not meant to get back together with Corinne but rather help her move on especially as their best friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal) a Washington Post journalist has always loved Corinne and help raise Miranda but Corinne has never got over her dead husband.At the time, Chances Are was a feel good comedy, well acted but stretched credibility and Alex falling for Miranda (Louie's daughter) was a little bit icky..
Also the whole thing is a little bit ambiguous because one wonder's how LOuis can fall in love with his "wife" and "daughter" at the same time.
He comes back as a young 22-year-old in the present day and falls for first his daughter (not realizing she's his daughter) and then his wife (when he remembers she's his wife.)I really, really liked this movie.
(It seems that most people don't understand that at one point an angel gives Louie a shot that erases the memory of his past life.)What really struck me was the great soundtrack for the movie.
Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))...
For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!!
Expcually Robert Downey, Jr.'s other movie 'Only You'.
The ending of the movie killed the entire film.
Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor.
That's not to say its quality makes the movie un-enjoyable, but the sharpness is very lacking.Here, Cybill Shepherd is married to Christopher McDonald in a very happy marriage.
After his death, McDonald is reincarnated, but an angel forgets to make him forget his previous life, and -- now as Robert Downey, Jr., he falls in love with his former wife (Cybill), but also in love with his own daughter.
Of course, Downey does begin remembering his former life, and finally convinces Cybill and Ryan who he really is...although the daughter never learns that.
And of course, they all (except the judge) live happily ever after -- Ryan with Cybill and Downey with the daughter (but that's okay, his memory and soul have finally been erased).This was the Robert Downey, Jr. that I loved, back when we (at least) thought he was a young Cary Grant in comedy-romance films like this one.
This film was Downey at his peak in terms of romantic comedies.
He's very good here, and physical similarities (at least at the time) between him and Downey make this work.The one thing that people often bring up about this film is the Robert Downey's character ends up in love with his own daughter.
Chances Are is no different with everything working out in the end with all of the main characters happy in the end.The plot of this movie is based around a man, Louis Jefferies (Robert Downey Jnr) dying in a road accident and leaving his wife a widow.
Much of the comedy comes out of Louis Jefferies, who is now Alix Finch, realising that he was really Corinne Jefferies (Cybil Shepherd) husband, and then trying to convince her of that.
She is so tied up with her dead husband that she spends a lot of time at the psychiatrist to try and get over her obsession.This movie is also quite predictable: I know what Hollywood is like.
A young Robert Downey is cute but not convincing in the lead role of Alex who is also the reincarnated man Louie.
Ryan O'Neal is extremely annoying as their friend Philip- trying too hard to be funny and charming which he is neither - I especially don't like that fact that at the beginning of the movie when Corrine is getting married to Louie,Philip as the best man whispers to Louie as she is walking down the aisle that he is in love with Corrine.
Ordinarily I really enjoy movies like "Chances Are," but I wasn't quite satisfied with this one for a few reasons.
The first half was pretty well done overall, with Alex Finch dying and being reincarnated in a new body (played by Robert Downey Jr.).
He meets up with his wife (Cybill Shepherd) and friend (Ryan O'Neal) and his daughter, who is now grown up.
The scenes with them meeting again and Downey rediscovering who he once was are well done, and there is a good amount of emotion and happiness once Shepherd finally believes its really her husband reincarnated, but from there the film goes downhill. |
tt2388725 | Paperman | A young accountant named George is standing on an elevated train platform in 1940s New York City, holding a folder, when he is hit by a flying piece of paper. The paper is chased by a young woman named Meg who lost it to a gust of wind from a passing train. The same thing happens to George when a subsequent gust of wind from another incoming train dislodges one of the papers from his folder and blows it into Meg's face, leaving a lipstick-smudged kiss imprinted on the paper, much to her amusement when George retrieves it. He is entranced by the lipstick mark and Meg's beauty, and therefore misses her boarding the departing train. The two exchange looks as she departs.
George arrives at work, despondent, gazing at the lipstick-marked paper on his desk. He looks out the window and is surprised to find Meg in the building across the street, working in an office with an open window. After failing to get her attention by waving his arms, George begins folding airplanes from a stack of papers on his desk, throwing them out the window one by one in an attempt to get her to notice him. Unfortunately, his efforts are met with varying levels of failure, as well as disparaging looks from his boss. In desperation, having used all of the paper on his desk to no success, he uses the lipstick-marked paper, although this fails as well when a gust of wind tugs it from his hands. Meg then leaves the office, and George, rebuffing his boss, dashes from his desk. Rushing across a street of busy traffic, he fails to see which way she went, and only finds the final lipstick-marked paper airplane. Angered, he throws it hard and it soars into the sky.
It turns out many of the paper airplanes have collected in a nearby alley, and when the lipstick-marked paper airplane lands among them, they begin to stir and fly from the ground, seeming to come alive, and set off in pursuit of George. A cloud of paper airplanes forces him toward a nearby train station and onto a train, much to his confusion. Meanwhile, the lipstick-marked paper airplane sets off in pursuit of Meg, finding her at a flower stand. Recognizing the lipstick-marked paper, she chases the airplane to another train station and aboard a different train. They're finally brought together when both of their trains stop at the same station; George still covered in paper airplanes and Meg holding his lipstick-marked paper airplane. As the credits roll, they are seen chatting happily with each other at a restaurant table with the lipstick marked paper between them. | whimsical, romantic, entertaining, clever | train | wikipedia | 'PAPERMAN': Five Stars (Out of Five)A Disney animated short film (that debuted in theaters before 'WRECK-IT RALPH') that tells the story of a New York office worker (sometime in the mid-20th century) who falls for a woman he just met, on his way to work, and is drawn to her through paper (paper airplanes to be more specific).
I absolutely loved the film; it's about as good a short film as I've ever seen (live action or animated)!
At 7 minutes it's hard to rate in comparison with feature length films, so to say this is one of the best movies I've seen all year might be an overstatement, but it's definitely one of the best shorts I've ever seen!Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yq7kwUUDQ.
But somehow, the crew that put this short movie together, obviously knew how they would construct it in such a manner that it would not only contain emotion, but every kind of emotion that is the basis for many other complex feelings.The story of "paperman" is about a young gentleman who finds the girl of his dreams whom he just happens to run into by fate at a local train station.
During the brief time he spends awkwardly hanging around the confident female, he ends up making a connection with her because of a gust of wind that happened to blow one his papers into her face.
Plus, to make the film feel even more retro, the crew decided to keep the film black and white except for the female's ruby red lipstick that's planted on the man's office paper.
The girl just has a really sweet looking face.Finally, what truly finished off this short film on a strong note was the music produced by composer Christophe Beck.
That's something I'd definitely be up to see because this couple is unbeatable when it comes to love!As probably one of the few short films that I think needed this much credit and justification for its credit, it definitely deserves it.
It's a 7-minute short film, however, it tells us the beginning of love and let us imagine the story which should be continued..
Out of the blue, she takes another train and when he sees, the train in gone with the beautiful girl.During the working period, the impossible happens: the young man sees his dream girl through the window in the building on the other side of the street.
When she leaves the office where she is, the man runs to the street expecting to meet his beloved woman.
The story is lovely and sweet and full of emotions along seven minutes running time: love, disappointment, expectations, frustration, fantasy and romance that entertain a lot.
Paperman is s fantastic short film with a great,touching and heartwarming story.The short was very enjoyable to watch before Wreck It Ralph,and I really like how there bringing short films back,but no one can do it as good as Pixar,howver Disney Animated Studios made a good effort with this,a very good and enjoyable short that will warm your heart.After a big business man discovers a girl who left him a piece of paper with a kiss from her on it,he uses paper airplanes to get her attention,as he discovers her in a building across the way from him.****/*****-DILLON HARRIS.
Oscar nominated, this short film is a simple story of two people who have a chance meeting only for fate to intervene to ensure it is more than just that.
The sight of the main guy being held in his seat by the planes didn't really work for me and I would have preferred a bit more of a "passive" device (eg I preferred the woman's interaction with her plane) but mostly I went with it because I was into the short film.This engagement was achieved by the delicate touches provided in the music and the animation, both of which are excellent.
The story is one that might not work for a few(like with the magic) but one that most people should have no problem with, it has a set-up that has been done numerous times but the way it's told is simply but not simplistically and with much emotion and heart.
"aged" charm to the movie, a soft soundtrack which brings warmth and a story which tugs at the heartstrings yet leaves you feeling better about yourself for watching.Part of its charm is the view of a modern day (possible a couple of decades ago) fairytale, retold in a way that is relatable yet with a bit of Disney magic to give the film a wondrous atmosphere.The mix of sweet and funny moments means its a short film I personally do not tire of and can't help but smile after every viewing.
The story's about a man who meets a woman on a train platform on his way to work.
I stumbled across this short "boy meets girl" film yesterday, and I must have watched it 100 times by now.This is a black and white animated movie.
Children really enjoy silent movies because it still allows for free thought and mental connections.I think that PAPERMAN is a wonderful example of how powerful silent film really is.
A man who has a lot of paper meets a beautiful woman.
I want to know their next story in the end of the short film..
'Paperman' is an animated short created by Disney, it debuted in theaters right before 'WRECK-IT RALPH'.The short tells the story of a New York office worker who's at the train station one day where he suddenly falls for a woman he had just met, throughout the short he is becomes very drawn to her through paper.It's a black-and-white short, witch brings in both emotions and laughter.
A love story flows like a paper plane.
This movie describes a love story of a man and a woman through the paper.
This is a short movie about a man,who encounters a woman and later,he finds the woman in an opposite office building.
This movie is an animated and monochrome film.This movie was not used a lot of colors and sounds.And,this story is simple and short.
After I watched this movie,I was moved by this story.I am interested in a continuation of this especially the scene after meeting again.They may marry.Therefore,I would like to watch this scene..
The story is about a chance encounter and the beginning of love.This film is a typical type of Disney's movie.
This is a typical love story and very simple, but it gives us courage.The man is very active and I think I have much to learn from him because I am a little shy and always hesitate to tell my feelings.
He tries again and again, and finally the last paper with her lipstick mark flies to
I like his character because he works as an adult, but his challenge looks like that of a young boy.
A man holding paper falls in love at first sight with beautiful woman at a station.
This story begins with the scene where the man and woman who are waiting for the train appear.
I like this film very much because characters, sound music and animation are totally good.
Since then, he cannot forget her, but, one day, he finds her in the opposite building, and he tries to toss paper planes again and again to get her attention.
A man who has a lot of paper in his hands meet a beautiful lady at a station.
A man and lady both holding lots of paper meet at a station.
When he meet her, when he wants to get her attention, and when he tries to find her, it is interesting that the way of moving of paper.
This short movie is a Disney film which is about an office working man who meets a lady by chance.
My favorite character is the man because his action is out of touch with reality so I can enjoy watching this movie.
The man falls in love with the woman at first sight, but she goes away by train.
However, a lot of paper planes that the man threw give rise to a miracle.This animated film represents two things.
The paper planes standing for the man's love are the evidence.
First, paper planes begin dancing and bring together the man and the woman.
Second, the man is completely absorbed in making the flying paper planes because doing something hard for a person is marvelous.This movie is one of my favorite movies.
A man and a woman meet at the terminal because of a sheet of paper blown off by the wind.
This short animation story makes progress by many pieces of paper and paper planes.
Though there are no words and no scenes where the man and the woman have a conversation in this short film, sheets of paper play an important part in their communication.
The music in this film is rhythmical and describes the movement of paper planes and the relationship between the man and the woman well.
This hand-drawn Walt Disney animated short is one I just saw with my movie theatre-working friend before the feature Wreck-It Ralph.
The title character is a paper pusher at a corporate company who meets a lovely lady on the way to work.
Many people may say that this film is a beautiful love story.
He wants her to notice himself so he makes many paper planes from his documents and throws to her office again and again.
Another example of "less is more"Because the film is in black ands white and takes place in New York it gives this short movie an extra romantic atmosphere.
In the end, many paper airplanes that he folds and fly work a miracle him.The film is a short film.
In this story,a lot of airplanes made by the young salary man portray his real feeling toward the young woman he met at the station.And he also seemed to desire to escape from his featureless daily life.A lot of people in our society have the same desire for escaping like that man,but we cannot help managing our daily tasks.I think romantic feeling will drive us to live more excitingly than before,and that kind of feeling can relieve us of melancholy for our daily jobs.Romantic feeling can change our daily lives,so we should recognize our real feeling toward someone.Energy for romance can sometimes be more powerful than energy for work..
"Paperman" is a wonderful Disney film that shows love, destiny, chance and inevitability.
The story is about a man who meets a woman by chance, which he won't be able to forget.
A man cannot forget a woman since their accidental meeting and tries to get her attention by using paper planes.
The color used in this film is mainly black and white, but the red color is only used on woman's lips and the mark of her lips on the paper.
This charming Oscar winning Disney short cartoon was shown in the cinemas with Wreck-It Ralph.A black and white cartoon with a hint of rouge about an office worker waiting for the train who with the aid of some paper being blown by the wind falls for a woman going on another train.Serendipity has it for him.
As he is toiling in his office under his stern boss he catches a glimpse of her in the next building and tries to attract her attention by throwing a paper aeroplane, one after another.This short does not outstay its welcome as we see our hapless hero desperately trying to contact the girl of his affections..
I has been sensed his love from his figure that find the woman to the next building and flied papers plane to the building's window.
I love this film because I feel so happy after watching it.
Disney's movie has many love stories, however it is a new type of it.
I think this film is hidden fine work of Walt Disney Animation.
This film, made by Disney, starts with a scene in which a man happens to meet a woman.
After they separate, he finds that she works in an office which is in the opposite building of his and tries to make contact with her.Disney has created a lot of fantastic films concerning magic.
When a man is standing on a platform, one of the papers which he is carrying is blown off, and it sticks to a woman's face next to him.
This is a love story animation from Disney.
He wants to be noticed by her, so he tried to fly the paper plane to her from his office's window.
It is the romantic love story that a young man who leads a boring life has a chance encounter with a young woman that changes his life dramatically.
I think one reason why Walt Disney films have been seen and loved globally for a long time is that they have a haunting and a memorable melody.
Introducing a groundbreaking technique that seamlessly merges computer- generated and hand-drawn animation techniques, first-time director John Kahrs takes the art of animation in a bold new direction with "Paperman." Using a minimalist black-and-white style, the short follows the story of a lonely young man in mid-century New York City, whose destiny takes an unexpected turn after a chance meeting with a beautiful woman on his morning commute.
This film is short animation's movie.
This is pixar movie which is about a man's love for a woman.
What can i say more Disney excels every time they made many shorts before this & in animated full length films they are masters when they team up with Pixar studios.This 7 minutes short is the most amazing experience ever its got everything from great story to awesome visuals most of all the exploration of a one sided love story.The Plot:a guy is going to his office in the morning using the local train he meets a lovely girl & begins to fall for her soon she disappears feeling sad he reaches his office on top floors in new york city he spots her in another skyscraper building window hoping his luck would work this time he uses paper made airplanes trying to get her attention.This project includes some of the funniest comedy scenes ever i enjoyed every bit of it i loved the one when he is wasting all of his important work papers just to make plane out of them the boss suddenly comes up & tells him to stop it.The story is set in around 1950's decade no color is used here its all black & white,Paperman 2012 won Oscar it totally deserves it.The dude keep trying hard to throw paper planes outside until one of them would reach her room the climax is superb i won't spoil it here i saw this months ago but every time i think about it i laugh out loud to put it simply it is one of those shorts that stays fresh in your memory you wish it was a full movie.Overall Paperman 2012 is another unforgettable masterpiece from Disney my rating is 10/10:Highly Recommended.
Paperman is a short and sweet love story from Disney that delivers more in 6 minutes than many modern Disney films deliver in 90 to 120.
if I think a film is incredible it gets a 10Paperman gets a 10Sure, the story is simple, guy sees girl at train station, guy sees girl again, guy goes after girl, guy fails, love finds a way, happy days.
I like the part where the man throws the paper airplane and it doesn't go well every time.
This is a nice story.I could watch over how the man and the woman meet again.When I watched this film, I could have a feeling which I have when I fall in love.
The papers he throws move as if they actually had lives and tries to make the man and the woman meet.
I think it expresses man's single-minded feeling to the woman.This story is only 7-minutes long, a short story.
It's a beautiful story about a lonesome man bored by his office-work and everyday routine, when he meets a woman who's like a fresh breeze of life that rocks his world.
A man falls in love with a woman in a station because of one paper.
He makes many paper planes and throws them to her.I love everything of this movie so much.
Short and sweet black and white animation that is nearly as good as the film it preceded.
I watched this again earlier on my rental copy of 'Wreck-It Ralph,' which I slightly prefer to this short.The animation has a stylistic black and white look to it (with the exception of the lady's lips and lipstick mark on the man's sheet of paper) and is smooth throughout.
On the way to work, a man misses his chance of meeting a beautiful woman as she boards her train and tries to win her heart with paper planes, much to the annoyance of his boss.
This movie is short, sweet and to the point and yet still you feel that you've just sat through an epic love story.
This is a story of the man who loves a woman.
This is a story of the man who loves a woman.
Paperman is an excellent animated short film that pictures love and its ability to overcome all circumstances.
(Magic is at work you see.) Then the woman sees a paper airplane and begins to chase it (the lipstick marked one, as a matter of fact.) They are both led to the train station again, and are reunited.
What I like the best in the story is that paper make them meet again finally.
Paper moves as if it has a feeling, and makes this story interesting. |
tt0035415 | Tales of Manhattan | Based on the Mexican writer Francisco Rojas González's novel, Historia de un frac ("Story of a Tailcoat"), the stories follow a black formal tailcoat cursed by a cutter as it goes from owner to owner, in five otherwise unconnected stories.
The first is a love triangle between Charles Boyer, Thomas Mitchell, and Rita Hayworth. Boyer plays an actor who gives his finest performance when he's shot by a jealous husband while wearing the jacket.
The second tale is a comic story featuring Ginger Rogers who finds a romantic love letter in her future husband's jacket. Her fiance (Cesar Romero) enlists his best man (Henry Fonda) to help bail him out. Things don't go as expected when Rogers falls in love with Fonda and dumps her boyfriend.
The third tale stars Charles Laughton as Charles Smith, a poor but brilliant musician, composer and conductor whose one big chance at fame and recognition is in jeopardy. While he attempts to conduct, the small jacket rips and the audience erupts with laughter. In a poignant moment, the orchestra's Maestro (Victor Francen) empathizes with Smith, removes his own tailcoat, and begs him to continue; the "gentlemen" in the audience remove their own tailcoats in a show of solidarity.
The fourth tale stars Edward G. Robinson as an alcoholic former lawyer who takes a last shot at life by borrowing the tailcoat from a rescue mission to attend his 25th college reunion. The lawyer tries to convince his former classmates that he is successful, but one of his classmates (George Sanders) knows that Robinson was disbarred for unethical behavior. When a guest loses his wallet the group hold a mock trial where Robinson ultimately decides to admit that he is a derelict. The next morning his classmates come to his mission where he is offered a good job, and is back on the road to respectability.
The final tale involves a thief (J. Carrol Naish) who steals the coat from a second-hand shop to commit a robbery at a gambling party where everyone is in evening dress. In his escape by plane, the jacket catches fire and the panicked thief throws it out with $43,000 still in the pockets. The day before Christmas, Luke (Paul Robeson) and Esther (Ethel Waters), a poor black couple, find the jacket and money. They take it to their minister (Eddie Anderson) to give to his congregation to buy what they pray for. An old farmer (George Reed) tells Luke that the only thing he prays for is a scarecrow. They take the shredded jacket and make a scarecrow out of it. | romantic | train | wikipedia | "Tales of Manhattan" is the best of the anthology films, following the adventures of a tuxedo's tailcoat as it passes through the hands of several diverse people in New York.
There's Charles Boyer, the Broadway actor who is carrying on an illicit affair; there's Henry Fonda who is helping Cesar Romero get out of a sticky situation with his fiancee Ginger Rogers (along the way, Fonda and Rogers fall in love and have one of the best-written love scenes to ever hit the screen); there's Charles Laughton who seeks one shot at glory conducting an orchestra; and, in the most touching and rewarding of the tales, there's Edward G.
The all-star cast give great performances in five well-written stories.The film's theme has to do with the American Dream and what it really means.
The movements of an accursed tail coat about the Big City, and the lives of those who use it, becomes part of the TALES OF MANHATTAN.Fox Studios and director Julien Duvivier fashioned this most enjoyable film.
The all-star cast gives worthy performances which keeps the viewer's attention right to the very end.SEQUENCE ONE An actor and his lover (Charles Boyer & Rita Hayworth) are confronted by her quietly sadistic husband (Thomas Mitchell).
An unbilled Robert Greig appears as the corpulent creator of the elegant tail coat.Most of the action in this sequence takes place at an estate outside of Manhattan.SEQUENCE TWO A shy fellow (Henry Fonda) tries to help his friend (Cesar Romero) out of a jam with his suspicious fiancé (Ginger Rogers).
Gail Patrick appears as Rogers' nosy gal pal; Roland Young plays Romero's protective valet.A quite different tail coat is the center of the plot here, which can become a bit confusing.SEQUENCE THREE A poor composer (Charles Laughton) finally has the opportunity to conduct his magnum opus at a concert.
An unbilled Dewey Robinson plays the bullying owner of a small café.Laughton is magnificent, as is to be expected, giving another master class in how to turn a small part into something very special.SEQUENCE FOURAfter being spiffed-up and accoutered in the tail coat, a skid row bum (Edward G.
Harry Davenport appears as a wise old professor; George Sanders snarls his way through his role as Robinson's old antagonist.Robinson & Gleason do some impressive acting, making their characters come alive.SEQUENCE FIVEAn eccentric professor (W.C. Fields) gives a temperance lecture to a gathering of high society swells, not knowing that the coconut milk has been liberally spiked.
The short song at the very end is the only occasion Robeson and The Hall Johnson Choir ever sang together on film--and, unbelievably, Miss Waters isn't allowed to sing at all.********************Director Duvivier and stars Boyer, Robinson & Mitchell would travel to Universal Studios to make another sequential film, FLESH AND FANTASY, in 1943..
At the start the first tale runs the gamut of intense romantic intrigue, with a suave Charles Boyer drawn to beautiful Rita Hayworth, and Thomas Mitchell as the husband with a few ulterior motives of his own in mind.
The final Manhattan tale, starring Paul Robeson and Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson, has dialogue that is both amusing and touching at times.
I would also agree that stylistically, this film is reminiscent of IF I HAD A MILLION, though the stories in Tales of Manhattan are generally less funny but more polished.The one portion of the movie that really stood out for me was the one featuring the down-and-out Edward G.
At it's best, this kind of movie manages to integrate the stories in some way (think of the plot of GRAND HOTEL or DINNER AT EIGHT, where the problems of different groups of characters manage to intertwine in a confined space - another example (though a non-Hollywood film) is the British horror classic DEAD OF NIGHT).
This is the only film that had Charles Boyer, Rita Hayworth, Thomas Mitchell, Roland Young, Eugene Pallette, Henry Fonda, Ginger Rogers, Cesar Romero, Charles Laughton, Elsa Lanchester, Victor Francken, Edward G.
Carroll Naish, Paul Robeson, Ethel Waters, Eddie Anderson, and Clarence Muse in one picture - even though they were in different stories.But the running thread is weak.
That the actors who get the "tails" (Boyer, Romero, Laughton, Robinson, Fields) do not fit the same size clothes does not seem to be taken into consideration.
Dramatically the two best stories are the ones about Robinson pretending that he is not an impoverished bum, when attending the reunion of his college classmates (one of whom, Sanders, is an old rival who suspects the truth), and the first story about the purchase of the cursed set of "tails" by Boyer, and his subsequent discovery of the unworthiness of his lover Hayworth (who is left humiliated with her husband Mitchell).
After one seeing, this movie is one of my top favorites.It's six or seven short stories with perhaps the most astounding cast in history.I loved Charles Laughton as an impoverished composer getting his big chance from a Toscanini-type martinet conductor.
Probably the best segment is the opening one, with Rita Hayworth (at her most glamorous), Charles Boyer (who is a bit too dramatic), & the ever effective Thomas Mitchell.
The film ended strongly with an all-black segment featuring Paul Robeson/ Ethel Waters/ Rochester, with the great Clarence Muse in a small part.
This one's about a woman (Ginger Rogers) who suspects her fiancé (Cesar Romero) is cheating after finding a love letter in the pocket of his coat (same coat from before), which leads to her taking a second look at his best man (Henry Fonda).
Also Ginger Rogers sports one of the ugliest hairstyles I've ever seen.The third story has a struggling composer (Charles Laughton) getting his big chance to conduct his own composition in front of a large audience.
Again, I don't want to spoil too much because of how good this one is, but it's another one that pulls at the heartstrings.Next is an interesting story in that it was originally cut to reduce the running time but has since been restored to the film, despite apparently missing a part at the end that connects it to the next segment.
Paul Robeson, a devout communist who liked the story's 'community before the individual' philosophy, was so disappointed by the finished product and its stereotypical depictions of poor blacks that he would never make another Hollywood movie.In addition to the stars I've listed already, the cast includes many wonderful supporting actors like George Sanders, Victor Francen, Eugene Palette, Roland Young, Elsa Lanchester, Harry Davenport, James Gleason, Phil Silvers, Gail Patrick, and Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson.
They are: Charles Boyer as a suave actor wooing married Rita Hayworth, Henry Fonda as a nerd who stops Ginger Rogers from marrying skirt-chaser Cesar Romero, Charles Laughton as an aspiring musician, Edward G.
Robinson as an unemployed alcoholic about to attend his class reunion, and Paul Robeson and Ethel Waters as poor black farmers (another story starring W.C. Fields was trimmed in 1942 but later became available on home-video--it adds nothing).
I found the fabric (sorry for the lame pun) that connects the otherwise unrelated tales intriguing in a slightly cornball way.I strongly recommend this film for many reasons, most notably its cast which includes Elsa Lanchester, George Sanders, Thomas Mitchell, Rochester ...
First segment stars Charles Boyer as an actor in love with Rita Hayworth who is married to Thomas Mitchell.
Second segment has Ginger Rogers finding what her fiancée Cesar Romero does when she's not around so the latter tries to pawn his coat with the incriminating evidence to future best man Henry Fonda.
Third segment has Charles Laughton leaving his honky tonk playing days behind when he gets his dream job of conducting a symphony though he has to find a coat first of which one is given by his real-life spouse Elsa Lanchester.
What was supposed to be the fifth segment-cut from original release supposedly because it overextended the length-had W.C. Fields buying the coat from Phil Silvers-the only time two lovable con men met on film-before lecturing a hoity toity crowd-of which Margaret Dumont is among them-on the evils of alcohol.
If the jacket has, indeed, some magical properties that should be considered.What is interesting is that the movie now being shown includes a W.C. Fields that was deleted in the theatrical release.In short, watch and enjoy a large cast of Hollywood notables giving great performances .....
ROBINSON who needs the tail coat to attend the 25th Class Reunion with poignant and ironic results; and almost equally effective is a sequence involving CHARLES BOYER, RITA HAYWORTH and THOMAS MITCHELL.
But most of the stories (there are five) are of little consequence in the scheme of things and the film has a finale with the Hall Johnson Choir that is just short of ridiculous.Interesting that GINGER ROGERS and HENRY FONDA share an episode, the first and only time these two major stars appeared together on screen.But beware--it's a shame more attention wasn't given to creating some really good stories for all these talented stars and character actors.
(Duh!)Well, that's exactly what "Tales of Manhattan" is all about and its story is presented to the viewer in 5, 25-minute, interlaced segments that certainly make its point loud and clear.If nothing else - This b&w "WTF!?" comedy/drama was certainly an expensive production and it sure didn't skimp when it came to jumping on the high-fashion bandwagon.IMO - This disappointing picture was just another lame excuse for 20th Century Fox to star lots of big-name actors in one cockamamie picture (in hopes of reaping in huge profits, no doubt).My final analysis - Nothing special here..
Cesar Romero is about to marry Ginger Rogers, but when she finds an incriminating love letter in his coat pocket, he panics and begs his best man Henry Fonda to pretend that the coat and note are his.
I expected an early 40's cheer me up type of film but got a really entertaining look into how a Tops and Tails coat effects the lives of everyone it comes into contact with.I could go into each of the 6 stories but it would take too long.
SEQUENCE A: ("The Final Curtain") Paul Orman (Charles Boyer), a Broadway stage actor, purchases an tail coat in spite of "cursed" rumor.
TALES OF MANHATTAN distribution to home video, does include the now sought-after Fields sequence, which I'll title, "The Lecture on Liquor." In it, Fields plays Professor Diogenes Pothlewhistle who acquires the coat in question from a tailor (Phil Silvers) of Santelli Brothers second hand clothing store to wear for his lecture sponsored by Mrs. Clyborn Langahankie (Margaret Dumont).
In general, TALES OF MANHATTAN, with its assortment of stars, with the leading character being the tail coat, is an interesting idea that gets by on its own merits.
Tales of Manhattan follows the story of a formal cutaway coat as it passes from owner to owner and the consequences to all that come into possession.
All the episodes are pretty good quality although if Tales of Manhattan were made today the last one about the southern sharecroppers with Paul Robeson and Ethel Waters and a whole bunch of black players would be done a lot different now.
It's a dream come true:my favourite French director ,Julien Duvivier ,directing American stars I've always admired.And it is a film made up of sketches,a field where Duvivier bows to no one,in his native country.He had already made "UN Carnet de Bal " and its remake "Lydia" but the American audience never knew that he would take the genre to its absolute limits in the fifties with "Sous le Ciel de Paris" and "La Fete A Henriette" (poorly remade as "Paris when it sizzles ")"Tales of Manhattan" deals with the whims of fate ,a subject Duvivier loved during all his life.Six destinies ,where Duvivier shows his sense of humor ,his complete mastery of the picture,his unexpected twists.The connection between the segments is rather tenuous (a tux),"Manahattan" has not yet the perfection of "Sous le Ciel de Paris".But its eclecticism is stunning,this could be a film equivalent of the Beatles' famous White Album.It takes us to so many places ,from the slums to the bourgeois desirable mansions,from a party at the Waldorf's hotel to a poor village of black people ...One should note that the screenplays are not by Duvivier himself ,and Edward G .Robinson's segment would have been given a harsher treatment in France.Segment one or "the dear hunter" Duvivier casts his compatriot Charles Boyer as a stage actor;This is the well-known tale of the love triangle ,and the mistress is none other than the sumptuous Rita Hayworth.Duvivier gambles on the "acting " thing and he makes it a winner.His technique has something HItchcockesque here when he shows the three characters' hands in close-up.With its reversals of situation,it looks like Shaffer/mankiewicz's "Sleuth" in miniature.Segment two or" the lion does not sleep tonight" A woman (Rogers) is to get married but one of her female friends advises her to have a look in her soon-to-be-hubby's pocket.She finds a " scented bill" which is not a bill at all.Enter Henry Fonda who comes to the fiancé's rescue...a bit Lubischesque.Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.Segment three or "It (used to) fit like a glove" An obscure musician (Laughton) becomes a genius overnight thanks to his symphony .Tonight's the night :in front of a posh audience,he conducts the symphonic orchestra till...The French audience will think of that sequence of "La Fin du jour" (1939)when Michel Simon collapses on stage.And it was Victor Francen ,who after his death ,said to us all "the show must go one" .It is Victor Francen here too and he says "continue" .It's some kind of spoof on "la Fin du Jour" and it's brilliant.Segment four: "Every dog has his day" is my favourite and Edward G.Robinson gives the most moving performance of the whole film.Old University pals throw a party at the Waldorf's.One of them has become a tramp.And there's also a man who knows him and tries to humiliate him (George Sanders,who else?).The way Robinson maintains his dignity is admirable ,even the if the ending is more Capra than Duvivier.Segment five or "Cocoa milk cocktail" :essentially an interlude,it's the shortest part.But this lecture on that enemy which kills slowly (alcohol) by an earnest professor whose audience (posh ladies,chic gentlemen) become all drunk cause the hostess's husband ,a joker,has poured liquor into the cocoa nut milk,is worth the price of admission.Segment six or "the lord moves in mysterious ways" After a hold up ,two men try to get to Mexico,but the plane catches fire and the tux full of dough falls on a field where two black farmers think it is a Godsend.But,says the wife,have we really prayed the Lord for THAT?
Cesar Romero, Ginger Rogers, Henry Fonda, Gail Patrick and Roland Young are seen in the second story.
The last one is not too shabby either, it showed performers of the stature of Ethel Waters, Paul Robeson and Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson in the last tale, which is a bit too mawkish to end the film.
He cursed that everyone wearing the jacket would endure hard luck.The story really starts off that way with Charles Boyer, portraying a stage actor in the film, being shot by jealous husband Thomas Mitchell over Boyer's affair with his wife-Rita Hayworth.
All of the five stories are a trifle too long, but Julien Duvivier puts his distinctive stamp on several parts of the film, like in a superlative sequence where Ginger Rogers and Henry Fonda practically make love with words, or the inexplicably wonderful spectacle of all male audience members removing their black overcoats after symphony conductor Charles Laughton has done the same.
The best recommendation here is to catch the gamut of stars that appear in this collection of vignettes crafted around the story of a formal tail coat, part of a suit that was 'cursed' when made by Bertoldi the tailor.
Robinson in their stories, and you'd win a trivia bet posing the question of where Cesar Romero, Henry Fonda, Ginger Rogers and Roland Young ever appeared together on screen.
Similar to the second sequence with Fonda and Rogers, the final act brings together some of the notable black performers of the day, Paul Robeson, Ethel Waters and Clarence Muse, and for me, it's always a treat to catch Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson in a role where Jack Benny isn't around..
Henry Fonda has a hilarious love scene with a co-star, but the best two stories are Laughton's and Robinson's.
The principals are Charles Boyer, Rita Hayworth, Henry Fonda, Ginger Rogers, Charles Laughton, Edward G.
The first episode concerns a love triangle between Charles Boyer (the coat's first owner), Rita Hayworth, and the ever-dependable Thomas Mitchell.
It works only too well, as Rogers dumps Romero for Fonda.The coat is then sold to a thrift shop and purchased by Elsa Lanchester for her husband, Charles Laughton, a poor musician making ends meet playing piano in a sleazy restaurant.
Robinson, while also touching friends, lovers and enemies like Elsa Lanchester, Rita Hayworth, Thomas Mitchell, Ginger Rogers, and Henry Fonda.
Robinson and a disturbingly young George Sanders make the fourth tale interesting; W.C. Fields at his Vaudevillian best (along with an embryotic Phil Silvers and a perfectly-situated Margret Dumont) make the fifth part a treat--I'll say more about it in a minute; and the final part (featuring an odd, prefatory episode with a gangster)can only leave the viewer torn, because, while featuring the best African-American talent of the day (Paul Robeson, Ethel Waters, Eddie "Rochester" Anderson) it typifies Hollywood's vile attitude toward minorities.
It's a one gag story that seems very forced, and Laughton's performance appears off to me.I agree with many that the highlight of TALES OF MANHATTAN comes in its fourth segment, starring Edward G.
For Fields completists only.Finally, we get a 'folk drama' about rural Southern blacks, starring Paul Robeson, Ethel Waters and Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson. |
tt0066585 | Wuthering Heights | === Opening (Chapters 1 to 3) ===
In 1801, Lockwood, a wealthy young man from the South of England who is seeking peace and recuperation, rents Thrushcross Grange in Yorkshire. He visits his landlord, Heathcliff, who lives in a remote moorland farmhouse, Wuthering Heights. There Lockwood finds an odd assemblage: Heathcliff seems to be a gentleman, but his manners are uncouth; the reserved mistress of the house is in her mid-teens; and a young man who seems to be a member of the family, yet dresses and speaks as if he is a servant.
Snowed in, Lockwood is grudgingly allowed to stay and is shown to a bedchamber where he notices books and graffiti left by a former inhabitant named Catherine. He falls asleep and has a nightmare in which he sees the ghostly Catherine trying to enter through the window. He cries out in fear, rousing Heathcliff, who rushes into the room. Lockwood is convinced that what he saw was real. Heathcliff, believing Lockwood to be right, examines the window and opens it, hoping to allow Catherine's spirit to enter. When nothing happens, Heathcliff shows Lockwood to his own bedroom and returns to keep watch at the window.
At sunrise, Heathcliff escorts Lockwood back to Thrushcross Grange. Lockwood asks the housekeeper, Nelly Dean, about the family at Wuthering Heights, and she tells him the tale.
=== Heathcliff's childhood (Chapters 4 to 17) ===
Thirty years earlier, the owner of Wuthering Heights is Mr. Earnshaw, who lives with his son Hindley and younger daughter Catherine. On a trip to Liverpool, Earnshaw encounters a homeless boy, described as a "dark-skinned gypsy in aspect". He adopts the boy and names him Heathcliff. Hindley feels that Heathcliff has supplanted him in his father's affections and becomes bitterly jealous. Catherine and Heathcliff become friends and spend hours each day playing on the moors. They grow close.
Hindley is sent to college. Three years later Earnshaw dies and Hindley becomes the landowner; he is now master of Wuthering Heights. He returns to live there with his new wife, Frances. He allows Heathcliff to stay but only as a servant, and regularly mistreats him.
A few months after Hindley's return, Heathcliff and Catherine walk to Thrushcross Grange to spy on Edgar and Isabella Linton, who live there. After being discovered they try to run away but are caught. Catherine is injured by the Lintons' dog and taken into the house to recuperate, while Heathcliff is sent home. Catherine stays with the Lintons. The Lintons are landed gentry and Catherine is influenced by their fine appearance and genteel manners. When she returns to Wuthering Heights her appearance and manners are more ladylike, and she laughs at Heathcliff's unkempt appearance. The next day, knowing that the Lintons are to visit, Heathcliff, upon Nelly's advice, tries to dress up, in an effort to impress Catherine, but he and Edgar Linton get into an argument and Hindley humiliates Heathcliff by locking him in the attic. Catherine tries to comfort Heathcliff, but he vows revenge on Hindley.
The following year, Frances Earnshaw gives birth to a son, named Hareton, but she dies a few months later. Hindley descends into drunkenness. Two more years pass, and Catherine and Edgar Linton become friends, while she becomes more distant from Heathcliff. Edgar visits Catherine while Hindley is away and they declare themselves lovers soon afterwards.
Catherine confesses to Nelly that Edgar has proposed marriage and she has accepted, although her love for Edgar is not comparable to her love for Heathcliff, whom she cannot marry because of his low social status and lack of education. She hopes to use her position as Edgar's wife to raise Heathcliff's standing. Heathcliff overhears her say that it would "degrade" her to marry him (but not how much she loves him), and he runs away and disappears without a trace. Distraught over Heathcliff's departure, Catherine makes herself ill. Nelly and Edgar begin to pander to her every whim to prevent her from becoming ill again.
Three years pass. Edgar and Catherine marry and go to live together at Thrushcross Grange, where Catherine enjoys being "lady of the manor". Six months later, Heathcliff returns, now a wealthy gentleman. Catherine is delighted, but Edgar is not. Edgar's sister, Isabella, soon falls in love with Heathcliff, who despises her, but encourages the infatuation as a means of revenge. One day, he embraces Isabella, leading to an argument with Edgar. Upset, Catherine locks herself in her room and begins to make herself ill again.
Heathcliff takes up residence at Wuthering Heights and spends his time gambling with Hindley and teaching Hareton bad habits. Hindley dissipates his wealth and mortgages the farmhouse to Heathcliff to pay his debts. Heathcliff elopes with Isabella Linton. Two months after their elopement, they return to Wuthering Heights, where Heathcliff hears that Catherine is dying. With Nelly's help, he visits Cathy secretly. However, Catherine is pregnant. The following day, she gives birth to a daughter, Cathy, shortly before dying.
After Catherine's funeral, Isabella confides in Nelly, laughing as she tells Nelly how glad she is that Cathy died and that she has left Heathcliff. Rejected shelter by Edgar, Isabella eventually finds refuge in the South of England and gives birth to a son, Linton. Hindley dies six months after Catherine, and Heathcliff thus finds himself master of Wuthering Heights.
=== Heathcliff's maturity (Chapters 18 to 31) ===
Twelve years pass. Catherine's daughter Cathy has become a beautiful, high-spirited girl. Edgar learns that his sister Isabella is dying, so he leaves to retrieve her son Linton in order to adopt and educate him. Cathy, who has rarely left home, takes advantage of her father's absence to venture further afield. She rides over the moors to Wuthering Heights and discovers that she has not one but two cousins: Hareton, in addition to Linton. She also lets it be known that her father has gone to fetch Linton. When Edgar returns with Linton, a weak and sickly boy, Heathcliff insists that he live at Wuthering Heights.
Three years pass. Walking on the moors, Nelly and Cathy encounter Heathcliff, who takes them to Wuthering Heights to see Linton and Hareton. Heathcliff hopes that Linton and Cathy will marry, so that Linton will become the heir to Thrushcross Grange. Linton and Cathy begin a secret friendship, echoing the childhood friendship between their respective parents, Heathcliff and Catherine.
The following year, Edgar becomes very ill and takes a turn for the worse while Nelly and Cathy are out on the moors, where Heathcliff and Linton trick them into entering Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff keeps them captive to enable the marriage of Cathy and Linton to take place. After five days, Nelly is released and later, with Linton's help, Cathy escapes. She returns to the Grange to see her father shortly before he dies.
Now master of both Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange, Cathy's father-in-law, Heathcliff, insists on her returning to live at Wuthering Heights. Soon after she arrives Linton dies. Hareton tries to be kind to Cathy, but she withdraws from the world.
At this point, Nelly's tale catches up to the present day (1801). Time passes and, after being ill for a period, Lockwood grows tired of the moors and informs Heathcliff that he will be leaving Thrushcross Grange.
=== Ending (Chapters 32 to 34) ===
Eight months later, Lockwood returns to the area by chance. Given that his tenancy at Thrushcross Grange is still valid, he decides to stay there again. He finds Nelly living at Wuthering Heights and enquires what has happened since he left. She explains that she moved to Wuthering Heights to replace the housekeeper, Zillah, who had left.
Hareton has an accident and is confined to the farmhouse. During his convalescence, he and Cathy overcome their mutual antipathy and become close. While their friendship develops, Heathcliff begins to act strangely and has visions of Catherine. He stops eating and, after four days, is found dead in Catherine's old room. He is buried next to Catherine.
Lockwood learns that Hareton and Cathy plan to marry on New Year's Day. As he gets ready to leave, he passes the graves of Catherine, Edgar, and Heathcliff and pauses to contemplate the quiet of the moors. | revenge, murder, romantic, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0261289 | Serving Sara | Joe Tyler (Matthew Perry), a process server, is a week late serving a Mafia kingpin known as Fat Charlie (Joe Viterelli) with a summons to appear as a witness in court. Joe's abrasive boss Ray (Cedric the Entertainer) ridicules him while complimenting Joe's rival, Tony (Vincent Pastore), for serving multiple summonses in record time. Willing to give Joe one last shot, Ray gives him an assignment to serve British socialite Sara Moore (Elizabeth Hurley) with divorce papers from her husband, Gordon (Bruce Campbell), who is at his ranch in Texas with his mistress, Kate (Amy Adams), while Sara is vacationing in upstate New York.
While Joe is attempting to serve Sara, Tony tips her off, thus revealing that Joe has been failing lately because Tony is sabotaging his efforts. Eventually Joe does serve her, but is mugged soon thereafter. Joe and Sara are forced to take the same bus; while they are riding together, Joe informs her that, under Texas law, she stands to gain nothing from the divorce. When she learns that "half of everything" would apply if the papers had been served under New York law, Sara offers Joe a million dollars to serve her husband and rip up her papers. Despite knowing that he might lose his job, Joe agrees and the two set off together to serve Gordon.
When Ray hears of their plan, he informs Gordon and sends Tony off to re-serve Sara. Gordon hires a bodyguard (Terry Crews) to protect himself, and Joe, expecting Tony to tail him, leaves a set of bogus clues that lead Tony to Miami, Florida, Bangor, Maine, and then Amarillo, Texas, where Tony is shot in the back as he attempts to get on the grounds of the wrong ranch to try to serve the papers. Sara and Joe trail Gordon to his ranch, but Gordon evades them. At the ranch, Sara takes some money and Gordon's passport so that he can not leave the country. Sara and Joe stay overnight at a hotel, and Joe tells Sara of his dream of owning a vineyard. While Sara is bathing, Joe goes to the bar, and Gordon's mistress appears to suggest a new deal to Joe; for one million dollars from the divorce settlement, she will reveal Gordon's location. Joe agrees, but the entire deal is a setup to get Tony into the hotel room to serve Sara, which he does. Furious, Sara kicks Joe out.
While Joe contemplates his lost fortune and budding affection for Sara, he notices Tony's watch in the picture Tony took of him serving Sara, and calls Ray to inform him that Tony forgot to set his watch to Central Time Zone, so that the papers do not take effect until 7:04 pm Central Time. With mere minutes until they both lose a fortune, Joe and Sara trail Gordon to a monster truck rally. They evade both Gordon's bodyguard and Tony, and with seconds to spare, Sara knocks Gordon out by dropping a six-pack of beer on his head. Joe serves him under New York law and Gordon takes the papers. Tony and the bodyguard are carried out of the stadium on stretchers and then attempt to fight one another. The final scene shows Joe and Sara at Joe's vineyard, where they taste-test a bottle of Joe's first vintage before going inside to have sex. | revenge, humor | train | wikipedia | Matthew Perry's character is not that far removed from what he does in "Friends", so if you like "Friends" style of humor, you'll have no problem enjoying "Serving Sara".
Liz Hurley looks, as always, hot and Bruce Campbell(EVIL DEAD) is funny as the Texas business Honcho trying to divorce his wife.I actually had my reservations about watching this one, because neither the title nor the cast was that appealing to me at first, but again, I must confess that I did enjoy this little sucker and I'd be lying if I told you otherwise.
In New York, the process server Joe Tyler (Matthew Perry) is assigned to deliver a divorce paper to Sara Moore (Elizabeth Hurley).
A dispute begins with the oponents trying to serve the divorce papers first, to get financial advantages in the process.I liked a lot this chase movie that slightly recalls "Midnight Run".
There are many funny moments, Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley show great chemistry and the IMDb User Rating of 4.6 is quite unfair.
The acting was good, the cast had Mathew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Jerry Stiller, Cedric the Entertainer, a cameo from Mike Judge, and someone who I believe deserves to be in many more movies, Bruce Campbell.
I saw this movie, mainly because Matthew Perry was in it, and I love his Chandler Bing character.
"Serving Sara" is a modern-day comedy movie about a man who gave up a successful career take a job that he enjoys.
Matthew Perry works for a private investigator as a process server and is hired to serve divorce papers to the main female character Sara, played by Elizabeth Hurley.
Once he serves Elizabeth Hurley her divorce papers, she convinces Matthew Perry to work with her to save her share of her fortune.
Like "Fools Rush In", "Serving Sara" is light humor with little or no real point to the movie.
In both movies Matthew Perry plays a funny guy who works along side of beautiful women, and in the end is able to accomplish his goals..
Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley serve up a very funny, and fine comedy romp in "Serving Sara".
After seeing all the promotion Mr Perry has been doing over the last week or so for Serving Sara I started looking forward to this movie more and more.
Matthew Perry is a fantastic actor and I have to agree with everything Larry King said to Matthew on Thursday 22nd August on his showKING: My late friend Jackie Gleason made a movie once with a fellow named Tom Hanks, and he told me, this kid, big.
You're a lot like him, you have that air about you, you look the type, and I think you're going to get major roles and this one, "Serving Sara," is just another springboard on a great career.
SERVING SARA(2002)*** Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Cedric the Entertainer, and Bruce Cambell.In this screwball comedy, a process server, Joe Tyler,(Perry) tries to serve divorce papers to Sara Moore(Hurley).
If he tears up the papers and serves Sara's husband(Cambell), she would give him 1 million dollars.I have no idea why everyone is hating this movie such.
The villain Hurley's husband is the star of a funny comedy-horror movie, but this character was barely two dimensional.
but, sure, Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley are a nice couple and the holes of story are in decent way covered.
This is one of those comedies your mother brings home thinking itmight be "cute funny"; you know: no boobies, not much swearing,little to no violence, and written in a way that everyone gets thejokes.................and she'd be right.Matthew Perry does his best NOT to be Chandler Bing in his roleas cynical process server Joe Tyler, and walks a fine line betweensuccess and reliance on his old character traits.
I like Matthew Perry from his role in friends and who doesn't dig Liz Hurley sexy appearance & accent.
If you enjoy a simple movie, a good feel movie, Liz Hurley sex appeals & Matthew funny act, hen you would enjoy this.
Matthew Perry + Elizabeth Hurley + Cedric The Entertainer + Vincent Pastore + Bruce Campbell = this dreck?
This is one of the few times that I agree with the critics in that Mr. Perry (who looks like he was having some personal problems at the time of the filming) and Elizabeth Hurley simply do not show enough chemistry to save this sludge.
This movie, however, was just plain ridiculous and a waste of time.Elizabeth Hurley has been in much better and funnier movies, such as "Bedazzled" and "Austin Powers".This movie used "service of process" as its plot.
It is the type of movie that some people will watch and think they may have learned something, like what is means to serve divorce paperwork, but will come away knowing absolute rubbish.Lawyers like these kinds of movies because it keeps people stupid about the law..
But I gotta say, what bumped it up to a 6 for me was the story's, or director's ability to get some serious skin time with Liz Hurley, in the most trashiest outfit you could come up with in a Texas setting.It wasn't a great movie, but it was at least worth a watch, for more than one reason..
First of all, there is no chemistry between any of the characters whatsoever, secondly, Liz Hurley looks like an old lady compared to Matthew Perry, and last of all, there is no sensible plot in the movie.
"Serving Sara" has potential as a case-study in film schools on how to produce a monumentally rank and incompetent movie.
Each one showed the scene where Elizabeth Hurley gets her pants torn off by Matthew Perry and says, "I said to help me, not undress me!" Of course it was a clever marketing scheme to get teenaged boys (and indeed any males) into the theaters in the hopes of seeing Liz Hurley in underwear for two hours, but they neglected to let audiences know as soon as she says this, she covers herself up with a suitcase and gets a new pair of pants.The whole movie is like this.
Maybe if Lucille Ball had undergone hours of plastic surgery, looked anorexic, had a British accent, long flowing hair, had been unfunny, and single-handedly helped bomb every movie she starred in.Liz Hurley is an awful actress and (I personally think) just so-so in terms of looks.
Reginald Hudlin, director of films such as 'House Party' (1990), 'Boomerang' (1992) and 'The Ladie's Man (2000), adds another comedy vehicle to his resume in 'Serving Sara'.
Perry plays Joe Tyler, a process server down on his serving luck thanks to being undermined by his main competition in Tony (Vincent Pastore).
Tyler is given one last important job; he must serve divorce papers to Sara Moore (Elizabeth Hurley) from Texas millionaire, Gordon Moore (Bruce Campbell).
Serving Sara Moore seems like a harder task than possible, and when Joe does, she offers him a better deal where the stakes are higher and Joe can finally get out of the business once and for all.This is a fun movie, especially if your expectations were reasonably low to begin with.
If you are a fan of "Friends", then it's hard not to like Matthew Perry in this movie.
I've seen more cringe-worthy efforts in other comedies, and not once did I feel embarrassed for Perry and co, even when Perry was doing a really bad accent.Saying that, the film still isn't that great and is pure fluff and so light that it doesn't really offer that much in the way of laughs or in it's story.
Don't take this movie too seriously, and you might enjoy it for the dumb comedy that it is- a non-memorable time-filler and certainly not Perry's best film, yet somehow, he holds this one together!*** out of *****!.
This film is about a woman getting revenge on her husband in a nice way (Divorcing him first), this movie is very funny and deserves much better acclaim than it has been given.I will be unable to see it in the cinema here in the UK so I have had to aquire the film from the US, because in the US it did not fair well.
Matthew Perry, who is naturally funny, tries his hardest but the movie falls flat and within 20 minutes of watching you know this movie is a disaster.
Hollywood, who came up with great films like "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Matrix", can certainly come up with something better than this.I don't see why Matthew Perry movies are so bad.
I swear every actor knew what a piece of sh#t they were doing and wasted as little energy as possible on this film.I would recommend to anyone out there you should think about avoiding any theaters that are even playing "Serving Sara".
Look at his other recent film The Whole Nine Yards.Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley work well together.
Process server Joe (Matthew Perry) tries to present Sara (Elizabeth Hurley) with divorce papers from her rich husband.
Elizabeth Hurley is great to look at and funny at times, but never made me laugh all that much.
SERVING SARA, in my opinion, is an excellent movie that will make you laugh and feel good.
Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this absolutely charming romantic comedy that will make you laugh and feel good to any Matthew Perry or Elizabeth Hurley fan who hasn't seen it.
Most of the actors do a lousy job (direction problem) and the lines do not match well the situations.Nevertheless, thanks to Matthew Perry the movie is still watchable: 1.
I rented this movie last week knowing it got poor ratings, but deciding that it was worth seeing Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley - both normally extremely charming actors.
If the plot don't tell you how bad this movie is nothing will.Matt Perry works as a guy who serves people papers.
The biggest joke is on those who paid to see this.A process server, Joe Tyler (played by Matthew Perry) is given the task of serving divorce papers on Sara Moore (Elizabeth Hurley), the wife of of a wealthy Texas businessman.
To do so he needs to contend with her attempts at evasion and the attempts of a colleague to undermine him.You would think that the comedy of Matthew Perry and the allure of Liz Hurley would make for a decent movie.
The two leading roles are played wonderfully by Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley.Joe is a process server who meets Sara when he delivers divorce papers to her.
The papers say that she is about to lose everything in the divorce and she does not want to let that happen.I thought this movie is enjoyable because of these two talented actors and their good chemistry.
Spitting Up. In New York during the Hanukah season, chubby process server Matthew Perry (as Joe Tyler) must deliver divorce papers to sexy millionaire's trophy wife Elizabeth Hurley (as Sara).
On the way to Texas, Ms. Hurley offers Mr. Perry $1,000,000 to serve philandering husband Bruce Campbell first (it has something to do with divorce laws and property settlement).
You can also hear the characters respond to funny commands like "blow me," "eat me," and "kiss my ass." Their replies aren't very imaginative.*** Serving Sara (8/20/02) Reginald Hudlin ~ Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Vincent Pastore, Bruce Campbell.
There must be a small group of people, who happen to be casting directors for bad comedies, who think Matthew Perry is talented.
"Serving Sara" serves up plenty of Hurley eye candy with the comedy coming from Broderick, Cedric the Entertainer, and Pastore.
Serving Sara is another of the movies that Matthew Perry made while at the height of his fame in the sitcom Friends and despite some of the reviews you read on this site it is actually a light-hearted and enjoyable movie.Although it is clear that Perry is trying to distance himself from his role on the previously mentioned sitcom there are enough traits of Chandler to keep fans happy while also offering a slightly darker character.Perry has good chemistry with Hurley and the film's pace moves from one elaborate set piece to another with ease while Bruce Campbell and Cedric the entertainer also provide some good laughs.The only downside of this film for me is how Perry's weight changes so often from scene to scene.
Thankfully the great man is back to his best now in Mr Sunshine.Overall Serving Sara is an enjoyable enough watch that by and large provides strong laughs and a good performance from Perry..
Matthew Perry is funny as always, maybe there are some people who hate him and his acting, so they give his movies worst reviews even without watching them.
Matthew Perry is a funny guy and just plain fun to watch in this movie.
Felt sorry for Elizabeth Hurley and Matthew Perry, who seemingly tried their best in the movie with out being given any substance to work with for their roles.
This is a refreshing change for Matthew Perry fans who are used to seeing him play "Chandler" in all his movies.
It has a great cast (namely Perry, Hurley, Stiller and Cedric) and a decent storyline for a comedy, but it is still awful.
Perry is hilarious when given the chance and Hurley looks incredible, but they are trapped in a bad movie.
I think Matthew Perry is a very good comedic actor, although he is underrated.
I will give a plus to Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley and minus on plot..
If you like Matthew Perry, you'll enjoy this film.
The only things that made it worthwhile were watching Elizabeth Hurley and making fun of the movie as it went along.
Matthew Perry didn't dissapoint me, and neither did Elizabeth Hurley, although she is not the best actress for the job.
Matthew Perry's decent, but if you're looking for a funny film with him in it, go check out The Whole Nine Yards.
After the delightful THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, Matthew Perry's SERVING SARA comes as quite a disappointment.
SERVING SARA (2002) * Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Bruce Campbell, Cedric the Entertainer, Vincent Pastore, Amy Adams, Marshall Bell, Jerry Stiller.
Matthew Perry, process server first class, and Elizabeth Hurley star in a comedy whose basic line is beyond impossible.
I think Elizabeth Hurley and Matt Perry make a decent couple too.For those who think the movie was a waste of money.
When it's `Serving Sara,' starring Matthew Perry and Elizabeth Hurley.Not even her much-watched body and his Chandler-Bing attitude can save this piece of Hollywood junk probably no one but Paramount would take.You figure it-Perry needs to make the movie transition from `Friends' and she needs more notoriety than dumping Hugh Grant.
I love Matthew Perry he is such a great comedian, and Hurley does a good job as she can in her (not much to it ) role.Basic Plot: Perry plays a process server, who's job is to deliver divorce papers to Mrs. Sara Moore [Hurley], who is in New York, while her husband is in Texas.
Plenty of Elizabeth Hurley looking as sexy as ever, and some witty banter between Perry and Cedric the entertainer.A great movie, one of the best ever.
I don't have problems with naive, silly or unrealistic comedy films as long they make me laugh, "Serving Sara" was a silly funny comedy just during a few minutes during its beginning but after that is very few left to rescue about it.The actor were OK, Matthew Perry, Vincent Pastore and Cedric are always funny, the beautiful Elizabeth Hurley was good too, even though the always funny Terry Crews was wasted in a too small role, I would have liked to see more about him.
This movie should have lasted 75 minutes instead of its 100 because of the lack of a good script.The movie is about a process server called Joe (Perry) who is given the assignment to serve Sara Moore (Hurley) with divorce papers, but after he does it she convinces him to serve her husband and to destroy her papers in exchange of one million dollars.Only watch this movie if you are an extreme hard die fan of Matthew Perry.
Serving Sara doesn't know what to do with it's story or characters.The movie is supposed to be a comedy but it doesn't generate any laughs so it has to rely on stupid jokes(bull masturbation) It shows it's signs of failure early on and it has to rely on clichés to keep the story going.The only real thing the movie has going for it is it's cast,Matthew Perry who is great at comedy,Elizabeth Hurley who can be funny,Cedric the Entertainer who carried the movie Barbership by himself,and Bruce Campbell who I rented the movie for.Yet the movie put's it's cast in stupid situations to provide cheap laughs.The problem here is the script which could be witty,but it has no real laughs..
As soon as he starts his serving job looking for Sara, we all know this is how the movie is.
See it only if you like Matthew Perry or Elizabeth Hurley, and some Bruce Campbell fans might be disappointed in his role.
Serving Sara (2002): Dir: Reginald Hudlin / Cast: Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley, Bruce Campbell, Amy Adams, Cedric the Entertainer: Stupid comedy that certainly doesn't serve up decent entertainment.
Matthew Perry is controlled by his job and by Elizabeth Hurley.
I love Amy Adams and Serving Sara and Matthew Perry and the all-British girl Elizabeth Hurley so much!.
Personally, I love Matthew Perry very much, but I have to say this movie sucks.The story is weak,until the end of the movie I still didn't finger out why "suddenly" Sara fell in love with Joe , and the supposedly funny parts in this film are ridiculous and aren't funny at all, it can only entertain a 8-year-old and incapable to make anyone above this age laugh at all. |
tt0087544 | Kaze no tani no Naushika | One thousand years have passed since the Seven Days of Fire, an apocalyptic war that destroyed civilization and created the vast Toxic Jungle, a poisonous forest swarming with giant mutant insects. In the kingdom of the Valley of the Wind, a prophecy predicts a saviour "clothed in blue robes, descending onto a golden field, to join bonds with the great Earth and guide the people to the pure lands at last". Nausicaä, the princess of the Valley of the Wind, explores the jungle and communicates with its creatures, including the gigantic, armored trilobite-like creatures called Ohm. She hopes to understand the jungle and find a way for it and humans to co-exist.
One night, during a visit by the Valley's swordsmaster Lord Yupa, a cargo aircraft from the kingdom of Tolmekia crashes in the Valley. Nausicaä tries to rescue a passenger, the wounded Princess Lastelle of Pejite, who pleads with Nausicaä to destroy the cargo before dying. The cargo is an embryo of a Giant Warrior, one of the lethal bioweapons that caused the Seven Days of Fire. The Tolmekians, a military state, seized the embryo and Lastelle from Pejite, but their plane was attacked by mutant insects and crashed. One of the insects emerges wounded from the wreckage and seems poised to attack the frightened villagers, but Nausicaä uses a small bullroarer to calm it and guides it away from the Village on her jet-powered glider.
The next morning, Tolmekian troops, led by Princess Kushana and Officer Kurotowa, kill Nausicaä's father and take the Giant Warrior embryo. Kushana plans to mature the Giant Warrior and use it to burn the Toxic Jungle. Nausicaä kills several Tolmekian soldiers before Yupa intervenes. Kushana announces her decision to leave for the Tolmekian capital with Nausicaä and five hostages from the Valley. Before they leave, Yupa discovers a secret garden of jungle plants reared by Nausicaä; according to Nausicaä's findings, plants that grow in clean soil and water are not toxic, but the jungle's soil has been tainted by humankind.
An agile Pejite interceptor shoots down the Tolmekian ship carrying Kushana and her detachment. It crash-lands in the jungle, disturbing several Ohm, which Nausicaä soothes. She leaves to rescue Asbel, the Pejite pilot and twin brother of Lastelle, but both are swallowed by quicksand and arrive in a non-toxic area below the jungle. Nausicaä realizes that the jungle plants purify the polluted topsoil, producing clean water and soil underground.
Nausicaä and Asbel return to Pejite but find the capital ravaged by insects. A band of surviving Pejites reveal that they lured the creatures to eradicate the Tolmekians, and are doing the same in the Valley to recapture the Giant Warrior. They capture Nausicaä, not allowing her to warn the village about the incoming attack, but with the help of Asbel and his mother, Nausicaä escapes on a glider. While flying home, she finds a team of Pejite soldiers using a wounded baby Ohm to lead a furious herd of thousands of Ohm into the Valley. The Tolmekians deploy tanks and later the Giant Warrior against the herd, but their tanks' firepower cannot stop the Ohm, and the Giant Warrior, hatched prematurely, disintegrates.
Nausicaä liberates the baby Ohm and gains its trust. Her dress stained by its blue blood, she and the baby Ohm stand before the raging herd and are both run over, killing Nausicaä. The herd calms, and the Ohm use their golden tentacles to resuscitate her. She walks atop the hundreds of golden Ohm tentacles as through golden fields, revealing Nausicaä to be the saviour from the prophecy. The Ohm and Tolmekians leave the Valley and the Pejites remain with the Valley people, helping them to rebuild. Meanwhile, deep underneath the Toxic Jungle, a new non-toxic tree sprouts next to Nausicaä's lost aviation goggles. | suspenseful, fantasy, murder, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0041503 | Impact | The San Francisco, California-based millionaire industrialist Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) has a younger wife, Irene (Helen Walker), who is trying to kill him with the help of her young lover, Jim Torrance (Tony Barrett). After Walter and Irene make plans to drive to Lake Tahoe, Irene feigns illness and asks Walter to instead give Torrance, who is pretending to be Irene's "cousin" from Illinois, a lift to Denver, Colorado, allowing Torrance a chance to murder Walter en route. The plan falls apart when Williams survives a hit on the head from the would-be killer. Attempting to flee the scene in Williams' Packard Clipper convertible, Torrance dies in a fiery head-on collision with a gasoline tanker truck. The body of Torrance is mistakenly identified as Williams. In the meantime, Irene has made reservations at a hotel in Oakland for her and her boyfriend to meet afterward, under the assumed names of "Mr. & Mrs. Jack Burns."
The wounded, dazed Williams falls asleep in the back of a moving van and ends up in the small town of Larkspur, Idaho. Using the name "Bill Walker," he gets a job as a service station mechanic and falls in love with Marsha Peters (Ella Raines), a young widow who is the station's owner. Meanwhile, the police arrest Williams' wife for his "murder." After Marsha eventually persuades Walter to go back to clear his wife, he is charged with murdering Torrence. Marsha enlists the help of kindly police detective Quincy (Charles Coburn) to prove Walter's innocence. | suspenseful | train | wikipedia | There is a stark contrast between the murderous doings in San Francisco (and on the road), and the pastoral joys of Larkspur, Idaho--a contrast that is emphasized by the score, which favors harp and flute for Larkspur and dramatic strings, or even complete silence, for the rest of the film.Brian Donlevy turns in a solid performance as the loving husband and successful industrialist who discovers his beloved wife is scheming with a lover to kill him; the scene where he breaks down after realizing this is more than solid, and reveals a depth of emotional understanding that Donlevy rarely showed, or at least got the chance to show.
Helen Walker is just tremendous as the scheming wife, whose lightning-fast wit helps her transfer the murder rap from herself to her husband, despite her surprise at his being alive at all.Charles Coburn slips in and out of an Irish brogue as the detective who suspects Walker and supports Donlevy, even at the expense of undercutting the D.A.'s case.
Anna May Wong has a small role that emphasizes how the years have worn on her since her beautiful turn in "Shanghai Express." Philip Ahn has an even smaller role as Wong's uncle, who responds to Coburn's condescending query, "You savvy English?" with an urbane "Yes. Also French, Italian, and Hebrew" (reminiscent of his character years earlier in "Something to Sing About").The plot gets a little convoluted, and the triumphant ending may seem like a bit of an anticlimax, but "Impact" should still be better known than it is..
The scene takes almost a minute and proves that Donlevy is a much underrated actor who should be honored more.Apart from the realistic presentation of parts of San Francisco in the late Forties (it complements Welles impressions in Lady from Shanghai"), Impact has some nice pieces of slang (at least to a foreigner whose mother tongue is not English).
A good example of a little known "film noir," this 1949 film was shot primarily on location in San Francisco.There is good acting all around, from the main stars down to supporting cast, and the plot does tie together nicely.Look for Mae Marsh, a silent film star who plays Ella Raines mother, and also look for a brief cameo appearance by syndicated columnist and radio personality Sheila Graham, playing herself of course.Brian Donlevy, who made similar "noir" films, among them D.O.A., appears to be right at home in this film, and is wonderful in an understated way.The film, at almost 2 hours in length was a bit long for the time, and might drag a bit, but is worth watching.Anna Mae Wong plays the maid in this film, an old time character actress from the days of silent films, she has a small but all important role in the film, for she holds the key (literally) to how the whole movie ends.
Listen for some degrading Chinese music when Ms. Wong is on the run.Interesting note, Helen Walker who plays the scheming wife in the film, was involved in a major scandal of her own.
A lesser role, but from a remarkable actress, is the maid, played by Anna May Wong (who got stereotyped in the movies but who is now increasingly appreciated as the first major Chinese-American actress).Yes, this is a great film for film buffs, and a really good story for everyone.
The interesting story and cast help to make this a good film-noir, with an involved plot that keeps your attention even through a couple of slower stretches.
Anna May Wong plays a character who is important to the plot, but unfortunately the role does not give her much of a chance to display her considerable acting ability.Aside from meandering a bit at times, the story works pretty well.
What transformed this picture from your typical film-noir thriller into a full-fledged murder/mystery is not just the creative story, but also the strong characters, the twisting themes, and the questionable ending.
From the opening scene, we think that we have this film already pegged as your typical "wife cheats on man and he now wants revenge" story, but as director Arthur Lubin guides us further down his diabolical path, we learn that there is going to be more surprises than we originally anticipated.
We assume that the because Brian Donlevy is our centralized character that he has to be the dark and brooding one the entire time, causing the sensation of film-noir.
It is a landmark film that will keep you guessing in a better way than any Shyamalan film will.Even if you cannot agree with me about Lubin's slight of "film-noir" hands, it is unmistakably true that Impact contains some of the best story coupled with acting that we have seen in quite a long time.
Although the final third gets in the way and is finally disappointing,it does not keep "impact" from being absorbing and entertaining.One of the rare film noirs -maybe the only one - which takes a look on the brighter side of the road:sandwiched between two very dark parts,the second one has Capra accents:the country town is some Shangri-la where time stood still ,with its very nice people ,the girl who owns a garage but of course does not know anything about mechanics(woman's lib supporters will cringe),the young father proud of his new-born son ,the Sunday service,the old lady cooking tasty little dishes.All of this is unusual in a film noir.Some might say that "shadow of a doubt"(1942) had already that ,but evil could enter this world,as the heroine 's uncle came to town.Here,the evil is elsewhere ,in San Francisco.Only in San Francisco.Or on the dark road where anything can happen:first part is effective,and shows some "Postman always rings twice" (1946) influence..
Successful businessman Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) loves his pretty wife Irene (Helen Walker) more than anything.
Doing the Right Thing Never Works Out. In San Francisco, the successful self-made businessman Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) has just bought three factories in Denver with the approval of the board of directors.
The situation changes when Irene accuses him of plotting to kill her lover Jim, and Walter has to prove his innocence."Impact" is a great film-noir, with a melodramatic story full of twists.
I'm not sure it was in the original film, but it cues to the most sweetest and romantic tone while Irene Williams plots to murder her husband so she can elope with another man, and continues to do so after her scheme is revealed and she tries to cover it up..
Supported exquisitely by Ella Raines with a very solid performance, the film moves through what could easily have been a thick and sluggish plot at a pleasing pace.I've always enjoyed Brian's brilliant yet simple interpretation of his roles and this one is particularly refreshing and interesting.
Charles Coburn's portrayal of a stuffy yet sharp and humorous cop adds a delightful bit of saltiness.Rarely am I left disappointed that a film has come to its conclusion like turning the final page of a really good book; this is one of those films.
Crafty little B-flick has devoted husband Brian Donlevy finding out the hard way that his wife (the inimitable Ella Raines) wants her freedom--she's been conspiring with her lover to have him rubbed out!
This is a slower-moving film noir/melodrama that has usual tough-guy Brian Donlevy in a role of a super nice guy-victim.He's the victim of his ruthless wife "Marsha Peters," played very well by Helen Walker.
San Francisco industrial supremo, Walter Williams, survives an attempt on his life by his two-timing wife's lover, whom ironically is badly burned and killed at the scene himself.
But as Williams finds new hope and a re-evaluation in his life, he must go back and reveal all about what happened, something that may well prove to be his undoing!Impact is directed by Arthur Lubin and stars Brian Donlevy, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn and Helen Walker.
Sitting nicely between Noir and Drama, Impact is a film that possibly wouldn't stand up to repeat viewings, but once viewed I personally feel that it leaves a mark that is most definitely favourable, and I'm not just biased because Ella Raines is stunningly gorgeous here!!!
After scoring big points with his board of directors, wealthy San Francisco businessman Brian Donlevy (as Walter "Walt" Williams) plans a romantic vacation with his beautiful, well-dressed wife Helen Walker (as Irene).
Donlevy finds female companionship with 25-year-old Mobile service station operator Ella Raines (as Marsha Peters) while "smart cookie" lieutenant Charles Coburn (as Tom Quincy) investigates...The Popkin brothers (Harry and Leo) were great at bringing suspenseful dramas to the screen; in this case, a story by Jay Dratler.
Of the four top-billed stars, Walker gets the best out of her role.****** Impact (3/19/49) Arthur Lubin ~ Brian Donlevy, Helen Walker, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn.
The police are after Jim Torrence, who they think is still alive and Walter's wife Irene.This one makes for a good prime time film or just a lazy afternoon flick if you are looking for a crime mystery to watch.7.5/10.
Brian Donlevy was at his best in this role as Walter Williams, a businessman victimized by his scheming wife and her lover.
I saw this as a little boy, and even then was taken in by Donlevy's performance in scenes right after the "accident", where he is so groggy and disoriented, suffering no doubt a concussion, yet trying so hard to literally, focus himself enough to survive.The early scenes do go on a bit long, but they are necessary to the story, and yet with little dialogue, Donlevy carries the scenes very well.Mechanics coveralls never looked so good as on Ella Raines, one of the prettiest to ever grace Hollywood, and the short-lived Helen Walker is wonderful as the nasty wife.A very well done "Don't Miss".
This is a great film to view and enjoy great acting by talented actors like Brian Donlevy (Walter Williams); Ella Raines, (Marsha Peters) and Charles Coburn, (Lt. Tom Quincy) In this film Walter Williams is a successful business man in San Francisco, California who is very much in love with his wife, Irene Williams,(Helen Walker) and does everything possible to make her happy and calls himself SOFTY as a nickname.
Ella Raines shone so brightly in this 1949 film as the all American heroine who believes in her mechanic employee Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) whom she knows is married but who appears to keep a king size chip on his shoulder.Ella's character, (Marsha Peters) is a WWII widow who lost her husband at Okinawa.Ella looks so fetching not only in her working mechanic's outfit but also glamorous in her 1940s dress.Ella manages to imbue her characterisation of Marsha with sympathy, honesty, friendliness and stubbornness when she is helping the wrongly accused Walter.She is also quite athletic as she follows Walter's Chinese maid Su Lin (Anna May Wong) over San Francisco, in her quest to provide vital evidence for the defence team.I was so struck by Ella's performance that I researched similar roles by her and found her in "La Dama Desconocida" (also known as the The Phantom Lady) when she provided similar heroic help to her stricken boss.I wondered at times whether Brian Donleavy's character looked a wee bit old to have a romantic attachment with the lovely Miss Raines.The other actors provided very solid support especially Charles Coburn as Lt. Tom Quincy who is on the side of justice, not just turning into the D.A.'s office the man whom his captain says he must prosecute.There was almost a father/daughter relationship on screen between Marsha & Quincy at times which I found rather touching.The only other film I have seen Helen Walker in is playing a socialite "The Hon. Betty Cream" in Lubitsch's last comedy, "Cluny Brown"(1946), a satire of the English upper classes of 1938.Helen plays the villainess, Irene Williams.The best line of the film is when Anna May Wong's Chinese father is asked by Quincy whether he understands his words.His response:"I also have a knowledge of French, Italian, Yiddish, and English".
You probably already "guessed."Of course, the climax occurs late in the film, when he finally returns to San Francisco, and all sorts of chicanery resume on the part of his duplicitous wife, who orchestrated the circumstances leading to his problems in the first place.I love these old "noir" films - not just for the stories, and nostalgic showing our country decades ago - but for some of the inevitable scenes which were included.
But Tony Barrett the lover bungles the job and he gets killed when a train plows into his car.As it turns out husband Brian Donlevy is only knocked unconscious from a hit on the head from a tire iron.
But everyone thinks he's dead and dogged police detective Charles Coburn arrested wife Helen Walker and charges with conspiracy to murder Donlevy.Donlevy is now several states away and living simply as a garage mechanic working and falling in love with Ella Raines.
Donlevy underplays his role very well, a man numbed by the fact that his wife had actually plotted to murder him.Sounds a whole lot like the issues covered in Fury on a personal level.
The fascinating cast is a real selling point - Brian Donlevy, Ella Raines, Helen Walker, Charles Coburn, Anna May Wong, and the great silent film actor Mae Marsh, all together in one film.
As soon as the then 72 year old Charles Coburn turns up as the investigating cop you know the movie is heading for trouble and by the time new girlfriend Ella Raines starts running around like Nancy Drew minus her Hardy Boys, things have gone fairly pear-shaped.
There were some interesting shots of 40's San Francisco and some nice acting turns, especially Helen Walker as the perfidious wife and Charles Coburn as the persistent Detective.
Donlevy himself is very good, but Charles Coburn as the indefatigable detective and Ella Raines (from The Phantom Woman) as the love interest and owner of a service station both steal the show..
Brian Donlevy (Walter) is duped into taking his wife Helen Walker's (Irene) 'cousin' to another town.
IMPACT is an almost forgotten film noir with a great set up: a guy's wife is cheating on him and colludes with her lover to have him killed.
Poetic justice there, but the follow up is where things get interesting, as jilted protagonist Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) spends his time trying to sort things out while keeping his real identity a secret.Helen Walker turns in a strong performance as the two faced Irene Williams, a character you'll love to hate as the story progresses.
It was written by Jay Dratler who also co-wrote the screenplays for other film noirs such as "Call Northside 777", "The Dark Corner" and "Laura" and his skills as a storyteller and a writer of snappy dialogue are both in strong evidence in this movie.Walter Williams (Brian Donlevy) is a wealthy industrialist whose wife Irene (Helen Walker) colludes with her lover, Jim Torrence (Tony Barrett) to murder him.
The fact that Brian Donlevy is able to bring all these aspects of Walter's personality together in a believable way is very commendable and enjoyable to watch.Helen Walker and Ella Raines are both excellent in their roles and Charles Coburn provides the pick of the supporting performances as the veteran detective who's assigned to investigate the case..
It starts with some drama and romance, moves into suspense and skulduggery, then takes an unusual twist, then another unusual twist and another, and ends on romance.This 1949 film is a very nice vehicle for Brian Donlevy who plays the part of Walter Williams.
Helen Walker is at her diabolical best (also check her out in "Nightmare Alley") parading under her luxury apartment plotting her weak husband's murder, while Ella Raines is pretty, endearing and very modern as the small-town widow and mechanic who collides with Donlevy's life for the better.
Ella Raines, as others have mentioned, was good as the two-faced wife who wanted her husband, Brian Donlevy, dead.
"Look, it's Walter Williams, the dead guy!" Sixth, the whole way too long small-town romance thing with Brian Donlevy and the girl (Ella Raines) was boring and unbelievable.
