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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0040064 | 3 Godfathers | Cattle rustlers Robert Hightower (John Wayne), Pedro "Pete" Rocafuerte (Pedro Armendáriz), and William Kearney (Harry Carey, Jr.) rob a bank in the town of Welcome, Arizona, but William is shot in the shoulder and they have to flee into the desert, pursued by a posse led by Sheriff Buck Sweet (Ward Bond), who shoots a hole in their water bag (that they do not notice until after all the water has leaked out). They eventually lose their horses in a desert sandstorm and end up walking. Desperate for water, they head for a water hole, which has, however, been destroyed by the misguided efforts of a bumbling tenderfoot, who then chased after his lifestock and did not return.
In a covered wagon left nearby lies the man's wife (Sheriff Sweet's niece), who is about to give birth. With the help of the trio, she has a boy, whom she names Robert William Pedro after her benefactors. Before dying, she extracts a promise from them that they will take care of him. Moved, the three desperadoes try to keep their promise despite the acute lack of water.
William is certain a higher power guided them there and likens their situation to the Three Magi finding the baby Jesus in a manger. He convinces the others to head for the town of New Jerusalem, which lies across a wide expanse of desert. While crossing a salt flat, William dies; later, Pete falls and breaks his leg. He asks Robert to leave him his pistol, for "protection from coyotes." As Robert walks away, he hears a single gunshot.
Finally at the end of his strength, Robert nearly loses hope, but in his delirium, the ghosts of his two friends appear and refuse to let him give up. He contemptuously tosses away the woman's Bible, then goes back for it and reads a passage telling of the appearance of a donkey and a colt. Just then, the animals actually show up. With their help, he finally reaches New Jerusalem and enters a cantina where people are singing Christmas carols (it being Christmas or Christmas Eve), and then collapses just as Sheriff Sweet catches up with him.
Robert is arrested, but because of his heroism and refusal to give up custody of his godson to the Sweets (whom he has now befriended), he is viewed by the townspeople as a hero even before the trial comes to its conclusion. In the end, he is sentenced to the minimum of a year and a day and, as he leaves to serve it with a promise to return, he is given a rousing farewell by the entire town. | allegory | train | wikipedia | This one has to rank at the top of John Wayne's films.Wayne and fellow outlaws Pedro Armendariz and Harry Carey, Jr. arrive at the town of Welcome, Arizona and after a brief chance meeting with the marshal, Ward Bond, proceed to rob the Welcome bank.In pursuit of the robbers, Bond shoots the waterbag draped across Wayne's saddle.
The three wise men setting out with the infant in their charge to the nearest town which happens to be New Jerusalem, Arizona.I said on another review of a Wayne film that John Wayne had one of the greatest faces for movie closeups ever.
The filming, the performances -- this is one of Wayne's best
it's quite overlooked that this guy could act: The desperation, the confusion, the exhaustion, it's all just amazing.It's more of a character study than anything else, with the characters facing desperate thirst, an aching empty land, relentless sun, and the movie shows how these men deal with it, all the while they are attempting to care for a child.
Having already made a version of the story in 1919 as Marked Men with Harry Carey, John Ford clearly had a kink for this delightful redemption parable.
Opening with a touching tribute to his friend and mentor Carey, who had sadly passed away the previous year (and who also starred in the 1916 version of The Three Godfathers), it was also the first out and out Ford Western to be made in colour.The story tells of three outlaws - Robert Hightower (John Wayne), Pedro "Pete" Fuerte (Pedro Armendariz) and The Abilene Kid (Harry Carey Junior) - who after robbing a bank in the town of Welcome, are on the run from the law led posse.
Redemption is the keyword to many a Ford work:this is perhaps the most convincing effort in a remarkable career for that matter.Like all the great auteurs,western is only an alibi for Ford to convey a message:God is the only way,the Bible is the only book for Man's education (as Dr Whatsisname's infant care manual for the new human being).If you do not know anything about the screenplay and you expect a traditional western ,you may be disappointed:actually it might as well be a Xmas tale.Actually ,only the beginning and the ending are what you expect from a western.The central part is Robert's (Wayne) road to Damascus.His two pals do believe in God,he doesn't.The desert and the quest of water are a metaphor for the emptiness of his heart.In the second part of the movie,he's like the baby,busy being born.Ford's movie is a visual splendor:the three men filmed against the sunlight near the mother's grave;the grave shot in close-up as the three men go away.The desert itself becomes an almost alive entity,filmed with a unique sense of space .Narration avoids readiness:when Wayne meets the mother,Ford does not show the scene:he lets his character tell it to his friends.The mother briefly appears for one short scene but she makes all her words count.Singing is very important:when the mother is buried ,William sings over his grave but he cannot finish his canticle because he cannot remember the end:thus Ford avoids pathos and melodrama;when he rocks the baby,he sings "streets of Laredo",an ominous choice(but lullabies are sometimes strange and even cruel,aren't they?);the final choir "bringing in the sheaves" signals a brand new life for Robert.
Towards the end ,the movie verges on fantastic ,which is extremely rare in the western genre.Biblical quotations abound,but anyway,they are everywhere in Ford's work from the earlier works (the informer) to the later ones (seven women).In the eighties,Coline Serreau made a shameless rip -off "trois hommes et un couffin".It wasn't a western ,the action taking place in Paris 1985,but a lot of ideas were taken from Ford .Besides,her three characters were despicable machos:One wishes it had not come from a woman .The movie was such a huge success that the American felt compelled to redo it (three men and a baby).Forget these mediocrities and do watch the Master 's tale of redemption..
Directed by John Ford as a remake of his silent film "The Marked Men" (1919) which had already been made twice before the 1919 version, lol.
It was also John Ford's first Technicolor film and its somewhat unique in that it actually doesn't use Monument Valley as its location.It stars a lot of Ford's stable of actors, John Wayne, Harry Carry Jr., Ward Bond, Hank Worden, Ben Johnson, and actor Pedro Armendáriz who is just great in the role of one of the title's godfathers, Wayne & Carry Jr. being the others.This film is now up there with "The Searchers" as my favorite Ford film.
It doesn't have that "knock you over the head civics lesson" sermonizing that a lot of Fords films have, its got a little bit of schmaltz and melodrama in very small dollops that you can swallow & which is OK.But don't get this expecting showdown gunfights, there aren't any, and the film still works.Basically the story line: Three men ride into the town of New Jersusalem, Arizona to rob its bank.
Its like GBU in that it becomes more than just a Western, you'll see what I mean.The second thing that stood out is the great performance of Pedro Armendáriz what a great Mexican Actor who should have been a main character in a lot of Westerns, whats up with that, not only will he remind you a bit of a "nice" Tuco but it even looks like he's wearing Tuco's hat (the one he gets from the gunsmith), or vice versa lol.The town sets are again spot on, and there is some great steam locomotive footage, all in all a beautiful and enjoyable film..
First-rate Western masterfully directed by the great John Ford that results to be a marvelous retelling of Peter B Kyne's saga dealing with three desperate who take a newborn baby in the desert , as the group come across a dying woman and her infant child and they promise the woman that they will take care of the child and get it to safety, even though none of them knows anything whatsoever about children or babies .
After robbing the local bank , three outlaws named Robert Hightower (John Wayne) , William Kearney (Harry Carey Jr) and Pedro Roca Fuerte (Pedro Armendariz) on the run to evade the local Marshal (War Bond) and his posse .
Three outlaws (John Wayne, Pedro Armendariz, Harry Carey Jr.) rob a bank and are chased into the desert by the local sheriff (the always great Ward Bond).
Before she dies, she names the three men the baby's godfathers and makes them promise to take care of him.This is a story that has been made many times before, although this version is the best in my opinion.
Here old Papa Ford relates his Christmas parable against the background of the searing heat of the Arizona desert as Duke Wayne struggles against the odds to deliver orphan child Robert William Pedro to safety, bang on, wouldn't you know it, Christmas Day. All the usual Ford staples are here, the panoramic scenery, male camaraderie, bawdy humour and of course big John Wayne himself in yet another barnstorming lead role.
Noting that the film is Ford's own remake of his earlier silent movie production of the same story would help explain why some of the scenes are somewhat static and staged tableau-style.
A really touching, naive, heart-warming Christmas movie, even if it may be quite a tear-jerker, especially at it's end: great cinematography - watch out for the wonderful impressions of the desert (the director of cinematography started with documentaries) -, great direction and one of John Wayne's best performances - this man was not only a big star, he was a wonderful actor, too!!!
Each in turn tries to outsmart the other, in very plausible fashion.It is also, by this point, a survival movie, with the three outlaws having to fight the harsh desert as well as keep ahead of the law.Then Ford adds another layer, a human drama, with the introduction of a woman and, later, her baby.The baby, and how the three outlaws try to cope with it and look after it, also provides many funny and poignant moments.This layering and depth is incredibly revolutionary for a western, and makes the movie incredibly engaging.
Also revolutionary for the time was the addition of a Mexican (Pedro Armendáriz) among the lead characters, alongside John Wayne and Harry Carey Jr.Good performances by all three.
Three bank robbers in the old West, played by John Wayne, Pedro Armendáriz, and Harry Carey Jr., run from the sheriff of Welcome, Arizona (Ward Bond).
Have never viewed this film and never realized that John Wayne would ever play a role like this character he did in this Western!
Sweet, but his wife calls him Pearly.The three men are John Wayne, Pedro Armendariz and Harry Carey Jr.
3 Godfathers is beautifully directed, as are most of John Ford's pictures, but I wonder how much the story benefits from having all of the Jesus/Christmas/3-Wise-Men allegory attached to it.
What makes it work isn't so much the religious connotations, which if anything are actually depicted by Ford as hallucinations and mirage-like visions (the bit where Duke comes across the mule at the end of the cavern is one such moment), but in how the supposed 'bad-guys' are humanized through their arduous trek through the desert and lack of water and through the simple act of taking care of a newborn.
Robert William Pedro Hightower (because, you see, the mother named the baby after the three men around her as she faded from life), it surprises how touching some of this really comes off, and how the usual 'bad guys will have to get justice' is kind of turned on its head in the face of innocence.Wayne, Harry Carey Jr. and Pedro Armendariz are bank robbers who unintentionally blow their cover to a friendly Marshall, and are tailed by them more or less as they run out of town into the desert.
This could be handled really contrived by any other director, but John Ford takes his time with the direction, drawing out shots of the long walking stretches and tired but determined faces of Duke and Carey and Armendariz, and the sparse setting they're in, and it's sometimes really breathtaking film-making.The only problem then, from my perspective, is the occasional spouts of sentiment, sometimes verging into flat-out sentimentality, peppered by the obvious religious allusions.
And yet I can't disregard how well crafted 3 Godfathers is, how (dare I say it) John Wayne fills in this role better than usual, if about as good as he could get with 'Pappy' Ford at the helm, and some really juicy, memorable cinematic moments in the Western genre.
John Wayne, Pedro Armendariz and Harry Carey Jr. happen upon a wagon in the middle of nowhere on a vast salt desert, and find a woman about to give birth but in bad shape.
The three men promise, and the rest of the film is about their struggle to get the baby to the nearest settlement.Very sentimental and very much in the Ford style, this is a movie that usually shows at Christmas since it has biblical overtones, i.e., the 3 wise men and the infant Jesus.
I compare this to the best of John Ford's....it just does not get much notoriety.The men against the wilderness and the eventual reclamation of the human spirit is a wonderful story.The film does a great job showcasing each stars talent...Ward Bond does his usual excellent job.
Though 3 Godfathers doesn't get talked about as much as other classic John Ford/John Wayne collaborations such as The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, it's tale of desperate bank robbers Wayne, Pedro Armandariz, and Harry Carry Jr.'s redemption through an act of selflessness, is compelling entertainment made quite poignant by it's tragic, emotional final act.With Ford at the helm, you don't me to tell you that it looks fantastic too, with it's breathtaking scenery in gorgeous Technicolor and great performances all around.
John Wayne gets a windy monologue in the second act that doesn't come off too well, but he's in good spirits and ably shares the screen with cohorts Pedro Armendariz and Harry Carey Jr. Even better is Ward Bond as the Arizona sheriff (named 'Perley') who is slyly introduced to us working in his garden before putting on his badge (the best-directed sequence in the whole picture).
John Ford's biblical western is certainly beautiful to look at and has a lot of comedy elements but it is overlong and takes an age to get going.Three bank robbers are fugitive from a chasing pack led by Sheriff Perley Sweet who they met earlier as they rode into town.
As they make their escape from the desert, Robert (John Wayne) William (Harry Carey Jr) and Pedro (Pedro Armendariz) come across a dying woman with a newborn baby.
Fugitive bank robbers Robert (John Wayne) William (Harry Carey Jr.) and Pedro (Pedro Armendariz) stand at a desert grave.
3 GodfathersIf America had authored the Bible the three wise men would also be bearing arms.Proof positive is this oater about the legendary magi.A band of bandits (John Wayne, Harry Carey, Jr., Pedro Armendáriz) abscond into the desert after a botched robbery with the relentless sheriff (Ward Bond) in hot pursuit.Approaching dehydration, the trio stumbles upon a dying woman who makes them promise to escort her newborn son to the safety of New Jerusalem.Reluctant, but motivated by the biblical comparison, the outlaws continue their perilous journey across the arid wasteland.
Full of the usual desert beauty but lacking the climatic battles, cavalry charges, high-speed wagon chases, or gunfights typical of the director, Ford's 'Christmas' western is a charming tale of redemption riffing on the Biblical tale of the three Wise Men. In one of the few films in which John Wayne is a 'bad guy" (or at least a malefactor), the Duke and his pardners in crime Pedro (Pedro Armendáriz) and William (Harry Carey Jr.) knock over a bank in 'Welcome' Arizona and then hightail it into the desert with a posse in pursuit.
Sweet, presumably after hearing Wayne's full story, takes an entirely different attitude toward him, beginning to treat him like a prodigal son.This was John Ford's first color film, he generally preferring B&W.
Kyne's oft-filmed story of three outlaws finding redemption, has been hailed by some critics as an unsung Ford masterpiece; while I wouldn't go quite THAT far, it is an exceptional western, with Ford's 'Stock Company', headed by John Wayne, offering warmly sentimental performances.The film was created as a 'tribute' to legendary actor Harry Carey, who had passed away in 1947, and had been young Ford's mentor, starring in his first version of the tale, "Marked Men", in 1919.
Again,master director John Ford never fails to disappoint,here's a another solid classic from Argosy Productions,it's a tale of life and how beautiful it is,and it's a tale of death,and of how harrowing and destroying it can be.The 3 godfathers is a flawless masterpiece and it's right up there with John Fords other classics like THE SEARCHERS,CHEYENNE AUTUMN,SERGEANT RUTLEDGE,RIO GRANDE and THE HORSE SOLDIERS.The main part of the plot involves a baby and it's birth,(representing life),the scene in which the baby is born and it's mother dies is one of the most exquisite,beautiful and tear jerking scenes in classic cinema and you will be in tears as you watch it.The rest of the story involves three men doing what any decent human being would do,fulfilling a mothers dying wish and taking care of her defenceless baby,this is extremely plausible,in the end it's sad to see the baby being taken into care and you get the feeling that the three men have failed,but they haven't.The men take the baby through dry,blisteringly hot deserts and mountains and still manage to take excellent care of the child,but in the process,two of the men,William and Pedro,die when they cannot go on any longer,the latter committing suicide,these scenes are also very sad and quite harrowing to watch and although the characters are outlaws,you come to like them and that thought will nearly bring tears to your eyes.The death of William and Pedro represent death,Robert meanwhile goes on with the child and finally reaches a nearby town,but gives himself up and is arrested.The storyline is excellent and perfect,we see a transformation in the three outlaws as they change from dangerous criminals to loving fathers and their mission is to no longer escape the sheriff but to take care of the baby.The characters are brilliantly put together and there's something lovable about them,John Wayne,Pedro Amadariz and Harry Carey Jr. are all brilliant as the three lawless men who have a job to do.Ward Bond is great as the relentless Buck Purely Sweet and he's probably one of the most lovable lawmen to be seen in a western.Some say this is a Christmas movie,it's not really,apart from a few Christmas references and a tree up in a saloon,this is just a normal western drama and can be enjoyed at any time of the year.Thers's a lot of funny lines from the main characters,and to find out that Robert's middle name is Marmaduke really made me laugh,Purely is also a cracker of a name.The scenery,as usual in a John Ford western,is absolutely stunning and the theme music is wonderful,the film is dedicated to veteran American actor Harry Carey(father of the man who plays William in the movie,Harry Carey Jr.) This isn't one for the action fans(you'll have to settle for a few gunshots and a horse chase),this is an excellent film,in the tradition of other cinematic classics like HOW THE WEST WAS WON,THE LONGEST DAY,THE ALAMO,CAST A GIANT SHADOW,SABATA,LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and THE GOOD,THE BAD AND THE UGLY,SEE IT,RELISH IT,REMEMBER IT,one of the greatest motion pictures ever made,highly recommended to anybody.A legend of a movie and a must see before you die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..
The Ford stock Company of John Wayne, Ward Bond, Harry Carey Jr., Mildred Natwick ,Mae Marsh, etc. |
tt0020480 | Tanned Legs | Peggy is the daughter of Mr. Reynolds and his wife Sophie. Although married, both of the elder Reynolds are having romantic interludes with younger people, Mrs. Lyons-King and Roger Fleming, respectively. In addition, Peggy's sister, Janet, is infatuated with Clinton Darrow, a ne'er-do-well, who is only interested in the Reynolds' money, not in Janet. Peggy is in the only normal relationship, with her boyfriend, Bill.
While at a seaside resort, Peggy attempts to get all of her family members back in line. However, things become convoluted as Mr. Reynolds is about to buy some useless shares of stock, having been convinced by Lyons-King, as Darrow begins to blackmail Janet due to some rather juicy letters she had sent to him. When Janet sneaks into Darrow's room, attempting to retrieve her letters, she is seen by her sister and Bill, who think she is sneaking in for other reasons. Janet is unsuccessful in her attempt to procure the incriminating letters.
As Darrow steps up his blackmail threats, Janet can see no way out, so decides to kill him instead. However, during the attempted assassination, she mistakenly wounds Peggy, rather than her intended target. Bill, meanwhile has become fed up with all of the antics going on and is sundered from Peggy.
Through a twisted process during a fake robbery, a friend of Peggy's, Roger Fleming, and his girlfriend, Tootie, obtain the letters from Darrow, thus ending the blackmail attempt. Peggy manages to straighten out both of her parents, and by the end of the film is reconciled with Bill. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | It's not THE COCOANUTS, but.....
It is a watchable first-generation film musical.
There are some obvious flaws caused by a mostly immobile camera and choreography better suited for the Broadway stage than the Hollywood sound stage, but there are some great strengths to it.
Among them are its cast, including Arthur Lake, Sally Blane (Loretta Young's sister) and Lloyd Hamilton, a good if unmemorable set of songs and the opening-out of the action to a beach location -- if you can accept cliffs in seaside Florida, of course.Leo Tover, whose black-and-white cinematography would be Oscar-nominated in the 1950s, is obviously operating under a considerable handicap.