It needed MST3K bots saying, "Meanwhile, in a different movie..." Finally, I didn't believe for a minute that Brian Donlevy's husband character would suddenly agree to return to San Francisco, walk into the police station, and say, "Well, here I am, alive and well, and oh by the way, I wouldn't come sooner but I had, er, uh (spoiler) amnesia -- yeah, right.
And I didn't believe for a minute that the cops and prosecutors would, instead of thoroughly investigating this amazing new development, just snap their fingers and say, "Oh, wow, okay you're under arrest for murder, somebody get his wife out of jail." So, there were way too many problems with what could've been a pretty good (but not noir) crime suspense story..
Plus, having the likes of Charles Coburn and Ella Raines in supporting roles gives the film some nice color.
Lesser known than you would expect, but still very much well worth a viewer's time (111 minutes to be exact), "Impact" (1949) comes across as a very clever cross between film noir and picturesque small-town romance, with the super-beautiful but murderous Helen Walker brilliantly holding up the noir end and super-slim but super- attractive Ella Raines playing the good girl.
A very successful San Francisco business man Walter Williams(Brian Donlevy)is on his way to wrap up some important business in Denver and his devious wife Irene(Helen Walker)backs out of the trip at the last minute; but wants her husband to pickup her cousin(Tony Barrett), who is actually her lover.
Whoever thought that Brian Donlevy, usually a villain in films, could pull it off with a compelling performance as a faithful, successful husband to an apparent faithless wife who plots his demise with her lover.
Changing his mind, he returns only to have the wife turn the tables on him as he accused of killing her lover instead.Charles Coburn is miscast here as the detective who believed Donlevy.. |
tt0040679 | The Paleface | Crooked "oil sharks" led by a man named Hunt have stolen an Indian tribe's lease to their land and given them 24 hours to vacate. Furious, the Indian chief orders that the first white man who enters their encampment be killed. A butterfly collector (Keaton) unwittingly wanders in while chasing a butterfly. They tie him to a stake and collect wood. When he frees himself, the Indian warriors give chase. During the pursuit, he finds some asbestos and fashions himself some fireproof underwear. As a result, when they catch him and try to burn him at the stake, he remains unharmed. Awed by this, the Indians adopt him and give him the title "Little Chief Paleface".
He subsequently leads the tribe in a confrontation with the crooks. When a brawl breaks out, the crooks' leader Hunt flees. The Indians give chase, with Little Chief Paleface bringing up the rear. Hunt captures the hero, forces him to switch clothes and gets away in disguise. After being nearly skewered by arrows from his own tribe, Little Chief Paleface finds the deed to the land in a pocket. As his reward, he chooses a pretty Indian maiden. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2501618 | Don't Hug Me I'm Scared | Each episode revolves around Yellow Guy, Red Guy, and Duck Guy meeting one or several anthropomorphic characters, who begin a musical number related to a basic concept of day-to-day life with an upbeat melody similar to that of a nursery rhyme. As each song progresses, it becomes apparent that its moral or message is nonsensical or self-contradicting, and that the "teacher" character has ulterior or sinister motives. The climax of each episode typically involves a shock element with use of graphic violence, and sometimes other coercive or warped themes.
=== Episode 1 ===
The first episode begins in a kitchen where the main cast is eating breakfast. A singing sketchbook teaches the main characters to "get creative", singing about childlike activities. The climax of the episode is an exaggerated depiction of 'creativity' in which the puppets dance increasingly erratically and engage in deranged acts like covering a heart in glitter and serving a cake made from viscera, complete with shaky camera shots and increasingly frantic music. The video ends with everything seemingly restored to normal and the sketchbook telling the puppets to "never be creative again".
=== Episode 2 ===
A talking clock, Tony, sings about time. The protagonists question the reality of time, to Tony's annoyance. Tony then accelerates the passage of time, rapidly aging the cast and causing them to decay alive. Red guy becomes old and his fur turns grey, while duck guy and yellow guy begin to rot alive, with duck guy's eye falling out. The events are revealed to be part of a television programme watched by the three friends, although the end implies the rotting was real due to duck guy's eyeball being visible by the television. Also, yellow guy's hair is visible during the end credits, with maggots appearing to multiply on it. This episode introduces Yellow Guy's father, Roy.
=== Episode 3 ===
At a picnic with Yellow Guy and Red Guy, Duck Guy kills a butterfly. Yellow Guy, distressed, flees to a tree and is found by a butterfly, Shrignold. He and his friends sing about love, saying that true love is kept for one's 'special one'. After a brief anecdote featuring 'Michael, the loneliest boy in town', Shrignold then introduces Yellow Guy to Malcolm, the 'King of Love', and the leader of a cult whom they worship by feeding gravel to him. The plot takes a sinister turn when the cult explains that he must lose his memories and name. The video ends with Yellow Guy waking up where he started, and his friends bringing him an egg which splits, revealing a maggot-like creature who calls Yellow Guy "father" and is promptly squashed by Duck Guy.
=== Episode 4 ===
The protagonists are playing a board game. They express their desire to learn about the World, and a globe named Gilbert comes to life. He prepares to sing to them, but Colin, a talking computer, randomly begins to sing about how clever he is, cutting Gilbert off. Throughout the song, Red Guy expresses frustration at his questions not being answered and promptly slams Colin's keyboard. This enrages Colin and makes him take the characters to the 'Digital World'. Colin sings about the "Three Main Activities of the Digital World" – viewing different graphs, Digital Style, and Digital Dancing. These are repeated until a room becomes populated with distorted dancing clones of Colin, Yellow Guy and Duck Guy. Red Guy escapes only to find a film crew wearing spandex suits apparently filming a crude replica of the first episode. A crewman snaps a clapperboard, whereupon Red Guy's head suddenly explodes into glitter.
=== Episode 5 ===
The other two main characters seem unable to understand that Red Guy is missing, although they are aware that something has changed. Various characters led by a steak gives increasingly bizarre and self-contradictory advice about eating habits in song. The song is stopped twice by the telephone ringing. Duck Guy answers the telephone, but does not respond to what he hears on the line. Eventually, he becomes irritated and runs off-set, knocking over the camera. He wakes up in an operating room to find a large tin can eating his organs. Yellow Guy continues following the song and becomes bloated from eating cans of meat labeled with Duck Guy's picture. During the credits sequence, Red Guy is seen dressed in a coat and scarf, walking away from a phone booth carrying a suitcase, revealing he was the one calling throughout the episode. The creators claim that a phone number printed on the phone booth in this video was being called within seconds of the episode's release, which at first they would answer and pretend to be characters from the show.
=== Episode 6 ===
Yellow Guy is in bed, crying because he misses his friends. As he tries to go to sleep, a lamp who sings about dreams appears. Despite Yellow Guy's protests, the Lamp drags him along for an animated sequence that ends with him having a dream about drowning in oil. Yellow Guy then wakes to see the Lamp transform his mattress into oil. Red Guy wakes in an office with multiple other red people wearing clothing. He starts to sing a song about an office file, but his colleagues are not impressed. Later, at a bar, he performs the Creativity song from episode 1. The crowd starts booing. Red Guy notices Roy in the crowd. The microphone and boombox turn into teacher-puppets and he is transported to a dark black room. Red Guy follows the sound of the dream song to a machine with monitors showing Yellow Guy. Red Guy presses buttons that transform the lamp into other characters including Tony and Colin. Roy taps Red Guy on the shoulder with a massively elongated arm. Seeing Yellow Guy becoming gaunt from his ordeal, Red Guy disconnects the machine's power supply. The scene cuts to a reshoot of episode 1 with the protagonists recoloured. The calendar turns from 19 to 20 June. A sketchbook starts singing the same song from the first instalment but is cut off as the episode ends. | insanity | train | wikipedia | A strong start.
This is the first episode in a six episode series of short films don't hug me im scared.
This was a really strong opening for a YouTube series this kind of story telling and design can be seen on television, yeah it's that good but do not show that to your kids.
This show is not for kids because it's a horror spoof on children's TV programs.
And I have to say that it's worth your time..
Really great spoof on children's programming.
Three non-threatening puppets sit around a table while a singing notebook encourages them to be creative.
This is the simple idea here and it is laid out to be a very convincing children's television show as the notebook sings about imagination and creativity in a very generic way.
This song is catchy but also has some really great lines and moments – "green is not a creative color" being my favorite because it made me laugh and also reminds us that generally trying to "teach" creativity will just need to reinforce bounds rather than encourage freedom.The notebook gets what it wants as the three characters start to explore whatever comes to their imaginations, leading to some disturbing images and situations which very quickly take the cheerful little short out of the world of kids TV and into the dark world that lies inside.
It is very cleverly done because it is funny, spot on as a satire and really well made.
I see that the film has 12 million views on YouTube and, although I had never heard of it, I am not surprised that it struck a chord..
First episode from a provocative serie, it is far to be a comfortable animation.
It reminds "Sesame Street" and this is the first piece of its eccentricity.
It is an eulogy of creativity but its tools are far for children.
It propose the happiness as rule but, in same measure, a bizarre cake.
Sure, it is an Youtube experiment.
Nice.
And bizarre..
And bizarre..
Very weird.
"Don't Hug Me I'm Scared" is a British award-winning 3-minute cartoon by Joseph Pelling and Becky Sloan.
It is usually never a good sign if the filmmakers appears as voice actors themselves, but I guess here they did a fine job.
Early on, I wasn't yet sure if this film is a parody or really takes itself seriously, but the longer it goes the more obvious it becomes that it is all just a spoof.
So it's nothing your children (or you) really need to see.
There are a couple sequels here, but this first one here lacked the creativity to really make me interested in these.
The song was kinda catchy though and probably the highlight from the whole thing.
The rest of the watch was definitely pretty awkward, but neither funny nor entertaining I have to say.
Not recommended..
Just Cringe!.
This looks like a weird ripoff from the Muppets.
It is just hard to explain.
When one of the characters was putting gold glitter on a heart I just freaked out and wondered if this meant anything.
I'm ready to watch the next one!
It is weird and but it isn't that bad! |
tt0032635 | The Invisible Man Returns | Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) is sentenced to death for the murder of his brother Michael, a crime he did not commit. Dr. Frank Griffin, the brother of the original invisible man (named John instead of Jack), injects the prisoner with an invisibility drug. As Radcliffe's execution nears, he suddenly vanishes from his cell. Detective Sampson (Cecil Kellaway) from the Scotland Yard guesses the truth while Radcliffe searches for the real murderer before the drug causes him to go insane.
The Radcliffe family owns a mining operation. The recently promoted employee Willie Spears (Alan Napier) is promoted within the company, stirring Radcliffe's suspicions. After forcing Spear's car off the road, Spears is scared into revealing that Richard Cobb (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), Radcliffe's cousin, is the murderer. After a confrontation, a chase scene ensues during which Radcliffe is struck by a bullet from Sampson. Cobb is killed falling from a coal wagon, but not before confessing to the murder.
Radcliffe, dying from blood loss and exposure, makes his way to Dr. Griffin. A transfusion of blood makes Radcliffe visible, allowing the doctor to operate and save his life. (Vincent Price actually only appeared in the film for one minute, and spent the remainder of the movie as a disembodied voice.) | insanity, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0063518 | Romeo and Juliet | The play, set in Verona, Italy, begins with a street brawl between Montague and Capulet servants who, like their masters, are sworn enemies. Prince Escalus of Verona intervenes and declares that further breach of the peace will be punishable by death. Later, Count Paris talks to Capulet about marrying his daughter Juliet, but Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites him to attend a planned Capulet ball. Lady Capulet and Juliet's nurse try to persuade Juliet to accept Paris's courtship.
Meanwhile, Benvolio talks with his cousin Romeo, Montague's son, about Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from unrequited infatuation for a girl named Rosaline, one of Capulet's nieces. Persuaded by Benvolio and Mercutio, Romeo attends the ball at the Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. However, Romeo instead meets and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt, is enraged at Romeo for sneaking into the ball but is only stopped from killing Romeo by Juliet's father, who does not wish to shed blood in his house. After the ball, in what is now called the "balcony scene", Romeo sneaks into the Capulet orchard and overhears Juliet at her window vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to be married. With the help of Friar Laurence, who hopes to reconcile the two families through their children's union, they are secretly married the next day.
Tybalt, meanwhile, still incensed that Romeo had sneaked into the Capulet ball, challenges him to a duel. Romeo, now considering Tybalt his kinsman, refuses to fight. Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission", and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays Tybalt.
Montague argues that Romeo has justly executed Tybalt for the murder of Mercutio. The Prince, now having lost a kinsman in the warring families' feud, exiles Romeo from Verona, under penalty of death if he ever returns. Romeo secretly spends the night in Juliet's chamber, where they consummate their marriage. Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses to become Paris's "joyful bride". When she then pleads for the marriage to be delayed, her mother rejects her.
Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a potion that will put her into a deathlike coma for "two and forty hours". The Friar promises to send a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan so that he can rejoin her when she awakens. On the night before the wedding, she takes the drug and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the family crypt.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and, instead, Romeo learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar. Heartbroken, Romeo buys poison from an apothecary and goes to the Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet privately. Believing Romeo to be a vandal, Paris confronts him and, in the ensuing battle, Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs herself with his dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the tomb to find all three dead. Friar Laurence recounts the story of the two "star-cross'd lovers". The families are reconciled by their children's deaths and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." | murder, cult, action, romantic, tragedy, revenge | train | wikipedia | A master stroke was Milo O'Shea as Friar Lawrence, never ever has there been a better role for this talented by rarely seen Irish actor.It's pointless complaining that the text is cut, by leaving out Romeo killing Paris and also the apothecary selling Romeo the poison in no way detracts from the overall imagery and beauty of Shakespeare's text.
But this was Italy in Tudor times when life was cheap and the willingness to reach for the sword was as it should be.Shakespeare understood human nature better than anyone and that's why all his plays show so much insight into the human spirit.Zefferelli balanced the film perfectly, nothing was overdone.
He combined the tragedy with the humour as well as the love story by casting the right actor for each role and even if some of them faded into oblivium later, for this film they were all perfect.
I happened to watch it on TV for the first time in 1986 as a little girl, and I just thought that Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey were the most gorgeous people and the best-matched couple ever.
Everything seems perfect in it: the sets, the colors and the lavish costumes, the music (there's so much to say about Nino Rota's exceptional score alone!), and the cast of course (not only do we have incredibly realistic and top-notch performances by the two lead actors, but the rest of the cast, including Michael York, Milo O'Shea and John McEnery, is also very good).
They didn't know each other before filming, but it turned out they had wonderful chemistry on-screen, and definitely set the standard as the perfect Romeo and Juliet.
Although he trims the dialog heavily in places (Romeo says, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?"- and leaves it at that) his version captures all the passion of Shakespeare's play magnificently.The scenes at the Capulet's ball at which the two young lovers meet are about the greatest I've ever seen on screen.
Whosoever says Whiting and Hussey are anything short of fantastic as Romeo and Juliet needs to reconsider how they want Shakespeare acted.
When you see these movies today,you realize how much they have worn well,and how much his detractors were wrong:Zeffirelli has never tried to change the world,but he has given beautiful movies which have stood the test of time quite well,perhaps because they are timeless.Even an epic and absorbing -and diametrically opposite to Zeffirelli's cinema - political work like Bertolucci's "Novecento" (1976) displays cheesy gauchism so trendy before the eighties in Europa .This is the second of the three Zeffirelli screen adaptations of Shakespeare -as a matter of interest,the others are "taming of the shrew"(1967 with E Taylor and R Burton) and "Hamlet" (1990 with M.Gibson and G.Close)-and it 's probably the best:Zeffirelli's genius was to cast actors (about) the age of the heroes as the leads.And Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey,both very beautiful,make up for their lack of experience with their youth,their innocence and the intensity of their looks.They are far better than Leonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes in the drag queens cum west side story Luhrmann's 1996 version.Besides they get strong support from dark-haired Mickael York as Tybalt and John MCEnnery as Mercutio.The colors are,as always in a Zephirelli movie (see taming,and his made-for-TV Jesus)dazzling.Two scenes stand out:the ball and the lovers death in the Capulet tomb.Filmed on location in Verona,we never have the feeling that we are watching filmed stage production,not a small feat.This is the definitive screen version of the Elizabethan classic.Sir Laurence Olivier is the narrator..
I was a cynical teenager who suddenly, while watching this film, found myself crying and really feeling the pain and anguish that the two lovers went through...The fact that I didn't know any of the cast(except Michael York-Tybalt) made it so much better!
Listening to the music of Nino Rota, my thoughts return to the absolutely flawless Zefferelli production of "Romeo and Juliet." This movie is the sublime orchestration of acting, sets, costumes, cinematography and that exquisitely haunting music.
This is the standard; subsequent versions need not be attempted.When I first saw the movie in 1968 I was overwhelmed by it, particularly the guileless acting of the two leads, Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting.
This is the real Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare himself, lived he in our era,would have orchestrated its filming.From the opening scenes at Capulet's ball, you'll be transported from this time and place to Renaissance Verona.
Stunning cinematography with sweeping colorful panoramas...the period ball, the dueling and crowd scenes, the morbid tomb...The young actors, Leonard Whiting at 17 and Olivia Hussey at 15, are the age Shakespeare intended and magnificently portray the "star crossed lovers" with very believable chemistry.
The balcony scene, brilliantly filmed, rings true and the wedding night (actually morning after) is touchingly and tastefully done, even with its hint of nudity for the teenage stars.The movie has a superb supporting cast, including John McEnry as Romeo's hot tempered and humorous friend, Mercutio, and Michael York as Juliet's rather despicable cousin, Tybalt.
It would take an Italian Director, Zeffirelli, to adequately film the most famous love story/tragedy in history and make it work beautifully.
Filmed in Italy and actually using teenage actors to play the star-crossed lovers at the right age (for the first time ever) brought great veracity and a definite freshness to this story.
Leonard Whiting is breathtakingly beautiful and young, so young as young as the Romeo in Shakespeare's play and Olivia Hussey's Juliet is not only impossibly gorgeous but I could believe that she is prepared to risk it all for the love of her Romeo.
Filmed in Verona, where the play was obviously set, plus the cinematography, and then the unbelievably perfect score, all facilitated its translation from its original stage-based home, to what is a true film masterpiece.It is the actors' (appropriately) youthful innocence, and that perfect tone, that make this depiction of the tragedy stand out, from other efforts.
Not only Romeo and Juliet, but also their companions impart perfectly the innocence, passion, swagger, spontaneity, charm and eros of Renaissance youth.The mild but exquisite eroticism of the bedroom scene was essential; there can be no moment when beautiful nudity is more strongly called for than in the sole such scene of a film celebrating young physically-inspired love.
The new version (Luhrmann's) turned some heads, and it's pretty classy too, but nothing can replace R&J as it was meant to be: in Italy, in the 14th/15th century, with swords and horses and "real" friars, with dust and heat and cobblestones, and period costumes.For study purposes, note this film leaves out a few significant events that are in Shakespeare's script, such as Paris's death.
They are two feuding families whose young sons Romeo (Leonard Whiting) and Juliet (Olivia Hussey) meet and fall in love and whose passion for one another is irresistible.
Then Romeo is banished to Mantua when he receives the news that Juliet has dead, and happen their tragic destiny.This is one of the best filmed and most pleasant adaptations of Shakespeare's play about a young love is poisoned by a generations long feud between two noble families .
The first major film production of this play to actually cast leading actors who were close to the ages of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Julietn.
This sumptuously version has the virtue of good and appealing casting, such as John McEnery as Mercutio, Michael York as Tybalt ,Bruce Robinson as Benvolio, Milo O'Shea as Friar Laurence , first cinema film of Pat Heywoodas The Nurse and Robert Stephens as The Prince of Verona .
And Laurence Olivier , he agreed to play the uncredited role of the narrator because he was so impressed with Zeffirelli's work for the National Theatre of Great Britain, of which Olivier was director at the time and he did it all for the love of William Shakespeare and didn't accept any payment.
Anyone interested in tragic love tales and timeless stories will want to watch this cinematic version on Shakespeare tragedy.Other versions about this know story are the followings : the vintage classic, Romeo and Juliet(36)by George Cukor with Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard; Renato Castenalli rendition with Laurence Harvey , Susan Shentall , Flora Robson Bill Travers and Enzo Fiermonte , Mervyn Johns ; a dance adaptation(1966) by Paul Czinner with Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn; famous rendition(1968) by Franco Zeffirelli with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey; and modern version(1996) by Baz Luhrmann with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes .
I've loved it since I saw it first time - I was 16 and for me, Romeo and Juliet were not the Shakespeare's characters, they were just a girl and a boy who loved each other and died together because they could not live without each other.
In "Romeo and Juliet" he was able to make a very dynamic film that did not feel at all as an adapted play and also was a great romance which made me feel incredibly close to its characters.
I've seen "Romeo and Juliet" many times and I believe Zeffirelli's is the best adaptation of the play.
When the now-famous "star-crossed lovers" of two feuding families meet, forbidden love ensues.Film critic Roger Ebert has written: "I believe Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet is the most exciting film of Shakespeare ever made".
I mean, you can say some great things about the Leonardo DiCaprio version, and some might appreciate "Tromeo and Juliet", but this really captures the story...This makes a great breakout role for Olivia Hussey (who never got as big as she should have).
Franco Zefferelli knew what he was doing when casting for Romeo and Juliet in his amazing movie-get two unknowns and turn them into stars!
No better actor for Romeo than Leonard Whiting (not even Leo DiCaprio).Hussey brought out an amazing appearance for Juliet.
Director Franco Zeffirelli had warmed up the year before with the Burton/Taylor version of "The Taming of the Shrew," but here he nicely transitions from the frantic comedy of the former to the darker and sadder tragedy of this story about star-crossed lovers (played by Leonard Whiting and the famously big-bosomed Olivia Hussey).
Zeffirelli infuses the film with the same kind of restless energy that was feeding the youth movement in 1968, so this is one Shakespeare film that feels completely relevant to the time in which it was released.The film has beautiful production values (the scene at the ball is a work of art all by itself) and of course that famous musical theme.
We all know the story but after viewing it in my high school days, I can't imagine a better film to show adolescents about Romeo and Juliet who were doomed from the beginning.
After seeing this film many times, I tried to watch other adaptations but anything fails in comparison to this classic Romeo and Juliet.
Zefferelli, displaying accuracy and truth to Shakespeare's vision, cast two young actors who had never met one another- Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey.
Whiting (Romeo) was 18 years old at the time while Olivia Hussey was either 16 or 17 during the production of the film.
The original music was composed by Nino Rota, a veteran musical composer for Italian cinema.Olivia Hussey was under age at the time she made this movie, but she was already treading new ground by appearing topless in the love scenes.
In the end, many of the picketers were so moved by the movie that they went home.This version of Romeo and Juliet lives up to the original story in every way.
While most recreations of Shakespeare only come across as mangled and forced, this movie manages to make Romeo and Juliet comprehensible though the imagery and acting, yet maintain much of the original dialogue.
Oliva Hussey looks beautiful and Leonard Whiting plays Romeo to perfection, not to mention a musical score that is instantly recognizable to anyone.
The believability comes from director Franco Zeffirelli's casting of real teenagers to play Romeo and Juliet.
The best Romeo and Juliet movie ever.The costume and acting was wonderful!The actor, Leonard Whiting was extremely hot!
Most actors for either Juliet or Romeo are extremely not right looking or can't act.Olivia Hussey was very pretty and I would have wished both Leonard and Olivia were given more credit for they truly deserved it.I gave this movie an A.
Its actually worth your time.another movie I would recommend would be the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo DiCaprio.
Romeo And Juliet - No Ordinary Love Story...Franco Zeffirelli's Oscar winning 1968 masterpiece was filmed in Italy (Verona, I believe though I'm not 100% sure of that).
Olivia Hussey (Death On The Nile; It; Psycho IV: The Beginning; etc.,) shines as sweet Juliet, Leonard Whiting's (Frankenstein: The True Story; The Legend Of Young Dick Turpin; Rachel's Man; etc.,) portrayal of young Romeo is unparalleled and of course Michael York (Logan's Run; The Island Of Dr. Moreau; Austin Powers; etc.,) is outstanding as fiesty Tybalt.
This movie pulls every powerful aspect of Hollywood and leaves out its flaws for this film, masterfully directed by Zefirelli, wonderfully scored by Nino Rota, and beautifully manifested by Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey, Michael York, John McEnery and Milo O'Shea for starters.
We take that word 'love story" for granted and forget what it means, and Shakespeare's play can give you one notion or two.The film might be overshadowed by the remake starring Leonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes, but this one has the merit to respect the original material while still making it accessible to young people and teenagers.
It captures the spirit of Shakespeare while translating it into cinematic language, with a powerful photography, a perfect leading cast, great supporting performances from Mila O'Shea and Pat Heywood playing Friar Lawrence and Juliet's nursemaid, and a haunting score by Nino Rota.
No need for me to add another rave review on the perfect casting of the teenage Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, the authentic, colorful costumes, the top-notch supporting cast, the deft camera work.Instead, I learned about excellent screen writing from this film.
It's the classic tragic romance from Shakespeare of star-crossed lovers Romeo (Leonard Whiting) and Juliet (Olivia Hussey) from warring families of Montagues and Capulets of Verona.
This is a beautiful adaptation of William Shakespeare's classic and tragic tale, Romeo and Juliet.
However, their love for each other are complicated by their families' continuing feud.This movie follows Shakespeare's play somewhat to a T, helped by the actors' theatrical but terrific acting, the colorful costumes and makeup, the beautiful setting and the enchanting screenplay.
It was at the latter where I saw this movie, feeling great to finally see a film adaptation of the play I have read and studied in school multiple times.This story may be adapted various times on film or made-for-TV, but this version is the ultimate depiction of the classic tale.Grade B+.
Most obviously "different" is the casting of then "unknown" actors Leonard Whiting (as Romeo Montague) and Olivia Hussey (as Juliet Capulet).
********** Romeo and Juliet (3/4/68) Franco Zeffirelli ~ Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey, John McEnery, Michael York.
I didn't see other movie versions of Romeo and Juliet -- I heard that updated version with Leonardo DiCaprio was terrible -- but I'll take other people's word for it that Zeffirelli's version was the best..
Director Franco Zefferelli was well versed with the classics and done directing and production design for the stage in drams and operas and in his filmed adaptation of the famous Shakespeare story of the doomed lovers Romeo and Juliet he successfully transcends a stage experience to the screen.
Zeffirelli's adaptation of ROMEO AND JULIET (1968) is still one of the most famous Shakespeare's work on screen.
Bad dubbing aside, Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting are the best Juliet and Romeo that have ever been in this, the best movie version of the immortally famous Shakespeare.
What they do on screen has to be some of the best acting ever captured be teens on screen (although the dubbing does take away what could have been even more genuine, authentic and realistic).Filmed when Hussey and Whiting were 15 and 17 and released in 1968, this is the one version you have to see, if you only get to see one version of "Romeo and Juliet" ever....
Not only is 'Romeo and Juliet' Franco Zeffirelli's best film but it is without question the greatest Shakespeare film ever made and one of the five greatest films of all time.
If you love this movie watch Franco Zeffirelli's 1973 film 'Brother Sun, Sister Moon' - this film is almost as great as 'Romeo and Juliet' and it is just as powerful and beautiful..
A wonderful director, two stunning main characters, a great supporting cast, and excellent film locations make this one of my favorite movies of all time.I would rate it 20 stars out of 10....
After Juliet finds love in Romeo, actor Leonard Whiting, she learns he is a Montague, her great enemy's son.
Hussey and Whiting perform Romeo and Juliet is the fashion in which Shakespeare intended.
Romeo & Juliet brings a life and urgency to a play that often comes across as too long for film.
No doubt, because Leonard Whiting (Romeo) and Olivia Hussey (Juliet) were teenagers cast in the lead roles, I was interested in the movie "in spite of" it being Shakespeare.
Whiting and Hussey seamlessly blend into the characters of Romeo and Juliet, and one could imagine that this would be similar to how they probably may have looked in Shakespeare's play.
After that, I love this film version of the beautiful play.
I also would like to say that "Romeo & Juliet" is now one of my favorite plays from the immortal bard.I thought the performances were dead on, especially Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey as the two lovers themselves, and also John McEnry's turn as Mercutio; he makes him look like a real "froot loop". |
tt0067061 | Pinocchio | The story begins with an inventor named Geppetto making a robot, Pinocchio, as his son. Meanwhile, an evil mayor named Scamboli is building a technological city called "Scamboville" to get rid of nature. He also hates all children, except for his beloved daughter, Marlene. When Marlene expresses concerns to Scamboli about there being no space for children to have fun, he sets out to make a kids-only theme park called "Scamboland".
That night, Geppetto and Spencer the Penguin are preparing to make Pinocchio come to life. But Scamboli has seized control of the city mains to light up his theme park for the Grand Opening, so, Geppetto has no choice but to steal his electricity. Suddenly, Scamboland has a power outage and the children leave. After Pinocchio comes to life, much to his family's delight, Cyberina the fairy appears. She decides to grant Geppetto's wish to turn Pinocchio into a real boy if he learns about right and wrong.
The next morning, Pinocchio is walking his way to school with Spencer when he meets up with Zach, Cynthia and Marlene. Marlene challenges Pinocchio to an Imagination game, hosted by Cyberina. Marlene wins the game, but Pinocchio snatches the medal from her. As he runs away, he comes across Scamboli's robotic henchmen, Cabby and Rodo, who take Pinocchio to see Scamboli. While they talk to each other, Pinocchio says, "Life would be great if kids were more like us", sparking an idea in Scamboli's diabolical brain.
With the true opening of Scamboland, he makes Pinocchio into an attraction, but when Geppetto gets word of this, he tries to convince him to come home. While Pinocchio performs at a concert, Scamboli kidnaps Geppetto. Afterward, all the children board a roller coaster ride called "A Whale of a Change", which transforms all of them into "Scambobots". Meanwhile, Pinocchio gives Marlene her medal back and befriends her, and they spend the night together at Marlene's private garden.
As they awaken the next morning, Marlene is crestfallen to find that Scambobots have destroyed her garden. Hearing Pinocchio laughing at her dismay, she gives the medal to him and revokes her vow of friendship. But Pinocchio, realizing that he had accidentally helped Scamboli, leaves to find his Dad. He returns home, but finds that his father isn't there, but Spencer is. He tells Pinocchio that he went off to get him, so they head off to find him, only to find Scamboli turned Geppetto into a robot to kill Pinocchio. After Spencer blinds Scamboli with his camera and steals the remote that controls Geppetto and the other Scanbobots, Pinocchio and Spencer hide out in the "Tunnel of Danger" ride, where Scamboli manages to trap them. Marlene arrives and helps Pinocchio to avoid the tunnel's many dangers. However, Scamboli incapacitates Marlene, so he can kill Pinocchio with a laser gun. Pinocchio uses the medal to shield himself from the laser, causing the beam to reflect back at Scamboli and destroy his weapon. Meanwhile, Cabby accidentally gave Geppetto the remote that controls all Scambobots, getting them fired. Geppetto then commands the robots to get Scamboli.
Scamboli attempts to escape in Cabby's shuttle, but is caught by a Scambocop. It tosses Scamboli inside a shuttle and flies down to the Whale ride. Pinocchio, Geppetto, Marlene and Spencer go to turn the robots back into children. Soon it's Geppetto's turn, but Scamboli presses a button to stop the machines. Pinocchio goes inside the whale and tries to fix it. Pinocchio finds the out-of-reach button, so he begins to tell a lie about his personality . Once he reached it, Scamboli was caught on the cart. Pinocchio then realizes that everything was his fault. Cyberina appears, Pinocchio tells her that he has learned about Right and Wrong and turns Pinocchio into a real boy and Geppetto back into a human. Suddenly, Scamboli, turned into a robot, appears and Marlene was shocked. Cyberina borrows Cynthia's "Funbrella" to make sunshine and bring all the plants Scamboli has destroyed. It ends with Spencer taking a picture of Pinocchio, Geppetto and Marlene. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | waste of time. As other reviewers have noted, this movie had the potential to be good, but the direction is so mind-numbing bad that it is not worth watching. In fact, the viewer ought to feel insulted at the way the director insults their intelligence. Every cliché is overplayed, as if it is assumed that the viewer is too stupid to get the joke unless they are hit over the head with it.I think the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they wanted to do a soft-core porn flick or an adult-themed comedy, so they tried to do a little of both, and ended up doing neither. In fact, it represents the worst of both genres: a soft-core porn that is not erotic and comedy that is not funny.Monica Gayle is beautiful to look at (as always), but other than that, the film has no redeeming value.. a great cast wasted. With a cast that included Dyanne Thorne, Uschi Digard, Monica Gayle, and Vincene Wallace, this film should have been far more erotic than it was. Very disappointing. The sex scenes, the few that there are in this film, are cut way too short and should have been extended a lot more than they were. Since they aren't, the film kind of falls flat on the erotic front and that's too bad considering the talent especially in front of the camera. A good and very sexy erotic cast is completely wasted. Too bad too as this film could have been an erotic masterpiece but as it stands now, it is a very disappointing erotic effort. The actresses in the cast have beautiful bodies. They go through the motions alright but the sex scenes go by way too fast. What was the rush? If the producers had let the sex scenes play out more than they did, the film would have been much much better. As an example, the sex scene with the great and beautiful Uschi Digard goes by way too fast. When a woman has a body like Uschi, guys want to see her for more than just thirty seconds in a film.. More Than His Nose Grows. Pinocchio (1971) * 1/2 (out of 4) Gepetta (Monica Gayle) is a sweet toy making but if also very lonely. So lonely that she's actually still a virgin. One day she makes a wooden boy but knows since he's made of wood there can't ever be anything between them. However, the Fairy Godmother (Dyanne Thorne) brings Pinocchio (Alex Roman) to life but he must stay out of trouble, which isn't easy.The tag-line for this film is quite good as it points out that it's not just Pinocchio's nose that grows. I'm sure you get it. This film, also known as THE EROTIC ADVENTURES OF PINOCCHIO, really isn't anything special and in fact for an "erotic" film it's rather boring, tame and not all that erotic. As I go through more of these fairy tale "adult" titles it's becoming quite clear that CINDERALLA (1977) was the best of them.This film here is just poorly made and doesn't feature a bit of energy or excitement. The direction really doesn't do much in regards to making the film entertaining as the sex scenes are all rather boring and there's not too much humor that actually works. The highlights in regards to the humor is how the magic wand from the Fairy Godmother keeps accidentally taking all of her clothes off. Who doesn't want to see a nude Thorne? She's certainly the highlight of the picture as Roman is quite bland in the title role.. Prototype of later, better erotic fairytale movies. If you've seen the Charles Band re-tooling of Cinderella, or even the less well made erotic remake of Alice in Wonderland, you may (as I did) think this film is worth seeing. Not so. This early 70's campfest can't even pull kistch off correctly. Neither "erotic" nor an "adventure" as we watch Pinocchio deal with the gift of life by bcoming some kind of gigolo. In fact, the bulk of the movie reads like gags in a bad burlesque show. I can't say more, not to withhold spoilers so much as the fact the way the film is shot makes it difficult to know what's going on. In an effort to reduce overall nudity (of which there is little and never is it particularly moving), the camera zooms in too far or cuts away just as a scene might have gotten interesting. Highly disappointing, since the final result is a film that is not much less moral than Disney's version, and probably just about as arousing. |
tt0960721 | Adventures of Power | The story takes place in the fictional small town of Lode, New Mexico, where just about all of the male townsfolk work for a copper mining plant, including Power (Gold). Power (whose name was given to him by his father so he could grow up strong) lives with his Aunt Joanie (Lynch) and is always shown air-drumming to music, even when at work. It turns out he air-drums because his father never could afford to buy him drums. He does his air-drumming at a talent show in a local bar, where his only praise comes from a young boy. Unfortunately, the mining plant is poised to strike, but Power is fired for a mishap that is one too many just beforehand, therefore he cannot join in. Disappointed, he stumbles upon an ad for an underground air-drumming place about forty miles south of them just across the border in Mexico. The boy lends him his dirt bike to get there, but he ends up losing it while there.
He joins in, playing a Rush song without sitting down, which makes him nearly pass out. When the police raid the place, he ducks everyone and gets away. Before heading back, he is given an invitation to join a group of air-drummers in Newark, New Jersey, so armed with his music and cereal, he hitchhikes his way to Newark.
Once he gets there, he meets the crew, headed by Carlos, a former drummer who now has hooks in place of both of his hands (it is never explained why), and he is given a job and a place to crash at a local Chinese restaurant owned by Michael Fong (Ling). Living upstairs from the restaurant is Samantha, a religious fanatic, and her deaf daughter, Annie (Stern). Annie does take an initial liking to Power, but her mother objects to it, and even eventually threatens to move to Florida when she catches them making out. Before doing so, Annie reveals that her mother used to be a groupie, and she went deaf in her youth from not wearing hearing protection while on stage with the bands. (A picture she shows Power has her at a very young age on stage next to an amp crying.)
A subplot involves a rich young guy called Dallas Houston (or Dallas H.) who does music videos and has his own product lines of every sorts. He has a secret admiration for air-drumming that his father, who happens to own the mining company that runs the Lode plant, abhors.
Power works hard with the new crew for the upcoming air-drumming competition, eventually overcoming his shortcomings, but when he finds out the striking miners were assaulted by hired thugs and his dad is hospitalized, he bails on them and calls him, and they seem to make amends.
Carlos decides the group must go on without Power, but as they are performing their group song, one of the members is disqualified for how he’s playing, which causes the others to start a fight and gets them DQed as well.
Power, who comes in just in time for the solo competition, is the only one left eligible on their team. He plays along with Dallas H. and another female to Tom Sawyer in the finals. The girl drops out early, and after Power’s defective stool breaks and leaves him flat on the floor, it seems as though he would be out as well.
However, he finds out Annie is in the crowd at the show when she tosses a Cheerio on stage right into his mouth. (She had earlier declared to her mother she couldn’t go to Florida, and her mother, in sudden understanding, gives her a ticket to the air-drumming competition and says “Maybe Jesus was a rockstar.”)
With renewed energy, Power jumps up and continues playing without a stool (much to Carlos’s worry) and outlasts Dallas to win the competition.
He is presented the $2000 grand prize by Rush drummer Neil Peart (in a cameo appearance) and has him make the check out to the workers union of the copper plant. Power’s dad, renewed by his son’s victory and generosity, helps to resume fighting. | cult | train | wikipedia | Sundance Film Guide.
If you've ever heard the classic Rush song "Tom Sawyer," you may have found yourself flailing your arms in a rhythmic motion known as "air drumming." Neil Peart, Rush's legendary drummer, casts a wicked spell, but if you've managed to avoid it, or think air drumming isn't cool, I give you Power.Adventures of Power tells the comedic tale of a New Mexico mine worker named Power, who sets out to change the world through his love of drums.
But he has never learned how to play.
Instead, he air-drums at his aunt's bar on talent night.
After participating in an underground "drum off" in Mexico, he is spotted by a trainer from New York and asked to train with the team.
As his fellow mine workers fight for their rights back home, Power finds himself in the air-drum fight of his life against a formidable and despicable rival.
Summoning strength from inner desire, Power learns what's been driving him his whole life: he doesn't need drums.
He is drums.Having had three shorts in the Festival, Ari Gold returns with his feature debut and shows off his multifaceted talents of writing, directing, acting, and air drumming.
Enlisting a terrific group of comedic actors, he has crafted a funny and charming tale of a man, his dream, and the passion that it takes to chase it.
Trevor Groth.
An Instant Cult Classic.
Now, I don't normally write reviews for movies.
This is my first review on IMDb. But I am writing a review for this movie because after seeing the film on a press screener DVD and absolutely loving it, I did some research and found only bad reviews.Let me be clear - Adventures of Power is a classic.
My friend and I have watched the movie over 5 times, can't stop quoting it ("Imagine that!", "They beat us with sticks, Power...
we didn't have sticks!", "I don't need drums...
I am drums.") and we now have a compulsion to air drum.This movie is trendsetting and it's a shame that the early Sundance review crowd all missed the opportunity to tag this film as it is - a groundbreaking new comedy that will undoubtedly gather a religious cult following.Kudos, Ari Gold.
And here's to the start of a great career..
Contains more laughs than 99% of mainstream Hollywood comedies.
I was lucky enough to catch this movie and thought I'd throw in my tupenceworth.
I've sat through many a so called comedy and not been moved to write about them but this film is dramatically different.
Ari Golds debut feature has laughs aplenty.
The characters are both funny and engaging.
I won't spoil the plot other than to say it involves the unusual subject of 'Air Drumming' but I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Ari is a riot throughout but is well rewarded by the brilliant casting as each of the characters brings something to the movie.
I would particularly praise the casting of gorgeous Shoshannah Stern as Powers (Ari Golds) love interest.
Despite being completely deaf she is able to inspire Power to new heights of air drumming greatness.
Quirky & fantastic by the same measure I recommend you see it now!.
Don't Stop Believing!.
Wow, what a movie.
Ever seen a movie about playing air guitar and wondered how about all the people i see out at the bars air drumming?
Well you guessed right.
There is a bunch obsessed with air drumming too.This one has all the elements for a rating of 10.
It is painfully hilarious and at the same time it is very deep, and real life.
It is intended all of us (and by that I mean ALL of us)who have a unique 'trait'/ a random whatever that others might look down on.
You can't help to root for the main character but it is not as typical of a movie as that makes it sound to be.The main character reminded me of the naiveness of John Heder as Napoleon (and they do very strangely look like each other).
This movie is all about identity, and it goes to prove that 2 people from completely different backgrounds and personalities can still share a common something.Shoshannah Stern ties this movie together, and just like the movie she has this incredible ability to be funny and sad at the same time.
You really feel for her, as she feels for Power.For Adrian Grenier, it's like there was this one role I knew would be perfect for him and I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
But here he is as a country star.
One word = hilarious.If you are passionate about music (especially rock & roll), you should see this one asap..
amazing comedy....
can't wait!!!!.
I saw this film when my acting class was invited to give comments at a test screening.
I loved it, it is hilarious and very touching movie.
It reminds me of The Full Monty (English film) but more weird and more for kids or people my age.
There is a lot of music in it, it's almost like a musical, but nobody sings fortunately.It was fun to see some new faces and also some you know (yes, Vince from Entourage is in it, but he is totally different, he is actually very funny!).
I don't like American comedies so much but this one is much better, because you care about these crazy characters and their American dream.I can't wait to see it again when it comes out.
I think they are editing a few things but i hope they don't change too much.My guy friends liked it a lot because it's sort of like a sports movie at times, but I was more into the message and the love story, but that's just me....!.
Pure genius!.
The kind of movie that doesn't come along every decade.
I bumbled into it on Hoopla.
Brilliantly funny and lovably endearing for those with a particular sense of humor.
You'll love the characters even more each time you watch it.
Chances are your friends won't appreciate it.
Don't let this gem pass you by..
A comedy about music and believing in oneself.
I first saw this film at a film festival, and then I saw it again at a fundraiser.
It made me laugh so hard I cried--and my stomach hurt from laughing.
I can't wait until more of my friends have seen this movie--there are so many great moments in the plot and funny one-liners that I can't tell them without spoiling the movie!
One key scene near the end brought tears to my eyes because it was so moving.
This is a MUST SEE for fans of the music of Rush, as well as anyone who loved This Is Spinal Tap, The Commitments, School of Rock or High Fidelity.
Some excellent cameos.
It's a comedy about music, and the underlying message is one of believing in oneself and one's dreams..
power noodle.
a quirky story told with quirky characters.
if you watch the movie you will understand my title!i do not know if this movie will become a cult classic or not, but it's a classic for good laughs and a humorous adventure tale.
along the way some social issues are thrown in to show how silly we are to take unimportant things way to seriously.
and we don't take the important things seriously enough.power's adventure can look a bit dangerous at times but he stays focused on his goal and finds love and respect because of it - a simple much told message - but power tells it his way!
a light hearted movie for fun and laffs.
i can't recommend this movie enough.
but good luck finding it as a rental.
i got lucky!
my favorite characters are the oriental couple!.
Couldn't Stop Laughing!.
This is my first movie review ever.
I just finished watching Adven/Power on Showtime and I immediately went online to see if everyone thought it was as fantastic as I did.
Unfortunately, most didn't.
I think people are too used to these watered down, bland American comedies.
I literally sat through some female comedian's stand up set on Comedy Central last night without even cracking a smile.
Watching Adven/Power was SO different.
I actually held my stomach with a gut laugh--and that's rare these days.
I agree with a previous reviewer who said that this movie was akin to Napoleon--classic.
And not everyone will get the funny/witty/sincere humor that Adven/Power has to offer in EVERY scene.
Amazing!
And Adrian Grenier was SO cute--and hilarious.This quirky movie had soul, touched me to tears while making me laugh at the same time.
In this day and age, people are so superficial and don't appreciate the simple pleasures of life.
Too many people are stuck on huge budget movies with a lot of bling/bling and little substance.
Adven/Power was making movies and comedies is all about.
It is a cult classic and I am a fan!.
A Rare Comedy that has Heart.
A rare comedy that has heart featuring a lovably awkward protagonist (Power) and 80's style humor wonderfully reminiscent of Wayne's World.
Power as a character is definitely innocent yet eccentric in that same kind of Garth way.
He's also very relatable on his quest to fulfill his passion, which in his case is to be a drummer even though he never played because he couldn't afford a drum set of his own.
Adventures of Power is both silly and surprisingly powerful in moments.
Without taking itself too seriously the film still manages to address serious social issues and intertwine it's own unique humor.
Memorable scenes are thoughtfully edited to music with an undercurrent of social commentary on worker's right and class warfare that no one has really touched on in films so much recently, or done so in such a poetic way.
The film also is full of amazing classic rock and has a nostalgia which is also rare to find.
It carries an important message of following your own path and passion even when you can't afford to (or even when your parents disapprove of you).
The kind of determination of Power, though in jest and good fun, make this an inspirational uplifting comedy for generations to come.
I feel like this is the kind of film that seems really simple on the surface but actually has many layers.
Definitely one to see more than once.
A must see for the dreamer in all of us..
Hilarious fun with heart.
Part silly comedy, part love story, part adventure, this movie was a pleasure form start to finish.
Power, an odd-ball from a small mining town, heads out on a quest to find other people like himself - air-drummers.
Ari Gold, who wrote and directed the movie, stars as Power and does a great job.
He is goofy and lovable, and downright hilarious, and his air-drumming skills are tight!!!
seriously.
Jane Lynch, who plays his aunt, and Michael McKean (Powers dad) are great - McKean is great in this dramatic role.
His love interest is Shoshannah Stern from Weeds.
She lives with her over-protective mother above a Chinese restaurant where Power ends up in Newark.
Chiu-Chi Ling from Kung-Fu Hustle makes a hilarious addition to the cast as the owner of this restaurant.
Adrian Grenier, who plays Powers nemesis is HILARIOUS - this movie let him show way more than we get to see from him in Entourage.
So, great cast, super fun, amazing music.
I definitely recommend watching Adventures of Power..
Has it moments, but mostly is just bizarre.
After opening up my laptop to watch the movie the Adventures of Power, the first image I saw was of the creator Ari Gold, who frankly came across as pretty lame.
He was nervous,jittery, and had a weird sense of humor that didn't quite click with me.
But, I thought, maybe the movie will be different.
Best not to judge on first impressions, right?
So I buckled down, started microwaving some Costco low fat popcorn, and settled down in my bed for what would be the longest hour and a half of my life.The entire movie requires a healthy dose of suspension of belief.
In fact, the whole premise of the movie is ridiculous—sneaking off to go to illegal air drumming competitions in Mexico, getting picked up by an old Chinese couple in Newark and joining an air drumming team captained by a guy with no hands?
Put all logic aside, folks, otherwise you're not going to make it to the end of this movie.
Once we got to the part about Power's love interest, I had hope that maybe, just maybe, the movie was about to explore the tense relationship between the older generation and the youth, between a mother's guilt and her daughter's passion for rock and roll.
But no, somewhere along the line the mother accepts the daughter's love for rock and roll for no apparent reason.
Also, I can never again look at cereal in the same way.
I've poured myself a bowl of cereal every day for the past two years, and today I decided to cook eggs instead, because the image of two awkward adults making out under pouring cereal boxes was too strong for me to bleach from my mind.
I could find no real purpose for this motif other than disconnecting the audience from the characters as much as possible.
Where did the cereal even come from?
Does cereal just rain from the sky now?
Despite the overall bizarre tone of the movie, there were some touching moments like when Power admits that "(he) can't go 20 more seconds than (his rival)" and the captain replies "maybe not, but you can at least earn us some respect out there." This was a surprisingly poignant and realistic quote underneath the general unrealistic tone set by the creator.
The motif of labor unions vs big companies, the underdog vs the big shots, was also a main struggle of the movie, which was tense at times and certainly made the movie more realistic.All in all, probably one of the worst movies I've ever had the displeasure of watching, except for the adoption of the book Eragon, which was a train wreck.
Despite my refusal to never watch the movie again, I don't think it's a horrible movie.
It has its funny moments, though they are undercut by the general disconnect of the creator's humor with my own.
If you're looking for a way to kill 1.5 hours of your life and have a really interesting conversation starter with someone, this just might be it.Side note: Review used for my MGMT395 class. |
tt0830199 | Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss | Warring Capulets (Michael Toland) and Montagues (Stephen Goldberg), portrayed as Steller and California sea lions respectively, have their feud watched sadly by Capulet's only daughter, Juliet (Patricia Trippett). A fight on the shore is ended when the Prince (Phil Nibbelink), a large and monstrous elephant seal, appears and warns the two groups that, should there be any more disturbance, the seal who caused it shall be exiled to Shark Island, a fin shaped rock where a shark lives. Romeo (Daniel Tripett), Montague's only son, is depressed, wishing to fall in love with someone. His humorous friend, Mercutio (Chip Albers), urges him and another of his friends, Benvolio (Sam Gold), to go to a Capulet party later that evening. They attend the party, covered in white sand to look like Capulets, and Romeo falls in love with Juliet at first sight. Juliet, however, was promised by her father to marry the Prince, who attends the party. Romeo and his friends manage to wreak havoc, and are revealed to be Montagues. Later that evening, the play's balcony scene is recreated on a cliff on the beach where a tree grows. Romeo promises Juliet that they shall marry the next morning, and she will not have to marry the Prince.
Romeo begs Friar Lawrence, a sea otter, to wed them. After some thought, the friar believes their marriage will end the feud between their families, and agrees. Romeo and Juliet are wed that morning and traverse the sea in their happiness. However, even the other sea and land animals strongly oppose their being together. A fish finds them a lovely couple, but warns them that they will be in big trouble if the Prince finds out. Back on the beach, Mercutio is telling many jokes, which leads to him making insulting jokes against the Capulets, and the Prince is headed in that direction. When he arrives, Mercutio mocks him as well. Romeo rushes to aid his friend, but after a struggle Mercutio falls off the cliff where Juliet met Romeo the previous evening, and everyone thinks that he is dead. The Prince, jealous of Juliet's affection for Romeo, exiles Romeo to Shark Island. In despair, Juliet seeks the Friar's help, and he gives her a potion to put her in a deathlike state. Mercutio is revealed to be alive and sees the whole thing, remarking, "What a tangled web we weave."
Lawrence shows the Capulet seals that Juliet is "dead", right as they were celebrating the marriage. But Benvolio sees her as well, and swims to Shark Island to tell Romeo. The Friar chases him to stop him, but is attacked by a shark. After receiving the terrible news from Benvolio, Romeo heads to the shore to see if Juliet is truly dead. Friar Lawrence arrives too late and tries to follow Romeo, only to have his tail maimed by the shark. After an undersea chase and some help from the fish Romeo and Juliet met earlier, Lawrence escapes and heads to the beach. A heartbroken Romeo walks past the mourning Capulets and tries to kiss Juliet, only to have some of the potion slip into his own mouth, putting him in a deathlike state as well. Both groups of seals begin to weep for their loss, and Lawrence, who has just arrived, teaches them a lesson about where hatred leads them. Suddenly, Romeo and Juliet awaken, and all is well. Mercutio returns, and the Prince finds a new mate, a large elephant seal like himself. The movie ends with the two families at peace, and Romeo and Juliet remaining together. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Seals do Shakespeare (but not for purists).
Sealed With a Kiss is a traditional fully-animated film, with seals doing Shakespeare.
I admit that like many others, I wasn't totally sold on the concept, but then when you get down to it The Lion King was basically Hamlet with lions, and few seemed to have a problem with that.
Turned out to be quite a fun little movie.
While the dialogue is modern, the film has a few of the characters quoting famous Shakespearian lines, but in a way that shouldn't alienate children.
The story gets going straight away, with rivalry between the 2 groups of seals.
Well maybe it is a little sappy, but it's sweet, and sincerely handled.
Two of the songs near the start were, I thought rather weak, but they at least progressed the story.
As the film gets going, there are fewer songs.Unlike the play, the film is light in tone and has many comedic elements.
There are a few laugh-out-loud moments but some of Mercutio's puns are groan inducing(even the characters in the film seem to think so).
As you would expect, liberties are taken (most notably the ending), and it isn't weighed down like some adaptations.
To be honest, I fully expected it to be Romeo & Juliet in name only, and sure enough a great many story elements have no relation whatsoever to what Shakespeare wrote, but I was surprised that the core of what is here is more or less true to what I remember of the original.I was particularly interested to see how the animation turned out, as it has emerged that this film is that rarest of things: a one man animated film.
Phil Nibbelink wrote, directed and animated every frame of the film over the course of 5 years.
Well drawn fluid cartoony animation.
It's not quite of the level of a top notch Disney animated film, but it comes very close, indeed far closer than I would have ever dreamed possible for a one-man effort.
A few shortcuts are taken, but there are a surprising number of scenes animated on ones (which takes twice as many drawings as is usually necessary).
This means the animation can be that extra bit more fluid.
Some shortcuts can be seen in some of the background characters and effects animation, but this is generally where it matters least.
The important stuff, the character animation, is top notch, what you would expect from a strong Disney animator (which is what Nibbelink spent a decade working as).
The backgrounds are soft-focus simple and uncluttered to frame the character animation.
In a few cases these are perhaps a little rushed, but all in all, they set the atmosphere and do the job.Even with the lighter tone, it still manages strong dramatic moments.
While the film aims at a young audience that may not yet be ready for this kind of romance, there should be enough action and comedy to keep them entertained..
No, it isn't Disney, and it isn't even quite Shakespeare (the almost too clever but crafty subtitle "Sealed With A Kiss" tells us that), but as a throwback to one and a light introduction to the other, this very little (77 minute) film deserves to find an appreciative audience.The one-man, single cell "flat" animation is smoothly done and handsome.
While the brown and yellow Romeo and Juliet seals (to distinguish between the Montague and Capulet herds) are closer to the look of Casper the Ghost and friends than the more detailed "flat" animation from the corporate giants at Disney, Pixar or Bluth, it is several steps ahead of the still popular (among the undemanding young) work associated with Rankin-Bass.
Even the Elephant Seal "Prince" who stands in for Shakespeare's Duke who threatens any who would disturb the streets of his Venice does not recall the visual sloppiness of the broad lines Ursula, the evil witch in Disney's LITTLE MERMAID was rendered in.The script might have tried a little harder (it omits more Shakespearian characters than it had to - where's the nurse?
- and while it feels free to drop in "famous" Shakespearian quotes from other plays at any convenient turn for the amusement of the adult audience, it could have used a few more in the actual plot without turning off the younger set), but it is coherent and even in "smoothing out" the rough edges of one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies for overly sensitive parents, it preserves the essence of most of Shakespeare's lessons (at least as interpreted these 400 years later).Charm is the key word here - it is a charming film, and a very nicely done one, even if it were from a major studio.
From a one-man operation it's close to a miracle that any student of film or animation should put on their "must-discover" list.
or SHREK 1, 2 or 3, this ROMEO AND JULIET, Sealed With A Kiss would be a very good choice for a wise parent..
When people criticize this film, they probably forget that this is a children's film.
It is just a very sweet children's film based on "Romeo and Juliet" and the characters are seals (save Friar Lawrence, who is an otter).
Kids will not enjoy films where a great deal of characters die and they will not enjoy a live action film about lovers.
Even though I'm not a kid, however, I very much enjoyed this film - partly because I remembered that this was made for children.
I also enjoyed it because of the way it was made: the plot, the animation and the characters.
The way one man made this film pretty much all by himself is worth giving credit for.
You will probably know the story of Romeo and Juliet, there are two feuding families and a boy and a girl, both from the feuding families, fall in love with each other.
Well, this film is like that, only with seals.I recommend this to people who do not mind Shakespeare being very much adapted on and to every little kid who likes animated films and seals.
Enjoy "Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With a Kiss"!
:-)P.S "The Lion King II" is WAY more adapted from "Romeo and Juliet" and no-one criticizes that film because of it.P.P.S Last time I checked (which was when I watched it today), the whole of this film was available on Youtube, so you can watch it on there..
Before I went into watching this film I read a bit about it from other viewers and based on what they said I had pretty low expectations for it.
The animation is really well done and the story is filled with Shakespeare jokes that any thespian or theater buff will get a good chuckle out of.
The voice acting and singing can often range from good, mediocre, or just plain bad.
a fish called Kissy(you'll know her when you see her and you'll either love or hate her).If you're looking for a movie to entertain your kids or to just kill some time I'd recommend this to you but be forewarned, this is the kind of movie you'll either hate or like.I give Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss a 6.5/10 leaning towards a 7..
Great animation, script and music not so great.
I love Shakespeare, and was intrigued at how "Romeo and Juliet:Sealed with a Kiss" would turn out.
I did hear from people it was a disgrace to Shakespeare, but I have been known to disagree with critics and the IMDb ratings, so I gave this a chance.
The best asset of the film is the animation.
The backgrounds are fluid and colourful and the characters with the exception of the Prince were well drawn.
Considering the animation was done by one man, Phil Nibbelink, it was quite impressive visually.
The story pretty much follows the storyline of the play, except it is about seals, plus some (I think) pointless scenes with Friar Lawrence and a shark, and the voice acting was on the whole decent.
I love good music in animated films, but here I found the songs forgettable and bland, and the incidental music felt misplaced.
I will say I liked one or two of the characters, Romeo and Juliet are appealing enough and the Kissing Fish is really cute.
However, Friar Lawrence is not the wise caring character I associate him with, and I do not know why the Nurse was omitted when she provides the most effective source of parental love in the play.
In my opinion, I didn't like the character of the Prince at all, I didn't like how he was drawn and his voice was too monotonic for my liking.
Worst of all was the script, constant misuse of the Shakespeare language and Mercutio's jokes went well overboard, and especially in his death scene they weren't even funny.
Overall, this movie was okay but I don't recommend it.
I thought this film by Phil Nibbelink (director of An American Tail: Fievel goes West) was very good from the moment I saw the trailer; also I do love seals.I always love the works of William Shakespeare ever since I studied him in my High School English classes.
Also I strongly agree with Laura Tiffany of "Home Media Magazine" and Rick Bentley of "Fresno Bee" : it's impressive and a sweet film that should delight the family.
Overall, I give this film a big A+ for great backgrounds, excellent color styling and very good music..
In my opinion, the worst film in the world.
what's the point on letting young children watch a film about two seals that fall in love and talk stuff, it is REALLY annoying, i just wish i forgot about this film forever, that and 'time bandits (1981)' there's also a fish that talks like a baby and a fat seal for an antagonist, why concern these things when nobody understands that awkward films aren't my number one!
i hated it, IT'S THE WORST FILM EVER EXISTING ON THIS TURNING PLANET OF Africa, ASIA, AND FREAKIN' America!!!!!!!!
as for the director, he doesn't care, all he cares is his arctic drama ideas that everyone hates, spread the word, kids: SEALS ARE BAD FILMMAKERS!!.
I remember accidentally stumbling on watching this movie with a family member one night back in later 2006 as a late teen, and I don't remember it being as bad as the 3.7/10 total user rating currently shown on the film's page.
Which isn't too surprising given that lots of people today are hypercritical of things or films that aren't "by the book", as I definitely remember this one being a little unique from the Shakespeare play this movie is based on.In terms of an animated movie altogether for all audiences and not just kids, it's not excellent or probably not very good either, as I remember some things were too childish to my taste.
But nevertheless, after looking at some clips of it again now, there were a few scenes that are interesting to say the least.
Particularly, the wedding scene between the young Romeo and Juliet seal couple with the otter Friar, as the way this entire part was done (including the organ music) is the one I had remembered the most from this film..
Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss (DO YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID THERE?
IT'S ABOUT SEALS!) is possibly the laziest excuse for a film I've ever seen.
One of the characters, a talking fish, is played by the director's daughter, for instance.
She gets to sing a solo of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.
This should give you some idea of the sheer skill and respect for the craft that went into this.First of all, an interpretation of Romeo and Juliet where no-one dies feels...
Doubly so if that happy ending involves Mercutio surfboarding in taking racist jokes with the punchlines replaced by the word "Capulet".Also, there is a dance scene on the Titanic.
I don't know why these awful children's films feel the need to use the deaths of thousands for cheap laughs, but it's a trend that is apparently spreading.And when it's all said and done, the Shakespeare content is pretty weak.
The family rivalry is replaced by lazy racism, characters are cut or merged to the point of nonsense (we want Tybalt!), the ending is changed, all the scenes describing their courtship are cut and replaced with badly sung musical numbers, and yet Mercutio feels the need to constantly quote other Shakespeare plays!
And use words like "thou" and "wherefore" wrongly, which isn't very educational at all.All in all: hilarious for adults who know Shakespeare and are drunk.
If I could describe Romeo & Juliet: Sealed With A Kiss in one word, it would be "OK." It's debatable whether OK is a word but that's beside the point.
I came into Sealed With A Kiss expecting it to be pretty bad, but was surprised to find that it was better than I thought it would be, not great or even particularly good but not horrible either.
Don't come in expecting Romeo And Juliet because this is more a light introduction for the 3-6 crowd.
that all the characters are seals (aside from Friar Lawrence, who is an otter for some unexplained reason), there's a somewhat happier ending and some characters are either combined or eliminated entirely.
Paris and the Prince are combined into the seal prince and Tybalt and the Nurse are nowhere to be found.
Anyway, not as bad I as was expecting but still something of a mixed bag.
One the one hand; the animation is quite nice (especially considering it was done by only one person), there were some good character designs, most of the characters were likable enough, and the Kissy Fish was cute, although I wasn't a fan of the voice.
As for the bad points; while most of the character designs were good but the Prince looked oddly phallic and while I like the Kissy Fish's design, her voice I found irritating.
Also, I would have Tybalt and the Nurse to be at least mentioned, but at least it's not missing nearly as many characters as The Black Cauldron.
Overall, I thought it was just OK; not all that good but not as bad as either people say or I was expecting it to be..
Worst Romeo and Juliet ever.
Given that we have had three awful animated Titanic movies, it only fits that sooner or later we'd have a bad movie based on Shakespeare.
The thing is, the animation isn't really terrible and neither is the movie.
This movie reenacts "Romeo And Juliet" only with cartoon seals for really no reason at all.
As you might have guessed, there's a bunch of dumb kid's songs in it.
Of course they wouldn't actually die at the end, it's a kid's movie!
If "The Lion King" could be "Hamlet" with cartoon animals, this could have been good too.The worst thing is probably how annoying the characters are.
Even the extras are obnoxious in this particularly with how they won't shut up about how Romeo and Juliet can't get together.
There's also this super annoying little fish that fights a shark by getting other fish to slap it or something stupid like that.
I guess Romeo and Juliet aren't that annoying, but everyone else is.
There's this elephant seal that supposed to have bad breath, but he looks more like he's farting out his mouth.
The pacing is terrible and don't expect any faithful scenes from the play.
If you're expecting me to bash this movie into oblivion then you will be very disappointed because I don't hate this movie.
Here's a full list: Underdeveloped romance, flat characters, nonsensical plot points, a rap number (yes really,) bringing characters back from the dead, and rewriting an overdone story.
With that in mind, I should hate this movie but I don't!
As a kid, I absolutely adored this movie.
So when I watch this movie I get a bit of nostalgia for some of those scenes in the movie that sucked me in as a kid.
Another reason is the absolutely gorgeous hand drawn animation.
Yeah the designs are a little off but I like it.
I guess I like young love and even though it's underdeveloped, seeing 2 cute little seals in love is just adorable to me.
The ending is also pretty satisfying.
Speaking of the book, this movie followed the book as close as it could without killing off our adorable main leads.
Overall, this movie does get a little childish at times (and I do skip those scenes) but it's overall cute and sweet..
This movie was bad on its own.
But the fact that they took Shakespeare play and turned it into mush is unacceptable.Everything was different from the original Shakespeare script.
For starters, NOBODY died in this movie.
Not Romeo, not Juliet, not Mercutio, not Tybalt(who was not even in the film).
And Juliet is to marry the prince instead of Paris(who again, is not in this film) I know that its for kids but you are doing Shakespeare so all his plays have tragedy.
None of his films have happy endings.
This film might have been a bit better if it was a brand new film, but if you say you are going to follow Shakespeare, at least do not change the whole plot and have the guts to pin it on him..
This movie is absolutely atrocious!
The animation is lazy and the characters are poorly crafted at best.
No one dies, the singing is awful, the prince is rather rape-y, and the animation is sub-par, especially for 2006!
Go watch Gnomeo and Juliet if you want a quality adaptation of Shakespeare's work.
The Mercutio character is in incredibly poor taste and the thinly veiled racist undertones are uncalled for and rude. |
tt6030702 | From Dusk Till Dawn Remake/Spoof | Fugitive bank robbers and brothers Seth and Richie Gecko are fleeing the F.B.I. and Texas police. They hold up and destroy a liquor store, killing the clerk and a Texas Ranger. Two witnesses they held hostage in the store escape during the shooting. The Geckos still hold a bank clerk hostage in the trunk of their car, whom Richie later rapes and murders.
The Fuller family—Jacob, the father and a pastor who is experiencing a crisis of faith; his son Scott; and daughter Kate—are on a vacation in their RV. They stop at a motel and are promptly kidnapped by the Geckos, who force the Fullers to smuggle them over the Mexican border. Seth and Jacob make an uneasy truce: if the Geckos can make it past the border, Jacob and his family will come out of the ordeal unharmed. They arrive at the "Titty Twister", a strip club in the middle of a desolate part of Mexico, where the Geckos will be met by their contact, Carlos, at dawn. The Geckos demand that the Fullers have a drink with them before leaving, despite Kate's obvious discomfort.
Soon after entering the club, chaos ensues as the employees and strippers are all revealed to be vampires. Most of the patrons are quickly killed, and Richie is bitten by the star stripper, Santanico Pandemonium, and bleeds to death. Only Seth, Jacob, Kate, Scott, a biker named Sex Machine, and Frost—a Vietnam War veteran—survive the attack. The slain patrons, including Richie, then come back to life as vampires, forcing Seth to kill his own brother.
During this second struggle, one of the vampires bites Sex Machine in the arm. Subsequently, Sex Machine changes into a vampire and bites Frost and Jacob before Frost throws Sex Machine through the door, which allows an army of vampires to enter as bats from the outside. Seth and the Fullers desperately escape to a back storeroom and fashion anti-vampire weapons from items found therein, including a pneumatic drill, crossbow, shotgun, and holy water, which requires Jacob to recover his faith to bless. Jacob, knowing he will soon turn into a vampire, makes a reluctant Scott and Kate promise to kill him when he changes.
The four make their final assault on the undead. Jacob changes, but Scott hesitates to dispatch his father, allowing Jacob to bite Scott. Scott hits Jacob with holy water and shoots him. Scott is captured by several vampires who begin to devour him. Begging for death, Scott is shot by Kate. Only Seth and Kate survive, surrounded by vampires. Just as they contemplate suicide, streams of sunlight shine through new holes in the walls, making the vampires back away. Dawn has come, and Carlos is trying to shoot his way in. On Seth's call, Carlos' bodyguards blast open the door, letting in full sunlight and killing every vampire inside. Carlos admits that he had never entered the club, but that he had thought it looked like "a fun place".
Kate asks Seth if she can go with him to El Rey, Mexico, but he declines, saying, "I may be a bastard, but I'm not a fucking bastard." They go their separate ways after Seth gives Kate some cash. As they leave, it is revealed that the "Titty Twister" structure was actually the top of a partially buried ancient Aztec temple, presumably the home of vampires for centuries, and that hundreds of vehicles have been toppled down the side of the cliff. | humor | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0043503 | The Enforcer | In Marin County, two gas company men are lured by a scantily-clad woman (Jocelyn Jones) to a remote spot in Mill Valley and killed by Bobby Maxwell (DeVeren Bookwalter). Maxwell's gang, the People's Revolutionary Strike Force (PRSF), plans to use the gas men's uniforms and van as part of an ambitious series of crimes that will make them rich.
Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) and his partner Frank DiGiorgio (John Mitchum), after dealing with a chronic fainter, arrive at a liquor store where robbers have taken hostages. The robbers demand a car with a police radio; the inspector provides one by driving his squad car into the store and shooting the robbers.
His superior Captain McKay (Bradford Dillman) reprimands Callahan for "excessive use of force", injuring the hostages, and causing $14,379 of damage to the store, and temporarily transfers him out of the Homicide unit. While assigned to Personnel, Callahan participates in the interview process for promotions, and learns that affirmative action means that three of the new inspectors will be female including Kate Moore (Tyne Daly), despite her very limited field experience.
The PRSF uses the gas company van to steal M72 LAW rockets, Colt M16 rifles, a Taser and other weapons from a warehouse. In the course of the robbery, three people are killed: a security guard whom Maxwell kills for his keys; DiGiorgio, whom Maxwell stabs in the back after he stumbles in on the robbery after discovering the guard's body; and Miki, one of Maxwell's accomplices, is accidentally shot when DiGiorgio's gun goes off. Maxwell finishes her off as "dead weight" with DiGiorgio's weapon. To Callahan's distress, Moore is his new partner; she claims to understand the risk, noting that—besides DiGiorgio—two other partners of his have died. After watching an Army demonstration of the LAW rocket on a firing range, they visit the Hall of Justice to sit in on an autopsy on the security guard killed in the robbery. Shortly afterwards, a bomb explodes in the bathroom. Callahan and Moore chase down and capture the PRSF bomber, Henry Lee Caldwell, and meet "Big" Ed Mustapha (Albert Popwell), leader of a black militant group the bomber formerly belonged to.
Although Callahan makes a deal with Mustapha for information, McKay arrests the militants for the PRSF's crimes. Callahan angrily refuses to participate in a televised press conference in which the publicity-seeking mayor would commend him and Moore ("one of the first of her sex in the whole country") for solving the case, and McKay suspends him from duty. Moore supports Callahan and gains his respect.
The PRSF boldly kidnaps the mayor after a Giants game in a very orchestrated ambush. With Mustapha's help Callahan and Moore locate the gang at Alcatraz Island, where they battle the kidnappers. Moore frees the mayor but Maxwell kills her as she saves Callahan's life. He avenges Moore by killing Maxwell with a LAW rocket. The inspector is uninterested in the mayor's gratitude, returning to his partner's corpse as McKay and others arrive to agree to Maxwell's demands. | insanity, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Only the garishness of containing a super star and being directed, uncredited, by Raoul Walsh , lifts this film to 'A' status but in fact this is a 'B' picture all the way.There are plot holes aplenty, cars which are fifteen years out of date, an unusually high body count and police procedures which would give the ACLU, if not the Supreme Court, apoplexy.
The body of the film is D.A. Humphrey Bogart and cop Roy Roberts reviewing their notes for a case against a murder for hire racket.
Artistically his peak was probably THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES in 1948, but his Oscar winning film, THE African QUEEN, was in 1951, and he still had IN A LONELY PLACE and THE CAINE MUTINY in his future.Here he returns to Walsh as his director, and leads a bunch of fellow character actors in a nice example of the thriller that is based on the error that undoes the evil criminal - an inverted detective story device that is best seen today in the television series of COLUMBO.
De Corsia is wonderful as the "Abe Reles" character, whose fear of Sloan/"Mendoza" leads to his death (historically, Reles probably was thrown out of the window of his hotel by policemen who were bribed to do so, although they tied a set of sheets together to make it look like Reles was killed in a stupid attempt at escaping).
Lambert is a forgotten character actor, who played many hoods in his films (he could, like De Corsia and Steele, look threatening very easily).
But Herman could be a cousin of "Canino", the creep who works for Eddie Geiger in THE BIG SLEEP, and who poisons a (for once) poignantly tragic Elisha Cook Jr. Steele was a good actor, but most people who don't recall his heyday as a cowboy star remember him only as the garrulous Sergeant Duffy in television's "F-TROOP" ("There I was at the Alamo with Davy Crockett...").The most interesting casting of all is Zero Mostel, as Babe, the hapless, fat thug who gets in over his head (but does survive, for all that).
At it's time it was very different to other films.The performances are all good, the group of hitmen in particular stand out in their portrayal of tough guys who turn to fear and mistrust when the law closes in.
De Corsia, Sloane, Mostel et al are the real stars and are very good in their hitmen guises.The film was based on the discovery and cases of the real "murder inc" in the 40's and is told in the crime story style that would become more used in the 1950's.
Although the star of the film in terms of first billed in The Enforcer is Humphrey Bogart, the film's main character is Ted DeCorsia in what is probably his best screen performance.Taking a lot of inspiration from Citizen Kane, District Attorney Humphrey Bogart and his two police investigators, Roy Roberts and King Donovan try and piece back together a case against Everette Sloane who has started a new racket, murder for profit.
The chief witness is Ted DeCorsia who after an attempt on his life, falls to his death while trying to escape from a window.After DeCorsia's demise the night before the trial was to commence, Bogart and Sloane start listening to hours of tape from several witnesses to see if they can salvage the case.
I can't see in real life how that could have happened.Still The Enforcer is a personal favorite of mine for Humphrey Bogart films and I think you'll like it too although when you see it you will see what Bogey did that almost blew the whole case..
Martin Ferguson (Humphrey Bogart) has the chance for sending the criminal Albert Mendoza (Everett Sloane) to the electric chair.
I'm surprised a Bogart film at the top of his career was handled by Windust, but at this time Bogart had been battling the Hollywood Communist lists and blacklists, and he got his independent Santana production company going, and I'm guessing that he was working against a lot of the Hollywood mainstream at this point (as was John Huston, who used Bogart in "African Queen" the next year).
While not on the same dynamic level as Walsh's own classic gangster/noir films including The Roaring Twenties' (1939), High Sierra' (1941) or White Heat' (1949), Murder Inc' is superior entertainment, featuring some great character actors and a characteristic Bogart performance.He plays Assistant DA Martin Ferguson, struggling to build a case against a syndicate of killers (based on a real life organisation and its chief architect Albert Anastasia, which killed an estimated 400).
Ultimately he is driven to confront Mendoza in his cell with photographs of his victims, triggering the final scenes.Still enjoyable today Murder Inc', deserves to be better known by Bogey's fans and noir enthusiasts alike.
This starts off powerfully, with a very interesting scene and some excellent film- noir photography, but after the witness dies, so does the movie in many respects.From that point on, it's just a bunch of flashbacks.
Film-noir-wise, despite the presence of superstar Humphrey Bogart along with guys like Zero Mostel, Everett Sloane and Ted de Corsia, it's average fare for the day.
Bogart is good as his usual tough-guy self, and is trying to prosecute the boss man of a Murder Incorporated type of crime organization but keeps running into road blocks with people getting killed.
The real life character that Rico appears based on, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, ended up dead in police custody, somehow falling from a fifth story window before testifying against Murder Inc. How convenient.This may not be the Warner Bros.
If the first 15 minutes amounts to paranoia run amok, the last amounts to suspense in spades as a cold-eyed killer stalks an unsuspecting girl along crowded city streets.What a great cast of character parts-- plug-ugly psycho Jack Lambert all wrapped up in ice and apparently loving it; Fatso Zero Mostel auditioning as an assassin but serving as a kick-me doorstop instead; and a menacing Bob Steele brandishing a revolver instead of his usual six-gun, along with such familiar yet unsung faces as police chief Roy Roberts and detective King Donovan who gets an unscheduled face wash and without a towel.
After years of chase , Assistant D.A. Martin Ferguson (Humphrey Bogart) has an important case against Murder, Inc. whose boss results to be a gangster named Albert Mendoza (Everett Sloane) .
The main star is backed by a host of fine support cast such as Zero Mostel , Ted de Corsia , Everett Sloane , Roy Roberts , Michael Tolan , King Donovan and the cowboy Bob Steele .
This helps the film to come off well, but to me it still seems like a B movie with an A list star and director."The Enforcer" is a crime noir, with Bogart as Martin Ferguson, a frustrated District Attorney who loses yet another witness against a crime boss, Albert Mendoza (Everett Sloane).
Ferguson's witness (Ted de Corsia) is due to go into court the next day, but he panics and tries to leave via a window too many flights up.Ferguson stays up the night before the trial with Captain Nelson (Roy Roberts) going over the case incident by incident, trying to figure out if there is anybody else who can help him put this killer in prison.There are flashbacks within flashbacks here as different people tell a story about the organization.I liked the denouement of this movie.
I found it effective and also suspenseful.Bogart, as usual, is great, as the no-nonsense DA, and he has good support from Zero Mostel, Sloane, King Donovan, and Michael Tolan, among others.Good crime drama..
"If you're smart you can be a hero, if you're dumb you can be dead!" Joseph Rico (Ted De Corsia) tells D.A. Martin Ferguson (Humphrey Bogart) in this very dark, intense factual story of a Murder for Profit organization.