Except for the dance numbers and a couple of MOS sequence, almost everything is done in medium shots, usually extended two-shots.
Still, director Marshall Neilan manages to keep things humming, there are a couple of funny scenes (including a six-handed bridge game) and we get to see a lot of tanned legs..
it's delicious!.
I almost screamed with delight for 66 minutes through this perfect 1920s flapper musical set in a seaside resort with lots of gorgeous girls and guys in their cossies waving their tanned legs about to music.
What a delight!
Made at RKO in may 1929 TANNED LEGS is simply beautiful to see, with a snazzy modern cast singing and dancing in the most fantastic modern 1929 clothes...
and in sets that make any person in love with the era swoon with glee.
Several very funny songs include "Jump In - The Water's Fine", "You're Responsible" (with terrific tap dancing reprise) and "Tanned Legs" itself with howling risqué exposure of many tanned legs and what is at the top of them.
Arthur Lake in particular is a standout, he was about 24 at the time and is like a lovesick tousled tom cat, especially in his striped dressing gown on the porch.
Very modern in tone and style and an utter delight TANNED LEGS is THE BOYFRIEND for real.
The film veers off into some melodrama later and ends abruptly which might explain why there is an original running time 5 minutes more than this print of 66 minutes.
It seems to have the end missing, which given the way the film starts, should also end with a musical number.
However, for the 66 minutes I lapped up it was flapper and swimming cossie heaven.
Sally Blaine, who was Loretta Young's sister is astonishingly as beautiful.
The film is so early in the talkie era that it is clear the camera is trapped in a glass booth and you can hear the camera whirring.
TANNED LEGS is simply gorgeous for every artistic musical and technical reason imaginable.
I can't stop watching it.
The film is similar to FOLLOW THRU made at Paramount and in color in 1930...
and TANNED LEGS clearly needed Jack Haley as well..
there is even one comedian who is similar and only serves to remind us of him.
The sound is excellent - photo-phone on film - and serves to explain why it instantly became the industry standard.
TANNED LEGS is a complete delight even if the print is incomplete..
Legs Up. The further back you go, the earlier in the evolutionary chain of cinema.
Even if the movie is uninteresting in a conventional sense, it has interest.
Each of these early movies and there weren't that many was a firework shot into a sky, defining it.This one is a rather crude imposition of a show onto several slightly related stories of romantic situations, and some sexual intrigue.The show has the legs of the title rather overtly displayed in an obvious attempt to add spice to the stiff staging of the romantic episodes.
Some of these involve the participants bursting into song, so its a strange amalgam of a musical on the story and one in the story.
The stories are trite, as one would expect, but the women in the stories, even the vamps, are amazingly prim, especially when compared to the show girls.These show girls, by the way, were selected for a different body type than usual for the period and more in line with modern trends: low body fat, muscle tone.
As much is made of the Florida locale, that must have applied.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life..
Mom and Dad don't exactly set the highest standards for their daughters in this one!.
This is a very old fashioned musical, though I certainly expected this and cut the film some slack.
After all, 1929 was still very early for talking pictures and the musicals of the era are a tad stilted and the production numbers a bit...well...much.
And, compared to most of the musicals of the time, this one isn't bad at all.The plot involves a family that is on vacation.
However, Peggy (June Clyde) isn't about to pitch woo with Bill (Arthur Lake) because she's too worried about her family.
After all, her daddy is out chasing a younger woman and mom isn't any better.
As for her sister, there are some incriminating letters...and Peggy is determined to get them.The film has a few cute songs, though the singing varies tremendously.
A few of the actors (such as Lake) should NOT be singing!
Interestingly enough, one of the co-writers of the songs was the very clever raconteur, Oscar Levant.
Overall, it's harmless fluff.
Folks that love older talking pictures will enjoy it...others might find it a bit tough to finish.
The film also has one of the most abrupt and unsatisfying endings...it makes we wonder if the whole ending might actually be missing..
Legs Up!.
The summer resort "Breakers Beach Club" (Laguna Beach, CA) attacks wealthy vacationers and leggy dancers.
Pretty blonde June Clyde (as Peggy Reynolds) is embarrassed by her middle-aged parents, who have both found younger romantic interests.
Her mother and father are only at the flirting stage, however.
"Harmless fun" is how her cute boyfriend Arthur Lake (as Bill) describes the affairs, but Ms. Clyde thinks her parents are "playing with fire." Also worrying Clyde is her beautiful sister Sally Blane (as Janet), who is serious about smarmy Edmund Burns (as Clinton Darrow).
Clyde must solve everyone's problems by obtaining a blackmailer's love letters...This early all-talking musical play lives up to the title "Tanned Legs" -- partly.
There are several dance numbers, and director Marshall Neilan gives us a good look at the legs of many attractive young women.
Legs go way up.
On occasion, dresses do, too.
It's difficult to tell in black and white, but the gams do not look especially tanned.
Direction is otherwise not notable.
As the portly father and matronly mother, Albert Gran and Nella Walker are perhaps most memorable.
Broadway favorites Allen Kearns and Ann Pennington give it some authentic musical appeal.
Best song "With You, With Me" (by Sidney Clare & Oscar Levant) lingers awhile.**** Tanned Legs (11/10/29) Marshall Neilan ~ June Clyde, Arthur Lake, Sally Blane, Albert Gran.
Early Talkie.
The title of this film implies a naïve titillation representative of the pre-Code films.
As movies made the transition from silent screen to talkies, there was a lot of experimentation.
In this film, they use the occasional title card to explain or advance the story.
It is interesting to see the state of the art in 1929, but in many instances it is amateurish compared to later standards.Cameras are mostly stationary.
The featured music and background music have a long way to go to achieve the potential realized in the sophisticated tunes of the great writer-composers that followed in the thirties.
The dancing/choreography is unpolished and synchronization is mostly ignored.
The script is disjointed and, sometimes, ridiculous.
The ending of the film is laughable.It would not take long for producers and directors to understand the potential for talkies and to harness the advantages of new film technologies and methods.
Only ten years after this film, Hollywood would release a host of films displaying the fully-formed artistic visions of "Gone With the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz", "Ninotchka" and many other classics..
Gorgeous Penny!!.
This originally started life as a straight comedy but when RKO studio heads heard about the popularity of "Sunny Side Up" they decided to stop filming, scrap the cast, all except June Clyde and then add some songs.
Clyde was touted by RKO as the "Luckiest Girl in Hollywood" and for a short while she was the studio's musical hope but all too soon (by 1931) she was on poverty row.
Picked for the role apparently because of her lovely legs, she plays "little Miss Fix-it" Peggy Reynolds, embarrassed at her parent's foolish cavortings - her father with flirtatious widow (Dorothy Revier) and her mother with artist Roger (Allan Kearns).
Second billed in the cast was Arthur Lake as Bill, Peggy's irritating sweetie.
Originally Joel McCrea was going to get his big break but he was dropped in favour of Arthur Lake, surely the whiniest actor of that or any other time (he found his dream role almost a decade later as Dagwood).
He was really persevered with by the various studios, why?
who knows - it may have been his family connections.All roads lead to the Orphan's Benefit as the film starts with a panning shot of beachside frivolity then goes directly to cute as a button Peggy who sings up a storm with "Come On In", a very hummable song with gorgeous Clyde strutting her stuff in bathers and the chorus line enthusiastic as well.
Another person who is unhappy about the romantic entanglements is Tootie, Roger's flapper fiancée.
Ann Pennington is gorgeous, all pep and personality and she informs him of her displeasure in "You're Responsible".
They both perform a great little song and dance duet which is the highlight of the movie.
Kearns, who didn't really have the greatest face for a leading man, had been a star on Broadway specializing in Gershwin productions and went on to have a starring role in "Girl Crazy" - he could actually dance and matched Ann step for step!!
Shock!!
Horror!!
- two girls saunter onto the beach in stockings and that is all that is needed for Peggy and Tootie to go into the song and dance "Tanned Legs"!!There has to be more than just singing and dancing - where's the story!!
Enter Sally Blane (originally the part was to be played by Marceline Day) - she plays Janet, Peggy's sister, in love with a ne'er do well who, unknown to everyone at the resort, is in league with the flirtatious widow and between them hoping to get as much as they can from the gullible Reynolds family.
Peggy overhears her sister pleading for some incriminating letters and being sneered at for her trouble.
Peggy decides to get them herself, she is seen on his balcony and her reputation is in tatters!!
- "turned against by kith and kin"!!
but she finds an unlikely ally who turns out to be the hero of the movie!!
Not before a shot rings out and Peggy from her sick bed can give everyone a thorough dressing down worthy of Shirley Temple!!Marshall Neilan had been a skyrocket, directing some of Mary Pickford's best films and discovering some terrific talent (Sally O'Neill, Wesley Barry) but by 1929 it had all faded in an alcoholic mist.
He didn't get congratulations for "Tanned Legs", the New York Times critic scolded that the film was "unimaginatively directed like a senior high school play with sound"!!Highly Recommended. |
tt0095330 | The Hound of the Baskervilles | Dr James Mortimer asks Sherlock Holmes to investigate the death of his friend, Sir Charles Baskerville. Sir Charles was found dead on the grounds of his Devonshire estate, Baskerville Hall, and Mortimer now fears for Sir Charles's nephew and sole heir, Sir Henry Baskerville, who is the new master of Baskerville Hall. The death was attributed to a heart attack, but Mortimer is suspicious, because Sir Charles died with an expression of horror on his face, and Mortimer noticed "the footprints of a gigantic hound" nearby. The Baskerville family has supposedly been under a curse since the era of the English Civil War when ancestor Hugo Baskerville allegedly offered his soul to the devil for help in abducting a woman and was reportedly killed by a giant spectral hound. Sir Charles believed in the curse and was apparently fleeing from something in fright when he died.
Intrigued, Holmes meets with Sir Henry, newly arrived from Canada. Sir Henry has received an anonymous note, cut and pasted from newsprint, warning him away from the Baskerville moors, and one of his new boots is inexplicably missing from his London hotel room. The Baskerville family is discussed: Sir Charles was the eldest of three brothers; the youngest, black sheep Rodger, is believed to have died childless in South America, while Sir Henry is the only child of the middle brother. Sir Henry plans to move into Baskerville Hall, despite the ominous warning message. Holmes and Dr Watson follow him from Holmes's Baker Street apartment back to his hotel and notice a bearded man following him in a cab; they pursue the man, but he escapes. Mortimer tells them that Mr Barrymore, the butler at Baskerville Hall, has a beard like the one on the stranger. Sir Henry's boot reappears, but an older one vanishes.
Holmes sends for the cab driver who shuttled the bearded man after Sir Henry and is both astounded and amused to learn that the stranger had made a point of giving his name as 'Sherlock Holmes' to the cabbie. Holmes, now even more interested in the Baskerville affair but held up with other cases, dispatches Watson to accompany Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall with instructions to send him frequent reports about the house, grounds, and neighbours. Upon arrival at the grand but austere Baskerville estate, Watson and Sir Henry learn that an escaped murderer named Selden is believed to be in the area.
Barrymore and his wife, who also works at Baskerville Hall, wish to leave the estate soon. Watson hears a woman crying in the night; it is obvious to him that it was Mrs Barrymore, but her husband denies it. Watson has no proof that Barrymore was in Devon on the day of the chase in London. He meets a brother and sister who live nearby: Mr Stapleton, a naturalist, and the beautiful Miss Stapleton. When an animalistic sound is heard, Stapleton is quick to dismiss it as unrelated to the legendary hound. When her brother is out of earshot, Mrs Stapleton mistakes Watson for Sir Henry and warns him to leave. She and Sir Henry later meet and quickly fall in love, arousing Stapleton's anger; he later apologises and invites Sir Henry to dine with him a few days later.
Barrymore arouses further suspicion when Watson and Sir Henry catch him at night with a candle in an empty room. Barrymore refuses to answer their questions, but Mrs. Barrymore confesses that Selden is her brother, and her husband is signalling that they have left supplies for him. Watson and Sir Henry pursue Selden on the moor, but he eludes them, while Watson notices another man on a nearby tor. After an agreement is reached to allow Selden to flee the country, Barrymore reveals the contents of an incompletely burnt letter asking Sir Charles to be at the gate at the time of his death. It was signed with the initials L.L.; on Mortimer's advice, Watson questions a Laura Lyons, who admits to writing the letter in hopes that Sir Charles would help finance her divorce, but says she did not keep the appointment. Watson tracks the second man he saw in the area and discovers it to be Holmes, investigating independently in hopes of a faster resolution. Holmes reveals further information: Stapleton is actually married to the supposed Miss Stapleton, and he promised marriage to Laura Lyons to get her cooperation.
They hear a scream and discover the body of Selden, dead from a fall. They initially mistake him for Sir Henry, whose old clothes he was wearing.
At Baskerville Hall, Holmes notices a resemblance between Stapleton and a portrait of Hugo Baskerville. He realises that Stapleton could be an unknown Baskerville family member, seeking to claim the Baskerville wealth by eliminating his relatives. Accompanied by Inspector Lestrade, whom Holmes has summoned, Holmes and Watson travel to the Stapleton home, where Sir Henry is dining. They rescue him from a hound that Stapleton releases while Sir Henry is walking home across the moor. Shooting the animal dead in the struggle, Sherlock reveals that it was a perfectly mortal dog - a mix of bloodhound and mastiff, painted with phosphorus to give it a hellish appearance. They find Miss Stapleton bound and gagged inside the house, while Stapleton apparently dies in an attempt to reach his hideout in a nearby mine. They also find Sir Henry's boot, which was used to give the hound Sir Henry's scent.
Weeks later, Holmes provides Watson with additional details about the case. Stapleton was, in fact, Rodger Baskerville's son, also named Rodger. His now-widow is a South American woman, the former Beryl Garcia. He supported himself through crime for many years, before learning that he could inherit a fortune by murdering his uncle and cousin. Stapleton had taken Sir Henry's old boot because the new, unworn boot lacked his scent. The hound had pursued Selden to his death because of the scent on Sir Henry's old clothes. Mrs Stapleton had disavowed her husband's plot, so he had imprisoned her to prevent her from interfering.
The story ends with Holmes and Watson leaving to see the opera Les Huguenots starring Jean de Reszke. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2124787 | Final Girl | A seven-year-old Veronica meets with a man named William after her parents have died. He asks her how she feels about it, and she responds that people die all the time. After she demonstrates total memory recall, he offers to take her in and train her for a job that is only for "special" people. After he explains that his wife and child were killed by "a very bad man", she accepts.
Twelve years later in the 1960s America, a now blonde-haired Veronica prepares to finish training. She and William enter the woods so she can acclimate to running through the woods barefoot. William explains she cannot use a gun since they are useless after running out of bullets. William teaches her how to put someone in a choke-hold. For the last piece of her training, she is given a combination of truth serum and a hallucinatory drug to confront her greatest fear. This is so she can understand what her victims will be experiencing. Despite believing herself fearless, Veronica confronts her fear of failure.
Four seventeen-year-old boys named Jameson, Daniel, Nelson, and Shane meet at a diner. Jameson, their leader, chooses blonde women to hunt and kill. Their latest prey is a waitress named Gwen. The boys take her to the woods, where they shoot her dead. On a recon mission, Veronica meets Shane's girlfriend, Jennifer, at the diner. They bond over their boy issues, revealing Veronica's romantic feelings for William despite their age difference and her realization that he is emotionally unavailable. Jennifer tells her the boys are on the verge of falling apart. Next, using herself as bait, Veronica meets Jameson at the diner and accepts a date and is told to come with clean hair and red lipstick.
Before leaving, Veronica writes "I Love You" in lipstick on her mirror. The boys pick her up at the diner and take her to the woods, where they play truth or dare. Offering a whiskey flask to the boys from her purse, she tricks all except Jameson into drinking the hallucinogen. She draws the dare 'Die' and asks to go home, but they refuse to take her. Jameson assures her that they will not rape her because women do not run so well following sexual assault. He gives her five minutes to run, which she takes before getting rid of her heels so she can fight. The boys do not wait and go after her immediately.
The first boy, Daniel, hallucinates two panda heads in suits coming after him, who is actually Veronica, who then kills him with his own axe. Next, Veronica goes after Nelson. He sees a group of gray figures circling around him whom he tries to fight. His mother appears and they kiss deeply before he dies as Veronica crushes his head with a rock. Jameson discovers his friends' bodies and is intrigued.
A car drives up to the front of the woods, and Jennifer gets out. She finds Jameson and asks for Shane; however, Jameson comes onto her. Before she started dating Shane, she lost her virginity to Jameson. She gives into his advances just as they start kissing Shane appears. Betrayed, he punches Jameson, who taunts him by saying people like them cannot love. Jameson explains to Jennifer what they do in the woods, despite Shane's protests. Shane punches out Jameson and, while saying he loves her, chokes Jennifer. It turns out to be a hallucination, as Jennifer is revealed to actually be Veronica before she strangles him.
Jameson and Veronica come face to face and talk before fighting. They play a game of asking questions where one has answer correctly whatever being asked. Jameson says he has killed 21 women, counting her. When Veronica reveals she enjoyed killing his friends, he proposes they work together, but she refuses. They fight until he passes out from a choke-hold that William taught Veronica earlier. She forces him to drink the drugged alcohol and, when he awakens, finds himself hanging from a tree. Crying, he begs for his life, swearing that he will never kill again but Veronica doesn't believe him. As the drugs take effect, his victims, including Gwen, come out of the trees and move toward him. In his haste to get away, Jameson steps off a tree stump and hangs himself. William appears and congratulates Veronica, and they go to the diner to eat pancakes. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | The rest of the actors do on the whole a pretty good job and overlooking Abigail Breslin's obvious miscasting this was an entertaining movie to watch.
Just don't expect too much going in.Wes Bentley, Cameron Bright, Alexander Ludwig and Francesca Eastwood are all actors I have seen before and their performances while good are let down by the unpolished script dialogue.The movie is quite short at 78 minutes before the credits and the story is quite good, but for one glaring plot hole.I gave this a 5.5 rounded up to a 6/10, which is better than the current average on here, it could have easily been an 8 with some work on the script and a more appropriate lead actress..
Some say it ruined a date or wasn't entertaining, that makes me believe those comments come from people who always expect a movie to have nudes and sexy scenes to help them get laid or from kids who just like cool Michael Bay explosions..............................................
Even the paper used to print the script was a waste of good material.It gets a one star rating only because it is useful to show to film students as a lesson on how-not-to write and develop a concept...
The movie sets up a little girl training to beat up dangerous men, but it instead lead us to a number of strange events, which results to such polarizing schlock.Even for its shoddiness, the weird style could still be admired for being way too campy.
The acting is fine, they're basically as campy as the cinematography.Final Girl is a cool looking film with a pretty ridiculous story that lacks severe subtext.
The movie may have painted a lot of interesting shadows through its darkness which makes it effectively campy as hell, add some symmetry that somewhat turn buildings into dollhouses, make headlights spotlighting every hallucination, and characters chew the scenery because it's more intimidating that way, but then it's all just pretty images.
Imagine how much better this movie would have been if we'd thought she was a victim the entire time until she started killing them.
I don't know why they went the boring route of telling you she's an assassin at the beginning of the movie then watching Wes Bentley give her "training" that she endures whilst looking like she's about to cry the entire time.Talk about a weak "assassin".