Despite Bogart's star billing he doesn't dominate the film & is not in every scene & his absence is not missed due to the top notch supporting cast led by Ted De Corsia, Zero Mostel, Bob Steele, Jack Lambert etc.Though we already know Rico is dead he is very much seen afterwards & dominates the film from the flashback scenes.
Eventually when the movie transports us back to the present situation we still hear Rico's voice from a tape recorder.Bogart's role as the D.A. Martin Ferguson is reminiscent of his earlier role in the 1937 film Marked Woman opposite Bette Davis as D.A. David Graham modeled after real life D.A. Thomas Dewey who convicted Lucky Luciano in 1935.
For once Bogart appeared in a gangster film as a crusader of justice & again in 1951 in The Enforcer.I really enjoy watching this movie but what I find disappointing is the abrupt, unexpected & inconclusive ending that leaves you up in the air.
Finally after lots of hard work, Assistant D.A. Martin Ferguson has a good case against Murder Inc big wig, Albert Mendoza.
But while Mendoza is in jail, the man lined up to testify against him loses his nerve and falls to his death, thus leaving Ferguson little to no time to rebuild a case against the crime lord.The Enforcer is based upon the whistle blowing of one Abe Reles.
Who opened eyes up to an organised crime mob called Murder Inc. Fusing that period of history with the subsequent Kefauver Committee investigations that followed Reles' reveals, The Enforcer is a tough and gritty picture that many view as the key switch from Noir into the grizzled crime obsessed 1950s.
Starring Humphrey Bogart (Ferguson), Everett Sloane (Mendoza) and the excellent, and wonderfully named, Zero Mostel (Big Babe Lazich), it's also thought that Raoul Walsh had quite a hand in the final product.
Bogart plays what by now has become a familiar character of his, the crusading lawyer, this time as a DA trying to break a murder-for-hire ring.It does have its flaws, however.
Humphrey Bogart plays the Burton Turkus character, who was so successful in putting away many of the members of Murder Inc. and sending to the electric chair the only major mob boss ever to be executed, Louis (Lepke) Buchalter.
Everett Sloane is excellently cast as the brilliant, brutal Lepke like character, a small, slight, but terrifying man, who one policeman described as having the eyes of a doe.The movie is wonderful in revealing to audiences of the day the machinations of the mob.
We also see how the mob, now concerned about electronic surveillance has come up with code words like contract and hit to confuse law enforcement.Bogart's device of confronting the incarcerated Sloane with reminders of his victims almost backfires, but instead sets up the film's climax as it demonstrates the long reach possessed by crime chieftains even behind bars.
As others have noted it employs a CITIZEN KANE device - the hunt for a vital clue embedded in the past which may hopefully bring about closure and its nicely apt that Everett Sloane (as Mr. Big) appears in both films.The more extreme violence is always off-screen, no bad thing, but we do get a splendidly-prepared shoot-out at the end when the D.A. rescues his crucial witness (marvellously etched by Pat Joiner) from a stalking hit-man.
But the movie makes an unconscious point about the head of the gang - the slight Everett Sloane - whose very face drives Rico "over the edge." Sloane makes the most of his few minutes, as does Bob Steele, who came aboard at Bogart's suggestion, having impressed in "The Big Sleep."Several others here make notable impressions - Jack Lambert started a career of screen villainy as Tom Zaka, a psycho-killer long before Talking Heads ever sang about one.
This film has a great cast of super stars, Humphrey Bogart(Dist.Atty.Martin Ferguson)"The Caine Mutiny"'54 who wears a bow-tie and was in the prime of his acting career which ended in 1957.
He had great supporting actors namely: Zero Mostel (Big Babe Lazich) "Fiddler On The Roof"'64; Everett Sloane(Albert Mendoza) "Somebody Up There Likes Me" '56'; Jack Lambert (Tom Zaca) "Riverboat'59" TV Series '59-'61 who played gangster and hoodlum roles in Western's for many years.
If you look close enough, you will see Veteran actor Bob Steele (a great actor of the 30's and 40's mostly appeared in Western's) If you like Bogart and good actors from the past, by all means view this film!.
This isn't your typical gangster film but the story is based on the real life case of a Murder, Inc. gang.District Attorney Martin Ferguson (Bogart) has spent the last four years of his life trying to bust a gang of hired killers who have left hundreds of bodies lying around.
We then get various flashbacks to those in the gang and the story, which lead Rico to agree to testify.The Enforcer is a throwback to the 1930's with pictures such as the Dick Tracy series but it has a blend of film noir, which makes it worth watching even though the end results aren't as great as one would hope.
This film was one of the last of its type and Bogart is as great as usual playing the tough as nails D.A. who'll stop at nothing to get the big case solved.
The tension then goes to the final seven hours before the court case when the D.A. must find a witness to put on the stand but this here doesn't work because the majority of the characters aren't too interesting and they certainly don't bring any extra life to the movie.
It's just too bad the rest of the stories weren't as interesting.Bogart is very good in the role, although this is the type of character he could play while sleeping.
That being said, and Bogart being Bogart, this is still a top-notch noir thriller, with some of the best character actors in the business (Ted DeCorsia, Roy Roberts, Jack Lambert, Bob Steele, Zero Mostel) filling out the cast, a dark, oppressive and somewhat claustrophobic tone, and some particularly--considering the time in which it was made--gruesome moments (the scene between sadistic hit-man Bob Steele and gang member Danny Dayton, when it slowly dawns on Dayton that *he* is the intended victim, will make your hair stand on end).
Bogart, who can play a good guy as well as a bad guy, is superb as an honest hard nosed assistant D.A. working with various bits and pieces of information so that enough evidence can be gathered to convict the head man of a murder for business organization.
A look at the supporting cast will tell you why.Bogey plays crusading DA Martin Ferguson who is trying to convict mob kingpin Everett Sloane of murder.
It was during these broadcasts that the general public first became aware of some of the jargon used by hired killers and "The Enforcer" is credited as being the first movie to feature the words "contract", "hit" and "fingerman" in this context.After a four year investigation into the activities of crime boss Albert Mendoza (Everett Sloane), Assistant D.A. Martin Ferguson (Humphrey Bogart) has a witness who has agreed to testify that he saw Mendoza kill a man.
When the witness, Joe Rico (Ted de Corsia), dies suddenly as the result of an accident, Ferguson and Police Captain Frank Nelson (Roy Roberts) undertake a meticulous review of their investigation to date to try to find another piece of information which could lead to them being able to get Mendoza convicted.The case files confirm that the investigation started when a frantic young man called "Duke" Malloy (Lawrence Tolan) visited a police station and reported that he's been forced to kill his girlfriend.
The action is delivered with a good deal of pace and tension and despite the story's closeness to real events, the movie's style is always entertaining and not overly solemn in the way that some docu-noirs can be.The colourful collection of characters featured in "The Enforcer" are brought to life vividly by the excellent cast and Humphrey Bogart is especially good as a man who is extremely determined and powerfully focused on his task but is nevertheless also very controlled and methodical when necessary..
. which gave rise to one of the great lines of all gangster movies, "Can this be the end of Rico?" That's the question that assistant district attorney Ferguson's star witness, Joseph Rico, wails after Bogie lets him slip nine stories above the pavement.
From then on, all the movie is made of flashbacks which tell you (not always in chronological order) the whole police investigation that has been carried out to break up that crime organization.The keys: Actually this is not a Bogie's film, for he doesn't play an important part in the action: Most of the time, he just listens to what others do.
Bogie's character is Assistant District Attorney Martin Ferguson, who along with police pal Frank Nelson (Roy Roberts), unravels a murder for profit enterprise in a deftly told story with a clever twist that finally sinks the big fish behind it.Like the Charlie Chan films of an earlier era, I found that keeping a scorecard for the colorful cast of characters is helpful to keep track of the action.
One of the more interesting things for me in this 1950 film was it's explanation of the terms "contract" and "hit", obviously recent additions to the crime lexicon for it's day, though hardly unknown today.The movie offers a lot of clichéd lines that were probably fresh at the time, take Ferguson's command to the paranoid Rico (Ted De Corsia) the day before he's set to testify against mob boss Mendoza (Everett Sloane) - "He'll die, he's got to die, and you're going to kill him." Though Rico dies in a fall while trying to escape from testifying, we later see him in a flashback scene recounting how he was present at Mendoza's first "hit" of a café owner. |
tt2962876 | The Road Within | After his mother's death, Vincent (Robert Sheehan), a teenager with Tourette Syndrome, is enrolled in a behavioural facility by his father. While there he rooms with Alex (Dev Patel), a Brit with obsessive compulsive disorder, and meets Marie (Zoë Kravitz) who is in recovery for an eating disorder.
After a child films Vincent with his cellphone and Vincent attacks him, he and Marie are called into Dr. Rose's office where she chastises them and Marie steals her car keys. When Alex discovers Marie and Vincent running away in the middle of the night, he attempts to warn Dr. Rose and is kidnapped by them. The three of them head towards the ocean where Vincent hopes to scatter his mother's ashes. However Vincent does not remember the exact location of the beachside trip he and his mother made years ago. The trio finally settle on Santa Cruz as their destination.
Dr. Rose informs Vincent's father, Robert, that his son has gone missing and rather than allow the police to apprehend them, she and Robert attempt to track them down. Along the way Marie develops a crush on Vincent.
When they finally reach the ocean Marie collapses before they can reach the water. Marie is hospitalized and while there, the three are reunited with Dr. Rose and Robert. Marie, who is being force fed and has been restrained asks Vincent to run away with her but Vincent refuses. Instead he has a conversation with his father, who apologizes for treating him poorly and decides to stay in Santa Cruz so he can be near Marie. Rather than leave with Dr. Rose, Alex decides to stay with him. | romantic | train | wikipedia | So I just finished watching this film and I would first like to say, if you're looking for an exciting and riveting plot; you've come to the wrong place.
However, if you prefer a story with incredibly compelling characters played by incredibly talented actors, than you definitely need to watch this movie.
Robert Sheehan, who plays Vincent, does a remarkable job portraying someone with Tourette's without going overboard.
Similarly, Dev Patel who plays Alex does another remarkable job of playing someone with OCD (at least in my opinion).
I believe this movie has a good combination of feel good moments and moments where you truly empathize with the characters.
Though the concept of a road trip plot is slightly overdone, the landscapes are beautiful and the three young actors have a way of keeping you interested and entertained the entire time.
There were moments that were difficult to watch and made me a bit emotional while there were also scenes where I laughed out loud.
It really gives you a perspective on what it is like with a mental illness, especially as a teenager and the complications that they cause.
Overall, not a perfect flick but Kravitz, Patel, and Sheehan are definitely worth checking this film out..
I thought this movie was absolutely remarkable.
I was scrolling through Netflix for a fun movie with a little bit of drama and I came across this one.
Little did I know, I would fall in love with the movie.
This movie made me fall in love with the characters, their hearts, and emotions.
It also really truly opened my eyes about mental disorders in a way that I couldn't have imagined.
It showed me what these people truly go through and how a little bit of support can change how they live in the world.
It's truly a satisfying movie.
Made me want to have a story like all 3 of them, and make friends they way they did.Watch this movie if you want something different, but also warm and friendly.
If you love falling in love with characters as they head on their journey, this movie is for you!
Through the seriousness of the disorders this movie takes on (which, by the way, were beautifully portrayed by Kravitz, Patel and Sheehan) I was able to feel with them, laugh with them, and cry with them.
The Tourette's Syndrome, OCD, and Anorexia that they took hold of was captivating.
I could tell that a whole lot of thought was put into researching Tourette's by Gren Wells and Robert Sheehan because they gave us just enough of Tourette's.
I applaud him and the whole cast for the care they took with their characters and their corresponding illnesses.
I would call this film 'careful' in the greatest way.
Story of three young adults with Tourette's, OCD,and Anorexia who run away from a treatment center and are pursued by one of the fathers and the doctor from the center..
Absolutely loved this movie!
Somehow director, Gren Wells, manages to draw you into their world so that you laugh with the characters rather than at them, at the same time as you feel their pain.
Robert Sheehan, Dev Patel, and Zoe Kravitz are each outstanding and portray heartbreakingly real characters.
Robert Patrick is wonderful as the frustrated father with no understanding of how to cope with his son and his challenges.
A very good drama-comedy which mixes the 2 elements of drama and comedy perfectly, which in many cases is not the casePerfectly cast as well Robert Sheehan is excellent in the lead, you truly believe that he has Tourette's syndrome and Zoe Kravitz just keeps on proving with every movie she makes that she is a force to be reckoned with and I wouldn't be surprised at all if she got a Academy Award nomination for best supporting actress for thisI've never seen Robert Patrick better and feel more real than in this oneA must see if you like independent dramedies.
Solid memorable feel-gooder, should launch Zoë Kravitz into hyperspace.
Two things you should know about this film.1.
Humanistic films about an individual's problems set against the backdrop of a "road trip" are a tried-and-true Hollywood formula (think RAIN MAN, one of many) and this is one of the best.
The characters are empathetic and engaging, the script is tight, and the direction by Gren Wells shows complete control of colors and settings (reminding me in many ways of the brilliant use of color in the series SENSE8).
The two seasoned pros, Patrick and Sedgewick, are great but the young stars are nothing short of magnificent.
Her performance is hypnotic, the camera loves her, you likely will too, and one expects to see a lot of more of her in films and in years to come..
A very touching and well made movie, especially for outsiders and misfits!.
'THE ROAD WITHIN': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five) A remake of the 2010 German drama flick 'VINCENT WANTS TO SEA'; about a teen with Tourette Syndrome, who befriends two other patients (one with OCD and one with anorexia) at the behavioral facility his dad enrolls him in.
They steal their doctor's car and embark on a road trip together, to the coast.
The film was written and directed by Gren Wells (in her directorial debut) and it stars Robert Sheehan, Dev Patel, Zoe Kravitz, Kyra Sedgwick and Robert Patrick.
I enjoyed it immensely.Vincent (Sheehan) is a teenager, that's suffered from Tourette's disorder; most of his life.
His mother, who he was very close to, recently passed away; and his father (Patrick), who he's long resented, wants to enroll him in a special clinic.
Once there, he's roomed with Alex (Patel); a young British man, with obsessive compulsive disorder.
Vincent also meets Marie (Kravitz), at the facility, who he's immediately attracted to.
After Marie and Vincent get into trouble, with their doctor (Sedgwick), they decide to steal her car and head to the coast; so Vincent can spread his mother's ashes there.
When Alex catches them in the act, they kidnap him and take him along with them.The movie is equally funny and emotional.
It's not overly heartbreaking though; as it has a lot of optimism, and a great deal of compassion (for it's characters).
What I really love about the film, though, are the performances; Sheehan, Patel and Kravitz are all amazing in it (and Patrick and Sedgwick aren't bad either).
It's a very touching and well made movie, especially for outsiders and misfits (like most great films are).Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wOi4IC8bxg.
The characters are more easily portrayed for the actors due to the illnesses they each carry.
As one who has lived with Tourette's myself and as a parent, I was pleased at how accurately this was portrayed.
Though many with Tourette's display the tics and vocalizing rather than the verbal profanity often used to show example, this film got all angles right.
The words of the father in regard to his son made me cry...the writer/director must have dealt with this in life as she got the raw emotion of this disorder from the eyes of both parent and child.
The Tic Code starring Christopher Marquette and the late Gregory Hines is another revelation in film focusing on life with and the parenting of one with Tourette's.
The way The Road Within ties together OCD, anorexia and Tourette's with these brilliant young performers had me wishing it had debuted bigger and they had received far more accolades for their work.
Along with Robert Sheehan, Zoe Kravitz is a study in subtlety without being dull and Dev Patel is all palpable anxiety.
Robert Patrick's guilty dad believably shows his true colors and Kyra Sedgwick makes an easy piece as caring clinical director her own.
This movie is a cheering (and serious) tale about complicated people sharing a complicated trip to the ocean.
At the end I wondered who wrote and directed it and found out it was another astonishing female writer/director of these latter Movie years (Gren Wells).Then I asked myself (probably influenced by the Psychoanalytical atmosphere of the movie) why I rated it 8 and not 10.
A fun, different and unexpected movie that the whole family can't enjoy..
This movie definitely wasn't what I expected when I started watching it, I didn't read the description and just thought it'd be pure comedy with the pictures it had, as has been said though, it was different, pleasantly surprising.
The movie does an amazing job defining the individual characters histories, problems and loneliness in a world dominated with judgement.
I'd love to watch this movie again in the near future...
A Powerful Must Watch Story.
Illnesses like Tourettes and OCD are often portrayed in movies as a comic effect, or something very small-scale like occasional cursing or refusing to touch a dirty door handle, when in reality these illnesses are often crippling for those who suffer from them.
I have never seen a movie that portrayed these illnesses, particularly Tourettes, in such a realistic light.
Robert Sheehan and Dev Patel are absolute powerhouses in this film, portraying their respective illnesses with such realism that I absolutely believed them to be real.
The story is fairly simple, but the acting is what really brings this film to life.
It is at times extremely painful to watch, particularly the beginning as we are introduced to the characters, and as an audience member it is difficult to watch these young men struggle with very serious issues and aspects of their illnesses.
I think this movie is an absolute triumph, and a must watch in order to gain a new perspective into those who are suffering from illnesses that are often taken much too lightly..
Best movie for people like me.
People with tourette's will definately love this movie ..
Vincent(Robert Sheehan) is a young man with Tourettes Syndrome.
His father places him at a private facility where he is roomed with Alex(Dev Patel), who suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and is a germ freak who can never be touched.
They are soon joined by Marie(Zoe Kravitz) who has Anorexia.
Maria steals their doctor's car keys and thus begins a very different road trip.
The final scenes are a bit sentimental, but I still would recommend The Road Within for its' positive outlook on life..
Dysfunctional...In A Good Way. Despite some of the cheesiness and predictability of this film, there were some moments of pure beauty.
I don't think the critics quite understood what this film may mean for people with disabilities.
As Marie (played by Zoë Kravitz), Alex (played by Dev Patel), and Vincent (played by Robert Sheehan) made their way closer to the ocean, they also grew closer together and stronger in their fight against their disabilities.
The film was mediocrely structured as it seemed to keep drawing focus away from the overall message.
Gren Wells wrote the characters so accurately, yet so innocently, and was able to make audiences laugh about the disabilities rather than feel uncomfortable about them.
Overall I give this film 7/10 stars..
Vincent Rhodes (Robert Sheehan) suffers from Tourette Syndrome.
He is roomed with obsessive clean freak Alex (Dev Patel).
He falls for anorexic Marie (Zoë Kravitz).
He and Marie run away stealing Dr. Rose (Kyra Sedgwick)'s car.
Robert is unable to call the cops because of his political ambitions.These are three interesting young performers in a fun road trip.
The three characters have their potholes in the road.
They're not completely fixed in the end but they are better which is expected for this type of movie.
Patrick and Sedgwick form the other half of the movie.
I'm tired of movies and shows portraying OCDers as germaphobes.
As far as the female character goes, not all women with eating disorder are the "rebel type"...I believe the films creators had good intentions though.
Tropes I've seen seeing since I was a little feller and watched my second movie.
It was also quite predictable.Honestly though, I don't know if someone with mental illness would write a movie like this and I wonder if the screenwriter even has mental illness himself, or just thought it'd be a "touching" story, with the Oscar statue lingering in the back of his mind.Still, it's hard to resist the journey the characters go through and the way they bond over their illnesses.
Social Stigma is still very strong and it's hard to find someone suffering from a debilitating disease that is going to open up to you and be your friend.I also appreciated the use of music in this film.
At first, I thought I left my Classical playlist running, but it was just Dev Patel playing Bach while he madly cleaned his room from germs.
Yet this is the only artistic merit I would grant this movie.Stil, I gave it a 7 because overall I think it depicted metal illness sufferers as real, hell even normal, people.
Lovely feel good movie.
It all boils down to one thing and that is finding friendships in the most strangest of places and circumstances.This also touches upon family relationships which really shines in this film and makes you realise what's really important in life It was one of those films where you want to see more however it left you wondering.
The acting was brilliant and touching.WELL WORTH THE WATCH :).
This is a truly beautiful and tender film.
It Portrays three individuals with quite severe mental illnesses, and shows all of us a path to recovery via compassion and a sense of humor.
The script is fantastic, and the acting/directing is sublime.Zoe Kravitz and Dev Patel are artists to be admired, but they outdo themselves in this film..
Wonderful movie!.
The pacing of this movie was perfect for engagement as well as reflection.Many, many precious moments.Going on a road trip together was the perfect vehicle to afford the 3 main characters to focus on themselves and begin to heal themselves and each other.
Just ideal envelope for their mutual growth...almost like an incubator.Mindful development of Dad's journey---no cheap cliché of Dad being all wrong about everything.I really grew to cherish the friendship created out of pain, honesty and resilience.Just loved the film.
I found this small movie on Netflix streaming, it apparently was released at several film festivals but never was in theaters.Robert Sheehan is Vincent and we are introduced to him at his mother's funeral.
His father, Robert Patrick as Robert, a politician running for office, appears to be at the end of his rope with Vincent and has arranged for him to placed in an institution for misfits.There he gets paired with Dev Patel as Alex, an OCD clean freak who strongly objects to having a roommate.
And he is shown around by Zoë Kravitz as Marie who is rail thin and fighting Anorexia.
The institution is run by Kyra Sedgwick as Dr. Mia Rose.Each of the three misfits need to resolve old issues and they get a chance as they are thrown into an unlikely road trip from the institution in Nevada to the Pacific Coast, where Vincent wants to carry his mother's ashes.
They eventually work their way to Santa Cruz and in the process are able to learn how to gain some control over their respective issues.It is ironic for me, just 3 weeks ago I made my first visit to Santa Cruz for a mini-vacation and now I see it again in this movie!Not a great movie by any measure but very interesting if you like to see misfits trying to cope with ordinary life..
This is another example of where the score shown on IMDb (in this case 7.1) is no indication at all of the merit of a movie.
This terrible movie made OCD and Tourette's syndrome look almost like fun; I have the impression that we were supposed to laugh every time Vincent went into one of his unconvincing profane rants or when Alex's OCD manifested in some particularly silly way.
It probably wasn't the film-makers' intention to belittle the suffering of individuals affected by these conditions.
But, all the same, this movie had at least the appearance of a comedy despite the fact that I didn't laugh even once.
It's not one I'll ever watch again, so very poor was the movie.
I enjoyed the movie right up until the end.
Maybe, it depends on the situation.***Spoiler Alert*** Why would the boy just hand over the ashes of his mother that he loved so dearly just because his father says "I know what to do with them" or something of that affect and the boy just walks off.
Wouldn't the father who is just now reconnecting with his son say "I know where she would like her ashes, lets go there together"?
A beautiful, sympathetic look into the dark world of mental illness.
I was absolutely blown away by this movie.
Definitely a must see, especially for those suffering from any form of mental illness within their lives.I had never seen any of these actors before but I thought they did an amazing job.
I can definitely see how some people could be put off by this movie but you need to have an open mind and an understanding heart to truly appreciate it.I love movies with a parent vs.
child struggle and I love it even more when both the parent and child learn a lesson in the end and are able to settle their differences and see eye to eye.
You are able to feel for all of the characters and the writing is truly poetic.My favorite part in the movie was how music positively effected the moods of Alex and Vincent.
OCD manifests in many different ways and I wish they had chosen to illustrate that more in Alex.
But I still think his transformation was brilliantly done.There are definitely some disturbing elements of the movie but I feel that the beauty and growth that the characters experience far outweigh any of their tragedies. |
tt0034113 | River's End | In remote northern Canada, Sergeant Conniston (Bickford) seeks to capture escaped convicted murderer Keith (also played by Bickford). He is accompanied by O'Toole (J. Farrell MacDonald), a guide who is constantly drunk. When he finally catches his quarry, he is shocked to find that they look exactly alike.
On their way back to the RCMP post, however, their sled overturns. Keith takes Conniston's gun and sled and leaves the policeman and his guide to die in the snow. Keith starts to feel guilty about what he has done. He turns back and takes the men to an emergency cabin. In spite of this, Conniston dies of a frozen lung.
After talking to Keith for a while, O'Toole becomes convinced of his innocence. He coaches Keith so that he can pass himself off as the sergeant. O'Toole is not well enough to travel, so Keith goes to the RCMP post alone.
Once he arrives, Keith tells McDowell (David Torrence), the post commanding officer, that it was Keith who died. McDowell then informs him that Keith was innocent; the real murderer confessed. Worried that he will be accused of Conniston's murder if his true identity is discovered, Keith plans to escape across the border.
There are complications. Miriam (Evalyn Knapp), McDowell's daughter, had been Conniston's girl, but she decided to break up with him. Keith is very much attracted to her, and proves to be much more romantic than Conniston. Miriam finds herself falling in love with him. Mickey (Frank Coghlan, Jr.), O'Toole's young son, had adopted Conniston as a substitute father. He eventually realizes that Keith is not the sergeant, but Keith manages to persuade him to keep his secret.
Keith goes to see McDowell to ask for his daughter's hand in marriage, only to discover that a jealous rival had made inquiries. Conniston, it turns out, was married. McDowell orders him to leave the base in disgrace. Before he goes, he confesses the truth to Miriam. Then, refusing to sneak away, Keith braves a beating from a gauntlet of angry Mounties and boards a ship, accompanied by Mickey. At the last minute, Miriam boards as well. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0026252 | Curly Top | Young Elizabeth Blair (Shirley Temple) lives at the Lakeside Orphanage, a dreary, regimented place supervised by two decent but dour women. Her older sister Mary (Rochelle Hudson) works in the kitchen, laundry, and dormitory. Elizabeth is a sweet child but her high spirits often lead her into trouble with the superintendent.
When the trustees descend on the orphanage for a tour of inspection, Elizabeth is caught playfully mimicking the head trustee and is threatened with being sent to a public institution. Young, rich, handsome trustee Edward Morgan (John Boles) intervenes. He takes a liking to Elizabeth and, in a private interview with the child, learns that most of her life has been spent obsequiously expressing her gratitude for every mouthful that has fallen her way. He adopts her but, not wanting to curb Elizabeth's spirit by making her feel slavishly obligated to him for every kindness, he tells her a fictitious "Hiram Jones" is her benefactor and he is simply acting on Jones's behalf as his lawyer. He nicknames her "Curly Top." Meanwhile, he has met and fallen in love with Elizabeth's sister Mary but will not admit it.
Elizabeth and Mary leave the orphanage and take up residence in Morgan's luxurious Southampton beach house. His kindly aunt, Genevieve Graham (Esther Dale), and his very proper butler Reynolds (Arthur Treacher) are charmed by the two. Elizabeth has everything a child could want including a pony cart and silk pajamas.
Mary secretly loves Morgan but, believing he has no romantic interest in her, she accepts an offer of marriage from young navy pilot Jimmie Rogers (Maurice Murphy). Morgan is taken aback but offers his congratulations. Hours later, Mary ends the engagement when she realizes she doesn't truly love Jimmie. Morgan then declares his love, reveals he is the fictitious "Hiram Jones", and plans marriage and a long honeymoon in Europe with Mary. | romantic | train | wikipedia | This is another solid Shirley Temple film with some wonderful, sweet scenes and lines you certainly wouldn't hear in movies today.
Thus, much of the film features nothing but good, likable people.That list is headed by pretty Rochelle Hudson as "Mary Blair" and charming singer/good guy John Boles as "Edward Morgan" and, finally, good old Arthur Treacher as the butler (what else?!), "Reynolds.".To be fair, I didn't think the songs were that super, except for Shirley's "Animal Crackers In My Soup," which is a great song.
If I recall, at least half the songs in this film were by the adults (two by Boles and one by Rochelle) and, frankly, I'd rather hear little Miss Temple.
Shirley was cute, but if you are a woman, and honest, you will admit to yourself that while you are enjoying Shirley as the little orphan charmer, that it is John Boles and Rochelle Hudson who keep your interest perked in this film.
John Boles was drop dead gorgeous, probably THE best looking leading man EVER to come out of Hollywood.
CURLY TOP (Fox, 1935), directed by Irving Cummings, stars popular child star Shirley Temple and her most distinctive features of all, the curls of her hair seen flashing on camera during the opening credits before her smiling face fills up the screen.
This is followed by the faces and listed names of her co-stars John Boles and Rochelle Hudson who are equally matched in the story that revolves around Temple's character.
Reportedly an unofficial remake to the Jane Webster story "Daddy Long Legs" most recently filmed in 1931 with Janet Gaynor and Warner Baxter, this version remains one of the most beloved movies in Temple's early career.In an fade-in reminiscent to a Charles Dickens novel that opens during a cold, dark, rainy night at the Lakeside Orphanage where a group of little girls are seen marching upstairs in perfect order, escorted by the stern Mrs. Higgins (Rafaela Ottiano) and the very nice Henrietta Denham (Jane Darwell).
Other members of the orphanage are the Blair sisters, Mary (Rochelle Hudson) and Elizabeth (Shirley Temple), whose parents, stage performers, were killed in an automobile accident.
Aside from acquiring a pony named Spunky and a duck as her pets, Elizabeth, better known as "Curly," entertains the orphans by singing the songs written by Mary.
Her entertainment is witnessed by the visiting members of the board of trustees headed by Mr. Wyckoff (Etienne Girardot), and Edward Morgan (John Boles), a bachelor heir to millions whose fortune may be the means of financial support for the orphanage.
Morgan fulfills his act of human kindness by having the girls (pony and duck, too) stay with him for the summer at his beach house, accompanied by his Aunt Genevieve (Esther Dale), Reynolds (Arthur Treacher), the butler, and a chef (Billy Gilbert), giving them every happiness money can buy.
While Elizabeth is having the time of her life, ranging from water skiing with "Uncle Edward" and entertaining guests by doing a hula dance at the beach, Mary, who has attracted the attention of Jimmy Rogers (Maurice Murphy), a young pilot, becomes disillusioned when she overhears the reason why she and "Curly" were actually taken in by Morgan in the first place.A light-hearted story with doses of fine tunes thrown in, compliments of composers Ted Koehler, Edward Heyman, Irving Caesar and Ray Henderson, including "Animal Crackers in My Soup" (sung by Shirley Temple); "It's All So New to Me" (sung by John Boles as he envisions wall paintings of Curly coming to life); "The Simple Things in Life" (sung by Rochelle Hudson); "When I Grow Up" (sung by Temple enacting the part of a little girl, young adult and grandmother in a wheelchair); and "Curly Top" (sung by Boles, danced by Temple on top of piano).
Boles and Hudson each provide solos to best advantage while "Animal Crackers in My Soup" became as synonymous to Temple's "On the Good Ship Lollipop."Although Hudson never appeared opposite Temple again, John Boles would enact the role as her father in THE LITTLEST REBEL (Fox, 1935).
Formerly presented on many local TV channels since the 1960s on its Shirley Temple festivals, by which many stations eliminated the opening ten minutes, having the movie begin instead in the morning where Mrs. Denham (Jane Darwell) is seen raising the window shades and finding Curly's horse sleeping on the bed next to her.
Available in both VHS and DVD in black and white or "colorized" formats, the most complete copy for CURLY TOP (77 minutes) happens to be from its 1988 VHS copy distributed by Playhouse Video that even goes as far as including the exit music to the title song in blank screen following the closing casting credits.CURLY TOP may not be reality, but it sure serves its purpose as a happy kind of movie for everyone and anyone to enjoy, thanks to those who've made it all possible, the staff, supporting players, and most of all, "Curly Top" herself.
A spunky little orphan, who brings happiness into the rather bleak institution where she lives, shakes her CURLY TOP and wins the heart of a young bachelor millionaire.
Her beautiful older sister doesn't do so badly, either...Shirley Temple is in her prime in this delightful family film.
Replete with talent & abundant charm, Little Miss Temple is a constant joy to watch & a source of never-failing amusement.Up against a champion scene stealer, the romantic leads in Shirley's films never got a great deal of attention and it is no different here.
Although both are attractive and more than competent, John Boles & Rochelle Hudson are the latest duo to sacrifice themselves on Temple's altar.
Each are even given pleasant songs to sing, but the viewer squirms impatiently, wishing the story to return to The Real Star.Shirley always found much stiffer competition from the wonderful character actors who populated her films.
Movie mavens will recognize the great Billy Gilbert as Boles' comic cook.Shirley gets to sing `When I Grow Up' & her classic `Animal Crackers.'.
Not only did I love the strange alternate universe she existed in where little orphan girls can triumph over any tragedy, and sing and dance all the while, but I easily recognized the young actress's remarkable talent and charisma.
In "Curly Top" she plays Elizabeth Blair, a sweetly precocious orphan who, along with her older sister Mary, is adopted by a kind-hearted wealthy businessman.
The musical numbers are absolutely classic, and include the famous "Animal Crackers In My Soup" in which she leads her fellow orphans in a dining room singalong.
Then there's the ultra-adorable song n' dance (and jump-rope) number "When I Grow Up", where we get to see little Shirley dress up in various costumes that include a wedding gown and an old lady getup, gray hair and all.
John Boles is extremely charming as the handsome bachelor Edward Morgan, although his piano-accompanied operatic singing can seem a little tedious, especially to younger viewers.
Treacher is better known for his role in the later Shirley Temple film, The Little Princess, in which he plays the cruel schoolmaster's flamboyant brother, Mr Birdy.
Just an all-round charming musical film that shows little Shirley at her best.
She sparkles, sings and dances, and has some amusing moments no one can resist, as in "Oh my goodness!" when she gives us a quizzical look.The story opens at the orphanage with Elizabeth Blair (Shirley Temple) as an orphan along with her older sister Mary (Rochelle Hudson).
The cute youngster comes to the attention of a visiting wealthy beneficiary of the orphanage, Edward Morgan (John Boles), who can't seem to put her out of his mind after meeting her and eventually he arranges to adopt her but she's not to be parted from her older sister, Mary, so both are accepted.Lovely Mary is so appreciative of their good fortune that Edward becomes captivated by her charms also, and soon love grows between them but unspoken.
Enter young Jimmie (Maurice Murphy) who's intent on getting engaged to Mary and succeeds, but how will it end?Arthur Treacher is amusing with his formal butler ways and adds to the fun, particularly the kitchen scene.I think that after "The Little Princess" this one is my next favorite of all Shirley's movies.
That's quite unusual because since that time, and this is a quintessential Shirley Temple film, very fun with a wonderful cast all around.This was the first remake Shirley did of a Mary Pickford film (Daddy Long Legs).
(Shirley) and her young adult sister Mary (Rochelle Hudson) are orphans adopted by wealthy orphanage trustee Edward Morgan (John Boles).
Arthur Treacher has some wonderful scenes as the butler, completely outdoing himself when he disgustedly grabs Shirley's duck by the neck!Rochelle Hudson, as the older sister, gets to sing "The Simple Things in Life" (and does it well), but her characterization is somewhat weak in places.
His Aunt Genevieve (excellently played by Esther Dale) tells him she thinks (actually, knows) he's very fond of her, and suspects that Jimmy will propose to Mary before the summer ends.
But despite Shirley simply being like she always was, John Boles really adds to the film immensely, my second favorite, and the actual reason I watch this film.
He is GORGEOUS and despite being at least 38 when he did the film, looks exactly the right age to be Shirley's father and Rochelle Hudson's love interest (at 19, she looks older).
Shirley Temple is at the top of her adorable moppet game in Curly Top as she becomes the catalyst that gets her and her older sister Rochelle Hudson out of an orphanage and married to a rich man.
She even stayed on at the orphanage to cook and clean after she became an adult.Prince Charming who looks a lot like John Boles is captivated by Shirley when she sings one of the songs most identified with her Animal Crackers In My Soup.
Boles brings them to his dream house with aunt Esther Dale, butler Arthur Treacher, and cook Billy Gilbert.
Sounds like a dream house to me.All that's missing in this Cinderella story is a coach that turns back into a pumpkin.Even at my age I have to admit to being charmed by Shirley and her singing and dancing and all around sunny disposition.
"Curly Top" is an enjoyable film--as are most of Shirley Temple's films.
And, while I do recommend it, the film cannot be counted among her very best even if it did feature one of her most famous songs, "Animal Crackers".The film begins with Shirley living in a stuffy orphanage.
Her precocious ways are NOT appreciated by the head mistress, but the chairman of the board of directors, Edward Morgan (John Boles,) is instantly captivated with her charms (as was most of America at the time!).
As for Shirley, she wants to be adopted but declines, as she doesn't want to be separated from her sister (Rochelle Hudson) who works doing menial work at the orphanage.
Simply put her saying "Oh my goodness" all the time eventually wore thin--though she was still, without question, quite adorable.Overall, I did like the film--even with the way they used Shirley's character.
But, the film (even apart from Shirley), had too much singing (Hudson's number was very weak and Boles' voice was too thin by today's standards), the plot was thin and made little sense as well as the idea of a man taking that much interest in Shirley did, by today's standards, seem a bit creepy.
But, as I said, it was good overall due to Shirley's charm.*This film is a re-working of the old novel "Daddy Long Legs" (which was also a play and Mary Pickford vehicle).
The title alone lets you know that it is a charming film, albeit from the 1930s.Little Shirley sings one of her signature songs in the film.
It is "Animal Crackers in my Soup." She sings it near a table at the orphanage.
Her screen name is Mary (played by Rochelle Hudson).I'm so glad that's what happens..
in curly top, she plays the part of a poor little orphan who charms all who meet her, (of course, isn't that what she does in all her movies?) including "handsome" edward morgan.
all the people who are present during the LONG songs seem to think that singing the same thing over and over makes for a good song.
(come to think of it, they pretty much SAY the same over and over too) all in all, this movie seems to display Shirley temple's cuteness other than really HAVE a plot..
This was only my second Shirley Temple film and therefore I don't have much to compare it with, but I have to say it was pretty good and it's very obvious why little Shirley was such a hit with audiences way back in the 1930's.
Full of sweetness, charm, charisma, and sometimes even a hint of darling incorrigibility, Miss Temple gets to shine brightly in this picture.Shirley stars as Elizabeth Blair (later dubbed "Curly"), a little girl residing at an orphanage with her much older sister Mary (Rochelle Hudson).
It's an awfully tough place to live in, as Shirley gets into all sorts of trouble for doing things like allowing her little pony to sleep in her bed and daring to sing her popular song "Animal Crackers In My Soup" during mealtime with all her friends in the lunchroom.
Enter the rich trustee of the orphanage, Edward Morgan (John Boles; I've always wondered what happened to him after FRANKENSTEIN), who instantly takes a special interest in little Elizabeth and then can't stop thinking about her; alone in his living room he plays the piano and sings (yucch) as he sees the little girl's cherubic face in the wall paintings he gazes at.
In their new ritzy environment, both sisters are very adoring of the handsome Edward, and Mary begins to fall in love with him.
But there is another man who is also longing for Mary's hand, so it's up to Curly Top to try and bring Edward and Mary together.I can't let this review go by without mentioning at this point that it occasionally struck me as a little peculiar that Mr. Morgan seemed more interested in little Elizabeth than he was in her older sister.
This is, after all, a Shirley Temple showcase and she gets to sing another song, "When I Grow Up," during a sequence where she stages a benefit show for all her less fortunate friends back at the orphanage, and changes costumes and dances.
Watching her sing and dance her way into our hearts, it's clear that she was a highly talented performer who could completely carry a film.
CURLY TOP is indebted to SHIRLEY TEMPLE for whatever charm it has as a vehicle for the talented tot--and she gets to strut her stuff often enough to keep an audience happy.
It's the kind of Temple film where you start getting restless when the spotlight goes to the romantic leads (John Boles and Rochelle Hudson), bland and poorly scripted as the leads usually are in a Temple film.
But with the spotlight on Temple--as when Shirley does her tap dancing atop a white piano or sings "Animal Crackers in my Soup" with cheerful confidence and a bit of mugging at an orphanage, you can see why she was America's box-office sweetheart during a four-year period.Clearly ranks among the best early Temple vehicles with all of her charisma and dimpled charm on full display.
So it was a real pleasure to find the film available on a DVD - even if that DVD was somewhat less than perfect and seems to have been duped from a worn if serviceable projection print which has an ugly jump in the middle of Shirley's delightful song, "Animal Crackers".The movie also has rather modest production values, but Rochelle Hudson also has a song and she looks absolutely terrific!
The only Shirley Temple(S.T.) film I can think of where Shirley has a sister(Rochelle Hudson as Mary) interacting with her.
John Boles, an easy-going trustee, who held the purse strings of the orphanage, had to bail Shirley out of trouble by offering to adopt her and her sister Mary.
Shirley's lengthy rendition of "Animal Crackers in my Soup", sung during supper at the orphanage, is much the best remembered.
Later, Arthur Treacher, as the very tall, thin, amusing butler, and Billy Gilbert, the chubby cook, sing their version of this song.
Rochelle Hudson(Mary)sings "The Simple Things in Life".
Near the end, John Boles sings "Curly Top" to Shirley, primarily.
But in the closing frames, she changes it to "Oh, my word", which was Treacher's standard exclamation.John Boles was also the lead male in the S.T. film "The Littlest Rebel".
If a heavyset old lady (Marie Dressler), an aging vamp (Mae West) and an adorable little girl (Shirley) could dominate the box office of Hollywood during different years of the 30's, all could be right in the world.Temple is a lovable orphaned tot whose older sister (Rochelle Hudson) has professed never to be separated from her.
When one of the orphanages' trustees (John Boles) takes an interest in Temple, he becomes her secret benefactor, a la "Daddy Long Legs".
It's obvious that one of the situations she cures is bringing together Hudson and Boles.In the supporting cast are such dependable character actors as Esther Dale (as Boles' aunt), Arthur Treacher (as, what else?, their butler), Rafaela Ottiano (as the initially chilly but ultimately kind orphanage manager), Jane Darwell (as her chipper assistant), and Etienne Girardot (as the overly staid head trustee).
Temple, Boles and Hudson all sing, but it is Temple's "Animal Crackers in My Soup" that will become the hit.
Like "Kids are People Too" years later, you never know just what she's going to say or do.It seems that much of the character of Little Orphan Annie in the musical "Annie", was taken from this, especially Temple's repetition of "Oh, My Goodness". |
tt1555093 | The Seasoning House | Angel is a young girl who is forced to work in a house that specializes in supplying kidnapped women forced into the sex trade to various military personnel. Initially planned to be put to work as an unwilling sex slave, Angel, a deaf mute with an "unattractive" birth mark on her face, instead becomes the assistant to Viktor, who runs the brothel. During the day she is given the duty of putting makeup on the kidnapped women and drugging them. After they have been violently raped by various men, Angel has the duty of cleaning them up.
At night Angel wanders the walls and crawlspaces of the house, which is when she befriends newcomer Vanya who understands sign language. The squad that brought in Angel comes for a visit. The commander, Goran, brings his squad into the brothel, including his beloved brother, Josif, and another soldier, Ivan. Angel crawls through the vents from her room to Vanya's room and sees Vanya being raped by Ivan. When Ivan kills Vanya, Angel uses a knife to attack and kill him. The shuffling noises inside the room alert Goran, Viktor, and the rest of the squad who come to find Ivan and Vanya dead, with Angel gone. The rest of the men start looking for Angel. Goran sends one of his men into the vents, but Angel is able to outmaneuver and kill him. Viktor kills one of Goran's men because he has been losing so many women from the brutal rapes.
Angel escapes the house and runs into a nearby forest. As Goran, Josif and Viktor start looking for her, Angel sees all the dead women decomposing in the forest. Viktor catches up to Angel and convinces her that he isn't going to harm her, and she gives up the knife. Viktor, being caught by Goran and Josif, offers Angel in exchange for their mercy. The three men are at a standstill with their weapons drawn with Viktor using Angel as a human shield. Viktor convinces Goran and Josif to call a truce by offering half of his profits. As the men slowly put down their weapons, Angel grabs the knife from Viktor's belt and stabs him in the foot causing him to inadvertently shoot Josif. Goran is enraged and shoots Viktor. Josif then dies and Goran kills Viktor by shooting him several times.
Angel escapes to a woman's house, but soon realizes the woman is Ivan's wife, Lexi. After Lexi gets a call from Goran and hears the tragic news of Josif, she unsuccessfully attempts to kill Angel. Angel kills her and starts running to the nearest factory. Goran catches up and they start climbing the tubes. When Goran gets stuck, Angel stuffs his mouth with a rag so he would be unable to speak or call for help. Angel proceeds out of the tube leaving Goran behind to suffocate. Finally free, Angel runs to the nearest house and is helped by an elderly couple. It is the doctor's house which Viktor calls for help regarding his girls. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0329028 | Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd | In 1986, Harry Dunne (Derek Richardson) finally gets his chance to go to regular school. At the same time, Lloyd Christmas (Eric Christian Olsen) has been adopted and exchanged several times until he is finally accepted by the school janitor, Ray (Luis Guzmán). Harry bumps into Lloyd on the way to school, in search for a treasure his mother (Mimi Rogers) asked him to find, and as if it were destiny, the two instantly became the best of friends. Lloyd introduces Harry to his "friend", Turk (Elden Henson), the school bully whose main function in life appears to be making Lloyd's life miserable. After putting Lloyd in a trash can, he hoists the two friends up a flagpole. Meanwhile, the corrupt Principal Collins (Eugene Levy) is searching for a way to get a large amount of money to get a condominium in Waikiki, Hawaii for him and his girlfriend, Ms. Heller (Cheri Oteri), the school's cafeteria lady. Seeing Harry and Lloyd getting hoisted on a flagpole, Principal Collins establishes a fake "special needs" class to swindle $100,000 from a former Special Needs student named Richard Moffit. Obviously, Harry and Lloyd are more than thrilled to help, unaware of the real reason, and thus find themselves signing up people who are "special" for the class. These include a reluctant Turk; a teen named Toby (Josh Braaten) who broke his leg and arm in a skateboarding accident—and whom Lloyd believes is a "little crippled boy"; Toby's gorgeous girlfriend, Terri (Teal Redmann); geeky Lewis (Shia LaBeouf), whom Harry and Lloyd believe is a centaur after seeing him half-dressed in his horse mascot uniform; Cindy (Michelle Krusiec), also known as "Ching-Chong," a Chinese exchange student who later becomes Turk's girlfriend; and Carl (William Lee Scott), a badly injured football player obsessed with his sport. Ms. Heller becomes the teacher of the fake class and holds it in Ray's tool shed.
Jessica Matthews (Rachel Nichols), a headstrong student and reporter for the school paper, is suspicious of Principal Collins' sudden contribution. Jessica invites Harry over to her house for dinner and asks Harry for information. Harry, who thinks that she is flirting with him, turns to Lloyd for courtship tips. A repulsive disaster involving Jessica's bathroom and a melted chocolate bar that looks like feces makes her father (Bob Saget) freak out, inadvertently directing her attention to Lloyd. Soon, Harry and Lloyd get into a fight over Jessica, without her knowing it. Inevitably, the two make amends when Harry and Lloyd realize that they were nothing without each other. They find Principal Collins' chest in his office which contains evidence of every scam he and Ms. Heller ever pulled. The next day, Principal Collins finds his evidence chest missing, and falsely accuses Jessica of taking it. It so happens that the Special Needs class was asked to build a float for President's Day at that time; instead of building a float with George Washington as the main attraction, they change it to look like Principal Collins as a pirate with repeated recordings of his evidence. Before bringing out the float, they call the police. During the parade, the superintendent of the school district has a police detective pose as Richard Moffit, so Principal Collins would fall for it. Eventually, the Special Needs class brings out their float to prove Principal Collins and Ms. Heller as thieves, exposing their plot. Principal Collins and Ms. Heller are arrested before they could get away with the money, and Jessica is grateful for Harry and Lloyd and regards them as heroes. However, just like in the original film, the duo's advances to Jessica were in vain, since it turned out that she had a boyfriend. As the couple rode off, Harry and Lloyd vowed never to fight and risk their friendship over a woman, again; that vow was repeatedly broken. As the guys head home, they are approached by Fraida Felcher (Julia Costello) and her twin sister, Rita (Chandra Costello) in a Ferrari, who offer to take them to a huge girls' party. Harry and Lloyd turn them down, and Harry gets covered in mud. Jessica's father accidentally hits him with his Mercedes, with Harry getting his windshield and hood covered with mud, leaving her father to think he got his car covered in feces, just like when Harry made a mess of Jessica's bathroom. | entertaining, stupid | train | wikipedia | Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels were excellent in the first film and in a different league to the two actors in the roles as the young Harry and Lloyd (the guy cast as Lloyd does look like Carrey, except for the blue eyes).
Dumb and Dumber hardly had an Oscar winning story line but gave us some great characters and a hatful of ball bouncingly funny gags, in the 'prequel' the weak story collapses under the weight of even weaker jokes!
The only thing the movie had going for it was that the two guys who played Lloyd and Harry looked like Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels if you kinda squinted and turned your head at the right angle.
Instead of seeing this movie, just watch good old' Dumb and Dumber ONE a couple times..
If it seems unfair to review a movie based on only watching it 30 minutes, excuse me, but how about the unfairness of duping viewers into thinking they're gonna see the sequel to 'dumb and dumber' which was a FUNNY film, with this bait and switch trash?
You've got two (to me) unknown, and sadly, unfunny actors replacing the demented and dumb, yet humorous originals Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.
The leading characters were shown like a couple of retards (very unlikable, since in original there aren't THAT slow), who were just trying to imitate Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels and failed miserably.
Stupid, inane prequel to Dumb and Dumber chronicles morons Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne during their early years in high school when they met for the first time and became inseparable best friends.
After all, the first one was pretty funny, right?Before I continue, it should be noted that this movie had none of the original cast members, writers, directors, etc from the first film.No one, at least, worth noting.Now, back to the story.
Nay, I COULDN'T finish it.A friend of mine that had the misfortune of being in the room with me at the time said it best when he said: "At one point I laughed at how painfully unfunny it was and I realized that it (the movie) had pulled me down to it's level."Of course he also said: "Another reason dumb and dumbrererererrer sucked is that both guys were trying to cop Betty White's "Rose" character from the Golden Girls but neither of them possesses her panache or supple buttocks."Verily, it is a thing of evil.Having said that, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen.
well, that's it actually.Oh yeah, Mimi Rogers made out with a little hottie named Rachel Nichols.The most notable thing about Nichols, other than her being very attractive, is that she's in the new Bruce Campbell film "The Woods" which is currently in post production.Apart from that "Dumb and Dumberer" can be summed up by the fact that I actually got up off my couch to remove this ultra-boring, ultra-unfunny piece of cinematic spam from the DVD player.PS: I did put it back in to check the not-so 'Special Features', but I did not find the apology I was looking for.Maybe it's an 'Easter Egg'.I don't recommend checking yourselves, but if someone finds it, please let me know.
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd is really just a dumb comedy, the only problem is that it isn't funny.
The movie talks upon the adventures and misfortunes of two no brain teenagers from the beginning their acquaintance , when Harry (Derek Richardson) and Lloyd (Eric Christian Olsen) meet themselves at high school .
The previous film (Dumb and dumber) is much better ; plus , there were Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey who are greatest actors , here the protagonists are unknown .
I entered the theater with a highly skeptical attitude toward this prequel to a classic movie that I love for its total randomness, stupid hilarity and countless other details Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels brought to the part.
The actors sincerely looked and acted like teenage versions of they're predecessors, and as such a great on screen team the laughs never subsided when Lloyd and Harry were in the scene.I found only a few faults that would irritate the average movie-goer and criticizer of this movie, as they bugged me ever since I left the theater.
One is that Lloyd, Jim Carrey's old part, is very controlling of Harry and is a 'jerk' the majority of the way through the movie, which really got on my nerves.
In Dumb and Dumber, every place the characters went, several funny things happened there that the viewer remembered later as the 'Cafe scene' or the 'beer scene'...In Dumb and DumberER, each clipping was significantly shorter, leaving the audience to figure out later what happened or why something occured, which is, in truth, an insanely poor movie-making technique that irritates.Besides those problems, however, and despite this movie being very different than its well-loved predecessor,it's hilarious!
This is a movie you'll want to take your crew of friends to and laugh at all the sickening stupidity and overall dumbererness of the first adventures, when Harry met Lloyd.
It is bad, but I'm sure there are many films far above it that deserve its place at the bottom much, much more.Dumb and Dumberer could never hope to compete with its predecessor but its no worse really than any other teen-comedy-high-school nonsense.
But, alas, it was not to be, and so this film will slip into obscurity like many ill-conceived sequels, destined to be forgotten, or talked about with ill-disguised scorn when reminiscing over the original movie.The best way to watch this film (if you have to at all) is to try and forget the characters Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels made their own, and view it as if that first film had never happened.
This should have been rated the Worst movie of all time, bar none (including Gigli)!Perhaps if they starred the original cast, maybe it would have brought justice to the whole prequel idea.
But they don't fit in at all.Again, i repeat, AVOID AT ALL COSTS!Good thing i didn't waste much of my time watching this movie neither did i waste my money on it.
The guys who played Harry and Lloyd did a good job with their characters, but the movie just wasn't good and not all that funny.
While this film's predecessor is not exactly the height of cinematic achievement, it blows Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd right out of the water.
Sure, they were able to find some guy who looks like Jim Carrey to play Lloyd, but they weren't able to make any semblance of a movie out of this mess.Bob Saget steals the show in this movie, and he only has a maximum of two minutes of screen time.
A poor dialogue in this prequel.The actors did a good job imitating Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels, but the story itself is really bad.Some laughs but for a limited time.
Before you consider renting this horrific sequel to the classic movie "Dumb and Dumber", please, by all means, think again.I call this the worst film of all time because, well, it just is.
so here it is, the people cast in the roles of Harry and Lloyd (I forget their names) do actually mimic some elements of the great Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels; and for the first ten minutes or so you could be forgiven for thinking the film might get better.OK now for the bad, i'll keep it simple.
The majority of the cast are awful, and the title of the movie describes the director and producer more than it links this rubbish to the original Dumb and Dumber.Nuff SaidUnless your younger than 8 years old, avoid this movieA lame 3/10 (it only scored this high because my son enjoyed it, he's out grown it now though at age 9).
I did laugh at the mascot guy, and some of the interactions between the characters were original.But again, my expectations were very, very low when I watched it and I also watched it at 4 AM so I might be biased.But I know a horribly unoriginal movie when I see one and they definitely tried to add an original flair to this, which is funny at times.I would say it's about 25% as engaging as the original..
I laughed at "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd." In fact, at about four scenes I was rolling over in laughter.
In its essence, it is quite easy to watch and -- perhaps -- just a little bit fun.I say this not out of prior prejudice, as much as I may have enjoyed the first installment, but out of surprise, because I expected it to give a bad name to the first film, "Dumb and Dumber" (1994).
So it's just a sappy little 90-minute movie with a few good gags and a notably convincing portrayal of a younger Jim Carrey (or Lloyd Christmas) from Eric Christian Olsen.
DUMB AND DUMBERER : WHEN HARRY MET LLOYD (2003) *1/2 Eric Christian Olsen, Derek Richardson, Eugene Levy, Cheri Oteri, Rachel Nichols, Mimi Rogers, Luis Guzman, Bob Saget, Julia Duffy.
Pale prequel imitation of the far superior `Dumb and Dumber' comedic hit with doppelgangers Olsen and Richardson channeling Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels eerily as their teenage alter egos first becoming friends in high school circa 1986 as they partake of a special needs' class and thwarting Nixonian principal Levy and his mistress lunch lady Oteri from pilfering grant issued monies while hottie Nichols, the school journalist ace smells a story.
I'd like to start out by saying that I don't know that the prequel to the brilliant Dumb and Dumber (easily one of the most hilarious comedies to come along in decades) really deserves all of the vicious reviews that it has received from professional and amateur critics alike.
I don't know that this prequel to Dumb and Dumber was done for revenge at all, but I can't say that it's all that mysterious as to why the original cast and crew had little to nothing to do with it.That being said, I have to say that I'm impressed with the actors they found to play the younger Harry and Lloyd, especially Lloyd, because this guy, without the bowl-cut and the chipped tooth, looks NOTHING like Jim Carrey's Lloyd, but in the movie he's the spitting image.
Granted, I barely remember him in Full House at all and I saw his one spoken line in Half Baked as the official end of his acting career, but I loved his cheesy jokes on America's Funniest Home Videos (the ORIGINAL show) so much that seeing him on screen again was almost like a trip back to my childhood.And then Harry had a little incident involving chocolate, and I started to squirm in my seat, as I'm sure many other people started to do, given the reviews I've read.
It is expected that some memorable scene from the original film would be almost duplicated in a sequel like this, but Harry getting diarrhea in the original movie was funny because it was there for a reason.
And when a movie isn't good enough to deserve a title like Dumb & Dumberer, it's a bad, bad sign..
The reason for this is that I felt that "Dumb and Dumber", the original, was the absolute hands-down funniest movie I have EVER seen in my life.
FIrst of all, if you watch Dumb and Dumber, the amazing original, you would realize Lloyd and Harry have known each other since elementary school, NOT high school.
The genius of the Farrelly Brothers' characters is that, while not particularly bright (and who doesn't know people like that?), Harry & Lloyd's friendship is both touching and funny.
I just think trying to make another film connecting to the original (Dumb & Dumber) which I have to admit was a lot funnier than this.
After the hilarious "dumb and dumber" featuring Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, this can only be described as disastrous!Olsen and Richardson do not fit the characters they play and bring no new characteristics into them.
Well, I'd like to take a moment to say why I didn't, and in better detail than most, hopefully, enjoy the movie.Dumb and Dumberer is a prequel, which if the word "sequel" is of any indication, means it is a continuation from the first.
The idea in this movie is that the principal, played by the legendary Eugene Levy (Jim's Dad in American Pie and most of its sequels) is trying to find a get rich quick scheme, so he develops a special needs class to make the money, but he needs students.If that part of the plot doesn't offend you, don't worry, the rest will.Harry and Lloyd go on a search to find kids who are just like them, (although its so insulting to think special needs kids can't tell an Asian girl from a mentally handicapped child) and needless to say, a class is formed.Jessica, a very smart teenage girl (which only implies the entire school isn't smart enough to recognize this plot) sees the ruse, and uses our heroes to dig up the dirt on the principal.To be honest, if the movie didn't have the "Dumb and Dumber" moniker or even a mentioning of Harry and Lloyd, this movie probably would have faded into obscurity, nary, even been made, and if it did, it might have been a cult classic if it had been better written and not as relying on the first movie's jokes.The movie has some references to the original picture, but the problem is that references aren't usually funny.
The creators probably thought watching enough of the original was a good idea to create a sequel, but what it does is insult anyone who tries really hard to write good comedy with insulting retreads from classic movies.Harry and Lloyd aren't some kind of smart, they are all kinds of moron.
Only problem is, the guys in that movie looked pretty dumb but at the same time sympathetic, and you wanted good things to happen to them.
The only good thing I can think about this movie would be the fact that the actors portraying Daniel's and Carey's characters actually looked like them (had they been 15 years younger).
It almost makes you want to hurt yourself over how dumb they are.The only good thing about this movie was Eugene Levy.
I liked the original too.What you get with this movie is a script that is not funny and young actors doing impressions of Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.I was really tested to make it threw the movie.
They even went as far as to delete a musical number and scenes from Lloyd's childhood (i.e. how he eventually came to live with Ray).But, despite being historically incorrect and having major editing issues, the film was still full of laughs and ends up being an enjoyable way to spend an hour and twenty minutes..
They even went as far as to delete a musical number and scenes from Lloyd's childhood (i.e. how he eventually came to live with Ray).But, despite being historically incorrect and having major editing issues, the film was still full of laughs and ends up being an enjoyable way to spend an hour and twenty minutes..
I loved Dumb and Dumber, I own it, gave it a 10 in the imdb database and have probably watched it 15 times or more.When I first saw the trailer for Dumb and Dumberer, I raised my hands in the air and said "YES!"Unfortunately, after my viewing today, all I could say was "Well, that wasn't very good now was it?"There are so many things wrong with this film, I can't even start to list them, but the one that bugged me the most was probably the way that they took many of the lines from the first movie and tried to incorporate them in the prequel.
All the performances are really great, especially Eric Christian Olsen and Derek Richardson both a very good and pull off a young Harry and Lloyd very well, i found Richardson to get annoying after a while, but Olsen was dead on the entire movie, he is exactly how Jim Carrey used to be (before he left wacky comedies to do more dramas)This kid could be Carrey's son, and could probably pull off young versions of Ace Ventura and The Mask.
Anyway, this movie isn't going to make you think, or do anything more than make you glad you have a better IQ that Harry and Lloyd, but it is one of those movies that is so funny and simple that I, at least, want to watch it over and over again.
i think the reason people don't like this movie is that first, they expected or wanted to see jim and jeff reprising their roles.
The prequel to the 1994 comedy hit Dumb & Dumber is set in 1986 when Harry Dunne and Lloyd Christmas (Derek Richardson and Eric Christian Olsen) were in high school.
The shady actions of the principal are being investigated by a smart but good-looking student named Jessica (Rachel Nichols), who also evokes feelings in both Harry and Lloyd.As Dumb and Dumberer is a prequel, it's only natural that neither Jim Carrey nor Jeff Daniels of the original movie reprises their roles.
You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but watching "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd" wasn't a completely laugh-free experience for me.
I wouldn't say I like "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd" too much, my 5/10 rating makes that clear, but the fact that it has gotten more 1/10 votes than any others still makes me feel that I mustn't have seen the same movie.
While "Dumb and Dumber" sits atop my all-time movie list, its sequel finds its way to the bottom.
After the huge success of "Dumb & Dumber" (which i liked very much!!)with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.. |
tt0111187 | Silent Fall | Tim Warden, a boy with autism, has supposedly witnessed his parents' double murder. Jake Rainer, a former child psychiatrist turned therapist, is called on to probe the child's mind in order to solve the case.
The psychological drama is provided by the fact that not even Jake can entice Tim to communicate what he has or has not seen regarding the crime. Tim's sister, Sylvie, is protective of him. She eventually warms to Jake's efforts, but is concerned when she learns he was implicated in the suicide of another young child who was under his care.
Jake gradually befriends Tim. At first, Jake thinks that Tim is trying to communicate by cutting up playing cards, but Sylvie reveals that Tim is good at mimicking voices. Jake is able to trigger Tim's memory so that Tim mimics the voices he heard on the night of the murder by using the trigger phrase "God Damn," which were the first words Tim heard from the murder. He attempts to piece together the chronology of the murder, suspecting that Tim interrupted a fight between his parents and an intruder.
Sheriff Mitch Rivers threatens to use drugs to get Tim to talk about the murder and Dr. Rene Harlinger successfully hypnotizes Tim into breaking down a locked door. The police chief, seeing this as proof of Tim's strength, concludes that Tim was the murderer, after finding photographs showing that Tim's father was molesting him.
That night, Sylvie plans to take Tim away and attempts to convince Jake to run away with them. She fails, and instead paralyzes Jake and throws him into an icy lake to drown him. Tim mimics the police chief's voice over the phone to lure Sylvie to the police station and pulls Jake out of the lake while she is away.
Sylvie returns and Jake reveals that he has solved the mystery by examining Tim's cut up playing cards. It was actually Sylvie who killed her parents because her father had raped her repeatedly and was trying to do the same to Tim, and her mother was aware of the abuse and stayed silent the entire time. Sylvie tries to kill Jake again, but is stopped by Tim who speaks with his own voice for the first time.
The film closes with Jake, his wife Karen, and Tim going out for trick-or-treating on Halloween. Tim has gradually improved and now can speak in his own voice as well as smile. Jake's conversation with his wife reveals that Sylvie will be moved to a hospital with minimum security in the near future. A majority of the movie was filmed on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, including Easton and St. Michaels. | murder | train | wikipedia | Personally, I think that's what makes a good mystery, that it *CAN* be figured out.Performances: I always enjoy Richard Dreyfuss' work.
The real star, though, was Ben Faulkner as Tim, the autistic boy.
This film has received very little recognition and I guess that is why I never heard of it till I saw it despite the fact that it had quite a few big stars in it.Liv Tyler stars in one of earliest film roles in this movie and has made quite an impression, which is no wonder why she is as famous as she is now.Judging by the name I thought that this was a thriller or horror movie, however I was pleasantly surprised by the plot and the depth of the story.
Autism isn't something that we are all familiar with but like "Mercury Rising" this film shows the audience what autism can seriously do to those unfortunate enough to live with it.A murder mystery and drama this film does start out slow but do not hesitate because it does eventually become quite intriguing to watch just how the story unfolds, so if anyone likes a good mystery detective movie this is the one for you..
But I was intrigued by the story line and I did not want this movie to end.
And it was a delight to see newcomer Liv Tyler do a great job.I would recommend this film, but then everyone is entitled to their opinion..
Suspense, intrigue and emotional relationship between autistic boy and psychiatrist.
This genteel retelling and moving film starts with a double murder of a parents , being witnessed by autistic little boy son, named Tim Warden(Faulkner), he's overprotected by adolescent sister Sylvie(Liv Tyler).
Retired therapist Jake(Richard Dreyfuss), married to good spouse(Linda Cameron), is reluctant to get involved, but he's deemed guilty because a little autistic in his care committed suicide, though he was acquitted .
But when rival Dr. Harlinger(John Lighgow) is called instead, Jakes takes the little boy for learning.
Jake whose patience and perseverance finally enable Tim to learn to communicate and resolve the murders.The film depicts the unconventional method the psychiatrist used to help the autistic adjust to the world and shows the relationship that build between the two courageous starring.
Actors interpretation is good, Richard Dreyfuss as affected and obstinate therapist, J.
T. Walsh as sheriff that investigates the deeds and Liv Tyler and Faulkner in their film debut.
Interesting script with a final full of lurid turns, red herrings and plot twists by Akiva Goldsman.Sensible and perceptible musical score by Stewart Copeland.
He's a cool Australian(Braker Morant)director, working in Hollywood and achieving hits(Double jeopardy,Crimes of the heart,Tender mercies), winning Academy Award (Driving Miss Daisy) and flops (King David ,Mister Johnson, Silent fall)..
I like the mystery music of Silent Fall..
I like mystery tales, and this one is very good.
Very Strange Things happen in this movie, but yes, I think kind of things like this happen in reality, even worst.
Since long time ago, I didn't see Richard Dreyfuss, and was a pleasure for me, to see this actor again.
Linda Hamilton had a very short role, but Liv Tyler is awesome.
Maybe sometimes sounds like illogical, specially when the witness boy, make all this voices.
Anyway, I found this movie, because I'm always looking for Stewart Copeland music, since many years ago....
I never thought I'd find a movie about Autism so interesting.
The story is about a murder, but starts out a little slow.
The little boy, (Tim) Ben Faulkner is a brilliant actor.
This movie had it all...a chilling plot...great actors and superb conclusion...I was on pins and needles throughout the whole movie...I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is in for the most captivating movie ever...I give this movie 5 stars out of 4....
I saw this movie a few years ago, I think when it was a new release on VHS...
I can't even remember if it was a decent movie, but I think that the suspense element must've worked if it freaked me out so much.
An autistic boy appears to be the only witness to a murder.
But, as a murder mystery, the film was a disappointment.
And the film's pace is very slow.One gets the impression that the real purpose of the film is to "teach", or tutor, viewers on the subject of autism.
Ben Faulkner, as the little boy, does a fine job in a difficult role.
But Richard Dreyfuss, as the psychiatrist, is dreadfully miscast.
An older actor with a more refined persona would have been more believable.If you have an interest in autism, "Silent Fall" is worth watching.
And the film does have moments of suspense, especially toward the end.
A treat: we get to hear Robin's real voice.I had never heard of this movie until my hated aunt gave it to me for Christmas..
There is a difficulty in allowing for the motion picture to represent much of anything let alone something as involved as a study in the problems of an disabled childhood brought on by Autism.The picture the silent fall does involve and ultimately provide somewhat of an attempt to look at a developmental disorder called Autism.It is not entirely unworthy a look at however that is do mostly to the fact that this is presented as a motion picture and not as a study of the disorder per se.The other element to this otherwise engaging film is that there exists a very gruesome find of a double murder,the parents to a autistic child have been murdered in there home with the young autistic child named Tim being a witness to the double murder.It is also worth noting that a short while after the discovery of the double murder we discover a daughter,tall though only 18 years old appears to be covered in blood crouched in a corner of a closet.It is the young boy who gets our attention very early on and to a degree serves as almost a mis-direction.He has a huge Kitchen knife and like the scene is as well covered in blood while all the while sounding very unintelligible and providing a very near threatening though incoherent picture of this traumatic event.The Sheriff sends Dr.Rainer a message through a deputy with a call for help with the added incentive,"you owe me one".
Dr. Rainer played by Richard Dreyfus is reluctant though he bares witness to the sciences with a noticeable care given this demanding scene which he is called in to if you will deal with.He does deal with the scene and provides something of a rescue for there is no telling just what may of been in store for the child had not this noted childhood practitioner not been so well situated and as well so very much accomplished in childhood developmental disorders.The Mis-direction as suggested earlier was that the Law asked the question could the young boy have committed this crime,this may of been a bit of a mis-direction however the tumult,that is the asking of the question was brought about by the degree of difficulty the knife played in the very early going.The child actually did pose a threat though Doctor Rainer as explained did diffuse the confused youngster.The story is involved and presents an increasing involvement as there is the demand made to get to the childs ability to reveal what he saw or what he heard.It is the daughter who is not questioned as the crime may of required though I suspect it was due to the subject matter that evolves finally into a very near death experience for Doctor Rainer and a worthwhile climax.This is in fact a story that has the propensity to keep your attention and with subtly open,by way of a right of discovery find a problem that though not anywhere to be found it unlocks a very real entanglement.This film does possess a unsettling premise and it will further provide more of the same in its conclusion.The value though to all is that neither the young boy nor the girl are damaged beyond redemption with a very real credit hereby awarded Dr.Rainer for courage and belief as his experience paid off with the saving of perhaps as many as two souls.The young girl and the autistic child,but perhaps mostly Tim have someone to thank and that is Dr. Rainer.I might suggest that this film provides a good story telling ability,which it does however it is not only in its story telling ability that there is something to champion.The champion here is the care that is given and what that means as the young boy is as good to the Doctor as the Doctor is as good to young boy.A credible account is agreed to and that is worth a honorable mention.The story is as well not without intrigue and lesser discoveries all along the way however there is a near miss with disaster that make special mention of the accomplishment with which this review felt necessitated an award for Doctor Rainer.A useful film,interesting storytelling and not an entirely predictable storyline add up to worthwhile viewing..
Okay, it will never make it into my list of masterpieces, maybe it won't even make it in the "really good movies", but stay assured you'll have a pretty good time watching this, provided that you accept the slaughtering of realism for the sake of a good-conceived story.
Right, authistic people are not like Tim. And right, miss Tyler is much more beautiful than good-acting.
But the story is interesting, entertaining at times, and thanks to its lack of realism in dealing with authism, can reach a "happy" ending without resorting to any Deus Ex Machina.
O.K, Liv Tylers not a great actresses but for her first attempt I think she's done alright.The little boy, Tim also did a good job for a first time actor!
This movie was strange , thought I had it sort out but then the twist at the end had me a bit confused , but hey I get confused easily!
I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for something to watch on a rainy day , but otherwise if your looking for a good thriller look somewhere else!!!
This was an average, formulaic thriller about a team of psychiatrists trying to pry knowledge of a murder from a young, autistic boy's mind.
The acting is good, with good performances by Dreyfuss, Hamilton, and Lithgow, but I felt it tended to stick to the average elements.** 1/2 out of ****.
After reviewing over 400 films, I have reached the point where bad really stands out, and "Silent Fall" is really bad.
It totally wastes three good actors, Richard Dreyfuss, J.T. Walsh, and John Lithgow, while Linda Hamilton and Liv Tyler are downright forgettable.
The movie spends most of it's time setting up some unbelievably contrived scenes, like the one in the outdoor restaurant.
It's really a shame that fine actors have to be trapped in such a horrendous script, that is devoid of any entertainment value.
This film is to the Autistic like an episode of "Amos and Andy" is to African-Americans..
I usually do not take the time to comment on a bad film, but not only do I think this piece is a lame movie which is a waste of time and money - I also regard it as a slap in the face of people afflicted with autism and their families.
This film seems to say that autism is something that a little therapy can cure.
As for the acting, Liv Tyler can be excused as this was her first attempt and she has improved over time.
As for Richard Dreyfuss, he is an intelligent person and has shown fine acting talent in his other works...
Richard Dreyfuss is acting challenged.
Liv Tyler fails in her very first attempt to act at all.
Too bad Richard Dreyfuss hasn't.Ridiculous voice-overs for the 9 year old autistic who supposedly "imitates" adult voices.
Why must we be subjected to the horrendous movies from Hollywood?One day, films won't be released unless they've passed an audience approval.
Until then, I'll be watching the only good movie left: Rocky Horror Picture Show.
I expected that, because Dreyfuss delighted me so in "The Good-Bye Girl", "Jaws", and "Mr. Holland's Opus" that he could continue to do so....
An autistic boy is the only witness to the murder of his parents, and Dreyfuss is a teacher to these challenged type of children.
It goes down the toilet FAST when the facts of autism are tweeked and twisted to fit the lame direction this story takes.
I have an Aunt who taught the mentally handicaped, and PRAYED she never watched this movie because it would have made her mad at the way it was conceived that an autistic child has the choice to learn.
The movie goes off the deep end into stupidity the minute it looks like it MIGHT be good, and it never saves itself.
Great cast wasted in what can only be called a horrible movie..
But the cast is so good, and so compelling, that the movie is a bit more watchable than it really is.
That is, Richard Dreyfuss and Liv Tyler have such charisma, general movie sympathy-vibes, and magnetism that even though they are in a bad movie, it is not totally excruciating to see them on the screen.The movie is one of those thriller jobs where supposedly "real" psychological conditions of some of the characters play a role.
As with many movies employing such a theatrical device, the glib Movie-Land behaviors exhibited by the supposed 7 year-old autistic child in the film don't resemble genuine kids afflicted with genuine disabilities so much as the behaviors resemble cartoonish soap-opera conveniences.
Viewers could be reminded of Ed Norton's brilliant performance in "The Score," where the actor portrays a character who fakes mental retardation, and then flips back and forth between the fake put-on afflicted behaviors and the real criminal's behaviors throughout the film as part of the film's narrative development.
Something about Norton's great work there somehow highlighted most other Movie-Land characters with mental problems as a cheapo Hollywood trick, used as a melodramatic gag when real inspiration has fled.
Anyway--- the kid here was annoyingly corny as he did what can only be described as a "stand up" imitation of of a cliche.Overall, great folks in a horrible movie.
Forgive Dreyfuss and forgive Tyler--- they did go on to do better and much more real roles later on.
Nice Dreyfuss--Horrid Movie.
Richard Dreyfuss portrays an unhappy doctor.
Then he meets "Tim," an autistic child, who lost both of his parents--to homicide.
Tim's teen-aged sister insists that she is the only person on earth capable of caring for him, but Dreyfuss' character has been persuaded to work with Tim, alone.To me, this story was as close to a horror flick as a Richard Dreyfuss movie could be.
If you like disturbing movies, see it--but after the kids are safely tucked in..
This interesting psychological drama has a compelling first half, thanks to a solid cast (although Linda Hamilton and John Lithgow are wasted in worthless supporting roles) and handsome production.
It's such an obvious finale that (Warning:SPOILER) two of the characters discuss it and consider it in the first five minutes, so we, the viewers, expect something MUCH more unexpected and bizarre to happen at the end.
This has its satisfying moments as a low-key drama (and Liv Tyler is astonishingly beautiful), but falls short as a whodunit.
Although it insists on intellectual details about autism ,"silent fall" is a thriller as well as a -not very surprising- whodunit,no more no less.Autism replaces amnesia which is generally THE disease we find in this kind of movie which was not born yesterday (see Hitchcock's " spellbound" )The first part is more satisfying ,and even sometimes intriguing and the relationship shrink/child is not unlike that of "the sixth sense" (1999).Liv Tyler is less decorative than usual .But there are a lot of clichés :good shrink (Dreyfuss) / bad shrink,ponderous symbolism ( the boy cannot stand "round" things,hence his distaste for peas:you will find out why,do not worry),shrink's own story -his wife hints at a certain Billy,a former patient who committed suicide ,another similarity with "the sixth sense"-,and the cop"s love affair..The shrink knows he's walking on thin ice both literally and figuratively.They could have edited out the last sequence ,probably so-called symbolic, but actually witless ..
A very solid cast makes it enjoyable when it could have easily been just another TV movie with a bunch of unknown actors.
And here lies the problem; "Silent Fall" doesn't aim high enough and doesn't realize its potential, while with its stellar cast and perhaps a plot and a twist that would actually make the viewer think, it could have been big, since the predictability of it all is almost offensive.The daughter just had to try to kill the shrink in the end just to make the viewer feel less sorry for the kid for losing his sister too.
A solid, yet somehow disappointing "mystery" thriller with some nice moments and a good sense of pace.
Plus it's the first movie attempt by the sexy Liv Tyler who always makes me want to be the lipstick on her upper lip.6/10.
Would have been a big flop but for Richard Dreyfuss.
There is no reason or logic for seducing the character of Richard Dreyfuss, Also there is no logic behind trying to kill him in the end.Ordinary script brought to life by the brilliant acting of Richard Dreyfuss.But for him the movie would have been a complete waste of time.
If you like Richard Dreyfuss then this movie should not be missed.
There is no mystery in the movie, As the logical conclusion of who the killer can be arrived in about first quarter of the film. |
tt0068539 | Si può fare... amigo | Coburn is pursued by the gunfighter and pimp Sonny, who wants to kill him for seducing Sonny’s sister Mary, but not until they have married so she is made an honest woman. When they confront, Sonny usually gets knocked out. Coburn meets the boy Chip, whose father has just died, and follows him to his hometown. They settle in Chip’s house. Franciscus, the town priest, sheriff and judge – who is rumoured to be responsible for people being run out of the area – offers to buy the place and so does eventually a stranger who buys pieces of clay and tastes them. Chip does refuse the mounting offers, to Coburn's consternation. Franciscus allies with Sonny, and they capture Coburn and marry him. However, when Sonny is about to shoot Coburn Mary says that she is pregnant, so Sonny decides to postpone the killing until the child is 21. Franciscus protests and is knocked out. He sends his secret partner, the horse thief Big Jim (who earlier received a good thrashing when he tried to rob a bank where Coburn was to make a deposit) to shoot Coburn. But Sonny, who is promised one third of the house by Chip, shoots off his pants. Franciscus and Big Jim return in force when the wedding party has started, and there is a big brawl. The fireworks explode and oil gushes from the well. The bandits are flattened, but Franciscus leaves together with Sonny and the whores. Mary reveals to Coburn that she lied about the pregnancy, and he sets about to redress this so enthusiastically that the whole house falls down, while Chip smiles. | western, good versus evil | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0078389 | The Thirty-Nine Steps | In 1914, German spies are everywhere in London. After a spate of assassinations of important British politicians, a retired British intelligence officer, Colonel Scudder, realises his life and his mysterious black notebook are in danger. He turns to Richard Hannay, a mining engineer who is visiting Britain for a short time before returning to South Africa, who happens to be staying in a flat in the same building. Scudder tells Hannay of a plot by Prussian 'sleeper' agents, who are planning to pre-empt a war against the Triple Entente powers by assassinating a foreign minister of state visiting the UK.
Hannay reluctantly gives Scudder shelter in his flat, despite his initial distrust of him. In the morning, Hannay leaves to purchase a train ticket to his family hometown, the village of Strathallan in Scotland, while Scudder remains at work on his notes in the flat. When the Prussian agents attempt to enter the flat, Scudder flees down the fire escape but he is spotted. Posting a package containing his secret notebook in a pillar box, Scudder flees to the St Pancras railway station, where he knows Hannay will be, to give him a second black book.
At the railway station, just seconds before he can reach Hannay, Scudder is murdered by the agents. Hannay is mistaken by witnesses at the railway station as being the assailant. Hannay is arrested but is soon captured by the Prussians when transferred to jail. He then is allowed to escape from the Prussians in the hope that he can lead them to the secret notebook. Hannay manages to get Scudder's second notebook back at St Pancras, but this turns out to be a dummy, with only a three-word riddle in it that only Hannay could possibly understand to find his real book, which sends Hannay to Scotland. Hannay flees to Scotland on a train, but he is forced to make a daredevil escape on a bridge when police board.
Hannay attempts to solve the mystery whilst on the run from the police, led by Chief Supt Lomas (Eric Porter), and the Prussian agents, led by Edmund Appleton, a Prussian sympathiser highly placed in the British government.
With the aid of Alex Mackenzie and her fiance, David Hamilton, whom Hannay meets on the Scottish moors, claiming to be taking part in a wager, Scudder's book is found, the coded information partly deciphered and the true plans of the Prussian agents are revealed. The agents intend to murder the visiting Greek Prime Minister, leading to unrest in the Balkans and thus causing a world war, by planting a bomb in parliament. The "Thirty Nine Steps" refers to the number of stairs in the clock tower of Big Ben (from "Lauderdale Door to the clock itself") and Hannay realises that the bomb is to be set off by the clock at 11.45am.
When he reaches the top of the clock tower, the agents have already planted the bomb and have locked the clock room. To give the Police more time, Hannay breaks the glass of the clock-face, climbs out onto the face of the clock and physically stops the clock hands just as the big hand moves just below the nine. By hanging from the big hand, Hannay manages to jam the clock at 11.44am long enough for the Police to break into the clock room where they kill the remaining spies and deactivate the bomb. The clock mechanism stops working and the clock's big hand falls into a vertical position, but Hannay hangs on and one of the officers saves him with a looped rope. Sir Edmund Appleton is convicted of treason and Hannay is declared a hero for helping Britain gain valuable time to prepare for the Great War. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | This 1978 version of "The 39 Steps" is an excellent film, well worth one's time.
The film follows the John Buchan novel closely, except for its climax which, according to Halliwell, is taken from Will Hay's "My Learned Friend"; thus, there is little similarity in plot and characters between this film and the Hitchcock version.
There are no handcuffed characters racing about (Thank God!) nor villains with truncated digits.This film is well cast and performed throughout, with special mention of Robert Powell, John Mills, and David Warner.
And it has a lush, romantic score that swept me right along into the film.The film does reference Hitchcock in a number of ways, most obviously in the plane search for Hannay, which recalls the plane attacking Cary Grant in "North by Northwest." And the climax that takes place on the face of Big Ben is exactly the sort of thing Hitchcock might have done, what with his fondness for using famous landmarks in his films.The suspenseful climax is as good as anything Hitchcock ever did.
I think the Hitchcock film is the better as a film, although there are a few stodgy moments (with the crofter, for instance), but lots of lovely visual ideas to compensate (the Bridge scene, the missing digit, and the ending).
With this version, we were told it would be faithful to the original, but, yes, the ending is stolen from an old Will Hay film (which was very much before its time, with its black humour).
David Warner is appropriately evil as the head of the Nazi's moles, Robert Powell is a convincing reluctant hero who has been thrust into mystery & danger, Sir John Mills is great as the voice of warning and reason against the pending threat of war, and Karen Dotrice is very sweet as the romantic interest now that she is all grown up.
If any of you will have a chance to see it, don't miss it as this version is story closer to John Buchan's book than Mr. Hitchcock's film.Unfortunately, the 1978 version wasn't released on video in Europe (I believe it was released only in the US).Robert Powell - stunning; David Warner - excellent; Prussian Agents - villains at their best.b.t.w. very good music by Ed Welch..
The best-known film version of John Buchan's famous novel was made by Alfred Hitchcock in 1935 but, although an excellent film in his typically playful style, it actually had little to do with the book.
Robert Powell is an agile and likeable hero, supported by a strong cast and the climax, cleverly borrowed from the Will Hay classic "My Learned Friend", has Hannay attempting (literally) to turn back time.It was reported that, when this film premiered at a West London cinema, the audience burst into spontaneous applause at the end!.
Indeed as a Boy's Own Adventure it's thoroughly enjoyable; a Ripping Yarn in fact, with a splendid cast of British character actors, good use of locations and a spiffing climax involving Big Ben.Robert Powell's Hannay is considerably more po-faced than Robert Donat's, (he's too stiff to be a proper action hero), and comes over as a bit of a boor.
The script is intelligent and does feel as though it's flowing naturally, and the story is securely paced and the suspense is in equal measure with Hitchcock's like with Hannay's escape from the train.
To note only three departures, the thirty-nine steps of the original text do not refer to the steps leading up to Beg Ben, but to a staircase leading from a house in Bradgate down to the sea; in the original text, Scudder is knifed in Hannay's flat; and the scene of Hannay clinging to the hands of the clock appears nowhere in Buchan's novel.But all that said, this production is a fine piece of work in its own right, having great pace, style and atmosphere, and with some first-class acting from Robert Powell..
Hitchcock would agree that Don Sharp did him one better in the 1978 remake of "The 39 Steps." Sharp's camera technique may not be as spare and precise as Hitchcock's but the overall blend of script, acting, character and plot development make this a truly delightful and fun film.
Robert Powell sparkled in his role as a Richard Hannay from "down under." Great film meant to be viewed again and again.
It is pure cinema and pure genius as is the rest of that film.The Hitchcock version is light years better than this as a film (near perfect actually) but is only loosely based on a few ideas from the Buchan novel.
The finale on Big Ben is thrilling, but in the main, this version of John Buchan's classic adventure 'The 39 Steps' only suggests that little has been learnt since Hitchcock made his celebrated version over 40 years earlier.
David the fiancé of the female lead is murdered and she shows no sign of mouning or trauma smiling at her new love Hannay over a "cup of breakfast tea" Robert Powell was a matinée idol and this vehicle was all abhout showcasing him and taking advantage of his then UK popularity.End scene at Big Ben is the signature moment and is spectacular.
Of course Hitchcock as a master of suspense, never fails to deliver a good movie, or a great movie, so be it.But this version (1978) is so much better, because the setting of the movie is so great.
The biggest effect is the fact that you will sit down, watch the movie and realize that it has ended before you thought about taking a drink.This is the kind of movie that proves still to be capable of being interesting and standing upright in the newest moviedatabase.Too bad that almost nobody has seen this movie.Just for the record, I am 23-years-old so this has not been a comment from somebody that hates modern movies and only likes old ones!Not even close.By the way, the plot of the movie, connected to London, is really enjoyably well thought of.Good luck finding the movie!Ilija.
The plot is different enough from Hitchcock's version and closer to the book so that in parts it does feel like a different story, even if much is recognisable.
The plot moves forward with a great deal of energy even if it does feel at times like Hannay is just being pushed from one set piece to another.
The film has great sets and costumes that really give a great sense of time and place better than the 30's version but that's the main selling point.
It does feel a little like a big budget BBC drama and some of the action scenes lack real tension or drama.Powell is good but he doesn't convince me as the hunted everyman that I imagine in this lead role he is too assured and adaptive for the role.
The acting is very good - especially Robert Powell as the 30s gentlemen, and it's always a great pleasure to see John Mills.
It's not about the definition of the scenery- it's about how it's shown, and I think this presentation of the Scottish highlands is beautiful.Don Sharp's (the director's) camera-work may not be as epic as Hitchcock's, but it's a solid style and presents this whole 1930s world beautifully.All I can ask is that you give this film a chance - if you don't like it, fine.
THE THIRTY NINE STEPS is the third adaptation of John Buchan's famous spy novel, following the Hitchcock film and the 1950s-era remake with Kenneth More.
The 1950s version remade the Hitchcock film and copied a lot of the elements like the villain with a missing digit and the hero being handcuffed for an extended time.
This fresh-faced '70s outing ignores the Hitchcock film totally and goes back to basis to provide a more authentic version of the original novel.And it's a great little movie!
It moves along at a cracking pace, slipping in humour and suspense and providing a great time for the viewer along the way.Robert Powell had a decent decade of playing leading man roles before he disappeared off cinema screens in the mid '80s and this is one of his best productions.
It sounds strange to say it, but I find THE THIRTY NINE STEPS to be the definitive version of the story and a film that narrowly outdoes Hitchcock at his own game..
It is truly a pity that it has been totally overshadowed by the earlier Hitchcock version, which comes across somewhat stark and dingy in comparison.The Rank Productions version with Robert Powell keeps the suspense moving throughout, and the ending is a cliffhanger in the best tradition of the genre.I have looked for a copy of this for years, and have yet to find it released here.
In the seventies I was offered a job in the Rank Films legal department,but luckily I turned it down,as their proposed programme of film production was short lived.After all you can only sustain production programme so long by making remakes.Whilst a competent film in itself it is not a patch on the Hitchcock classic.The Big Ben finale looks so phoney with the process workGive me Mr Memory anytime.
Making any other version very unlikely to reach the zenith of the performances in this dramatization.The Late Sir John Mills adds urgency and class to the film, and the scene where Scudder's identity is revealed to the Prussian agents outside in the street, outside his apartment, is brilliantly played, and draws us into the film and the musical score adds excitement, urgency, verve and great atmosphere and grace.The film's warning of impending war with Germany only adds to the fascination with the film, and through retrospect we know that the First World happens, but the film's message of British agents and anyone caught up in espionage, during these tense years.
John Buchan's novel is tweaked a bit to bring the plot to a more contemporary milieu as opposed to a prior to the Great War time, but the excitement of the chase and the quick witted competence of the Renaissance man Richard Hannay (as played by Richard Powell) stands up well to the many action heroes of present day cinema (Bruce Willis, Matt Damon, the new James Bond, etc.).
The love interest scenes tend to drag on a little bit for my taste, but the scenes where he is drugged are funny.It is a remake of the Kenneth Moore film and Robert Powell put his own stamp on it the payoff where Hannay escapes from the room whilst paralysed is excellent.
I personally am not a great fan of Robert Powell, and it's this that may hinder this film, but I do believe he has caught the character of Richard Hannay, a cocksure South African mining engineer back in the 'old country' bored and ready to return when he meets a spy (Scudder) who is killed in his apartment.The character of Scudder is excellently played by John Mills, and is a prefect recreation of the character in the book.If you've not done so, read the book.
Despite being a real Hitchcock fan I have to say that this version is much better despite being a reasonably low budget Brit film.
From Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 classic to its less stellar 1959 remake and a more recent BBC television movie, Buchan's thriller has been updated and revised time and again.
There's an exception to every rule and this 1978 adaptation would prove to be that in returning not just to the original time period of the novel but capturing it in spirit (if not in incident) better than its predecessors.It's perhaps best than the film owes less to Hitchcock and more to Buchan, especially given how the 1959 film turned out.
Sir John Mills appears as Scudder, the secret agent who sets invents in motion the events of the film, playing a more likable version of the character than presented in either the original novel or in the subsequent BBC version.
Robert Powell isn't my idea of Richard Hannay - doesn't look right, not the dashing and charismatic adventurer he should be - and the climax at Big Ben is too far-fetched.The film itself, despite good production values and a fairly decent cast (David Warner, Eric Porter, John Mills, Timothy West, Ronald Pickup), is deadly boring.
This third big screen adaptation of the celebrated John Buchan story stars Robert Powell as Hannay, following on from Robert Donat (the Alfred Hitchcock adaptation) and Kenneth More.
Its chief distinction is a denouement involving Big Ben's clocktower which is in itself Hitchcockian.Even if you're already familiar with the frenetically paced plot, the innocent man on the run story is so strong that any of the last three renderings (there was a more recent TV version) are still a good watch.
The plot is a tangled knot of fake identities and a confusion that results in both the police and the scurrilous assassins chasing Robert Powell (as Hannay) around Scotland and London.I'm not sure any of the versions I've seen follow the novel very closely.
Surely a better idea would be for the remake brigade to pick films that had good potential first time round but didn't quite come off as well as they might.
This 1978 adaptation of The Thirty Nine Steps is one of the few films, I think, that has valid justification for revisiting a story that had already found critical and commercial success in an earlier version.
Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 version of the story was a truly outstanding film cinematically-speaking, but it was not a very faithful rendition of John Buchan's source book.
For once, we have a remake that exists for a purpose:- to tell the story as envisioned by Buchan.Mining engineer Richard Hannay (Robert Powell) befriends a man named Scudder (John Mills) who is on the run from enemy agents in 1914 London.
Good character work is provided by the likes of Eric Porter, David Warner, George Baker and John Mills, while Dotrice makes an agreeable leading lady.
Soon after the meeting both Hugh & Harkness are murdered & Scudder know's he is next so he ask's his neighbour Richard Hannay (Robert Powell) for help & to shelter him until he can work out the details of the Prussain's plans, collect proof &prevent the start of a World War. However the Prussain agents find Scudder & murder him, Hannay is blamed for the murder & goes on the run to clear his name, follow up Scudder's leads & try to stop the war himself, but no-one seems to want to believe Hannay & Scudder's notebook is missing...This British production was directed by Don Sharp & was the third time that the novel The 39 Steps by John Buchan had been adapted for the silver screen following Alfred Hitchcock's original The 39 Steps (1935) & the remake The 39 Steps (1959), while I have not read the book nor seen Hictchcock's take on it I have seen the 1959 version before & I have to say I much prefer this one & I think it's superior in just about every way although still not perfect by any means.
While watching this it's clear that while the general feel of the film is similar & many of the same character's appear the basic story is different & the ending also is very different & thankfully ditches the awful idea of Mr. Memory being an agent for evil & instead has a nice, if somewhat short, little set-piece in & outside of London landmark Big Ben. The two killers chasing Hannay, the meeting & murder of a British agent in his flat, the train journey to Scotland, the bridge dangling scene, the hike across the moors, the attractive female Hannay meets, the police Inspector on Hannay's trail & even a scene in which Hannay has to give a speech in a case of mistaken identity.
The production design is great, the costumes, sets & props all look authentic & add character to the visual style of it, the Big Ben ending feels a little silly as Hannay just decides to dangle hundreds of feet in the air without even thinking about it & the sequence doesn't really lead to anything spectacular.
The acting is good from a solid Brisith cast including Powell, David Warner, Sir John Mills & George Baker.The Thirty Nine Steps is a cracking little Saturday afternoon spy adventure film with an attractive period setting & a pretty solid & suspenseful script that goes up & down the country & ends on a lofty set-piece in & outside Big Ben. A good way to pass a couple of hours, you could do a lot worse..
Instead of the restricting in-studio black and white shots, this film offers the realm of colour and the expansive location shooting of the Scotland hills.Set in 1914 before World War 1, Thirty Nine Steps follows the story of Richard Hannay (Richard Powell) on the run from London after being framed for the murder of a spy (Sir John Mills), and being pursued across the Scottish landscape by both the police and the real murderers, led by the scheming villain, Edmund Appleton (David Warner).Appleton plans to assassinate someone of great importance at a certain time back in London,and it is up to Hannay to interpret the clues the murdered spy has left behind, evade his hunters, and return to England.
"The Thirty Nine Steps", the spy novel by John Buchan, has been adapted for the screen three times.
The best of these is the one that takes place in the last sequence of the film in which we are taken inside Big Ben where Hannay, having solved the mystery, goes after the Prussian spies.Robert Powell was effective in his characterization of Hannay, the South African engineer that is drawn, against his will, to be at the center of a manhunt for something he never did. |
tt1131747 | Phantom Punch | In 1950 Liston is carrying out a prison sentence in Missouri State Penitentiary. After knocking out the prison boxing champ Big Lester in a brawl over cigarettes, he is coached by the prison athletic director Father Alois to hone his boxing skills. In the ring he knocks out Big Lester again followed by several other contenders. Having shown improvement, he is released after serving just two years of a five-year sentence.
Upon his release in 1952 he joins a boxing gym in St. Louis, Missouri, run by Caesar Novak at the recommendation of Father Alois. His fellow inmate Catfish later arrives to act as his cut man. During this time Liston takes part in several matches and meets his future wife Geraldine. He visits Father Alois, now working in a church, to thank him and tell him about Geraldine. Sitting in a parked car with Geraldine at night he is told by a policeman to move his car along, which escalates into a fistfight and another prison sentence for Liston. Geraldine greets him at his release in 1957 and invites him to live with her at a house being rented to her by her cousin after getting married at a justice of the peace on the way. Liston experiences nightmares remembering abuse suffered at the hands of his father.
Caesar Novak takes Liston back in his gym as a fighter and asks him to stay out of prison. One night the policemen from the previous altercation stop by Liston's house and threaten him, telling him that he has to throw any future fight against Floyd Patterson. In 1962 Novak attacks Bobby Zazo in a club in a dispute over Farah, a girl Novak stole from him, and arranges through mutual organized crime connections to pay Zazo $10,000 in retribution. Mob connections pressure Novak to tell Liston to take a dive in the upcoming match against Patterson so that they can win on a bet but Novak asks Liston to win instead. Liston wins the match by knockout but no press arrives to interview the new champion. When approached by his organized crime connections, Novak explains that he actually bet their money on Liston and made them $1.2 million.
Liston is approached by the police and teased about his inability to write a message with his signature because of his lack of education. They attempt to pin a drunk driving charge on him, even though he is walking, and another fistfight ensues. That night in jail he is seriously beaten by the correction officers and told to get out of town or he will be killed. Novak takes him to Las Vegas, where Sonny and Geraldine buy a new house in December of 1962 as the relationship between Caesar and Farah is falling apart.
In July of 1963 Patterson and Liston fight a rematch, which Liston easily wins. Farrah pretends that Caesar has called for Sonny but when Sonny arrives Farrah merely requests sex and the two cheat on their respective partner. Novak waits outside Zazo's hotel room to threaten him to stop spreading rumors that Liston's fights are fixed and discovers him leaving the room with Farah. Farah and Sonny continue to meet for sex but find no romance in their relationship.
Liston is surprised by Cassius Clay's unusual style in their boxing match and asks Catfish to spread an irritating substance on his gloves to bother Clay's eyes. The irritant works but Liston nevertheless gives up the fight. Geraldine surprises Sonny and Farah with a gun at their next rendezvous and tells Farah to leave then tells Sonny that she hopes Cassius Clay beats him again. Already upset, Liston flies into a rage when provoked by the press with questions about the murder of Bobby Zazo and his connection to Caesar Novak. Liston asks Father Alois why others fail to give him the love they give to other fighters and the priest tells him that he cannot rely on the validation of others to determine his worth and that he has always been able to accomplish things through his own inner strengths.
Liston loses the rematch against Cassius Clay, now known as Muhammad Ali, after falling down for 20 seconds following the famous phantom punch. Many cannot see the punch and the press once again attacks Liston, accusing him of taking a dive. Caesar's mob connections are likewise suspicious but after speaking with Sonny he convinces them that Sonny was not throwing the fight. Liston works his way back up in the rankings with a record of 14-1 in fights around the world between 1966 and 1969. The mob tells Caesar to tell Sonny to start taking dives and also inform him of the meetings between Sonny and Farah. Caesar confronts Farah and physically attacks her in jealous anger then throws her out. Out of spite he lies to the mob that Sonny refuses to take a dive, hoping that Sonny will end up getting hurt because of this. In 1971 Geraldine returns home from a trip to find Sonny dead. The police officially declare it a heroin overdose but there remains doubt about this explanation. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Robert Townsend said in reports that he wanted to show the true Sonny Liston and he said, "History hasn't been kind to Sonny Liston." He goes and he makes Liston's death look like a suicide instead of a murder?
He shows Liston just plain quitting on the stool in his first fight with Ali?
He shows Liston trying to blind Ali in the first fight?
He shows Liston throwing the Ali rematch for no apparent reason?
This movie is so bad it makes Meteor Man look like a masterpiece.I was unfortunate enough to see this movie and now I know why it was never released.
This is one of the worst movies I've ever scene.
Not only is it a terrible boxing movie, but it's an awful biopic.
I was really shocked at how bad this movie was.
I couldn't wait for a movie about Sonny Liston and this is what I got?
This movie hasn't been released to theaters and it never will be.
If Townsend is lucky, maybe the movie will get released straight to DVD or maybe they will put it on TV.
But I don't see this doing well wherever it goes.Meteor Man failed to mention in his movie that Liston was the favorite in his fights with Ali. In the first fight, Liston was a 7-1 favorite.
I read accounts that Liston said he was "only following orders" when he quit on the stool.
Another stupid part of the scene that had me shaking my head was the part when Townsend shows them putting a foreign substance on his glove to blind Ali. First of all, Liston did not need to cheat.
Liston was a great fighter.
He was one of the toughest fighters in history and he wasn't afraid of anyone.
This is a man that knocked out the great Floyd Patterson in 2 minutes.
He fought a whole fight with a broken jaw and only lost a split decision to Marty Marshall.
Second of all, why would Liston try to cheat in a fight that he was going to throw?
There's no doubt something got in Ali's eyes during the fight, but to say Liston put it there is ridiculous and there is no proof.
In the end of the fight Townsend tries to make you believe Liston just quit like a spineless bum.
I know some people would love to believe Ali was this mighty man that overcame Sonny Liston, but let's get real.
The movie gets to the big moment, the infamous "phantom punch." The scene is so uneventfully done in the movie it's pathetic.
Townsend never even tells you why Liston took a dive in the rematch.
Townsend had the nerve to keep the mob out of that fight too.
It looked like even more of a sham than the first fight.This movie failed to show Sonny Liston's hard upbringing.
It also failed to show that he really wasn't a bad guy and that he loved children and even tried to help people that were less fortunate.
One of the biggest slaps in the face to Liston is how they handle his death in the movie.
Instead of showing Liston getting murdered they make it look like a suicide.
In the movie they make it look like Liston was depressed over his girlfriend on the side leaving him, so he does heroine one night.
Sonny Liston was M-U-R-D-E-R-E-D.You want the real scoop on Liston, get the book The Devil and Sonny Liston by Nick Tosches.
Nick Tosches did what Townsend lied about saying he was going to do.
Townsend made Liston look like a no good bum, but that wasn't the real Liston.
Avoid this horribly written and directed movie at all costs.
I don't think Townsend was taking his job seriously when he made this movie.
By the looks of it, it's like he was just fooling around.
If you were wondering why this movie was never released, you have your answer.
If you want to see what the real Sonny was all about, watch HBO's documentary "Sonny Liston: The Mysterious Life and Death of a Champion".
This movie...well not so good.
Ving Rhames is great as usual.
A lot of what we know about Sonny was historically inaccurate or missing.
No harassment from Ali(a young Cassius Clay) before, or after the Patterson rematch.
Ali (Clay) made Liston's life hell for over a year before their first fight.
No scene detailing Sonny slapping Ali's face in a casino.
Not even a mention of his first fight against Marty Marshall.
Liston suffered a broken jaw in the fourth round before losing a close 8-round decision.
But he deserves better than Phantom Punch..
Impressive job if you like fiction.
I've seen several movies about Muhammad Ali but I have forgotten everything I knew about Sonny Liston from those movies.
Reading some of the IMDb comments tells me this movie might not be telling the whole story.
In fact, the comments suggest this movie may be wrong about a lot of historical facts about a real person.But forgetting all this, I thought this was quite a good movie.
Ving Rhames gave an Oscar-worthy performance and made me believe there was more to Sonny Liston than the angry man the world believed he was.
I actually didn't know anything about Liston, but once he became famous, it appeared the world hated him for defeating Floyd Patterson and being such a bad boy.
Plenty of scenes show him as a gentle man trying to make a better life for himself.
And as hard as mobsters try to get him to throw fights, he doesn't appear to want to.True, he is shown getting violent because someone accuses Geraldine, a woman he genuinely loves, of being a mere hooker.And he is unfaithful to Geraldine.
And he doesn't hit her.And Rhames doesn't give the only good performance.
Stacey Dash shows intelligence and determination as the woman Liston loves.
Rick Roberts is great as the prison priest who discovers Liston's tendency to get into fights could be used constructively.
And the good father follows Liston's career on the outside as well, as he takes a regular church job.
Nicholas Turturro does a great job as the man who seems to be in charge of Liston's career, but has to answer to higher authorities.There is quite a lot of violence and threats of violence, and I don't mean just in the ring.One very effective scene makes use of slow motion as well as sound editing (that's what I'll call it) that suggests Liston has been hit one too many times and things don't seem real.Most of the music here is great, and why not?
Very good-looking too.
No wonder Liston was tempted.The movie is not without its weaknesses.
I never speculated on what was real and what wasn't, but Cassius Clay doesn't even look like Cassius Clay (though neither did Will Smith), and he hardly says a word.
Not in this movie.And I saw a 50-star flag.
Phantom Punch is a Good Movie.
I saw this movie, and wondered why it was not released in theatres.
It is a quite good movie, that is very thought provoking especially, concerning the circumstance surrounding Sonny Liston's death.
The actor named Ving Rhames does a very good job and is fantastic in it.
It amazes me, and I do not understand why the other reviewers are so negative, but if you like boxing and are a boxing history fan, this is a must see.....
PS - Robert Townsend is a fine talent as both an actor and director...
Phantom Punch is directed by Robert Townsend and written by Ryan Combs.
It traces the life and times of Sonny Liston, the World heavyweight boxing champion who over his career fought the likes of Muhammad Ali and Floyd Patterson.
Townsend biopic traces Liston's career from 1950 to his death in 1971.Ving Rhames, is perfectly cast as Charles L 'Sonny' Liston.
Rhames gives a stellar performance depicting the boxer's tumultuous life, where dealing with the rampant racism of the day, the heavy hand of the mob, and the heavier hand of the law was part and parcel of the job.
Not just a boxing movie, a amazing story untold!.
This film isn't just swagger, or an imitation of Sonny Liston.
When I was young I use to hear Patterson and Sonny Liston's name all the way till I became an adult.
This film is socially important because it raises up one of the most notable and under-appreciated figures of the twentieth century, Sonny Liston.
His fights with Patterson is also in the film so I learned a lot here.
The fights are not rocky-type or "entertaining" but REAL.
Never long and drawn out but super exciting for someone not into boxing, like me.
My mother & I really got into this movie than researched after, and boy were the males in out family surprised.
They didn't show a younger Liston but instead had Ving play the entire role from his discovery by the Catholic priest in prison to Liston's champ days, and finally his passing.
It was boxing or a life in prison.
And a lot of shady people were attached to boxing back than.
Surprisingly, the movie was so good & went by so fast, no one even noticed.
This movie gives us all an important lesson.
This certainly is a movie worth seeing..
Not Sonny Liston but Director Robert Townsend.
The Once Promising Director who Helmed this Biopic of Heavyweight Champion Liston is Either Out of His Depth or couldn't Pull this Off and it seems like there wasn't much Effort and the Whole Thing Looks Cheap, Undeveloped, and Haphazard.The Low-Budget is No Excuse.
The Movie is so Muddled and Amateurish at Times that it is Knocked Down In the Opening and Never gets up.
The Highlights and Lowlights of the Life of Sonny Liston are Never Explored with Compelling Cinema.
It is Flat and Uninteresting and Considering the Enigmatic Liston's Private Life and His Powerful Presence in the Ring it is Mysteriously Boring.The Phantom Punch that Cassius Clay (Ali) Threw in Their Second Fight, one of the most Controversial Knockouts in Boxing History and Ironically the Title of the Film is Hardly Examined, Explored, or for that Matter it is Glossed Over for some Unknown Reason.
The Ending of Liston's Life is also Mysterious and the Mystery here is that, again it is so Rushed that it seems a Featherweight is at the Controls.The Film isn't Awful, it is just a Mess.
Great Entertainment For Boxing Buffs.
I loved it because it was about one of the Greatest Heavyweights Ever in Charles "Sonny" Liston.
No, it's not "Casablanca" but it is time well spent for former fighters like myself and boxing fans.
We love just about anything on The Bad Man and the movie is very stylishly shot with a sleek music score backing it.
I have been to Liston's grave in Vegas and "Night Train" played in my head the entire time I was there.
Watch this with an open mind and enjoy it, sports fans.
Troy Ross is a real fighter who plays Floyd Patterson but the guy that plays Ali is not.
He is the only downside to this movie that I found as they should have gotten a real boxer to play him.
Ving is not as big nor nearly as massive as Sonny was but then again, few men have been.
One of the Great Hitters and most Mysterious Men in Boxing history..
I kinda enjoyed this film.
I didn't know anything about Sonny Listen so after watching this film, it shinned a little light on him for me.
I know the Clay/Ali fight was a major event in his life but the film played it as just another fight.
I would of liked to see the build up to that fight, and the aftermath.
The movie never mentioned how Clay was harassing him and how he felt about it.
I also didn't understand why he would cheat against Clay when there was no history of cheating before that fight.
The film was titled Phantom Punch but he doesn't admit to taking a dive.
I liked the possible motive for his death.
I enjoyed it but I think I just wanted more on the rise and fall of SL..
Ving Rhames stellar performance is the only reason to see this bio of Sonny Liston.
Ving Rhames turns in another stellar performance as Sonny Liston in Robert Townsend's film of Liston's rise and fall.
Liston was an ex-con who rose through the ranks of professional boxing to take on Cassius Clay before he was felled by a "phantom punch" and his own demons.
Rhames is truly amazing as Liston and you feel for him.
Unfortunately the rest of the film is nowhere near his level with some bad performances, a weak script with awful dialog and a directorial style that makes this tough going.
If it wasn't for Rhames performance I would day that the film isn't worth bothering with, but he's so good that he really should be seen if this comes across your TV screen on cable.
Boxing is a sport almost impossible to fake believably; the subtleties of in-fighting, for instance, or a short, solid shot to the jaw (like the one that felled Sonny Liston in real life) are lost on the big screen- despite the size of the "canvas." In RAGING BULL, director Martin Scorsese (applauded by critics upon the film's release) has Robert DeNiro as Jake Lamotta literally roaring like a dinosaur at one point- and, in some of the most amateurish filmmaking I've ever seen outside of a ROCKY movie, clinging to a strand of rope while being cinematically slain by "Sugar Ray Robinson," taunting him with: "You never knocked me down, Ray." A mere technicality, that: in Real Life, Lamotta was out on his feet when the referee rescued him, and, barely able to stand, was led back to his corner by his corner men.
Which kinda sorta brings me to PHANTOM PUNCH.
The book by Nick Tosches that may or may not have inspired this movie is so one-sided in its presentation of "the facts" that several facts are overlooked (or glossed over in passing): Muhammad Ali (who was NOT A SOUTHPAW, as depicted in this alleged Motion Picture) DID, in fact, drop Liston with a short, jolting right to the jaw in their second fight.
In fact, the very first punch he landed in the rematch was just such a short, jolting right to the jaw- a punch the crouching Liston proved susceptible to in both fights.
Boxing writer Jimmy Cannon is said to have made this observation: "I saw the punch land, and it couldn't have squashed a grape." Oh, yeah?
Tell that to Cleveland Williams, who ran into that selfsame right in the second round of his fight with Ali: the punch dropped him in his tracks.
Many of Ali's many fans refer to the Williams fight as his finest performance- and yet NO ONE has ever suggested that the same short, jolting right that dropped Williams for the first of four knockdowns was a "phantom punch." That this movie would even perpetuate such a myth speaks volumes.
Against former middleweight Floyd Patterson, Liston looked awesome; against bigger and better opponents, not so much.
Eddie Machen, who was stopped by Joe Frazier, went the distance with Liston.
And, like Cleveland Williams, he complained of ointment of some kind getting in his eyes during the fight.
In his first fight with Ali, Liston can actually be seen extending his arm to place his glove against Ali's cheek and then WIPING it across Ali's face.
One need only go back and look at the fight: the proof of something unsavory going on is THERE.
Ving Rhames, so good as "Mike Tyson" in UNDISPUTED, is wasted here: PHANTOM PUNCH is so badly written and directed that it wouldn't pass muster as a TV movie (which is saying a lot: I remember cringing when, as a kid, I saw a TV movie with Erik Estrada playing-acting as a boxer: at one point, he tells someone that there are "five punches in boxing").
I've been on the receiving end of a beating at least once in my life (to a three-time Golden Gloves champion), so I find the kind of misinformation in movies like this nigh intolerable.
Muhammad Ali was NOT a southpaw..
When I saw Robert Townsend directing and so many actors I respect like Ving Rhames, David Proval and Stacey Dash I really expected a lot more out of this film.
It showed absolute zero of the ferociousness of Sonny Liston, the way he paralyzed Floyd Patterson with fear (in real life Patterson brought a fake beard and glasses to both Liston fights so he could sneak out unnoticed after getting his inevitable beatings) and it showed absolute zero of the build up to the first Cassius Clay fight.
In real life Liston slapped Clay in a casino, and Clay famously left a bear trap on Liston's front steps.
Sonny Liston was one of the most enigmatic figures of the 20th century, but this film shows none of that.
It's basically: convict gets paroled, boxes, deals with bigotry and eventually...well, honestly, I turned it off during the first Clay fight, so I don't know how the film goes after that.
This looked to me like a payday for everyone involved.
I hate to post a bad review, especially after all the years that I've enjoyed Robert Townsend's work, but this movie was a real stinkeroo!
You look at a film like Raging Bull where they were able to make Jake LaMotta sympathetic, even while showing his violent side.
None of that is done in Phantom Punch.
None of that is done in Phantom Punch.
It's like making a film on Mike Tyson and simply showing that he raised pigeons while he wasn't boxing. |
tt1627924 | Mausam | The main story of the film spans over a period 10 years, from 1992 to 2002 and includes references to Demolition of Babri Masjid, Bombay Riots, 1993 Bombay bombings, Kargil War, 9/11 attacks and Post-Godhra Riots.
Mausam is the story of two lovers, Harinder Singh, known as Harry (Shahid Kapoor) and Aayat (Sonam Kapoor). Harry is a happy-go-lucky Punjabi guy, whereas Aayat is a Kashmiri girl. In 1992, the two meet and fall in love at Mallukot, Punjab, where Harry's family is from. But before they get to spend some time together, Aayat leaves for Mumbai with her uncle and aunt; and Harry joins the Indian Air Force. In 1999, Harry, now a Squadron Leader meets Aayat in Scotland, where they get closer once again. However, before their marriage, the Kargil occupation happens in Kashmir, and Harry is called back to India to fight in the war, fate separating them once more. After this separation, they begin to long for each other. Harry paralyses his left arm during a special mission in the Tiger Hill. They both want to speak to each other but fate always brings them closer and then separates them again. At the end, in Ahmedabad during post-Godhra riots, they finally find each other and decide to settle down with an orphan child rescued by Harry from the riot which also results in his arm cured, with a child of their own on the way. | romantic | train | wikipedia | The positives: Shahid Kapoor - one of his best performances; Sonam Kapoor: definitely her best performance; Cinematography: remarkable visuals; Music: some beautiful melodies; Dialogues: some wonderful lines, especially between Shahid & SonamThe negatives: Editing: especially, in the second half - the film could have easily been cut by 30-40mins; The captions of each place really distracted from the movie & made it feel disjointed; Writing: could have been much tighterI'd recommend it if you're a true blue romantic, who would want to invest time & emotions in a film..
" Mausam "could have been an artistic beauty but it ended up being an erratic Screenplay binding sequence of events which never looked in direct connection with the Characters in the movie and could well have been avoided.
The only good thing about the movie is its Art Direction/Camera Work but when it comes to integral concepts of Script & Screenplay it fails on all notes.
Concept behind "Mausam" was to show how the chronological sequence of disasters all over world influences the bonding between two people in love .Riots in Kashmir brings the girl (Sonam) to Punjab at his aunt's place where Shahid falls for the girl.
The film tries to strike a balance between art and mainstream cinema and succeeds.After a long time I watched a movie with calming effect.
Harry (Shahid Kapoor) a young and chirpy lad from a small village of Punjab but with big dreams to fly and run faster than the train falls in love with a beautiful and innocent Kashmiri girl Aayat (Sonam Kapoor) who came to stay at the relatives place due to communal tensions in Kashmir.
The first season of the movie can be described as the vintage love story between the two couples set in a sceneric beauty of realistic Punjab village and lovable music which ends up with the separation of the couple where Harry joins the Air force and Aayat left for the Mumbai.The second season starts after 7 years of the separation is Scotland where the couple meets again -Harry as Sq. Leader Harinder Singh and Aayat as a dancer in Royal house of dance.
How Read onThumps Up Thumps Down (TUTD TM ) Analysis 1) Performances Shahid has grown himself one step further in the acting school from a young chirpy guy to a serious lover to a responsible Air force officer, he has lived all his characters well and in perfection.
Sonam was decent and watchable but the best thing is its ensemble cast which support main characters perfectly 2) BeaT SenSE The music of the film is composed by Pritam while the lyrics are penned by Irshad Kamil.
It would have been nice if the director could have taken one or two events rather than infusing all riots because it seems to be overdose in the script and actually lower downs the pace of the love story b) Second the period from 1992 to 2002 is not a very old period; director must have this in mind that internet and emails were very much in fashion in Indian and abroad in this period, so writing letters by main female lead for years to hero's old residence in Punjab is quite illogical.
Also the controversial fighting sequence is hardly 25 seconds where audience expected to had more c) The white horse in the climax was quite funny thou it was not used to carry on the story thou its presence neither justified anything .The second half script demands better screenplay as its first half.5) Golden Moments There are few scenes worth mentioning like a) The scene between Harry and Aayat where the Harry initiates a conversation with Aayat by handing over small chits to her and she teases him by putting them in a glass of water.
The scene has a sweet song in the backdrop which is not in the album b) Their second meeting in Scotland in Coffee shop where the couple is having conversation in eyes , thou funny at place but appealing c) In a scene when Harry saw Aayat outside a train in Switzerland and his feet chase to catch her.
The story begins in a small village called MALLUKOT where a fun loving Harry(Shahid) falls in love with A kashmiri girl(Sonam).However,unexpected circumstances leads to their separation only to meet in Scotland a few years later.(Shahid,by the time is serving in IAF while Sonam has become a ballet dancer).Again circumstances lead to their separation only to be searching each other till the end.The initial 45 minutes of the film are like a whiff of fresh air where a carefree village life is depicted in a realistic,heart warming way.Its really wonderful to see such tender romantic moments between Harry & Aayat which automatically melt your heart like butter.But the real problem begins when the story shifts to Scotland.The film loses its steam & drags on continuously for 3 hours.The logic is thrown out of window & film presents the monotony of deja vu(meeting & separation again & again & again).One more problem in the film (which is unpardonable considering a person like Pankaj Kapur is at the helm of affairs) is Factual errors.The Punjab Roadways bus model shown in 1992 didn't exist then.It came much later.Moreover,we see a Whirlpool refrigerator cover in the film in the year 1992(The company entered Indian market in 1995).Such errors take away the appeal & seriousness of the film.The director saddles this film's narrative with some important events like 1992 Babri demolition,1999 Kargil infiltration,11th September to Ahmedabad riots,which don't actually appeal.The intention was noble but execution isn't upto the mark.In this world of multi genre films,(Action comedy like Singham or Rom Coms),Pankaj Kapur sticks to a single genre of romance which doesn't connect with audience somehow.Moreover,Shahid being a pilot in the IAF,it provided ample opportunity to Pankaj Kapur to explore some fine action sequences of aerial combat,but its just a little more than "BLINK & YOU MISS" sequence!The director takes himself too seriously-which ultimately works against the film.Shahid Kapur's performance as the village brat Harry is fantastic but somehow misses the mark in his Air force avatar.His appearance seems misfit for this.Sonam Kapoor needs to take some acting lessons,she just misses to portray this complex character well.While Anupam Kher is wasted in a thankless role,Supriya Pathak plays her part with great deal of precision.The climax sequence involving a horse,a ferris wheel & a child with Shahid's "heroics" is unintentionally funny & serves as a final nail in the coffin.One thing has to be admitted that while most film makers today find an easy way of plagiarizing hit foreign films,Pankaj Kapur tries to rekindle the old age romance which had been overshadowed by plastic emotions portrayed in movies today.There is honesty in its music(Rabba main to is a very nice song,so is saj dhaj & ik tu hi),the way the film is made with devotion & passion.The only sad part remains that it doesn't click.But Pankaj Kapur has lot to learn as a director,he has shown flashes of brilliance in this film,& I'm pretty confident that when he makes his next film,it 'll be as awesome as he is..
Other movies that tie together themes of romance and religious / political conflict (Bombay for example) do so with force and passion -- Mausam tries to be subtle, which is all well and good, but when you repeat the subtle message for THREE HOURS it begins to be less subtle, and terribly boring.
Please save your loved ones from this gigantic wastebasket of a movie.The only redeeming factor in this movie was Sonam Kapoor, who is quite beautiful and does her best to look good while playing an insanely boring character.
The acting did not connect with the audience on any level.The immaturity of Shahid and Sonam Kapoor was evident from the onset of the movie.
Mausam is the story of two lovers, Harinder Singh, known as Harry (Shahid Kapoor) and Aayat (Sonam Kapoor).
Topped by desire to have Shahid in every frame of movie and including all depressing religious flashpoints from Kashmir to 9/11 to Gujarat, into a love story finally killed it completely.
His style in acting coaxed me to watch Mausam, which I thought would show his brilliance behind the cameras too, but much to my disappointment this movie is a dud.Shahid Kapoor has come of age in his performances through his previous movies but through out 'Mausam' he looks limited and sealed.
It has a plot but the same plot has been shown 10 times in the movie with little bit of the air-force jazz in it for no good reason.
Songs don't help the movie either.I sincerely hope, Shahid Kapoor moves onto something better from this as he is an actor with great potential and for Pankaj Kapoor, I still believe one day he can make a great film.
Despite the fact that I am a die-hard fan of the Living Legend, Pankaj Kapoor from almost two decades, I am sorry that I am unable to praise his first film as a director with the same spirits.The major reason for my dissatisfaction from MAUSAM remains its unexpectedly weak script having such strange sequences of co-incidences where the lead couple, suddenly meet each just like that both within India as well as abroad.
This weakly written and unconvincing climax is also one of the major drawbacks of the film which tries to bring in Shahid as the only Savior Hero to save the Girl in the end and it simply doesn't justify their decade long love story from any angle.Performance wise, both Shahid and Sonam have really worked hard for their respective roles having various shades and character transformations in the script.
Shahid is surely better in the second half and looks like overdoing it in the Punjab part of the film.
From the rest of the cast only Supriya Pathak and Manoj Pahwa register their presence impressively and Anupam Kher simply remains wasted.In the end, I would like to share, that it strongly seems Pankaj Kapoor had only a one line idea before writing the script of MAUSAM, which must have been "A Love Story written around all the major Communal Hatred Events happened in India and abroad in the last two decades." Since he couldn't start with the Sikh Riots in 1984, so he begins from PUNJAB itself, with his Hero mentioning the BLUE STAR movement and its aftermaths in his dialogues.
Talking about the homeless issue of Kashmiri Pandits, he then moves into the Babri Masjid Issue, followed by Mumbai Riots, Twin Tower Attack in America, Kargil Warin India and then ending it all within the Gujarat Riots on a positive note.So, giving an extra star for this brilliant thought alone, I wish to give my best wishes to Pankaj Kapoor for his next directorial project, moving ahead of this forgettable first attempt called MAUSAM..
Mausam: a timeless love story(2011) is a movie starring Shahid Kapoor as the protagonist Harry & Sonam Kapoor as Aayat.the movie is made by Pankaj Kapoor.Its such an amazingly made outstanding movie.a love saga that will remain on everyone's hearts forever.the movie is about the true love between the lovers that never dies until the end.it shows the development of the character in Harry throughout the movie and his love story with Aayat.they have to get under lots of problems and they lose each other.but finally the lovers reunite.the music is really heart warming.specially the romantic song "Rabba mein to margaya oye" also saj dhaj ke,Ik tu hi tu.
Shahid Kapoor delivers a sharp & rock steady performance & its possibly his best performance up to date along with vivah,Jab we met .in the first half he gives a promising performance as the village lover boy.and his charm remains.the second half shows a much matured character thats superbly portrayed.and Sonam Kapoor gives full justice to her role Aayat.
The movie Mausam is a romantic story of love.The main scene of starting part was too good and what a imaginary sets regarding to the subject and also the locations was too good.But mid part of the movie is not fit according to the story.At the end, in Ahmedabad during post-Godhra riots, they finally find each other and decide to settle down with an orphan child rescued by Harry from the riot which also results in his arm cured, with a child of their own on the way.
The film was originally scheduled to release on 16 September 2011, but due to the delay in obtaining the NOC from the IAF.The main story of the film spans over a period 10 years, from 1992 to 2002 and includes references to Demolition of Babri Masjid, Bombay Riots, 1993 Bombay bombings, Kargil War, 9/11 attacks and Post-Godhra Riots.besides,o think this is a near to average movie.Moreover people was not interested for this movie at a higher level.
The audience loses count of seasons and years and so does the director when he mixes-up dates and also makes errors like Shahid mentioning his mother was killed in Sikh Riots of 84 when he was 1 year old whereas in 91, he was 20.
Half an hour into the movie in the second half, I gave up any pretensions of engrossment when I saw some in the audience yawning, cursing and using expletives which I'd rather not mention.Pankaj Kapur has been exposed as a Wannabe who needs a reality check on his capabilities as a director.
Pankaj Kapur should've thought on that lines too after this Love Story fell flat on its face.Both the lead characters are shown to be globetrotters who just couldn't sit at one place.
The movie is set from 1992-2002 (mobiles and emails were available from 1996 onwards) but at the point of juncture, the pair preferred to communicate through good old letters or no communication at all (Shahid Kapur couldn't spare two minutes to intimate her eternal soul mate that he's been called to the Kargil War front).
Considering the primitive mode of communication between the pair, the movie could've been set in the pre-independence era but then it'd have been impossible for the director to incorporate Operation Blue Star in 1984 (I think, there was a subtle mention of it), Kashmiri Pandit's migration, Babri Masjid issue, Mumbai Blasts, Kargil War, 9/11, Godhra Riots, Operation Neptune Spear to kill Laden (oops
no, that wasn't there) and what not, which are so instrumental to the movie.The movie had some really fantastic moments (pun intended) when one sees the couple having chance meetings in unexpected places like Scotland, Train on Mountain Top in Switzerland, Ahmedabad etc.
Sonam Kapoor is better showing off her fashion antics at the Ramp rather than forcing herself in the movies.The last 20-30 minutes were so bad that I just simply refused to take it anymore and preferred to walked out to save my sanity and intellect..
When anything comes with a name of Pankaj Kapoor expectations becomes very high weather it's a movie or a serial.Mausam also came with lots of expectation as it has been directed by Pankaj Kapoor.Story: Harinder Singh aka Harry (Shahid kapoor), whiles away his time in his native village, waiting for the letter to join the Indian Air Force.
The world simmers, violence spreads, but love never dies as Harry and Aayat keep hoping for a re-union, despite the passing years and the turbulent landscape When I have gone to watch this movie I have heard lots of bad reviews but somewhere in mind i have good feelings for this movie as after all its Pankaj Kapoor's movie who never do anything just to earn.When the movie started I fell in love with whole place he shown, the characters and artistic touch of pankaj kapoor.
Romantic moments like Talking with each other by notes, Shahid watches from rooftop, rain scene, Conversation without saying anything were awesome.Upto interval movie is fantastic but after interval it loses grip due to too much separations, unneeded action scenes, events like godhra
tiger hill...babri mosque
twin tower blast and with too much filmy climax.In direction and cinematography department Pankaj Kapoor has done his best.
He just needed to cut movie length by not showing unnecessary events.Shahid and Sonam are perfect for this role.
Though shahid was looking pretty young as Air force officer but he managed it very well.In music and song department movie is powerful.
an actor of the pedigree of Pankaj Kapoor, with his understanding of characters, would come up with something fresh and give life to a romantic saga movie - at least that was the hope.
its like an effort is being made to give the movie a whole greater than life image when both shahid and Sonam do not fit onto such epic roles.
This is a not a suspense movie so even if you read my review you wont miss the awful experience you are about to have from watching this movie.This 'movie' is 3 hours long and sonam kapoor's (actress) character moves 8 times in the movie (NOT the only flaw in the movie by far).
its through the old fashioned way of letters.i loved the movie for performance of Shahid Kapoor and stunning looks of Sonam Kapoor.
Pankaj Kapoor has shown a series of incidents occurred during a decade, which had a great impact on India through this movie.I would say that the film could be laid on editing table for some more time.
Some scenes towards the end like Shahid saving the horse and girl etc weren't required and did nothing but add to the length of the movie.Shahid, however, puts in a lot of effort for his character, Sonam is average- she can't act; though she looks pretty throughout the movie.
Shahid Kapoor is one of the worst actor (in fact he can play a girl without his mustache.) The movie fails to make any impression in any form.
Even a snail moves faster than the story; and in this age of shrinking movies, its 3-hours long!Shahid looks good as a grown man. |
tt0064165 | Les choses de la vie | In the French countryside on a summer morning, a lorry full of pigs stalls at a crossroads. An Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint swerves to avoid it and crashes into an orchard, hurling the driver onto the grass. As he loses consciousness, he revisits the essential things which made up his life.
A Paris architect in his forties driving to a meeting at Rennes, he had quarrelled with his lover Hélène the night before. They were due to leave together for a job he was offered in Tunis but he had not signed the documents. And he had agreed to take his teenage son Bertrand, who lived with his estranged wife Catherine, for a fortnight to the family's holiday home on the Île de Ré. Stopping at a café, he wrote a letter to Hélène calling everything off, but did not post it. Driving past a wedding, he realised that the letter was quite wrong and he should in fact marry Hélène, so giving a purpose to the rest of their lives.
Rushed to hospital in Le Mans, he does not recover and Catherine as his widow is given his effects, including the unsent letter which she tears to pieces. Hélène arrives at the hospital and is told by a nurse that she is too late. | flashback | train | wikipedia | The first link of the bourgeoisie saga..
With "les choses de la vie" ,Claude Sautet relinquished his former style ,film noir ("classes tous risques" "l'arme à gauche" both worth seeking)in favor of bourgeois psychological dramas ."Les choses de la vie" was the first link on the chain,and -with the exception of "Max et les ferrailleurs" (1971),which showed Sautet at the height of his powers,when he came back for a short while to his first inspiration-remains the best of this "cinema de qualité".Unlike the other works ("Mado" "Cesar et Rosalie" "Vincent,François,Paul et les autres" "une histoire simple" ,etc etc etc) ,"les choses de la vie" has an emotional power and an unusual inventive direction.Editing is stunning (the first picture is one wheel of the car ),and never a car accident was filmed with such mastery.Flashbacks are used with great skill too.The nightmare scene (the wedding) remains very impressive today.And the metaphorical way Sautet uses to depict the hero's death commands respect and admiration.The last part of the movie is almost completely silent,but the strength of the pictures and the actors' talent (Piccoli,Schneider,but Lea Massari and Jean Bouise too)work wonders.Superb score.louis Delluc prize.Remake :"intersection" featuring Richard Gere.As I cannot say something nice....
Claude Sautet always Claude Sautet....
By watching this 1969 movie, I have just confirmed my opinion about Claude Sautet: that's one Director that takes the expectator "inside the scene" (As seen in his latest work: Nelly and Mr.Arnaud).
He has this ability that allows him to "extract" the most of his characters in the psychologic aspect, by showing all the range of their feelings...Take the scene where Pierre Berard (portrayed by Michel Piccoli) tells Héléne (played by Romy Schneider) of his sudden decision of no longer accompany her on a trip planned ages ago.
Another scene that worths appears in a record as a "Death Scenes Hall of Fame" is the one in which Pierre lays on the grass, his thoughs exposed as the expectator follows him, in all his emotional suffering.
Claude Sautet: a Director that deserves having his name written in the "Hall of Fame of the Greatest Directors of All Times".
As an "homage" to him, in a scale of 10, I grade this film 9..
About lives.
It is an experience.
Rush, subtle, delicate and strange.
A form of catharsis and source of restless questions.It is a beautiful film but not as aesthetic show or as object of loisir.
In fact, it is a definition of life, social relations, ambiguity of love and search of happiness beyond classical definitions or Freudian symbols.In each life important it is pieces of puzzle.
The respect for game rules, the science to be the favorite image of the other, the words as sentimental trap, the desire as essence of duty.For everybody the role of axis in family, society, hate or respect, expectations and illusions is more relevant than interior life.
So, the masks are only way to be answer to expectations of other.It is a splendid film for the acting of Romy Schneider and Michel Piccoli.For the Sautet mark.For dialogs and lights, for powerful suggestion art, for its message and definition of second life, for atmosphere and delicate art of existence sense discovery.
About last hours and projection of lost world.
About final silence and about shadows of the others.
About structure of hope..
Fork in the road.
A typical 70's drama, something that still gets its way when it comes to touch that emotional key in us (Or some of us) and makes us long for that passionate love story, without a tragic end of course.
Through a filter of pastel tones, Sautet portrays the typical struggle many have put themselves through to fork onto a secondary sentimental route in life, thinking they can have it both ways.
Albeit its apparent sappy tone, Les Choses de la Vie is an intense mature story of love and sacrifice, a double one at the end.
I find European dramas very attractive, perhaps because they portray a kind of no-frills passion that is very hard to come across nowadays, both in movies and in reality.
A movie like this surely has its clichés, the dual life, the regrets, the tragic death but in this movie Sautet is a wizard in enfolding the viewer with a very bitter-sweet sequence of happy yet solemn flashbacks.
Pedro Lazaga's Largo Retorno (1975) happens to be similar in the way the relationship between the two main characters comes to an end (The memories, the sorrow, the death), granted in Les Choses de la Vie there is a three-way story.
Both Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider fit perfectly in the above scheme of things.Just like in Largo Retorno, a very somber yet passionate baroque score complements the entire movie, leaving us with a soggy handkerchief at the end..
A movie you can see again and again..
Yesterday (Dec 15, 2001 I saw "Intersection" (with Richard Gere and Sharon Stone), so, I immediately wanted to see the original and ...
there is no place like home.
I went to a Blockbuster and, once again, the original is much better.
Try to see it and you wont regret.
French director Claude Sautet films some small things of life..
French films are famous for their depiction of minor incidents which converge at a larger point to make up the most of what happens in the lives of people.
This helps viewers to have a better idea of protagonists' lives.
French director Claude Sautet chose to base his film on this premise as he films the personal as well as professional lives of a successful yet unhappy man.
From a career point of view, actor Michel Piccoli is shown as somebody doing well in life as he is appreciated by everybody around him.
However, his personal life is in turmoil as he is unable to decide between his wife and his mistress.
As he is about to solve this dilemma, a tragedy unfolds in his life.
This is hardly the description of an original story but what makes the film interesting is how it has been shot.
Apart from describing in detail minor incidents related to the lives of protagonists, Claude Sautet has used all his imagination to film the accident scene which occupies a large part of this film's screen space.
Finally, once the film is over, some viewers might be tempted to call it the most important moment of the film..
about life.
in its small aspects.
as the traits of an accident.
as choices and happy days and love and expectations and miracles and secrets and summer days and bicycle ways and smiles and words and choices.
a film like others by Claude Sautet.
a film like many others from French cinema.
the difference - the special chemistry between Romy Schneider and Michel Piccoli.
this is the detail who does difference.
and impose a special flavor to a simple and ordinary story..
My rating: 7.
Well, the things of life are not always like this, neither are exactly like this.
Maybe for its time this movie was something like documentary and representative for the decade but now it seem to me more like utopia and idealistic.
I hurry to tell you why.Most important, seen from south-eastern point of view the look over the man is strained a lot.
He with capital "h" who is not clear with himself is being waited by his wife and son and his newly beloved.
Almost deified.
And he, in this time he is self-willed and frivolous...From there on you know what this movie is about.
The positive which I want to note is the approach including dreams while he is in coma.
The viewer is being rose to the role of a shaman who is asked to interpret them.
So, I leave to you the interpretation while I continue with my next critic of ideas in a movie.http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/.
Flash, replay, flashback.
This is one of the few movies in which I thought I detected a stroke of genius.
At the core of it is an automobile accident, filmed from many angles, in close up, from a distance, in slow motion, with natural sound, with music.
Then the whole story up to the crash is sort of rewound and played again, interspersed with flashbacks in the flashbacks.
As I write this, it all sounds very technical, abstract and arty, but in fact it is deeply poetic.
I am someone who is quick to say French movies are generally overpraised, but here everything works so well, is so painstakingly beautiful.
Nobody should regard it as spoiler when I tell here that the main character dies in the end but what a way to go!
I can specially recommend this movie to people who like to get off their tobacco habit.
All characters smoke continuously, you will get a sore throat without lighting a single cigarette yourself..
A cosmic thread that holds back the Dead.
Above all the memories, there is one with a definite form...
mostly in the Love we take to our graves.
This love becomes the wellspring of our final images- our reconciliation with longings and regrets.
Les Choses De la Vie is centered around a tragedy, an automobile accident.Shot in dazzling slow motion and multiple camera angles, the accident is the Spine on which the Book of Michel (Michel Piccoli) rests.
A lot has been mentioned about the simplicity of the story but it is the construction and arrangement of plot elements that leaves a lump in one's throat.A cast that boasts a combined filmography of everyone from Fellini, Tavernier, Antonioni and Demy to Chahine, is the Coup that director Sautet landed.
The Film opens with shots of a car in flames, the victim, witnesses and bystanders.
The accident is reconstructed in parallel with Michel's life.
He is a man of means, a successful architect on the verge of moving to another country.
His young mistress Helene(Romy Schneider)wants a house on an island unused by others unlike the one owned by his wife Catherine.
Catherine (Lea Massari)is also a colleague who has her own lover.
The first hint of searing emotion involves the mention of a favorite family dog, the last the family had.
Michel's son Bertrand immerses himself in inventing motorized circuitry that can replace pets in people's homes.
What's left between father and son except gratuitous enquiries?
This thread is picked up to show a conflict between Michel and Helene at a restaurant.
Will Michel chose a vacation with his son over Helene's pressing need to leave the country?
Life's like a corvee to work and only a 'young wine that rarely travels' can make up for 32 years of friendship changing for a woman.
Michel's love is questioned even as he acknowledges Helene's Physical hold on him.
An especially evocative scene involves the engine and the road..
the only true sounds in a difficult silence as they drive back from a party.
The lines are pithy and loaded with identity.
Sample this....
"You love me 'cause I'm here.
You'll be lost if you cross the street." Michel drops Helene off and journeys on, perhaps on an adventure.
He has nothing to say because he's still clutching on to civility.
The rain brings it all on, the music soars.
Michel is lost in his reminiscences.
A flood of sweet memories borne from pain, released to counter a new heartache.
He tries to undo the showdown with Helene...
in solitude, in bitter pain.
He tries to explain it in a letter but leaves it unmailed.Self reproach drives him to make a futile call.
The rest of the film moves on the light,airy wings of Philippe Sarde's music score.
The background assumes various shades as we ride along, passing by a joyous nuptial celebration and culminating in the horrific minutae of the wreck; pulverized steel and a man's life overturned in 5 seconds.
The final few frames are like a surreal homage to Michel's being.
His subconscious rises as the car burns...
a faint murmur to leave behind Life's damages.
The victim is like a caged animal, open to interpretations from onlookers.
He must resolve to stay awake even as an innocuous Priest chants the last rites.
His mind is awake but people can't tell.
Regret alarms his soul and brings him back to consciousness, if only for a while.
It's not the pain, no mortality can stop a longing soul.
But this where the Inner Voice capitulates to the legerdemain of shifting shapes in a dream.
The voice rises but once.
"...not to live alone," it says.
"The Musician has fallen asleep" and the deep gush of the Ocean takes over.
'The Song of Helene' has an ethereal quality...
almost like a fragile Cosmic Thread that holds Michel back on Earth..
So tragic, so brilliant, so French.
This film opens with the car crash of the main character.
He is not dead.
The rest of the movie then slowly unravels; we hear his thoughts on love, his wife, society and his life in general.As it slowly progresses, with a series of flashbacks we see how the last few days of the main protagonist's life have changed his whole existence.
Piccoli perfectly captures the sadness and prevents needless sentimentality as he inexorably and gradually descends towards death.
He is going through problems with his wife, played by the wonderful Romy Schneider, we see how he feels compromised in his modern lifestyle, and how he feels for his relationship with his son.
Sautet places each scene with great skill to create an atmosphere of unavoidable tragedy, of longing and regret.
Sautet stays away from cliché and prefers to show each scene in slow-motion without great effects, just to frame the emotion of the moment.
The acting is spot on, never overplayed, also understated, and always poignant and effective.
This film is Gallic passion at its most powerful.What is the most important thing in life?
What choices are the right ones?
Is everything just pointless?
What really matters?
Sautet made me think long after this film as to what we think about when our life flashes before us.
And believe me, you'll be feeling a little emotional yourself when the credits roll up..
Like Raindrops On Roses ....
a few of My favourite things are the films of Claude Sautet such as Cesar et Rosalie, Vincent, Francois, Paul et les autres, Nelly et M.
Arnaud and The Things Of Life, the film that marked both a change of direction and a maturity in Sautet's career.
The premise is hardly original; a man is involved in a car crash and as he nears death his life flashes before him.
In other hands this could be maudlin, gauche, embarrassing or all three but writers like Jean-Loup Dabadie (who worked with Sautet on two of the exceptional films he made with Yves Montand, Cesar et Rosalie and Vincent, Francois, Paul et les autres) and directors like Sautet don't do maudlin, gauche, etc and as if the technical credits weren't enough we have actors like Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider to put the icing on the cake.
This is one that stands up to repeated viewings..
« F...ing truck » (tv).
My title is borrowed from an album composed by the famous french singer Renaud who dedicated it in memory of his late friend, the famous french humorist and actor, Coluche who faced the same fate than the one depicted in the movie.
In a way, the title of the movie says it all with wisdom: « the facts of life ».
So, it's true: accidents happen , it's sad, it's meaningless, it's always too soon but we better accept this threat and live with it back in the mind.
For example, i knew a young coworker who died suddenly in the office from a heart attack and in a way, it motivates me to leave my studio clean and to shower neatly every day as i wouldn't like to leave the feeling i lived as a pig if i had to go prematurely.
In addition, the movie is a positive illustration of my « FFM » rule, exposed in my last review.
Here, those « first five minutes » are clearly interesting and give the urge to see what happens.
Sure, like « Carlito's way », you know at first how the movie will (almost) end but this premonition adds however a lot to the drama.
It's all the more gripping that time is really distorted in the movie : it's slow, fast-forwarded, back to the past or to the future.
At last, released in 1970, you can notice that french society was stricter then (for example, the law to free divorce was voted 5 years later !) and the charm of this old movie is that the cast is taken for granted : in other words, I just watch them for what they do on screen.
Then, acting artists weren't polluted by promotions, selling images, pseudo social commitment or private life news.
It's all the more essential that Romy is full of sensibility and Piccoli has a great stature too. |
tt2987732 | Fack ju Göhte | Bank robber Zeki Müller has just been out of prison. Upon his release, he goes to retrieve the money he stole in order to repay a debt, but his friend buried it in a construction site. During Zeki's time in prison, the construction project was completed and his money is now buried beneath the new gymnasium at the Goethe Gesamtschule. In order to obtain the money, Zeki applies for the vacant position of a deceased janitor. However, due to a misunderstanding, he is given a job as a substitute teacher.
Lisi Schnabelstedt is a student teacher at the Goethe Gesamtschule, her former high school, because she has guardianship over her younger sister, Laura. Lisi does not impose the necessary authority to manage the students successfully.
When Ingrid Leimbach-Knorr, homeroom teacher of class 10B, attempts suicide, the management of the difficult class goes to Lisi Schnabelstedt, although the class's brutal pranks upon the new teacher quickly reduces her to tears. Zeki takes over as the substitute homeroom teacher for Lisi's former seventh grade class. In order to regain his money, Zeki works during the night in the cellar of the school on a tunnel leading to the buried money. He also copies Lisi's diploma because he does not have a high school or college education, which eventually becomes known to Lisi. She then blackmails Zeki, allowing her to get her old seventh grade class back while Zeki assumes responsibility over class 10B.
Zeki is thrown out of his living situation at a strip club, and tries to sleep in Lisi's garage. When discovered, Lisi allows Zeki to live in her basement as long as he properly teaches class 10B instead of watching films every class period.
Through unconventional methods and Lisi's soft leadership, Zeki gains the respect of the class. Although Zeki begins his time as a teacher with draconian methods including shooting students with a paintball gun and holding a student underwater, he eventually takes a softer approach and convinces the students that they do not want to become drug dealers and dependent on welfare by taking them on a field trip to visit Zeki's acquaintances who live this lifestyle. He also becomes more involved in the school by taking over the leadership of the Drama Club, which performs a modern version of Romeo and Juliet, and helping out with the Jugend forscht group. Zeki, concerned about Lisi's image amongst the class, leads the class on an excursion to paint graffiti on a train, during which a student paints the title ‘Fack ju Göhte’. As a result of this increased respect, Lisi passes her practical teaching exam with class 10B. In addition, Zeki arranges an affair for Lisi's little sister Laura with her crush Danger, as well as ensuring Lisi's continued legal guardianship of Laura by pretending to be Lisi's serious boyfriend when Laura's social worker comes to visit. Eventually Zeki finds the money in the tunnel, but the tunnel beneath the gymnasium causes the floor to break and allows Lisi to discover Zeki filling in the tunnel. When Lisi learns about Zeki's past as a criminal, she threatens to call the police if he does not leave his job and her home at once. Zeki, out of options, agrees to drive the get away car for a bank heist. As Zeki's class is about to take their final exam in German, they all take out their motivation photos. A student informs Lisi that Zeki's motivation photo is in his desk. When Lisi opens the desk, she discovers that his motivation for becoming a better person is her. A friend of Zeki's is able to convince Lisi that Zeki wants to change his ways for her.
Zeki doesn't follow through with the heist because three students stop him to ask if he will be their homeroom teacher next year and he sees the train with the ‘Fack ju Göthe’ graffiti. He sends Lisi a dress and an invitation to the prom and reports himself to the school principal. The principal wants to keep him and even hands him a falsified high school diploma with a 2.0 GPA. She informs Zeki that the class 10B has drastically improved and if they continue to work towards their high school diplomas, the school will become the best in the city. Their marks in German, previously 5's and 6's (equivalent to D's and F's), have now become better than 3's (C's). | prank, flashback | train | wikipedia | The film is a social satire based mainly on exaggerated slang and German teenage stereotypes.
As far as I know, FJG was the most successful German movie of the last few years - I can really not understand why this movie is so popular.The plot, or more like the idea behind the plot, was adopted nearly 100% from the 1999 American movie 'Blue streak'; and I'm saying this though I have seen BS only once, and approximately 7 years ago.
The only adjustment was made regarding the context of the protagonist's work place (= the place where his 'treasure' was hidden) - but probably only for the purpose of connecting this idea to the stale and often (like in this case) uninspired genre of high school movies.
Watching the beginning (first ~15 min) of both movies and comparing them would be quite funny.'Funny' is the right keyword: Many people recommended this movie to me because it was "so funny, witty, etc".
Besides there are so many irritating characters (especially among the students).In addition to that, the message of the movie (if there is one; I tried my best to find it) is highly questionable in my opinion: Again this "everyone can reach everything and everyone is something special if you give them attention, bla bla"-bulls.hit.
(This is btw a great example of how the German education system works nowadays)It may also be that I missinterpreted the message, because it may as well be a simple plot mistake that the extremely dumb and annoying girl (hearing her slang and voice was a torment) is considered 'highly gifted' at the end of the movie.
Really?Then there is the f.ucking usual love story according to the f.ucking usual scheme and thus extremely f.ucking predictable.This whole story is so far-fetched, the movie lacks any level and the acting is (apart from Karoline Herfurth and to a lesser extent Elyas M'Barek) between run-off-the-mill and annoying.To sum it up, I have really no f.ucking clue, why anyone would think this movie is at least average or even above.
I think I have to re-consider my friendship to the people that recommended watching it to me.
(just joking, but seriously...) I'd really have to think back to when I waited for the end of a movie this yearningly the last time.P.S.: Farid Bang appeared in this movie - That says it all.
In Germany this was the "hot" autumn movie that everybody liked, the critics as well as the audience.
When I watched it, I did not expect much, thought by the trailers it was stupid, but I have a knack for shitty teenager/school movies.
While looking for the loot of his last robbery, he gets confused as replacement teacher - a great opportunity to take time and slowly dig out his treasure, who is hidden under the schools gym.
He soon gets appointed to the worst class and gets along with a "Dont bother me at all"-attitude; for what he clashes soon with Lisi, a young idealistic teacher and former class mate of his (ad sure, the potential love interest of the movie).
Especially the first half is original since they show Zeki as a kind of guy, who not only does not care for the pupils, but is not afraid to look bad as often in this kind of movies.
Elyas M'barek, Germanys upcoming young male movie star, does a nice and convincing job here, while I did not like him in his former roles.
Its not a really great movie too, because the second half follows the formula totally and leads to the obvious happy end and has the "everybodys' got talent"-message mostly of the movies with troubled teenagers have.
But if you like those type of movies, its worth a look..
Surprising funny school movie.
I didn't watch the trailer before and I thought this could be a boring movie.
one of the worst childish wannabe-cool movies i've seen.
This movie doesn't only have a bad story line, it has even worse acting actors.
I've seen for sure over 1000 movies in my lifetime and I can say this one is in the top 10 of the worst.
I prefer a ueberlow-budged movie which for sure can reach a better quality than this one.
I hope this junk wasn't translated in other languages since there are a lot of other German movies which deserve to be translated first..
550th Review - Fun Comedy, Seen Far Worse.
I can honestly say I have never watched a German comedy before (Excepting Goodbye Lenin), but this was way better than expected.
It's everything Bad Teacher could have been and more.Firstly, it's genuinely funny - petty criminal becomes substitute teacher sounds weak but here the relationships and the script have a lot of zing and deliver.Even though the arc is fairly by the numbers, the plot detailing is excellent, with fresh siutations and a strong romantic subplot.
All in all we liked it a lot - it's fun, consistently funny, has heart, and is definitely one of the better comedies of 2014..
If there ever was a film that made me feel it was geared for being sold up for a Hollywood remake - this was it, what with pseudo-hip-hop slang and American pop-numbers in the soundtrack.
It's okay enough in its own right (just like the main character is okay at being a teacher), but it does look like it's planning on scoring big-time (again, just like the main character).Whether I'm right or wrong about that, we're looking at a German flick that wants to be as edgy as is demanded from European films, but ends up bogged down by cookie-cutter cop-outs, in true American style.
It's at its edgiest in the title itself, then in some scenes that involve teacher-student relations and then in the very premise that the best suited person for being a teacher nowadays is - an ex-con.The ex-con, the central character, gets out of prison and finds out that the money from the robbery he was jailed for ended up buried on the school ground.
The character of Mr. Miller is written as a rude, no-nonsense guy, and many successful jokes stem from that fact.
Also, the dialog is sometimes witty, quite unexpected of them Germans.Bad, unfortunately, outweighs the good just enough to give the effort a mere middle mark.
The rest of the cast is also as mediocre, but in their case that isn't such a problem since their characters are written as predictable clichés anyway and don't have to carry the film.The story itself doesn't squeeze enough out of the premise and goes for clichéd resolutions way too often.
Subplots are underwritten (such as ex-con's relation to his former mates), forced (the love story) or thrown in out of the blue (the theatre play), while one crucial possibility, that the police might also be snooping around trying to recover the loot, is completely forgotten.Clocking at 110 minutes, this is by no means a light feature.
This is the single most outstanding technical problem in "Fack ju, Göhte" - the cuts are often so fast and abrupt they get in the way of the flow and the plot.
Because of that, many scenes never have the time to really sink in, not even the draggy ones, and the comedic potential is thus lost.Also standing out as really bad is ending the story with a typical politically correct "feelgood" closure, where an interesting societal outcast is turned into a castrated and "useful" member of the community.
Comedies will always polarise opinions but this one seems to have gone to the extreme, although in fairness, there are only around 11 reviews at the time of writing mine so perhaps if more people contributed their opinions, we would get a better indication of the overall success of the film.First, I'll discuss the story and how engaging it is: I really liked the leads and the supporting characters were interesting.
It's a fairly predictable plot so I knew what to expect but I always like it when character development and changes in people are done subtly and believably.
No one suddenly makes any huge leaps to become a better person and in fact, people don't do a complete 180 and suddenly change every aspect of their personalities which adds to the realism.This is a very fast-paced, slapstick-style film which injects enough sarcasm and biting one-liners that the 'silly humour' aspect of the direction is easily overlooked.
I would say that the style of the film is similar to that of Clueless (1995) in that people use over-the-top facial expressions and crazy 'goofball' things happen like setting booby traps but the script is extremely witty so it complements the action really well.I imagine that Fack ju Göhte would have been entertaining enough as a straightforward film without any humour however, it is a comedy and in terms of 'how' funny the film is, it would have been useful to me if reviewers had provided some examples of comedies they found funny so that I could compare.
Here are a few comedies or films I found funny:Overt comedies:American Pie, Horrible Bosses, Step Brothers (get past the first ten or fifteen minutes and this one is genius), The Other Guys, 21 Jump Street, Hot Tub Time Machine, Someone Marry Barry, Pineapple Express, Ted, Bad Words, everything Jim Carrey...Films with humour I like:Back to the Future(s), Groundhog Day, The Truman Show, Borat, Meet the Fockers, Juno, The Guard (2011) - The Guard is a must-watch!So those are some examples of films I found funny.
That's not to say I found every joke hilarious but these are films I'd recommend to someone who was looking for a funny film to watch.At this point, I will highlight that I watched the original German film with German subtitles.
I'm not sure how successful comedies are when translated into other languages so it's worth noting this.In my opinion, the fact that Fack ju Göhte is one of the most successful German films in years, speaks for itself.
If you want a very well-conceived German comedy or missed something like that, this is for you movie!
I'm aware that the ending isn't near the reality, but I appreciated it, because most of the German productions seem to try to be very accurate to the law etc.
Yadda yadda, and the old reprobate ends up as a sub teacher in the dysfunctional school with square-but-cute (her nerd glasses barely conceal that she's a smouldering sexual vulcano) colleague Lisi Schnabelstedt, trying to come to grips with his dysfunctional pupils.
In the end, bad boy gets girl, discovers his heart of gold, and becomes teacher with an edge.
Never mind the plot, though, because it's just a vessel for a lot of zany teacher-student-scenes and the übercampy love story.
And since many of the scenes and dialogues with the students are fast and witty, I can benignly pardon the fact that the love affair plot is far more reactionary and clearly less quirky than in the writer-director's previous smash hit "Türkisch für Anfäger" (at one point, Lisi's sassy girlfriend advises her to lose the glasses or she'll never get laid).I ususally don't like Katja Riemann, but she really delivers an outstanding performance here (compared to the lukewarm efforts of M'Barek and Herfurth) as the cynical principal, and Uschi Glass reprises her "Lümmel von der ersten Bank" days as a worn-out teacher..
Movie Review: "Fack ju Göhte" (2013)Since the first two mega-blasts at the German box office with more than 7.5 Million admissions in summer 1985 with "Otto-Der Film" directed by Xavier Schwarzenberger, who had been cinematographer for legendary German director Rainer Werner Fassbinder (1945-1982) for mini-series "Berlin Alexanderplatz" (1980), and the Summer-of-2001 releasing "Der Schuh des Manitu" directed and also-acted by Michael Herbig, comes this non-stop menacing young adult comedy of ex-con-man Zeki Müller, portrayed by German shooting star Elyas M'Barek, who together with actress Karoline Herfurth, known for the character of The Plum Girl in Tom Tykwer directed "Perfume: Story of a Murderer" (2006), ignite fireworks as rascaling teachers at a German high-school, bringing order in chaotic, constant trick-or-treat playing classes of teenage-day-dreaming of the ultimate escapology into party or stardom to avoid anything but down-to-earth labor, when this 115-minute-movie produced by Christian Berger based on a uplifting, come-as-you-are attitudes-sharing as well as insights in German society of the juvenile pushing screenplay by also-directing Bora Dagtekin, who then avoids major camera movements for stag-angling visuals under elevator music and comic sound design in digital add-ons of ultra-eye-popping colors in cliché production design interiors through a never-mind plot of a table-dancing-girlfriend-kissing, small-time criminal Zeki turning for a teaching job without any references, but character-ruling, speed-dialing editorial scenes towards a wishfully-happy, minor suspense-given teacher-on-teacher relationship surrounded by faithful school-boys and girls.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend
pretty much the only German film of the 2010s worth watching.