This probably explains the problems so many of the other reviewers have with this film, as they likely thought they were thinking they were going to see a twist on the slasher genre based on the description of the film.This film doesn't explore its own premise or delve that deep into the characters.
It's nicely executed and overall the movie is watchable but it feels more like a student project with an interesting cast than anything else.
Even if your ultimate experience is indeed disappointing, it won't be half as bad as to justify the low rating and terrible reviews here.Final Girl is simply a fun, satisfying revenge flick telling the story of some sort of operative in a secret above-the-law agency given the task of eliminating five stereotypical psychopaths who enjoy toying with girls before killing them.
Add to that excellent characters, on-the-spot acting and great overall atmosphere and you get a wonderful experience of bad guys suffering beautifully painful consequences.Final Girl if far from being perfect or even impressive.
I can't tell the ending of this movie but I have a feeling 99.99% population can already guess what it would be.Maybe I can add a bit of the story...
Final Girl is a fine example of a beautifully made independent film.A great cast of young actors.
It's like everyone was expecting a big budget over the top Hollywood film......these days the typical audience doesn't appreciate independent films.....this film was awesome and if you like independent art films that were shot beautifully with great visuals and stylised lighting, I recommend checking Final Girl Out..
Final Girl: Veronica (Abigail Breslin) is out to bury the hatchet in this Revenge Horror/Thriller.
Her mentor, William (Wes Bentley), instructs her in strangle holds and she experiences the combined effects of truth serum and DMT, so she can experience what her targets will feel when she drugs them.Her prey in this first mission are four teenage boys who hunt and kill young women.
Well, I guess I am glad that I got my new OLED TV in time to watch this movie since I am sure my old LED-LCD would have struggled with the many dark scenes.
A guy who has gotten his wife and daughter killed by a set of psychopathic young men trains a (very) young girl for years to take revenge.
The locations are plain, but lit up and filmed very picturesquely; the characters were plain on the surface, but enjoyably layered as the film progressed; the outfits were plain, but stylish and as striking as they needed to be; the fights were mostly plain hand-to-hand, and it added to the sense of struggle and urgency; the music was barely there, and it was perfect.I keep seeing people say Hanna is better, but honestly now, I felt more for the heroes, victims, and even villains in this movie than I did with ANY character in Hanna, which by the way had the advantage of being 20 minutes longer, 22 million dollars more expensive, and sported a more well-known cast.
I've seen other reviewers of this movie complain about low production values and an under-developed plot; neither of those things bothered me.
Like for an example, a diner and a forest.A "setup" is the dramatic device that sets the tone for the rest of the film and prepares the audience.This little gem as an "overlong setup" as Wes Bentley and Abagail Breslin spend a lot of time, just the two of them, training, as if this were some sort of MMA epic.
His crazy eyes and strange demeanour have never been uses so effectively in his entire career.It is the brilliance of the overlong setup that carries the viewer into the second Act and the finale.The highest compliment I can pay this film is this -- if they do a sequel, I will stand in line to see it.And if Hollywood stole the idea and did a remake -- I would see that too..
A fun movie that bets on the fact that watching Breslin killing will make up for the lack of story..
Overall, a fun movie that bets on the fact that watching Breslin killing will make up for the lack of story.
From the very beginning this movie makes you ask questions - why am I watching this, why did they make this, should I even continue watching, etc.In the first few minutes of the film it is apparent that the female lead has had no training with weapons or fighting, yet the premise is that she's been training for 12 years straight.
Can't really say much more here, but the acting just added to an already bad script.One thing that really annoyed me - when you have it raining for most of the movie, but the actors magically stay dry - well, that is an issue.Pretty much the only thing that WILL stay with you after watching this, is how unbelievable the female lead was in the role.
RELEASED IN 2015 and directed by Tyler Shields, "Final Girl" concerns a little orphaned girl in Washington (state) who is trained by a mysterious cold man, William (Wes Bentley), in assassination techniques and the use of drugs.
Abigail Breslin plays the protagonist.This is a cool meshing of films like "Hanna" (2011), "The Hunger Games" (2012) and "Point of No Return" (1993).
I wanted to enjoy this.I liked the idea of the story/plot but it could've been so much more.There's holes everywhere- who are these people training the girl?
What's the background story?Same for the boys- give us more detail and background info.Don't watch the movie expecting great performances- they were OK, but again, could've been so much more, though I am curious to see what else Abigail Breslin does after this.
The acting was incredibly corny, the lighting was terrible, everyone stood in the rain constantly and never got wet, physically it is obvious that Abigail isn't beating up a rabbit in this movie let alone a group of strong post pubescent young men who could put her down easily with one hit.
I found no rhyme or reason for Abigail Breslin and Wes Bently's lives to intersect and then for him to just take over a young girls and bring her up, supposedly teaching her to fight, makes no sense.
A group of boys have been luring young girls into the woods to kill them, but when they get to Veronica, they picked the wrong girl.Speaking of picking the wrong girl, I'm not fully convince that Abigail Breslin was right for the part.
I think this movie would have been much better as a TV show.If the story could be condensed into 1 hour (easy enough to do given this film's slow pace) it could have been the set up for a series.
To see the young girl get back to those boys, but the actual scenes are uninteresting.This looks more like an experiment or a low budget student project than an actual movie.
This movie is so bad its an insult to modern movies, and the person that compare this to sin city, ROFL, he needs his eye checks, and understand what plot, script and directing means.The movie start with nonsense way to recruited child assassins, if u want to train a clumsy arm to arm combat assassins with no muscles or physical strength why bother with an IQ and memory test, just pay a beggar 5 bucks and hand them a knife or a shotgun and finish the job.Directing and lighting of this movie is a joke, Flood lights and spot light in the middle of a forest?
shot gun?I warn u all, save your money and time avoid this crap the writers and story for this movie are obviously pedophile that wants to see underage teens commit clumsy torture kills towards rich boys..
The one who act good is the little girl from the start (you can see her in trailer too) Just it.I don't know what to read anymore, I don't want to write more then this (could be harsh).
The plot is strange, four guys like to play, hunt and kill girls in the woods.
Acting is not good, the fighting scenes are really bad , nothing looks natural on this movie.I wonder if the people who make this kind of movies really watch them and what do they feel when they do.
Weak - Predictable - Unlikeable Characters VERY Unlikeable - Background on how she became who she was suppose to be so WEAK A cool idea that COULD have been promising Executed poorly I Like the Lead lady she usually picks interesting projects This one is her dud For sure That is really it for my review however for some reason IMDb says I must write at least ten lines So I would say again WEAK WEAK WEAK Disappointing and a Fail Did it go straight to DVD ?
Excellent Little Fantasy Revenge Killer Classic Movie With A Young Abigail Breslin.
Even though I enjoy the fantasy/nonsense of this ill cast (5' 1" thick little pretty girl)/revenge killer, I always enjoy the overview of this fun Ima-gonna-kill-em-all movie carried out by a beautiful young girl/child.
A bit of explanation about the mysterious death of Veronica's parents, the origin of the unknown teacher and the reason for the bizarre behavior of the four teenagers, would have been a useful contribution.Besides the outstanding performances of Breslin and Bentley (and Logan Huffman as the pretty crazy looking figure Danny) this was still a mediocre movie.
I was so excited for this one, just because I love movies wherein the main character is a girl who has this assassin-like skills.
As a viewer I was waiting for the biggest reveal, which was "Why do the boys kill blonde girls?" I know it's a psychological thriller but an explanation for how things were presented might have been good for the overall story..
If you're looking for a fun action flick involving a kick ass pretty girl - with no challenge or need to think or work when you watch it - this is your answer.
If you can accept 5' 1" blonde cutie Abigail Breslin as a highly trained assassin able to defeat four drug-fuelled sociopathic teenage boys in a fist fight, or the notion of said teenagers systematically murdering twenty girls without being caught by the police, OR the idea that teenage girls are only too happy to get into a car with a group of young men they have only just met, then Final Girl should prove enjoyable enough.Personally speaking, to believe that Breslin can beat up blokes twice her size is asking a bit too much, while the absence of any police presence and a total lack of wariness from the victims pushes the film way beyond the realms of believability, making it a rather unsatisfying experience.Novice director Tyler Shields handles the action reasonably well enough, and I applaud his bold choice of lighting throughout, which lends the film a twisted, unreal fairytale atmosphere (that actually complements the implausible plot), but I consider the film so fundamentally flawed that I found it impossible to fully engage with.4.5 out of 10, rounded up to 5 for IMDb..
Trailer looked good ,film total crap.i cant even remember the stars name ,terrible acting ,another sad attempt to make us believe a 7 stone chick can be turned into a lethal weapon ,same old plot so cheesy it made me wanna puke .basically four dumb ass rich boys take pleasure in luring young girls into the woods and murder them ,real decent plot but so badly played out.watchin our main star in training ,you could clearly see she couldnt use a gun ,definetely not fight,her limp punches wouldnt knock the skin of a turd.its all to daft which is a shame as it woulda made a decent story if it was made properly .its samey ,cheesy,unbelievable ,predictable ,and only just watchable.
I loved ABIGAIL BRESLIN in THE CALL, but in this movie she just decays into a rot of a film.
You got a sense that she didn't know here character at all, and I was just watching some girl fight people for 90 minutes.
I was watching just so patiently waiting for the climax to come, then when the end credits rolled I was so confused because I wan't sure what the movie even did to be a horror film.
It has the makings to have been really good if they'd gone the horror comedy route - ridiculous evil bad guys, an absurd, doughy, 'deadly' assassin who looks like she couldn't beat up a twelve year old nerd, and an over the top, cold-hearted, steely-eyed mentor.
So, Final Girl isn't a horror film like its title suggests so, but quite an interesting psychological thriller (with the emphasis on "psychological"), whose strange texture requires some patience from the spectator, but it's eventually rewarding..
OK.The most interesting thing about this movie is that one of the main actors, Alexander Ludvig, (looks like a bigger, buffer Joffrey from GoT) also starred in The Final Girls.
An indie horror film that takes the subject of the 'final girl' in a slasher movie and runs away with it.
Sounds like it's someone else's rule, doesn't it?In time Veronica does her thing against the boys and they come to know she will be the Final Girl they have anything to do with.
SPOILERS This film left me with a lot of questions and I've come to realize that the answer to every single one of them is "because it is a dumb and senseless movie." Here are a few for you to sample: How did these murderers who are in high school kill William's wife and daughter over ten years ago?
The fight scenes are edited to mask the fact that clearly, this 10 year trained assassin looks like someone who just walked into a gym for the first time and was asked to stand in a boxing stance.Because you know from the start of the movie that the girl has been training, essentially, all her life to fight these guys, you never get the sense that she is in any real danger or that the outcome is ever in question.
Veronica has to kill them one by one to make the movie last some 20 minutes more.Screenplay is embarrassing, but not enough to start the so-bad-so-good process.
In what seems to be a montage audition for Hit Girl role, Veronica (Abigail Breslin) spends the first act with hard training only to engage in blurry fighting shots and illogical script.
Well this film offers some what of the twist, the Final girl is prepared to be hunted, has been trained to act out the innocent act and fall in line with these four adolescent killing machines.
Will the Final Girl have a chance of another movie like this one,well I bloody well hope so!!
I got up during the movie and it certainly isn't one of those movies you miss the beginning and you have no idea what is going on.The feature of the film was definitely the scenes of Abigail Breslin fighting in a cocktail dress.
I feel like Abigail and Wes' acting alone is enough to see this movie and believe me, this got and kept my attention a lot better than the 6.0+ flicks on IMDb. Is it bad compared to what could be a very intense thriller?
Despite having a good chemistry with Breslin, he only has a short screen time in the movie.Like most films in the genre where the good girl becomes the last intended victim, Final Girl is predictable, derivative, messy and devoid of any freshness. |
tt0045201 | Hunted | U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Aaron Hallam (Benicio del Toro), a former United States clandestine operator, has spent much of his career performing covert assassinations in service to the government. These missions leave the sensitive and intelligent Hallam conflicted and it is implied that he was either set up, or that the government became dissatisfied with the results of his more recent assignments.
In the wilderness of Silver Falls State Park, Oregon, Hallam tracks two deer hunters equipped with expensive scoped rifles. Hallam tells them they are not true hunters and dispatches the two using his knife, and proceeds to ritualistically clean and butcher the bodies.
L.T. Bonham (Tommy Lee Jones), a civilian instructor of military survival and combat training, is approached and asked to help apprehend Hallam, one of his former students. According to the authorities, Hallam has gone renegade after suffering severe battle stress from his time in the Kosovo War.
Bonham agrees and is assisted in the manhunt by an FBI task force, led by Assistant Special Agent in Charge Abby Durrell (Connie Nielsen). Bonham locates Hallam after tracking him and finding his personal effects within a hollow tree trunk deep in the woods. After a blistering hand-to-hand fight, in which the much older Bonham is nearly beaten unconscious, Hallam is captured by the arriving FBI agents.
During interrogation, Hallam expresses a passion for wildlife preservation, much like that of his mentor Bonham. He also mentions military operations in which he had participated; Bonham cuts him off for his own safety. The FBI is unsure of how to treat their would-be murder suspect, and Hallam is soon in the custody of his former Special Forces colleagues, who tell the FBI that Hallam cannot stand trial due to the secret operations he was part of.
While being transported, the operatives indicate that they intend to kill Hallam. However, Hallam manages to kill all the operatives and escape. Alerted to the incident, Bonham and the FBI team track Hallam across the city and back into the wilderness, but Hallam consistently evades them. In the process, he crafts an improvised knife by making a fire and reforging pieces of scrap metal. Realizing that the FBI's tactics aren't working, Bonham strikes out on his own, crafting a knife himself, and the search quickly becomes a personal contest between teacher and student.
In a vicious knife fight beside a waterfall, Bonham is severely wounded but manages to stab Hallam to death with his own knife. The FBI arrives too late, and Bonham walks away without saying a word. Returning to his home in British Columbia, Bonham starts to burn the letters he got from Hallam, in which Hallam expressed his concerns over the things he had done as a government assassin. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0105306 | Salt on Our Skin | On the death of her lover, George McEwan, a half French/half Scottish woman, recounts in flashback her passionate relationship with Gavin McCall, a humble fisherman. Their romance goes back in time more than thirty years.
In the 1950s, George, then a vivacious young woman living in France, comes to Scotland to spend her long summer vacation with her younger sister, Frédérique. While helping the locals take in the straw, she meets an attractive and simple man Gavin, whose sister, Mary, becomes one of her friends. Smitten with each other, George and Gavin begin a torrid affair going for a moonlit swim. As the summer ends, George and her sister return to attend school in Paris where they live with their parents. Mary asks the two sisters to be her bridesmaids. Back in Scotland for Mary’s wedding, George and Gavin continue their romance escaping the wedding celebration on a cave at the seashore.
Months later, back in France, George is surprised by Gavin’s visit. She shows him Paris while they continue their love affair. He asks her to marry him but she refuses. George wants to study at the Sorbonne and pursue her intellectual goals. She does not see herself as the wife of a fisherman in a Scottish Village. Realizing that, for her, the cultural and life style differences between them are too great to overcome, she refuses his marriage proposal. Their lives take separate ways and they stop seeing each other. George becomes an intellectual and feminist activist. She marries and has a son. Ten years later, George, now divorced, moves to Quebec pursuing an academic career teaching and writing a book on women's studies. Her second marriage to Sidney, an intellectual, proves to be dry and ends in divorce.
George's friend, Ellen, a fellow feminist writer, invites her to accompany her for a summer trip to England. On a street in London, she comes across Gavin once again. He still resents her refusal to marry him a decade ago. She would like to rekindle their romance. Gavin, hurt and still in love with her, initially refuses. Soon, however, he has a changed of heart and accepts to go with George to a romantic vacation in Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. From then on, they begin to meet each other with some frequency through the years, loving each other despite their differences. Scotland, Montreal, and the St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church in Florida, served as the background for their encounters.
George and Gavin’s romance ends abruptly with his death. At the funeral, Josie, Gavin’s widow, gives George a letter Gavin left to her. It reads: Before you came in to my life, I believed that each day resemble the other. And they will continue this way until I died. Since you, and don’t ask me to explain, I only know that I want you in my arms from time to time if you wanted too. A thought that you exist somewhere and that you think of me sometime helps me to live... | tragedy, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Very worth seeing yet it takes some life experience to sink in it.
If you are looking for a movie with a prudent life lesson or just a "happy end/justice to all" thing or an ordinary chick flick, than you might want to go back to Maid In Manhattan's...It takes some life experience to let the beauty of this movie sink in...
and by that I mean - no judgment, simply going for the essence, which ultimately has to be love.Why am I submitting this comment 13 years after the movie's release and 5 years since I've seen it first?
Because they are timeless occasions in life, so common in this new internet/long distance dating era, in which this story reveals that you really don't need to always have it all, the socially acceptable and expected full packaged "life together" deal in order to feel the true love and happiness.This love story gives hope to those, that haven't had the luck to spend their happily ever after with a person they love and respect the most.
Why it didn't happen between the main protagonists, might be the discussion point to the crew that gets their answers by judging other people's choices.For the rest of us that crave simply feeling alive, loving and loved, the storyline (not perfectly done and not perfectly acted) offers the wealth of thinking beyond the compromise and the white picket fence.
Upliftng, hopeful, giving and enriching for what it is - a treasure that can happen in one's lifetime..
The film is wonderful, but not so successful..
I was deeply moved by this film.
The use of a wonderful poem by Matthew Arnold as the guideline for the movie was extremely well made.
I loved the story and the way it was told.
In Brazil it was not as successful as I expected it to be, but to me it was a must..
two persons, two world, one love.
This movie is about love and all the sacrifices we have to make sometimes to have just one moment of true happiness.
I've seen the movie and read the book and i truly think that this is the best movie i've seen.
It's intense and intelligent plus the actors are perfect in their roles.
Vincent D'onofrio has the perfect body and face for this.
I even bought the movie and i watch it once a month.
The book is even more intense because of all the details.
The title of the book is Les vaisseaux du coeur in french and the autor is Benoite Groult.
If someone wants to read it!
I saw the movie for the first time in 1994 and never forgot about it since then.
I was just a teenager but i remembered the title and two years ago i found this movie in a garage sell and it became my treasure!!!.
Romantic yet missing spice.
"Salt on Our Skin" is the romantic story about the passionate love affair between a Scottish Fisherman and a half French/half Scottish woman {Greta Scacchi} who spent long summers in Scotland where she begun a relationship with Gavin {Vincent D'Onofrio} that lasted until his death over 30 years later, despite marriages to other people.The scenery is divine, as locations change between Scotland, Paris, London, the United States and the Virgin, unfortunately the script fails to match such beauty.
The talented leads do well but due to a lack of action and lacklustre dialogue the passion they feel for each other is never quite experienced by the viewer.The film is a girls movie, it's romantic, beautiful to look and is one for a winter's afternoon when curling up with a blanket and chocolate is just the answer.
Vincent D'Onofrio, despite a suspect Scottish accent is another rather attractive reason to watch..
Great movie.
I loved this movie, being a widow myself I related to the two characters.
Most of the greatest love affairs are wrought with complications and never end in the happily ever after scenario.
This was my first introduction to Vincent D'Onfrio and I loved him in this movie and The Whole Wide World but his other characters have been too harsh and I like to remember him by Salt On Our Skin.
I think it is neat how this movie started a real life love affair between Vincent D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi and they produced a daughter which they named after Greta's character in this movie (George)..
great story of how love can last a lifetime.
This was an excellent movie of how love can withstand a lifetime of trials and tribulations without the total commitment to each other.
Their love for each other doesn't stop them from living their lives the way they want.
It is my number one favorite movie..
A movie that pulls at your heartstrings.
I loved this movie, it is a very emotional piece and the two leads do brilliantly.
Vincent D'Onofrio does a very good Scottish accent ( very sexy one too ) despite being around 30 at the time he and Greta ( his off screen girlfriend )made this film the makeup is very convincing for his ages ( 19-50 ).
George falls in love with Gavin, but her new life of the arts appeals more to her and she rejects Gavin because his lifestyle doesn't interest her, but they continue their love affair regardless of the obstacles in the way, spanning the globe from Paris to Montreal.
The love scenes between the two actors is very realistic conveying the passion that they feel for one another all the more emotional for the viewers.
Despite Georges treatment of him, Gavin continues to love her.
She tells him she loves him in the end, but it is too late and is left to her memories and regrets at the close of the film..
The grandmother of all chick flicks.
Released as "Desire" on DVD, this flick is a love story about an unlikely pair of star-crossed lovers; he a humble Scottish fisherman (D'Onofrio) and she a capricious intellectual (Sacchi).
The difference between male and female scores on IMDB.com makes this film out to be the grandmother of all chick flicks even though the film gives no good reason why two such very different protagonists would even be able to get along much less love one another from afar sustained only by periodic trysts over a couple of decades.
In spite of the tenuous and somewhat contrived plot, the film does have a story to tell about a woman who learns the meaning of true love while the film begs the question; is it too late?
One for the ladies, not for the laddies.
Loved Gavin, Hated George!.
Vincent D'Onofrio was wonderful in this film!
I Have heard him referred to as a "simple" fisherman, but, on the contrary, I found him to be the more complex character of the so-called romantic duo.
Gavin had qualities such as an inner strength, loyalty, kindness, and he never stopped growing as an individual until he died.The Gavin who first appeared at the beginning at the film was different from the man whose death was being Mourned at the end of the film.George(Greta Scacch) was a pretentious, shallow, and unkind person who mistook acts of sexual passion for love, and remained unchanged until the end.
Her many small unkindness towards to Gavin irked me, and her "contempt" for the presents he chose for her during their trysts together are a prime example of that.I thought the saddest and most poignant scene was during their last meeting together before his death and she finally approved of the small gift he gave her.
Gavin's sweet happiness when he exclaimed, " at last, I got you something you really like" broke my heart!
The character of George was a stone cold witch and she proved it until the end when she intruded on Gavin's funeral like an unwelcome guest to hurt his wife (who had truly loved him and shared her life with him) only to reminded her that that she hadn't had all of his love!.
This was released in French Canada.
Greta Scacchi plays a famous feminist activist, while Vincent D'Onofrio portrays a humble Scots fisherman in this film from director Andrew Birkin.
Despite the obvious ideological chasm between them, the two fall in love.
The couple spend the rest of the film running away from commitment, only to be reunited at every turn.
Salt on Our Skin is also known under the title Desire....This films was released in French in Montreal (along with the other Vincent D'Onofrio film Naked Tango)......these two films were released together by C/FP Videoand are very hard to find in the French Version these days......Naked Tango was released in Quebec under the title "Tango Passion" and Desire was released in Quebec under the name "Abandoned Passion"......they did not sell very well as French Language versions and most have disappeared..
A Love Story without salt or pepper.
Unremarkable love story between a well educated woman (Scachi) and a simple Scottish sailor (D'Onofrio) that goes on and on for almost thirty years.
They lived separate lives but sometimes they get together and live passionate and feverish days of pure joy and lovemaking.
A thin plot and cardboard characterizations and dialogues make this one a boring and peasant look upon the problems of the relationship of two diferent persons.
Besides, D'Onofrio is completely miscast in the role of a Scottish fellow.
An excellent movie to watch for love drama.
It is a very intense and provocative movie.
I was caught and entrapped from the beginning.
It is a crude love story, kinda like the grass is greener on the other side but...stuff happens.
I was fascinated with how Gavin tried to be with her and how she rejected him.
Gavin always loved her, but she was complicated.
Her excuses were that she had to go to school in a prestigious school in France.
Also,Gavin was just a fisherman and not a scholar like she desired.
Then something happen to Gavin and she felt so badly, regretful.
I feel she deserved it because she was very self centered.
Later on she realized what her selfishness had casused;just pain and the thought of what might have been if only I would have listen to my heart and to Gavin..
deeper than appears to be....
It is a brilliant way to prove that there is such a thing as a love that lasts.
This movie is gentle and yet passionate, and the passion never fades, even throughout the years, the passion only grows stronger.
Being without the person that you love is like putting salt on skin, hurts like hell.
***SPOILER***Gavin and George spent their lives apart and yet each time they saw each other they actually found each other all over again.Even though at first she doesn't even take him seriously, at the end he turned out to be the love of her life.You will never forget this movie or the passion shown in it..
Cringeworthy.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The acting in this film was truly top-notch.
Though D'Onofrio's accent was a bit questionable at times, he was believable enough, and George's character was never in question.
The story, however, was so absolutely dreadful that I'm surprised that the two fine lead actors agreed to appear in it.
I am absolutely shocked that the commentary on this movie has been primarily positive.
I had the misfortune of stumbling across this movie on television recently and getting sucked into it, forcing me to spend the better part of two hours wanting to rip the stuffing out of my sofa and eat it, which probably would have been more pleasant than this pile of trash.
****WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS BELOW**** This is basically the story of a woman who is too shallow to accept a simple life with a fisherman despite her love for him, and is rewarded by him spending his life cheating on his wife to be with her.
I don't find this "touching" or "romantic" in the slightest.
I find it an appalling treatise encouraging women to go ahead and be gold-digging status mongers; your fisherman will come back to you in the end anyway.
Oh yeah, and if you decide to follow your heart and devote yourself to the fisherman, expect him to turn his back on you for his socialite mistress.
I would have loved it if George had her heart ripped out by Gavin finally telling her that she'd blown her chance and he was going to throw her back to the dogs like the shallow pretentious witch she was.
Even George getting a good, vengeful punch in the mouth by Josie's hand at the end would have been somewhat satisfying.
****END SPOILER CONTENT**** If the film's intent was to disgust, appall, and make the watcher feel like throwing a shoe through the screen in hopes of maiming George, then it succeeded.
Unfortunately, I think it was supposed to be a gooey, touching romance.
Thank goodness real life usually isn't like this horrid commentary on man's values, or I'd be ashamed to be living it..
the fisherman and the bitch.
...is a more appropriate title.Like a couple other reviewers have said, the Scacchi character is so unlikable,that its impossible to care what happens to her.D'Onofrio plays a likable character but who for some inexplicable reason falls for this woman.Of course,the George character is Greta Scacchi,and one assumes the D'Onofrio character,Gavin, just goes crazy over her looks.But in my book,i would never sleep with that woman even if she did look like Greta Scacchi.We are talking about a pretentious,snobbish,self-centered,heartless bitch,who only remembers about that particular man when she needs some sex,doesn't care in the least that he is married.Like another reviewer said,she needed a good slap in the face.I think the people who made this movie thought they made a love story.They either know absolutely nothing about love or have an extremely perverse sense of humor.The only good thing about this movie,is that the sex scenes look very realistic,probably because Greta and D'Onofrio had an affair in real life. |
tt0418880 | Mere Jeevan Saathi | Vicky (Akshay Kumar) is an aspiring singer who is devoted to his true love, Anjali (Amisha Patel). He gets a big offer from a music company in America and accepts it. In Canada, he meets the owner of the company, Natasha (Karisma Kapoor). Natasha helps Vicky become a star, however, Vicky is unaware of Natasha's hidden motives. Natasha knew Vicky in college and harboured a deep infatuation for him. Natasha's father had warned her that her love for Vicky can never be, as Vicky loved Anjali, but she refused to listen. When Natasha's father died in a car accident, Natasha, with no one else to love, put all her love and devotion on Vicky aside, and has been alone ever since.
Natasha invites Vicky to her home for her birthday. Things heat up and Vicky and Natasha spend a passionate night together. Vicky is horrified by what he has done. He goes back to India, but Natasha accompanies him. An uncomfortable Vicky tells Natasha that their one night together was a mistake and that he only loves Anjali. Natasha then attempts suicide but Vicky rushes her to the hospital in time. Vicky proposes to Anajali and she accepts. Natasha discovers that Vicky and Anjali are engaged. At the engagement party, Natasha, mad with jealousy, starts dancing barefoot on broken glass until she faints. Vicky later tells her to stay away from him. Natasha hires hitmen to plant a bomb in Vicky's car. Vicky realizes that Natasha's obsession of him has become dangerous. Overwhelmed with guilt, he confesses the truth to Anjali. Although hurt, she is not angry at him as he has punished himself enough. Anjali then insists on meeting with Natasha.
The two women meet and Anjali gently explains that Vicky has always loved her and never Natasha. Natasha threatens Anjali, saying that she will go to any length for Vicky – even kill. Anjali admits that while she cannot kill others, she would kill herself for him. When Anjali returns to Vicky, Natasha calls the couple to her home. The two arrive and see Natasha sitting in a chair. As they are apologizing for hurting her, they suddenly notice a gun in Natasha's hand and blood on her head. She had killed herself before the two arrived. Vicky finds a note that she had written, saying that by sacrificing her life, she proved that she will always love him. The film ends with Natasha's funeral, and Anjali in Vicky's arms. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0928385 | Freedom Project | Freedom is about a child, Takeru, discovering a secret that could change the very society he depends upon. Civilization on the Earth was destroyed by a permanent abnormal climate shift. Cities with millions of people had been built on the far side of the Moon and became the only place where humanity still survived. The remaining population declared the foundation of Republic Eden, then set forth expanding those lunar colonies that loved peace and freedom.
More than 160 years have passed since then. In Eden, children complete their compulsory education program when they are 15 years old. They are then integrated into the society as citizens. During their brief moratorium they are granted freedom. Like other boys, Takeru decides to take part in a race with his friends using machines particular to the moon, called “Vehicle”. But what distinguishes Takeru is that he has constructed his own vehicle. When his vehicle catches fire on a public road he is sentenced to 10 hours of "volunteer" work outside the dome, where he discovers the remains of a small crashed capsule bearing photographs and articles seemingly sent from Earth. Structures visible in the background identify the location they were taken as the Kennedy launch facility in Florida.
Infatuated with a young woman in the photograph, Takeru attempts to research conditions on Earth and finds that the library's information on the home planet is heavily censored. Furthermore, nobody is permitted to travel far enough from the dome over the lunar surface to get within visual range. He discovers a small enclave of people living in a facility outside of Eden's centralized control, and after befriending the enclave's leader is given access to a moon rover with sufficient range to get a view of Earth. He sees that the Earth is blue; it has recovered from the disaster that befell it and is now habitable again. The authorities of Eden pursue Takeru, attempting to suppress this discovery, but Takeru and his friend Bismarck manage to commandeer an old "escape" rocket and leave Eden to explore Earth first hand.
The escape rocket's capsule comes down slightly off course, landing in the ruins of Las Vegas, and Takeru and Bismarck use Takeru's vehicle to make the overland trek across the United States. | violence | train | wikipedia | Simply amazing!. There are actually seven 25min long episodes and a 6min prologue. I don't understand why this anime hasn't been publicised more by the studios or even by the American company which holds a licence and released a blu-ray version in the states.It was created as promotional material for a noodles brand in Japan (which the characters regularly eat), but is still one of the best animes i have seen, comparable to Akira but without being as confusing in places.Keeping the look of the traditional hand-drawn animes but still remaining modern, FREEDOM is a visual masterpiece, and includes character design from Akira's Katsuhiro Otomo. I cant decide if this would have been better off as one long movie or if the episode "cliffhangers" make you want to watch more.You will have to see it for yourselves!. Stunning futuristic scenery in a top-notch anime. The Akira (1988) resemblances are inescapable, but this one stands quite well on its own, thanks to the well-made animations. The story and characters are mediocre, but that might just be me, as I'm not exactly a fan of OVAs but I felt like this wasn't rated as high as it should be. What you can expect is the usual over-the-top emotions, loud screams and eyes wide open, but if you can look past that, you will be able to enjoy the beautifully drawn futuristic scenery of Eden. Easily amongst the best recent sci-fi anime films, almost as visually stunning as Marudukku Sukuranburu: Asshuku (2010). Recommended not only for people who enjoy Akira or anime in general, but any open-minded sci-fi buff!. Freedom fails to live up to the hype. The fact that director Shuhei Morita only directed one 25 minute animation prior to this series, goes a long way to explaining why the Freedom Project is all over the place. The futuristic story has epic written all over it: the earth has become uninhabitable due to a massive disaster and a colony of humans living on the moon are humanity's only hope. With such a set up, the finished project is sadly less than half-baked.Freedom has awesome set, vehicle and character design, but as it uses cell-shaded computer models rather than the traditional, hand-drawn method, it lacks the heart and the human touch that makes real animation worth watching. There's a lot of one frame shots
(which to be fair Japanese anime is notorious for) sometimes subtly, sometimes it's painfully obvious.There are 3 main characters: Kazuma, is likable enough, Biz is just outright annoying and Takeru (the main character) rebels against Eden's authorities, risks his life, and travels all the way to earth (with no way of getting back) in order to
try and meet a cute girl! That's the motivation for the whole Freedom story! And if that didn't drag the series down enough, the voice acting in the English dub is terrible (the Japanese version is fine) with the Nissin tie-in easily the most awkward product placement I've ever seen. I'm sorry to say that the 10/10 reviews that Freedom has online are both undeserved, and a bit suspicious. |
tt0451631 | Apaharan | Ajay Shastri (Ajay Devgan) is an unemployed, honest graduate who dreams of joining the police force. His father, Raghuvansh Shastri (Mohan Agashe) is a highly principled and moralistic man. An ex-schoolteacher and Gandhi follower, now a social activist, Prof. Shastri expects his son to follow in his steps and believe in his ideals and values. When his father's ideals start clashing with Ajay's ideologies, a rift between father and son emerges.
Ajay borrows a lot of money, with the help of his friend (Ayub Khan) and bribes higher officials to get his name on the police force merit list. When Ajay's father discloses the corruption scandal to the media, things go awry, and left with pressure from his creditors, Ajay and his friend decide to kidnap a government official to repay the amount.
The kidnapping goes wrong at the last minute. It turns out that the victim is under protection of Gaya Singh (Yashpal Sharma), one of Tabrez Alam's (Nana Patekar) henchmen. Tabrez Alam is a powerful MLA and influential Muslim party leader, who is also an underworld don and controller of a large kidnapping racket.
Ajay and his friends are brought to jail. Gaya Singh and his men assault and humiliate Ajay and his friends, for meddling in their racket. Ajay pleads with the DSP, Shukla, to save him, who has recently developed strained relations with Gaya Singh due to severe conflict of opinions. DSP Shukla helps Ajay and his friends escape jail.
Ajay then kidnaps Sooraj Mal, one of the leading businessman and a rising figure in local politics, who was for long, a target of Tabrez Alam and Gaya Singh, but neither could do the job because of the high security provided to him. Gaya Singh goes frantic upon learning about the kidnapping and is on the lookout of killer. DSP Shukla and Ajay join forces and lure Gaya Singh into a trap. Gaya Singh heads to a location where Ajay is told to be hiding. Gaya Singh soon learns that he has been trapped and Ajay kills him after a brief fight. He surrenders himself to Tabrez, and requests him to recruit him into his gang. Tabrez sees potential in Ajay and allows him to be a part of his gang. Ajay starts working hard and rapidly rises in the ranks of Tabrez's empire. He takes Ajay in and places him higher than his own brother Usmaan (Mukul Nag), with an ulterior motive. Swimming in power, Ajay becomes the state's most powerful gangster and, under Tabrez's authority, the head of Bihar's most successful kidnapping trade, which Ajay consolidates by killing smaller players and removing all competitors.
The state's home minister's wife is caught on camera taking money and the scandal becomes the hottest news. The home minister offers Ajay to leave Tabrez Alam and join forces with him. He then provides the taped conversation between him and Ajay (which he surreptitiously records) to Tabrez to create differences between them. Meanwhile, news correspondent Akash Ranjan calls a press conference to clarify the scandal involving the home minister inviting a discussion. Tabrez sends Ajay to kill Akash so that he would bring a no-confidence motion against the government, bringing its fall. He would come to power by taking advantage of the political instability. Ajay is contacted by SP Anwar Khan who makes him aware of Tabrez's real motive. Ajay reaches the press conference venue only to find out that the real person behind the ongoing debate of bribery scandal is his father. He leaves without killing Akash Ranjan and is confronted by DSP Shukla, who is sent by Tabrez Alam to kill Ajay, but Ajay manages to kill Shukla and escape.
Ajay surrenders himself to SP Khan and gives his statement revealing everything about Tabrez Alam's illegal activities. This report is presented to the home minister by the commissioner of police citing Tabrez Alam's arrest warrant. The home minister makes a deal with Tabrez Alam, to destroy the evidence against him in exchange for money and power, and both join hands to form new government in the state with the help of their respective MLA support. SP Khan is sorry for Ajay as all his efforts are ruined by the political upheaval. Ajay goes home one last time with the help from SP Khan where he watches his father reminiscing about him and make amends with him after knowing how much he loved him. He goes back to prison where Tabrez comes to meet him after becoming the new home minister of the state. He gloats in front of Ajay at the jail. Ajay suddenly takes out his pistol and guns down Tabrez. Upon hearing then gunshots, Tabrez's men enter the room and shoot Ajay, bringing an end to their lives. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0134154 | Ride with the Devil | Jake Roedel and Jack Bull Chiles are friends in Missouri when the American Civil War breaks out. During the mayhem, Chiles's father is murdered by Kansas pro-Union Jayhawkers. The two men join the First Missouri Irregulars, also known as the Bushwhackers; informal units loyal to Missouri in 1861. They later meet George Clyde and former slave Daniel Holt, whose freedom Clyde has previously granted.
The Bushwhackers battle Jayhawkers using guerrilla warfare tactics while trying to evade capture. The men manage to hide out in a coarsely-built shelter on the property of a pro-Confederacy family, the Evanses. A young widow in the household, Sue Lee Shelley, becomes romantically involved with Chiles. When Chiles dies of gangrenous wounds received during a skirmish, Roedel escorts Shelley to a refuge dwelling where another pro-Confederate kindred, the Brown family, reside.
Following the collapse and destruction of a makeshift prison holding the female relatives of guerrillas, a complementary clan of Bushwhackers led by William Quantrill plot a revenge attack against the Union and raid Lawrence, Kansas.