And if you've seen a domestic German film in cinemas, you may have wondered: 'Geez, why are German actors so unfunny and stiff?' The answer to question No. 1 is: The German film industry runs on public funding and collaborations with public broadcasting stations, and the decisions there are made by politically affiliated men (and very few women) in their 60s.
The answer to question No. 2 is: Acting schools are also usually public, teach drama courses geared for the stage, have a curriculum reduced to 18th century dramas and the occasional existentialist play which was hip in the 60s.
Until 'Fack ju Göthe', that is (and apart from a few films by Faith Akın).For this topic-wise not really interesting school comedy, following pretty much a well-trodden formula, not only became the commercially most successful German film of the decade - it's actually funny.
No matter how predictable the underlying social message may be - migrants, believe in yourselves, then you won't end up in jail -, it's not heavy-handed and doesn't kill the jokes.That's because the writers, producers and the director are migrants themselves, and made this movie for an actual audience and not a public funding board.
So not only is the enormous success of 'Fack ju Göthe' well deserved - it feels like a warm shower in an otherwise dreary, pseudo-intellectual German cultural atmosphere.
If you want to watch a contemporary German film to see how people there tick, there isn't any alternative right now.
Just don't expect anything super original or clever, just pretty solid entertainment - if the subtitles get the jokes right, or - better yet - you understand a teensy bit of German..
I am German but I usually don't watch German movies.
It's a clever and funny movie about how German teenagers of the lower social classes are often perceived by Germans.
It plays with all the stereotypes we Germans have about teenagers whose parents are immigrants, on welfare, alcoholics etc.
Not only the language used but also the names of the characters portray this very well - both are a reflection of German reality, not made-up for entertainment.
The film is one of my absolute favourite films, but as some of you have already written here, you have to understand German.
Subtitles just don't work, because the movie mostly uses vulgar expressions and a certain pronunciation that simply can't be translated..
German comedy by the numbers.
And although it was really successful, I don't see any US remake in the future.What I did see though, is a movie that touches a nerve with the youth (in Germany).
A guy who treats women like garbage.
This movie is a lighthearted, unpretentious comedy to be enjoyed as such.
I don't understand why people come on this site and write pretentious criticisms as if this movie were made with winning an Oscar in mind.
I liked the movie for what it is.
Also, it's recommended to have relatively good command of the German language, as some of the humor in this movie is pure speech humor which, some of it, can't be translated (for example the way Chantal speaks)..
Better than most american comedies these days.
Fine german comedy similar to Blue streak with great humor..
Thankfully the writer's intentions of relying completely on vulgar humor and stupid pranks to carry the movie quickly changed for the better.
"Fack ju Göhte" is by the most commercially successful German movie of the year.
So that means, we'll probably get a sequel no later than 2016, even if Elyas M'Barek, who reunited with director Bora Dagtekin from their movie and TV series Türkisch für Anfänger, just stated he's kinda sick of making films.
The only real question open to be answered is if it can beat "Django Unchained" as the most-seen movie in German cinemas 2013.
"Fack Ju Göhte" is by no means a terrible film (although you could probably say that for the first 30-45 minutes which was one of the worst I've seen all year and I've seen many), but it's not even close to the best German films from 2013.
Neither the parts of the lead character's emotional growing up, nor the funny parts, nor the romance parts were something that I would even consider even remotely great.I saw another user compare it to the German classic "Die Lümmel von der ersten bank", but I personally rather thought of "Keinohrhasen".
Not only does Alwara Höfels, who did nothing for me here except drooling and letting everybody in the audience know what a stud M'Barek's character is, play a slightly crasser version of her character in that movie, but the story is essentially the same.
Haase's performance and also the "Romeo&Juliet" play made the development of the problem class the most interesting part of the film for me, more than the romance or Zeki's character development.
Not sure if that was intended though.Anyway, all in all it's an okay movie and even if I'm baffled by its audience numbers, it can make for a good watch if you don't expect something substantial, but just pointless fun. |
tt0171606 | The Pandora Directive | Like all Tex Murphy games, The Pandora Directive takes place in post-World War III San Francisco in April 2043. After the devastating events of WWIII, many major cities have been rebuilt (as is the case with New San Francisco), though certain areas still remain as they were before the war (as in Old San Francisco). WWIII also left another mark on the world: the formation of two classes of citizens. Specifically, the Mutants and the Norms. After the events of Under a Killing Moon, tensions between the two groups have begun to diminish. The end to the Crusade for Genetic Purity was a turning point in the relations between Mutants and "Norms". Tex still lives on Chandler Ave., which recently underwent a city-funded cleanup. The events of WWIII still left the planet with no ozone layer, and to protect their citizens many countries adopted a time reversal. Instead of sleeping at night, and being awake in the day, humans have become nocturnal, in a manner of speaking. Though Tex lives in what is considered a Mutant area of town, he himself is a "Norm".
In The Pandora Directive, after accidentally offending his love interest Chelsee Bando, Tex (Chris Jones) is hired by Gordon Fitzpatrick (Kevin McCarthy) to find his friend, Thomas Malloy (John Agar). He learns that Malloy stayed at the Ritz, and decides to follow up the lead after reconciling with Chelsee and agreeing to go for dinner with her at her apartment. Upon investigating Malloy's room, Tex is knocked out by a mysterious masked figure dressed in black. Tex is out through the night, inadvertently missing his date with Chelsee. After finding out that a female acquaintance of Malloy works at the Fuchsia Flamingo club, Tex offers to take Chelsee there to both apologise and hopefully to check out the lead. Regardless of whether Chelsee comes out with Tex or not, she will decide to take a vacation to Phoenix for a few days. At the club, Tex meets with the girl, Emily who agrees to trade information on Malloy if Tex can find out who is stalking her. She gives a note she received from her stalker to Tex and upon showing it to his connection in the police station Mac Malden, Tex finds out that Emily is being observed by the Black Arrow Killer. Tex is able to discover that the NSA is involved and looking for Malloy, and breaks into one of their headquarters, Autotech. He finds out that the NSA are using video surveillance to monitor the goings on in Emily's room at the Fuchsia Flamingo. Tex finds the source of this and sees a figure dresses similarly to the person who attacked him in Mallory's room waiting to confront Emily. Tex hurries over to the club and is able to get there just in time to see the Killer jump out of the window carrying a small box. (Whether Emily survives or not will depend on the storyline path.) Tex chases him down and in the ensuing fight accidentally causes the Killer to fall off the roof and die. Tex removes the Killer's mask and sees that it is NSA agent Dag Horton, who had an office in Autotech. Tex is pulled in for questioning by the police, but is allowed to leave when an unknown woman enters the station and speaks to Mac.
Tex retrieves the box that Horton stole from Emily's room, but is seized by the NSA and taken to Jackson Cross's office at Autotech. He is threatened to stay out of their affairs, and is forced to hand over the box. Returning to his office, Tex is met by the woman who talked the police into letting him go. She reveals her name is Regan Madsen, she is Thomas Malloy's daughter and that Malloy sent out several boxes like the one Tex found. Tex goes to the Fuchsia Flamingo and finds out that Emily is Malloy's wife, hence her being sent a box. using the return address on the packaging, Tex is finally able to track down Malloy in a run down warehouse in the industrial district. After establishing that Tex is not with the NSA, he reveals that he used to work at Roswell, the military base where a spacecraft allegedly crashed in 1947. Malloy asserts that the crash was legitimate and that the government covered the story up. The military began investigating then wreckage to look for weapons, and in the 1980s Malloy came into the project to attempt to decipher the hieroglyphics on the craft. After World War 3, Malloy left the project but was able to continue his research in secret. Before Malloy can continue his story, two NSA agents arrive and kill him. Tex is able to escape by blowing the building up.
Tex fills a disheartened Fitzpatrick in on the events, but insists on following up on the details he has uncovered. Fitzpatrick tells him that he worked with Malloy in Roswell, and that after becoming close friends, Malloy confided in him that he had been deciphering the alien hieroglyphics and had discovered that a second spacecraft had crashed somewhere on Earth. He then reveals that he received one of Malloy's boxes and there are probably about 6 in circulation. Tex meets with Regan to tell her about her father, and she agrees to give him her box despite reservations that Tex will open it and sell off the information for himself. After stealing Horton's personal effects from the morgue where his body is being held, Tex is able to get into Autotech's evidence room to recover Emily's box. Tex travels to the Cosmic Connection shop and speaks to Archie Ellis, an eccentric comic book nerd and ufologist who recently interviewed Malloy. Archie tells him that the famous author Elijah Witt set up the interview between them, during which Malloy made several cryptic references to something called 'The Pandora Device'. He also reveals that during their research into the alien crafts at Roswell, the scientists accidentally released something into the facility that proceeded to kill off practically everyone in the complex before the military moved in and quarantined the entire base. Archie tells Tex that Malloy sent him one of the boxes but it was stolen, and that the alien power cell in a picture from one of the other boxes is still stored in the Roswell complex.
Tex travels to Roswell and enters the deserted site, but whilst moving around the facility becomes increasingly aware that he is being stalked. It is revealed that the alien entity released by the researchers many years before is still lurking in the complex, but Tex is able to seal it off in a containment pod before he suffers that same fate and is then able to secure the power cell from the security room. Tex is able to break the code on a disc Malloy sent to Elijah Witt on which Malloy reveals that each of the boxes sent out contains a piece of the Pandora Device and that assembling the parts will reveal the information Malloy had discovered. After obtaining all the relevant pieces, Tex summons Fitzpatrick, Regan and Witt to his office where he assembles the Pandora Device. A hologram of Malloy appears and tells the group that there was indeed another spacecraft that landed on Earth and that Malloy discovered its location. He hypothesises that the ship contains large amounts of anti-hydrogen on board, and that if this gets into the wrong hands it could result in the destruction of life on Earth. Witt immediately decides that the ship must be destroyed, but Regan is adamant that they could sell the technology off for big money. Regardless, the four decide that they must find the craft so they each take a separate route to the location Malloy specified.
Tex arrives and manages to navigate his way through a dense jungle and an ancient Mayan labyrinth in which he comes across Regan who set off earlier in hope she might get there first. Tex and Regan find the ship, but Jackson Cross arrives and it revealed that Regan and Cross had been working together all along. Before Cross is able to kill Tex, Fitzpatrick emerges from the ship and invites the three on board. Fitzpatrick shows them around and offers to show them the central power core before locking Regan and Cross inside, but not before Cross fires his gun and hits Fitzpatrick. As he is dying, Fitzpatrick reveals that he knows how to work the controls of the ship as his father was one of the aliens from the ship; his mother was a human woman from Nebraska, hence Fitzpatrick's human appearance. After urging Tex to type in the correct controls, he dies from his wound and Tex quickly exits the ship just in time for it to ascend into space and self-destruct. Tex is picked up by a late arriving Elijah Witt and taken home.
=== Possible Endings ===
From this point several endings are possible depending on how you choose to make Tex behave throughout the game:
Mission Street:
1. Chelsee returns from Phoenix and invites Tex round for dinner, during which he recounts his tale though she remains skeptical. Afterwards she reveals she is dressed in a square dance outfit and rewards Tex with a striptease.
2. Chelsee and Tex go for a drink at the Brew 'n' Stew. Chelsee reveals that she feels she isn't ready to commit to a relationship so and Tex should just remain good friends. Having signed up to the new 'holodate' service, a hologram of Clark Gable arrives to take Chelsee on a date. A deflated Tex returns to his office and calls the holodate service himself. He speaks to the manager (a hologram of Humphrey Bogart) and requests a two for one special date with Jayne Mansfield and Anna Nicole Smith.
Lombard Street:
1. Same as Mission Street Ending 2.
2. On the space craft when Cross shoots he hits Tex instead of Fitzpatrick. He is able to limp off the ship and sees it explode. Having ruined his chances with Chelsee he decides to give up his career as a P.I. and join the circus as a clown. We see him backstage putting on his makeup before going on, glancing briefly at photograph of Chelsee before sadly leaving the room to perform.
Boulevard of Broken Dreams:
1. Same as Lombard Street Ending 2
2. On the space craft Tex is shot in the leg, but is unable to get off before itself destructs and dies.
3. Before boarding the ship, Cross will give his gun to Tex and ask him to shoot Fitzpatrick. If the player opts to shoot Cross instead, the gun will be empty and Cross will pull out a loaded gun and shoot Tex dead.
4. If the player chooses to shoot Fitzpatrick, the gun will be empty. Before Cross can shoot Fitzpatrick himself, Tex suggests they go to look on the ship. Fitzpatrick will lock all three of them in the ship's core. Tex is able to unlock the door, but Fitzpatrick will have already begun flying the ship into space. The ship self-destructs and all four characters die. | neo noir, murder, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | An exemplary interactive movie from the highly-acclaimed Access Software team..
The Tex Murphy series of interactive movies has become one of the most prestigious and respected in the business of computer games.
Access are always keen to reach a new paradigm in gaming technology (they were the first to release a game on DVD), but the most important thing is that they deliver a solid, strong and entertaining game.
Out of the three 'Tex' games made, The Pandora Directive is the best.Tex Murphy (played by producer Chris Jones) is possibly one of the most legendary characters in the gaming world.
He is a bourbon drinking, stereotypical private-dick, right down to the cigarette stubs and the five o'clock shadows.
Slowly, he is drawn into a web of bizarre, corrupt characters, and the plot establishes itself to be quite complex and convoluted.
After some game time, a mysterious 'Pandora' device emerges, and it becomes known that it has the answers to the Roswell mystery of 1954 (or is it 1952?).The game is set in San Fransisco, 2043, and from what we gather in the introduction, there has been a schism between the humans and the 'mutants,' a character class that emerged after a nuclear bomb was dropped on the town.
Tex lives with the mutants, though he isn't one himself, and tries extremely hard to court the elusive and beautiful Chelsea Bando, the mutant newspaper stand salesgirl.
Access Software have done a good job of establishing a believable, likeable protagonist and landing him in a compelling, intriguing plot/sub-plot line.But all in all, the Pandora Directive is a very entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable experience that can be played multiple times as it has seven different endings.Nine out of ten..
A landmark.
Seven years after the release, a game which stands so well, despite of the 6 discs swapping needs, must be a really great one.
I've played -and finished- TPD last week for the very first although not the last time (considering the game features seven different endings).
Recent adventure hits like Syberia or Runaway never reached TPD overall quality level for me, and the explanation is pretty simple.First, we find well crafted movie sequences which are not fillers at all, but necessary links within the story.
Virtually interacting with Kevin McCarthy or Tanya Roberts is a divine pleasure for cinema freaks (and what about that gorgeous mutant beauty played by Suzanne Barnes?).Second, the 3-D engine works pretty well; you can walk, run, tilt, slide freely in any angle, like in modern first-person shooters; objects are pixel-level detailed and characters look alive even when they are in the background.
Back in 1996, this may have seemed a true miracle.Third, the plot is superb, suspenseful and addictive, not just the average last-minute excuse; talking about Roswell, NSA and Mayan heritage, mentioning Eco's Foucault's Pendulum or Majestic-12...
one even wonders if this game is actually revealing something which finally drove it into commercial deletion - not to talk about Big Brother Microsoft having the rights of the Tex Murphy whole series.Fourth and last, the playability is great; the things to do are pretty logical, you don't ever need to figure out absurd combinations of actions and objects since you never get stuck in too absurd situations, which otherwise is the handicap in most adventure games.This game well deserves a re-release, a good chance to implement MPEG-4 video, environmental sound, cast, shooting and bibliographical extras and full language support in one or two discs (DVD).
Best Adventure Game Ever.
I think that this is the best computer game ever made.
It was very hard to stop playing this game when once started.
Really liked this game because of the great story.
This is absolutly a game for people who like mystery and adventure.
A lot of great puzzles also, so you have to use your brain very much.You play as a P.I named Tex Murphy in the year 2042(or something like that).
You're hired to find a man named Thomas Malloy...
but that is just the beginning...everything becomes more complicated than that....
I think the changes in settings were amazing..
Sometimes this gave me and my friend Andrea a real scare (it 's VERY suspenseful), it's always pitch black outside and you never know when someone might pop out at you!
There are many puzzles and they're pretty tough but so I found the built in hints VERY useful!
I fully recommend the Pandora Directive, but don't think that it's something quick and easy!
It has 6 CD's for a good reason...
It's long!
best of the series!.
I have to rate this one as the best of the three rather unconvincingly monikered "interactive movies" for the PC.
"Under a Killing Moon" looked terribly cheap, and "Overseer" was just plain dull.
"Pandora Directive" just about gets it right for me - fun (if hackneyed) plot, interesting characters (though sadly no Inspector Burns this time) and by the looks of it a pretty high budget all go toward making this pretty good fun, but still really nowhere near a true movie in any way, interactive or otherwise!
Also bear in mind I played this game about 4 years ago, so by now the graphics etc.
are probably absolutely laughable by today's standards! |
tt0089753 | Otto - Der Film | The film starts with debris floating in the middle of the ocean, including a toilet seat, through which Otto emerges and begins to relate how he has gotten to be in this situation.
Otto, a young East Frisian country boy, comes to the big city to make his fortune. Unfortunately, his naivety nearly ruins everything from the start as he falls victim to a loan shark—conveniently going under the name of "Shark"—from whom he borrows the capital to start his own forwarding business; the resulting debt of 9,876 DM and 50 Pfennig becomes a constant object of worry and temptation for Otto throughout the film.
During one of his earlier attempts to make money, Otto inadvertently saves the life of Silvia von Kohlen und Reibach, the young heiress of an enormously wealthy family. Otto is introduced to the Kohlen und Reibachs to receive their gratitude, but Otto is quick to note that he could use their wealth to pay back his debt. But every chance he gets slips through his fingers, either owing to the callings of his conscience (such as when he attempts to shoot a hare for a reward which matches his debts exactly) or by dumb luck (when the wine he receives from the Kohlen und Reibachs turns out to be quite valuable, but only after a wine lover has consumed a considerable quantity of it).
Silvia and Otto also find themselves drawn to each other, but their main obstacle against their getting together is Silvia's stern mother, Konsulin ("Consul") von Kohlen und Reibach, who wishes her daughter to marry befitting to her status and who has selected a prospective candidate named Ernesto, a handsome South American millionaire.
In the end, Otto realizes his true affections for Silvia only after she and her mother prepare to depart for Rio de Janeiro for Silvia's wedding to Ernesto. On his way to tell Silvia about his feelings, Otto gets mixed up in a bank robbery committed by disputatious Sonnemann and Haenlein. Otto later smuggles himself aboard the plane the Kohlen und Reibachs are in, but among the passengers are also the two bankrobbers. Otto, disguised as the radio operator, attempts to inform Interpol but instead hits the pilot's announcement system, prompting Sonnemann and Haenlein to hijack the plane. Unfortunately, the two break out into another argument, in which course they knock out both pilots, so they force Otto to fly. This of course results in mayhem when Otto sends the plane rolling, subduing the two bankrobbers in the process; Otto reveals his presence and his love to Silvia, who happily joins him in the cockpit, and Konsulin von Kohle und Reichbach has to learn to her shock that "Ernesto" is really a fraud named Harald.
Otto subsequently attempts to land the passenger jet on an aircraft carrier, but of course fails spectacularly, thus looping back to the film's beginning sequence. Fortunately, all passengers on the plane, including Silvia and her mother, reach a tropical island, where they receive a warm welcome from the local carnival-obsessed natives and Otto and Silvia finally become an item. | cult, romantic | train | wikipedia | King Otto.
Otto Waalkes is essentially the smallest common denominator of German humour, and a strange concoction: Waalkes himself a talented performer with a tendency to become irritating quickly if left without direction, constantly yodelling and grimacing with a Tourette syndrome - like permanence; on the other hand, much of his material was written by some of Germany's foremost satirists and poets such as Gernhardt, Knorr, Eilert.His first feature movie shows Waalkes at his best by balancing his goofyness with a good story line, great actors and excellent camera work -- the kind of movie I enjoy watching time and again when I am in the mood for some light entertainment.Unfortunately, most of Otto's other work is not really up to the standard he set with his first movie, especially the atrocious sequel "Otto, der neue Film"..
Otto's first and for a lot of Otto fans the best.
After a bunch of stand-up live programs, it was the time for Otto Waalkes, a popular comedian in the late 70's and early 80's to move to the big screen.
The result is a film without the smallest amount of acting ability but with a huge lot of gags and parodies.
Even though I think "Otto-der Liebesfilm" is better than the first one, I like it and can it see over and over again..
The highlight of Otto's career (and sadly the beginning of a steep decline).
If you're from Germany and from my generation (born in the mid-70's, that is), there really was no way around Otto Waalkes.
Kids would recite his jokes in school, parents would let the kids stay up longer just to watch a re-run of Ottos Stand-Up-Show on TV and his trademark cartoon, the "Ottiphant" was to be seen everywhere.
Granted, Otto wasn't great intellectual humour like Loriot or Gerhard Polt, often crossing the border of pure, physical slapstick and grimace-humour and if I'd have to compare him to American comedians, I'd go for a cross Jerry Lewis and the Three Stooges in one persona.The story is simply: Otto is a young, innocent boy from a godforsaken Frisian island, who dreams of making it big in the Big City (namely Hamburg).
But all doesn't go as planned once he arrives there.
In fact, nothing goes as planned.
In order to get cash and open a business – which consists of him making outrageous plans for all intents and purposes – he loans some money from a local loan-shark.
Before he knows it, Otto (who didn't read the small print on the loan-sharks contract) finds himself in debt of exactly 9876,50 Mark.
By chance and coincidence he rescues the life of Silvia (Jessika Cardinahl), daughter of a high-society lady and falls in love with her.
Now Otto has to multi-task, forever trying to find a way to pay off his debt while trying to win the heart of his beloved, before she can marry the slimy socialite Ernesto (Sky du Mont).
It does not come as a big surprise that "Otto – The Film" went on to become the most successful German film at the box-office; a record that has not been broken yet.
How else could it have been without aforementioned Otto-Boom?
Technically it's a compilation of sketch-material and personas, pumped up by a cinema-production, tied together by the thin storyline and bolstered by numerous guest-appearances and cameos by well-known TV-personalities such as Johannes Heesters, Eberhard Feik ("Tatort"), Elisabeth Wiedemann (an accomplished comedian in her own rights) or Günther Kauffmann (a famed Afro-German actor since his time with Werner Rainer Fassbinder; the butt of this particular joke, namely that Otto considers himself "a negro too", because he has black/dirty feet as well, not really 'PC' by today's standards).We'd have to lie if we'd claim that the humor has aged very well.
There are dozens of spoofs and "cultural references", from "Jaws" to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" (which Otto spoofs on a graveyard, dressed up as Heino).
But all those references – both to his own show and other movies – are kept in measure, leaving Otto as naïve, chaotic but still lovable bumpkin at the heart's core.
Something that Otto wouldn't (or couldn't) replicate in later films, becoming a parody of himself and the references merely the flesh to his potatoes.
Is it compatible with foreign viewers?
Hard to say.
I'd give it a 30 percent "yes" and 70 percent "no".
Sure, the goofy slapstick is rather universal, but unless you're fluent in German and know your way around the Germany of the 1970's and 80's, much of the wordplays and situation-humor will most likely escape you.
So yes, it's probably more of a local affair.
"Otto – Der Film" would sadly remain the highlight of Waalkes career, which has since declined.
Sure, the comedian made a few new fans with more contemporary films like "Sieben Zwerge" ("Seven Dwarf"), but to many old-school fans his desperate attempts to regain former glory are often saddening, if not pathetic.
Waalkes had never developed or progressed an inch from the Otto-persona which he developed in the 70's, sticking to it to this very day, even when making public appearances or giving interviews.
Hence, the word "tiresome" comes to mind.
Again it shouldn't come as a surprise – sad as it is – that he went on to star in Germany's bestselling comedy of all times to making a cameo in "Kartoffelsalat", which has righteously earned its place in the IMDb's Bottom-100.
This will be his eternal best....
In 1985, people got, for what they were waiting for more than 10 years: Germany's most popular comedian, Otto Waalkes, finished his first feature film, after several stage programs, TV shows and LPs. And even the critics had to admit: it was a very funny film.
Okay, you should be German from the Seventies and Eighties to understand this sense of humor, but this mixture of pure slapstick, verbal jokes, absurdities, satirical side gags, visual ideas and Marx-Brothers-like drive is a little bit genius.
Written by some of Germany most popular satirical playwrights, is "Otto- Der Film" nothing more than a skeleton of a plot with an endless stream of shorter or longer comedy episodes attached to it.
Otto is a young man from East-Frisia (which is in north-western Germany), arriving at hamburg, with no job, no money and no plan.
He loans some money from a loan shark and now has to pay back the sum of 9.876,50 deutsche Mark.
Whean he steals some cement, he accidentally saves young heiress Sylvia from death and gets in contact with her family, the super-rich "von Kohlen and Reibachs".
Already in love with Sylvia, who wants to marry the snob Ernesto, he try to get the money, the woman and everything he wants.
In 85 Minutes an endless stream of funny or not-so-funny episodes roll down from the screen and Otto is always the center.
His best scenes are definitely the arrival in Hamburg, a visit in the rich family's house, a hunting party for a hare ("dead or not living"), his search for Sylvia's evening dinner in the "Creme de la Creme" which leads him accidentally to the biker joint "Chrome de la Chrome", where he saves the day by knowing right joke answer ("What's invisible and smells like a hare?
- A Rabbit's Fart?"), his entry an the evening dinner and the hilarious scene on a cemetery at night (somethat inspired by Michael Jacksons "Thriller" where a heck of "Heinos" (Germanys famous "folk singer" with white hair and dark glasses), coming out of their graves.
In other episodes, he sells a slave (an American soldier) to an old woman and then returns and cashes the registry fee or he try to entertain some seniors, which are not amused.
A running gag is the sum of DM 9876,50, which turns up every time he don't need it: the hunting trophy's worth, a jewel and finally his lifesavers present: a bottle of old wine.
Otto is always silly, and if not, he pretends to be clever (what is silly again), ending in another catastrophe.
But nearly 90 Minutes, you can laugh really hard, if you like his style, because his timing is always right this time.
Enjoy it - but if you are not German, there will be some difficulties to understand the hilarious wordplay..
Otto's eternal 3 problems.
"Otto - The Movie" is the first of 5 Otto films where actor Otto Waalkes plays basically the same character and being from summer 1985 it is almost as old as myself.
It was directed by Xaver Schwarzenberger who got in the film industry by being Rainer Werner Fassbinder's cinematographer on several works and this is his first directorial effort for the big screen.
Fassbinder was already dead at this point.
Schwarzenbergwer worked on another Otto film afterward and his maybe most known work then is as a cinematographer again on Dietl's Oscar-nominated "Schtonkh!".
Anyway, back to Waalkes.
He is in his 60s by now and still one of Germany's most lauded and respected comedians.
He is also still active in the movie industry and has given us his approaches on Snow White and Ocean's Eleven in recent years.
In this film here, he does not only play the central character, but also many minor characters such as his own parents.
But not the naked woman in the window.
Looks like in the 80s you could already show that kind of stuff, at least for a short moment without getting everybody upset.There is one scene in here which is really politically incorrect.
It is prank with a black guy and modern slavery included and I found it really funny.
And about how he drinks his coffee.
Very provocative yes, but exactly my kind of humor.
Shameless.
The main plot, though, is a man who gets in trouble with a ruthless investor, but is lucky enough to save the life of a young woman with very rich parents.
Sadly the desired reward does not happen.
The film features some actors who very very popular 30 years ago.
The almost immortal Johannes Heesters appears in one scene.
And so does Günther Kaufmann, also a Fassbinder collaborator.
One of the main antagonists is played by Sky du Mont, who was already quite a star back then, also internationally, and then again rose to fame almost 20 years later by being the antagonist again in the successful Bully Herbig movies.
The audience must have enjoyed all the word-plays in this movie as it was a crowd magnet and truly successful at the box office in 1985.
It won the Golden Screen and also a Bambi which is usually given to films relevant to culture.
Otto also shows us his musical talent and uses quite a few classics including the Comedian Harmonists "Mein kleiner grüner Kaktus".
And it seems not only audiences enjoyed it, as occasionally I felt that some of the characters were laughing out of character just because they found Otto so funny in his role.However, let me warn you that this film is entirely different compared to today's (German) comedies.
Humour was simply something else in the 80s.
The alarm button scene was just the weirdest thing ever and so was the Heino song parody.
Other than that, you can enjoy the film for Otto's frequent changing of costumes and maybe also for the action sequence at the end.
Guess they really wanted to include one for the sake of it.
Solid movie and I had a fun time occasionally watching this.
Recommended. |
tt0052792 | The FBI Story | John Michael ('Chip') Hardesty (James Stewart) narrates the story of a murder, which the viewer sees in a flashback. Young Jack Graham (Nick Adams), takes out life insurance on his mother and plants a bomb in her luggage for a flight that she was taking from Denver, Colorado, to Portland, Oregon, November 1, 1955.
Next we see Hardesty as he recounts his history as an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during a lecture. The lecture becomes the narration of flashbacks as he tells of his life as an agent combating various crimes and criminals, including the Ku Klux Klan, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, and spies.
Then he recounts his first involvement as a government clerk in Knoxville, Tennessee in May 1924, and his proposal to a librarian, Lucy Ann Ballard (Vera Miles). Ballard loves Hardesty but wants to change him. They marry with the idea that Hardesty will resign from the FBI and start practicing law. On his way to Washington D.C. his partner, Sam Crandall (Murray Hamilton), tries to talk him out of resigning. Then listening to the new director, J. Edgar Hoover, he becomes inspired to stay. He meets Lucy Ann for a shrimp dinner at Herzog's Seafood Restaurant and tries to evade her questions about his resignation, but she soon tells Chip that she is pregnant, and she, still trying to change him, allows him stay in the bureau, "for a year".
The next day Chip is sent south to investigate the Ku Klux Klan. He is moved around until he is sent to Ute City, Wade County, Oklahoma (The real case was in Osage County, the Osage Indian murders, between 1921 and 1923) to investigate a series of murders of Native Americans who had oil rich mineral rights and land. The FBI lab ties the doctored wills and life insurance policies of the murder victims to a local banker, Dwight McCutcheon (in real life a rancher, William "King of Osage" Hale; played by Fay Roope), with the typewriter that he used. Lucy Ann loses a baby during this time.
On June 17, 1933, Three FBI agents, McAlester Oklahoma Police Chief Otto Reed, and Kansas City police officers, were escorting Frank "Jelly" Nash from a train to a car outside the Union Station in Kansas City. When they got into the vehicle, another vehicle pulled up behind them, three men (Verne Miller, Charles "Pretty Boy" Floyd, and Adam Richetti) got out and opened fire on the car with Nash and the law enforcement officers. Otto Reed, Bureau Special Agent Raymond J. Caffrey, and Kansas City Policemen W. J. Grooms and Frank Hermanson, were all killed in what is now called the Kansas City Massacre (Nash was not intentionally shot as the film shows, his friends were there to free him). Following the Kansas City Massacre average citizens and civic groups decided that they had had enough and started to demand actions against gangsters like Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and Bonnie and Clyde. The Kansas City Massacre changed the FBI, prior to this event the agency did not have authority to carry firearms (although many agents did) and make arrests (they could make a "citizen's arrest", then call a U.S. Marshall or local law officer), but a year later Congress gave the FBI statutory authority to carry guns and make arrests. Hardesty and Crandall are very excited by the Weyburn Bill (the right for agents to carry firearms), calling it "a real Christmas present", but Lucy Ann does not like the idea at all.
After receiving a tip, Hardesty and Crandall head to Spider Lake, Wisconsin on April 22, 1934, but after barking dogs alerted the gangsters they scattered. They then head to a nearby country store to call the Chicago office. When they get there they find two men sitting in a car, with Baby Face Nelson (William Phipps), holding them hostage. Nelson comes up shooting, mortally wounding Crandall. (The real incident did occur on April 22, Baby Face Nelson, was hiding out with John Dillinger, but it was at the Little Bohemia Lodge just outside Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin, the two agents were Special Agents J. C. Newman and W. Carter Baum, Baum is the agent killed in the shootout. With them was also a local constable not shown in the film. Nelson was holding two hostages in a house, and when the car came up, Nelson, wanting to take the vehicle, rushed forward shouting for the occupants to get out, but then opened fire on the car shooting all three lawmen).
The film then quickly recounts Hardesty's (fictional) involvement in the capture and/or deaths of numerous infamous mobsters of the day including "Pretty Boy" Floyd, "Baby Face" Nelson, and "Machine Gun" Kelly (who coined the popular term "G-Men" during his arrest, shouting "Don't Shoot G-Men, Don't Shoot" upon being apprehended.) Chip's three children quickly mature into young adults; as Chip attends a speech and dance at his daughter's high school graduation, the joyous mood is suddenly shattered by news of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. With the US entry into the war, enemy aliens (Americans of Japanese, German and Italian descent) are quickly rounded up by the FBI and sent to "concentration camps", and although none of them were spies, the film argues that it was a necessary act to prevent possible espionage and collaboration with the Axis Powers. In order to shoulder the new burden, the ranks of the "bureau" are quickly doubled from about 2500 to more than 5000 agents. One of those aspiring new agents is the deceased Sam's son George who is constantly frustrated and worried that he would never live up to his father's reputation. After another day of difficult training, George is invited by Chip to a barbecue at the Hardesty household where a romance is clearly budding between the young man and Chip's oldest daughter. While dancing in the backyard, the party is suddenly interrupted by Chip's only son who plays the Marine Hymn on the phonograph before announcing his enlistment in the U.S. Marine Corps. Lucy is naturally horrified; she wishes for her son to finish school and fears that he will never survive the war, though Chip has some support for the young man's decision. Soon afterwards, George completes his FBI training and is sent off to a secret mission abroad; Chip's son joins the Marines just in time for the battles of Saipan and Iwo Jima in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the now aging and white-haired Chip is sent by the FBI to relieve the duties of three agents in an unspecified South American country after their identities had been compromised (the CIA did not yet exist at the time, and U.S. wartime covert activities in Latin America were directed by the FBI's Special Intelligence Service). The first two agents are easily found and sent back to the United States before they are captured by local authorities; the third agent is operating deep in the jungle and Chip has to traverse through the overgrown wilderness with a guide named Mario to reach him. The third agent is then revealed to be none other than young George who has been intercepting various secret enemy radio messages. As local authorities move in to arrest the trio, George intercepts one last message, reporting an illegal shipment of platinum to Buenos Aires before destroying all of the equipment and codebooks with a detonator. As they flee across a rope bridge towards the Brazilian border, Mario returns to the enemy shore and blows up the bridge with the remaining detonator, saving the two FBI agents but at the cost of his own life. Seeing their loyal companion swept away by the river, Chip expresses hope that Mario's body will be taken to the ocean, visiting the sea having always been the guide's dream. The film then cuts to the first anniversary celebration of George and Chip's daughter in the United States. As the celebration continues, Chip and Lucy suddenly receive a telegram at the door, informing them of their son's death in the Battle of Iwo Jima. Heartbroken by their loss, Chip and Lucy nonetheless continue serving their country with courage as the Axis powers are defeated and America slowly enters the Cold War.
The last investigation, "50-Cent Clue", involves an espionage case of a New York City clothes cleaners finding a hollow half-dollar with microfilm inside. The microfilm contains a series of numbers, which the FBI tries to decipher. (The real case involved a nickel, not a half-dollar, and took four years to unfold, not the short matter of days in the film. On June 22, 1953, a newspaper boy, collecting for the Brooklyn Eagle, was paid with a nickel that didn't sound and feel right to him. But it wasn't until a KGB agent, Reino Häyhänen, wanted to defect in May, 1957, would the FBI be able to link the nickel to KGB agents, including Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher (aka Rudolph Ivanovich Abel) in the Hollow Nickel Case. The deciphered message in the nickel turned out to be worthless, a personal message to Häyhänen from the KGB in Moscow welcoming him to the U.S. and instructing him on getting set up).
The film then ends with the conclusion of Hardesty's speech to his fellow FBI agents, walking out of the building he is greeted by his family, including his own granddaughter wearing an old hat that sang the tune of Yankee Doodle ; the same hat that Chip had bought for his own children decades ago near the beginning of his career. Chip says, "I guess I'll never understand how one little family can collect so much junk," and drives away. Various scenes are then shown, depicting the family driving past various Washington DC landmarks such as the Washington Monument, the White House and the Lincoln Memorial while patriotic music is played in the background before the credits roll. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0331952 | The Clearing | Wayne Hayes (Robert Redford), and his wife Eileen (Helen Mirren) are living the American dream in a wealthy Pittsburgh suburb, having raised two children (Alessandro Nivola, Melissa Sagemiller) and built up a successful business from scratch. He is looking forward to a peaceful retirement with Eileen. Everything changes when Wayne is kidnapped in broad daylight by a former employee, Arnold Mack (Willem Dafoe). While Wayne tries negotiating with the kidnapper, Eileen works with the FBI to try to secure her husband's release. During the investigation, Eileen learns that Wayne has continued an extramarital affair that he promised to end months previously.
Eileen is eventually instructed to deliver the ransom to the kidnapper, but Arnold takes the money without returning her husband; Arnold murdered Wayne the day of the kidnapping. Although Eileen's ordeal takes place over the course of a week, the film is edited to show Wayne's kidnapping as if it was happening at the same time.
Arnold is eventually caught when he begins to spend the ransom money in the neighborhood where he lives. At a local grocery store, he uses a $100 bill to make a purchase. The store manager calls authorities and verifies the serial number on the $100 bill is on a watch list the FBI distributed to local businesses. During questioning Arnold is asked if he wanted to be caught, and he admits that the kidnapping was to get money for his depressed wife, but it took him all day to bring himself to kill Wayne and he couldn't live with the guilt of his crime. In the end, Eileen receives a loving note written by Wayne before his death. | romantic, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | A great deal of viewers will pan The Clearing for being too "not down to the point", an intelligent suspense thriller about a wealthy man (Redford) kidnapped by an angry ex-employee (Dafoe) and held for ransom until the rich business owner's wife (Mirren) pays the price.
Not that that is an insult to the film, their discussions are very carefully and skillfully written, it is just that we are expecting this movie to go places, it doesn't go.The other half of the film consists of Mirren's character dealing with the F.B.I. and the kidnapper to get back her beloved husband.
I think the best performance in The Clearing (which may be honored with an Oscar or at least Golden Globe nomination) is Helen Mirren as the intensely worried housewife of Robert Redford.
The other revolves around Eileen (Helen Mirren) and her interactions with FBI investigator Ray Fuller (Matt Craven) who has set up his unit as a control center inside the Hayes home while the couple's children look on.Redford is outstanding as the intense business tycoon, and Mirren gives one of her best performances, portraying a tightly controlled suburbanite wife who refuses to panic even when her husband misses a dinner party she told him to be on time for.
Although there are some contrivances in the plot, the acting is superb throughout and the film works as a psychological thriller, a meditation on loss and regret, and a character study of two flawed but loving people who have forgotten how to express their joy in living..
With it's three main stars being in their 40's, 50's and 60's, I expect that younger audiences might prefer some strange movie about a radioactive spider bitten school boy that opens the same week-end.The Clearing is a story about a successful businessman, Wayne (Redford), who is kidnapped by down on his luck Arnold Mack (Willem Dafoe) and held for a ransom of $10 million in a secluded forest.
Like most kidnapping films, the movie can only end one of two ways really, and don't expect that to be revealed here.
Instead, his deep blue eyes are able to relay back to the audience that of a man who wishes things could have been different and who seems genuinely concerned about the hurt he may have caused others.But maybe the best acting within the films running time is in the performance of Helen Mirren.
Handling the situation with class and grace, yet frequently in panic over the possibilities, Mirren gives what is undoubtedly her strongest on screen performance in the past 10 years.It was a bit of a surprise in 2004 when The Clearing appeared at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
the story of this movie is not that big deal, you see a lot of movies like these all around the world, but, the impressive acting skills of William Dafoe and Mirren, that what gave this movie a taste.The story was predictable, although the ending was surprising a little bet, I expected something different.What i loved most about the movie was the acting, William Dafoe was really into the character, he played well, and i was impressed.Also Mirren Played such a wonderful role, I liked the way she was cool and all quiet, you didn't see her fall apart at the end when she gets the bad news, wonderful performance she did, i think it's the best role she ever played..
But the tension is primarily ratcheted up not by action, but what we learn what stuff each of the characters is made of, particularly as to how superbly Helen Mirren and Willem Dafoe surround Robert Redford.
Here first-time writer Justin Haythe and director Pieter Jan Brugge are more focused, even while playing a few tricks on the viewer with time-shifting "Rashomon" rewinds, though there are a couple of questionable holes in the story as it takes surprising directions.It's a relief to finally see Redford in a role fitting his age, with an age-appropriate spouse and adult children, including Alessandro Nivola not playing his usual sensual snake.
After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched "the clearing".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.Is it supposed to be an "art" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called "personal issues".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to "clear it"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.The film really tries to portray these men as "tortured souls" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!!
The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to "twilight zone" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER..
The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that "cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her." That's the nice "feel-good message" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story.
Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie.
Redford, Mirren and Dafoe could read a seed catalog and make it fascinating, so this beginner's exercise in suspense and character is not a dull film if you keep that in mind; Roger Ebert mentioned that he could not see the conclusion coming--it was evident to me in the first ten minutes, the set-up with life-styles certainly leading the plot development: the worker bee on the public bus and the king of the hill with his swimming pool and doting wife neatly contrasted from the get-go.Because this is not primarily a violent film, but a character study, some may find the close-ups and studied manner of worried wife Mirren dull, but it is really the screenplay that needs some intensity and tension as the two men square off in the woods; their chatter is oddly pedestrian.
It looked really good, and I was expecting it to be great since it starred Robert Redford, Helen Mirren, and Willem Dafoe.
Robert Redford is a brave actor: He allows multiple close-ups of his weathered and saggy 60 something face to play a kidnapped husband and father in director Pieter Jan Brugge's (produced 'Insider') 'The Clearing.' The intimate shots of him and his wife, the estimable Helen Mirren ('Calendar Girls'), almost 60 and less-aged than her outdoorsman leading man, help support the theme about what disruption can do to challenge the love of two people, regardless of their wealth and personal crises.'The Clearing' is a garden-variety kidnap movie whose distinctions are its splendid photography by Denis Lenoir ('Demonlover') and actorly moments between Redford and his captor, played by Willem Dafoe ('Spiderman 2').
Robert Redford as Wayne Hayes the husband and Helen Mirren as his wife Eileen are excellent in their roles, while kidnapper Arnold Mack(Willem Defoe) who has been secretly watching them for many years sets out to trap them into handing over a vast amount of money.
i'm sure if you liked this film you're trying to forget the "touching climax" where the wife finally reads that letter we'd all been waiting on the edge of our seats to read...we all know it was worthless, meaningless, and void of any emotion (because there is zero character development)...well maybe there was some character development, but they did it very cheaply by DESCRIBING what a good guy Redford's character was rather than showing good scenes as examples.
to be honest, she seemed like way more of a suspect than Willem Defoe's character....my friends and i all thought she was to blame throughout the entire movie......oh yeah and Redford's mistress was HOT........this movie still sucked big time.
But the actors are diminished by this crap story.This fails on what supposed to be its strength, intense character acting, because the script is so boilerplate.Watch only if have to have seen everything by Willem, Redford or mirren..
I just love Helen Mirren and Robert Redford, but it did not take me long to fidget in my seat, as this was a long, slow moving movie that just seemed to drag on and on.
like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us.
The flaws they each possess are not revealed for either improvement nor justification at a later point in the narrative, but instead plonked unceremoniously in our laps almost from the beginning, so that when the ending finally transpires, we're not in the least bit surprised.Everybody acts well, without giving the people we see too much in the way of 'personality', and the events of the plot are reasonable within the grounds of reality, but you can guess the traits that we're spoon fed easily and early enough merely by looking at the casting and the costumes.
However, the film never really gave the appearance of being slow and dragged out and all in all worked very well.At the end of the day it is a kidnap movie end of story and while the individual characters are developed a great deal more than normal, it remains a kidnap movie.I think the different time perspectives of the two principal story lines worked very well and probably went a long way to removing the slow feel I have already alluded to.
Robert Redford plays his character with strength; every word of the dialogue between Redford and Willem Dafore is important - but you do not realize this until you have watched the movie and then thought about it for several days..
To me, this is a really powerful movie- The subtleties of the acting on the part of all three majors was simply riveting- As is the case with all acting- the viewer relates more effortlessly if they can identify with any of the characters- and or the struggles represented.I am reasonably confident that this film will find its audience with the over 40 demographic- The superb, seemingly effortless and ultimately telling manner in which Helen Mirren tells us exactly what she is feeling (and what powerful feelings they are indeed)- her vast insecurity regarding her relationship with Redford, her need to keep it all together in light of the trauma that has devoured her family is pure acting magic- the evolutions of her feelings and her reflections of a shared life, condensed within movie time, are directed, lighted, set and acted so beautifully that they easily transport the viewer to empathy.
Redford's work is equally lean and I would venture to say his best- he just has such a great facility for owning the camera, and it is no effort to like his character, Wayne, begging only the question of when, not if, a man of such character and presence will make his stand against the spear point of the drama- Willem Dafoe is crystalline in the beautifully played sympathetic sensibilities of the "everyman" from whom the life force has been sucked- leaving him only a final desperate attempt at circumstantial salvation-An incredibly simple plot with few support characters that are good enough to flesh out the story- leaves the viewer free to deeply analyze and ultimately cherish the acting of Mirren, Redford and Dafoe-I could easily watch it again- -----------------------------------------------------------------------.
Willem Dafoe's tragic character was the only one I really saw develop throughout the story line and the viewer only really sees that change in the last ten minutes or so in the movie.
Helen Mirren's portrayal as Robert Redford's wife was flat and sort of followed the same generic mold as other movies which include a tragic and heart-splitting event.In my opinion, "The Clearing" is nothing to rave about.
In "The Clearing" (2004) Robert Redford plays a rich executive in the Pittsburgh area kidnapped by a working class guy (Willem Dafoe) while his wife (Helen Mirren) tries to handle the situation.Those hoping for a conventional Hollywood crime thriller will be disappointing by "The Clearing." This is a reflective adult drama/mystery about a kidnapping, based on a true story that occurred in Holland in 1987.While decidedly low-key, there are interesting psychological elements rooted in class warfare (the executive and kidnapper's relationship) and the nature of happiness in marriage and the stumbling blocks thereof (the executive, his wife and another woman).
Redford does solid work, though he makes an unlikely long-time husband for Helen Mirren (miscast) and his give-and-take with Willem Dafoe is edgy without being particularly enlightening.
The film takes place in western Pennsylavania, somewhere near Pittsburgh.Helen Mirren is very good, as another review mentions, it is nice to see her in a non-embellished character role; though she was excellent in "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone" - among others.Robert Redford is believable, and underplays his role as a successful businessman, bored with his life, who eventually has an affair (Wendy Crewson).
Willem Dafoe plays Arnold Mack, an insecure loser who is so desperate he joins a plot to kidnap the very successful entrepenuer Wayne Hayes, played by Robert Redford.There are 2 separate suspense threads, deliberately unravelling at different time frames.
The 2nd thread is the tense interaction of Defoe and Redford.The plot inconsistencies are actually clues into the surprise ending, which, although not obvious or certain, you might be able to guess.There were a few themes involved, the obvious one, the "clearing" of unresolved issues, but also interesting is that Arnold Mack proves himself to be highly intelligent but tragically ungrounded, I think Wayne Hayes is something of the opposite, but in life, we see, the later profile is the more adept one.Anyway a solid effort..
Willem Dafoe and Robert Redford both gave great performances in this film.
They went beyond the good guy and the bad guy and made character's with flaws, who think a lot about what they do and the mistakes they make.The writing was fantastic and it had to be to keep the audience interested in a two hour conversation between Redford and Dafoe and both actor's used the script well.
These character were thinker's, Redford thinks about what he has done wrong during the course of his life and Dafoe thinks a lot about the magnitude of what he is doing.The thing that some people may have disliked about this movie is that the narrative structure is a little strange.
Helen Mirren and Robert Redford play a couple, Eileen and Wayne, living a very good life.
This was a very entertaining movie that kept my interest through out, with fantastic performances by Redford,Mirren and Dafoe.
There are some very poignant feelings that come out in the film and Dafoe's character is like many men in this strange economic time who strive to be a success but can't seem to catch a break and life gradually starts becoming a serious of unfortunate events.
I was looking forward to this - Redford, Defoe & Mirren, all great actors, all in the one film.
What isn't simple is Wayne (Robert Redford) and Eileen's (Helen Mirren) marriage and that of the kidnapper Arnold (William Dafoe). |
tt0049032 | Broom-Stick Bunny | It's Halloween night, and Witch Hazel is concocting a batch of witch's brew. As she goes about her business, she pauses at her magic mirror and asks it who's the ugliest one of all. The genie in the mirror replies that she, Witch Hazel, is the ugliest one of all. Hazel explains to the audience that she's "deathly afraid" of getting prettier as she grows older, a fear that she initially just laughs off.
Meanwhile, Bugs Bunny is out trick-or-treating dressed as a witch, his face hidden by an ugly green mask. He calls on Witch Hazel, who, seeing his costume, mistakes him for an actual witch. After making a comment about Bugs' appearance ("Isn't she the ugliest little thing?"), she dashes to her magic mirror and asks it a second time who's the ugliest one of all. The genie in the mirror looks towards Bugs, also thinks he's a witch and replies that he actually finds Bugs far uglier.
The jealous witch then hatches a plot: she invites the disguised Bugs in for tea, and prepares a potion containing an assortment of beauty enhancers. Bugs is about to drink the tea when he remembers that he's still wearing his mask and takes it off. Seeing that her "rival" is a rabbit, Witch Hazel dashes off to consult her cookbook. Sure enough, one of the ingredients for the brew she was making earlier is a rabbit's clavicle.
While she's gone, Bugs suspects there's trouble afoot and makes to leave, but he's stopped by Witch Hazel brandishing a meat cleaver. Bugs flees, with the cackling witch chasing him throughout the house. She dashes to her magic broom closet to grab her flying broomstick to keep up with him, but instead she mounts her magic sweeping broom by accident. The broom starts sweeping the floor with her clinging to it until she lets go. As Bugs hides, Witch Hazel finally traps Bugs using a carrot on a fishing rod.
Back at her cauldron, Hazel prepares to kill Bugs and use him in her potion. She's about to bring her cleaver down on the trussed-up rabbit, but he plays to her sympathies, gazing back at her with tear-filled doe eyes. Overcome with mercy, Witch Hazel bursts into tears, saying his innocent face reminds her of Paul, her pet tarantula. Bugs tries comforting her by bringing her the cup of beauty elixir disguised as tea, which she unknowingly drinks. Hazel instantly changes into a well-contoured redheaded beauty (a caricature of what Hazel's voice actress, June Foray, looked like at the time) as Milt Franklyn strikes up "Oh, You Beautiful Doll" in the background. Being a witch, Hazel is horrified at the prospect of becoming young and beautiful, a fate worse than death.
Hazel dashes to her magic mirror a third time and meekly asks the genie (in a softer, sexier tone of voice) if she's still ugly. Upon seeing Hazel's new appearance, the genie gives a very Bob Hope-like "ROWR, ROWR!", immediately falling in love with her, and lunges to grab her. Hazel then flees on her actual flying broomstick, with the genie slowly gaining on her with his magic carpet. Bugs, who's still at Hazel's house, promptly calls the local air raid headquarters to report "a genie with light brown hair chasing a flying sorceress!". | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Artwork & Story A Real 'Treat'.
It's Halloween and we are at the home of "Witch Hazel" who proudly displays her "diploma" on the wall which reads, "Malevolent Order of Witches - A.
F. of Elves."The first thing you notice is the great artwork: cool drawings of the inside of the house and great colors.
These restoration jobs on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs are tremendous.Bugs is out trick-or-treating and, of course, stops at Hazel's house.
Bugs is wearing a witch's mask, too.
Bugs asks the "lady" if she has anything for a "little witch." Hmmm, thinks Hazel, "I don't remember seeing her at any of the union meetings." Hazel winds up thinking the visitor is so little and ugly - which is a compliment.
She winds up trying to find out Bugs' secret to being so ugly.The humorous dialog making ugly the ideal and beauty the opposite, Hazel then discovering it's not another witch but a rabbit and how she reacts......and those wild colors all make this a lot of fun to watch.
It's another Bugs Bunny winner..
The best Hazel short.
Witch Hazel is simply delighted to be the ugliest witch ever as told to her by her magic mirror.
That is until Bugs Bunny shows up trick-or-treating.
The mirror mistaking the rabbit's mask for his real face soon rescinds the title that he gave Hazel as ugliest and bestows it on Bugs.
Which of course infuriates Hazel to no end.
This is another great Looney Tunes short, and while I was never the biggest fan of Witch Hazel, this is one of the best cartoons with her in it.
This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.
It also features an optional commentary by legendary voice actress June Foray who seems to remember quite a lot.
Plus, the short has a musical score and effects only track as well.My Grade: B+.
This cartoon makes me laugh and CRY!!!.
We all know Bugs as a trickster, a heckler and a very smart guy who outwits anyone who tries to encroach on his life, but to know him as someone who could actually be frightened for once...wow!!!
A silly 7 minute cartoon and yet I still cry when I see that scene.
Even Witch Hazel, who is about to murder the bunny with a huge ax so she can mix him into her caldron, begins to cry!!!
when Bugs tries to comfort the weeping hag with the tea she made.
She turns into a hottie witch and the Magic Mirror Man goes after her with lust!!!
A real classic!!!.
A great Bugs Bunny cartoon for Halloween.
This is a great cartoon for Halloween and I love it and I'm really (and I mean really) into witches.I like it when Bugs gave Witch Hazel the "puppy-eyes," and when he hands her a cup of tea to cheer Hazel up (which is really a beauty potion) and she turns a beautiful woman.
Did you all know that Witch Hazel's voice actress June Foray was the model for "beautiful" Witch Hazel?
I had heard it on the audio commentary for this cartoon on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume #2" DVD box-set.I also would like to point out that there is another Witch Hazel in the 1952 Donald Duck cartoon "Trick or Treat.".
Leaves all the funny stuff till the last few moments.
It's Halloween and Witch Hazel is preparing a potion to ensure that she keeps ugly.
Meanwhile Bugs is trick or treating dressed as a very ugly witch.
When Hazel opens the door to Bugs in costume, she fears that she is not the ugliest witch in the world.
When she eventually finds out that Bugs is a rabbit, it only places him in more danger as Hazel needs rabbit to finish her potion.I have seen several other cartoons with this witch Hazel character in them and I haven't really taken to her as a regular character, although as an one off she can do the job reasonably well.
Here the film gets off to a slow start where Bugs is still in costume but gets better when the actual chase begins.
The problem is that this chase is left far too late in the film to make up for the lack of good laughs in the first place.
The chase has laughs but the fact that it comes late in the game is a letdown.Bugs does OK in his role and manages to do his usual stuff even if he has more running away to do than he has actual trickery.
Hazel is alright but I just don't really like her as I never see her as a character so much as just a big witch stereotype (which is what she is).
She gets a few laughs here but her dominant character doesn't really fit with Bugs' style of humour.Overall this is reasonably funny but inexplicably leaves the good stuff till right near the end of the cartoon instead of spreading it out.
One of the better Witch Hazel cartoons, but that really isn't saying a great deal..
Creepy and fun- my personal favourite Looney Tunes cartoon starring Witch Hazel.
To summarise, this short is creepy and fun, and incidentally my personal favourite of the cartoons starring Witch Hazel.
The animation here is stunning, and the story is top notch too.
Bugs is still great, but it is Hazel who steals the show, her voice, her laugh, her mannerisms are all enough to make her truly memorable.
The script is fine, but the sight gags are better I think, with a wonderful(and hilarious) ending.
Also the part when Bugs tears up causing Hazel to cry as well almost made me do so too, Bugs's expression was so cute.
Mel Blanc excels as always as Bugs, but June Foray steals the show with a bravura vocal performance as Witch Hazel.
Overall, really fun to watch.
10/10 Bethany Cox. Excessively vulnerable Bugs makes for an odd experience.
Chuck Jones's 'Broomstick Bunny' is an odd cartoon.
Bugs Bunny goes trick-or-treating disguised as a witch, unwittingly stealing the position of "ugliest of them all" from the former holder of the title, Witch Hazel (brilliantly voiced, as always, by June Foray).
When she finally realises Bugs is a rabbit, Witch Hazel's thoughts turn to the rabbit's clavicle she needs for her latest potion.
With its stylised, scrawled backgrounds, 'Broomstick Bunny' nicely establishes an off-kilter atmosphere and then fails to do much with it.
Rather than outwitting his pursuer with his normal brand of heckling, Bugs simply runs for his life throughout the cartoon!
At one point, in genuine fear for his life, he cries big, salty tears and it's unclear whether this is part of a ruse or actual emotion but, on the evidence of Bugs's persona in the rest of the cartoon, it would seem to be real.
He comes across as a weak, easily tricked character (a carrot on a fishing rod?
Come on!) right up until his closing double-pun wisecrack, which is the best thing in the whole cartoon.
Although the creepy, angular look of 'Broomstick Bunny' sets up an unsettling atmosphere, the most troubling thing in the film is who exactly this Bugs Bunny impersonator is and what he's done with the real McCoy!.
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
One of the great things about the Looney Tunes cartoons was how they put spins on the real world and popular culture.
They do that in "Broom-Stick Bunny", as perpetually cackling Witch Hazel gets all vain about being the ugliest witch of all, and finds that another witch (actually Bugs Bunny in his Halloween costume) is uglier.
But Bugs has his own plans, natch.
Most likely involving Hazel's mirror (hint: this mirror is supposed to say that Hazel is the ugliest of all).So, this might not be the best Looney Tunes cartoon ever, but it's a real pleasure to watch.
Mel Blanc and June Foray are a great voice combo..
Witch Hazel is having some insecurity issues about getting prettier as she grows older and asks her magic mirror if she is still the ugliest witch of them all.
The mirror reassures her that she is.
That is until a trick-or-treating Bugs Bunny (dressed as a witch) shows up at her house.
The mirror then tells Hazel that Bugs is uglier, which just doesn't sit well with our favorite witch.
Colorful animation, if a little sketchy for my tastes.
Wonderful voice work from legends June Foray and Mel Blanc.
It's a very funny short with great characters.
Probably my favorite Witch Hazel cartoon..
Nice Bugs.
Broom-Stick Bunny (1956)*** (out of 4) Witch Hazel is at home on Halloween proud as can be since she's the ugliest woman around.
Then there's a knock at the door where another ugly witch is but it turns out to be Bugs Bunny in an outfit.
The real witch then decides she needs some rabbit to complete her next meal.
This is a pretty good entry with Bugs being at the top of his game and Hazel being a pretty good villain.
Bugs gets a lot of good lines but the real charm of the film belongs to Hazel are her dire need of being ugly.
The twist ending is a very nice one and gets the biggest laugh of the film..
A fun Looney Tune..
From its first minute, this episode might seem a little bit too cliché and a little bit too boring, yet this episode proves to be a very memorable, entertaining one.
This episode has fantastic animation, quotes, laughs and plot turns.
It also has an ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS witch!Bugs Bunny is trick-or-treating and he happens to arrive in the house of a REAL witch.
She invites Bugs Bunny in for tea - thinking that he is actually a witch.
The tables begin to turn...This may not be the most rip-roaring Bugs Bunny episode, in fact some might go even so far as to say it is "dead boring".
However, if you look past the slightly slow plot, you will see that this is an episode well worth watching!
:-)This includes one of my favourite Looney Tunes quotes:Bugs Bunny: (Having just met the witch) She isn't pretty now, but she was someone's baby once.I recommend this cartoon to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny and for anyone who likes funny Halloween things.
June Foray steals the show!.
"Broom-Stick Bunny" is a memorable Warner Bros.
cartoon not for the presence of Bugs Bunny but rather for the presence of Witch Hazel, wonderfully voiced by June Foray.
Hazel manages to steal all the laughs away from Bugs, and her best moments occur with her hysterical laugh, matched with some wild gyrations and ubiquitous bobby pins.
She also sings her own fractured version of "A Cup of Coffee, a Sandwich, and You" at the opening of this short.As for that wabbit, it seems as if the Bugs Bunny of the mid-1950s, especially in films directed by Chuck Jones, is quite polished and refined compared to the more prankish 1940s Bugs.
As a result, Bugs may at times not be quite as funny as he was a decade earlier, and such is the case with "Broom-Stick Bunny." This is not to say that Chuck Jones was an inferior director.
Quite the contrary; Jones deserves a great deal of respect for all that he did for the Warner Bros.
cartoon department.Check out "Broom-Stick Bunny" on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.
And for an added treat, listen to June Foray's audio commentary about her experience as a Warner Bros.
cartoon voice artist..
Jones "Tricks" The Audience In Surprising Cartoon.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Broomstick Bunny starts as a chase short set on Halloween with a clever angle; Witch Hazel, who abhors being beautiful, is shocked when another witch (Bugs Bunny trick-or-treating) appears who is even more hideous than her.
Hazel tries to feed the witch tea drugged with beautifying potions, but Bugs has to take off his mask first - which causes Hazel to remember a key ingredient in the potion she is mixing.But Chuck Jones makes this short immortal with a stunning turn of events.
Hazel is about to chop Bugs' head off, but we are suddenly treated to a totally unexpected reaction - genuine tears of fright by Bugs.
Hazel, seeing the humanity in Bugs' tears, suddenly can't go through with it, as Bugs suddenly reminds her of her beloved pet who is no longer with her.The comedic punchline then comes when Bugs gives Hazel tea to calm her down - both forgetting it is the beautifying tea that leads to a hilarious aerial chase and Bugs' bemused warning to air-raid HQ..
First half based on misunderstanding, second half is generic rabbit/witch hunt.
"Broom-Stick Bunny" is an American Warner Bros.
cartoon from 2956, so this one had its 60th anniversary last year.
Looking at the names working on this one (Jones, Pierce, Blanc, Foray), I expected it a good watch and this also has to do with the rating here on IMDb and quantity of votes.
This is certainly one of LT's more famous films.
The first 4 minutes are based on the strange assumption that the female protagonist never heard of Halloween and trick-or-treating and it cannot be saved by a random Snow White reference (the mirror).
Afterward, the bunny chase ensues and it is fairly forgettable except for how easy he is to catch for some reason.
The final transformation as well as Bugs' phone call also hardly make sense at all, let alone entertain.
This is absolutely not a great watch and I am surprised so many find it appealing.
To end the review still on a (somewhat) positive note, I want to say that this is the first film I have reviewed with June Foray in it since her very recent death shortly before her 100th birthday.
Until this animated pilot for the TV show BEWITCHED .
. the vast majority of witches were, to quote Dorothy Gale of Kansas, "old and ugly." Glinda the Good Witch of Northern Oz notwithstanding, the tide of Witch Warts & Whiskers never really turned until BROOMSTICK BUNNY, which concludes with the classically ugly Witch Hazel transforming into a cartoon caricature of her Real Life voice artist, young redhead June Foray.
It was just a tiny step from Hazel\June to Elizabeth Montgomery's TV Sit-Com role as that Chronic Nose-Twitcher, Samantha Stevens.
The rest is History, right down to Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt glamorized to the nines as they duke it out in the current theatrical release, THE HUNTSMAN: WINTER'S WAR.
Though Theron and Blunt may not play Quidditch on broomsticks, their Witchy powers far exceed anything that Hermione managed at Hogwarts.
Their main bone of contention is the Man in the Mirror, a twin to Witch Hazel's own Looking Glass Guy. The tide of horrid hags with warts & whiskers is bound to sweep back in soon, as the current Reign of Beauty Queen Witches represents Hollywood Lookism at its worst.
It's all but certain than President Hillary will issue an Executive Order during her First 100 Days mandating that all future witch roles will put food on the tables of only old and ugly actresses..
Laughing at your own silly puns IS funny.
This episode has a good mix of Bugs's antics.
Bugs Bunny suffers some indignities and a close shave with death but comes out on top and has the closing one-liner.The graphics and copy which flash through the episode are hilarious, but easy to miss, starting with Witch Hazel's certificate guaranteeing her identity as a witch and upstanding membership, and which later accords with her comment that she hasn't seen Bugs Bunny, in disguise, at any of the "union meetings".The reason for the chase and attempted murder of Bugs, all comes down to the witch's Recipe 102, which demands inter alia, swamp water steeped in a skull, a cup of arsenic, diced spider, hornet's heel (3), and a rabbit's clavicle, not foot.
Witch Hazel was perfectly willing to co-exist with Bugs, trying to wheedle out his secrets of ugliness, and with attempted reversal of ugliness by a witch's spell, but after all, all's fair in love and witchcraft.
It is only that outlandish recipe requirement that leads to the mayhem.Witch Hazel is a fantastically ugly creature — down to her bulbous nose, the tip of which often creases as it weighs down upon her prominent chin — but you have to study her face.Her self-conscious laughter at her own running comments is another fine aspect of this episode.
For example, after sharpening the knife with which to kill Bugs, she touches the blade, notes that it is "Sharp enough to split a hare".
It is not an original pun, but she thinks that it is and then has another giggling frenzy before darting away, leaving a further trail of hair pins in her wake.Bugs Bunny has frequently had close shaves with death.
I'd vote that his tears in this episode were a pre-meditated ruse, even if he were sympathetic and supplied, unknown to him, the 'poisoned' tea to Hazel..
great fun starring Bugs and Witch Hazel.
This is a wonderful followup cartoon for Witch Hazel.
In the previous film, Bugs rescued the rather dim Hansel and Gretel from her evil clutches.
In this cartoon, Hazel has a new voice (June Foray--also the voice of Rocky Squirrel).
Hazel is thrilled that her magic mirror continues to tell her that she is the ugliest of them all,...that is until Bugs shows up wearing an ugly witch's mask while Trick or Treating.
Hazel thinks Bugs is a real witch and is jealous of her ugliness so she determines to slip this other "witch" a magic potion to make her pretty.
Accidentally, Hazel herself swallows the potion and becomes a ravishing lady bunny--at which point she walks off in the sunset with Bugs.The cartoon is very funny, cute and well-written.
A must-see for cartoon fans. |
tt2389974 | Aatma | Nia is the daughter of Maya (Bipasha Basu) and Abhay (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), who are divorced. Maya and Nia live with Maya's parents (Shiv Subramaniam) and (Shernaz Patel). Nia is unaware of the fact that her father is dead. Maya deliberately hides the truth from her as Nia is a sensitive child and adores her father. Things start getting bizarre when Paras, Nia's classmate who bullies her in the classroom, ends up dead. Soon after, Nia's teacher, Mrs. Sinha, who complains about Nia, is also found dead. Moreover, Nia often starts talking to her dead father.
Concerned about the absurd change in Nia's behavior, Maya takes her for counselling. It is revealed that Abhay was a hot-tempered man. He lost his job and friends because of his frequent violent bouts of anger and also suspected Maya of having an affair with her colleague, Pankaj However, Abhay loved his daughter more than anything else. After Abhay starts beating up Maya, she files for divorce and gets the sole custody of Nia. Abhay cannot bear this and threatens Maya that he will take Nia away from her. Shortly after the hearing and the pronouncement of the Family court, Abhay dies in a car accident. After the session, the counsellor (Mohan Kapoor) advises Maya to take Nia out for the weekend. The mother daughter duo do so but Abhay possesses Nia and threatens Maya that he will take their daughter away with him.
Maya consults a priest (Darshan Jariwala), who tells Maya that as long as she and her daughter share a strong bond of love, Abhay won't be able to kill either of them. After the counsellor tries to convince Nia that her father is dead, the counsellor himself is found dead. Later, Abhay kills Maya's friend Aakanskha for which Maya is framed and arrested. She is admitted in a mental health facility centre in confinement for treatment. Maya's mother calls the priest home to get the home blessed from the evil spirit. Abhay kills the priest and Maya's mother too. Maya, in a desperate bid to save her daughter, kills herself in the health centre confinement, as she remembers the priest's words that no mortal can fight a spirit. Maya becomes a spirit and saves Nia just as Abhay is about to kill her by pushing her before a fast-moving local train. She also destroys Abhay's spirit, thus ensuring Nia's safety for the rest of her life.
In an epilogue, Nia is shown celebrating her 18th birthday while Maya's spirit fondly watches her. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | Aatma Will Cause You Hypertension!.
NOTE: If you've watched Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity Series, Mama (2013), The Possession (2012) & Spanish thriller The Orphanage, DO NOT bother to watch this flick.To start with, Aatma has extraordinary special effects and a wonderful climax.
And to end with, the story is clichéd and boring with dull soundtrack.
What could've been told in less than ten minutes has been made up as a movie which doesn't send a single chill down your spine, if only lights turning off and doors shutting scared the Jack of YOLO times.
Not a chance.Nawazuddin Siddiqui, the guy behind me going and spending 300 bucks, has a very small role.
His dialogs are vague and is totally wasted.
The main characters are Bips & the debut child artiste with not-so-happening smile.
The remaining cast performance is below average.
Now, since the story has a parade of loopholes here and there, even if you try to enjoy this movie, you abruptly fail at every juncture because of large implications and imagination left to interpret in free space.A maze where the exits are closed and the screenplay so dramatic, this horror turns out to be a big let-down for an industry crippled with nonsensical movies.
If this suit follows, then I am afraid the horror genre cannot be bounced further; not to mention about the other genres' plight.BOTTOM LINE: An inventive thought and hard work invested with indigenous story, but Aatma fails at every point of categorizing it as an unconventional horror Bollywood flick due to poor execution and sound effects.
Not recommended.Can be watched with a typical Indian family?
YESLanguage: No | Sex or Nudity: No | Violence: Very Strong | Gore: Critical | Smoking, Alcohol or Drugs: No | Vulgarity: No. When High Expectation Leads To A Mere Disappointment.
The one and only thing that snaffled my mind about AATMA was the unusual pairing of Nawajuddin Siddique and Bipasha Basu.
Nawajuddin has proved his mettle as an actor in Kahaani, Talaash, Gangs of Wasseypur etc and his name in a horror movie as the lead actor with gradually improving Bipasha has raised unbound curiosity in my mind.Being a fan of horror and psychological thriller genre i was sure of a meatier story, chilling sound effects and tricky special effects.But unfortunately three of the ingredients were missing and even powerful acting of the two lead actors could n't save the movie from being an ordinary attempt by the Director Suparn Verma who shot to fame with "PANKH"- A critically acclaimed movie.
After half an hour the story falls into the flat zone of a normal Hindi horror movie and except few scenes that wowed in terms of special effect nothing scary was there.
The biggest fault of the product is it lacks genuine horror or scary moments and even though the production house promoted it as a psychological thriller, it doesn't also justify the same.
Acting wise Both Nawaj and Bipasha have done their level best with cute Doyel Dhawan adding some so cute type gestures, lack of scary moments in this flick failed this most awaited flick in terms of business and critical acclaim.
The movie could have been way better and if you are a die hard fan of the genre and the actors, then go for it.Otherwise skip it and have a cup of coffee at the coffee shop.
At least the INGREDIENTS are properly MIXED there..
Is this a really a horror movie ?.
Hi, Yesterday night i went to see this movie, there is no proper screenplay in this movie and zero percentage horror.
Not even sound effects scare you, nor the "AATMA" Bipasha Basu is not at all learned acting till now except showing her legs and chest.
No logic in the movie and the ending of the movie is also funny.
This shows our Indian director not good to make horror movies .
If you die hard fan of Bipasha go and watch otherwise save your time.
camera work is good unnecessary songs if you remove the songs this is just short film.
editing is bad and very low performers as cast.
totally the movie is waste of time to watch.
An unusual mix of good scenes, bad scenes & a fresh theme adapted for an Indian horror film..
The first look of AATMA and its interesting trailer attracted many lovers of the horror genre since those 2 minutes promised a lot new or fresh in terms of content, supported by an unusual star-cast featuring Bipasha and Nawazuddin together.
The trailer worked hugely because at last we had a novel plot here, showcasing a father's soul coming back to the world in order to take her loving daughter along to the other side, post his untimely death.
And this very new thought incorporated in an Indian Horror film, moving ahead of all those clichéd plots actually appealed to many.However revealing the gist of the review in just one line, AATMA's trailer was much more exciting and thrilling than the complete film itself and you are not going to find that promised innovation, freshness or path breaking execution of the 'Father-Daughter" theme in the film as expected.
In other words, its well edited trailer actually revealed it all in advance, killing the surprise element of the film, due to which it fails to hold you for long even in its short duration of less than 100 minutes only.AATMA comes to the point right away as it begins and then offers some reasonably good scenes in its first half particularly the sequences involving the girl's school and Bipasha's torture.
Another one featuring Bipasha and Nawazudin sitting in front of the judge for their final divorce hearing makes you sit straight as an indication of something exceptional coming in the later reels.
But sadly, from here on the director takes on the same rotten & seen before path once again with all repeated scenes of a possessed girl (reminding you of RGV's BHOOT RETURNS), the victim doctor, surprised relatives and a tantric coming in the house to fight with the spirit in a routine manner.As a result, all the novelty in its theme of a "Mentally sick but loving father" adapted for the first time in a Hindi horror film gets lost in this tedious kind of execution by director Suparn Verma, who could have turned it into something great, making it with an out of the box mindset for a change.
Thankfully he doesn't bow down to the usual 3-4 song compulsion linked with this particular genre and offers a crisply edited project along with a decent cinematography & background score.
Yet despite of all these positive elements, the end product is not even close to what was being expected from him after an impressive trailer.Another major point which goes against the film is the less emphasis given to the character of Nawazudin, whom the viewers wished to see more after his recent worth watching performances in few award winning films.
The script keeps its main focus on Bipasha instead, who is just fine in his emotional portrayal of a helpless mother without any visible variations in her scenes in both the halves.
On the other hand, Nawazudin tries his best to come up with an effective performance but the talented actor is not given enough well written scenes to showcase his skill as desired.
Moreover, this was a complete mismatch tried by the casting director to add some more value to the project which in turn backfired hugely.
The small girl, Doyle Dhawan is appealing in some scenes and forcibly acting in the others with her eyes repeatedly making a contact with the people behind the camera (while shooting).
Ideally all these scenes should have been replaced with the other shots on the editing table, but probably the director didn't have much choice and had to keep the same ones only in the final print as it seems.
In the supporting cast Shernaz Patel over-reacts in few of her scenes, Darshan Zariwala has nothing much to do, the Inspector tries hard to justify his badly written role and the English teacher is just perfect in her short appearance in the first half.Adding to the weak points of the film, it has a big problem of continuity break in its various shots like Bipasha still doesn't know about the death of her daughter's teacher in the school itself even post intermission, there is no reasoning or serious investigation shown for the various killings happening at different venues and that one Police Inspector who keeps behaving like a psychic all the time, right from his first scene itself in a very funny manner.
Moreover the climax of the film also remains ineffective completely with Bipasha re-appearing in a designer jeans and top as the angle to meet her grown up daughter quite weirdly.Further its high time for the Hindi film-makers to realize that if they are offering a less than 100 minutes film to the viewers then it needs to be shown in one go without the normal interval of say 10 minutes.
Because its simply not justified to witness a break at mere 45 minutes after sitting on your seats, which obviously brings in some negativity in the theater as I felt visibly looking at the faces of my fellow viewers.In all, yes AATMA does have a new subject to talk about in the horror genre but the same cannot be said about its treatment on the screen unfortunately.
So you might enjoy it more in your home theaters at a lesser cost and without any immediate interval as such in just 45 minutes..
Horror : rofl.
once again being a horror freak and desperately in search for a good horror movie i stepped into the theater and after 100 Min's i came out with a sarcastic smile on my face.
The movie started of good and ran good for about half hour but then the movie totally lost its control and not at all scary even in parts.
Especially the climax is absolutely childish.The story line is very simple and it is about a mother rescuing her child from the ghost of an abusive husband.
Though the story line is simple there are movies which created chills by the screenplay and background music but this movie has nothing in the credit of the director and musician the title song being the only positive thing.The performances by the main characters are good enough,bipasha has improved her acting and siddiqui is talented as always..
Weak plot!.
This movie has a weak plot , Nawaz has been sort of wasted in the movie , wish they would have utlilized him properly . |
tt0178737 | Mansfield Park | Frances "Fanny" Price, at age 10, is sent from her family home to live with her uncle and aunt in the country in Northhamptonshire. It is a jolting change, from the elder sister of many, to the youngest at the estate of Sir Thomas Bertram, husband of her mother’s older sister. Her cousin Edmund finds her alone one day and helps her. She wants to write to her older brother William. Edmund provides the writing materials, the first kindness to her in this new family. Her cousins are Julia, age 12, Maria, age 13, Edmund, age 15 and Tom age 17. Her aunt is kind but her uncle frightens her with his authoritative demeanor. Fanny’s mother has another sister, Mrs Norris. She is the wife of the clergyman at Mansfield parsonage. Mrs Norris has no children and takes a great interest in her nieces and nephews. Mrs Norris keeps up a strict difference between her Bertram nieces and lowly Fanny. Sir Thomas helps the sons of the Price family find occupations as they are old enough. William joins the Navy as a midshipman not long after Fanny is at Mansfield Park. He visits them once before going to sea, and writes to his sister.