In the midst of the offense, a quarrel arises between Roedel and fellow Bushwhacker Pitt Mackeson. Roedel, a German American, was born in Germany but raised by his immigrant father in Missouri. He suffers from sporadic anti-German suspicion from other Southerners, because the German population in the state is largely sympathetic to the Union. In an episode of hostility, Mackeson purposely shoots Roedel in the leg shortly after the raid on Lawrence, while retreating from a counterattack by Union forces. The perceived prejudice contributes to Roedel's sympathy to the plight faced by Holt, a former slave coping with racism.
Meanwhile, Shelley gives birth to Chiles's daughter. Holt and Roedel, both wounded, recover at the same residence that took in Shelley occupied by the Brown folk. The Browns, who mistakenly suppose Roedel is the child's father, pressure Roedel to marry her, which he is reluctant to do. However, after spending time with Shelley and the child, Roedel begins to have feelings for both of them.
Meanwhile, Anderson and many other Bushwhackers have been killed, taken prisoner or otherwise rendered inactive. Pitt Mackeson has gathered some survivors into a gang which no longer fights the Yankees, but instead robs, murders and plunders Unionists and Southerners alike. Word comes from one of Roedel's compatriots that Mackeson and his gang are headed South and plan on visiting Roedel soon.
One day Mr. Brown takes Holt to town and returns with a reverend and Roedel, after realizing he does love Shelley and she him, marries her in an abrupt wedding. Roedel's feelings toward Shelley are further deepened by a tender wedding night together.
Proclaiming himself finished with war, Roedel gives up being a Bushwhacker and takes his new family to California.
On the way, they meet Mackeson and the last of his men, Turner, ragged, injured and on the run. They report Black John and Quantrill are both dead and agree with Roedel the war is lost. Mackeson tells them of his plan to ride into Newport despite the fact the town is full of Federal soldiers, and his strange manner causes Roedel and Holt to hold guns on Pitt and Turner, but the two ride off without violence.
Holt rides with Roedel and his family toward California, until their roads part, and then Daniel tells Jake farewell, while Shelley and the baby sleep. Holt leaves for Texas, a free man, to find his long lost mother. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | But don't watch this movie expecting to be "entertained." Ang Lee takes an objective look at a relatively unexplored aspect of the Civil War. What is beautiful about the movie, like all of Lee's films, is that he doesn't "side" with his characters.
As you watch the characters, you will ask yourself "how can they be fighting to preserve slavery?" The fact is, I don't think they really are, and in that the film shows the problem of why so many were caught up in the maelstrom of the Civil War.The fact seems clear that many of the characters we learn about are fighting out of senses of loyalty to "home" though they may never have examined what home represents or whether they truly espouse its values.
Lee has a style which is his, somehow European in its "art" (a slow camera, unrushed), Asian in its epic-ness and development of story, and yet somehow familiar and easily accessible to so many in North Americans.Relax, let go of your preconceptions about what the Civil War is, what the "western" as a genre is, what a war movie should be ...
His direction is amplified by what he brings out of Jewel (yes, the singer), a hitherto unproven actress who puts in an amazing performance.A movie for those who love film and are not lovers of the standard Hollywood epic..
Taiwanese director Ang Lee, whose previous films include 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Ice Storm', turned to the American Civil War for his latest feature.
Based on a novel by Daniel Woodrell, it follows the exploits of a group of Southern guerrillas, known as bushwhackers, as they fight their Northern equivalents, the jayhawkers in the backwater of Missouri.As one might expect, there is plenty of visceral action, but the focus is on the tension that the war put on the young men who fought it - many of whom were fighting against their former neighbours and even family.
So does his friend Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), a black slave freed by another bushwhacker and so fighting for the South.Lee handles the subject with aplomb, never rushing the deep introspection that the plot demands in favour of action and this lends the film a sense of the reality of war - long periods of boredom and waiting interposed with occasional flashes of intensely terrifying fighting.
Mr. Lee used hundreds of Civil War re-enactors and took great care in making sure that his principle actors, sets, and scenery looked the part.
The movie was filmed in Missouri and Kansas and captures the scenic beauty of this area.The actors are of a fine calibre and should be recognized for their outstanding performances.
I have copies of Union orders for Captain James Quinn, having to do with the bandits operating in southern Missouri.This film, RIDE WITH THE DEVIL, is one of the truly great American films, and the only one that even begins to get close to the feeling of the border wars, the bushwacking, the betrayals, and the split families.
They left many stories and written records behind, but such autobiographies conceal as much as they reveal, especially about the violence and its traumatizing effects of the young males who experienced it.I am grateful to the makers of this film, the script-writer, the author of the original book WOE TO LIVE ON, the actors and others who created RIDE WITH THE DEVIL and somehow managed to make it such a stunning work of art.
This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy.
No great director of action, as evidenced by the previously mentioned Lawrence Massacre; which lacks the cutting edge to really grab us by the throat and never let go, but for human interest aspects and bucolic scenes with characters framed within, Lee owes film fans absolutely nothing.
Ride with the Devil, like Ang Lee's later Brokeback Mountain, is a film of aesthetic and historical importance.
Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows.
If you want to see a film about the Civil War and feel like you've had a glimpse into history, watch Ride With The Devil.
It is the human element that renders the context necessary to give it perspective, which is what director Ang Lee provides in `Ride With the Devil,' a Civil War drama in which he focuses on the personal travails within the broader depiction of the War itself, and along the way manages to include an examination of one of the bloodiest chapters of the War, the infamous raid on Lawrence, Kansas, by Quantrill and his raiders, which he succeeds in presenting quite objectively from the Confederate point-of-view.In 1863, the Union influence predominates in the State of Kansas, and even across the border in neighboring Missouri, those with Confederate loyalties are finding it increasingly difficult to hold out against the encroaching Northerners, especially without the aid of what could be considered any `regular' Confederate troops.
And they will have to ride with the very Devil himself, against seemingly insurmountable odds.As with all of his films, director Ang Lee approaches his story through an incisive, yet subtle examination of the traditions, cultural aspects and moral attitudes of the people and times he is depicting.
The Civil War will forever be an open wound upon the nation; but hopefully, as time goes on, it will be through the objective contemplations of filmmakers like Ang Lee and films like `Ride With the Devil' that will ultimately help to close the schism and promote healing.
It deals with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) and Jack Bull (Skeet Ulrich) , two friends living in Missouri when the Civil War bursts out .
As his friends die one after another, Jake must decide where honor lies .Exciting film based on historical events set during American Civil War (1861-1865) in which the Bushwhackers use guerrilla warfare to destroy Yankee targets and led by men set on revenge, make a raid into Kansas.
Very good production design , including breathtaking attacks and battles ; the scenes of the Quantrill's Raid on Lawrence, Kansas were filmed in Pattonsburg, Missouri , Pattonsburg was flooded out during the great flood of 1993 and the town was relocated leaving many empty buildings and homes available .
John Brown might be the best known participant, but numerous groups fought for each side in Bleeding Kansas.By the beginning of the American Civil War, Lawrence, Kansas, was already a target for pro-slavery ire, having been seen as the anti-slavery stronghold in the state and more importantly, a staging area for Union and Jayhawker incursions into Missouri.
All told, if you are a Civil War buff and a film lover, see this movie...see it on DVD if possible as the surround sound is awesome for the action scenes..
All the time this film makes you feel the horror of war, and the desperate situation of the main characters who do not know if they are going to survive the next hours.
It stars Toby Maguire, Skeet Ulrich Jeffrey Wright & as the young lady Jewel, I never heard or seen her before, I want to see more of her).The acting is top notch, superb production values, very well written (adapted from a novel) This is a long film 128 minutes, but well worth seeing.
Ride With The Devil is a dead serious film, its mission an unsparing, unsentimental portrait of the horrors of the Missouri-Kansas guerrilla conflict during the U.S. Civil War.
The movie tells the story of the guerrilla warfare that took place between "Border Ruffians" in the frontier between Missouri and Kansas during the Civil War. Missouri was a border state that did not secede, but was politically dominated by pro-slavery forces.
And I am not being politically correct when I am forced to point out that Jeffrey Wright's spot-on performance as Daniel Holt, a slave caught somewhere between freedom, slavery and war was the best in the film.
The story of Ang Lee's American Civil War drama Ride With The Devil is a straightforward enough piece about a young man getting caught up in the violence of the time.
That means total attention to detail, realistic dialogue and characterisation that makes one understand these people who are on the run for their lives.We've all known that Ang Lee could direct, for most that would start with his 'Sense & Sensibility', which shocked an awful lot of people, for a Taiwanese to turn in such a great film, his first film In English and about that elitist of film genres - the English period drama.
(The call of these ancient grievances was such that even a family's black slave could feel their pull and identify with them more than with a pro-Unionist outloook which was ostensibly more to his personal advantage, a point which Ang Lee ably illustrates here.)Most of the film's characters -- save, primarily, for the failed schoolteacher-turned guerilla leader William Quantrill (here portrayed hypnotically, chillingly by John Ales) -- are apocryphal.
the characters are a bit goody goody but the use of the black character 'hope' is loosely based on an actual black tracker that rode with quantrell's raiders.i think this movie ranks alongside films such as 'gods and generals' and the fantastic 'gettysburg' as a great civil war film.Toby Maguire might seem an unlikely choice as 'jake'the main character but he seems to pull it off but as an Englishman i cant comment on the accuracy of the accents..
This film, RIDE WITH THE DEVIL (1999), is a solid film that stays true to a single visionary idea: "the American Civil War was fought by soldiers and armed personnel firing one gun at a time, in all the most despicable of ways and only infrequently with noble ends in mind." The screenplay is a bit mystifying and reading the original novel helps only somewhat.
I had heard "Ride With the Devil" was a really good movie, and my main motivation to see it was because of the singer, Jewel, who plays the lead female role here.
I also liked Tobey Mcguire for his roles in such movies as "Pleasantville."The film starts with a wedding, and Mcguire's character commenting that marriage is just another form of prison.
My girlfriend does not like war movies, but she did think that this was a very good film..
One of the best things about the film is the way that it portrays the two sides, glorifying neither while allowing the audience to see the forces that drove so many men to kill one another - loyalty, friendship, vengeance, fear.As an American, a movie like this will really make you think about your country and its sometimes inglorious past.
Everyone seems to be in character and this is accredited to the actors as well as the director, Ang Lee. Jewel did a really good job for her first movie, too!
"Ride" is a movie which combines the classic elements of a war film (fraternity, courage, self-knowledge) with those of a slice-of-life (love, tenderness, honesty) in a stock of beautiful shots and good writing.
History Over Drama Any Day. OK, so it may be true that "Ride With the Devil" is not the most generically entertaining movie on the market when it comes to Civil War films.
But, as any history major or Civil War buff can tell you, director Ang Lee did his homework when he made "Ride With the Devil."If you're looking for a pseudo-historical drama full of modern verbal anachronisms, impossible non-stop action sequences, and numerous clearly unresearched historical contexts, rent "Shanghai Knights." The language in "Ride With the Devil" reflects most accurately how the people of the time spoke, according to the letters and written narratives we have from that period.
One last thing about this film: if you want to have a good look at how outlaws and known men like Frank and Jesse James got their start, (the similarities are numerous throughout the movie) and would like to better understand why men like the James brothers never stopped fighting the war, watch "Ride With the Devil." It is a well-researched historical production that shows things from a mostly non-biased (or at least not the typical Yankee textbook way...which, by the way, we get sick of seeing here in the South) viewpoint..
"Ride..." focuses on one of scores of interesting conflicts of the American civil war period: The messy guerrilla warfare along the free-Kansas (Jayhawker) and pro-slavery Missouri (Bushwhacker) border.
Although a good movie for all to see, "Ride With the Devil" will play best with those most interested in America's most defining time..
It's worth noting that the film improves as it goes along, ending on a number of satisfying notes.It's of course a little tempting to wonder why Ang Lee, a Taiwanese director best known for intimate family dramas, would want to make a movie about the US Civil War and if it was a good decision on his part.
The friendship between Maguire and the black slave humanizes the Civil War. It also shows why it's far more interesting to make the heroes southerners fighting AGAINST emancipation (who then have more to learn), as opposed to conventional good-guys with their moral compasses neatly pointing in the politically correct direction.Jewel has such a well-written and lively role that it would be almost impossible for her to screw it up.
Directed by Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Ice Storm, etc.), edited by Tim Squyres (Gosford Park, Rachel Getting Married, Crouching Tiger, etc.), shot by Frederick Elmes (Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Night On Earth, Broken Flowers, etc.), produced by Ted Hope (too many cool movies to name), starring loads of great people and based on Daniel Woodrell's novel, 1999's Civil War epic Ride With the Devil is one of the more interesting films of the last 20 years.
There are six theories often discussed when talking about why, after completion, Devil saw the studio treatment it did: 1) Matt Damon was originally signed on to star, but dropped out after the film had already gone into pre-production; 2) director Ang Lee was not given final cut of the film; 3) the studio heads simply thought the movie was awful; 4) the film tested poorly in the UK (only partially true); 5) a whole lot of loudmouth history buffs made public issue of a few inaccurate details; and 6) people hated the idea of a true-to-life sub-plot featuring a black man, John Noland, who joins the Confederate Army.So no, people did not seen this movie, but they might now.
So now, after 10 years, it's here, the much discussed yet little-seen Civil War epic from Ang Lee, out on shelves just waiting for your cinephile hearts.What do we at the Screen time offices think of the movie?
So yes, Ride With the Devil is a beautiful movie to look at
in fact, as is the case with every Ang Lee film, all of the technical elements are handled incredibly well.The cast?
We were sold at Ruffalo, Wright and Wilkinson, though Urbaniak and Rhys-Meyers are great as well.So is Devil the best Civil War film ever?
"Ride With The Devil", like most Westerns and most war films, is not about its environment.
With this movie he has made a film about the American Civil War, a time period that has been used more often in movies, but because I know that Ang Lee always tries to do something original with his movies, I decided to give it a try."Ride with the Devil" is situated in Missouri at the beginning of the Civil War. Jake Roedel and Jack Bull Chiles are friends and they decide to join a militia called the Bushwhackers, after Jack Bull's dad is killed by Union soldiers.
Ang Lee isn't the least of directors and I'm convinced that the man can spot real talent, even in people who aren't very famous for their acting.All in all this is an enjoyable movie that shows a different aspect from the Civil War. It may sometimes be a bit slow, but overall this is an enjoyable movie that is able to keep you interested for over two hours.
Overshadowed by publicity surrounding the film debut of Jewel, "Ride With The Devil" quickly flopped at the box office last year, leaving Ang Lee's very good Civil War drama unknown to many.
The film is at its best as it focuses on the personal lives of Jake (Tobey Maguire), Jack Bull (Skeet Ulrich), and Holt (Jeffrey Wright), the two whites and a black scout guarding a pro-south family in Missouri.
Perhaps the actors had to find their characters, the cast is quite young.Ang Lee did something incredible: He made an American Civil War kitchen sink drama, with 3 big action sequences that are exceptionally well staged and edited.I didn't have a problem with Jeffrey Wrights character.
Released in 1999 "Ride with the Devil" is a Civil War tale focusing on Southern guerrilla fighters known as Bushwhackers, mostly young men who stage daring raids on Union forces and communities along the Missouri/Kansas border.
Ang Lee's civil war epic, 'Ride with the Devil', is a handsome film, and I don't necessarily mean this in a good way: it's a movie in which good looking young Southerners, prone to making fine southern speeches, move through a world dotted with gorgeous, well-built southern houses - even when the central characters hole up underground their shelter has a surprisingly solid feel.
As for the acting, I think this is Toby McGuire's best role, but it still seems to me like he always plays the same character in every movie he has been in. |
tt0412080 | The World's Fastest Indian | Burt Munro is a sort of folk hero in his home town of Invercargill, New Zealand, known for his friendly easy-going personality, for having the fastest motorcycle in New Zealand and Australia, and for being featured in Popular Mechanics magazine. However, that recognition is contrasted by his exasperated next-door neighbours, some of whom are fed up with his un-neighbourly habits; such as revving his motorbike early in the morning, urinating on his lemon tree, and not mowing his grass. Burt however has a long-time dream, to travel to the USA and test his motorbike's capabilities at the Bonneville Speedway.
Burt is finally able to save enough to travel by cargo ship to Los Angeles, but when he arrives, he experiences bureaucracy, skepticism, and the indifference of big city people. It is his blunt but gregarious nature which overcomes each hurdle. He wins over the motel clerk, a transvestite woman named Tina, who assists him in clearing customs and helps him in buying a car. The car salesman allows Burt to use his workshop and junkyard to build a trailer, and later offers him a job after Burt fine-tunes a number of the cars on the lot. Burt declines the offer, however, and shortly afterwards begins his long trip to Utah.
Along the way, Burt meets numerous helpful people, including highway police, a Native American who aids him when his trailer fails, a woman named Ada who allows him to repair his trailer and briefly becomes his lover, and an Air Force pilot who is on leave from military service in Vietnam.
He finally arrives at the Bonneville Salt Flats, only to be blocked by race officials for not registering his motorcycle for competition in advance, and not having the mandated safety equipment. In a show of sportsmanship, however, various competitors and fans in the Bonneville series intervene on his behalf, and he is eventually allowed to make a timed run. Despite various problems, he succeeds in his quest and sets a new land speed record at the 8th mile of his run; when he reaches 201.851 mph (324.847 km/h). By the end, his leg is burned by the exhaust, and he then falls with the motorcycle and skids to a stop, but he is able to return home to New Zealand a hero. | dramatic, sentimental, philosophical, inspiring, feel-good | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0058403 | The Night Walker | The plot of the play focuses on an arranged marriage. The heroine, Maria, is in love with a suitable potential mate, Frank Heartlove; but her mother (known only as the Lady) coerces Maria into a marriage with a rich old miser, Justice Algrip. Maria's Nurse describes him as "this old stinking dog's flesh," among other choice epithets. At the marriage feast, Maria's cousin, the prankster Jack Wildbrain, urges the heartbroken and rejected Heartlove to attempt to cuckold the Justice on his wedding night, and arranges Heartlove's opportunity to be with Maria alone. But Maria, a virtuous young woman, resists Heartlove's advances, even drawing a dagger and threatening to harm herself if he persists. Unfortunately, they are caught together by the Justice and other members of the wedding party; Maria, her reputation ruined, falls into a swoon, and is perceived to be dead.
Meanwhile, Wildbrain's friend Tom Lurcher, a down-and-out gentleman turned thief, is recruiting a new apprentice in thievery, a boy who calls himself Snap (he is the "little thief"). Lurcher's modus operandi involves disguise and trickery: it's easier to burgle a house when the inhabitants are terrified of devils. Lurcher and the boy break into the Lady's house, to make off with the chest that holds the wedding gifts; instead they steal the coffin containing Maria's body. When they discover their error, they take the coffin out to bury it; but they encounter Justice Algrip, on his way home from the Lady's house. The boy pretends to be Maria's ghost to frighten him off. In so doing, the boy mentions a woman the Justice abandoned in order to marry Maria — a broad hint that Snap is more than he appears to be. No sooner is he gone, though, that Maria wakes from her swoon, and the thieves flee the scene.
The Lady drives Jack Wildbrain from her doors, blaming him for the wedding disaster and even for the disappearance of the coffin. Wandering in the night, Wildbrain meets a dejected Heartlove, who now blames Wildbrain for getting him drunk and manipulating him into his disgraceful conduct earlier. Heartlove challenges Wildbrain to a duel. As they fight, a disoriented Maria stumbles upon them; she pretends to be her own ghost to frighten and shock them out of the duel. Afterward her Nurse takes her in, under the disguise of a Welsh cousin; the Lady soon penetrates the guise, but agrees to maintain it till Maria's reputation can be restored.
Lurcher and the boy, under various disguises, fool and rob the Justice, and then waylay and drug him; when the Justice wakes, he is confronted with "furies" and "hellhounds" ready to drag him to Hell for his sins. His soul is saved, however, when an angel (the boy in costume) intervenes; Justice Algrip repents his past misdeeds and promises to make amends. The Justice keeps his word: he returns Maria's dowry and admits that his precontract with another woman makes his marriage to Maria null and void. He also yields up the mortgage he holds on Lurcher's property, thus restoring Lurcher's fortunes. Maria is revealed and restored to Heartlove; and the boy thief turns out to be Lurcher's sister, and the woman to whom the Justice was previously committed. She has manipulated Lurcher to keep his bad deeds under control; it was her doing that they stole the coffin instead of the wedding treasure. And she accepts the Justice as her intended husband once again..."old dry ham of horse flesh" though he may be. Even Wildbrain is restored to the Lady's good graces. | murder | train | wikipedia | Producer/Director William Castle, famed for his low-budget shockers complete with assorted gimmicks, had by now reached his "Star Stage." He had featured Vincent Price in two of his films, and in 1964 really scored a coup when he signed Joan Crawford for "Strait- Jacket." Thanks mostly to her drawing power (she would later do "I Saw What You Did" for Castle) the film was a hit - and her publicity appearances on behalf of it didn't hurt, either.
So, for his next project, Castle signed both Barbara Stanwyck and her initially reluctant ex-husband Robert Taylor to headline "The Night Walker" from a script written by "Strait-Jacket's" Robert Bloch (who also penned the book "Psycho").
And so goes the plot...Most critics saw this as another "Horror Hag" movie, in other words, a lurid yarn featuring a Golden Age star, a cycle which began with "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?" (with Bette Davis and Joan Crawford) and continued with "Strait-Jacket" (Crawford); "Lady In A Cage" (Olivia De havilland) and Ann Sothern) "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte" (Davis, De havilland and Agnes Moorehead) etc.
This time around though, the still- beautiful Stanwyck was cast as a victim, rather than a villainess (as most of the veteran actresses ended up playing in these films were) and she generated a good deal of sympathy-(besides being a terrific screamer).
Dark and spooky movie about murder and deception with a number of twists and turns to it that keeps you guessing until the very last frame."The Night walker" is one of those films that doesn't seem to be what you at first think that it is; Something between a horror and psychological movie.
Howard Trent, Hayden Rorke, is a blind millionaire who's suspicious of his wife Irene, Barbara Stanwyck.
Howard tells his friend and lawyer Barry Moreland, Robert Taylor, how he feels about his wife Barbara at the start of the movie.
With her husband dead and Irene now all alone in the house her dreams,or better yet nightmares, become more and more pronounced and real to the point where she has to leave the house in order to keep from going insane.
Plays like a very good whodunit with Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck giving the movie the attention and class that it wouldn't have gotten if it had much less known actors in those two top roles.
One is the expressionistic prolouge, narrated by Paul Frees in his recognizably sinister voice, and the other is the late-night marriage ceremony, which is also eerie and well done.Another great facet of this movie is the music score by Vic Mizzy.
Maybe it was because William Castle produced it, or the handsome "dream lover", the music by Vic Mizzy, its surprise ending (which I should have known from reel one), or the happy time I was having when it was released: I was 13 years old, The Supremes had their first hits, and many stars of the past were back in action.
In this film (written by "Psycho" author, Robert Bloch), Barbara Stanwyck is rather restrained compared to her peers, as a widow having strange dreams (in which Lloyd Bochner seduced her), with ex-husband Robert Taylor lending a hand to solve the mystery.
The Night Walker is similar to William Castle's other films; like House on Haunted Hill and The Tingler, and this movie is just as creepy.
I especially like the part where Barbara Stanwyck is screaming, "I can't wake up!" "I can't wake up!" This is a great movie.
Without a shadow of a doubt, screenwriter/novelist Robert Bloch (1917 - 1994) will always be best remembered for the 1960 film that made Alfred Hitchcock a household name: "Psycho"; and young Janet Leigh played what small part she had, in The Bates Motel, to the hilton.But the four-years-after thriller, "The Night Walker", which starred an actress who'd already been a star for more than a decade had a story line that haunted its lady in distress, rather than having her killed off after one scream.
Irene Trent (Barbara Stanwyck) was a troubled woman from the very start--having nightmares that seemed so real, she didn't know the meaning of the word "reality"; and having a literally-blind, eccentric husband (Hayden Rorke)--who was so demanding of her, that we might as well have wished she got away with murder.Enter her lawyer and supposed friend, Barry Moreland (Robert Taylor) and a very overbearing "dream lover", (Lloyd Bochner), and you've got the formula for a workable "B" grade drama which, however predictable it might seem, isn't going to be very predictable at all.
Even by the time Irene had the final piece of her personal life's puzzle in place, the way the very final scene was to pan out was anything but predictable.William Castle did one royal job, here, for insomniacs everywhere, for many generations to come..
The plot has some excellent twists; the chills are more psychological and less gore-dependent than in other Castle films I can think of; and it's just fun to see two great (albeit aging) stars get their teeth into a horror script.
Of course, it's also entirely unbelievable for the wind-up to a tale that really loses all credibility when you start to examine it.BARBARA STANWYCK does her best to put some professional zing into her role of a woman who dreams too much and ROBERT TAYLOR, as an overly concerned lawyer friend, does his best to make things believable, but the script by Robert Bloch defies reasoning.
It's the sort of deceptive thriller that should have been much better written and directed, especially when stars like Stanwyck and Taylor were assigned to it.The opening segment is an expressionistic montage of the dream world that has a certain fascination and promise.
But what follows is an extremely artificial tale involving the woman's blind and jealous husband, her concerned lawyer and a muddled mixture of nightmares that plague the woman until the deceptive revelation at the end.Stanwyck and Taylor have clearly seen better days, but fans of the stars will no doubt enjoy seeing them coasting along on their former reputations in a horror film not really worthy of them..
Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck add credence to the story by virtue of their considerable "star" power, making a possibly unbelievable story believable.
It lacks William Castle's usual gimmicks to attract an audience yet stands out as a fine film effort.When a blind man - suspicious of his wife's loyalty to him due to her dreams of another lover - dies in a bizarre laboratory explosion, his wife begins to have nightmares about him and begins to suspect she may be going crazy.There's a good creepy atmosphere here and to think it's achieved without many of the expected gimmicks and thrills - the chapel-wedding sequence with the mannequins, spinning chandelier, candles being particularly effective.
William Castle's B/W thriller ( 1964 )with Barbara Stanwick and Robert Taylor ..
You know, William Castle didn't do just gimmick-laden horror movies.
Now the woman still has those dreams, but there's a new guest - her dearly departed husband.Is Irene Trent (Barbara Stanwyck, in her final film role) cheating on her husband?
Her sleep is restless, her psyche unstable.Irene turns to attorney Barry Morland (Robert Taylor), and it's clear she has a bit of a thing for him - but he's not the man in the dream, either.
Taylor, Lloyd Bochner (as the "dream" lover), and Hayden Rorke (as the jealous husband) offer fine support.
Bloch, who helped bring new shocks to the screen with his novel "Psycho", came up with a fairly straightforward thriller here, one that producer-director Castle then marketed his own way ("Are you afraid of the things that can come out of your dreams...Lust.
Vic Mizzy contributes one of his finest background scores to the film, and the cast is full of pros, including Robert Taylor, Stanwyck's real-life ex-husband.
The kitschy opening about the world of dreams is pure William Castle (and has next-to-nothing in common with the movie that follows), but there are many amazing sequences here to cherish.
William Castle reunites Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor in a scary tale of deceit!.
Castle puts a spin on the good and evil in all of us, by having Barbara Stanwyck fantasy about a "dream lover" throughout the film.
Well.............actually it's not, not when you think about it anyway.The concept is there as is the delivery but the plot itself is a frustrating mess and everytime Stanwyck screamed I died a little inside.Certainly not the worst, but I'd definetly advise skipping over it.The Good:Great opening sequenceSFX are ahead of their timeRobert Taylor The Bad:Story is an absolute messThings I Learnt From This Movie:Barbara Stanwyck has the worst scream in cinema history.
For The Night Walker he did things the more conventional Hollywood way, he reunited two stars from Hollywood's golden age of the studio who happened to be married to each other at one time.This was done once before, for William Powell and Carole Lombard in My Man Godfrey.
Actually they did and they produced a classic motion picture comedy.Would that The Night Walker did the same for Taylor and Stanwyck.
"The Night Walker" is perfect proof of this statement, because even though the screenplay (by none other than Robert "Pyscho" Bloch") is occasionally too slow-paced and predictable, Castle still managed to turn it into a mysteriously ominous thriller with a handful of authentic fright-moments, hypnotizing music, eerie imagery and strong performances.
Barbara Stanwyck (very good in her last theatrical role) is married to a bitter, blind man.
Is he alive, or dead, or is she just going crazy?Not a bad premise...some of the nightmare sequences are spooky and the great music score is very eerie, but the film doesn't have enough material to sustain and hour and a half length.
Funny, it almost doesn't seem quite as bad as I remember it -- except for the ending and Stanwyck's usual overwroughtness in the wrong places.Who made the creepy -- and downright good -- ghostly avant-garde prologue montage, narrated by Paul Frees?
It's the best thing about the movie and it's pretty obvious that William Castle, no auteur he, was not responsible for it.The eerie 1964 Cold War black-and-white photography with an equally eerie Vic "Addams Family" Mizzy score.
I still say the whole thing would have been granted a little extra dignity if they had ended on Stanwyck awakening one more time, hearing men's voices down the hall, and her going to find her husband and the lawyer in the study, reliving completely the first scene in the study from the beginning of the movie, Stanwyck in the doorway of the study in terror, camera zooms up to her left eye.
It wasn't until the scene just before he went the the reel-to-reel recorder that I finally recognized the man as Hayden Rorke who went on to do the tv series "I Dream Of Jeannie" the next year after this film was released.
This William Castle film is a little better than The Tingler but ends as abruptly as House On Haunted Hill did.
I've Fallen Asleep and I Can't Wake Up. Castle follows the Strait-Jacket formula in The Night Walker by casting a couple of former heavyweight champs (Stanwyck and Taylor) and retaining Bloch for another script.
This immediate follow-up exercise in similar vein adds an intriguing element of Freudian psychodrama and cleverly casts a former royal couple of Hollywood, Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck (whose final theatrical feature film this turned out to be!), in the leading roles; I should be following this with their much earlier on screen collaboration, THIS IS MY AFFAIR (1937).
It turns out he is no figment of the imagination but Stanwyck's blind, embittered millionaire husband (Hayden Rorke whose decidedly effective facial make-up is first-rate) walking around his mansion as his wife has her nightly dream of a romantic liaison with a mystery man (compulsively recorded on tape, as is every other conversation held within his household)!
As can be expected from such 'let's-drive-an-heiress-mad' scenarios, the plot thickens with new twists and turns every few minutes and, among the highlights we have: Stanwyck's dead-of-night wedding in a supposedly abandoned chapel with Bochner (who is amusingly billed as "The Dream" in the opening credits) presided over and witnessed by waxwork dummies and the climactic fistfight between Bochner and Taylor in Rorke's lab which is about to blow up for the third time in the film!
Driven by a minimalist but catchy score by Vic Mizzy (of TV's "The Addams Family" fame) even if the main musical motif is oddly reminiscent of the "Food, Glorious Food" number from Lionel Bart's musical "OLIVER!" THE NIGHT WALKER is possibly the second best after the utterly unique oddity SHANKS (1974) of the 8 William Castle films I have watched so far (although, thankfully, I will soon be filling in some of the remaining gaps with 4 more)
which makes its absence on DVD (I had to make do with a full-frame VHS rip of acceptable quality) almost as big an enigma as the strange occurrences that befall the sturdy Stanwyck throughout the film!.
This William Castle film of a Robert Bloch script may not be cricket for the modern moviegoer, force-fed junk like "Scream" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer", but it is actually a tidy little horror flick that utilizes some fine actors in the twilight of their careers.
Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck, though rather subdued in these strange parts, both add a sense of depth to the proceedings; and whilst, the directing and pace are a bit clunky, it does instill a creepy mood, which goes a long way in this genre.
This movie stars Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor as the wife and lawyer of an old blind man.
Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor are both wasted and it's a shame to see such talented actors wasted in such a crappy movie like this..
From writer Robert Bloch of "Psycho" fame and the gimmick-loving producer-director William Castle comes this entry into that genre crudely referred to by some people as "hag horror".
(Popularized by the legendary "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?".) Barbara Stanwyck, in her final feature film, stars as Irene Trent, who's unhappily married to embittered blind man Howard Trent (Hayden Rorke).
Her well-meaning lawyer friend Barry Morland (Robert Taylor) tries to help her solve this puzzle in her life.Castle does some great things with atmosphere, and his direction is stylish.
The opening narration, ruminating on the entire concept of dreams and nightmares, is spoken by the great Paul Frees.Good fun, and rather under rated as far as Castles' output and the entire "older women in shockers" genre goes.Seven out of 10..
The film is worth seeing for the sake of Barbara Stanwyck, who is always reliably excellent and doesn't seem a year less beautiful in her fifties than in her thirties, while Robert Taylor, some years younger, appears as much more aged and worn.
Twelve years after their very nasty divorce, Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor made another movie together.
Although it has some great elements, it really doesn't make all that much sense (such as why didn't the lady ever seek out the police??) and it's best you just turn off your brain and enjoy this one.The film is made by William Castle...so it's not surprising it starts off weirdly.
What is really going on here?Pairing Barbara Stanwyck and her ex-husband, Robert Taylor, was an interesting choice....and the film is filled with fantastically eerie camerawork and music...which, along with the husband's make-up, really terrify.
If only the story were a bit more logical, I would have rated it higher, as the movie (much like Castle's "Strait-Jacket") is highly entertaining and creepy..
Irene Trent's (Barbara Stanwyck) blind, jealous, clock-collecting husband, Howard (Hayden Rorke) suspects his wife has been seeing another man.
Oh well, at least Miss Stanwyck, having dipped a toe in the murky pond of William Castle's productions, decided to avoid the occasionally hysterical film fate of Bette and Joan and stick to television.The dummies used in the chapel scene were more animated than poor old Robert Taylor — never the most exciting of actors here he sometimes seems to be wearing more make-up than Stanwyck while reacting like someone who'd taken a nice sedative just before walking onto the set..
The Night Walker (1964) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Irene Trent (Barbara Stanwyck) is accused by her blind husband of having an affair because when she dreams she speaks of a much younger man.
The blind husband is killed in an accidental explosion and soon afterwards Irene's dreams continue but soon they turn into nightmares as her dead husband seems to be coming back for her.William Castle's THE NIGHT WALKER is a rather interesting horror film that has some good ideas that aren't fully realized but there are certainly enough good moments throughout the picture to make it worth watching.
The film is basically about Stanwyck having these awful visions yet she's never quite sure if they are real or if they are from her dreams.
Robert Taylor is also very good in his role as is Judith Meredith and Hayden Rorke.There are some flaws with the film including the screenplay not doing enough with the set-up.
Sadly not available on DVD at time of writing, "The Night Walker" seems to be one of William Castles more neglected films.
But I was attracted to the presence of two formerly married actors (Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck) getting back together to star in a film together...and I love a GOOD horror film.
However, as is often the case, the film isn't near as good as I remembered it being Robert Taylor was looking almost old here, although Barbara Stanwyck was still quite beautiful.
Barbara Stanwyck in her final theatrical film before confining her appearances to TV, makes a moderately attractive figure – and she certainly screams to chilling effect! |
tt0053064 | Mexicali Shmoes | Two sombrero-wearing cats, Jose and Manuel, are singing while relaxing on the "Avenida de Gatos" when they are taunted by Speedy Gonzales. After Manuel fails to catch Speedy, Jose informs Manuel that Speedy is "the fastest mouse in all Mexico" and that they will have to use their brains, not their feet, to catch him. The pair set off for Speedy's home in Guadalajara where they again fail to capture him. During their struggles, Manuel gets hit on the head by Jose with a guitar, Jose hooks Speedy with a fishing line and gets towed to Los Angeles, Manuel gets blown up by dynamite, and both cats get blown up in a minefield they constructed. Jose and Manuel are sitting on top of a wall after failing to outsmart and catch Speedy. Manuel laments they should have gone after Speedy's cousin, Slowpoke Rodriguez, the "slowest mouse in all Mexico". Jose is convinced to go after him and runs off. Manuel desperately tries to catch up to warn him about Slowpoke. No sooner than Jose arrives at the mouse house and catches him, Slowpoke shoots him. Manuel finally catches up and tells Jose exactly what he was trying to warn him about Slowpoke: "He packs a gun". Slowpoke blows steam off his gun and returns to his mouse hole, leaving the charred Jose to lament, "Now he tell me." | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1854582 | The Helpers | The film opens with a scene of newspapers and news broadcasts describing an orphanage which was burned down, resulting in several deaths. It then turns to seven friends as they start out on a road trip to Las Vegas, with Phil (JoJo Wright) recording the trip for his girlfriend Julia. The group hits a road block en route to their destination, prompting them to take a detour that results in several flat tires. The group decides that the women will remain behind to watch the truck while the men go to look for help. The men eventually come across a rest-stop motel that sells tires, introducing themselves to the gas attendant Brad and the shop owner Steve (Braxton Davis) and Norah (Dallas Lovato). Steve offers to not only fix the truck and pick up the girls, but to provide free alcoholic drinks, in addition to letting the group stay at the neighboring motel for the night. One of the group members, Todd (Dustin Harnish), is originally hesitant about the proposition, but eventually agrees to it. After a wild night of drinking and partying, the group falls asleep in the motel.