Five years after Fanny arrives, Aunt Norris is widowed and moves into a cottage of her own. Her visits to Mansfield Park increase, as does her mistreatment of Fanny. Tom Bertram incurs a large debt and to pay it, Sir Thomas sells the living of the parsonage, freed up by the death of Uncle Norris, to clergyman Dr Grant.
When Fanny is 16, Sir Thomas leaves to deal with problems on his plantation in Antigua. He takes Tom along and trusts to Aunt Norris for the others. Mrs Norris takes on the task of finding a husband for Maria and finds James Rushworth, with income of ₤12,000 a year, but weak-willed and stupid. Maria accepts his marriage proposal, subject to Sir Thomas's approval on his return. After a year in Antigua, Sir Thomas sends Tom home to Mansfield Park.
When Fanny is 17, the fashionable, wealthy, and worldly Henry Crawford and his sister, Mary Crawford, arrive at the parsonage to stay with Mrs. Grant, their half-sister. The arrival of the Crawfords enlivens life in Mansfield and sparks romantic entanglements. Mary and Edmund begin to form an attachment. She is disappointed to learn that Edmund will be a clergyman. Fanny fears that Mary's charms and attractions have blinded Edmund to her flaws. On a visit to Mr Rushworth's estate Sotherton, Henry deliberately plays with the affections of both Maria and Julia. Maria believes Henry is falling in love with her and treats Mr Rushworth dismissively, provoking his jealousy. Fanny observes this while Aunt Norris, blinded by her own self-importance and Edmund, infatuated with Mary, fail to perceive the various flirtations.
Encouraged by Tom and his friend Mr Yates, the young people decide to put on an amateur performance of the play Lovers' Vows. Edmund objects, believing Sir Thomas would disapprove and feeling that the subject matter of the play is inappropriate for his sisters. Edmund reluctantly agrees to take on the role of Anhalt, the lover of the character played by Mary Crawford. The play provides a pretext for Henry and Maria to flirt in public. Fanny observes this, but again Aunt Norris, caught up in the excitement of staging a play, does not.
Sir Thomas arrives home earlier than expected, while all are in the midst of rehearsal. He stops the theatricals. Henry, from whom Maria had imminently expected a marriage proposal, instead takes his leave, and she is not pleased. She goes ahead with marriage to Rushworth, with her father's permission. They honeymoon in Brighton and then settle in London, taking Julia with them. Fanny's improved appearance and gentle disposition endear her to Sir Thomas. With Maria and Julia gone, Fanny and Mary Crawford visit often.
Henry returns to Mansfield parsonage, intending to entertain himself by making Fanny fall in love with him. He does not succeed but falls in love with Fanny himself. To further his suit, he uses his family connections to help Fanny's brother William gain promotion as a naval lieutenant, to her great joy and gratitude. When Henry proposes marriage, Fanny however, rejects him out of hand. Sir Thomas is astonished at her refusal. He reproaches her, accusing her of ingratitude, and encourages Henry to persevere.
To bring Fanny to her senses, Sir Thomas sends her for a visit to her parents in Portsmouth, hoping that the contrast will awaken her to the value of Henry's offer. She sets off with William and sees him in his first berth as a commissioned officer. At Portsmouth, she develops a firm bond with her younger sister, Susan, but is taken aback by the contrast between her dissolute surroundings — noise, chaos, unpalatable food, crude conversation, and filth everywhere — and the harmonious environment at Mansfield. Henry visits her there. Although Fanny still refuses him, her attitude begins to soften, particularly as Edmund and Mary seem to be moving toward an engagement.
Henry leaves for London, and shortly afterward, Fanny learns that scandal has enveloped him and Maria. The two happened to meet at a party and rekindle their flirtation, which leads to an affair. An indiscreet servant makes the affair public and the story is in the newspapers. Maria runs away with Henry. Mr Rushworth sues Maria for divorce, and the proud Bertram family is devastated. At the same time, Tom has fallen gravely ill as a result of his dissolute lifestyle, and Julia, fearing her father's anger for her part in concealing Maria's affair, has eloped with Tom's friend, Mr Yates.
Edmund takes Fanny back to Mansfield Park along with Susan. A repentant Sir Thomas now realises that Fanny was right to reject Henry's proposal all-along, and now regards her as his own daughter. During an emotional meeting with Mary Crawford, Edmund discovers that Mary does not condemn Henry and Maria's adultery, and regrets only that it was discovered. Her view is to cover it up, and even places blame on Fanny for failing to accept Henry right away. Edmund is devastated to discover her true principles (or lack-there-of). He breaks off the relationship and returns to Mansfield Park.
Edmund slowly gets over his love for Mary. Then he comes to realise how important Fanny is to him. He declares his love for her, and they are married and eventually move to Mansfield parsonage, in the circle of those they love best. Tom recovers from his illness, a steadier and better man for it, and Julia's husband, Mr Yates, proves to be a respectable husband. Henry Crawford refuses to marry Maria. Her shame gives her no other options, so her father sets her up in a house with Aunt Norris (for the role she had played as an ineffectual guardian and role model), the both of them out of his sight. Mary Crawford is forced to move in with her half-sister, Mrs. Grant, hoping for a husband. | romantic, intrigue, storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0476995 | Firehouse Dog | Dog superstar Rexxx lives the high life-with adoring crowds, a loving owner and an array of best-selling blockbusters under his belt. However, when his owner, Trey (Dash Mihok) tries to convince him to perform a skydiving stunt, the plane malfunctions and Rexxx is sent tumbling from the sky, landing in a truck full of tomatoes. Whilst Trey mourns his apparent death and begins to regret not treating him like a 'real dog', Rexxx settles into an abandoned warehouse, desperately missing his owner.
Meanwhile, Shane Fahey (Josh Hutcherson) is struggling with his uncle Marc's death from a recent fire. Realizing he forgot to study for a test, Shane ditches school, but is quickly caught by two other firefighters, Lionel and Terrence. Arriving back at the fire station in disgrace, he is chastised by his father Connor Fahey (Bruce Greenwood), the captain of the station, who is having problems of his own; the station 'Dogpatch' Engine 55 is about to be closed due to a lack of funding, less infrastructure remaining around the station, and overall bad publicity. However, before Connor can properly address his son's problems, "Dogpatch" is called out to put out a fire in a warehouse-Shane is reluctantly dragged along. Although the fire is quickly put out, Shane notices a terrified Rexxx balancing on top of the burning building; Connor manages to rescue him, and orders Shane to put up 'Lost Dog' flyers. Due to the name on his collar, which is a prop from the filming at the time of Rexxx's accident, the station renames the dog 'Dewey', and keeps him at the station until someone comes to claim him.
Whilst city manager Zachary Hayden (Steven Culp) reminds Connor of the station's upcoming shutdown, Shane struggles to cope with Dewey's spoilt needs and strange habits. Realizing that the dog is fast and active, Shane enters him in a firefighter's competition, where they are pitted against rival fire station Greenpoint. Although Dewey initially beats Greenpoint's record score, he is distracted by their dog, who reminds him of his time in stardom. Despite losing the competition, Shane and Dewey begin to bond. Soon after, Engine 55 is called out to yet another fire, one of the many suspected arsons that have been surrounding the area. Realizing that Greenpoint's captain, Jessie Presley, is still trapped inside as the building begins to collapse, Connor rushes into the wreckage, and Shane, fearing for his father's safety, allows Dewey to run in after him. Dewey manages to alert Connor to Jessie's presence, subsequently saving her life. Following this, Engine 55 begins to gain popularity, as they realize that Dewey could become a potential firehouse dog. Due to their sudden increase in popularity, Zachary eagerly notifies them that the station is saved.
However, Shane's excitement is lost when he discovers his father has moved to his uncle's former office. Angered that his dad is trying to take his uncle's place, he roots through the files, where he discovers an unnerving number of suspected arsons, all in the general area that station 55 is responsible for. Upset that Shane felt he was being neglected, Connor makes an effort to reconcile with his son, and is shocked when Shane reveals that he feels like a bad person for being relieved when he discovered it was his uncle who died instead of his father. The next day, at a firefighter's gala, Dewey is awarded a medal for his bravery, but the moment is ruined when Dewey spots Trey in the audience, and abandons Shane for his former owner. Although Shane is heartbroken, Connor reluctantly allows an ecstatic Trey to keep the dog. A few hours later, however, Dewey escapes Trey's hotel room to chase after Engine 55, which was recently called out to another fire. The team is only too happy to allow him to climb on board. Meanwhile, Shane returns to the station to discover that the fire Engine 55 was called out to was simply a decoy, so that the suspected arsonist could burn the "Dogpatch" station to the ground. Panicking, he calls Jessie Presley's daughter, Jasmine 'JJ' Presley to work out what to do, then becoming alerted of footsteps upstairs, which turn out to be the arsonist. Ignoring JJ's warnings, he heads upstairs to confront the arsonist. To his horror, he realizes that the arsonist is in fact city manager Zach Hayden, who wanted to burn buildings in order to build a football stadium for Corbin Sellars (Matt Cooke), killing Shane's uncle in the process. After Engine 55's closure was denied, he had no choice but to burn the station down himself, but didn't realize that Shane was still in the building. As the two become trapped inside the burning building, Zachary quickly gives up his search for Shane who is unconscious and then leaves.
Meanwhile, Dewey, sensing that Shane is in danger, races back to the station as Connor follows behind, having been alerted to the fire by Jessie, who was also at the harbor fire and called by her daughter JJ. Dewey finds Zachary trying to escape, and traps him in a phone booth (which he also escapes from) before finding Shane. Connor arrives on the scene, only to find the station completely inaccessible. Hearing Dewey's barking, he eventually manages to break down the garage door and finds Shane terrified on the other side of a locked door inside the burning station. Shane manages to convince him to pass him his axe through some broken glass so he can try to break the hinges himself, despite the risks; Dewey then leads them out. Shane manages to tell Connor about Zachary's arson attacks before he is sent to hospital. Furious, Connor confronts Zachary as he is arrested.
Corbin Sellars' scam is exposed and he is arrested. Following the events of the fire, all of the firefighters of Engine 55 are awarded medals, including Shane and Dewey. Upon seeing how happy Dewey is with them, Trey allows Shane to keep him, adding that now that Dewey has been a true hero, he won't be content with just acting like one. Both Shane and Connor are overjoyed, with Dewey realizing his true potential as a firehouse dog. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0309369 | The Blair Thumb | Three filmmakers go into the woods to film a movie. They were never found. This is their surviving videotape. Stressy, a college student, has put an ad in the newspaper for some student filmmakers to help her go into the woods to shoot a documentary about the Blair Thumb. They then drive around town to interview people about the Blair Thumb.
The first woman they interview tells them that she believes in the Blair Thumb to be a spirit that haunts the woods, and that she wouldn't be caught dead in the woods. Then she's shows her baby to them, who is possessed by Satan. The next person is a man who says kids have been disappearing in the woods, comparing the disappearances to the magic acts of David Copperfield. The next person they interview is an unhelpful pirate. Then they move on to interviewing the famous one-eyed thumb, who says "ee-hoo!" The next person they interviews is a local fisherman that says part of the Legend of the Blair Thumb:
"There are these twins, the Briarly twins, I think they're twins. 'Twins should look alike.' They went into the woods, been there hundreds of times, but this time they got lost. Couldn't find their way. Then they saw this woman...she was up in the air, floatin'. She took their heads, switched them, like it was a sick game. Then she took their bodies, she switched them too. They came out looking zacly' the same, but we all knew, they've been all switched up."
With enough information to go into the woods, Jish makes a pit stop to get some food. A gigantic marshmallow in his case. Now in the woods, Vic and Jish are shown taking a piss. Stressy cries, "What are you doing?" Vic says, "You told us to." Stressy replies, "No, I didn't, I said "kiss" before the first shot we kiss the slate!" Jish starts laughing. Vic replies, "Sorry, ok? I heard you wrong. Kiss, what's the difference?" Vic looks at the slate covered in piss. Stressy makes a video about a graveyard, wondering how the bodies got under the grave stones and what "freakish creature" carved and engraved them. They finally arrive at the woods.
After walking a little ways, Vic and Jish start freaking out because Stressy doesn't have a real map. After calming them down, Stressy moves onward. Once they are at Hangnail Rock, Stressy tells the next part of the Legend of the Blair Thumb:
"The search party went into the woods, in search of the five lost victims. Upon reaching Hangnail Rock, the torture inflicted on these brave men unfolded. Each was bound to each other, positioned one behind the next. Each man's hand was in the next man's pants. The men promptly turned and asked the search party to leave, and mind their own business. Hours later the men were found, decapitated, and very tired. The search party left to find a sheriff, but upon return the bodies were gone. All that was found, was a Streisand CD, and a mini-disk single of "It's Rainin' Men."
That night, the three hear weird noises, and they are chased by a shark. The shark tries to bite off Stressy's arm, and then moves over and attacks Vic. The next day, while they are walking, Jish notices that he has a weird substance on his stuff. Vic claims that Jish has been singled out and that he's glad it's not him. Further on, chaos ensues when it becomes apparent that Stressy has lost her fake map. Soon, they begin to think that they're going in circles. Then they discover that someone took Stressy's car. Soon after, they see the Blair Thumb's symbol made from a giant stick. Everything instantly becomes dark. That night, in the tent, Jish plays a prank on Stressy and Vic by shaking a bush. He explains that there were sticks in the trees, some kids ripped off their car went for a joy ride and says there is no Blair Thumb. However, after this he is kidnapped by something and Vic and Stressy chase after him. In the dark Vic and Stressy stand still and quiet hoping not to get kidnapped and Vic feels up Stressy.
The next day, Stressy and Vic find Jish's body. He has been cut in half; only his legs and groin area remain. That night, Stressy makes a video notice of her. Crying she says she's scared and apologizes to Vic's mom because he's scared, freaked out, and to Jish's mom, because he's "dismembered and everything". She says she loves her parents and Ricky Martin and says she's scared to close and open her eyes, squint and cross them. Then, Stressy and Vic hear Jish's voice and head after it. They pass by a sign that says "Dead House --->" without a second thought. They enter the house and Jish's voice says he's upstairs, so they head upstairs. Once they're upstairs, Jish's voice says he's downstairs. The two get separated on the way down. As Vic says something he gargles like something had killed him. Stressy screams and heads down the stairs still screaming. Then, Vic says, "Jeez, can't a guy even take a leak?" Frankenthumb then appears, and the two mistake him for the Blair Thumb. They ask if they can go, and he replies, "No, I kill. We party first?" They agree and a disco ball comes down. They dance. Jish's torso shows up, then the credits begin. | absurd, comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0350261 | An Unfinished Life | One year ago, a wild bear stole a calf from Mitch (Morgan Freeman) and Einar’s (Robert Redford) ranch. The two friends attempted to save the calf, but the bear viciously attacked Mitch — and because Einar was drunk, he failed to save him from serious injury. The bear escaped into the mountains.
A year later, Mitch’s wounds still cause him constant pain. Einar cares for Mitch daily, giving him morphine injections, food and friendship. He leans his guilt on emotional crutches, while Mitch struggles to walk with a cane. The bear later returns to forage for food in town — and around the same time, Einar’s long-lost daughter-in-law Jean (Jennifer Lopez) shows up on his doorstep.
Sheriff Crane Curtis (Josh Lucas) captures the bear and displays him in the town zoo. Jean and her daughter Griff (Becca Gardner) move in with Einar and Mitch. Einar’s son, Griffin, had moved away and married Jean years ago, causing a rift in the family that snapped when Griffin died in a car accident. Tension mounts between Einar and Jean because both are still grieving for Griffin.
Since Griffin died, Jean has fallen into a series of abusive relationships. She moved in with Einar to escape her latest abusive boyfriend, Gary (Damian Lewis), but like the bear, her past will return to haunt her. Jean slowly falls in love with Sheriff Curtis, but little Griff can’t open up to him or trust him because of Jean’s bad experiences.
Jean starts working at a local coffee shop. There she befriends Nina, another waitress (Camryn Manheim), who helps her understand Einar’s gruff ways and dark past.
Tensions in the family continue to build. One night, Gary arrives to harass Jean and Griff. He and Einar have an explosive confrontation that pushes Einar to the brink.
Einar returns to the ranch and demands that Jean tells him how Griffin died. Jean says they flipped a coin to determine who would drive — she lost. At 3 a.m., the two tired souls set out for the last leg of their trip. Jean fell asleep at the wheel. The car flipped six times. Griffin died, but Jean survived and discovered she was pregnant with Griff. When he learns the truth about why his son was ripped from him too soon, Einar says they’ll have to talk about Jean moving out. Jean says she’s through talking. The next morning she takes Griff with her and leaves to stay with Nina. Griff, who loves her grandfather as the first strong male figure in her life, runs back to the ranch alone. Einar and Mitch teach her to be a real Wyoming cowgirl.
Einar meets Jean at the diner and invites her to come back and live with him and Griff after a camping trip. The camping trip is cover for carrying out a request from Mitch to set the bear who handicapped him free. The plan does not go off without a hitch as Griff accidentally knocks the gearshift lever into neutral while Einar is luring the bear into the cage, freeing the bear who attacks Einar. Griff drives Einar to the hospital, where he and Jean attempt to reconcile. Back at the ranch, Mitch survives a peaceful confrontation with the bear from his past. It flees to the mountains where it belongs.
Gary makes one last attempt to drag Jean and Griff back “home”; this ends with Einar beating him up and tossing him on a bus out of town. In the final scene, Einar affectionately talks with one of his cats, who throughout the whole story he coldly ignored. Griff then invites Sheriff Curtis for lunch. All is well as Mitch narrates the last seconds of the story, describing to Einar, his dreams of flying above the earth and coming to understand things about life. | thought-provoking, violence, cute, romantic | train | wikipedia | Appreciation and forgiveness, along with some adversity, show us that unity is still possible even given previous misunderstandings and alienation's.Every one in the film does a good job, and you feel like you have just visited the ranch and had dinner with these characters, and you want to go back for breakfast.
The relationships in this film are realistic and intelligent, not sappy nor Hollywood glossy.This is a wonderful film and it is a great delight to watch Redford, Freeman, Lopez, Lucas and Gardner play their parts in such gorgeous scenery.
With the very capable support of Morgan Freeman, a quite good Jennifer Lopez, and masterful work by Robert Redford, we're treated to a special film, a study of family relationships where things don't appear contrived or staged.People carry grudges and live with demons for many years; some are unable to even get rid of them.
In order to escape from the abusive boy-friend Gary Winston (Damian Lewis), Jean Gilkyson (Jennifer Lopez) moves with her young daughter Griff Gilkyson (Becca Gardner) without previous notice to the ranch of her father-in-law Einar Gilkyson (Robert Redford) in Wyoming.
While Mitch heals his wounds and forgives the bear, Einar also changes his feelings regarding Jean, finally understanding that accidents happen and accepting her and loving his grand-daughter."An Unfinished Life" is a beautiful tale of forgiveness, with the lead characters healing their wounds Mitch, the ones provoked by a savage bear, and Einar his innermost feelings of loss.
The cast has amazing performances, showing the importance of a director of the weight of Lasse Halltröm: Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman are unanimity, but I myself like a lot the versatile Jennifer Lopez and strongly believe that even the viewer that dislike her as actress must admit her excellent performance in this touching film.
Its a great family relationship movie and Redford as usual is great he can underplay his role and get more out of it than some actors and his relationship with Morgan Freeman is so typical of two old guys tolerating each other.
I for one was extremely interested upon hearing that a movie was being done with Jennifer Lynn Lopez, Robert Redford, and the brilliant Morgan Freeman.
That said, along with the fact that I'm not a very big fan of Jennifer Lopez's, I thought the presence of Redford, and Freeman would be enough to enjoy this movie.
Each character and player when he/she is on screen is telling you so many things at a time that you get completely engrossed in their story.Jennifer Lopez plays a single mother running away from her abusive(typical) boy friend Damian Lewis and has no where to go but to her Father-in-law who hates her.
Father-in-law is of course Robert Redford who is not looking forward to anything in life, and his only real purpose in living seems to be to take care of his wounded friend Morgan Freeman.
Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman were excellent as always they are, Jennifer Lopez and her daughter role who played were also so good.One of a best cast movie which brought a new life from its original book.
(Robert Redford.) His life is a solitary one as he goes about his ranch, tending horses, cattle and his best friend Mitch Bradley (Morgan Freeman)who blames no one for his unfortunate encounter with a Grizzly Bear, which left him an invalid.
Morgan Freeman is so gifted...words escape me.I think it's true that both of them play roles that have a high degree of themselves in them, but that's OK, I like them or who I perceive them to be.Lopez, if you can watch her on screen and forget about her personal life that she shamelessly sells and lives publicly, is a reasonably good actress.
Morgan Freeman plays the same type of supporting character we all loved in "Million Dollar Baby" (which I think was the best movie of the year so far), to this one.
Some scenes, like when Einer talks to his son, or when he tries to let go of the tragedy he considers is his life, or the scenes where he and Mitch, Freeman, remind us of their brilliant talent, are truly genuine, sincere, wonderful and truly special.One of the most pleasantly surprising elements of the movie is Jennifer Lopez.
It's a simple theme that "works" because it's so universal (we all shut down in some areas of our life) and because it's told with such an engaging story.Morgan Freeman has a very interesting role, and Jennifer Lopez turns in a surprisingly good performance as a battered mom.The writing is great -- understated, terse -- especially the dialogue between Redford and Freeman, which captures the deep bonds of two old friends who are not about to state their feelings for each other directly.
In this very fine film AN UNFINISHED LIFE the setting is the vastness of Wyoming, in a town where everyone knows everyone and remembers everything, but the townsfolk also hold a profound respect for privacy and personal pain.Einar Gilkyson (Robert Redford) is a man in his 60's whose son was killed in an automobile accident eleven years ago, an accident in which this son's wife Jean (Jennifer Lopez) was driving.
Redford finally comes to grip with reality, thanks in part to his granddaughter, and accepts both daughter-in-law and granddaughter as part of his family Morgan Freeman plays Redford's friend and ranch hand who has been mauled by a bear.
Nothing happened but everything is changed thereafter.Morgan Freeman (e.g. moments before the bear),Robert Redford, Becca Gardner, Jennifer Lopez..
Robert Redford has given up on life and spends his time taking care of his ranch hand, played by Morgan Freeman, who was attacked by a grizzly.
Redford and freeman have not disappointed me in the past and i do not expect to ever see a film by them that is not worth watching.Now, add in the fact that we have Jennifer Lopez playing Redford's daughter-in-law, and the person he blames for the death of his son, showing up on his doorstep with his granddaughter, and you can expect some real sparks to fly and a Lifetime movie to result.
Cared for and tended to by Einar for many years.Jennifer Lopez, playing Jean, his daughter-in-law, shows up after a 12 year absence towing her eleven year old daughter, Griff, played by newcomer Becca Gardner in a wonderful performance.
Einar is hostile to this, he's always blamed Jean for killing his son in a tragic car accident.How all these disparate people heal and bond (Mitch has to forgive the bear who destroyed his life) is the crux of the story.Nothing is over-sentimentalized, the story is gently unwound under the able direction of Lasse Hallström who also delighted me in What's Eating Gilbert Grape - another engaging character study.Jennifer Lopez, against all my predictions, nails the role beautifully - and it is a tricky one, waxing between a saucy temptress and an abused woman with maternal instincts.There are a quite few telling moments in this film, made by understatement rather than the regulation Hollywood plank on the head.One is when Griff has thought she has figured out the relationship between Einar and Mitch and is very much alright with it and another where Einar tells Jean that a good child can only be produced in one way and says that isn't a compliment, it's just the way it is.Lovely gentle film.
If you like sweeping landscapes, beautiful music, brilliant performances (yes even Jennifer Lopez is credible) and Robert Redford doing what he does best, (although he is slightly more mean than usual) you will love this film as much as I do.
Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman are the obvious main talents in the film, but the ability of Jenifer Lopez, Josh Lucas and new comer Becca Gardner was glowing throughout the film.Set in the American desert, Robert Redford plays a man filled with anger due to the death of his son some 12 years ago.
Eventually after many attempts Redfords character warms to his her and tries to find it in him to forgive Jenifer Lopez at the same time.The film has beautiful scenery throughout, with horse riding and the odd bear An Unfinished Life is definitely a well made film from the maker of Chocolat.The storyline is basic with no twists or flashbacks which makes viewing far easier.
It's where her father-in-law Einar Gilkyson (Robert Redford) is residing.When Jean and her daughter arrived at Wyoming, they also met Einar's friend Mitch (Morgan Freeman) and the other residents of the neighbourhood.
I have become a true movie buff..living in the new england states and not having a lot to do,i became a movie watcher at home mainly..An unfinished life" is a very real and true account of how families should forgive..and if possible move on.it is both a sad movie,but a happy movie.I also like to see a bad guy get his just deserts.I understand where the character jean comes from, have been there done that with the wrong person, so it hit home a lot,and sadly children do suffer the chaos even in their adult lives when they witness what "Griff" witnessed with her mother,she was delightful in her innocent but grown up manner.Robert Redford i have always loved to watch his films,he always brings his character to life no matter what it is.I have seen JLO in a couple of similar movies,but i think this is her best work.Morgan Freeman as always is a great charismatic actor.He was the most centered one of the group seeing things as they are and should be.i have watched this movie so many times i can count,i have it taped for when i get the feeling of wanting to see it again,including the scenery, makes me want to be there in the vast wilderness.
The film starts out where Jean Gilkyson(Lopez) is being abused by her boyfriend Grey Winston(Damian Lewis), afterwords Jean and her daughter Gliff(Becca Gardner)leave to go to Jean's father-in-law Einar Gilkyson (Redford) in Wyoming.
While at the same time Einer is taking care of his friend Mitch Bradley (Morgan Freeman), who was attacked and seriously injured several years ago.The film captures the beauty of the Wyoming landscape and with great acting from the actors especially with Becca Gardner, Redford and Freeman, but surprisingly enough I give kudos to Jennifer Lopez.
It goes a little deeper than that by teaching us to be more understanding, more forgiving and more compassionate.Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman are two of my favorite actors and give wonderful performances.
My initial reaction after watching this movie was what a beautiful film visually and what a great story about love, acceptance and forgiveness.
I haven't read the book - didn't even know it was from a book but am a real fan of Morgan Freeman and Robert Redford so when I saw a preview of the movie while on business in the US I knew I had to see it before I left.
I saw it as a sneak preview which cost a little more but it was well worth the money and I was not disappointed.I was a little sceptical about JLo being in it but she did a pretty good job and any slack was definitely picked up by Freeman and Redford who both played excellent parts.I shall be reading the book and also be waiting for the movie to go to DVD.
Redford, Lopez, and Freeman did great jobs in ringing their characters to life.
"I think the dead forgive us our sins," Mitch says, his gentle wisdom inspiring Hallstrom's cast to let go of their hate.Despite a creaky performance by Lopez, "An Unfinished Life" features gorgeous location photography, palpable atmosphere and likable performances by Freeman and Redford, who play a couple of cantankerous old men.
It's not a very good movie but what may be called a goody-goody one which is worth to be seen and it has an excellent cast (Robert Redford, Jennifer Lopez and Morgan Freeman) who do a great performance..
A fractured family reconnects after Jean Gilkyson (Jennifer Lopez) shows up at father-in-law Einar's (Robert Redford's) now non-working ranch, and introduces him to his teenage granddaughter, Griff (Becca Gardner), whom he never knew.Jean and Griff arrive after a road trip in an attempt to escape Jean's battering boyfriend Gary Winston (Damian Lewis).
Unbeknownst to Einar, Jean was pregnant with Griff at the time of the accident.Other key players include Camryn Manheim as Nina, proprietress of a local coffee shop who offers Jean employment and takes her in after a fall-out with Einar, and Josh Lucas as Crane Curtis, the local sheriff who (can't you see this coming?) helps protect Jean when Gary shows up looking to resume their relationship, and who provides Jean with a potential new love interest.Finally, Morgan Freeman plays a pivotal role as Mitch Bradley, Einar's only family during the years of Jean's absence, and the gentle philosopher who makes Einer see the value in restoring his relationship with Jean and establishing one with Griff.
After What's eating Gilbert Grape?,director Lasse Hallstrom didn't do movies which were as good as that one(the best movie made by him after that great movie is The cider house rules,that it isn't great thing).But An unfinished life is one of the best movies directed by Hallstrom.This film is very fun and it has excellent performances from the great actors Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman.Jennifer Lopez made a very good performance on this movie.She really surprised me.Her last good performance had been on the great movie Out of sight.I totally recommend this great film because it has excellent performances and it's very fun.The only bad thing about this movie is that,in some parts,it's predictable..
Unfortunately I expected a little more from the likes of Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman in this film.
Regardless of your attitude that we are just sheep to be sheared of money I wanted to thank Morgan Freeman, Robert Redford and Jennifer Lopez (her best movie to date) for the wonderful story they helped create.
Lasse Halstrom's "An Unfinished Life" starring Robert Redford, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lopez, and Josh Lucas is a very well written, acted, and directed drama.
Robert Redford plays a good old grump, Morgan Freeman plays a good philosopher, and I must say Jennifer Lopez did pretty good herself, and Becca Gardner was wonderful as the strong spirited granddaughter!
All the actors including Jennifer Lopez, Robert Redford and especially Morgan Freeman where fantastic.
AN UNFINISHED LIFE gives us a story about two men (Robert Redford as Einar and Morgan Freeman as Mitch), and the examination of a loving relationship between friends, men who care for each other in a profound way
but it's much more than that.This story begins with Einar's daughter-in-law, Jean (Jennifer Lopez), coming back to live on Einar and Mitch's Wyoming ranch.
And Griff for allowing her mother to remain in an abusive relationship too long.But once the family comes together, their disjointed nature takes on a sense of meaning for all of them, and their lives again move forward.Robert Redford plays his best role to date as the curmudgeon cowboy who doesn't forgive easily but has a loving nature tucked deep down inside.
This is a family story that delves deep into the meaning of letting life continue and how to allow healing in a time when it seems impossible.It's a great character movie with some of the more notable performances in a dramatic role that I've seen in quite a while..
The message is the same, the location different.An Unfinished Life takes advantage of signature acting of its main characters (Redford = rugged but kind, Freeman = Wise but cripple, Lopez = Slutty but righteous) and carries a predictable, non-challenging plot about a father loosing his son in an accident and having problems forgiving those involved in it.As any good mourning movie, it has the usual confrontation between the suffering and the culprit, the talking at the grave, the frozen in time dead son room, the help-me-get-thru-this drinking, everything.
Jean Gilkyson (Lopez) leaves her abusive boyfriend and goes with her daughter, Griff (Gardner), to live in Wyoming with her former father-in-law Einer (Redford).
The acting by Robert Redford, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lopez was superb.
Director Lasse Hallstrom's An Unfinished Life is a modern melodramatic oater whose plot once started can navigate on its own.Redford's Einer is a crusty old Wyoming cowboy taking care of a much milder buddy, Morgan Freeman's Mitch, who has been mauled by an ubiquitous brown bear.
Morgan Freeman, Robert Redford, Jennifer Lopez.
The story is about learning to forgive within former in-law lives with some abuse thrown in to keep it real.Morgan Freeman always demands the respect when he's on the big screen and he certainly deserves respect from this role.He plays a long time friend, like part of the family of Redfords.The two have some real on screen moments which makes you believe you're intruding while watching them sting each other with their verbal volleys and some of these lines are as funny as funny can be but in an odd way.This is a sign of great acting when you cringe every time the two bicker about how one another should have done this or that with their life (these two were also in "Brubaker" together).There are some very emotional moments and there is something to learn about all of us when we think the right thing to do is "never give in".
When we sit and watch your movies, my client said; I wish Jennifer Lopez and Robert Redford would star in my true based story of my life.
And, like that movie, it has performances by Redford, Freeman and Bart the Bear (a grizzly who figures prominently in the plot) that are Oscar worthy.It is a movie that leaves one thinking about the value of life and family and will surely be nominated come Oscar time..
She went to Wyoming with her teenager daughter to stay with her father-in-law, played by Robert Redford, who lives with his ranch helper, Morgan Freeman, mauled by a bear a year ago. |
tt0077452 | Dona Flor e Seus Dois Maridos | Vadinho (José Wilker), Flor's irresponsible husband, drops dead while dancing in a street carnival party. Only Flor (Sônia Braga) expresses remorse after his death. Flor's friends and family see Vadinho's death as a chance for Flor to find happiness after the misery brought upon her by Vadinho's spendthrift ways and near-total lack of respectability.
Roughly the first half of Dona Flor recounts Flor's marriage with Vadinho in an extended flashback. What is made clear is that Vadinho was a great lover who admired his wife's respectability, but enjoyed protracted foreplay until she begged him to continue. Not only was he generally an inattentive husband who would rather go to the casinos and whore houses, but he beat Flor and stole the savings she made from her cooking school. Despite this, he changed a formerly inhibited girl into a wife who experienced carnal joy regularly.
The second half of Dona Flor involves Flor's meeting the respectable but extraordinarily dull pharmacist Teodoro (Mauro Mendonça), his courtship of her, and her marriage to him. Flor's friends consider Teodoro the exact opposite of Vadinho. Teodoro belongs in superior circles within Bahia's society, dresses elegantly, and treats Flor like a lady. What Flor's friends do not know is that Teodoro is also the opposite of Vadinho in one more respect: in bed, Teodoro is as lacking as Vadinho was accomplished. Flor finds herself unfulfilled, and wishes for her late husband to return.
On the anniversary of Vadinho's death, Vadinho reappears to Flor in the nude and explains that she called him to "share her bed" with him. Only Flor can see and hear the nude spirit of Vadinho, but he still manages to create chaos through his spiritual presence at casinos. She protests because she is now remarried and has pledged to be faithful to Teodoro, but after Vadinho laughs during Teodoro's pathetic attempts at love-making that night, Flor gives in and lives happily with both husbands. The last two shots depict Flor in her new marital bliss. A shot toward the end of the film shows Teodoro lying in bed next to Flor, who kisses him on the cheek. The camera then pans to the left to show Vadinho on Flor's other side and she kisses him on the cheek too. Then (presumably the next day) as a large crowd exits Sunday Mass, we see Flor linking arms with both Teodoro and Vadinho, thee latter of who is completely in the nude without shame. Flor is seen to be very content. | humor | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0074437 | Drum | During the British Raj, Captain Carruthers (Roger Livesey) works under cover to track smuggled shipments of arms on the restless Northwest Frontier of India, the modern day Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He fears a full-scale rebellion is brewing. To forestall this, the British governor (Francis L. Sullivan) signs a treaty with the friendly, peace-loving ruler of Tokot, a key kingdom in the region, which is described as four days' march northward from Peshawar. In real life the British held a fort at Abazai near this location, not far from the famous Takht Bhai ruins. Meanwhile, the king's son, Prince Azim (Sabu), befriends Carruthers and a British drummer boy, Bill Holder (Desmond Tester), who teaches him how to play the instrument.
However, the king's brother, Prince Ghul (Raymond Massey), has the king assassinated and usurps the throne; Azim escapes a similar fate thanks to two loyal retainers. They hide out in Peshawar, where the British are based. When one of Ghul's men finds and tries to kill the prince, Azim is rescued by Carruthers' wife (Valerie Hobson). Although he is offered sanctuary, Azim declines, believing it to be safer to remain hidden among his own people.
Carruthers is then sent to negotiate with Ghul, who pretends to want to honour the treaty. In reality, Ghul is the mastermind behind the rebellion. He plots to kill Carruthers and his detachment of men on the last day of a festival to signal the start of the revolt. Prince Azim learns of the ambush. When he is unable to convince the governor, he chooses to risk his own life to warn his friends. After Azim leaves for home, the governor receives confirmation of the plot and sends four battalions to the rescue.
Azim manages to warn Carruthers of the impending massacre by playing a danger signal on the "Sacred Drum of Tokot", saving many British lives. Ghul is killed in the ensuing battle and Azim is installed as his replacement. | violence, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1709653 | Earthbound | EarthBound takes place a few years after the events of Mother. The player starts as a young boy named Ness as he investigates a nearby meteorite crash with his neighbor, Pokey. He finds that an alien force, Giygas, has enveloped and consumed the world in hatred and consequently turned animals, humans, and objects into malicious creatures. A small, fly-like creature from the future instructs Ness to collect melodies in a Sound Stone to preemptively stop the force, but is killed shortly after when Pokey's mother mistakes him for a pest. While visiting these eight Sanctuaries, Ness meets three other kids named Paula, Jeff, and Poo—"a psychic girl, an eccentric inventor, and a ponytailed martial artist", respectively—who join his party. Along the way, Ness visits the cultists of Happy Happy Village, where he saves Paula, and the zombie-infested Threed, where the two of them fall prey to a trap. After Paula telepathically instructs Jeff in a Winters boarding school to rescue them, they continue to the city of Fourside and the seaside resort Summers. Meanwhile, Poo, the prince of Dalaam, partakes in a seemingly violent meditation called "Mu Training" before joining the party as well.
The party continues to travel to the Scaraba desert, the Deep Darkness swamp and a forgotten underworld where dinosaurs live. When the Sound Stone is eventually filled, Ness visits Magicant, a surreal location in his mind where he fights his personal dark side. Upon returning to Eagleland, Ness and his party use the Phase Distorter to travel back in time to fight Giygas, transferring their souls into robots. The group discovers a device that contains the alien, but it is being guarded by Pokey, who is revealed to have been helping Giygas all along. After defeating him in a fight, Pokey turns the device off, releasing Giygas and forcing the group to fight a battle known for its "feeling of isolation, ... incomprehensible attacks, ... buzzing static" and reliance on prayer. In a post-credits scene, Ness, whose life has returned to normal following Giygas' defeat, receives a note from Pokey, who challenges Ness to come and find him. | flashback, home movie | train | wikipedia | Like an episode of Dr. Who 'no hay doctor'.
Nice little movie.
Felt so much like a Dr. Who episode, you know those ones where the Dr. isn't there?
Good solid story.
Great job on the special effects.
I thought going into this that it was a low budget one camera little movie, but this is a serious film with a really sweet story, and great chemistry between the leads as they grow to know, and love each other.
Solid cast of villains, or simply people in the world around Joe that is for you to decide, or discover.
A great deal of though, and effort obviously went into the design and feel of all of the space "toys", and gadgets.
Cinematography was simple, and never over the top, no swooping crane shots, or fast close-ups.
My number 1 favorite thing about this movie is that at no time do you hear That creaking gate sound effect that everyone uses since the 60's, sorry now that you know, you will always hear it too.
You will enjoy this movie however..
Sci Fi Comedy Romance, an unusual mix that works well..
EARTHBOUND (2012 - Ireland) Raindance Film Festival review by Matthew SoloOn these little islands that sit somewhere off the coast of mainland Europe and a long way from mainstream America, we do things quite differently.
Our comedies are different, our romantic films are different, and when we combine the two, the results are often quirky, usually touching and invariably funny – to us at least.
EARTHBOUND is exactly that combination of results.
Now before I go any further, we are not talking Four Weddings here, our feet are firmly strapped to the ground of low budget independent cinema.
However, throwing science fiction into the mix, this film is a charming and ambitious debut by Alan Brennan.
Made in Ireland and shot in a mere 20 days, EARTHBOUND never sets any false pretences of what you can expect.
It's easy to empathise with Joe (Rafe Spall), who is convinced he's an alien from the planet Zalaxon.
And we sympathise with Maria (Jenn Murray), his super cute girlfriend who breaks the news to him that his intergalactic fantasies are nothing but just that.
And the supporting cast is equally strong, including David Morrissey who was attracted to the project by the story.The special effects are obviously constrained by budget, but you don't care!
The whole film works due to the interplay between the leads and the humour of the storyline.
The script really is fun and the cast deliver it well.
It's not often you get to see an independent sci-fi film that embraces comedy and romance as well (if at all for that matter), but EARTHBOUND is an easy to watch excursion through all three.
It's also not often I laugh out loud in the cinema, but I found myself not alone in doing so.
Hearing the director and cast talk about their adventures making the film, you can see their comic chemistry in action and wonder when they'll be back.
Let's hope it's not too many light years away..
A film that starts off decently then deteriorates quickly into religious propaganda.
I decided to watch this film on a bit of a whim, partly because I like Rafe Spall.
He is the sort of actor that is always the best thing about an otherwise unremarkable production, but this time, despite putting in another good performance, he is held back by a script that seems to have been written by a priest trying to surreptitiously infiltrate a secular drama group in order to brainwash them, before giving up and blackmailing a producer or two that spoke a bit too freely during confession.The main character called Joe wants to get with a girl called Maria either because he is the last remaining Alien of his species or he is an incredibly delusional human, and keeps looking up to the sky to try and see a bright flashing star.
There were no donkeys actually on screen, but the overbearing symbolism treats the audience as if they were the ass.After a slightly contrived yet sort of charmingly amusing set-up, the film then proceeds to pontificate on whether it is right to break someone's belief system if that system gives them strength to live, regardless of if the system is flawed or not.
The answer it tries to sell is a resounding yes, but it fails to approach the issue with any actual balance.If you want to see a good sci-fi film about an Alien who may or may not be crazy, then watch K-Pax. If this film knocks on your door make sure you slam it shut and put on the chain.
Double lock it for good measure.A waste of your time..
Good light hearten fun!.
Initially did not know what to make of the reviews and title.
So I just switched on the cable TV and got straight into this movie.
It was easy to follow and the geeky bloke made it more sympathetic to relate to(I'm no geek and there is nothing wrong with geeks!) It is a movie which can take you from your living room to another planet and back without feeling tense or wanting something more engrossing.
Sit back and enjoy the romantic Irish comical take on life.
I would recommend it to friends especially a couple to pass a light hearten evenings fun.
Nothing much to discuss about the movie afterwards, but hey, some movies are just enjoyable sod you can move on to the next one!.
A fantastic story which keeps you in the dark.
This little Irish film is a film of which you never really quite are sure what to get out of, and that's a planned thing from the makers.
It uses the ambiguous of using words to such an extent that it makes you think.
Because it's a clever film!
Is this film about loss, about dealing with fear of life of is it a story about a guy in denial.
I could go on, because there's a lot more to get out of it.We meet Joe, and alien on Earth, living and working in Dublin.
If he is a real alien, or just feels like it, I won't reveal, but we start off the story by getting to know why he is an alien, and that his father died when he was 11, presumably trying to make it easier for his son, telling an amazing story.
But is the story true, or a life lie?
He keeps away from women, because his father told him he needs more than 90 percent compatibility to start having a relationship to a human.
Well, thing might be possible, won't it, even for nerds?Well, does that sound lame?
It is, and starts off a funny ride.
The film is charming, and interesting, as it gives a certain perspective on human life.
It's almost like a family film, and it's a or a romantic comedy.
Not a laugh out loud one, but a charmingly funny story which easily will charm you.The film is well acted, and I like the way it uses conversation and misunderstandings as a driving force.
It's like you've heard, that men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
It keeps you in the black, and is supposed to.
Good film making which gives life to a great idea.
The only thing I'm not too fond of is the over use of music.
The spacey music is appropriate, but ruins the pleasure a bit for me.But all in all this is a great watch, and something completely different.
Maybe something if a mind bender!?
It can be seen as a romantic comedy, it can be seen as a sweet family entertainment, or a smart word bender about communication.
It deserves a big audience.
Enjoy!.
Sci-fi and romance that has some suspense.
I doubt anyone expects this to be in a league with Star Wars.
Instead it is a nice romantic story that keeps you in suspense.
Is Joe going to choose his heroic delusion, or a normal life with his true love?
The movie did a good job of taking you back and forth over which it was.Although the story about a superhero struggling with thinking he was delusional has been done a few times, this is still a cute story.
A lot of that is thanks to Jenn Murray who plays the absolutely perfect love interest for a dreamer.
She is no Marylin Monroe, but she is as sweet as pure sugar and just as lovable.
Whatever Maria did, she was always in love with Joe.Rafe Spall does a good job in Joe's totally naive acceptance of his dad's alien story and still manages to make fun of it just as the movie makes fun of itself and the space hero genre.Humor is spread throughout the movie.
The producers turn their low budget into a strength by using ray guns that look like toys and using other props in the same way.
Not to say there aren't a couple of decent special effects..
Good story, keeping us in doubt all the time what is really true.
Nice mix of SciFi and Romance.
I saw this film at the Imagine film festival 2013 in Amsterdam.
Though advertising itself as a festival for SF/horror/fantasy, this was one out of a meager set of three movies truthfully labeled as SciFi. Our main character (Joe) heard from this father that he is the last surviving member of the royal family of planet Zalaxon, exiled many many years ago because of a hostile occupation force.
To prevent extinction Joe has to find a compatible partner, produce some offspring before it is too late, and eventually return to Zalaxon when the time is ripe.
In the beginning of the film, we see him on the lookout for worm holes that appear on sparse moments, possibly carrying a missile from his home planet to bring him back to his roots.A parallel plot ingredient is the romance interwoven in the story.
Joe carries a device with him that allows him to measure "compatibility" when a candidate woman comes close.
He is a certified nerd, not going out much, always busy with computing time tables for worm holes to appear, and has otherwise little interest in socializing.
Also, while working in a comic book shop with an exclusively male clientèle, chances are very slim that he'll meet the right woman ever.
Yet, one day Maria appears in the shop, bringing a box of things she found while cleaning out the attic.
We see that his compatibility meter shows an exceptionally high value.
It forces him to arrange a real date for the first time in his life.
And he takes a lot of trouble to prevent the relationship from faltering.
As a result, we have "moving" music on various moments, some of the time crescendo to clarify the point (we got it already).The scenario is built very well, letting us viewers continuously in doubt whether Joe's story is indeed true or just imagination.
He only communicates with his father by means of a hologram.
Though explicitly forbidden to let others know of his background, he finally decides to present Marian to his father.
Alas, precisely at that moment, the hologram does not appear (we know Maria inadvertently removed an essential part of the device).
Moreover, the planet Zalaxon cannot be found on star charts, plus it being the name of a medicinal drug that Maria found in Joe's medication closet.
None of those observations improve the credibility of his story.For the larger part of the running time we see relatively limited use of gadgets, except for the last ten minutes where it really has the looks of a SciFi movie.
But still, are we seeing a true voyage home, or is it all just Joe's imagination??
I consider this uncertainty to be the real beauty of the story, leaving us behind with doubts about aliens and life on other planets.
That is A Good Thing for the SciFi lover in particular, and for the average viewer in general.All in all, I can recommend this movie for SciFi fans and also for the rest of the family.
The mix of SciFi and a love story makes it acceptable for a broad audience.
The "moving" music may exaggerate a bit from time to time, but not to the extent of being annoying.
The festival visitors gave this film a 7.54 score for the audience award..
Earthbound - What is it trying to be.
I mean, what's it trying to be?'.
This is the type of criticism I overheard laboured at this movie on the steps of the town hall in Galway on Friday afternoon by the industry types.
You know the types I'm talking about.
The guys and girls who haven't shaven or washed for about three days.One of the arguments I've heard is that this movie is a difficult sell because it does not fall neatly into one genre.
'Big Bang Theory' anyone?
'What's that?' these arty film types may ask.
Only the highest rated comedy on American television.
Oh and by the by, it's a sci-fi ROM-com!
Oh and by the by, it's a sci-fi ROM-com!
This movie proves what we all already knew, that Aliens can land outside of the United States.
I'm not saying Joe is an alien.
I'm merely saying that it's possible.
And in fact it makes a lot more sense that Joe would land in Ireland.
When you think about it the Americans surly built up massive strategic defense missile silos after the Roswell landings aimed at the milky way.
So if you're an Alien traveling to earth, where do you land?
Do you aim for the place with all the paranoid people and missiles or do you go for the place with the nice big fields, soft turf and bog, ideal for landing an intergalactic spaceship.The Hollywood reporter describes Joe's laser gun special effects as c grade sci-fi when compared to the effects in Prometheus.
Again, that's the point.
If Joe had better weapons he would have landed elsewhere.
To an Irish guy Joes laser gun is the iphone 4s of laser guns.So I sat down in the town hall in Galway with the aforementioned arty types and a deep sadness came over me as the opening credits rolled.
I had clearly walked into a film that was made for audiences and I had no popcorn!
I managed to relax sit back and enjoy the show.Several large belly laughs later and after shedding a few tears the lights went up to a spontaneous standing ovation and round of applause.
Of course the Arty types maintained their cool while the audience expressed their joy.This movie is funny and moving with a distinctly Irish quirkiness but what I think was so incredible was the sheer ambition of the project.
The movie is about people who could be aliens in love who blow up Dublin.
Now, isn't that a welcome change from the typical Irish film about some rural weird miserable farmer or guard with a left foot who works in garage and falls in love with a hoover on Grafton street.I think it's time we blew something up.
Explosions are cool.
This movie was made for audiences everywhere.
You will laugh, you may cry, you may think some of it is cheese but you'll enjoy that too and you'll walk out of the movie theater with a smile on your face.So don't make the same mistake I did.
Make sure you bring your popcorn and enjoy earthbound..
A great Yarn....
As one or two other reviewers note this is a very Anglo-Irish movie.
So whilst there are parallels with K-Pax, Earthbound has three things K-pax doesn't have..
Comedy, Romance and Ray Guns!
Joe, like so many today, is delusional..
he escapes the pointless boring reality of modern life by living in a fantasy; one in which he believes himself to be the hero son of the planet Zalaxon.
Sent here to Earth whilst a battle between Good and Evil is raging on his home world.
The delusion having been planted some 15 years earlier into Joe's 11 year old head by his dying father.
Joe has then hung onto the fantasy and in doing so isolated himself from the World.When Maria comes into his life Joe realises a 'contingency' plan: he must 'mate' with a human.
However when he then decides to share with Maria the truth about his identity she turns to a former boyfriend, the psychiatrist Richard Webb for Help.The delusion is then attacked and shattered forcing Joe to confront the truth (as perceived by others) and to accept that perhaps his father lied to him.
The ray guns and memory wipes don't work and the hologram of his father that has been guiding him stops appearing..Joe falls onto the only thing left that is real in his life: his job but when his promotion turns out to be nothing more than two jobs for the wage of one he resigns (inferred).Then events begin to take over...
the ray guns begin to work, the hologram it seems was jammed and Maria, who is now pregnant is Kidnapped by Bounty hunters who intend to use Joe's unborn child as a sacrifice.With the help of Maria's sister and a tracking device (sat nav) Joe locates the bounty hunters space ship and begins a rescue...
one he is able to complete on entering the atmosphere of Zaxalon where the lower gravity gives him super human strength.After defeating Webb, Joe rescues Maria and the pair drop down to the planet in the escape pod....
to live happily ever after...If only my delusion was as good as Joe's reality....
then my life would be an 8 out of 10 rather than Earthbound which is a great Comedy, Romance Sci-Fi that doesn't need OTT James Cameron style special effects to make it enjoyable... |
tt0054847 | El Cid | General Ibn (pronounced Ben) Yusuf (Herbert Lom) of the Almoravid dynasty has summoned all the Emirs of Al-Andalus to North Africa and chastises them for their complacency in dealing with the infidels and reveals his plan for Islamic world domination.
Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (Charlton Heston), on the way to his wedding with Doña Ximena (Sophia Loren), rescues a Spanish town from an invading Moorish army. Two of the Emirs, Al-Mu'tamin (Douglas Wilmer) of Zaragoza and Al-Kadir (Frank Thring) of Valencia, are captured. After escorting his prisoners to Vivar and seeing that peace will not come from others' bloodthirsty desire for revenge, Rodrigo releases the Moors on condition that they pledge never again to attack King Ferdinand of Castile's (Ralph Truman) lands. The Emirs proclaim him "El Cid" (the Castillian Spanish pronunciation of the Arabic for Lord: "Al Sidi") and swear allegiance to him.
For this act of mercy, Don Rodrigo is accused of treason by Count Ordóñez (Raf Vallone). When the charge is repeated in court, they are supported by Ximena's father, Count Gormaz (Andrew Cruickshank), the king's champion. Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego (Michael Hordern), once himself the champion, angrily calls Gormaz a liar. Gormaz strikes Don Diego with a glove, challenging him to a duel. Rodrigo asks Gormaz to come meet privately, begging him several times to "have pity" and instead ask the aged but proud Diego for forgiveness (for accusing Rodrigo of treason). Gormaz refuses, and Rodrigo kills him in a duel. Ximena swears revenge, wishing she were a son rather than a daughter.
When a rival king demands the city of Calahorra, Rodrigo takes up the mantle of the Ferdinand's champion, to win the city based on single combat. Rodrigo is victorious and then is sent on a mission to collect tribute from Moorish vassals of the Castillian crown. He asks that if he returns, Ximena is given to him as wife, so that he can protect and provide for her. Count Ordóñez, conspiring with Ximena to win her as he's wanted, plots to kill Rodrigo. Rodrigo and his men are ambushed but are saved by Al-Mu'tamin, one of the pair to whom he showed mercy at the beginning of the story. Returning home, he and Ximena are wed, but the marriage is not consummated: Rodrigo will not take her if she does not give herself out of love, Ximena spends the night crying, and she soon removes herself to a convent.
On the death of King Ferdinand, his younger son, Prince Alfonso (John Fraser), tells the elder son Prince Sancho (Gary Raymond), that Ferdinand divided the kingdom: Castile to Sancho, Asturias and León to Alfonso, and Calahorra to their sister, Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page). Sancho refuses to accept anything but an undivided kingdom as his birthright, knowing Ferdinand would have been manipulated by the treacherous Urraca. After Alfonso instigates a knife fight, Sancho overpowers his brother and sends him to the dungeon Zamora. Rodrigo chases down the group, telling Alfonso's guards they are violating God's law, defeats them all and escorts Alfonto to Calahorra. When Sancho arrives to demand Alfonso, Urraca refuses to hand him over. She and Alfonso beg Rodrigo to join them, but he refuses, because his oath was to all of them equally. He could not help one without breaking his oath to the others.
Ibn Yusuf arrives at Valencia, planning to land his armada on Spanish shores, and hiring Dolfos to kill one of Ferdinand's sons, making it look like the other's order, thus weakening their part of Spain. Because Ferdinand had trusted Dolfos, Urraca suspects nothing when Dolfos offers to assassinate Sancho. At Alfonso's coronation, El Cid has him swear upon the Bible that he had no part in the death of his brother, including "by counsel" or "by design." Since he had no part in it or any knowledge (as it was Urraca's doing), Alfonso swears truthfully, and banishes Rodrigo for the impudence. Ximena secretly listens to the edict, and her love is rekindled. Well into his way out of Spain, Rodrigo finds that Ximena followed, choosing exile with him.
Rodrigo is called into service by other exiled Spanish fighters and eventually into the service of the king to protect Castille from Yusuf's North African army. Rodrigo does not join the king, but allies himself with the Emirs who fight at Valencia, where Rodrigo relieves the city from the wicked Emir Al-Kadir, who betrayed him.
Count Ordóñez brings Ximena from where the king had imprisoned her and her children after his defeat by the Moors. After patching things up with Rodrigo, Ordóñez joins him in his cause. Valencia falls and Emir Al-Mu'tamin, Rodrigo's army and the Valencians offer the crown to Rodrigo, "The Cid," but he refuses and sends the crown to King Alfonso. Rodrigo then repels the invading army of Ben Yusuf, but is wounded in battle by an arrow before the final victory. Yusuf and his men see that Rodrigo has been badly wounded. If the arrow is removed, he would be unable to lead his army, but he would have a chance of recovery. El Cid obtains a promise from Ximena to leave the arrow, choosing to ride out, dying or dead. King Alfonso comes to his bedside and asks for his forgiveness.
Rodrigo, El Cid, dies, and his body is secured in a heroic pose, wearing his armor and cape, to an iron frame fitted to his saddle. With the sounding battle cry of "For God, the Cid, and Spain" his body is sent out at the head of his army, with King Alfonso and Emir Al-Mu'tamin riding on either side to guide his horse. When Yusuf's soldiers see El Cid with his eyes still open, they believe that he has risen from the dead. The Cid's horse, Babieca, followed by the column of mounted knights, trample Ben Yusuf, who is too terrified to fight. The invading North African army is routed and smashed. King Alfonso leads Christians and Moors alike in a prayer for God to receive the soul "of the purest knight of all". | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0058175 | Hamlet | === Act I ===
The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and nephew of King Claudius, his father's brother and successor. Claudius hastily married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, and took the throne for himself. Denmark has a long-standing feud with neighboring Norway, which culminated when King Hamlet slew King Fortinbras of Norway in a battle years ago. Although Denmark defeated Norway, and the Norwegian throne fell to King Fortinbras's infirm brother, Denmark fears that an invasion led by the dead Norwegian king's son, Prince Fortinbras, is imminent.
On a cold night on the ramparts of Elsinore, the Danish royal castle, the sentries Bernardo and Marcellus and Hamlet's friend Horatio encounter a ghost that looks like the late King Hamlet. They vow to tell Prince Hamlet what they have witnessed.
As the court gathers the next day, while King Claudius and Queen Gertrude discuss affairs of state with their elderly adviser Polonius, Hamlet looks on glumly. After the court exits, Hamlet despairs of his father's death and his mother's hasty remarriage. Learning of the ghost from Horatio, Hamlet resolves to see it himself.
As Polonius's son Laertes prepares to depart for a visit to France, Polonius gives him contradictory advice that culminates in the ironic maxim "to thine own self be true". Polonius's daughter, Ophelia, admits her interest in Hamlet, but both Polonius and Laertes warn her against seeking the prince's attention. That night on the rampart, the ghost appears to Hamlet, telling the prince that he was murdered by Claudius and demanding that Hamlet avenge him. Hamlet agrees and the ghost vanishes. The prince confides to Horatio and the sentries that from now on he plans to "put an antic disposition on" and forces them to swear to keep his plans for revenge secret. Privately, however, he remains uncertain of the ghost's reliability.
=== Act II ===
Soon thereafter, Ophelia rushes to her father, telling him that Hamlet arrived at her door the prior night half-undressed and behaving crazily. Polonius blames love for Hamlet's madness and resolves to inform Claudius and Gertrude. As he enters to do so, the king and queen finish welcoming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two student acquaintances of Hamlet, to Elsinore. The royal couple has requested that the students investigate the cause of Hamlet's mood and behavior. Additional news requires that Polonius wait to be heard: messengers from Norway inform Claudius that the King of Norway has rebuked Prince Fortinbras for attempting to re-fight his father's battles. The forces that Fortinbras conscripted to march against Denmark will instead be sent against Poland, though they will pass through a portion of Denmark to get there.
Polonius tells Claudius and Gertrude his theory regarding Hamlet's behavior, and speaks to Hamlet in a hall of the castle to try to uncover more information. Hamlet feigns madness but subtly insults Polonius all the while. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive, Hamlet greets his friends warmly, but quickly discerns that they are spies. Hamlet becomes bitter, admitting that he is upset at his situation but refusing to give the true reason why, instead commenting on "what a piece of work" humanity is. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tell Hamlet that they have brought along a troupe of actors that they met while traveling to Elsinore. Hamlet, after welcoming the actors and dismissing his friends-turned-spies, plots to stage a play featuring a death in the style of his father's murder, thereby determining the truth of the ghost's story, as well as Claudius's guilt or innocence, by studying Claudius's reaction.
=== Act III ===
Polonius forces Ophelia to return Hamlet's love letters and tokens of affection to the prince while he and Claudius watch from afar to evaluate Hamlet's reaction. Hamlet is walking alone in the hall as the King and Polonius await Ophelia's entrance, musing whether "to be or not to be". When Ophelia enters and tries to return Hamlet's things, Hamlet accuses her of immodesty and cries "get thee to a nunnery," though it is unclear whether this, too, is a show of madness or genuine distress. His reaction convinces Claudius that Hamlet is not mad for love. Shortly thereafter, the court assembles to watch the play Hamlet has commissioned. After seeing the Player King murdered by his rival pouring poison in his ear, Claudius abruptly rises and runs from the room: proof positive for Hamlet of his uncle's guilt.
Gertrude summons Hamlet to her room to demand an explanation. Meanwhile, Claudius talks to himself about the impossibility of repenting, since he still has possession of his ill-gotten goods: his brother's crown and wife. He sinks to his knees. Hamlet, on his way to visit his mother, sneaks up behind him, but does not kill him, reasoning that killing Claudius while he is praying will send him straight to heaven while his father's ghost is stuck in purgatory. In the queen's bedchamber, Hamlet and Gertrude fight bitterly. Polonius, spying on the conversation from behind a tapestry, makes a noise.
Hamlet, believing it is Claudius, stabs wildly, killing Polonius, but pulls aside the curtain and sees his mistake. In a rage, Hamlet brutally insults his mother for her apparent ignorance of Claudius's villainy, but the ghost enters and reprimands Hamlet for his inaction and harsh words. Unable to see or hear the ghost herself, Gertrude takes Hamlet's conversation with it as further evidence of madness. After begging the queen to stop sleeping with Claudius, Hamlet leaves, dragging Polonius's corpse away.
=== Act IV ===
Hamlet jokes with Claudius about where he has hidden Polonius's body, and the king, fearing for his life, sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to accompany Hamlet to England with a sealed letter to the English king requesting that Hamlet be executed immediately.
Demented by grief at Polonius's death, Ophelia wanders Elsinore. Laertes arrives back from France, enraged by his father's death and his sister's madness. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is solely responsible, but a letter soon arrives indicating that Hamlet has returned to Denmark, foiling Claudius's plan. Claudius switches tactics, proposing a fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet to settle their differences. Laertes will be given a poison-tipped foil, and Claudius will offer Hamlet poisoned wine as a congratulation if that fails. Gertrude interrupts to report that Ophelia has drowned, though it is unclear whether it was suicide or an accident exacerbated by her madness.
=== Act V ===
Horatio has received a letter from Hamlet, explaining that the prince escaped by negotiating with pirates who attempted to attack his England-bound ship, and the friends reunite offstage. Two gravediggers discuss Ophelia's apparent suicide while digging her grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of the gravediggers, who unearths the skull of a jester from Hamlet's childhood, Yorick. Hamlet picks up the skull, saying "alas, poor Yorick" as he contemplates mortality. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches, led by Laertes. Hamlet and Horatio initially hide, but when Hamlet realizes that Ophelia is the one being buried, he reveals himself, proclaiming his love for her. Laertes and Hamlet fight by Ophelia's graveside, but the brawl is broken up.
Back at Elsinore, Hamlet explains to Horatio that he had discovered Claudius's letter with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's belongings and replaced it with a forged copy indicating that his former friends should be killed instead. A foppish courtier, Osric, interrupts the conversation to deliver the fencing challenge to Hamlet. Hamlet, despite Horatio's pleas, accepts it. Hamlet does well at first, leading the match by two hits to none, and Gertrude raises a toast to him using the poisoned glass of wine Claudius had set aside for Hamlet. Claudius tries to stop her, but is too late: she drinks, and Laertes realizes the plot will be revealed. Laertes slashes Hamlet with his poisoned blade. In the ensuing scuffle, they switch weapons and Hamlet wounds Laertes with his own poisoned sword. Gertrude collapses and, claiming she has been poisoned, dies. In his dying moments, Laertes reconciles with Hamlet and reveals Claudius's plan. Hamlet rushes at Claudius and kills him. As the poison takes effect, Hamlet, hearing that Fortinbras is marching through the area, names the Norwegian prince as his successor. Horatio, distraught at the thought of being the last survivor and living whilst Hamlet does not, says he will commit suicide by drinking the dregs of Gertrude's poisoned wine, but Hamlet begs him to live on and tell his story. Hamlet dies in Horatio's arms, proclaiming "the rest is silence". Fortinbras, who was ostensibly marching towards Poland with his army, arrives at the palace, along with an English ambassador bringing news of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deaths. Horatio promises to recount the full story of what happened, and Fortinbras, seeing the entire Danish royal family dead, takes the crown for himself. | murder | train | wikipedia | For those looking for a strictly cinematic version of "Hamlet" you should probably look elsewhere, but for a theatrical experience of the classic tale of the Melancholy Dane, you could do worse than pick up this version of the 1964 Broadway production starring Richard Burton.Essentially a photographed performance of a stage production, this "Hamlet" was directed by John Gielgud with the concept of being a dress rehearsal (to pacify Richard Burton's dislike of wearing period costume) with actors in street clothes and bare bones set and props.
The concept falls flat but Gielgud does a fine job of staging the action (the convention of showing the ghost as a massive shadow voiced by Gielgud works wonderfully well), making one wish that he'd used a more conventional look for the show.
The cast is decidedly uneven, ranging from brilliant (Hume Cronyn in his Tony-winning role as Polonius) to incompetent (Alfred Drake as a rather hopeless Claudius).
While Burton is hardly the definitive Hamlet, frequently resorting to vocal pyrotechnics which are ultimately meaningless, there is no doubting his intelligence or brooding charisma in the role.
He may not have hit a bull's eye, but he is so far beyond such recent mediocre Hamlets as Ethan Hawke, Kenneth Branagh and Mel Gibson that his performance truly gives the viewer a splendid example of what a distinguished classical actor is capable of.
His handling of the soliloquies (especially "Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave am I") are very effective indeed.Those who quibble with the lack of close-ups or iffy cinematic qualities are missing the point of the experience: the faraway perspective makes the viewer fell like they are seated at an actual live performance at the Lunt Fontanne Theatre in 1964, and gives a much more uniquely theatrical experience than attempts to "cinemize" the play such as Branagh's vulgar and miscast film version or Olivier's celebrated bowdlerized adaptation (whose gutting of the text frequently plays like "Hamlet's Greatest Hits").Not much thought was given to the Special Features of the DVDs: the listing of the awards won by Burton, Cronyn and Gielgud are laughably incomplete, and it seems to me that the producers missed an opportunity by not including observations by a living cast member on a second voice track (cast members William Refield and Richard L.
Sterne each wrote books on the production, and it might have been rewarding to hear the remembrances of Hume Cronyn or John Cullum or Alfred Drake on this DVD).But despite it's faults, this is a valuable little treasure for anyone with serious interest in Shakespeare's play and a unique opportunity to see a memorable theater production without leaving your living room..
Difficult to find since it is essentially a video taping of a Broadway performance, but this is a Hamlet not to be missed!
Under the firm directorial hand of John Gielgud, Richard Burton creates one of the memorable Hamlets.
Still, Burton vividly demonstrates that he could have been the first classical actor of his generation had he focused on that phase of his career.
Gielgud appears as the Ghost of King Hamlet and is magnificent in the role.
Who plays the Player Queen in this version (yes, Player Queen)-- a very young Christoper Culkin.
Burton had instructed that after a limited theatrical release all copies of this were to be destroyed.
It is fortunate for those of us who love this play and love great classical acting that somewhere someone failed to follow instructions.
Whereas it is true that this version of "Hamlet" with Richard Burton in the title role was a hit on Broadway, that's just part of the story behind the video release.Burton had become an immensely popular actor after his scandalous marriage to Elizabeth Taylor during the rigors of filming "Cleopatra," in which he played the love-crazed Mark Anthony.
After that film's long-delayed release (late 1963), the pair became "Hollywood royalty" with a world-wide following.Developers/producers of Electronovision capitalized on their phenomenal popularity by arranging the taping of a dress rehearsal.
It was released theatrically during the course of the play's Broadway run.Electronovision was another version of closed-circuit TV; hence, the master videotape is in black-and-white.A later try with Electronovision was the 1965 closed-circuit, theatrical release of "Harlow," which starred Carol Lynley as 1930s movie actress Jean Harlow.
It barely preceded the 1965 film of the same name (Carroll Baker in title role).
Although that film was forced to rush through production, it didn't finish in time to be the "first."Critics of that period, who were not all impressed with this "new medium," really lashed out at this one, which they claimed went "against all ethics."To my recall, that controversy ended Electronovision..
Crude, black-and-white filming of a famous Broadway production: it feels like a shadow from the past.
I didn't know a record of this famous production existed until I found it on DVD at the library.
John Gielgud directed Richard Burton in "Hamlet," an acclaimed production in modern dress that was eventually recorded with a process called Electronovision and released in movie theaters.
What's fascinating is that this is a record of an actual Broadway performance before an audience; the actors make no concession to the cameras and change nothing.
The black-and-white process is crude, far inferior to that of recent stage shows presented on PBS.
It felt like a shadow retrieved from the past: I thought of the filmed dream from "Quatermass and the Pit."Richard Burton makes a fine Hamlet, more virile and physical than most; his intellectual side is de-emphasized but far from lost; and he's funny.
The rest of the cast is uniformly good, but Hume Cronyn stands out as Polonius.
He's so good, so funny, so able to bring out both the wisdom and the foolishness of the character that until he's dispatched, the play feels like the "Hamlet and Polonius Show."Happily a year ago, I found at a thrift store a book by Richard L.
Sterne (one of the minor players in this production) called "John Gielgud Directs Richard Burton in Hamlet." It includes transcripts of Gielgud directing the cast, the prompt script Gielgud created, and Sterne's interviews with Burton and Gielgud.
There is no point in my inveighing on the merits of the play, but to anyone who might have fixed ideas about the capabilities and limitations of certain well-known Broadway actors, it will be a revelation.
The fact that you are even thinking about watching this means that there is a high probability that you will like it, since you either like the play or like Burton or both.
Any fan of Burton will delight in his performance and any lover of the play should appreciate the no-frills approach.
This is not really a movie, but the filming of an actual stage performance presented in front of an audience.
By design the production is carried out as though it were a dress rehearsal, with minimal props and most actors appearing in street clothes.
Close-ups are good and actually have a quality that is reminiscent of certain contemporary independent films, but shots of the stage filmed at a distance are not as satisfactory.
In any case, since Electronovision seems to have met an early death, you are not likely to see anything like this again.Burton's Hamlet is not so melancholy, but rather angry, sardonic, and impish.
Hume Cronyn turns in a memorable performance as Polonius.It is interesting to contrast this with Branagh's complete-text film which is in color and very much a movie and not the filming of a stage play.
Burton's Hamlet is another example of how every production of this play is unique.
This is not a film of Hamlet in the traditional sense.
It is a filmed version of the famed 1964 Broadway production starring the late, great Richard Burton.
This version was shown for four performances only on two days in 1964 and then was supposed to be destroyed and thus lost to future generations.
But Burton had a copy and thanks to this we have this film.
And we should be glad because we nearly lost one of the best versions of Hamlet ever to grace any screen.Because of the fact it was filmed during a dress rehearsal, it does not have the lavish period sets, costumes, etc.
This is in fact a far different version in that regard.
This version is down with the most minimal of sets and in modern (1960's), even casual clothing.
This is not the film for those of you who think Shakespere means lavish costumes and sets.
This is a film that focuses on the actors and the words of Shakespere.
And that is what makes this film unique.
The props and costumes are minimal and this serves at times to distract from the performances which is a shame, since it really the only flaw of the filmed version of the production.But this is a film that showcases the power of Shakespere.
Richard Burton is at the height of his powers in the title role.
He never fails to capture the character and this is nothing short of a great performance.The rest of the cast is terrific as well.
Hume Cronyn is terrific as Polonius playing a bumbling and, at times, oxymoron version of the character (for which I do believe he won a Tony Award).
Linda Marsh is particularly impressive as the love struck Ophelia and has great chemistry with Burton making their relationship all the more believable.
Add on other great actors and an appearance by George Voskovec as the Player King and even a cameo by the play's director Sir John Gielgud as the ghost of King Hamlet to the mix as well.Overall despite the limitations of this stage version, this is a terrific version of Hamlet.
It is carried not by the usual sets and costumes but by the sheer power of actors and some of the greatest words ever to be put to page.
If you are going the different versions of Hamlet, this would be a good place to start.
See not only a great play, but an acting legend at the height of his powers.
These are the reasons to see this version of Hamlet..
Looking at this stage performance on dvd (and thank goodness it is available !!!) you will probably start with thinking: well, this is a relic, and so it will be great.
Within this HAMLET, so classical and so brilliantly played, breathes the 60ies.
I saw Burton do this on Broadway in June, 1964.
Certainly, this is not a particularly brilliant PRODUCTION of Hamlet, but Burton's performance - indeed his very presence - transformed me completely.
I don't know that film or videotape can translate the effect of the live person of so dynamic an individual, but it can give a hint of what the experience must have been like.When he died in 1984 (too soon!), the NY Times reviewer said that Burton didn't just belong on the stage, but that the stage was his by divine right.
It was a divine epiphany.By the way, there are a few other gems in this production (Hume Cronin, for example) - and a few clinkers (Alfred Drake).
The greatest vocalization Hamlet's pain and Shakespeare's words ever..
A previous reviewer misleadingly said, "Because of the fact it was filmed during a dress rehearsal, it does not have the lavish period sets, costumes, etc.
of other versions." This special Electonicvision tape was recorded during a live performance not a rehearsal.
The play was staged as if it were done during a rehearsal, but not during a dress rehearsal, because a dress rehearsal would have had elaborate period costumes and not actors casual rehearsal clothes.
Of course the actors "casual rehearsal clothes" were carefully selected to enhance and emphasize aspects of the character.
Hamelet for example dressed in gloomy black.The director John Gielgud saw this film and expressed disappointment that Burton had slipped back into his sloppy little boy egotistic expressions at the expense of subtlety.
Many critics a the time said that Burton performed self indulgently, emphasizing every moment, ignoring the chances for subtle variation the role allowed;that Burton gave a reading, an indulgence of his virtuoso voice rather than nuanced acting.
I saw this when it was first shown to the public in 1964 and I thought it was reading indulging his virtuoso voice and I loved it.
I love this Burton Hamlet more than I can say..
Richard Burton is amazing.
I've often said the only Shakespeare I like is 10 Things I Hate About You. When I watched Richard Burton's Hamlet, everything changed.Burton's energy level is unbelievable.
It's incredible to watch, and incredible to know he gave that same performance every night for 137 nights on Broadway, a record.
This taping of a live performance was stylistically filmed as a "rehearsal", so the sets are minimalistic, and everyone is wearing street clothes.
Normally, I don't like when period pieces are modernized, but in this case, Richard Burton could have been wearing a clown costume and I still would have loved it.Richard Burton is the first and only person in the world to make me understand Shakespearian language.
It's incredible.If you like Shakespeare, watch it.
If you like Richard Burton, watch it.
And if you like the Hamlet story, regardless of how many other versions you've seen and which one you think is your favorite, watch it.
It is a video-recording of a live Broadway version in the 1960s.
The 60s was a decade of amazing films (Lawrence of Arabia, The Graduate, etc) and the century's best actors on stage.
But due to the lack of money and technology, the overall film is not well- done.
The camera is at a far distance and hardly ever changes shots.
I had mixed feelings with Richard Burton.
I thought that the way he played Hamlet was spot-on.
He is able to incorporate the right amount of anger, sadness, wit, craziness, philosophy, determination, and happiness that makes Hamlet the character he is.
Hamlet is the hardest character to play, and Richard Burton conquers it.
What makes Hamlet is the he shows every kind of human emotion that he makes the audience feel with him.
I can't say the same thing for Richard Burton.
I guess one of the reasons is because of the lack of good filming, with the majority being at a distance.
it is taken from the filming of two live performances, then edited together.
the production itself was supposed to be more like a dress rehearsal so as to 'reveal the beauty of the language' as Gielgud put it.
Richard Burton was already being touted as one the great Shakespearean actors by Olivier, Tynan and Geilgud among many others and this recording only gives a glimpse of that immense talent - and that is only because the medium of film is not a friend to the theatre; they are different art forms.
Gielgud adds soul to "Hamlet Production..
Having been familiar with the audio recording made with the Broadway cast I always wanted to see them in action.
This stage version of "Hamlet' directed by the legendary Sir John Gielgud is well worth the wait.
He sets the play as if we were watching a final run through before costumes and final props are added which really brings the play's themes to the front and center.
Richard Burton manages well as Hamlet,however there are times (as this is a live performace that he does not quite seem "in the moment".
The finest performance in the production is Hume Cronyn as Polonius.he fleshes out a role that could easily be played as(and has been) a stock character.
A fine stage actor,This is a rare opportunity to see him in his full glory.
The sets and rehearsal clothes costumes add to the feel of the piece.
I just had the particular honour of seeing this with about a hundred others on the big screen at an old theatre in Western Australia - Burton's last wife, Sally, who had the film restored back in 1995, is part of a drama group - who write and perform plays with the elderly as there main audience (as a lot of the plays were from stories and war time letters of the older generations).
- She decided to screen Hamlet one time only (since its initial 6 cinema, one weekend only run back in the 60's) to raise funds for the group to take a play to London.It was absolutely brilliant.
The delivery and presence of actors like Burton and Cronyn was so incredible it didn't matter.
That is the question."Directed by John Gielgud - This 1964 production of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" took place at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in NYC.At a 3-hour running time - This particular version of "Hamlet" is presented as if it were a full final rehearsal of the play where everything is played straight through without any costumes or scenery.This adaptation of Shakespeare's famous period drama starred a 40-year-old Richard Burton in the title role.
In retrospect, this probably means they were using videotape or something, but at the time, they made it sound really revolutionary and many people thought the series of stills was actually what the movie would look like (I know I did).
At the time, movie tickets were ridiculously inexpensive (still fighting for dominance with free television) and you could see a film for a couple of dollars with your best girl.
It looked like any other movie to them.
Except that a lot of the actors were not fully costumed.
Richard Burton was pushing middle age, or dragging it, one or the other.
Alert to film school grads: consider making Hamlet with kids in the roles.
If you want to see someone do the dog out of Hamlet, get the Olivier version.
The only Richard Burton film I can heartily recommend is Candy, also written by Tom Stoppard.
There's a great scene (filmed through the floor of a limo) of Sir Richard sucking scotch out of the carpet. |
tt0085410 | Deadly Lessons | A teenaged girl, Stephanie Aggiston, is sent to Starkwater Hall Boarding School, a prestigious private girl's academy for the summer to brush up on Advanced French. Stephanie is a country girl and finds the school to be a bit snobbish. She makes friends with Marita Armstrong, Cally and Shama, who is a Saudi princess and her roommate.
Murders began occurring and Det. Russ Kemper comes to investigate. As more girls are killed, everyone worries about who will be next. Stephanie attempts to find the murderer herself. She enlists the help of the new attractive stable-boy, Eddie, who falls in love with her for 'not being like the other girls.' Suspicion soon falls on Eddie as the murderer.
As the summer progresses, the girls are slowly evacuated from the school. Marita is kidnapped on the day she is set to leave by the school's janitor, Robert. Robert bounds and gags Marita in his quarters on campus, somehow deluded into thinking his daughter was Marita's mother (which is not true). When Marita is able to signal from her captivity, Stephanie has Kemper follow her as she heads out "alone" to attract Robert's attention, allowing Kemper to make an arrest and save Marita.
Later, Stephanie is ambushed and chased by a mysterious figure, dressed all in black. The person is revealed to be Kemper, the real killer. The first death, Tember Logan, was an accident, as she drowned. It gave Kemper the idea to kill the other victims as a means of getting revenge on Miss Wade, who is revealed to be his mother, for abandoning him as a child. The murders were a means of ruining the reputations of her and the school. He is taken away and apprehended. | cult, murder | train | wikipedia | the girls at Starkwater Hall Boarding School are about to get a lesson in terror!.
When girls at Starkwater Hall Boarding School start turning up dead, a group of friends are determined to find out who's doing it.
But will they before it's too late?
It's a pretty good movie but slasher fans will be disappointed from the lack of blood.
There's none, but there is an okay suspense scene at the end..
Still have this one on tape.....
It's great to see at least a few posts on this good little t.v. slasher.
I still pull out my old VHS of the NBC premiere just to see what television was like especially considering the current, sad state of the tube now where commercial blurbs are at the bottom, top and sides of squashed, mashed and castrated film & program credits and huge bylines slapped across the screen to remind you of what you are watching!
Well, I can't really add to what's been said about this film except that it got some great play time on TBS in the late '80s and in an interview shortly before she died, Donna Reed lambasted the film as 'very cheap and on the sleazy side'!
Nothing of the sort, I actually double featured this with Wes Craven's Scream for a couple of friends of mine and they really got into it.
When will tele-flicks like this get their due?.
Pretty good TV 'slasher' movie.
I thought this movie was pretty good.
It's like a 'Scream' movie without the gore and a large variety of suspects.
Donna Reed adds a classy touch to the proceedings and Ally Sheedy is shown just before she hit stardom with 'WarGames'.
Hopefully this film will be shown on TV soon..
"Holy Grail" made-for-TV slasher movie.
This kind of a holy grail among both slasher films and TV movies because it is BOTH a slasher film and a TV movie, which means that as a slasher film it is much harder to find than the cinematic ones which are all getting the deluxe DVD treatment these days no matter how godawful they are, and as a TV movie it is one the few that is NOT totally worthless.
Needless to say there is very little blood and no nudity here, but its gratifying to read that Donna Reed still considered it "sleazy" (that's as good as "thumbs up" from Ebert and Roeper for me).The very familiar plot involves mysterious murders at a prestigious girl's school run by Donna Reed.
The most familiar actor is probably Bill Paxton, who also appeared in the cinematic slasher "Mortuary" before making it big with "Weird Science" and "Aliens".
The lead is the chronically cute Dianne Franklin, who is not great here but sure is easy to look at and highly stalk-able.
She was not in nearly enough movies.
The same can not be said, unfortunately, for her main co-star Ally Sheedy, but you'll be glad to know she ends up bound and gagged at one point here (two more thumbs up!).
Then, even more obscure than Franklin, there's Krista Erickson who played the original "mean girl" in the summer camp classic "Little Darlings" and also enjoyed a brief career as a really nice piece of acting talent in the kind of movies that play late at night on cable television.Unfortunately, the only way to see this movie right now is to also catch it late at night on one of the Turner Stations (which is how I saw, but unfortunately didn't record, it).
But, hey, if anyone reading this is a mover and shaker at Turner, this would be a great choice for a DVD release..
Who wants to see an '80s slasher without gore or nudity?.
In the early 1980s, making a teen slasher movie solely intended for distribution via cable television was either a very courageous undertaking or a very ignorant one.
If you ask me, it was a very ignorant one because 80s slashers could only distinguish themselves from the massive competition in two areas, namely the depiction of nasty gore (various & ingenious methods for killing dumb teenagers) and explicit sleaze (beauties showering or having premarital sex moments before getting killed).
Being a TV-movie, "Deadly Lessons" couldn't feature any of these two sub-genre trademarks and the consequences are irreversible now.
Today, practically all contemporary slasher movies have received fancy DVD-releases and often enjoy massive cult reputations even though many of them downright suck, whereas "Deadly Lessons" is entirely forgotten and obscure.
Numerous TV thrillers and horror movies from the 70s decade are still around and popular, however, but that's because they often benefited from an exceptionally great screenplay or a uniquely suspenseful atmosphere.
Apart from being blood-free and sleaze-free, "Deadly Lessons" also has the bad luck of being very mundane, dullish and unremarkable from all possible viewpoints.
The setting, pacing, story and denouement are standard slasher material.
It's not worse, but certainly not any better than the rest of the 80s slashers, but at least all the others showcased gruesome murders and gratuitous nudity.
In an exclusive all-girls boarding school, one of the students is found drowned in a lake.
It looks like an unfortunate accident, but police detective Kemper immediately suspects that she was murdered.
He's quickly proven right, as more girls are turning up dead while fear and hysteria are taking over the daily life at school.
Prime suspects include the handsome but bizarre stable boy, the obligatory old & creepy janitor, the eccentric French teacher and maybe even the sophisticated but uptight school principal Mrs. Wade.
The climax is implausible and far-fetched, but I'm not deducting any points for that since it was also a typical slasher trademark in the eighties.
If you have too much free time on your hands, "Deadly Lessons" might still be worth seeking out in case you like horror curiosities, or to see a few stars in their earliest roles, like Bill Paxton, Ally Sheedy and Nancy Cartwright (yes, she who does Bart Simpson's voice).
not bad slasher flick..
Not bad "slasher" Movie with a great cast.
It's about a psychopath who stalks an exclusive girls' school headed by Donna Reed.
Among the ill-fated students are Diane Franklin (Better off Dead), Ally Sheedy (The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order), and Renee Jones (Friday the 13th Part 6).
Larry Wilcox plays the cop hot on the murderer's trail, whoever he may be..
Made for TV slasher.
On March 7, 1983, ABC presented this slasher movie of sorts that's packed with plenty of great talent and enough twists to get you from commercial break to commercial break.Stephanie Aggiston (Diane Franklin, Better Off Dead, Amityville II: The Possession) is spending the summer at Starkweather Hall, a rich girl's boarding school.
She's a simple young lady, so she doesn't fit in at first, but soon makes friends with Marita (Ally Sheedy), Calli and Shama, her Saudi princess roommate.Everything seems to be going well until the murders start.
Detective Russ Kemper comes to investigate and you know he's a cop, because Larry Wilcox (Jon from CHiPs) plays him.
Instead of waiting to learn who the killer is, Stephanie decides to play investigator with the help of stable boy Eddie Fox (Bill Paxton).This movie is packed with red herrings, like the school janitor who thinks that Marita's mother was his daughter.
But the truth?
It's the cop!
His mother, headmistress Miss Wade (Donna Reed!) abandoned him as a child.
Therefore, he's going to take away the lives of these girls that she loves and ruin her school.Written by Jennifer Miller (who brought The Dark Secret of Harvest Home to TV) and directed by TV movie master William Wiard (This House Possessed, Fantasies), this is a fine way to pass some time and play spot the future star..
Silly whodunnit.
Paxton is barely in it..
A girl goes to boarding school, where the girls start getting murdered, and all the male staff are suspects.
Quite possibly the biggest anti-climatic ending I've ever seen in a horror/whodunnit movie.Bill plays a stablehand who is supposed to be the love interest with the main actress (according to the script), but their interaction consists of hanging out for about 10 minutes talking while Bill brushes down the horses, sharing one kiss, then they part forever.Actors include: Donna Reed, famous for the Donna Reed Show (if you didn't watch TV in the 50s, you probably don't know it) Ally Sheedy, (most famous from The Breakfast Club) who played a serial killer in the highly-recommended sitcom Psych and was most recently in X-Men: Apocalypse.Larry Wilcox, who co-starred in CHiPS, he also plays a cop in this movie Nancy Cartwright, who became famous for voicing many, many cartoons, including Chuckie from Rugrats, and Bart from The Simpsons TLDR; silly movie.
give it a miss..
Doomed Girls.
There's a hint of cinematic exploitation in this made for TV movie about a boarding school full of pretty rich girls stalked by a phantom killer.
Enter Diane Franklin as the new girl, taking everything in with a naïve, vulnerable expression and meeting each character along with the audience.
There's Ally Sheedy as a rich girl and a host of others, including Bart Simpson's voice Nancy Cartwright, most getting picked off by a mysterious killer within the Southern plantation style campus.The mystery aspect works good – it's hard to tell who the culprit might be.
Perhaps Bill Paxton as a seemingly kindhearted horse-trainer or the classy French teacher.
Our only hope in stopping the killings, which occur mostly off screen (if you don't jot down each victim's names you'll forget who dies or lives), is Larry Wilcox as a local plainclothes investigator with a chip on his shoulder and a particular dislike for pompous school owner Donna Reed.An intriguing body count premise where the spoiled beauties, like in any horror film template, are put through the ringer.
And the "who done it" finale turns out somewhat creative.For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreak.com |
tt0068240 | Avanti! | For the past ten years, Baltimore industrialist Wendell Armbruster, Sr. has been spending a month at the Grand Hotel Excelsior in the Island of Ischia on the Bay of Naples, in Italy allegedly to soak in the therapeutic mud baths for which the resort island is known. When he is killed in an automobile accident, his straitlaced son Wendell Armbruster, Jr. journeys to Italy to claim his father's body. Upon arrival he discovers his father was not alone in the Fiat he was driving; with him was his British mistress, whose daughter, free-spirited London shop girl Pamela Piggott, also is on the scene, though she clearly knew of their parents' clandestine romance beforehand. Hotel manager Carlo Carlucci attempts to smooth things over, taking on all the arrangements for the body to be taken back to Baltimore in time for burial in just three days time.
Complications arise when the bodies disappear from the morgue. Wendell suspects Pamela, who has expressed a wish that they be buried in Ischia; however, it is revealed that the actual bodysnatchers are the Trotta family, whose vineyard was damaged when the elder Armbruster's car drove into it during the fatal automobile accident. The Trotta brothers have stolen the bodies from the morgue, holding them for a two million lire ransom.
This is not Wendell's only problem. Bruno, the hotel valet, is determined to get back to America after being deported and has compromising photographs of Wendell's father and Pamela's mother swimming nude in the bay. As the Italian atmosphere begins to affect them both and animosity gives way to friendship, Bruno manages to get pictures of Wendell and Pamela swimming naked as well, and tries to blackmail his way to an American visa. This displeases the maid Anna, with whom Bruno was co-habiting, and in a fit of rage she lures Bruno to Pamela's room, kills him, and then runs off. Carlucci moves Pamela's belongings into Wendell's room to prevent an international incident, and the two are thrown together.
Appearing in a U.S. Navy helicopter to speed the repatriation is State Department official J.J. Blodgett who, by posthumously appointing the deceased man to an embassy post, allows the U.S. government to recover his body. Finally, Carlucci, Wendell and Pamela find the perfect solution - their parents are buried side by side in Ischia (in the Carlucci family plot) whilst Bruno takes his place in the repatriated coffin, finding his way back to America after all. Wendell and Pamela part, with a vow to return next year, just as their parents did. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0066905 | Chain Gang Women | Parole officer Sandra Parker (Lois Nettleton) becomes aware of the death of one of her cases, Ginger Stratton, at the hands of brutal prison guard Claire Tyson (Ida Lupino). All too aware of Tyson's impeccable record, Parker and her friend, Assistant District Attorney Helen Anderson (Penny Fuller), come to the conclusion that Tyson is basically untouchable.
Parker hatches a scheme to expose Tyson by going undercover in prison herself. Helen attempts to persuade her that this is foolish but there is no stopping Sandra. She adopts the name Sally Porter, bleaches her hair and gives herself some needle marks as if she were a drug addict.
Helen gives her boss Barney Fielder (John Larch) the appropriate papers for transporting "Sally Porter" to prison, where she finds herself on Ginger's "ward" and begins asking questions of her other inmates.
Outside the prison, Helen Anderson (the only person who knows Sally's real identity) is shot and killed by a boyfriend of one of her cases. Sally must therefore prove Tyson's true credentials before she can escape.
Life in prison moves on and Tyson's "henchwoman" Leila (Barbara Luna) becomes suspicious of all of Sally's questions. At first Tyson is angry with Sally's insolence but begins at one point to warm to her as she shows spirit. However, as Sally attempts to protect Melinda (assigned to the same ward at the same time but innocent of the crime she was convicted for) – so Sally and Melinda find themselves in an impossibly small room for a prolonged period.
Just before lights out – Leila informs Sally that "the word's been passed" and Sally is due to be killed tomorrow. Sally is all too aware that she must escape and makes a run. Initially unaware of the escape attempt, the prison closes for the night – until Tyson does the usual number checks and sounds the alarm.
A chase ensues with Sally still within the prison grounds, where taking one wrong turn brings her face to face with a furious Tyson. The two exchange blows before Sally pins Tyson to the floor putting Tyson's own truncheon across Tyson's throat and kneeling on it.
The struggle is interrupted by the prison governor. As the pair of frantic women are separated, Sally cries out to the governor that she is in fact Sandra Parker, asking him to contact Barney Fielder (Helen's boss) to confirm her identity. As this is taking place, Tyson is frantically explaining to the prison governor that Sally had tried to kill her. Accusing her repeatedly of being "a dirty lying lousy little con". In the film's penultimate scene, the governor looks somewhat disbelievingly at Tyson as Sally (realising she has been believed) cries out "Oh my God". The film ends with Sally walking triumphantly down the corridor which led to her ward – dressed in her ordinary clothes (as opposed to prison uniform).
She promises to reopen Melinda's case. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0079808 | The Riddle of the Sands | In the Spring of 1901 Arthur Davies is sailing around the Frisian Islands, remapping the sand banks, when he encounters a German ship, the "Medusa" out of Hamburg. He is invited by Clara the daughter of Cpt Dollman (Jenny Agutter) to join the family for dinner and this he does. A relationship begins with the daughter. But he is concerned when the daughter invites him to shore to buy supplies, when he sees a crew member of the German ship exploring his yacht.
He has been invited on a yachting and duck-shooting holiday by an old University acquaintance called Carruthers (Michael York), and he meets this old friend. Davies explains to Carruthers that he has a hidden agenda for the trip.
He narrates further that whilst sailing together along the coast in a gale Dollman had, when Davies had tried to put into a particular estuary for shelter, inexplicably prevented him from entering by executing a deliberately hazardous sea-manoeuvre, to the degree that both their lives had been endangered by it. Davies then reveals to Carruthers that his real interest in the area is that he suspects that the Imperial German Navy is engaged in covert military activity of some nature in the Frisian Islands, with the intention of threatening the security of the North Sea from the British perspective, which the Royal Navy is strategically misdirected to meet, and this is why he has invited Carruthers' presence, given his linguistic ability in Deutsch and professional contacts within Whitehall, on a pre-text of a holiday.
Carruthers and Davies go on, amidst cryptic warnings-off from circling German naval officers, sailing expeditions among the Frisian isles and inlets, and fights, to carry out covert surveillance at the estuary in question, to discover that the II Reich is using a naval base hidden in the islands to carry out rehearsals for a seaborne passage across the North Sea of a German army with the aim of militarily invading England, and that Herr "Dollman" is in fact Lieutenant Thomas, an embittered former Royal Navy officer who is treasonously assisting their preparations with his detailed knowledge of England's coast and naval defences.
After sabotaging one of the rehearsals, whilst escaping to Holland by sea in 2 roped yachts with the information about it, along with a badly wounded Thomson and his family as prisoners, Davies abandons Thomson with his wife in Davies' boat to allow him to return to Germany to seek medical assistance for his wounds at the insistence of Clara, who agrees to accompany Davies and Carruthers back to England in her father's yacht with his papers revealing the German plans in detail. Thomson and his wife are murdered by the pursuing German authorities - led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, in person - when their vessel is rammed and destroyed.
The film ends with the yacht bearing Carruthers, Davies and Clara bound for Holland, with a Carruthers' voiced narration detailing how their return to England with the information would lead to a shift in England's sea defence strategy towards the II Reich, that would avert the threat of war. | intrigue | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0117631 | Shine | A man (Geoffrey Rush) wanders through a heavy rainstorm finding his way into a restaurant. The restaurant's employees try to determine if he needs help. Despite his manic mode of speech being difficult to understand, Sylvia learns that his name is David Helfgott and that he is staying at a local hotel. She returns him to the hotel and despite his attempts to engage her with his musical knowledge and ownership of various musical scores, she leaves.
As a child, David (played by Alex Rafalowicz) is growing up in suburban Adelaide, South Australia and competing in a local music competition. Helfgott has been taught to play by his father, Peter (played by Armin Mueller-Stahl), a man obsessed with winning who has no tolerance for failure or disobedience. David is noticed by Mr. Rosen, a local pianist who, after an initial conflict with Peter, takes over David's musical instruction.
As a teen, David (played by Noah Taylor) wins the state musical championship and is invited to study in America. Although plans are made to raise money to send David and his family is initially supportive, Peter eventually forbids David to leave and abuses him, thinking David leaving would destroy the family. Crushed, David continues to study and befriends local novelist and co-founder of the Communist Party of Australia, Katharine Susannah Prichard (Googie Withers). David's talent grows until he is offered a scholarship to the Royal College of Music in London. David's father again forbids him to go but with the encouragement of Katharine, David leaves. In London, David enters a Concerto competition, choosing to play Rachmaninoff's enormously demanding 3rd Concerto, a piece he had attempted to learn as a young child to make his father proud. As David practices, he increasingly becomes manic in his behavior. David wins the competition, but suffers a mental breakdown and is admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where he receives electric shock therapy.
David recovers to the point where he is able to return to Australia, but is still rejected by his father. David relapses and is readmitted to a mental institution as a young man. Years later, a volunteer at the institution recognizes David and knows of his musical talent. She takes him home but discovers that he is difficult to control, unintentionally destructive, and needs more care than she can offer. She leaves him at the hotel from earlier in the film. David has difficulty adjusting to life outside the institution, and often wanders away from the hotel. David wanders to the nearby restaurant.
The next day David returns to the restaurant, and the patrons are astounded by his ability to play the piano. One of the owners befriends David and looks after him. In return David plays at the restaurant. Through the owner David is introduced to Gillian (Lynn Redgrave). David and Gillian fall in love and marry. With Gillian's help and support, David is able to come to terms with his father's death and to stage a well-received comeback concert presaging his return to professional music. | tragedy, insanity, romantic, sentimental | train | wikipedia | "Shine" purports to tell the story of David Helfgott (Geoffrey Rush, who plays the adult Helfgott), a promising pianist who overcame mental illness, with the help of his wife, and returned to performing.The 1996 film is actually a fictionalized version of Helfgott's life - but even had it not been based on a true story, it remains a powerful, intriguing film.David is the child of German émigrés who now live in Australia.
His father Peter (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a self-taught pianist who teaches David his same love of piano and classical music.
In a small role, John Gielgud of course makes a fine impression as an elderly teacher, a wonderful pianist himself, who believes in David's talent.The best scene is David playing Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3 - Helfgott's own recording of the piece is used - and the aftermath.
What I missed in this film is music - there was a lot of talk about David's promise, but until the Rachmaninoff not much playing.Helfgott's work today has been deeply criticized for being - well, lousy.
I don't think the commenter has any idea what Helfgot is like on his medication - certainly in the film, he acts strangely."Shine" is highly recommended for its fantastic performances, beautiful music, and its inspiring story..
Nonetheless, it's a very well-made movie.Geoffrey Rush is fascinating in the lead role as "David Helfgott." However, I would give equal kudos to Noah Taylor, who played Helfgott as a teenager, and to Armin Mueller-Stahl, who was Helfgott's father.
This is a good film in every sense but will mean most to fathers with strong views :).The story of a brilliant young pianist whose relationship with his father drives him to some sort of mental illness.
The real Helfgott didn't spend 15 years abandoned in a room with a piano, he didn't have to stand in the rain outside of a bar before they would let him in, he was pretty well known in the local scene as a pianist, his father was not a Holocaust survivor and David had been married before, father and son were never really estranged and David was present at his funeral.But the 'objective' point-of-view that purports to explain him, or any of us at any time based on a few facts, is in the end no less hypocritical than any attempt to pass dramatization as 'the real story'.
Someone can be present at a funeral without being truly present, and someone can feel forgotten and alone even when they're factually surrounded by people, estranged from a parent even when formally this was never so.The film is at a simple emotional level where the attempt to conquer a maddening complexity (music, life) snaps the tethers of mind and in due time the reconfiguring of this damage into blossoming art.
And this is what rankles so much Helfgott's piano critics who find him borderline incompetent in his playing - he is cheered on in concerts because he is the character from this film.Ideally we would be able to discern all these points here instead of one harmony: the truly damaged but kind soul, the inability to place blame for that damage on any ogre father or Holocaust, and being able to somehow experience his music (the real Helfgott recorded for the film) as a trained ear would, fixated flourishes followed by distraction and incompetence according to critics, musically extending the damaged self.For a more demanding film on the same subject of madness and transcendent musical genius see a little known film on a medieval composer called Death in Five Voices: all about the dissonance between different voices trying to harmonize a story and this carried in the music itself..
"Shine" is one of the great movies of the '90's, that became an unexpected success in 1996 and was the movie that earned Geoffrey Rush his as of yet only Oscar win and got the movie 6 more Oscar nominations, including best director and best picture.The movie shows how Australian born David Helfgott gets formed and influenced in his early life by his demanding and abusive father (wonderfuly played by Armin Mueller-Stahl), who is in strict control of the family.
It's a really great directed and told movie, from Scott Hicks.But of course like every good biopic, the movie doesn't only presents facts and some things are altered, in order to enhance the movie and its story or characters.
"Shine" truly benefits from its approach and story.I also enjoyed David Hirschfelder nice little musical score (also Oscar-nominated).
Who knows, perhaps they could had better waited for another 30 years to come up with a movie about his life, for who knows what more strange and beautiful moments his life shall know.Perhaps it's not the most stylish or greatest made movie but the combination of the interesting unique story, pace and main character (and of course Geoffrey Rush his performance of him) are what makes this movie such a basically flawless (you simply just forgive the movie for its flaws and shortcomings while you're watching it) and captivating one to watch.10/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
SHINE (1996) **** Geoffrey Rush, Noah Taylor, Alex Rafalowicz, Armin Mueller Stahl, Lynn Redgrave, Sir John Gielgud, Googie Withers.
Excellent Oscar nominated bio pic about acclaimed Australian pianist virtuoso David Helfgott (played equally brilliant by Rush {deservingly winning the Oscar as Best Actor} as an adult, Taylor as a young man and Rafalowicz as the child prodigy) who suffered mental anguish thru his art largely due to his overbearing father (Mueller Stahl, Best Supporting Actor nominee, in a demanding yet effective role) that led to his nervous breakdown that nearly destroyed him.
Geoffrey Rush is unbelievable as the piano prodigy David Helfgott, and although the film is kind of sewn up a little quickly with the Vanessa Redgrave subplot (what about Helfgott made her so in love with him in a short period of time as to want to marry him?) it is a very well done film that I highly recommend to just about anyone, but especially musicians and music lovers.--Shelly.
The true story of David Helfgott, a piano virtuoso who suffered a mental breakdown early in his life while under the thumb of his demanding father who, for the purposes of melodrama, is not just embittered and jealous but abusive as well.
It's more the combined effect of script/direction/production) 3)Incredibly heavy-handed, clichéd depiction of the father's issues resulting from surviving the Holocaust (ditto above comment; I didn't have a problem with the actual performance) 4)General oversimplification, hollowness and reliance on emotional manipulation to cover up a lack of insightThe above intruded so much on my consciousness that I just couldn't ignore them & let myself get caught up in the music or the story.
This is a nice story, but it is very troubling how the movie suggests that David's mental state, which is obviously schizophrenia, is somehow cause by his father's abuse.
Noah Taylor and Geoffrey Rush (in a well-deserved Oscar-winning turn) played Helfgott during his teenage and adult years.
It is no surprise that this tale, based 'loosely' on the life of pianist David Helfgott (I say loosely because this is by no means a strict documentary, as many liberties are taken with the script) was nominated for the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars, and were it not for THE English PATIENT, would have walked away with the grand prize.Geoffrey Rush as the adult Helfgott is amazing and his Best Lead Actor victory for his portrayal of this musical genius was well-deserved as the performance was simply breathtaking.
We hear in the background on an old gramophone (throbbing dotted notes in the bass entirely inaudible); its themes are woven into the film's score; and in the big climactic scene where David plays it in public for the first time, sound effects are distorted so that we hear almost everything EXCEPT Rachmaninov's music as it really is.
Based on the life of pianist David Helfgott, who, suffered a mental breakdown and spent years in institutions comes to life with Rush's most urgent performance to date.'Shine' as a film, is a notch above the ordinary.
I fell in love with this movie cause it shows you family selfishness in a raw way, by using the character of Davids father,great acting by Stahl.The directing was incredible,even that little detail when rush does the jumping in the hospital, which symbolizes the traumatized childhood of his character, and more importantly the look in rush eyes, were like an innocent traumatized child.
It also has funny scenes (like the ones in the restaurant which David's gift gets explored again,while he's playing the flight of the bumble bee) The deep and sharp-cut character profiles also makes the movie more interesting.Everyone who is interested in music and arts should watch this movie and see the gifted persons' sacrificing their lives and pains and troubles (like demons crowding together) before getting understood and spreading their blaze around...
I think that the movie skips very important parts of the story such as the time David spent in the mental institute, and we do not get the understanding that he has moved from America to Austrlia.
The runtime is also a little bit long.Pros: Touching and powerful story, great ending, amazing acting, the break down sequence, and Geoffrey Rush's performanceCons: Some slow pacing and an overlong runtimeOverall Rating: 8.5.
It's an uplifting story about a talented pianist who lost it all after suffering for an extreme mental breakdown, it's really inspiring to see someone get back on their feet and become a better person than they ever were before, it makes you feel confident about yourself, and what you have achieved, I love a movie that can do that to their audience.
The cast is magnificent, Geoffrey Rush shines, as he always does, delivering a well deserved Oscar winning performance, his best scenes are with Armin Mueller-Stahl, the chemistry between them is very strong, bringing great passion to their roles.
Pianist David Helfgott (Geoffrey Rush), driven by his father and teachers, has a breakdown.
Shine is the real life story of David Helfgott, a gifted pianist suffering from some severe mental problems.
Three different actors portray the tortured soul at three stages of his life, concluded by Geoffrey Rush's stream of consciousness and Oscar winning performance, which makes the film well worth the occasionally bumpy ride.
Scott Hicks tells a moving story of musician David Helfgott, a child prodigy who vanishes into oblivion because of a mental illness while he continues battling his inner demons.
Geoffrey Rush won the Oscar for Best Leading Actor, although he only appears for about 40 minutes of the film, and he, Alex Rafalowicz and Noah Taylor all makes for great performances as the leading man throughout his maturing life.
The piece plays a pivotal role in Helfgott's story and as such, this film based on him brilliantly reflects its beauty and turbulence."Shine" is not a typical biopic in this way: there are no scenes written or dragged out solely to open your tear ducts.
When Helfgott finally escapes to London to learn at the Royal School of Music, attempts Rachmaninoff for a recital and suffers a breakdown at the conclusion of the piece, suddenly the film becomes a series of clips: scenes that appear to be in order but lack clear objective and purpose with exception of David's piano skills returning bit by bit.This recital/Helfgott's breakdown scene is the best in the movie.
Geoffrey Rush delivers a stunning performance as the adult Helfgott and allows the viewer to understand the sensitivity of such a brilliant pianist.
3. Maybe as David's father says in the film: "Life is a struggle you have to fight".This is a movie filled with sorrow, happiness and some really good performances, among them Geoffrey Rush as David when he's an adult.
'Shine', however, allows Australian cinema to jump a few steps and really get some world attention.Sure, there have been raging arguments recently as to how close (or how totally far away, as the case may be) the plot is from David Helfgott's life, there can be no doubt that this film is exceptional stuff.The fact that Geoffrey Rush won as Oscar for this film says it all.
He really was the one playing the piano in the second half of the film (though Helfgott recorded the sound), so he deserves great credit for that.
shine is one of the most precious movies for me, i loved it from the first sight, its screen making, acting, cast, plot, every thing is just perfect, and above all how the writer and the director handle to express such intrigued element as the sensitive characters as David Helpoffgot.
Geoffrey Rush amazes in this true-life story about the rise and fall and rise of a concert pianist with acute emotional and psychological problems.The film itself is pretty standard biopic fair, its pedigree elevated somewhat by its independent, art-house vibe.
But Rush is a revelation, and this is the movie that brought him to mainstream attention, particularly after winning the 1996 Best Actor Oscar.Armin Mueller-Stahl gives a frightening performance as Rush's stern and domineering father, and Noah Taylor does nice work, seamlessly portraying Rush as an adolescent.Grade: A-.
This provides a logical lead in to Helfgott's mental health issues in his early adult life, where he is seen in various institutions in London and Australia.The editing, where Rush is seem playing parts of the scores he can manage, with cuts to other pianists is convincing, and as a medium level player, Rush's visible upper body looks like he is playing most, if not all, of those difficult notes.If you haven't seen it and are interested in the psychology of performers, in classical piano music, or just a well told tale, make the effort to dig Shine out.
This is the first ever Australian movie that I witnessed and its not the story/screenplay/music or the dialogs but the acting of the lead character - Geoffrey Rush!
I do not prefer this kind of music - but after the movie I got myself humming Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3.Geoffrey Rush got an Oscar for this performance.
The real David Helfgott actually contributed as a musician (pianist,of course) for this wonderful film about his life, dramatizing hisstruggles through his childhood and breakdown as an adolescent.Yet it isn't about gloomy and depressing accounts but aboutsurvival and living to the best of one's abilities.
Neither insanity nor therapy nor other people can ruin this will to express things coming out of heart and soul, things that make you shine
Geoffrey Rush (David Helfgott) has deserved Oscar for his astonishing performance.
Shine is a Fantastic true story of Pianist David Helfgott and his battle with mental illness, brought on by several factors in his life, each resulting from his "piano prodigy" status.
One thing I think really took away what could have been a fantastic film, is the portrayal of Helfgott, by actor Geoffrey Rush.
I know that many people regard this actor as one of the greatest of our time, but Shine represents quite the opposite.What we have here is a fantastic story of battles though life, turned into a fantastic screen-play, and subsequently, and quite sadly, turned into a simply mediocre film.
Yup I was.Told in three parts, Geoffrey Rush does do a fine job as Australian piano prodigist David Helfgott but honestly I was more impressed by Armin Mueller Stahl as his abusive, insecure father and Noah Taylor as the adolescent David, who shows the moment of his mental breakdown after preforming Rachmaninoff's technically demanding Piano Concerto No. 3.Now that was a good scene even if it's left a little unclear as to why and what happened directly afterwards.
04.05.14"Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar for his performance in this true story of Australian pianist David Helfgott, who burst on the competition scene at a very early age, but whose star potential was shattered by a nervous breakdown.".
Geoffrey Rush was virtually unknown when he played pianist David Helfgott in "Shine", but his masterful performance here opened the door to a versatile career in the ten years since.
The movie shows how David had a real talent for the piano and wanted to go study in London, but his father Peter (Armin Mueller-Stahl) - who had survived the Holocaust - was afraid of his son leaving home and wouldn't let him go.
This eventually led to David having a breakdown, although he later recovered.Rush won Best Actor for his performance, and you'd better believe that he deserved it.
What is most fascinating on the movie is the classical music and also the performances of Geoffrey Rush, Noah Taylor, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Lynn Redgrave and John Gilgud.
Rush plays David Helfgott, a spectacular pianist whose bad relationship with his father drives him insane.
Thank You Scott Hicks, David and Gillian Helfgott, Jan Sardi, Geoffrey Rush, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Noah Taylor and the entire extraordinary cast for this film.
It's the life story of David Helfgott, a pianist, how he becomes famous and then how he suffers a breakdown.
Shine (1996):Dir: Scott Hicks / Cast: Geoffrey Rush, Armin Mueller-Stahl, John Gielgud, Lynn Redgrave, Noah Taylor: Intriguing film about a life conquered by discouragement.
Like "Hilary and Jackie", which came out two years later, "Shine" is based on the life of a real classical musician, the Australian pianist David Helfgott.
The film tells the story of Helfgott's life, especially his relationship with his father Peter, his struggles against mental illness and his eventual recovery.Peter is portrayed here by Armin Mueller-Stahl as a domineering tyrant who expects total obedience from his children and who is obsessed with winning and success at all costs.
David's success, however, has come at too high a price, because while in London the emotional strain proves too much for him, and he suffers a mental breakdown and is committed to an institution.This was the film which first made a star of Geoffrey Rush, hitherto a little-known Australian actor. |
tt0054593 | The Abominable Snow Rabbit | Bugs tunnels through the Himalayan mountains, followed by Daffy. After a failed attempt by Daffy to go swimming in a frozen pond, the two realize that they are not at their intended destination, Palm Springs.
Daffy, whilst underground, crashes into said creature's foot. The Abominable Snowman (whose name is Hugo, but that is not revealed in this short), grabs Daffy, names him George (a reference to Of Mice and Men, casting Hugo as Lennie Small to Daffy's George Milton), and gives him crippling hugs, believing Daffy is a rabbit, when actually Daffy just tied his sweater round his head for warmth, with the sleeves on top. Daffy reveals this by angrily yelling his head off, and Hugo proceeds to spank Daffy for his 'deception'. However, Daffy imparts to him where he can find a real rabbit i.e. Bugs. As Bugs starts experiencing Hugo's overbearing love, Daffy sneaks away. Hugo sits on Bugs, who sneaks out under the snow, carrying Daffy toward Hugo.
As Hugo doubts that Daffy is or isn't a rabbit, Daffy asks what a rabbit really looks like. Hugo responds that rabbits have long ears, making Bugs tie down his own ears and stick two of his fingers behind Daffy's head as rabbit ears. After Hugo painfully hugs the duck again but realizes that he has a bill and feathers, Daffy points out the tunneling Bugs to Hugo, who chases him underground. Eager to see the incident's conclusion, Daffy follows.
Later, in Palm Springs, a profusely sweating Hugo, and a disguised Bugs, discuss Hugo's failure to catch Bugs. Hugo believes that he will not be able to see the rabbit again, but Bugs encourages him that "if he loves you, he will come back." When Daffy emerges from the hole, Bugs puts fake rabbit ears on him, causing Hugo to recognize him as a rabbit again. While Daffy is cuddled for the last time, Hugo literally melts due to the intense heat of the environment. Bugs comments, "He really was a snowman!" and Daffy, soaked in water, replies, "Abominable, that is!" | cult, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Bugs Makes Another Wrong Turn, And Daffy Pays For It.
"I told you to turn left at East St. Louis," yells a shivering Daffy Duck to Bugs Bunny after the latter made another wrong turn in another long underground excursion.
This time, the two Looney Tunes characters wind up in the Himalayas (a tiny bit off their destination!).Daffy heads back to Perth Amboy and leaves Bugs to become a "snow shoe bunny." However, our duck hero doesn't go far, running into the "Ambomniable Snow Man," who is anything but scary.
He's just a big dumb oaf, modeled after "Lenny" of the novel "Mice and Men." You know that because he calls daffy "George" and the little duck is a rabbit and adopts him as his pet.
The cartoon turns out to be a familiar story in a lot of LTs when Bugs and Daffy are together, meaning each other tries to foist off the other to an unwanted character.
Many times it was Elmer Fudd, the hunter; this time, an "abominable snowman." The best gag, I thought, was the last minute when all of the characters wind up in Hawaii- type island..
Another parody taken from Of Mice and Men. This is one of the cartoons where we meet the Abominable Snowman, a parody of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, which became a staple joke at both Warner Brothers and MGM (courtesy of Tex Avery for the latter studio) and virtually every less than bright secondary character was modeled to some degree after Lenny.
Daffy is his usual charming and affable self and much chaos follows.
Good to see that it's available.
Well worth watching.
Recommended..
Bugs and Daffy continue to travel the world, remaining just as funny anywhere.
The Abominable Snow Rabbit is one of those Bugs & Daffy travel cartoons, in which the left turn at Albuquerque is always forgotten.
This time, they go further than usual, ending up in the Himalayas.
Here they inevitably meet the abominable snowman, a successful one-shot for many years until he made a second appearance on Mars - of all places - in Chuck Jones' TV production, Spaced Out Bunny.
For such an insufferable analyst as me, I can watch, rewind and watch again my tape of this cartoon just to study how Bugs and Daffy are drawn in Jones' unique style in the 60's and beyond.
Daffy is once again the heel of the picture, trying to cook Bugs' goose but repeatedly getting squashed himself.
An excellent cartoon for all fans..
The Abominable Snow Rabbit.
I liked this.
It wasn't the best Looney Tunes cartoon ever, but it was very entertaining.
It can be a little too quick, but the story is carefully-constructed in which Bugs makes yet another wrong turn and once again it is Daffy who suffers the consequences.
The animation is crisp, colourful and smooth, with some vibrant colouring, and the music is fun.
The dialogue has some very entertaining moments to it, especially with the Abominable Snowman when he mistakes Daffy for a rabbit and starts calling him George(a big lol moment), and the sight gags are clever too.
Bugs is good here, a little stupider than he usually is but he is still arrogant and funny, and Daffy has some great lines and is easily annoyed here, no wonder come to think of it.
The Abominable Snowman steals the cartoon though, he isn't scary but rather dim-witted and cute, and his voice does also remind me of Barney from the Flintstones.
Once again, the voice work from Mel Blanc is excellent.
Overall, funny and well-animated.
9/10 Bethany Cox.
"I will name him George and I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him...".
Bugs and Daffy are headed to Palm Springs but take a wrong turn and wind up in the Himalayas.
Before they can leave they run into the Abominable Snowman.
He's a hulking white creature with a blue nose who delivers bonecrushing hugs.
Despite how dangerous he is, I found him terribly cute.
In typical Looney Tunes fashion, the Snowman is modeled after Lenny from "Of Mice and Men." Daffy's reactions when this big brute manhandles him are hilarious.
It's a simple but very funny short from Chuck Jones and Maurice Noble.
This was the last original theatrical Daffy Duck short Jones did.
The animation is nice and the script is a hoot..
Bugs turns left at Alberquerque.
In this very funny Looney Tunes episode, Bugs Bunny has taken Daffy Duck somewhere or other and has ended up miles from home in the Himalayas.
Bugs Bunny is pretty anxious and Daffy is also very annoyed.
Just when things start to become better, a very mad yeti arrives on the scene.
He likes bunny rabbits and thinks Daffy is one...I was surprised this episode was so funny, as usually I do not particularly enjoy episodes where Daffy duck is greedy.
However, I very much enjoyed this episode for his and Bugs' brilliant quotes, the mad yeti, the layout of the episode and the turn-out.One theme about this episode to consider is that here, Bugs Bunny is quite stupid, taking Daffy Duck to a place a thousand miles from Palm Springs (where the pair originally wanted to go).
Bugs Bunny is usually thought of as a clever character, although a great deal of the time he can be almost as stupid as Daffy.
Hmm...This is well worth spending seven or so minutes for, recommended to the average Looney Tunes fans and people who like mad yetis.8 and a half out of ten..
I wonder whether they knew about recent events in the Himalayas..
In their tradition of coming up with any crazy plot, the Termite Terrace crowd sticks Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck in the Himalayas, where the two characters run into the Abominable Snowman (named Hugo).
The big guy immediately tries to adopt Daffy as a pet rabbit, and Bugs helps with this.
"The Abominable Snow Rabbit" brings up an interesting point.
It seems like for years, our stereotype of the Himalayas was the Yeti - it's anyone's guess as to whether or not such a being really exists.
Nowadays, there's of course the issue of the Dalai Lama.
I wonder whether or not the cartoon's creators knew about the Dalai Lama.Oh well.
That's just what I notice.
The point is, this is a pretty funny cartoon.
It's not abominable at all..
"I'm not like other people.
I can't stand pain.
It hurts me.".
"The Abominable Snow Rabbit" is a classic sixties Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon directed by Chuck Jones and co-directed by Maurice Noble.
Costarring with the wascawwy wabbit & despicable duck is a severely dopey abominable snowman who desires a pet bunny rabbit.
The snowman never became a star character in the Looney Tunes family, but we all remember him!
My favorite moments from "The Abominable Snow Rabbit": How could we forget the joy in the snowman's voice when he first mistakes Daffy for a pink rabbit and exclaims how he will call him George and hug him and pet him and squeeze him, etc.?
And watch what happens to Daffy when he excitedly tries to dive into a frozen pond!Ever notice how the snowman's voice is very similar to Barney Rubble's voice?
Well, that's because these two characters, as well as Bugs & Daffy, were voiced by none other than that "Man of a Thousand Voices" - the fabulous Mel Blanc!.
A bit repetitive.
Most of the 1960s cartoons are not as we--received anymore compared to the finest of the 1940s and 1950s, the Golden Age of Animation, but "The Abominable Snow Rabbit" is an exception looking at the film's IMDb rating.
Bugs and Daffy end up in the Himalayas where the Abominable Snowman is looking for a cute soft rabbit he can squeeze and hug all day long.
Unluckily for him 8and Daffy) he does not really know what rabbits look like these days.
I thought this was not as funny as some other Warner Bros cartoons I have seen, even if Jones, Pierce and Blanc are on board and their creative genius is undeniable.
I also did not like the ending.
Poor snowman.
All in all, I do not recommend these 6 minutes.
The only somewhat interesting thing I found was how different the characters looked compared to cartoons from the previous decades.
Very mediocre one we have here, very misleading title too and the joke gets old quickly too.
There really only is one joke in here.
Thumbs down..
John Steinbeck's stories were frequent targets .
. for Warner Bros.
Looney Tunes animators, and perhaps none more so than OF MICE AND MEN.
In this outing THE ABOMINABLE SNOW RABBIT, Bugs Bunny once again takes a wrong turn in East St. Louis, and leads his burrowing buddy Daffy Duck to The "Chinese Himalayas" (showing that the Warner people assumed that Red China would have completed its seizure of the Asian Highlands by the time that this animated short aired).
There the peripatetic pair fall into the clutches of Steinbeck's too-friendly giant, Lenny, in the guise of an Abominable Snowman.
Lenny's life-long dream is to have a furry bunny named "George" that he can pet to death.
Warnologists may argue that "George" is Donald Trump's pet name for America.
Be that as it may, Bugs quickly burrows back to his and Daffy's original destination, Palm Springs.
Lenny implausibly squeezes into this tunnel, as well, and gets his first taste of the desert.
It turns out that Lenny ACTUALLY IS a snowman (just as Trump's a Showman), and he melts away in the Springtime Sun (just as The Donald is doing right now). |
tt0290820 | Raakh | As declared in the subtitles of the opening scene, the events of the film takes place in a big city in India. After the police riots of 1990, the State Forces were disbanded and replaced by a central one. The police now had more powers. The crime rate continued to escalate. In the wealthier quarters of the city though, life went on… but it was an uneasy calm.
Aamir (Aamir Khan) had just turned 21. He is from a rich family. The only colour in his otherwise mundane life was his obsession for Neeta, an older, more pragmatic woman, who likes him but does not share his plans for their future.
One night, on their way back from a party, Neeta is molested by a local crime boss, Hassan Karmali and Amir intervenes violently. On their way back home in their car, they are intercepted by Karmali and his goons and Karmali rapes Neeta, with Aamir watching helplessly. Unknown to Aamir, an off-duty police officer is a silent witness to the incident. Frustrated, possessed by impotent rage and a sense of injustice, Aamir has to find release. He leaves home... Ironically, he turns to Sub-Inspector Kapoor – the silent witness. Kapoor, pretending to be unaware of the incident agrees to help Aamir, as in spite of dancing to their tunes, Kappor hates the Karmalis and his inability to act against them.(Years ago Kapoor had taken on the Karmali clan, an unwise move that nearly destroyed his career.)
Aamir now feels he has a friend. Till one day, realising the truth he is shattered. Soon after, S.I. Kapoor is suspended after he loses control in front of his superiors at a party thrown by Karmali and tries to shoot him. His life begins to spiral downwards. Now alone, frightened, without a job and with nothing to lose, he sees in Aamir the means to fulfill his dark, unresolved dreams which has by now taken the form of an obsession.
Together they set about eliminating their common enemy – members of the dreaded Karmali family. Kapoor the embittered cop becomes a dark mentor to the innocent but fearless Aamir. Neeta, unaware of the changes in Aamir’s life, has decided to put her past behind her. She begins, slowly but painfully, to reconstruct her life.
Meanwhile, Aamir slips into vortex of terrifying violence – a road to certain doom. While the first murder he commits drives Amir almost crazy with guilt, slowly he gets used to it and even starts enjoying it. Theirs is a war with no victors, a battle that has no glory. Amidst the lies of a logical life, sometimes the only truth is in madness, in losing control.Finally Kapoor and Amir manage to corner Karmali at his sister's wedding. As Kapoor shoots Karmali dead, he is shot at and killed by one of his corrupt ex colleagues. After Kapoor dies in his arms,Amir picks up his gun and supposedly shoots down the corrupt cop. The last scene once again returns to the opening sequence, where Amir, now on death row contemplates on the events of his short and poignant life. | cult, avant garde, murder | train | wikipedia | Not a commercial movie but an excellent movie.
This movie is said to be the second movie of Aamir Khan and one really cannot believe that a movie-old actor can do such justice to his role.Aamir Khan stars as Aamir Hussain Khan(his real name),who gets into a fight with a hoodlum and as a result his ex-girlfriend(Supriya Pathak) gets raped.Aamir accuses himself for his ex's rape and decides to kill everyone who was involved in the rape issue.Meanwhile a cop(Pankaj Kapur) is also fed up of these hoodlums and therefore after looking at aamir's anger against them decides to help him out.
Aamir Khan and Pankaj Kapur do whole hearted justice to their roles and Supriya Pathak also does good in the small role she has.If you wanna watch a romantic movie with hero and heroine running around the trees,this isn't your cup of tea.However if you want to watch an excellent movie with realistic touch,watch this movie as soon as possible..
Scar so deep, will the pain ever vanish?.
Raakh means ash; remains of an object that burns completely by fire The film features Aamir Khan as an avenger who cannot live with the fact that he was unable to prevent rape of his ex-girlfriend.
An incident which happened right in front of him and he was partially responsible for the incident.
Rest of the story is how he finds peace within.
The film explores concepts of Indian society where weak and innocent are exploited and law enforcement is unfavourable for law abiding people.
Also shows nature of people to accept any injustice done to them, more because even if they want to fight the fact that they are weak is their crime.
Seems like the only way to justice is on the other side of law.
Now it is already 2008 funny to say things haven't changed much in 20 years since release in 1988..
Ahead of its time, but deserves a Watch.
Pankaj Kapur and Aamir Khan Both of them have their own fan base and why should not they as they are amongst the more versatile actors we have today in the Bollywood.
But if any of their fan says that they have not seen Raakh , then sorry that person is just claiming to be their fan and not true one.
Both of them won National Award for their performances in this movie.As i was watching Raakh and as it proceeded i was just a bit taken a back , the fact that it was never been a talk the way it deserved.
Nevertheless the reason for it is because in 1989 a movie like Raakh was well ahead of its time.The movie is a revenge drama shown in a unique style directed by Aditya Bhatacharya(wonder why this guy never came up with another movie).
Story telling is quick and crisp.Truly a deserving different watch.All the Actors are just flawless.Raakh has no songs but wait a minute folks, the background is riveting and you just feel as if you are a part of it every time the track is played.If you cant withstand revenge and violence and you have mostly stayed away from parallel cinema then this is surely not your cup of tea.People wanting to see something different do yourself a favor ,Watch Raakh.Rating: 10/10.
Solid, dark movie..
As declared in the subtitles of the opening scene, the events of the film takes place in a big city in India.
After the police riots of 1990, the State Forces were disbanded and replaced by a central one.
The police now had more powers.
The crime rate continued to escalate.
In the wealthier quarters of the city though, life went on
but it was an uneasy calm.Aamir (Aamir Khan) had just turned 21.
He is from a rich family.
The only colour in his otherwise mundane life was his obsession for Neeta, an older, more pragmatic woman, who likes him but does not share his plans for their future..
great movie.
A dark and intense movie that revolves around a young man Aamir Hussain (Aamir Khan) who is madly in love with Neeta (Supriya Pathak), Neeta doesn't realise Aamir's feeling towards her and just thinks of him as a good friend.
One night Aamir, Neeta and their friends are out enjoying themselves.
A bunch of hoodlums arrive at the scene the leader of the group Kamali starts eyeing Neeta, and then tries to grope Neeta.
This Makes Aamir lose his temper and he attacks Kamali, the hoodlums leave and are waiting further up to take revenge on Aamir and also to have Neeta.Aamir is attacked by the hoodlums and then Kamali and his men rape Neeta.
Aamir wants justice done with Neeta, he seeks help from the law Aamir reports his complain to Inspector P.K (Pankhaj Kapoor).
Inspector P.K is more concerned about losing his job then helping Aamir as he realises Kamali is a big crock who has contacts with superior government officers, including P.K's senior bosses.
Aamir's father doesn't understand what Aamir is going through and thinks that Aamir is mixing with the wrong crowd.
Father and son have a argument which results Aamir leaving house.Aamir meets an orphan boy Shaikh who gives him shelter.
Days start passing and Aamir starts getting frustrated and very upset over his helplessness for not doing anything, Aamir goes to a junkie trader Ustad (Jagdeep, Soorma Bhopali of Sholay fame) who specialise in illegal activities.
Aamir asks Ustad to get him a gun so he can shoot all the rapist's of Neeta, Luck still not with Aamir, here Aamir is arrested by the police for handling a illegal gun.Aamir rings Inspector P.K to get him bailed out of prison, Aamir takes his anger out on P.K and makes him realise that what his real duty is to get him justice.
Inspector P.K soul wakes him up and now P.K wants to help Aamir.
P.K goes to Kamalis house a argument breaks out and inspector P.K tries to arrest Kamali, Kamalis hoodlums try to attack P.K when he moves towards Kamali to arrest him, and P.K tries to shoot Kamali, for this he is suspended from his duty by his bosses.Aamir and P.K now join hand to wipe out Kamali and his men, Aamir is guided by the burnt out, cynical cop, who shows him the ropes as well as the realities of vigilante life.
and thus Aamir starts killing Kamali's men one by one and in the climax kills Kamali and one side Aamir is sentenced to prison while Neeta gets married of in the outside world.------------------------------------- The film is one of Aamir Khan's early films before he became a star, and he certainly has done a fine job throughout the film, the rest of the cast has done their jobs pretty decent.
The climax of the film is indeed stunning.
However the film does drop after the first initial moments and the second half picks the films pace up and the ending is indeed superb.The films has no songs, its an out and out art films and will only be appreciated by viewers that appreciate films without commercial elements (without Songs, dancing, light moments and of course a happy ending) overall outstanding film and terrific script. |
tt0118894 | Cousin Bette | At the deathbed of her wealthy cousin Adeline (Chaplin), poor seamstress Bette Fischer (Lange) promises to take care of her cousin's family. However Baron Hector Hulot (Laurie), her late cousin's husband, still knowingly treats her as a "housekeeper", giving her charge over his daughter Hortense (Kelly Macdonald). Refusing the offer to stay in Hulot's home, Bette returns to her apartment in a rundown poorer district of Paris, where she makes costumes for a Burlesque theatre. She becomes friends with the headliner of the show, famed courtesan Jenny Cadine (Shue). Bette finds a source of comfort in Count Wenceslas Steinbach (Aden Young), a young but promising artist who has fallen on hard times. Besotted by the young man, Bette does everything possible to provide for him such as buying him food and motivating him to continue with his work. One day, Bette tells Hortense of her "sweetheart" Wenceslas.
Intrigued, Hortense goes to an antique shop near Bette's apartment to look at some of his work. Wenceslas himself walks in and, instantly attracted to him, Hortense tells her father she has found her future husband and entreats him to use his influence to commission Wenceslas to create a prominent statue. Over time, Wenceslas starts sneaking out to court Hortense. Bette follows him one day after Jenny inadvertently arouses her suspicions by mentioning that Lord Hulot, who is her lover, gave her a piece of artwork that came from his future son-in-law; Bette recognizes the artwork as Wenceslas's.
Furious at Wenceslas's betrayal, Bette swears revenge and enlists Jenny to help her. Bette's plan, in essence, is to turn the family members against each other. After the birth of Hortense's and Wencelas' son, Bette implies to Hortense that there have been "rumours" regarding Wenceslas's fidelity to her. She also encourages Cesar Cravel (Hoskins), a wealthy perfumer, to pursue Jenny as it is becoming known that Hulot owes huge debts to various money lenders and acquaintances. Hulot, however, is genuinely in love with Jenny and, at Bette's encouragement, challenges Cesar to a duel. Cesar shoots Hulot in the leg, but instantly regrets it and helps him with the doctor. The resulting injury leaves Hulot walking with a limp.
Meanwhile with the family losing money, Bette encourages Hulot's son and Cravel's son-in-law Victorin (Toby Stephens) to go to a shady money lender in her district. But he cannot pay off the debts in time and is forced later on to flee with his family when the money lender threatens his life. The Hulot family's last hope of financial aid is the sculpture Wenceslas has created. However he is shown to be lacking in inspiration, and when the sculpture is unveiled it is only a lump of marble from which sprouts a crude arm wielding a sword. This embarrassment also loses the family a lot of money, since Hulot resolves to repay the commission that had been paid to Wenceslas. In desperation, Hortense offers herself to Cesar, as he had said earlier in the film that he would pay 200,000 francs for a glimpse of her naked. But the good-hearted Cesar says she does not need to sleep with him and tells her he will give her the money that day.
On the way to the bank, Bette intercepts Cesar and convinces him to give her the money, pointing to a man in the distance across the square and saying that Wenceslas is spying on Cesar because he is jealous of his relationship with Hortense. Cesar obliges, after which we see Bette pay a street urchin a franc for posing as Wenceslas. She then goes to Wenceslas and tells him that Jenny will give him the money but warns him to beware of her. Wenceslas goes to Jenny and after a whole night in each other's company, merely talking, discovers in her a free spirit much like his own, and falls for her. Jenny reciprocates his feelings.
Bette confronts Jenny about her feelings for Wenceslas and she tells her that she loves him and they are going to run away together to the country. In retaliation, Bette forges a letter from Jenny to Wenceslas telling him to meet her at a hotel. She shows the letter to Hortense, then leaves it for Hulot to find, prompting Hulot to go to the hotel believing that Jenny wants him back. Hortense and Hulot arrive at the hotel to see Jenny and Wenceslas in bed having intercourse. Shocked by the discovery, both Hulot and Hortense faint. The shock and heartbreak of Jenny's affair with Wenceslas leaves Hulot paralysed and unable to speak.
Cesar visits his friend, heartbroken over his condition, and tells him the sad truth that women don't fall for men like them. Hortense confronts him as he's about to leave, asking him for the money promised to her only to learn he gave it to Bette. Meanwhile Bette breaks a statue Wenceslas has been working on and claims Hortense did it in a fit of jealousy, prompting Wenceslas to leave with Jenny that night. Bette unsuccessfully tries to stop him, saying he belongs to her. When Hortense comes to her for the money, she tells her that she had given it to Wenceslas and convinces her to shoot Jenny and reclaim Wenceslas's love. Wenceslas goes to Jenny and begs her to go with him but Jenny declines, opting to stay in Paris as she cannot abandon her life as a courtesan. To spare his feelings she tells Wenceslas she does not love him anymore. Heartbroken and disgusted, Wenceslas opens the door to leave, but just at that moment Hortense arrives and shoots him as the door opens.
At Wenceslas's funeral, only Bette, Jenny and Hortense are present. During the funeral the police come to arrest Hortense for the murder of her husband. Hortense begs Bette for help but Bette coldly mocks her, asking "Whatever shall I do without you?" in an idle, dispassionate tone of voice. At this exchange, Jenny looks at Bette, finally realising the extent of Bette's hatred for her family and how she has aided Bette in her mission to destroy them. Bette, unashamed of Jenny's realisation, leaves her with the words "Life can be so boring, don't you think?" repeating something Jenny had told her earlier.
The film ends six months later, during the French Revolution of 1848. The family has lost most of its wealth and now Bette looks after the immobilised Hulot and Hortense's baby, whom she has named Wenceslas. She says that finally she has her own Wenceslas to love her and that one day he will be a great artist like his father. Jenny continues her life as a courtesan. The final scene shows her as one of a group of nuns singing a hymn before they all turn around and flash their naked backsides to the Burlesque theatre (and movie) audience. | revenge, comedy, satire, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1928340 | After the Dark | Mr. Zimit, a philosophy teacher at an international school in Jakarta, has been challenging his class of twenty with thought exercises to prepare them for their future. On the last day of school, he holds an exercise in which he posits an oncoming atomic apocalypse. There is a bunker to shelter them for a year, but it only has supplies for ten people, so his students have to decide who of them should be allowed in. The top student, Petra, initially refuses to participate, but Zimit threatens to lower her boyfriend James' academic score if she does not.
Zimit distributes cards that contain a detail about the students' characters in the exercise: James is an organic farmer and Petra is an engineer. The students defend their right to enter the shelter, then there's a group vote after discussion. Students with skills judged useful for survival are allowed in, such as James and Petra, while those who don't are refused, such as Beatrice, a fashion designer. Zimit is part of the exercise but his skills are hidden. At first the students agree to let him in, but Zimit executes the students who have been rejected, claiming that it is more humane than letting them die by radiation. The remaining students race into the bunker before the explosion, locking out Zimit. Outside, Zimit holds up a card saying that only he has the exit code. After living out the year in the bunker, the survivors discover that the exit code is necessary. All attempts of breaking out of the bunker are futile, and after supplies run out they commit group suicide.
They decide to try the exercise again. The cards given earlier are revealed to contain a secondary detail that change the votes, e.g. Georgina, who was allowed in earlier because of her status as a surgeon, now has possibly contracted the Ebola virus and is rejected. Petra and James are still voted in despite James' additional character detail of being gay. Zimit and the chosen students enter the bunker, and agree to start procreating immediately. Various heterosexual pairs get together, but as James is gay in this exercise, Petra has to sleep with Zimit. After ten weeks there are no pregnancies, and Zimit argues that they need to change partners. When Bonnie, a soldier with eidetic memory, refuses, Zimit threatens her with a gun. Jack stabs Zimit, who responds by opening the doors and killing everyone. James questions Zimit's motives for the exercise, asking why he seems intent on punishing them. After checking the box with the cards, James discovers that his and Petra's were fixed, though Zimit refuses to explain his reasons.
Petra insists the exercise be carried out a third time, and asks everyone to trust her to choose who gets to enter the bunker. She picks people who are a potential risk or have non-technical skills, including an opera singer and poet, which angers Zimit. Petra herself refuses to enter the bunker, but is pushed inside when Chips switches places with her before the door closes. Zimit is outright refused entry since his exit code is no longer necessary—Bonnie remembers it from the previous iteration. Petra continues the thought exercise, explaining that the year in the bunker was enjoyable and filled with creativity. When they leave, they discover that the bombs never fell. Zimit narrates that they will die, as none of them have the technical skills to survive, but Petra counters that they will live the rest of their short lives well and welcome death when it arrives. Zimit arrives at the beach, having survived in a cave for the past year, and threatens to shoot James, but the rest of the survivors stand in front of him.
Back in class, Zimit is discomfited by the latest exercise. At the end of the session, everyone leaves except Petra, who accuses Zimit of trying to use the exercise to punish her and James. Zimit has been having an affair with Petra, and he believes James is beneath her. Petra argues that intelligence isn't all that matters. The film ends with Zimit alone in the school as he contemplates suicide. | philosophical | train | wikipedia | The concept of this movie seemed promising; a philosophical thought experiment where you must decide who should live and who should die, all presented in a way that was both entertaining and involving for the audience.
In the end though, I came away feeling that the script had been written by two people: the first 2 thirds were written by someone who did a crash course in philosophy and had only a vague understanding of the ideas they were trying to explore, and the final third was written by someone who manages to pull off the challenge of being unbelievably self-righteous despite their IQ of 70.
The writer isn't trying to write a thought provoking script, he's trying to write a 'feel good' story that ignores reality and is completely unrelated to anything previously discussed in the movie.
I think the movie does deserve some credit for presenting a story that will get viewers thinking about some interesting concepts, for that I would still recommend it for people unfamiliar with philosophy, but if you are familiar with the concepts covered then I don't think it's worth watching as it will add nothing new to what you already know and will probably end up just irritating you..
From checking out the trailer I've started watching the movie with good expectations about a philosophical mystery with interesting twists.
I will not go into details as there are far too many instances in every scene of the film that make you question the believability that these students have ever taken a single philosophy class.To enjoy this film I feel you need to ignore the played out apocalyptic scenarios completely and only focus on the two lead characters and the teacher and take it for what it is.
I feel the point of this film may have been missed...First off- if you're a philosopher, a pensive person or enjoy riddles and the like, you will no doubt enjoy this movie.
Instead what this film does is take a very well-known philosophical debate whereby a group must decide between them who shall be fit to continue the human race in special circumstances, but applies it to a younger generation of adults today and how a group of us may think differently to that of a group asked the same thing, say, 50 years ago.
since my review has to be at least 10 lines long let me just again point out the fact that this movie insults each and every one person that watches it by how stupid and retarded it is.
It's all so silly; it's all so theatrical!After The Dark is the story of a philosophy teacher (James D'Arcy) and his challenge, a thought experiment, to a class of what reveals itself to be entirely composed of over-privileged, pretentious know-it-alls.
It asks these students, and the viewer, if faced with an apocalyptic scenario and the one bunker that can sustain life is only sufficient for ten of the group, the rest to be excluded and doomed to ultimately perish, which would you choose to enter the bunker based on skill-sets, their value, or reproductive ability?While it starts strongly enough, and these questions unravel with the narrative playing out in a magical, visual story-like fashion, soon the veil begins to lift, and as the students and teacher implode under the pressures of the experiment, so does the film.We're given stiff, cardboard characters who are borderline impossible to invest ourselves in.
And most insultingly, we're given what initially feels like smart philosophy, only for the writing to continually stutter and trip over itself, as if to remind us that we're watching a movie.
The 'plot' has no premise and is utterly transparent, and the characters seem to be spewing out words that they don't understand making their pseudo-intelligent conversations feel laboured.There is a slight twist toward the end but alas, it's as weak and weary as the rest of the movie.By all means watch the pretty boys and girls living out their puerile fantasies in spectacular settings, but don't go into it with any other expectations.
On the other hand, the last five pages would include a surprising and unexpected ending that makes it seem like the book (movie) would be worth the time.
Ultimately, in either scenario, you arrive at the conclusion of why did I even bother.In terms of the movie, I found the plot interesting with trying to pick 10 people to repopulate the Earth after a catastrophic disaster, but then the "philosophy class" dynamic should have turned me off immediately, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt.
The script of this movie seems like something my friend would have wrote in college while he was taking his hard narcotics.While this movie failed on many levels, it does present an interesting take on the humanity and morality of people from a host of different backgrounds as many of the characters place emphasis on different abilities and qualities when trying to decide the group of ten that would live through these fictionalized disasters..
My only guess was the director realized the plot line would hold the viewers attention for about ten minutes so he best compensate with plenty of eye candy!Again I will repeat as the other reviewers that the concept of the story is interesting but within the first 20 or so minutes the movie just becomes unbearable to sit through so I just suggest to concentrate on the eye candy.The only message I got out of the story is - 'One way or another you are going to die - you can't get out of life alive'!.
Instead, it leaves you questioning the fate of some of the characters and why the last hour of the movie was even relevant.Aside from some beautiful cinematography, satisfying performances from a young cast and an original take on a film, 'After the Dark' doesn't deliver.
Naive, narcissistic, wealthy, entitled children refute reason to support idyllic and childish emotional mores.There is no 'Philosophy' in this film.The haughty, self-righteous disrespectful students grasp at pop-culture 'moral' themes and contradict themselves, fail to present any kind of coherency or conclusion.Watching this film was insulting on so many levels.I would consider banning this film for younger audiences - it's worse than brain rot.
Imagine a 13 year old who has no idea what a philosophy class is, no idea how people would act in a life threatening situation, a weirdly vindicative and not-at-all realistic teacher character, and the stupidest ending ever and he'd still write a better script than this..
Set in the intellectual settings of a philosophy class, a series of thought experiments are conducted in the movie, that are designed to question how we actually value things in life.While it asserts that idealistic thinkers would never be able to live by their righteous principles in a post cataclysmic event, it goes on to show that when it comes to our very survival, our decisions would eventually be governed by our emotions of love, likes, hate, entertainment and pleasure and not merely on logical thinking and the skills of our profession as one would readily assume.Not all of the action takes place in the beautiful constructed world of the thought experiments, the desire by the professor of the philosophy class to get even with one of his students, the use of ingenious mechanisms to influence the randomness of the thought experiments, as well as the jealousy and betrayal which show up in the relations between them, all go on to assert that when dealing with humans, 'emotions rule'.
He/she might start to think, how things actually should play out and what the rules really are.Having said that, we do have our beautiful people on board (seems Philosophers or those who want to become one) are beautiful.
The film revolves around's a set of apocalyptic scenarios where only 10 people can only live in a bunker for a year the other's must iver fight for them self or die in the blast, but here where philosophy come in to play with logic in the way who would be the best ten people that would best suit a future to rebuild the human race to those that would be completely unless , logic dictate that people with needed skill need to be chosen to live to build the human race back but mistake's can be made if you don't use logic right.
This film is prove why you should never listen to some bad review's & view the film for yourself because your missing out on gems like this film because this is intelligently made & very clever with the wild card element in the philosophy which throws the choice do you chose to save the wild card or do you chose to let that person but it comes with a price which is logic because the choice could save your life as well or it could kill you that is show perfectly in this film.This is a film i recommend if you know philosophy & logic because you will really enjoy this film if you get the the point of the film..
The movie has a professor take a philosophy class into thought experiments about whom, out of 20 or so students including the Professor, ought to be a part of the final 10 that will endure a year in a life saving bunker to promulgate the human species after a worldwide atomic war.
- a mash up of the profession and personal backgrounds.It is playful with logic as the tables are turned on logic in each of the 3 thought experiments.The point of the movie, and they drop a hint by one narrative during the film, is that logic is thrown out the door when morality comes to play.
The ending proves that.The movie had some fun and some serious moments and the changing thought experiments kept me wanting to see the outcomes.
scenarios.So, who gets to stay and who gets to die - *thats* what this movie is about.It is a talkie film, but you get to think about the usefulness of the kind of person that you would include in a bunker following a world-wide disaster.
It's basically about a teacher of philosophy who asks his students to take part in a thought experiment and think of what would happen if they witnessed a nuclear war and based on their different sets of skills and attributes decide which ones deserve to go into the bunker.
Basically, your time will be spent listening to the characters talk and try to decide which ones deserve to survive so that they can build up humanity from the scratch and if you don't mind listening to really lengthy but interesting dialogues, then by all means watch this movie..
The story was quite good but the final scenes really ruined it to answer questions that weren't there to be answered until that point.The main actress is really bad though, she uses 1 facial expression and 1 tone of voice throughout the entire film and by the end it really starts to get on your nerves.
This film seemed to be of a similar sort, but it lacked that feeling of reality, the film shows a group of students and their teacher discussing who gets to live in a end of the world scenario but they never seem to make believable choices.
Let me start by saying that I loved the concept of this movie, and the way in which they tried to bring this classic thought experiment to life.
However, from both a philosophical and filmmaking perspective, the execution of this story was hugely problematic.I am writing this review as someone who has been a passionate reader, student and teacher of philosophy for many years - and as someone who still regularly uses this very thought experiment as an educational tool.1.
The final iteration of the thought experiment is meant to show us that utilitarianism is a flawed moral philosophy, and that there are other ways of responding to the scenario it has set up.However, our main protagonist is still using the moral philosophy of utilitarianism when she executes her new, and supposedly non utilitarian solution to the crisis - the only difference between what she does in the final round, and what the group did in the previous two rounds, is that she makes judgments about the worth of people and chooses them based on traits she deems to be of value rather than the trials that the class formerly deemed to be of value.The key point though, is that she has still judged people's value based merely on the attributes they posses.3.
The group suicide at the end of the third solution to the thought experiment is not only more like homicide (in that she is the one who decides that everyone else will die), but it is also, once again, utilitarian in nature.She has deemed that their life no longer has value based solely on the fact that they do not posses the necessary functions for rebuilding their brave new world (which is, ironically, exactly what the teacher was trying to get them to do the first two times, and exactly what she was supposedly avoiding with her third and final solution to the problem).From a filmmaking perspective; the suicide bomb was also a very weird and contrived way to achieve that plot point - it was an event that completely violated the very rules which the film had created for itself up until that point.It's one thing to completely change the parameters of the thought experiment as you go (to suit the plot development), it's another thing altogether to start conjuring up fantasy outcomes - an action which was not previously allowed/possible.
The remembering of the code in the third and final round of the thought experiment, by spying on the teacher at the end of the second round, was a complete violation of the laws of the universe the film had created (as well as a violation of how thought experiments work).Even if you change or add to the parameters of a thought experiment in subsequent variations of it, what you are effectively doing with this action is creating a brand new thought experiment to be pondered and debated.It's effectively a reset, where everything goes back to the beginning, except this time some of the fundamental parameters have changed so that different logical arguments are brought into play.But having a character do something like steal a code from a previous discussion of the thought experiment, and then use it in a brand new discussion of a band new version, is nonsense at both a philosophy and filmmaking level - if she has the code, why is she also suddenly alive again when, at the end of the previous thought experiment she was killed in the process of acquiring the code.6.
The ending of the movie is terrible, and it really deflates what has been a solid effort at filmmaking up until that point.a. We, the audience, despite not having been given any reason to do so, are suddenly expected to care about a creepy (and almost certainly illegal) affair that the teacher is having with a much younger student.b. The nature of the character of the lead female suddenly undergoes a totally inexplicable 180 degree change, for no good reason, just so that a contrived ending can be executed c.
I like a lot of these actors it is not really their fault but the fault of the writer who thought his/her experience in a philosophy class would be worth the time to watch.
This review contains spoiler.Here is what I think this movie wanted to be: A very smart, very deep, very artistic film conveying a super important message.And here is what I think it turned out to be: A philosophy professor tries to prove some point to his students by carrying out a thought-experiment.
The movie is changing its premise as it goes, making the choices of the 10 be about the stay in the bunker ("oooh, it's all about the JOURNEY, not the goal!"), rather than the chances of survival after-wards.And the final nail in the coffin is at the end, when it is revealed that the teacher has personal, emotional reasons for his entire thought experiment, AND we don't hear whether he even lets the students (who rebelled against his ideas) pass the course or not!Ultimately, it is a movie which pretends to be about ideas, but is really about characters, and not in a successful way, either.
(Since they simply made up everything in these 'experiments' as they went along, and predicted some imaginary outcome of each imaginary and ridiculous scenario, I think they should have come up with something MUCH more interesting to watch.) We suffered through this movie just hoping it would get better.
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.Not because everything overall is so bad, but because it is the exact opposite of what it set out to do.Objective: create a movie that incorporates a background thriller in a philosophical game.Execution: a nonsensical mess, with no rational progression or connections, that erodes into a mawkish love story - both personal and for the human condition - devoid of any meaning.It starts out with the simple idea of choosing who will survive a disaster, based on a debate of merit and utility.
I give two stars to After the dark - The philosophers because no good movie ends without explaining the sense of the story itself (and I'm not talking about a little detail, but the whole plot!).
It seems like the movie tried to get onto too many emotional levels with different people rather than just focusing on a solid philosophical idea, and trying to play it out. |
tt3417422 | Drishyam | Georgekutty (Mohanlal) is an orphan who had dropped out of school after his 4th grade. Now he is a businessman running a cable TV service in a rural area. He is married to Rani (Meena) and they have two daughters, Anju (Ansiba Hassan) and Anu (Esther Anil). His only interest apart from his family is watching films. He spends most of his time in front of the TV in his small office.
During a nature camp, Anju gets photographed in the bathroom by a hidden cell phone. The culprit, Varun (Roshan Basheer), is the son of police inspector general Geetha Prabhakar (Asha Sarath). Varun is accidentally killed by Rani and her daughter when he comes to blackmail them. They hide his body in a compost pit, which is witnessed by Anu. Rani tells Georgekutty about the incident and he devises a way to save his family from the law. He removes the broken cell phone and disposes of Varun's car, which is seen by Constable Sahadevan (Kalabhavan Shajon), who has a grudge against Georgekutty. Georgekutty takes them out on a trip to Thodupuzha to pray in a church, watch a movie and eat at a restaurant. Geetha, seeing that her son has gone missing, starts an investigation.
After a preliminary investigation, Geetha calls Georgekutty and family for questioning. Georgekutty, who had predicted that this would happen, had already taught his family how to change their alibi at the time of murder. When questioned individually, they give the same replies. Georgekutty also presents the bill of the restaurant, the movie ticket and the bus tickets as proof of their alibi. Geetha questions the owners of the establishments they have been to and their statements prove Georgekutty's alibi. However, Geetha realizes later that Georgekutty had faked the evidence and established his alibi on the owners by going on a trip with his family to the same establishments later.
Geetha arrests Georgekutty and family and Sahadevan uses brute force to beat the truth out of them. Eventually, Anu gives in and reveals the place where the body is buried. After digging the compost pit, they find the carcass of a dog, indicating that Georgekutty had moved the body. Anu reports to the media and complains against Sahadevan. The constable is suspended and Geetha resigns from her post.
Later, Geetha and Prabhakar (Siddique) meet Georgekutty to ask forgiveness for their rude and violent behavior. Prabhakar asks Georgekutty if he can tell them about their son. Georgekutty then reveals indirectly that his family has committed a crime. Now in remand, Georgekutty signs a register at the newly constructed local police station. As he leaves, a flashback shows him leaving the incomplete police station with a shovel in hand, indicating that he has hidden Varun's body in the foundations of the police station itself. | neo noir | train | wikipedia | Drishyam is directed by Jithu Joseph and casts Mohanlal in the Main role.It starts of like a normal film but by the interval you will be enthralled by the epic twist.As the trailer never showed much about the movie,you will be shocked by the twist.The BGM is excellent and provides a very good backing for the movie.Mohanlal is at his very best and Jithu Joseph continues his success from "Memories".I can't tell you much about the story as I might spoil it for you.You MUST watch this movie RIGHT AWAY!
Big names like Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Shaji.N.Karun are internationally acclaimed directors and actors like Mohanlal and Mammootty are the gems of Indian movies.
Mohanlal, famous for his flexible acting skills, dazzles as Georgekutty, a farmer-businessman who cares about his family through every event of the movie.
Shajon, normally type-casted as a comedian, Makes a brilliant turn-over to a character role.As a final word, Dhrishyam is becoming a cult classic in Indian Cinema, and it spawns a new genre family crime thriller.
What make the movies Shawshank Redemption, Next Three Days and Ocean's Eleven great thrillers and what drew fans worldwide to the TV show Prison Break
These are all stories about a master plan, a master plan to do the impossible and its flawless execution considering every little details.
If I dare compare Dhrisham to Shawshank Redemption (which incidentally is my all-time favorite movie) not much need to be told about the quality of the script, the direction and the performances.
For the entire second half of the movie Malayalam Cinema was elevated to the class of Hollywood.
We had several art films or those parallel movies to brag about, but until Dhrishyam not many thriller or family drama type movies of Malayalam could have been called world class.
Watched Mohanlal starer Drishyam directed by Jeethu Joseph.
Drishyam is cracker of a thriller movie.Mohanlal is so elegant and wonderful as George Kutty.
The 50 minute second half, which is also the most engaging minutes for any Malayalam cinema this year, steals the show and keeps us on the edge of our seats as the twists come up and up and up.
The screenplay is to be thanked, along with brilliant writing and narration.Mohanlal is better in this role than his previous characters this year.
Overall a fine movie which shows that Jeethu Joseph's movies will be wanted by all top actors in Malayalam henceforth..
But it isn't just the large panoramic shots that are terrific, it is also the smaller sets such as the hotel where George goes for tea, and I don't know whether the director intended the contrast between the cold and clinical chief of police's house and the warmer tones of George's family home, but if they did then that was genius.If your heart is not racing by the end of the film you're not alive.
Should watch if you want to spend quality time..The way it was directed, oh you should definitely give huge round of applause to the director...Cons: very less entertainment stuff initial phase of the movie is little slowBottomline :- Awesome,Excellent!!!.
The film has a good camera positioning, no boring songs and a complete 160 mins Drama Thriller.....What else do we need???