The group eventually wakes up the next morning/afternoon. At first everything appears normal, but it soon becomes clear that Steve and his cohorts are nowhere to be found on the premises. None of the friends remembers much about what happened the previous night. And four of the friends (Jordan, Brandy, Ryan, Andy) wake up realizing they're tied up or otherwise physically incapacitated. Jordan is tied up to a chair in the bathroom next to the bathtub, with a bucket on his arm and an electric wire tied to his hand. Brandy is tied up in the bathtub. Ryan is tied to a chair in his room, and Anna is tied up on the bed, at her hands and her feet. At first the friends believe this to be some sort of bad joke, but when Todd and Claire witness Phil being intentionally decapitated by Brad, it becomes clear that Steve, Brad, Norah and Chloe are actually cruel, sadistic sociopaths, (who call themselves "the helpers") intent on torturing and murdering the group. Claire (Kristen Quintrall) and Todd are locked in their motel room and are forced to watch while their friends get murdered one by one. The helpers go into Anna and Ryan's room and reveal that each end of Anna's body is chained to a car, and they will drive the cars and rip her body in half. They do so, while Ryan is tied up and unable to stop them. They then go into Jordan and Brandy's room and explain that the wire attached to Jordan's arm will be lowered into the water in the bathtub by placing rocks in the bucket hanging from his arm, electrocuting Brandy. Brandy is killed from being electrocuted four times, while Jordan's arm with the wire was forcibly placed in the water. The men remove Brandy from the tub and leave Jordan with Norah. Norah taunts Jordan, who then pushes Norah into the tub and electrocutes her with the wire, killing her. Todd and Claire also manage to successfully escape from their room. However, Todd and Claire are caught while attempting to flee and are brought back to the complex. The helpers bring out Ryan (still tied to the chair) and shoot him dead in front of the others, and then chain Claire to the cars as they did to Anna, threatening to rip her body in half, unless she admits that her father was the abusive owner of an orphanage. She admits that her father was indeed the owner of an orphanage. It's eventually revealed that the three murderers used to live in an orphanage run by Claire's father where they were terribly abused and beaten, with the murderers intentionally setting the group up to come by the motel. They found the motel/gas station, killed the employees, and took it over. Then they placed road detour signs on the road, and placed sharp objects to puncture the cars tires. It is also revealed that before they left the orphanage, they burned it down, as the news described in the opening scene of the movie. Hence, the murderers main motive for their barbarism is revenge against Claire's father. They knew that the group was going on a road trip because Phil's girlfriend, Julia, was one of them. Jordan, Todd, and Claire manage to escape. The film ends with a scene "six months later" where "the helpers" are working at another gas station, asking their customers if they need any help. | sadist, revenge, cult, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | If you decide to watch this movie you will understand.
This movie seems to be a collection of Vacancy, The Hitcher, and Saw. Not very creative and someone should help the cast to acting lessons.
I am writing this to be helpful to the next potential victim of this movie.
Help me get away from this bad movie!.
Bad acting, bad plot, and stupid inconsistencies made this drivel a waste of 90 minutes of time better spent.
Heading off on a road-trip, a group of friends get stranded near a roadside motel and decide to stay the night only to awake in the morning tied up and being forced to undergo grueling, brutal tortures for a past revenge and must find a way to battle their captors to escape alive.For the most part, this one wasn't all that great.
The shots of them sitting around partying and hanging out at the motel before it all goes down, and it makes for some rather cool times with their ability to keep this section of the film quite interesting.
With them really running through some solid tortures in the various rooms as in them being tied up to trucks or strapped into chairs above bathtubs filled with water holding a live wire above it, the ideas behind them are kinda cruel and makes for some chilling moments as there's a nice sense of twisted brutality to their madness which is rather fun to watch and sets up the finale nicely as there's plenty of fun chasing and brawling occurring throughout that makes for quite a fun and really enjoyable time throughout here.
The main issue to be found here is the fact that there's just absolutely nothing about the villains that makes them someone to be feared or scared of, being the usual assortment of wackos that are simply in the position of power through drugging everyone and it really seems like a situation where it would be quite easy to get the upper hand on them if an actual, honest attempt at putting them away were tried, and as they go for the tormenting and torture route this doesn't get any better.
Then to top if off there's the utter gall of the film to try to tie in their actions with the backstory delivered by them which is so utterly obnoxious, condescending and truly pathetic that it never once comes across as anything but a total joke.
Based on such a lame reasoning in the first place at wanting to find revenge on the guilty party only for that to be the tie into the simply most ridiculous manner of carrying it out which has no need to ever be attempted here truly turns this whole part of the film into quite the pain to get through trying to rationalize the true nature of what's going on which is quite pathetic.
This here makes this one such an utterly torturous watch that it really overcomes many of it's positives otherwise.Rated R: Extreme Graphic Language, Graphic Violence and Brief Nudity..
I have just finished watching this film and to be honest I was very impressed.
The acting was better than average and the plot kept me watching till the very end.
I must add though that the film is very sick but if you like that sort of thing you should be OK.
Having watched a lot of the b rated horror movies lately for example Hold your breath which in my opinion was utter rubbish, the acting was atrocious and the storyline appalling.
Please watch this movie(The helpers) as it is well worthy of only 77mins of your precious time..
So I was little surprised when I watch it that it wasn't but how the rest of movie is basically same plot at vacancy that meet the cast of Hotel.I was bored with this movie, I could not get into these movies at all, the death in this movie were so carbon copies of other deaths in other horror movies.
Good and scary, could have done more with more length to the movie, below 80 minutes is not enough.
This movie is disturbing and scary at some scenes, and boring as hell in other scenes, even when it is the climax, only torture scenes are suspenseful and scary, some other scenes towards the end, give you the feeling of lack of settlements, some jump scares, the writer would've explained more, but the movie is impressive, but not great, smart but not intelligent, scary but not horrifying, it is just an average horror movie with lack of good presenting, but still a good movie with great plot and kind of good acting, still underrated a lot!!!Rating 6.3/10 = 6/10 on IMDb Reviews ratingsI think that this movie is not that scary compared to V/H/S The movieThe movie in not that gory such as SAW franchise The movie is not eroticallysilly such as Piranha 3D in a comedic way The movie so unsettling such as Paranormal ActivityI think the cast and crew will make something great in future, maybe a sequel or prequel?
Yes there is gore so for those who enjoy that there are a few specific scenes .The begin shows news footage of an orphanage burning down A group of friends are travelling to Las Vegas for a holiday, whilst driving the tyres pop.
As morning hits some are up and ready to leave but others are tied up in torturous positions, and try to break free and save each other.The ending has a decent twist possibly predictable if you payed attention at the beginning but regardless watchable at the best.
And their backstory regarding why they're like they are doesn't really hold up.Then, to add final insult to injury, the film-maker includes many sections of 'found footage.' If you don't know what that is, then you obviously haven't been watching enough low budget horror movies these days.
It's basically the most overused technique in film-making that allows a slender budget to try and be stretched to the breaking point.The Helpers adds nothing new to the horror genre.
The 'victims' are stupid; the killers are stupid.How can 78 people give this movie a 10/10?
Their car tyres get a puncture and yes you've guessed it they go off wandering for help.THIS, the movie tells us, will be their downfall.After walking a little while, they meet up at a roadside motel and gas station.
It's like Saw and Vacancy rolled into one, except the majority of the acting sucks big time.Ultimately it's very forgettable..
*** WARNING: RAMPANT SPOILERS ***OK, there's some acting ability amongst the cast, and there was some (but only some) decent filmmaking on display here (camera work, lighting, etc., good in places but not always), and a few scenes were disturbing, so I could almost give it a 3, but it was just SO DUMB in SO MANY PLACES that I had to go with a 2.NONE of the following problems should have survived into the film; they should all have been resolved prior to shooting:* protagonists got off course too easily; none ever heard of a map?* all 4 tires should have blown, not just 2* even with "only" 2 simultaneous blowouts, nobody went back to see what had caused them* nobody was suspicious/bashful about all the freebies* there was a debate (albeit tiny) about whether to stay, but no alternative suggested...
but only back into the buildings, allowing further attacks {facepalm}This is TERRIBLE writing -- and I stopped there only to save time.This movie has a lot of 1 and 2 star reviews.
The above list should help provide clues for the few reviewers who remain in need of them.There's nothing essential in this film, unless you just need a Dallas Lovato fix or something.
This movie starts off with a pretty typical horror plot, a group of young friends is traveling (by car in the middle of nowhere, of course) to Las Vegas for a weekend trip.
Right from the beginning all of the characters are so unbelievably stupid it makes you want to quit watching there.As the movie progresses it just gets worse.
Nobody has even the slightest bit of a realistic personality, and in the end the motives don't really make much sense either.Isn't one of the main points of a horror movie to make you scared?
But when a movie seems totally fake, lame, just generally unbelievable and you know nothing like this could ever happen in a million years, what is scary about it?
And as others have already mentioned, it brings nothing new to the table, it has all been done before.Maybe some people will enjoy it just for the fun if they're into the torture stuff, but anyone else will most likely find it too stupid to bear, it's almost embarrassing.
I guess if you're really bored, a one time watch won't kill you, otherwise steer clear..
It started off not too bad but very quickly became unbelievably stupid and moronic.
The couple who "escaped" only to meet the proprietor of the establishment on the road and actually believe he didn't have a hand in what was happening was the final nail in this movies coffin for me.I'm getting increasingly tired of Horror movies with zero substance, incredibly stupid characters and a plot which makes no sense what-so-ever.Please, someone make a decent Horror film soon.
I'm no fan of torture porn movies in the first place, but there was practically no suspense provided here, which would have helped.
I've only walked out of one movie in my life (The Barbarian Brothers) but I would have been tempted with this one.As another reviewer had pointed out, better writing would have at least made it tolerable.
The first victim is a film geek who is so offensive that there is no possible way a gaggle of "cool" types are driving with him to Las Vegas.
Her character is undeveloped, her nude scene (the only nudity in the movie) is completely throwaway - as if they could cut it and achieve a better MPAA rating?
Spoilers Ahead!This has got to be one of the most convoluted and idiotic plots I have ever come across in a low budget horror flick: 7 friends -3 chicks & 4 dudes - travel through the desert en route to Vegas, encounter a detour that sends them down a side road only have both rear tires blow out.
and none these idiots think that's just a bit strange.) As it turns out, the people running the joint happen to be a gang of nut-jobs who know one of the girls in the group of friends (we'll call her Twit) and they staged this elaborate scheme to lure them all into the desert to kill them because her daddy ran a mean orphanage that the nut-jobs lived in while they were kids (which they subsequently burned to the ground).
How did the bad guys know that the friends would be traveling through the desert and happen upon their motel?
The only two people NOT tied up to be tortured and killed is Twit and her stupid boyfriend.
Near the end of the movie, it's revealed that they hit a tire trap - the kind the police throw across the road to blow out your tires - that only blows out the rear tires and NOT all 4 - what?
And nobody in the group (not even the Marine, who should have been on his guard) thinks to go back and try to find out what suspiciously blew out both tires which seem to be pretty brand new.
So the guys - ALL of them - decide it's a good idea to leave their ladies in the vehicle on a deserted desert road so they can walk off several miles to find help...
even a Marine would have suggested at least one of the guys stay behind with the ladies - and he would have been the smart choice since he's combat trained and can protect them.There are way too many more flaws in this crappy movie to go on anymore.Come on people, can't you put together a better story than this?
I'm a screenwriter and I've had a hard time finding financing for 4 movie scripts that have way more depth and character development...
Maybe I'm just getting old, but really, do we need another film about people being murdered in various "inventive" ways?
"The Helpers" is another of the "Saw" type of film, where people are victimised, traumatised and eventually killed.
While clearly there is a place for many different types of movies to appeal to different people, I feel this type of film simply panders to twisted individuals who get off on seeing others suffer.
If that sounds like your kind of movie, then go ahead and watch, otherwise I would suggest as a MUCH better alternative, "In Cold Blood [1967]", a well acted and gripping tale, which while shocking in its own right, is not gratuitous..
Great torture film....
Im so glad that I watched this film and didn't look at all the bad reviews as I would have not bothered to watch it.....
I don't understand why so many people have rated the film in a negative way.
I truly enjoyed this film and to be honest in my opinion it's one of the best horror films I've seen in a long time, the film has elements of saw, hostel and no vacancy but it brings that little added extra that makes the film fresh and enjoyableThe film centres on a group of friends whose car breaks down the boys of the group leave the girls in the car to find help and they find a car shop which is next to a motel the locals seem very friendly and they let the group stay the night at the motel free of charge so far it's a typical storyline but then the torture starts as the friends wake up the next morning tied up in rope and all linked to various traps and torture I don't want to give too much away so I won't describe the torture you will have to find out for yourself :)To sum up the whole film the acting is pretty decent and I actually felt sorry for the characters and at the end emphasised with them and in a horror film you have to have a bond with the characters and actually care for them to enjoy the film and keeps interested the storyline adds everything into the mix from saw to no vacancy and it's keeps you on the edge of your seat and in some scenes it truly made me cringe to finish off just ignore the rubbish reviews and give the film a chance Im a true an of the horror genre and have seen nearly every horror film and trust me this ones a one to watch.
This film starts off pretty basic and then gets ridiculous as most movies of this genre do.
I am a fan of movies of this genre if they can do it correctly.
It starts off alright but then it goes to your basic protagonists acting stupid and you not caring about them at all.
The acting and effects were fine for a low budget film such as this, but the writing was terrible.
Kill her, let's move on I kept thinking to myself.Once the film did tie together to that orphan thing..."Really?
The first title (used in UK) was "The Helpers" which actually related to the film, even though it lacks any horror factor.
The US title, "No Vacancy" is a better horror title (We don't get a picture of little fuzzy chipmunks trying to help people) but it doesn't relate to the film other than the fact it has a motel in it, which BTW always had a vacancy.
With "Motel Hell" already taken, the pickings are slim.Some attempt at dark humor like "House of a !,000 Corpses." If you need a slasher film fix, you could do worse.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Rachel Sterling- Juggy dancer on "The Man Show").
I saw a trailer for this ages ago and was actually pretty excited to see what it was going to be like.
Personally I'd sense there was something a little too good to be true, in this case they're going to try and mundanely kill you off.
The ending was rash and you don't even find out if the survivors got away, it just goes to the usual cliché scene which is "OHH THERE'S GOING TO BE A PART 2".
(Warning: do NOT drive when either drinking this or you have a chain attached to someone's legs.)Despite the unoriginal concept, I actually enjoyed this tidbit of a horror film that supposedly "based on actual events." The music was incredible, the acting decent – mostly by the Sheri Moon Zombie-like Dallas Lovato and the fact there were so many players involved it kept me involved.Vegas-bound clichéd characters get (ah-hem – again, so banal,) detoured to Motel Hell and there, they're bound in traps in somewhat unique ways.
They were offered the too-good-to-be-true kindness of strangers and readily, or stupidly, accepted.At only an hour and 17 minutes, it's a quick ride of horror and that was appreciated.
Will this land on my top one-hundred horror film list?
Or holiday-themed horror films..
This film was the typical horror- someone's car breaks down and then they search for help- a motel where everyone was overly-friendly.
The torture scenes were not only disturbing but it was obvious what would happen,and that nearly all of them would end up killed.
The acting was bad, however towards the end it started to get interesting, when you find out why they want to kill all the kids- for revenge on Claire's father.
The torture scenes were quite scary, the type where you have to cover your eyes or look away. |
tt0062350 | Il tempo degli avvoltoi | The womaniser Kitosch takes with good humour the whipping dealt to him by boss Don Jaime after he has fondled the wife of the foreman. When he finds Kitosch in a compromising situation with his own wife the Don brands Kitosch, so "he doesn't forget who is the boss.” Kitosch leaves but is caught and beaten. Next time he draws a hidden knife and uses it to get a gun, but the horse he also takes is shot from under him.
In town he is arrested on a trumped up charge. The wanted Black Tracy arrives in town on a wagon with a coffin. He is arrested but inside he kills the sheriff and deputy with a hidden derringer. The man who denounced him draws but is killed by a knife throw from Kitosch, who leaves with Tracy.
When they are overcome by Don Jaime and his men, Tracy trades Kitosch for the horse of Don Jaime. When they are to hang him Tracy shoots off the rope, and kills a man who draws. When they have left he gives the horse to Kitosch and says goodbye. Kitosch says that he though they would be together, and Tracy tells him, "Don't think, it'll damage your brain.” Tracy continues and finds that the road ends at a cliff. Kitosch is there waiting under it. He says that Tracy didn't ask about the road. He shows the way to the border, returning the quip about brains.
At night Tracy spreads his black leather jacket over Kitosch. When a sheriff and his men sneak in to arrest him they are shot by Tracy. When Kitosch protest against being used as a decoy Tracy replies that he didn't ask, and besides, he wouldn't have been so believable if he'd known. Tracy collects sheriff’s stars and they both demonstrate their prowess in shooting at them.
After burying the coffin – with the corpse of his mother who died while he was in jail, Tracy sets out to avenge himself on his wife Traps and best friend Big John, who turned him in for $10.000.
They find Traps in a saloon with Big John 's man Slim. Kitosch beats Slim and shoots some Mexicans that interfere. He counts holes in their forehead, and misses one – the man rises and is shot! Traps have sensitive eyes and wears a blindfold. Tracy tortures her by exposing her eyes to light. When Kitosch forcibly stops him, Tracy has an epileptic fit. Traps tells Kitosch that she betrayed Tracy because he tortured her, and has scars to show. Tracy returns and promises to leave her alone, if she tells them the whereabouts of Big John. She says that he is at Vulture pass with a band of Mexicans. When they leave Tracy ignites petroleum he has earlier poured out on the floor and she is seen surrounded by flames.
At the pass Tracy and Kitosch arrive to see the gangs of Big John and Camaro attack a transport of gold. They attack in waves and gradually decimate the escort. The two now get into the fray and uses dynamite and tricks to kill the bandits. When only Big John and Camaro are left Big John shoots the Mexican, who aims his gun, but is blown up by Kitosch. When the bank clerks venture out of the wagon to extend their thanks they are shot by Tracy, who then pursues Big John while Kitosch kisses the gold.
Tracy catches Big John and drags him through the mud, and proceeds to screw his hands into a door. Kitosch protests and then shoots Big John. He rides off saying "You know where to find me.” Tracy cries out "He should have suffered a lot more!" and has another fit.
In town Tracy finds Kitosch spending money on drink and women. Kitosch wants to divide the loot and stay there, ending their partnership. Tracy loads all gold on his horse and goes inside the cantina, where he fingers his gun while he observes Kitosch dancing. When he violently refuses a prostitute there starts a gunfight that develops into a shoot-out with soldiers. The horse carrying the loot cannot be reached, and they escape on other horses.
Afterwards Kitosch is upset and starts a fistfight. When Tracy gets the worst of it he draws his derringer, but has a fit when he is about to shoot. Kitosch takes the derringer and holds him during the attack, and when he afterwards is to leave Tracy calls out for him.
Tracy recovers in sickbed by the priest in the parish of Don Jaime. He is about to draw at Kitosch's back when he hears about Don Jaime’s cattle business, and suggests that the two rob him.
They are let in at night by the servant girl Rubia. She wants Kitosch to ask Don Jaime for forgiveness and then marry her. He says he will take her with him. Kitosch and Tracy break into Don Jaime's bedroom. Kitosch beats Don Jaime. Rubia enters and tries to stop him. When she calls for help, Tracy shoots her. As the cash is deposited in the bank, Kitosch take Don Jaime's wife as a hostage for $90.000.
They take position in the church. The wife comes on to Kitosch, but is rejected. The priest arrives with the ransom, which turns out to be paper. Tracy shoots him.
Don Jaime orders his men to attack at dawn. They suffer casualties but take the horses. They withdraw when Tracy takes the wife up in the bell tower, shoots at the bell and threatens to kill her.
The wife convinces Tracy that they should leave together and take the money that she says is hidden at the ranch, but Kitosch stops them. He returns Tracy’s gun when he sees fresh horses outside the church.