Undoubtedly One of the best family crime thriller movie ever made in malayalam.
Excellent script by Jeethu Joseph and Mohanlal's performance make the movie far better that usual cliché thrillers in malayalam.
The first half of the movie is a family comedy drama which become an edge of the seat thriller in later half.
Jeethu Joseph, an avid thriller fan saw Kahaani n liked it and read abt it on wikipedia and then found that Sujoy Ghosh hs been signed by Balaji Telefilms to do a sequel and whm coincidently had the rights to Keigo Higashino's The Devotion of Suspect X....and obviosly jeethu didn't read it but instead (?downloaded and ) watched Suspect X...(he may hav or haven't seen Before and After ) and then sat down and wrote his most successful work till date....well jeethu's contribution is a bloody brilliantly written first half and the key to his directorial genius lies in his mastery of subtlety and by creating the illusion for underestimation....great job...We cant inspired without being inspired and ones contribution is the master stroke....
Drishyam, the malayalam movie is a masterpiece family entertainer and suspense thriller, with the most unexpected and thrilling climax ever in any movie in the history.
In short, Drishyam is a film where all family audience and all movie lovers can enjoy..
Wow. I was watching this movie in theatres, first half, I thought it is a good family entertainer.
This movie is surely a must watch for those who loves crime thrillers...!.
You can watch him only in sheer disbelief as he gives subtle acting a new meaning, just like the way he has done in some of his brilliant roles in the past.The rest of the cast have all done their roles really well but watch out for a superb show from Kalabhavan Shajon, who is terrific as a corrupt cop.
Good suspense thriller, excellent acting by mohanlal.
Drishyam from Jeethu Joseph came out with average expectations, but the movie delivered something beyond what everyone expected.
Anchored by Mohanlal as Georgekutty the story is about a father fighting for his family for a situation gone wrong.The beauty of this movie lies in the details and thinking done behind each & every scene.
He lives with a cabil TV business and a regular filmmaker, and his wife and two daughters and a family that lives closer to the first half of the film by describing the surroundings.With the first half of the story, the story goes on to the intensity of a crucial event and continues to move forward with the moves and obstacles to the audience.Georgy Kutty, who is also a student of the Fourth Class of Education, is very excited about the attempts to defend his family from his experiences with his own experiences.But we do not see a policeman who fails to appear as it seems in ordinary movies and behaves foolishly.It is amazing to see that everyone is intellectually watching the movements of the boy and trying to overtake the defenses which George Gottt is doing.George Gotta shocked the viewers with a one-pointed upper-level superintendent and even surprisingly shocked by the George.Finally, the film has become a stabilizing viewpoints with a decisive secret known to him only by the Georgy Kutty.The goodness of Mohanlal is what we see in many places.He was a police constable who made a milestone in the acting career of Kalabhavan Shazon.Asha Sharat took up the role of a police officer and Siddiq retained his stewardship.Sujith Vasudevan's camera is also very helpful in raising the map.Jeetu Joseph is very commendable to perform a very good and intellectual work and to bring it to the audience with a good view of the director's role..
Jeethu Joseph has wrote an never able to top screenplay and the theme on which the film builds is outstanding as any Hollywood movie.
Finally got a chance to see "Drishyam" movie so praised by across languages and its also remade in Kannada, Telugu and in making Tamil & Hindi.I wanted to watch it in either Telugu or Kannada but finally watched in Malayalam for its authenticity.Awesome, the climax was.
Drishyam, as a normal film starts off with a family drama genre.
In the first half the film portrays the character of Georgekutty, his family and the village.
The brilliance of the movie is that it leaves the viewer in suspense for the most part of the movie and the way it is done with the script and direction is simply awesome.All the actors were very good in the movie, but special mention has to be given to Mohanlal.
Best Thriller movie in Indian Cinema.
Jithu Joseph once again proved his skill to make Thriller movies after Memories, a outstanding movie acted by Prithvi Raj. And Mohanlal, one of the best actors in Indian Cinema once again proved his natural acting ability.
The first 20 minutes may seems like normal Malayalam movie, but from 21 minutes, you will began to ask thousands of questions yourself for making guess, but final jithu Joseph won the game with unpredictable climax and 10/10 best sequence in climax.
One of the Best Movie in Malayalam Cinema.
Coming to the movie, it is one of the best, nicely crafted, amazing work by the story teller and the director to bring such a master piece on the celluloid.
Acting wise, TOP NOTCH, Meena was a delight to see on screen, but the true player was Mohan Lal or Lalettan to be precise..Such an effortless act by the master himself.Brilliant movie, can be watched over and over again.
Drishyam is a Family entertainer, In which superstar Mohanlal portray the character of Georgekutty a common family man struggling for daily breads.
The big two expectations behind Drishyam movie are Jeethu Joseph - After mega hit Memories.
Mohanlal - From the stills we could make out the energy in him which was lacking in most of his recent movies.Film starts of showing Antony.
Then the film goes on with Lal's movie craze, his cable TV business and his family.
The climax of the film was superb, proving the movie as outstanding.
So, the family thriller film by Jeethu Joseph is worth a thousand watch.....go for it!!!.
Malayalam industry in 2013 gave some really good movies in Mumbai police, Memories but Drishyam easily grabs the top position in every aspect, let it be directing, acting or the script.
First and foremost, hats off to the Director Jeethu and then to our Complete actor Lalettan who really has won millions of hearts through this movie.
Extraordinary acting by Lalettan, brilliant character roles played by Shajon also equally good were Meena and Asha.
Finally got chance to watch the much appreciated movie of the year "Drishyam".
Finally got chance to watch the much appreciated movie of the year "Drishyam".
Years later when our next generation asks us about this movie we can proudly say, we were alive when it released and watched it on big screen.
Years later when our next generation asks us about this movie we can proudly say, we were alive when it released and watched it on big screen.
Really relished each and every moment of this seat edge thriller.As I said before "Drishyam" is completely a Director's movie.
Really relished each and every moment of this seat edge thriller.As I said before "Drishyam" is completely a Director's movie.
Fine acting along with a brilliant script makes this movie a must watch one.
Its been a long time since I have watched a Malayalam movie in a theater.
Mohanlal and Jeethu Joseph provide a treat to all viewers and Drishyam seriously is the movie to beat this year.
Also, Meena's return to Malayalam cinema and the roles played by young Ansiba and Esther deserve critical acclaim.The presence of some comical sexual references in the beginning of the movie brings the new-generation moviegoers into the foray.
Jeethu Joseph leaves an ever-lasting impression on the viewers' minds and he is surely here to stay.Drishyam surely is (and will be) one of the greatest movies Mollywood has ever produced.
Over the years, the time I spent on watching old and new Malayalam cinema was well worth the language barrier.Drishyam - once again only gives us the essence of the characters, like any well executed film, you don't see the stars behind them.
I can start my review of the movie by stating that i never thought i could see a movie like this in Malayalam....Surely This has taken Malayalam Cinema to a whole new level...Hats off to Jeethu Joseph for coming up with a subject of this magnitude and executing it to perfection.The whole cast was superb as if they were born to play this role and what can you say about Mohanlal this man is a "Genius", Just when you thought his best performances were past him he comes up with a Gem in the form of Georgekutty.
Also a special mention for Shajon who played a negative character against his usual self and came out with flying colors....Well I hope this is just the beginning of a new era in Malayalam cinema and it continues to provide movies like "Drishyam" more often..
One of the best part of the movie is the justification of the characters by the director and the quality of support actors like Asha, Siddique and Shajon.
I have watched Jeethoo Joseph first movie Detective and knew that this guy is going to be the best in the business and he is proving me right by every movie he makes.
The plot is one big winner in the movie.Asha Sharath, the malayalam serial actress, first time in movie has done excellent work.
Mohanlal, Meena , the child artistes , the comedian who plays Sahadevan all have done great work.The movie is great, Jeethu Joseph has established himself firmer as a strong director in the malayalam movies..
Mohanlal , the complete actor has just put the film above the altitudes of Malayalam Cinemas.
one of the best movie i had ever watched in all the languages....
It has all the flavors of a perfect movie, nail biting twists, breath taking direction screenplay and awesome characters and super acting by all the actors.
I should say this is one of the best movies ever i have watched in my life.Now I come to know why IMDb has kept Mr. Mohan Lal on 10th position among all the world actors...
'Drishyam', directed by Jeethu Joseph is a highly engaging thriller about a family of 4 and the incidents that garble their otherwise normal lives.Georgekutty(Mohanlal) is the owner-operator of a local TV Cable Service.
Drishyam is an exceptional movie with a brilliant and spellbinding screenplay...I have never seen such a screenplay till date, even in Hollywood films...Adding to the brilliance is the acting of the legend "Mohanlal" ...The complete actor has given his best...Casting is excellent...Asha Sharath and Siddique have also done their part well...The child artist Esther has given her best..Cinematography matches the brilliant screenplay..All in all, there are no mistakes in the movie and the movie is logical, intelligent and brilliant.
There are lot of edge of the seat moments and a good combination of comedy and sentiment scenes...Sentiment literally makes the audience cry..The movie is full on life...
Hats off to Director Jeethu Joseph in making such a DrishyaVismayam...Visuals can be deceiving is excellent....Don't miss this film...It's once in a lifetime movie....Best Movie in a lifetime.......
The best thriller movie in Malayalam and definitely one of Mohanlal's best.
Hats off!!!!The songs are good, the climax is too good that there is no words for me to praisePlease don't miss this gem of a movie...Mohanlal-Meena combination is the best.
I have only one word running in my mind from the moment the film ended - 'excellent!' This is one movie I was waiting for days as the show timings were limited at the place where I reside.
Trust me, this movie is best enjoyed when watched on big screen.
jeethu Joseph just added some extra characters and some changes in the plot to suite to malayalam cinema.
Undoubtedly Drishyam is the best Malayalam movie in recent time.
It is the extraordinary second half that makes this movie an unbelievable product of Malayalam cinema.
"Drishyam" one of excellent movie till released in Malayalam film industry....!
This is a film that switches genres every second."Drishyam" an awesome thriller movie..!.
Don't miss to watch this movie.Mohanlal as Georgekutty is too good in his character.
That and the well etched out main characters play the major role in making this a to-be-watched movie.
Drishyam, for me, is the greatest Malayalam investigative thriller movie ever and I have my own reasons.
At the end of the movie, I really hated the character Sahadevan, at the same time developed a huge respect for Shajon, the actor.
I have watched this movie at least 10 times and even after knowing about the climax(which is absolutely mind-boggling), I am still stunned by the near-perfectness of the plot.
The cast performance was unbelievable but what set this movie apart is the strength of the story & kudos to director Jithu Joseph for that.
The finest Malayalam actor has another classic to his collections.Cast performance- 10/10 Story- 10/10 Direction- 10/10 Songs- 9/10 Overall- 10/10.
A surprising climax concludes the film.Drishyam is about how Georgekutty(Mohanlal) hides a crime committed by his family and protects them from the dark side of law.
The climax sequences stayed out of the world.You will stay happy when you see the hero and his family stay safe at the end even though you may feel sad for a heartbreaken Geeta.Overall This film is a must watch for all those who wanted an edge of the seat thriller.East or west Lalettan is the best..
The story starts with little slower phase exposing all the characters initially and the regular family, professional life and his fondness towards movies of GeorgeKutty.
Drishyam (ദൃശ്യം) is a 2013 family drama-thriller Malayalam film written and directed by Jeethu Jospeh starring Mohanlal and Meena in the lead roles.
There is actually nothing negative in this movie.All cast and crew done a terrific job.Story: Georgekutty ( Mohanlal), an orphan who had dropped out of school after the fourth grade.
His only interest in life apart from his family is watching films.
It is up to Georgekutty to protect his family from the law.Final mix: An excellent movie and must see.Can i watch with family?Yes!
Some people say 'Drishyam', the best of Malayalam Movies ever,but actually a good recent Malayalam films.
THis is a good movie, but definitely not a edge of the seat thriller and definitely not worth its praise. |
tt0962736 | The Young Victoria | Princess Victoria of Kent is the heiress presumptive to the throne during the last years of the reign of her uncle King William IV and is subject to a political tug of war for influence over her. On the one side is her mother, the Duchess of Kent, along with the comptroller of the Duchess's household, Sir John Conroy, who tries to force Victoria to sign papers declaring a regency and giving him and her mother power.
On the other side is her uncle, King Leopold I of the Belgians, who wishes to use his influence through family ties to secure an alliance between Britain and his kingdom. He decides to have his nephew Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha seduce Victoria and he is coached in her likes and dislikes. The Duchess invites the Coburg brothers, Albert and Prince Ernest of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, to visit the household. Victoria and Albert develop an early fondness for each other, despite Victoria knowing that Albert was sent by their uncle to win her favours, one mutual interest being Vincenzo Bellini and Franz Schubert. They begin writing to one another after Albert returns home.
At a birthday reception in Windsor Castle, the King states his wish to be closer to Victoria and insults her mother. But when the King increases Victoria's income, this is rejected by Conroy, who physically subdues her in front of her mother, heightening the animosity between them. The King then sends the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to advise her. Victoria agrees to make him her private secretary, and he appoints ladies-in-waiting for her from political families allied to him.
King William dies after Victoria's 18th birthday, avoiding a regency. After accession, Victoria immediately begins to exert her independence, including moving into her own room and banishing Conroy from her household and coronation. During her first meeting with the Privy Council, she announces that "I mean to devote my life in service of my country and my people". Victoria now moves into the recently completed Buckingham Palace and her aunt, Queen Adelaide, advises her against giving in too much to Lord Melbourne's direction. Albert then comes to England to spend more time with Victoria. They bond more, dancing together during her coronation and later discussing together the condition of the poor. Albert hints at taking their relationship further but the self-sufficient Victoria resists and he leaves.
When Lord Melbourne loses a vote in Parliament, the new Prime Minister designate, Sir Robert Peel, wishes to replace some of her ladies-in-waiting with supporters of his own party and the queen refuses. Peel in turn refuses the queen's invitation to form a new government, allowing Melbourne to continue as Prime Minister. The subsequent crisis damages Victoria's popularity, leading to demonstrations outside the palace and insults hurled at her in public. Her loneliness during the turbulence draws Victoria closer to Albert through their letters and she decides to invite him back to Britain. Since protocol prevents him suggesting marriage, she proposes to him herself.
Their marriage is loving and the birth of their first child helps heal the breach between Victoria and her mother, who had earlier sent a letter of support during the crisis. Nevertheless, Albert is frustrated at his initial powerlessness and Queen Adelaide advises Victoria to allow him to take on more duties. He then reorganises the running of the royal household and dismisses Conroy for mishandling funds. As Victoria's primary adviser, he now blocks the influences of Lord Melbourne and King Leopold. However, Victoria quarrels with him fiercely for going over her head with Peel in the matter of her household.
Soon after, when Victoria is fired upon by a would-be assassin as they are riding in an open carriage, Albert throws himself across her and is wounded. This bravery leads to their reconciliation and Melbourne advises her to share with Albert also her work for the social welfare.
The final title card sketches in their successful future until Albert's death at the age of 42. | romantic, intrigue, historical, humor, stupid | train | wikipedia | The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party.
(Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in "Moulin Rouge").The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert.
Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman.
It's a story that feels extremely humble considering its exuberant background, and yet that's partly what gives it a distinct edge here that separates it from the usual fare.Taking a very direct and focused approach that centres in on a brief five or so year period between her ascension and marriage to Albert, The Young Victoria does what so little period pieces of this nature offer.
Vallée takes this and runs, making sure to fully capitalise on those elements with enough restraint to maintain integrity in regards to both the history involved and the viewer watching.A major part in the joy of watching The Young Victoria play out however simply lies in the production values granted here that bring early 1800's Regal Britain to life with a vigorous realism so rarely achieved quite so strikingly by genre films.
Entwining the works of Schubert and Strauss into Victoria and Albert's story not only works as a point of reference for the characters to play with, but also melds to the work with an elegance and refrain that echoes composer Ilan Eshkeri's original work just as well.Yet for all the poignant compositions, lush backdrops and immaculate costumes that punctuate every scene, the single most important factor here—and indeed to most period dramas—are the performances of the cast and how they help bring the world they exist in to life.
Between the sweet, budding romance of Victoria (Emily Blunt) and Albert (Rupert Friend) and the somewhat antagonistic struggles of her advisors and the like (spearheaded by a terrific Mark Strong and Paul Bettany), the conflicts and warmth so prevalent to Fellowe's screenplay are conveyed perfectly here by all involved which helps keep the movie from being a plastic "nice to look at but dim underneath" affair so common with these outings.In the end, it's hard to fault a work such as The Young Victoria.
Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent).
On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers.
(This scene does go rather over-the-top when Victoria accuses Albert for walking over her simply because she's a woman—a comment that seemed a little too modern in a movie that otherwise sticks close to the values of its period.)Emily Blunt and Rupert Fiend do a beautiful job portraying this fascinating couple.
Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York?
While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it.
Rigid protocol and generations of power mongering lie behind every royal engagement, including the selection of a suitable king and husband for the future young queen.This film exquisitely portrays this golden era and the complex characters that highlight this period of English history.
THE YOUNG VICTORIA (2009), directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, is a simple love story and performs a great job at romanticizing such by wooing the heart of many a teen and twenty-something girl who still wish they were a princess with a showcase of glamorous balls, elaborate costumes and a good-looking prince with a sharp accent.
For every other demographic watching the film, this reviewer included, the political intrigue of a dying king, an overbearing mother and a manipulative PM, however, isn't quite as rewarding.Emily Blunt, who, as it has been noted, fought for this role, passing on the opportunity to co-star in the comicbook film IRON MAN 2, proved that she had every right to play the monarch and did so with a beautifully royal countenance.
Emily Blunt, who has quickly risen up the ranks into Hollywood A-list status, gives one of her better performances, worthy of her Golden Globe nomination, as the famed English monarch Queen Victoria.The film follows Victoria in the year leading up to her coronation and into the first few years of her reign, including her relationship of Prince Albert (Rupert Friend).
Jean-Marc Vallée's charming "The Young Victoria" skillfully lives up to the aforementioned characteristics, and creates a feel-good movie experience that has your heart guzzling and your mind racing in excitement throughout its entirety.Yes, we love monarchs and their epic, larger-than-life experiences.
But Victoria isn't as silly as everyone thinks, and she has a mind of her own...which is constantly been careened back and forth between diverging influences such as the Duchess of Kent's (Miranda Richardson) trying to make her renounce power to the evil Baron Stockmar, or Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) gaining her favour to help establish himself as Prime Minister...or Albert Conroy (Rupert Friend), King Leopold's nephew, who begins to fall in love with her while being part of a plot to earn the queen's protection of the Belgians.Among all these conspiracies and mind-boggling plots is the shy, growing romance between Victoria and Albert.
And Emily Blunt's performance as the young, strong-willed and charming Victoria is excellent and enthralling; she wins you over from the start and opens up Victoria's heart and mind to the audience, making it easy for us to love Victoria the Woman and to relate to her and her life problems, no matter how epically different they are from our own.The screenplay is dazzling, such as we've come to expect from screenwriter Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park), and the film has that sublime, breath-taking, age-old beauty we can expect from lush, sweeping cinematography, mellow and inviting score and top-notch costume design.
By comparison, Rupert Friend comes across a bit too pallid to make any real impression as Albert.Other worthy actors are given too little to do to strike more than single notes in their performances, for example, Miranda Richardson's petulant turn as the duchess, Mark Strong's Conroy trivialized into a stock villain, and Paul Bettany almost too subtly ambiguous as Melbourne.
The 2010 DVD includes 22 minutes of deleted and extended scenes, a standard making-of featurette, a short comparing the movie' title character with the real Queen Victoria, in-depth looks at the film's coronation and wedding scenes, and a final piece that focuses on the costumes and locations.
Yet another historical costume drama this time focusing on the early years of queen-at- eighteen Victoria and in particular her burgeoning relationship to her adored Prince Albert.
Cue the soft focus and romantic music as Hollywood trains its trademark feather-light examination on the UK monarchy, having the too pretty and much too old Emily Blunt play the title role and Paul Bettany much too young as the elderly Prime Minister Lord Melbourne as her mentor and escape route out of the clutches of her weak-willed mother and the grasping, ambitious Sir John Conroy as the latter's controller and alleged lover.Somewhere beneath the well-presented pageantry and pomp, there probably is a good dramatic story trying to emerge but every scene it seems has to contain a resonant phrase or utterance to make you admire the writing, rather than allowing the characters to reveal their true selves with more everyday speech.I didn't like the shallow, showy acting of Blunt and Rupert Friend could play his part in modern dress, so little does he connect with the time and place of the action.
As are all the leading players are (not diction, or poise!) very good in their roles from our favourite big and small screen stars - Miranda Richardson, Paul Bettany, Mark Strong, Rupert Friend, Jim Broadbent etc.There are lots of reviews up here and so I won't want to repeat too much of they say, but somehow, the very high standards of production, often very glossy (and Oscar winner for Costume Design), plus the lush and swelling stereo (surround) sound, take away the tactility of both the subjects and the film itself.
Yet, the fly-in-the-ointment comes in the form of Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany), Prime Minister of England and a first-class manipulator, who charms his way into becoming the young queen's personal confidante and helper, largely in control of the people she sees and the decisions she makes - a relationship that ultimately threatens to bring on a constitutional crisis for the nation and that finally comes to a head once the queen has chosen Prince Albert to be her husband.Directed by Jean-Marc Vallee, "The Young Victoria" is a visually opulent costume drama that, nevertheless, manages to keep its characters relatable and life-sized.
I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say "unexpectedly" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details."Victorian era" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it..
But once Victoria (Emily Blunt) comes of age and is courted by Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) the film blooms.
Because the long established laws of custom, have decreed her passive?" (1799), more than a century after the birth of an English 19th century angel maker named Amelia Dyer (1837-1896), Victoria's accession, English 19th century painters named Susan Isabel Dacre (1844-1933) and Annie Swynnerton (1844-1933) began studying at the Acadèmie Julian (1868) in Paris, France, the publication of "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon" (1885), the Children's Charter (1889), the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, the Whitechapel murders (1888-1891), an Irish author pen named herself Sarah Grand (1854-1943) in accordance with the ideal called New Woman, twenty-four years after an American singer forenamed Suzanne sang: " he said I am not fighting for you anymore he said I've watched your palace up here on the hill and I've wondered whose the woman for whom we all kill the young queen she fixed him with an arrogant eye ..." and nine years after a law to promote equal access for women and men to electoral mandates and elective functions was ratified in France (2000), this regal retrospection contains a great and timely score by composer Ilan Eshken.This abridged and conversational period piece which is set in the early Victorian era (1837-1901) in England in the early 19th century where Jane was wet-nursed which could cause emotional distance, baby-farming was practiced, the world's first underground railway system was opened (1863), an unidentified subject murdered numerous women who were scapegoated as the causers of all STIs, subjected to inspections in locked hospital wards and many thought should be rehabilitated, some kept in institutions were they could do needlework and laundry work and where a mother of nine children, who survived seven assassination attempts is ascribed an hereditary title which she would own forever, is impelled and reinforced by its cogent narrative structure, subtle character development, rhythmic continuity and the mannerly acting performances by English actress Emily Blunt and English actor Rupert Friend.
It was a challenge for Emily Blunt, still only in her mid twenties, to carry a major movie in this way but she gives a fine performance, by turns vulnerable, assertive, impetuous, and amorous.Diana, Princess of Wales, famously asserted that there were always three people in her marriage to Prince Charles and her royal predecessor Victoria - albeit in a different sense - had many people in her courtship with and marriage to her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Rupert Friend), most notably Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany), and this account makes plain the personal and political manoeuvring around the teenager as she sought her independence.It is a fascinating history tale by French-Canadian director Jean-Marc Vallée but, as a film, fails to excite or engage, since the script by Julian Fellowes does not come up to the standards of his work for "Gosford Park".
Blunt was impressive but the rest of the cast was a bit too robotic for my taste; which included: Rupert Friend as Prince Albert, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mommy), and Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne.
A few years back he wrote the screenplay for GOSFORD PARK,luckily that film movie had Robert Altman to direct,his direction did help the weak screenplay seem better.The director this time is Jean-Marie Vallee, his direction failed to bring these 2 dynamic personalities to life.Emily Blunt is a good actress, she however was not Queen Victoria,besides the fact she was too tall,she was not convincing in many scenes, A better director would have made her more like the Victoria of history.Rupert Friend as Albert, at least tried, he too could have benefited by a better director.Paul Bettany was OK as Melbourne & all the other did give good , if not great performances/As I said the sets & costumes were great,the film itself was not.Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 72 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 100).
Indeed, there is the expected political intrigue involving the power struggle from no less than three factions to control Victoria: Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) through her mother Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson), King Leopold of Belgium (Thomas Kretschmann) through prospective suitor Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) and Lord MelBourne (Paul Bettany) through himself as a father/elder brother figure.
Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend make an engaging Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in this interesting film.
It tells the story of a young Queen Victoria when she first ascends to the thrown and falls in love with Prince Albert.Emily Blunt play the lead and does a fantastic job.
The Young Victoria follows the early years of Britain's longest serving monarch Queen Victoria (Emily Blunt) through to her marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend).All the usual ingredients of a costume drama are present and of course that is a good thing. |
tt0459293 | Gandhi, My Father | Gandhi My Father paints the picture of Gandhi's intricate, complex and strained relationship with son his Harilal Gandhi. From the onset, the two had dreams in opposite directions. Harilal's ambition was to study abroad and become a barrister like his father, while Gandhi hoped that his son would join him and fight for his ideals and causes in India.
When Gandhi does not give Harilal the opportunity to study abroad, it comes as a blow to Harilal. He decides to abandon his father’s vision and leaves South Africa for India where he joins his wife Gulab (Bhumika Chawla) and children. He goes back to further his education to earn his diploma but continuously fails and ends in financial ruins. Various plans and schemes decided by him to make money fail, leaving the family in poverty. Sick of his failure, Gulab returns to her parent’s house with the children, where she eventually dies from the flu epidemic. Distraught, Harilal turns to alcohol for solace and converts to Islam, only to re-convert to a different sect of Hinduism later on. With political tension heating up, the rift between Gandhi and his eldest son grows until it is beyond repair. Harilal finds it unbearable to live in the enormous shadow of his father. Gandhi is assassinated before the two can reconcile and Harilal attends his father's funeral virtually as a stranger, almost unrecognizable to those around him. A short while later, he passes away, alone and in poverty, having failed to find his own identity. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | It is about the Family of the Father of our Nation (India) although, the film focuses mainly on the estranged relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi.
It shows how The Mahatma had to kill M.K. Gandhi, how he had to sacrifice his family life in order to achieve our freedom.
Every time Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son would try to get close the Mahatma would come between them.
Darshan Jariwala who mainly stars in Plays-Gurukant Desai's lawyer in Guru has portrayed Gandhi wonderfully.(as a real Human Being, unlike Ben Kingsley who made him look like a God) Shefali Shah the girl from Monsoon Wedding has also done a really good job of showing how Kasturba Gandhi was torn between father and son.
Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie.
According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father.
Khan for taking a chance by making this film which works both as a wonderful character study and a study of the relationship between M.K. Gandhi and his son H.
It must have been a huge challenge to tell an intriguing story about such a character, but director Khan does nothing short of a wonderful job.There are top notch powerful performances by the cast.
Last but not least, 'Gandhi My Father' is Akshaye Khanna's film.
It takes guts to make a movie on Gandhi in India ,in which he is not shown as a man who could do no wrong.This movie shows how a Mahatma failed to be a decent father(at least in the eyes of his son).
The performances are terrific ,the cinematography fantastic, the direction fabulous,but the film drags.If the intention was to make this movie without any box-office expectations,which i assume is the case here,then its a brilliant attempt,but if the makers were expecting this to be a commercial success,then the film's fate was doomed the day they chose this subject..20 yrs from now,this movie will be remembered for the brilliant portrayal of Harilal by Akshaye Khanna.He deserves an Oscar nomination for this one..And honestly,his is not the only performance worth applauding, Shefali Chhaya is terrific too..Watch the scene where Harilal hears about his father's death.No dialogues,No screaming,but a speechless shot by Khanna.Its one of the finest scenes ever shot in the history of CinemaGandhi,My Father is not at all exciting cinema but yes,its excellent cinema and a must watch.Brilliant Attempt...
Gandhi My Father shows that Harilal is as human as the next man materialistic and believer of instant karma who sadly failed to see the bigger picture his father always attempted to show.
Time and again he makes serious attempts to be a good son, husband and a father - however lady luck leaves him in the lurch, always.
Naaah!Performance:: Darshan Jariwala:: From TV serials to bagging the role of Gandhi he has come a long way indeed.
Akshaye Khanna:: Gives his best shot to get into the skin of the character Bhumika:: Impeccable acting, though a short role Shefali Shetty:: Rock-solid performanceGandhi My Father - it's a saga of Harilal ceasing to be a Gandhi at the cost of Mohandas becoming Mahatma, and not vice-versa.
PS: The movie skirts around the father-son relationship, so why go astray and deliberately incorporate a few scenes to depict the greatness of Gandhi?.
Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography.
Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style.
But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it.
Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife.
Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father.
Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character.
Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end..
I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation..
Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son.
All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles..
Let me move to the movie review now.About Gandhi My Father :Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.Gandhi the true Human.
Keeping all political views aside, Feroz Khan and Anil Kapoor's 'Gandhi, My Father' is a good movie that cleverly explores the confused-towards-family side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the fight of his eldest son Harilal Gandhi with the society, his larger-than-life father, and most importantly demons in his head.
One draws parallels to Gandhi the father of the nation and struggles any son could have with their fatherThe acting is good.
Shefali Shetty, Darshan Zariwala and Akshaye Khanna-strictly in that order- add color and pathos to this heart wrenching tale of Harilal who weeps to be hugged just once and also runs away at the faintest touch of the finger.Feroz Khan's direction and the production canvas is lavish and attractive, however, the screenplay could've been tighter.
It has the potential so huge to have been just a story differences between a father and son or just Gandhi or even both.
His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie.
Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son.
Amidst this backdrop,mind you,there was no tel/fax/internet in those times but for the very voice of Truth & Non-violence, the cinematography infused some spirit of stark reality of adversity amidst the strict Raj.Gandhi shown as a hardworking Attorney in South Africa,who stood for his basic ideologies and gave every degree of conviction to spread awareness of the same with humility and sainthood which to the uttered speech of general Smut was shown as a nice farewell on screen.It had the best drafted speech with a subtle humour & a veiled threat to the British raj in India!There was a nice remark when he said we pray in silence to the British in India now that Gandhi,the politician is set for India(towards sainthood).The very backdrop of a big family with many kids needs the mention of an obvious divided attention and love which had to cast it's spell on the unfortunate kid's psyche who was left alone to aspire for unrealistic ambitions.Little did Harilal knew about his aptitude and he gets emotionally carried away with small pleasures in life and fails in front of the huge idol of his father.He tries to do away from mentor-ship which is the basis of any success which had to be seen by those fortunate neighbours in the streets of Gandhi's residence when Harilal vents out his frustration in open.This means he becomes mentally weak and gets psychologically deranged to an extent that he is forced into religious conversions and alcoholism ,with debt and dis-obedience fuelling his negative thoughts.He still had shown the sincere love for his mother through touchy scenes and even Gandhi's humble expressions form Harilal to forgive him didn't meet any conclusions in his mind as he always feared the Father,Gandhi.he couldn't digest the fact that Gandhi couldn't share his love with him as he expected & was driven to rebellion when he couldn't understand the equal-merit based delivery of scholarship money by his father to his cousin where he saw a failed opportunity to study for barrister in england.This had to take it's toll in him thrown to the streets as a beggar when the whole of India was celebrating the Indepedence!The life of a destitute never changes come what may but the manner in which the sad death of Kasturba & Gandhi himself is shown brings in an emotional silence.Finally the last turbulent thoughts of the dying Harilal is shown as a flashback to keep the audience gripping and wondering where did the father of the nation go wrong?
Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son.
Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow.
Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals.
The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinemaa derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation.
Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette.
Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally.
In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics.
Don't miss it ..Very few movies got ..Such a impeccable direction & screenplay to depict gandhi ji life in different way ..Quite true side ..Stellar performances by Shefali shah & darshan zari wala ...
The movie went by very quick and we also got to see (in film) the influence Gandhi has had in India.
Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less.
Akshay Khanna was brilliant as Harilal Gandhi carrying the majority of the film on his shoulders.Cinematography was brilliant.
Gandhi My Father is an average movie that could have been better given better acting,screen writing and directing..
The film sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son..
Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi.
Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father.
This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son.
And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with.
We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with.
It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate.
This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship.
None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family.
The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen.
Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi.
Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role.
The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script.
Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay.
What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy.
I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character.
The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother.
And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.Such movies are like leap years.
They come after only so much time.Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.Watch it, if you like quality cinema..
This movie demands the attention of people interested in the family life of Mahatma Gandhi, played in this movie by Darshan Jariwala (but played by Ben Kingsley in Richard Attenborough's 1982 epic).Here we see the complex and sadly troubled relationship between father and son, Harilal (Akshaye Khanna).
Gandhi, My Father is a perfectly well balanced depiction and a gutsy movie.
Though movie takes you back to history and there are portion in the movies which tells about the struggle of India for independence, movie is all about the relationship between father and a son.
The transition from history to relationship between son and father is very smooth throughout the movie.
Shefali Shah as Kasturba Gandhi is simply amazing and the best fit to this role.
Gandhi my father is a movie about Mahatma gandhi and his Son Hiralal Gandhi.
mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society.
The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. |
tt0051655 | Gideon's Day | The film follows a day in the life of Detective Chief Inspector George Gideon of the Metropolitan Police. His day starts when he received information that one of his officers has been taking bribes. Despite his hectic schedule, his wife reminds him his daughter has a violin recital that evening; she also tells him her aunt and uncle are coming for tea before the concert. This becomes a recurring theme throughout the film, as Gideon is continually hampered in his efforts to finish work and return home.
On the way to Scotland Yard he drops his daughter off at the Royal College of Music, but is stopped by a young constable for running a red light. Once at his office, he calls in the detective whom a "snout" [i.e. informant] has told him is taking bribes and suspends him. Gideon then gets word that an escaped mental patient from Manchester is on his way to London. Meanwhile, an audacious gang is robbing payrolls.
The mental patient is soon arrested, but not before he has killed the daughter of his former landlady. Gideon wants to congratulate personally the policeman who made the arrest, only to discover it's the same overzealous young officer who gave him a summons for his early morning traffic offence. Various jobs then preoccupy the chief inspector while his detectives continue to investigate the bribery case. News then arrives that the suspended policeman has been run down by a car - a vehicle that fits the description of one used in the earlier payroll jobs. After Gideon visits the dead officer's wife, evidence soon emerges that links the dead detective to a woman who went to clubs he frequented.
Gideon goes to the address and discovers that the woman's husband was responsible for the robberies because he wanted the financial means to be a painter. The husband then tricks his wife into holding a gun on Gideon while he makes his escape. The detective uses his calm manner to defuse the situation. But before he can return home, the phone rings again. A safety deposit firm has been robbed by a gang of rich socialites who have been cornered inside. When the police finally draw them out, Gideon catches one of the gang himself. But he loses his temper when he finds out that the elderly night watchman was killed in cold blood by the man he arrested, telling him "you'll hang for this, you rich nobody!"
Finally Gideon gets home. His wife tells him that their daughter has met a nice young man at her recital. It turns out it's the young constable again. He had been holding the chief inspector's concert ticket all day following their first encounter that morning. This led him to meet Gideon's daughter who is quite taken by the young man. But finally, just as they are all sitting down to supper, the phone rings one last time. A man believed to be Paul the Painter has been arrested at London Airport. The film concludes with a final irony. The young constable, who is driving Gideon to the airport, is stopped by another policeman as he races through the capital's foggy streets for running a red light! | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0054749 | La ciociara | The story centers on Cesira (Loren), a widowed Roman shopkeeper, and Rosetta (Brown), her devoutly religious twelve-year-old daughter, during World War II. To escape the Allied bombing of Rome, Cesira and her daughter flee southern Lazio for her native Ciociaria, a rural, mountainous province of central Italy. The night before they go, Cesira sleeps with Giovanni, a neighbouring coal dealer who agrees to look after her store in her absence.
After they arrive at Ciociaria, Cesira attracts the attention of a young local intellectual with communist sympathies named Michele (Jean-Paul Belmondo). Rosetta sees Michele as a father figure and develops a strong bond with him. However, Michele is eventually taken prisoner by a company of German soldiers, who hope to use him as a guide to the mountainous terrain.
Cesira decides to return to Rome once the Allied troops end German occupation. On the way home, Cesira and Rosetta are gang-raped inside a church by a group of Goumier—Moroccan soldiers of the French Army. Rosetta is traumatized, becoming detached and distant from her mother and no longer an innocent child.
When the two manage to find shelter at a neighbouring village, Rosetta disappears during the night, sending Cesira into a panic. She thinks Rosetta has gone to look for Michele, but later finds out that Michele was killed by German soldiers. Rosetta returns, having been out dancing with an older boy, who has given her silk stockings, despite her youth.
Cesira is outraged and upset, slapping and spanking Rosetta for her behavior, but Rosetta remains unresponsive, emotionally distant. When, however, Cesira informs Rosetta of Michele's death, Rosetta begins to cry like the little girl she had been prior to the rape. With her mother comforting the child, De Sica zooms out to end the film. | cult | train | wikipedia | Sophia Loren became the first player to win an Acting Oscar for a foreign language film in Two Women or La Ciociara in her native Italy.
She plays the title role here, the other woman being her daughter played in La Ciociara by Eleanora Brown.The story here is a relatively simple one, Sophia and Eleanora leave Rome due to the bombing of Rome just prior to the Allied invasion of Italy.
In fact they almost did land an army there, but Eisenhower canceled the landing at the last moment and probably saved a lot of lives doing so.But this isn't about great battles, it's about Two Women just trying to survive the ravages of war in the best way they can.
I remember back in the day La Ciociara was shown at the art house circuit and many young juveniles considered it a mark of daring to get in and see Sophia Loren expose more than her American films had done up to that time.Sophia Loren deserved that Oscar, every bit of it.
Throughout the story, she proves to be a strong woman, seasoned by pain and not having lost the fire and fight in her.Like many European films of its time, Two Women is all about the characters and the current on which they flow through the film, a realistic capsule of a time and place.
Vittorio De Sica, who made the beautifully small-scale film The Bicycle Thief, which is about a relationship between father and son, forms a companion piece with Two Women, which is about a relationship between mother and daughter.
He addresses strikingly the unbearable love between a parent and their child.Truly one of the greatest Italian films, this is an absorbing, emotional, modest journey with wonderful music; coarse, down-to-earth cinematography from the wonderful old days of gritty film prints and old school hands-on editing; incredible acting not only from Loren but from the young actress playing her daughter, who drastically transforms; and also from Jean- Paul Belmondo, who convincingly plays completely against type; and a beautifully emotional final shot.
The last 30 minutes of this movie are heartbreaking, her horror, helplessness and numbness at what has happened to her daughter are some of the most powerful moments I have seen on film.
Her performance as the widowed mother of a teen age girl in this movie that depicted the horrors of the second great war was absolutely heart-felt and perfect.
sophia loren won the oscar for best performance for a lead actress in this movie, and i beleive that she dearly deserved it.
We understand that this young mother, Cesira (VERY well deserved Academy Award winner Sophia Loren), has a kind of hard protective shell of the fiery, strong woman that today might seem to verge on being something to expect in an Italian or Spanish drama, but here is meant to be just that- a shell to guard off from the wretched horrors of a war which repeatedly she asks "will it end soon?" She also has to be strong for her thirteen year old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown, excellent even if not considering it's a first performance), who still has a little innocence and admiration for those who are more good-hearted, if not as resourceful.This type as mentioned is in Michel (Jean Paul Belmondo, a curiously low-key performance considering his big hype as a suave star in France), who is a resistance fighter that Cesira and Rosetta come across while traveling away from Rome during bombing raids.
She's been through the war, right along with her daughter, and there's layers that Loren grasps that pierce through the character; De Sica knows that she's capable of reaching these very real dimensions even before she has to go full tilt into the tragedy of the rape scene in the church.
In a way, Cesira and Rosetta are in the midst of a kind of apocalyptic atmosphere, and we as the audience, even as we know where history will lead the characters, get wrapped up in the maelstrom of violence (one moment that's important is when the mother and daughter walk along a quiet road, a man on a bicycle passes, and a plane swoops down, shooting, the women duck, but the man is killed - the women look startled for just a moment, but hide it and go on their way) and with some political discourse thrown in from time to time as well (these might be the only weak spots of the film, but still very good scenes with a quick pace and sharp attention to mixing real actors and "non" actors, a slightly elevated neo-realism).
But this one strikes it hard: a state of mind in war cripples the mind.Finally, they come to the abandoned church, and the infamous scene occurs (filmed with a very effective zoom lens on Rosetta's eyes at a crucial moment, a kind of approximate exclamation point).
***SPOILERS*** Set in 1943 war torn Italy the movie "Two Women" is about a mother and daughter leaving Rome for the , what they think, safety of the countryside and going back to their little village in the hills and mountains in the Agro Pontino area just north of Rome.
Sophia Loren in a somewhat non-glamorous role as Cesira a shop owner in the Italian capital who's estranged from her husband and is, at the time that we first meet her, having an affair with local food distributor Giovanni, Ralf Vallone.
After getting to the village things are more or less peaceful, with the war just an old and bitter memory, with Cesira meeting and falling in love with the local intellectual as well as socialist young collage student Michele,Jean-Paul Belmondo, who even young Rosetta takes a strong liking to.
The almost forgotten war slowly catches up with Cesira and Rosetta and the people at the small village as the Allied forces break through the German lines and reach the outskirts of Rome.
Before this happened a squad of German soldiers entered the town and took Michele with them as a guide through the dangerous hills and valleys of the Argo Pontino.On their way to Rome the two women, Cesira & Rosetta, stop off at a bombed out church to get some rest and are later set upon by a group of French Colonial Moroccan troops.
The movie ends with Cesira getting the terrible news that her lover Michele was shot and killed by the Germans as we later see both mother and daughter alone in their small room arm in arm crying and consoling each other as the movie slowly fades to black.Sophia Loren rightfully who got an Academy Award as best actress for 1961 in the role of Cesira was both feisty as well as touching as the long suffering Italian mom.
Refugees from the bombing of Rome during World War II, Sophia Loren as Cesira, and her daughter are fleeing the city, come across relatives in the country, and encounter a harrowing fate.The feel of the film is palpable and stark, the scene and the shadows of the men as they come across these two women in the effigy of a church, is ominous and effective.
Italian shopkeeper Sophia Loren flees her war-ravaged city with her frail teenage daughter for a neighboring village to stay with relatives, but on the journey home, their lives are cruelly disrupted when the woman and her child are cornered by lusty soldiers.
The credit for this film rests squarely on the shoulders of Vittorio De Sica one of Italy's great post war directors.
Eleanora Bron was cast as the daughter.The story chronicles the life altering events of two women as they try to survive in war torn Italy.
The film was very heart wrenching and I thought De Sica brilliant, the way he kept us wondering about the mother and daughter, and the lewd and leering smirks of the men and when the rape of these woemen would occur.
"La ciociara",although it did give Sophia Loren one of her two best parts (the other being Scola's "una giornata particolare"),has undergone some reassessment;one thing for sure the neorealism was on the wane at the time,and DeSica 's best works were things of the past (so were Rosselini's).Like in France ,a new wave was rising in Italy,whose art was diametrically opposite to theirs:Fellini,Antonioni,Zurlini,Bolognini,Pasolini,et al were shaking the Italian cinema ;and although some of them -not to say all of them- began with neorealist works ("la strada" "il grido") ,now they were inventing their own aesthetic:the content took a back seat to the form("l'avventura" "la dolce vita" ).And the classic Story did not seem to matter a little bit.DeSica's style -which was so inventive during the forties and early fifties- became here a bit academic and conventional:for instance,he uses close-ups to excess;his actors,once "neorealist" to a fault (a non-professional in " Ladri di biciclette") , sometimes seem here a bit hamming it up.And Jean-Paul Belmondo is completely miscast in his part of idealist intellectual.There are good things though:the relationship Loren/daughter is moving and heartfelt;and the selfishness,the lack of solidarity of the refugees trying to save their dear life are impressive.Loren has great moments that make this work worth watching..
Cesira (Sophia Loren) flees Rome away from the allied bombing for the sake of her 13 year old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown).
La Ciociara is an incredible film and an unforgettable cinema landmark, showcasing the brilliant direction of Vittorio De Sica, the dazzling talent of Sophia Loren, and the beautiful craftsmanship of Italian film.
So in general if you want to grasp all the tragedy of Ciociara you should first read a book and then it would be very ridiculous to compare it with the film where De Sica even in the most tragic moment didn't forget to set off Loren's semi-nude bust.
La Ciociara is a novel written by the immortal Alberto Moravia, who was a Communist MEP for the last dozen years of his life.His story, as interpreted by pioneer film-maker Vittorio De Sica, is told from the point of view of Cesira, an uneducated widow (Sophia Loren, in her Oscar-winning role), who inherited a grocery from her older husband.
The pair have various adventures trying to reach the Signora's home village, during which the film-makers adroitly illustrate the civil war within the European war, within the world war.Communism is represented, a trifle improbably, by Jean-Paul Belmondo, but the Parisian lothario acquits himself quite well in the role, even acting out the wish-fulfilment of the public and piling on top of Cesira to get a load of that fabulous bust and those magnetic lips, for as long as she will allow, because Cesira is a very feisty lady.The film is suffused with a love of the people, and portrays their daily life in the country affectionately, along with the disruption and misery caused by war.
In a memorable scene, a stunned young mother whose child has been killed, offers her nipple in public, saying: "Does anyone want my milk?" This is a foreboding of what is to come, for as the third reel progresses disaster befalls both Cesira and Rosetta, a story feature that has been liberally revealed all over this board, but which I will refrain from blabbing about.This film obeys all the classic rules: the heroine struggles against all odds, even total disaster, and somehow triumphs in the end, even if her victory looks pyrrhic.
Ultimately, it is not, for we know that victory will ensue and even the awful sufferings of war will be alleviated, peace will heal the wounds, and Cesira and her lovely daughter will eventually thrive.Many things combine to make this a brilliant picture: the profound political commitment of the film-makers, the genius of Moravia, the brio of Sophia Loren in her greatest part, the love of Italy and its inhabitants.
I knew the outcome of the story because of having read Miss Loren's autobiography, and at times it was unnerving knowing what was to come.On a lighter side Hollywood should re-make this film with Kathy Griffin as the mother, and in a dual role, Kathy Griffin as the daughter.
A gripping, weighty film, with an Italian women (Sophia Loren) and her 12-year-old daughter (Eleonora Brown) fleeing Rome towards the end of WWII.
What happens to the mother and her child in a bombed out church (perhaps a symbolic setting) is horrifying, but while the film has these dark elements, and people living under conditions of privation at a time when those around them were being killed randomly, it doesn't crush you with its darkness.
A moving and visually stunning film, Two Women is a story about the heartache and trials of war by director Vittorio De Sica.
As with his other movies, this director deals with vulnerable human beings, to expose the injustice of a harsh world; in this case, a widow, performed by Sophia Loren, and her daughter, Eleanora Brown.
Vittorio de Sica= neo-realism director Sophia Loren= sex symbol Alberto Moravia= famous up-and-coming authorThe year is 1961, and it is 13 years after bicycle thief.
But the result is a terrible minestrone of different styles, tensions, trends, to produce a schizophrenic bizzare production.There are numerous neo-realistic scenes of peasants in the Agro Pontino, of living inside the capanne with hay roofs, of getting off trains in the middle of the countryside and carrying luggage on your head the way old peasant women used to do it.But then there are intruding snippets of comedy, like the old man eyeing the breasts of Sophia Loren and turning his head away when he realizes he's been caught watching (audience laughed), and a caricaturistic portrayal of a german officer that has studied phylosophy in the Universita' di Roma that lists the ambiguities and paradoxes of italians.What is one to make of this movie?
One of the most Powerful films about war ever made & the Brilliance of Sophia Loren.
Who knows what happens to these two women, this strong/fragile mother/daughter duo after the film has ended?
But their story becomes an indelible part of one's imagination and one hopes...prays...that somehow they survive, that their mother-daughter bond of love becomes eternal and that the unimaginable horrors they experienced during the War years can somehow be eased if not erased from their lives..
A unique film about the ravages of World War II, told specifically from the point of view of an Italian woman and her young daughter.The woman is Sophia Loren, and she won the first ever Oscar given for a foreign language performance in this film.
She plays Cesira, a spitfire who is blithely indifferent to Italy's role in the war until the horrors of it hit home in deeply personal ways when she and her daughter leave bomb-addled Rome to trek across the Italian countryside to wait out the fighting.
One would be justified in thinking that Loren's character is either selfish or naive, or both, but one would have to be inhuman not to feel compassion for what happens to her and her daughter.Loren was known as nothing but a sex kitten at the time of this film's release, and director Vittorio De Sica uses this to his advantage.
The last scene in the film is powerful because it shows a mother and her daughter in close moments which center around forgiveness..
Sophia Loren is truly memorable in her Oscar winning performance of 1961.She portrays a mother trying to help her child survive World War 11 in Italy.Unable to put up with the bombings in Rome, she decides to flee with her daughter to the countryside.
This was also an unfortunate part of war.A memorable film made better by Loren's captivating performance.
Sophia Loren and her daughter's survival during the closing days of WWII in Italy.This film has all the flaws of a movie made from a book...it tries to cover 500 pages in an hour and a half....inserting seemingly random isolated things simply because they occurred in the book.As some other reviewer noted this film doesn't flow well..
this cuts out about three quarters of the actors talent and makes everything just that more artificial, stilted and jarring.The rape scene is incongruous and as another reviewer noted up to this point you wonder where is all the drama here?Over all the film is bad and the fact that Loren won an Oscar proves that gimmicks and the correct formula (lots of PC stuff) and who knows what hidden politics are what wins an Oscar not the quality of the film.DO NOT RECOMMEND.
I also liked a movie that understood that an intellectual is just another of the pilgrims on the way to Canterbury.Sophia Loren received the Best Actress Oscar here, the first time an Oscar had gone to a performance in a non-English language movie.
Dialogues are very "juicy" and they are a reflection of conditions in which people live.Sophia Loren as Cesira is a single mother and rich widow of an old merchant.
but Michele is attracted by Cesira (Sophia Loren) mother of Rosetta...As the Allies were near, and the bombardment more intense, running and frightened German Soldiers compelled Michelle by the force of arms to show them the road in order to escape through the mountains...Cesira decides to return to Rome with Rosetta...On their way, completely tired and distressed, they took shelter in a bombed-out church...
And it really is good.Sophia Loren and her angelic twelve-year-old daughter, Eleanora Brown, run a small shop in Rome during the German occupation.
A nearby explosion from an Allied bomb turns the place into a shambles and Loren decides to take her daughter and live with distant relatives in a small country town.Life isn't a bed of roses there either, but it's better than Rome, with only the occasional handful of retreating German soldiers to deal with.
The mother is Cesira, (Sophia Loren) and her daughter is Rosetta, (Eleonora Brown).
Sophia Loren is a mother who takes her daughter away from the daily bombings in Rome to her childhood home. |
tt2402061 | Murder in the First | As a 17-year-old orphan, Henri Young (Kevin Bacon), steals $5.00 from a grocery store to feed himself and his little sister, both of whom are destitute. He is apprehended by the store clerk, and his sister is sent to an orphanage. Because that grocery store also housed a U.S. Post Office his crime becomes a federal offense. Young never sees his sister again and is sentenced to Leavenworth Penitentiary, Kansas. After later being transferred to Alcatraz, he participates in an escape attempt with two other prisoners.
The escape plan fails due to the betrayal of a fellow inmate, Rufus McCain (David Michael Sterling). Young is punished by being sent to "the hole" which is in Alcatraz's dungeons. Except for 30 minutes on Christmas Day in 1940, he is left in there for three years. The solitary confinement causes Young to lose his sanity. On release back to the general population, he experiences a psychotic episode in the prison cafeteria and attacks McCain, stabbing him to death with a spoon in full view of the prison staff and the other convicts.
Young is put on trial in San Francisco for first degree murder in what prosecutors and the public-defender's office believe is an open-and-shut case. Public defender James Stamphill (Christian Slater), a recent graduate of Harvard Law School, is given the case. After discovering the facts of Young's case, Stamphill attempts to put Alcatraz on trial by alleging that its harsh conditions drove him insane. The trial becomes highly politicized and contentious. Eventually Young is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, not first degree murder. He is returned to Alcatraz where he subsequently dies. The film concludes with ″The Rock's″ associate warden Milton Glenn (Gary Oldman) being convicted for mistreatment and banned from working in the US penal system. | murder | train | wikipedia | I thoroughly enjoyed the show and hope it continues with the excellent writing and cast..
One of the best series this season.
Other reviewers have complained about it's slow pace but I like the fact that the story takes it's time to be told.
I like getting to know the back story on the various characters, it forms more interest for me.
Looks like this is a summer replacement, because when I looked it up on IMDb, the three stars are listed for 10 shows, perfect for summer, but it is certainly better than a lot of the other stuff on TV at this time.
I like Taye Diggs and hope to see a lot more of Ian Anthony Dale.
I don't know anything about the young leading lady, but like her for my first look, although I do agree about the gun being in a bad place, although as I said, nothing is perfect.
I am really enjoying the new TNT show Murder in the First and can't believe the negative reviews.
Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson are superb in their roles and Tom Felton and James Cromwell are great as well.
James Cromwell is particularly effective playing the seasoned, high-priced defense lawyer.
Don't believe the negative reviews - watching this show is time well spent and I've been sorry when each episode ends..
There are a few things going for this new crime drama revolving around the SFPD and a tech billionaire.
The last few SF based shows have been cancelled like Alcatraz and 9 Lives of Chloe King.
2. Sympathetic looking leads Kathleen Robertson and Taye Diggs and a multi ethnic supporting cast are watchable and not abrasive like some crime dramas.
played by Tom Felton or Malfoy from Harry Potter is an interesting and enigmatic character.
At first he seemed to be still too teenage looking (like the rest of the Harry Potter cast) to be effective in his role but he is actually quite good.
This summer I've been watching the new TNT series "Murder in the 1st" and I must say that creator Steven Bochco has this series keeping viewers on the edge of their seat.
A single murder case starts it off only the case leads to a world of sex, drugs, and cover up beat it all it happens to be tied to a young rich computer business genius young boy!
The setting of the series is in the city by the bay the scenes and images of the golden gate bridge and San Francisco are beautiful.
Those images treat the viewer to a good sight after the eyes are salted with blood and murder scenes.
Leading the way are two S.F. detectives Terry English(Taye Diggs)and divorced mother Hildy(the sexy Kathleen Robertson it's nice to see her getting work again I remember her Beverly Hills 90210 days).
Thru it all the case takes twist with new characters and new leads and a pilot named Bill Wilkerson(the terrific Steven Weber)seems to play a supporting connection to it all.
Overall the series is a pretty good suspense and drama thriller one that changes week to week with new things as hidden secrets are uncovered this all makes for an interesting watch!.
I went into this thinking it was just another Law & Order clone, like a million other shows out there these days, and I suppose I was somewhat pleasantly surprised.The main detectives, played by Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson, don't initially seem like that great of a combination.
The crime itself seemed to be secondary in nature, which is weird considering the name of the show, but most of time was dedicated to fleshing out the detectives and their lives.Usually, that would cheese me off; I generally only watch these for interesting homicides and those classic action scenes we all know and love, but this was an interesting change of pace.
At the end I found myself wondering if Diggs was going to be alright rather than how their case was going, and I think I can live with that.I would have given the show higher marks, but I honestly do want to see a bit more action out of this first.
Once they pick up the pace a little bit, this might easily turn into a new favorite..
This series follows a single case from beginning to end for each season.
Terry English (Taye Diggs) and Hildy Mulligan (Kathleen Robertson) are San Francisco police investigating partners.
In the first season, they're investigating internet entrepreneur Erich Blunt (Tom Felton) after the deaths of his father and the flight attendant of his private jet.As a police procedural, there isn't anything ground breaking or anything that Bochco hasn't done himself countless times.
Following a single case for the whole season is not necessarily new either.
It's a little bit of a struggle but I think they start developing chemistry after they drop the romance.
However there was nothing different about this procedural that would make me want to watch.
The characters were not really interesting just mundane dealing with the same things we all deal with in real life.
I liked King and Maxwell that was in this time slot last year and it was canceled.
No one gets too excited until Taye Diggs slams a suspect's head into a table toward the end of the episode.
Bochco was original several years ago, but this is just running the same material through updated cameras.The lead actress over-acts everything; she has no sense of pacing, no subtlety.
Taye Diggs is out of his element, and can't bring most of the other 'actors' up to to a higher level.
Richard Schiff is wasted in a minor role of yet another stereotype.The show has the feel of people simply fulfilling contractual obligations: very little effort behind the writing.
Peopled by too many sub-par 'actors' who are either being allowed or encouraged to overplay roles, and to make sure that they don't go deep into character development.
If you want to watch a gripping story line, incredible characters played out by engrossing actors, you need to watch the 1995 first season of Murder One. This is the real deal.
That Hildy character was not believable for even one moment- please with the single mom shtick.
Boring story line with a techie character that needed to be slapped regularly.
Watch Murder One if you get the chance.
This is a terribly scripted dreary drama series.
There's no charisma or any attractive strong character in this series that could make the viewers keep watching.Kathleen Robertson's Hildy Mulligan role is very unconvincing.
Her high heel shoes look so dumb and so inappropriate, her satchel on her shoulder looks more like cosmetic arrangement instead of any practical use, both were stupidly and heavily copied from the European mystery drama series, Anikka Bentzon: Crime Reporter.What a shame, dude..
A character no one cares about, who was only in one scene for a second, is killed and they plan to milk a murder no one cares about for a whole season, no way.
The writing is so bad, slow and boring it doesn't matter who the actors are this script would not work or be interesting even if meryl streep played the lead, they lost half their audience almost immediately.
Entertaining and fast paced with believable characters.
In other words its not an "A,B,C" procedural like "Law and order" but its not a extremely hidden clue mystery like "True Detective" which I think makes the payoff and resolution at the end of the season a lot more satisfying.
Amazing Series:Props to All. Let's just say it: although MitF is not as dynamically captivating as Breaking Bad—in terms of plotting, writing, characterization, and acting, it is every bit the equal of BB.
In fact, those episodes were establishing plot points and fleshing out characters in preparation for things to come.
Now, as we're getting well into the season, the narrative arc is increasing in intensity with each episode.
I am a Law & Order fanatic and never really find a show that I can compare to it, however I was so in tune with this show, that all week I couldn't wait for the next episode.
I would suggest that anyone that has not seen this series go back and find the repeats on TNT and watch it for yourself.
If you like crime shows than this is one I am sure you will enjoy!.
I turned off the show at the 1:30 minute mark when the female detective getting ready for work retrieves her gun: Which is lying on the top shelf of an UNLOCKED closet across from her very young daughters bedroom, where it is easily accessible by the girl, any of her friends, or anyone else in the house.
My wife and I watch one or two episodes of police procedurals every night.
I usually pre-screen the programs, making sure of a few things we prefer, and seeing how many total episodes there are.
When I pre-screened Murder in the First I wasn't sure if I was going to like it, nor my wife.I started binge watching Murder in the First, then slowly began to like it.
It isn't like any other series we've watched.
Fortunately there is a balance of these modes.I'm now viewing the 8th episode of season 3 and wishing the series had gone on for more seasons.Pros:
We like programs that are fully contained within one episode.
We don't care for formats where the murder mystery persists through several episodes or seasons.
Murder in the First does have the format of a single mystery spanning an entire season.
In most cases we find this style ends up with a lot of "filler" just for the sake of fitting into a whole season.A little too much sex.
Character development of the two detectives is contrived in order to inject some humanity into the tired, overworked, detective profile so overworked in these drama lately.
Within the first three episodes, the pace seems to lend itself to forgetting exactly who the victim was and what actually happened to warrant an investigation.
Whatever you believe, you will feel challenged or vindicated as you see the subplots develop.Taye Diggs is good in this role.
His partner on the job, Hildy, is a little like a cup of Tea - warm but slightly astringent.
The flat one dimensional characters and complete lack of any "zip" to the script or story make this one of the worst murder mysteries I have ever wasted my time on.
6 episodes in I think it is time to give up on this.
2 episodes in and I have yet to find a real reason for anything going on in this show or any creativity.
taye digs is usually interesting like that show where he was a lawyer and a single father of a cute little girl with his homosexual babysitter.
as for last season I stopped watching after episode 4 about Malcolm in the middle killing his pregnant sex partner.
I really enjoy this show, all the main characters are believable.
I like the so called slow pace.
A lot of times shows start off so fast you don't a chance to understand the character.
I'm only half way through the first season but so far so good.
I am a Taye Diggs Fan, I liked him as much if not more in this, than some of his earlier works for example, Private Practice and How Stella Got her Groove back.
I've just started watching, during the second season, starting with "Schitzofrenzy." The stories are OK, but the overall production is NOT "knocking my socks off." And, Kathleen Robertson...who really wowed us in "Boss," seems to be just sleepwalking through the scenes.
I guess a bit of this enhances the authenticity, but it doesn't do much for me.So far, we're not seeing James Cromwell—one of our stellar actors today—in this season.
Sounds like they need to sneak him into the next episode.
This series is NOT at the level of your usual Steven Bochco product..
I don't think the acting is bad but why watch if the writing doesn't go anywhere?
Usually I like TNT shows but this one didn't do it for me..
Great writing and BETTER acting.
Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson are both brilliant playing out a superb script.
I think one reason some people have an issue with the show is the "one case for an entire season" concept.
If you didn't like it the first time try binge watching over a weekend, you'll be amazed much better the show all of a sudden got.
Even if you did like it the first time, watch it again and be amazed by what you pick up and how much more enjoyable it is when you know the characters better..
The story line for the second season has kept me on the edge of my seat.
As the plot came together, each episode just got better and better.
Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson seem like real police partners.
Tired of watching the same snotty awful person get off each week...getting bored.
Time to watch new drama unless you change it up a bit.
It has been a few episodes too long with the same crime.
Take notice of law and order...., Major crimes etc....I especially love the two lead actors they are perfect together.
Just have an ending for the criminal a little quicker then ..what twenty episodes...
I applaud the fact that the show has some diversity in its cast, what with women, African-Americans, Latinos, and even a couple of reasonably positive lesbian characters, but for a show set in San Francisco it is completely ridiculous that we never, ever see a gay male character -- not a cop, not a prosecutor, not a defense lawyer, not a suspect, not a witness, nobody, ever, -- stereotypical or non-stereotypical -- throughout three seasons!
That being said I found the first season's connected storyline to be very entertaining, with knock-put performances by Tom Felton and James Cromwell.
The last two seasons added many more characters, some of which we really didn't need, and many sub-plots, some of which were interesting, making it a more traditional cop show, for better or worse.
Taye Diggs and Kathleen Robertson are okay in the leads, not bad actors, even if they seem a bit like lightweights compared to, say, Mariska Hargitay of Law and Order SVU.
With only thirty-two episodes you can binge watch it on Hulu in a number of days..
Direction is outstanding as is cinematography, both filling each episode with visual nuances that Diggs and Robertson perform flawlessly.
Secondary characters are equally good, for the most part.
So - Well crafted, well acted and a pleasure to watch.But, as always, detest repeat villains and drawn-out to the point of soap-opry-ness plots.
As is Tom Felton, who pushes Blunt right up to the edge of "strangle-him-on-sight", regardless of his guilt.Like Bones, Castle and, to a lesser degree, The Mentalist, the point is the interaction between the characters.
I really like the two main detective characters, Taye Diggs & Kathleen Robertson.
They both have very interesting private lives that can be developed into future story lines.
Hopefully it is at least someone like the pilot's wife or the new person Anna.
This sets the standard for the whole show, nobody cares about realism or developing real characters, interrogation involves the person being questioned refusing to answer until the detective makes a RIDICULOUS threat that nobody would fall for, and the witness then spills everything.
Terrible characters, mediocre acting and horrible writing.
It would seem that the writers' and actors' only experience of police work came from watching second rate cop shows and they decided to come together and make an even worse carbon copy of what they saw.
Flat acting, story line that makes the willing suspension of disbelief almost impossible, and plot twists you can see coming 2 or 3 commercial breaks away.
The cast is good, but it's like the Killing.
Not like watching other shows - that every week have a new theme, which makes things more exciting.
The acting is good, but the writing is mediocre and long lasting.
He made a number of mistakes that no one who's ever watched a cop show would ever make, nor anyone with common sense.
I liked the cast; pity the plot was disastrous..
This appears to be a miniseries format, some complain of the slow start but I like that they are building a case to a conclusion.
Kathleen Robertson comes off more like a New York Streetwalker than a cop; and Taye Diggs is made into a stereotype rather than a real character; plus there isn't chemistry between the two.
Then there is the writing that hits us with such poor police work that we know evidence will be tossed: lifting from garbage inside suspect's house rather than placed outside on public street; and cop deep throating Tom Felton to get saliva on chewing gum.
And both cops deciding Erich Blunt--Tom Felton--is guilty because they don't like him is a bit much.
Maybe I'll just wait for the last two episodes to see who done it..
Maybe I'll just wait for the last two episodes to see who done it..
The series gave me a similar feel to my favorite TV drama – House.
I knew that I would like Detective Hildy Mulligan (played by Kathleen Robinson) from the moment she came on the screen.
The pilot episode opens with Detective Mulligan getting ready for her day, starting by answering a phone call from her ex-husband.
I feel their characters have a good chemistry.
I hope something develops, I hope the writers write in a good love relationship between them.
With all the negative news about policemen in the media today, we need more positive shows on television.
I hope the writers of this show think about a love relationship between these two police officers. |
tt0136376 | Love Me Deadly | Attractive Lindsay Finch (Mary Charlotte Wilcox) has a habit of dressing in mourning and attending wakes for men she never knew. When everyone else leaves, she kneels before the coffins and kisses the corpses passionately. However, at the many parties she holds at her house, she shows no interest in any of the (living) men. She is also fixated with her deceased father (Michael Pardue), frequently daydreaming about her childhood with him and putting her hair in pigtails to visit his grave.
Her friend Wade Farrow (Christopher Stone) is romantically interested in her, but she rejects his affections. Meanwhile, mortician Fred McSweeney (Timothy Scott) notices Lindsay's attendance at the wakes and, although she won't admit to her secret passion, he recognizes her as a kindred spirit. McSweeney has a Satanic coven that meets after hours in the mortuary for necrophilic orgies with the latest cadavers. At one point, McSweeney picks up a male hustler and brings him to the mortuary where McSweeney straps him down and embalms him alive by pumping him full of formaldehyde. McSweeney eventually coaxes Lindsay to join his group. When Wade follows her to the funeral home, he stumbles across one of the group preparing a body for the coming orgy, and is killed and becomes a special “guest” for the group himself.
At one of the wakes, Lindsay meets and finds herself drawn to the deceased's brother, art gallery owner Alex Martin (Lyle Waggoner). An intense romance begins, Lindsay's first real relationship. The two get married, but Lindsay can’t bring herself to consummate the marriage, and Alex is confused and frustrated by his new wife’s inability to return his affections. Alex gets suspicious and reads a registered letter to Lindsay that comes from McSweeney’s funeral parlor, leading to a disturbing twist ending. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0173716 | Cecil B. DeMented | Honey Whitlock is a Hollywood A-list actress whose public persona is that of a sweet and considerate woman, but who is actually profane, unreasonable, and demanding. While in Baltimore to attend a premiere, Honey is kidnapped by the manic film director, Cecil B. Demented, and his band of misfit, Andy Warhol–worshiping artists who have branded themselves "kamikaze filmmakers", going by the group name "SprocketHoles". Each of the SprocketHoles has infiltrated the staff of the theater where the premiere is to take place; they subsequently kidnap Honey as she concludes her remarks on stages. In the ensuing mayhem, the group escapes.
Honey is taken to an abandoned movie theater where she is kept captive. Honey is introduced to Cecil's crew of followers, each of whom wears a tattoo of a noted filmmaker and reveals unique, individual quirks. Cecil explains that he wants to make his masterpiece film and needs Honey to star as the lead. At first she resists, shooting scenes with no emotion, but when Cecil demands better results, Honey gives an over-the-top performance in the film's opening scene which pleases him. Apart from the first scene, Cecil, Honey and the crew roam around the city filming scenes at real (unapproved) locations, often involving innocent bystanders in the process.
The group's first location is a luncheon being hosted by the Baltimore Film Commission. The group crashes the event and Cecil orders Honey to jump off the roof of a nearby building, which she does without safety measures. A gunfight ensues between Cecil's crew and the police. As gunfire is exchanged, Rodney the hairdresser is killed and Cecil is wounded. Honey uses the opportunity to turn herself in to the authorities and they take her away in a police car, but she is retrieved by the film group soon after.
As Honey seems to become more comfortable with her situation, possibly developing Stockholm syndrome, she watches a television special discussing her disappearance. Persons who knew her, including her ex-husband, are interviewed and come clean about how mean-spirited she was in daily life. Honey now realizes that her desire to escape would only lead her back to Hollywood, where she is hated for being rude. She resists the idea of joining Cecil's followers but changes her mind and declares herself "Demented forever", burning a brand into her arm and officially joining the motley crew.
After these events, the crew invades the set of the Forrest Gump sequel being filmed in Baltimore, at Honey's suggestion. When the SprocketHole crew arrives, they subdue and replace many of the film's crew. A gunfight breaks out between Cecil's friends and Teamsters who got free. Members of Cecil's crew are either killed or wounded. The surviving SprocketHoles and Honey flee to a nearby pornographic theater and seek refuge inside. The audience helps Cecil escape.
At their last location, Cecil is shooting the final scene at a local drive-in while law enforcement are alerted. Cecil and the crew take over the projection room, and he proceeds to excite the crowd into a frenzy. He asks Honey to light her hair on fire for the final shot (which she does). With the film finished, the SprocketHoles start having sex in public before the authorities step in. Cecil sets himself completely ablaze as police arrive, to give Honey a chance to run away. In the ensuing chaos, some crew members escape with the raw film footage while others are shot. Honey is taken into custody; she is surprised and pleased by the new affection shown to her by the crowd as she is put into the police van. | cult, comedy, satire, violence, queer | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0199290 | 3 Strikes | Robert "Rob" Douglas is in prison. According to a local news report there has been a law- California's three strikes law, which will put three time offenders in prison for a minimum of twenty-five years. Rob is currently finishing his second bid in prison. It is his last day in jail.
Rob calls his friend Tone to pick him up from jail but Tone gets caught up with a woman he just met and asks J.J. to pick up Rob. Rob is picked up by J.J. and just as Rob tells him he never plans to go back to prison, cops pull the two over and J.J. shoots the cops. J.J. tells Rob that the car was stolen and Rob trying to elude his third strike escapes from the scene and hides at his girlfriend, Juanita’s house. J.J. is wounded and detained by the police.
Rob learns that the police is still searching for him and that he is on the most wanted list. Detective Jenkins is investigating the case and searching for Rob.
J.J. is restricted to a hospital bed due to his injuries. He calls his friend Blue, and tells him that when the police come and question him about the shootout, he is going to put the blame on Rob. Soon after, J.J is raped (off-screen) by a homosexual janitor who had been lusting after his buttocks, which was where he had been wounded.
Rob runs into his old friend Mike who helps him with some money. Rob and Juanita meet at a hotel while Detective Jenkins stops at Rob's home to try to find him that night. The next morning, Rob’s mother tells him the police have been looking for him, and some girl named Dahlia called saying she had some information that could keep him out of jail. Dahlia tells Rob to come to her place for a tape that could get him out of the situation he's in.
Rob asks Mike to get him a good lawyer and leaves for Dahlia’s home. Dahlia tells Rob that she will give him the taped conversation between J.J. and Blue (her brother) about the shootout if she can have her way with him, much to his disgust.
Blue tells Tone that Rob is at his house and Tone and his crew go to get him. The cops land up there as well. After a chase, Rob gives himself up at a church where Mike has brought a Lawyer.
Sometime later, in the final verdict, though Rob does not receive his third strike, he is sentenced to 30 days in jail for violating his parole. Rob's father tells him he will pick him up from jail himself when he gets out the next time. The film's epilogue states that Rob is eventually released from prison early due to overcrowding. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1266631 | The Bourne Conspiracy | The game takes place prior to, and during the events of, the first film. In addition to scenes from the film, several chapters also reveal some of Jason's backstory and missions that take place prior to the beginning of the game.
It begins with Jason Bourne, the protagonist, trying to assassinate African dictator Nykwana Wombosi, who has threatened to reveal details of the CIA's clandestine activities in Africa. After fighting his way through several guards and mercenaries, including Wombosi's lieutenant Solomon, he confronts Wombosi, but is unable to kill him because Wombosi's children are present. Bourne is shot in the back as he staggers out onto the deck of the boat and falls into the sea.
Bourne survives and is rescued by fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea, and then makes his way to Zurich. The city triggers a memory of a previous mission to kill terrorist leader Divandelen who is arriving at Zurich Airport under police escort. Terrorists seize control of the airport as Bourne pursues the target onto a cargo plane, where he parachutes to safety after defeating Divandelen in a fight.
In the present day, Bourne arrives at a Swiss bank, where he keeps a safety deposit box full of money and passports—along with a semi-automatic pistol he leaves in the box. On his way out, the police attempt to arrest him, but he escapes to the American consulate. There, the Marines attempt to detain him. He escapes from the consulate, then offers Marie Kreutz, whom he meets outside, a large sum of money to drive him to his Paris apartment.
Once at Bourne's apartment, a Lithuanian passport in his bag triggers a second flashback to a sniper mission to kill a former army general giving a speech at Vilnius University.
Marie accidentally triggers a silent alarm by picking up the phone. Treadstone sends an assassin to kill Bourne, but Bourne subdues him after a lengthy fight of using fists and non-conventional weapons. The assassin then throws himself out the window to avoid interrogation. Bourne and Marie escape from the Paris police, who were alerted after the assassin killed himself.
Checking into a Paris hotel, Bourne has a third flashback to a mission in the city to eliminate an arms dealer called Renard at an art museum. Bourne watches as Renard is killed by his client, Azar, who takes a dirty bomb he was buying from him. Bourne pursues Azar and shoots his helicopter down.
Bourne and Marie travel to her friend Eamon's house in the countryside and spend the night there, but before they can leave the next morning, they are attacked by another assassin using a sniper rifle from the surrounding hills. Arming himself with a double-barreled shotgun, Bourne blows up fuel tanks to create cover and makes his way into the hills where he fires several shots to force the sniper into a barn. Inside the barn, Bourne and the Professor have a brief firefight that ends with a fist fight as the barn catches fire. Bourne stabs the assassin to death with a sharpened piece of wood, then sends Marie away as he returns to Paris to confront Treadstone.
In Paris, Bourne warns his former boss, Alexander Conklin, to leave him alone. Instead, Conklin escapes and has several dozen agents attack Bourne. He incapacitates the agents through various means as he makes his way down out of the building and into the streets, then pursues Conklin into an alley. As they struggle, another assassin appears and shoots Conklin. Bourne pursues the assassin into a church undergoing construction and a brief gunfight occurs before an explosion knocks the assassin off balance, allowing Bourne to tackle him into the graveyard behind the church. Bourne is almost strangled to death but uses a shovel as a club to send the assassin over an rock face, breaking his neck. The game ends in Greece, where Bourne and Marie are reunited in the shop Marie has opened—they embrace as the game fades out. | psychedelic, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0444849 | Karam | Jon (John Abraham) is an assassin working for a mobster named Captain (Bharat Dabholkar). After a hit goes wrong, resulting in him killing an entire family (including a little girl), he is overcome with the guilt of his actions and decides to quit his job. He starts life anew with his pregnant wife Shalini (Priyanka Chopra) a bar singer.
Meanwhile, Jon's boss, Captain, is facing a threat from a rival don, Yunus (Vishwajeet Pradhan). After being attacked, Captain decides to teach the city a lesson by killing the city's top industrialist, top film producer, the cop backing Yunus and Yunus himself; so that everyone else falls in line and no one dreams of becoming another Yunus.
He decides that Jon must carry out this plan of his. To achieve this, he takes Shalini hostage. John is given 36 hours to kill the five targets on the hitlist. Things get worse when the city's toughest cop, Wagh (Shiney Ahuja) traces him. Jon is pressed for time and the body count is growing.After Jon accomplished this,Shalini is killed and Jon takes over the city in grief. | tragedy, neo noir, violence, gothic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0283145 | Wielka droga | The plot spans from shortly before the outbreak of World War II to its end. In the city of Lwow (PL) in 1939 Adam and Irena fall in Love, but are separated by the outbreak of the war. Both are deported by the Soviets to Siberia, where they briefly meet again when signing up to the newly created Polish army. Again separated from Irena, Adam marches with the army from Siberia through the Middle East and fights on the Italian front line. During the battle of Monte Cassino he gets wounded when participating in the first assault, temporarily losing his eyesight. In the military hospital a nurse finds his diary and, initially in the intent to relieve his suffering, later from romantic affection towards him, pretends to be his fiance Irena. This, however, is ended when the real Irena arrives. Adam recovers from his wounds and, after the Polish victory at Monte Cassino, follows the army together with Irena to northern Italy, where they settle after the end of the war. In this film the plot serves as a framework for original footage taken by the army during the war. The name of the film, Wielka Droga, means 'The Great Way', referring to the march from Poland through Siberia and the Middle East to Northern Italy. This is the only film showing the Polish participation in the Italian Campaign (World War II). | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.