Don Jaime is in the church with the money. He gives his word of honour that they are free to leave. Tracy now points his gun at Kitosch. He says that the wife goes with him and as for Don Jaime he never leaves a witness. Kitosch provokes Tracy by scorning him for being ”a poor epileptic.” He takes one shot without visible effect, and then draws Tracy’s derringer – ”Your own little trick” – and shoots him several times, saying that he should have done that the moment they met. Don Jaime leaves him the money, but Kitosch says he will trade it for a horse. Don Jaime helps Kitosch up in the saddle, and waves his men off. He sees blood on his hand and calls out to Kitosch, but the latter continues riding. | western, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0309150 | DreamKeeper | The film opens with Eagle Boy, a young man who is on a vision quest. It then cuts to the present, where a 17-year-old Lakota named Shane Chasing Horse is living on the Pine Ridge reservation. He is in trouble because he owes some money to a local gang—money he used to buy a beautiful ring for Mae Little Wounded, a girl he likes. Meanwhile, his mother asks him to drive his grandfather, Pete Chasing Horse, a storyteller, down to the powwow. Shane is reluctant. However, when the gang comes after him, Shane changes his mind and heads out to the powwow with his grandfather, who agrees to give him his truck once they reach the powwow. Grandfather tells Shane the story of a young Lakota man who tries to win the hand of Bluebird Woman. He also tells the story of how a thunder spirit falls in love with a Mohawk woman and brings her up into the ethereal world of Sky Woman, and of how she raised their son back in her village until he was struck by one of the villagers and brought back to live with his father.
Later, when a young redheaded man who is eager to learn about Native culture and hoping to be adopted by a Native American family asks to ride with them to the powwow, Shane says no. His grandfather then tells him the Kiowa story of Tehan, a white man who lived among the Kiowa and fought bravely alongside them, and Shane relents and lets the redhead ride with them. Shane’s grandfather then tells how Eagle Boy follows the advice of a shining spirit elk, and seeks out an old woman who can give him weapons with which to slay the mighty serpent Uncegila. He is repulsed when the ugly old woman embraces him, but reacts quite differently when she transforms into a beautiful younger woman. She reproaches him, but gives him what he needs. Eagle Boy slays Uncegila, whose heart instructs him and grants him great power and prophetic visions.
Eventually, the gang members who are after Shane catch up with them, but accidentally drive their car off a cliff and into the Rio Grande River while chasing him. Shane dives in and saves them, and his struggle is contrasted with Eagle Boy’s underwater battle with Uncegila. The gang members ride with them for a ways, until they and the redheaded hitchhiker leave them in order to travel with a group of attractive young women who are also headed to the powwow.
As they travel, Shane’s grandfather tells Shane many other stories: several are about the trickster Coyote and Iktomi the spider. Another is about a young Pawnee man and his mother who are scorned by the rest of their tribe until the young man finds an unwanted dun pony who brings them good medicine. As Shane and his grandfather look up at the stars, the grandfather tells the story of the Quillwork Girl and her seven star brothers, which is about a Cheyenne girl who puts her faith in a dream and searches for seven brothers, but who must then contend with the Buffalo nation. The next story is about a young Chinook woman who sacrifices herself in order to cure her village of a terrible sickness, and the next is about a young Blackfoot hunter who cannot let go of the memory of his father.
Shane and his grandfather continue their journey, losing their truck along the way and continuing on horseback and on foot. The two become closer. However, it then turns out that Shane’s grandfather has led them not to the powwow but to Shane’s father’s (Sam Chasing Horse) trailer home. Shane is outraged and disappointed to be tricked, but is persuaded to stay the night. The next morning Shane finally makes peace with his estranged father. However, he then becomes grief-stricken when he discovers that his grandfather had meanwhile died in his sleep. Shane decides to continue on to the powwow on horseback, and his father says that when Shane comes home he’ll be there too. The ending of Eagle Boy’s story is revealed: Eagle Boy decides that he wants to live like other men, and disobeys the heart by revealing it to the entire tribe (to whom it appears to be nothing more than an ordinary stone). At the powwow, Shane takes on the role of a storyteller, and children gather around him to listen. | storytelling | train | wikipedia | SO glad to see a movie true to the people it depicts!!!.
As a Native American I hate movies that play out the old "cowboys and Indians" theme, which severely limited the "indian" movies I would watch.
I am SO GLAD to FINALLY see a movie that shows Native Americans as we are in real life rather than the traditional depiction as scalp-seeking-savages, tells our stories, and shows how life on the reservation truly is today.
I think it is very important to have movies like this to help dissolve a lot of racial stereotypes, and share our legends with the newer generation.
I was amazed when I saw the depictions of stories I had actually heard as a child, growing up in Tahlequah Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation Capitol.
We watched this instead.After having seen as many movies as I (who hardly does anything else) this was a very welcome break from the monotony of the standard portrayal of the native americans.
I am not a native american (or even american, I'm european) but still it was very nice to get to see "the other side of the story".
Next to the story I need to applaud the many outstanding performances by the actors and actresses, of which regretably none so far is well known.
Also to be noted is some exceptional cinematography combined with great special effects (for a TV movie).Great story, which has something to say.
This film is, by far, one of the most thoughtful, authentic andentertaining films related to the Native American experience andstorytelling that I have ever seen.
Few people know that there areover 500 different Native tribes in North America alone.
It combines stories from tendifferent tribes related to love, courage and redemption.
Yesterday i bought the movie the Dreamkeeper because the little scenes i saw on TV during a commercial interested me a lot.
In this story a boy from the Lakota Sioux tribe has problems because he has a quilt with an Indian gang.
His grandfather wants to visit the powwow, which is a meeting between all kinds of tribes from the USA, in which the dances and traditions will be shared.
During the trip his grandfather starts to tell him stories which form the base of the movie.
During the stories you enter a time of legends and fantasies but with every story the grandfather is teaching the grandson a lesson in life.
This story really impressed me and i enjoyed it a lot, also because i am very interested in Indian tribes.
This movie deserves a 9 out of 10 because i kept my attention for the full 3 hours it took, in one word beautiful and well done..
In South Dakota, in an Indian reservation, an old storyteller Indian (August Schellenberger) asks his grandson Shane (Eddie Spears), who is in trouble owing money to some bad guys, to take his old pony and him to Albuquerque to the great powwow, an Indian meeting.
While traveling, Grandpa tells mysterious Indian tales of love, friendship and magic and brings his grandson back to the Indian traditions and culture.What a great surprise was watching "Dreamkeeper"!
Released on VHS in Brazil, with 167 minutes running time, it is composed by several wonderful mystical Indian tales, with gods, spirits, enchanted horse, evil serpent in a lake, all of them connected through the narrative of the Grandpa to his grandson and with the support of excellent cast and special effects.
This feel-good film is a must-see entertainment for the whole family.
A great story, great acting, great cinematography, and so true in every detail.
This movie was the most phenomenal movie I have ever watched in my life .It was a movie I could watch over and over again,It really touched my heart and soul and also brought me closer to my heritage I too am native American and proud of it .The story and talented actors will remain in my heart forever.This movie is not just a one person movie or for one to relate to.Everything about this movie was absolutely breathtaking from the scenery,plots, clothing and again the actors and the story line .It also taught me a few lessons about my family and the things they have taught me over the years .also with now owning the movie I now own the soundtrack and listen to that just as much.It does my heart good to see how there are many others that feel about the movie just as I do ..
Great Indian TV movie.
Great Indian TV movie.
Great performances from almost all of both young and older Hollywood Native American actors/actresses.
It's too bad that most of the general public doesn't know these guys's names from Adam but they are all great perfomances in this tele-film.
Very cool Native American mythology stories & I'm always into films with the great Eddie Spears and Michael Greyeyes.
Hopefully, one day Hollywood will have a great well-known Native American actor/actress & then hopefully never again will they use Asian,Polynesian or Hispanic actors to play American Indians again.
Thankfully, as far as i could tell this film stayed true to the storyline and stories & made sure that they had authentic full to half-blooded American Indian actors.
They did a great job with this movie.
Alot of care was put in to ensure authenticity and accuracy, from identifying each tribe with their sacred stories and proper language use to ensuring costumes were correct for tribes and time periods, even down to including the "wannabe" character who tags along through part of the plot.
Alcoholism, drug abuse and gang violence make rez life as dangerous as the toughest big city neighborhoods of New York and LA.This film took several months to produce and employed thousands of Native Americans, from actors and actresses to extras, film crew members and laborers.The special effects accurately portray imagery of spirit characters without getting engrained in fantasia and the typical new-agey romanticized look-and-feel that some recent Indian movies have (say "Dances with Wolves")..
How can I get a DVD or VHS copy of this movie?
I want to save this movie and watch it again.
Like the line from the L.A. Times TV Times Commentary on Dreamkeeper says, "A lot of our elders are passing, and when they pass, people like myself and like my little sister will need to keep the stories alive.
DreamKeeper is one of the movies that will accompany you forever.
It contains today and yesterday and helps the understanding of the true history of the American Indian.
So you melt into wonderful pictures and stories given from the grandfather to his grandson being on their way to a meeting of all nations.
The intertwining of the genres(road movie, drama, tales) is very well made and John Fusco did another great job with the creation of the script.
The actors have been well chosen and you feel that they are not just acting in a movie they are truly concerned and giving you their story.
Behind all is a message not only for the Indians to again respect more their ancestry and live it but to the 'white people' as well.
every time i see the movie..tears come into my eyes.....
The movie speaks for itself and I'd definitely recommend the miniseries "Into the West" as well which stars some of the same characters from Dreamkeeper.
There are no words to describe the emotion that fills within me when thinking about the lives of American Indians.
To me they should be regarded as the "super-race" for the sheer fact that they, along with the Buffalo, after being not only marginalized, tokenized, robbed, and yes, decimated almost to literal extinction (remember, even the kids and babies were shot by the U.S. army), they, into the new millennium are still here and their numbers have increased (as of the year 2000 there are about 2 and 1/2 million Native Americans alive today).
The good note is that films such as these shed light on the true nature of the Indigenous American as well as expose the inhumane and inhuman treatment (which exists TO THIS DAY) that they have endured on soil that belonged and by human rights still belongs to them.
A progressive people's movement, which already exists, although pathetically fragmented since 9/11, needs to come together and at the center of it needs to be the will of the Native American, even spearheaded and centered around them.
A cerebral and visual feast of Native American myths !.
Creative use of modern film editing to bring the supernatural to realistic visions.The importance of passing on the ancient Native American stories from one generation to the next..
I can't wait for it to be available on DVD so I can enjoy it without all the commercials.I was familiar with some of the legends but not all of them.
Great collection of traditional American mythologies.
I enjoyed the main thread which was used to connect the myths of various American tribes, and how the stories were shared.
And of course I was thrilled to see Native Americans playing each of the appropriate roles--as well as how they briefly touched on the realities of tribal life (though this aspect was quite rightly very brief, as this was not the focus of the film).
I for one, would really enjoy this expanded into a whole series.I had to mark my rating lower than I wanted to, due to poor production values and areas that didn't quite hand together as they should have given the clever way the stories were tied together--but I would rate it as a solid 7.5 rather than just a 7 (yet it wasn't quite an 8 either).
Those few films pass on truths in beguiling, entrancing story forms....about gods, God, nature spirits, fairies, harmonious ways of living, our spirituality, deeply rooted strength of character and societal responsibility.
The true target audiences are our subconscious minds which inevitably are positively affected by the images shown in the films (or by the imagined images in the minds of people to whom the stories are being verbally told)."Dreamkeeper" is one such film which comes from Native American traditions (another would be "Pathfinder" from the Lapp people of Norway).
Then I can show it to my 10 year-old daughter whom the Great Spirit has given me the responsibility of teaching about the seen and the unseen, the physical and the metaphysical (or the real and the more real).Which other films have you seen which perform this shamanic duty for us?.
Simply Amazing those are the only two words I can think of at this time to describe this film.
Some of this movie was filmed near where I live and it is neat to recoginse faces and scenes in a movie.It's pretty amazing to see how similar different tribes stories are.
I found the Gary Farmer (Spider) Story was very similar to a childrens tale that the elders on our reserve tell to the children around here.
Though different events it is the same story.I'd recommend this film to anyone that I can, it is highly entertaining and gives a great view of what really matters in life.
Wonderful Story telling and the laughs in it are really cute..
Excellent story, scenery, characters and acting.
It really opened my eyes to different Native American people and customs.
Years ago I read and enjoyed the fiction, series books about Native Americans by Paul Joseph Lederer.
Dreamkeeper helped me visualize Native American life.
When this movie is available for sale I want to buy and put in our DVD library..
Dreamkeeper shocked me with wonder when I saw it on regular ABC TV a few years ago...
I love Native American culture and philosophy.
DREAMKEEPER has really done the job of giving the Native American USA message.
How great that an international group of artists have given me this wonderful gift of joy and power.I love that Native Americans have commented on the film and were depicted in such a wonderful manner..
Totally gripping; the story weaves between ancient myths and legends and present day reality.
The characters are engaging, the acting is great, and the special effects are phenomenal.I was reminded what special effects are really for - used right, they really bring a story to life, enhance it, engage your imagination and convey more than could be done any other way.This film stayed with me for days.
Great movie.
I have watched it many times, & everyone I've shown it to has loved it also.
It's an incredible story portraying Native American legends, and also shows the struggle that modern day Native American teens go through when trying to find their identity.
Anyone with an interest in history or Native American culture should watch this movie!!
Along the way, the grandpa, who is a story keeper, uses the stories of a few different tribes to teach his grandson and encourage him to choose the right path in life.
The stories come to life in this movie...
This also teaches some really good lessons, besides the ones in the stories.
It also shows some current problems today with the native American culture.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in learning more about the native American culture and about oral history..
The tales from many nations were told, and were the focus of the movie.
A perfect family movie that keeps everyone entertained.
The next best thing to hearing these stories yourself from the dreamkeeper would be to see this movie.
The first 10 minutes of the movie seems awkward, but the story gets better.
DREAMKEEPER is a beautiful and powerful film.Shane, a 17-year-old Lakota Sioux who owes money to loan sharks and has all sorts of other troubles on his mind, travels with his 87-year-old grandfather from their South Dakota reservation to an inter-tribal pow-wow in Albuquerque, NM.
Along the way, Grandfather spins a number of old myths and tales from the Lakota, Cheyenne, Mohawk, Kiowa, Blackfoot, Chinook-Salish, and several other tribes that teach Shane a great deal about how to approach this life and what follows it.
The myths themselves are wonderfully played-out in realistic non-animated fashion, and the 180-minute film is evenly divided between Shane & Grandpa and the stories Grandpa tells.
The costume design and settings in the myth sequences are as good or better than those in even the very best western films: DREAMKEEPER truly puts you among the Indians.
Amazing special effects too.This film could have turned out really sappy, but despite the Hallmark, it's not.
I am a European and white and feel that this story / these stories, while Native American in origin and tradition, have something of enormous value to teach all of us.
I am very interested in the history of the Native American Indian and I found this DVD to be a profound and moving record.
I know I will Play this film over and over again and each time will find something new..
Enjoy seeing movies about old Native American stories.
I considered this a great film !!
I would hope the Native American youngsters and everyone of all races to see this film and learn a little of the Native American life.
My children and parents watched this movie with me and we all enjoyed the old time stories..
It's a good day to watch Dreamkeeper.
My husband and I have been waiting and watching for this film for three-four years now.
My husband portrays the historical lifestyle of the Potowatomi in Illinois, which is where his research and study took him, so he couldn't speak to the film guys' questions about more western nations, but we were thrilled to see so many people on film sharing the stories, and teaching.
"Smoke Signals" was another really good one - it was a "sleeper" to me - I found it in the video store and took a chance, but it's one of my favorite all-time movies.
I laughed, I cried - I really liked the characters in the movie, just like this one - good storytelling.DreamKeeper needs to be followed by more strong film!
The cgi is feature-film quality and totally imaginative.The off-hand humor mixed with profound myth and storytelling is an astounding narrative device -- totally compelling!Excellent acting by the cast to boot.An overall Emmy-deserving piece of art.Must see -- WOW !!!.
Dreamkeepers is a coup, it speaks to everyone who cares to listen about the resilience and gentle spirit of Native American Peoples.
I've not read or taken any mythology classes since college (a long time ago) but remembered many of the stories/myths from my undergraduate days.
What an excellent and powerful film (mini, if you want to be particular--but, hey...
A superb miniseries with messages that appeal, hopefully, to all persons who watch it--not just the Native American population.
The sparks of comedy are sudden, dry and brilliant; We ere laughing all night over one line: "Go sing it, then." My dad would have loved that line.Gary Farmer as the spider spirit Iktome, with his sidekick Coyote (Warner Brothers lifting him whiolecloth from First Peoples legends) showing us all how NOT to act, are like the sacred clown schticks between the serious dancing:The native/invader images of the old Bad Indian movies are flipped.
A rock speaks when the photo crew uses nothing but a flashlight beam.The stories are coming back, bringing back their values and lessons.
A rare film that shows the American Indian's point of view..
It certainly made me laugh, as well as cry, especially the end after Shane arrives at the Pow-Wow in Alberqueque & sees in the people there, some of the elements of the people in the stories that he was told by his grandfather before he died on the way, then watching him beat the drum to start the storytelling and remembering what he was like at the beginning rebelling against everyone & everything. |
tt0466839 | I Could Never Be Your Woman | Rosie (Michelle Pfeiffer), is a 40-year-old divorced mother who works as a scriptwriter and producer for a TV show You Go Girl. Rosie is insecure about her age, and uses cosmetics to maintain her appearance. She has a very close relationship with her thirteen-year-old daughter, Izzie (Saoirse Ronan), which becomes even closer when she learns that she has fallen for a boy in her class named Dylan (Rory Copus). Despite her ex-husband's urging that she start dating again, she has no man in her life. To the dismay of Rosie and David (David Mitchell), her British co-writer, her boss, Marty (Fred Willard) decides that the show may no longer cover controversial subjects, so Rosie decides to cast a new character for the show. She is taken by Adam (Paul Rudd), a bright and charming young man from one of her auditions, and decides to cast him as a new, nerdy character to fall for the character played by her arrogant and self-centered lead actress, Brianna (Stacey Dash). Adam's character is well received by test audiences, and Rosie persuades Marty to give him a chance.
As she continues to offer Izzie advice on Dylan, Rosie becomes smitten by Adam, who suggests they go out to a club together. When he comes to pick her up, Adam bonds with Izzie immediately, helping her complete a mission on a video game she was playing, in order to impress Dylan. While there, Rosie lies about her age and says that she's 36, while Adam says that he is 32. Rosie is nervous about the age difference, but when he goes onto the dance floor at the nightclub, she realizes he is as free spirited as her, and joins him. The two kiss in Adam's car, during which Rosie admits that she's actually 40, only to be startled when Adam reveals that he's actually 29. Adam assures her that he doesn't care about their age difference at all, and the two continue their relationship. Nevertheless, Rosie's insecurity over her age begins to come out, egged on by her internal conversations with Mother Nature (Tracey Ullman), and she confesses to Adam that she is not sure that their relationship is going to work, to his confusion. Meanwhile, their relationship draws the jealousy of Rosie's secretary, Jeannie (Sarah Alexander), who begins to sabotage them by stealing Adam's gifts to Rosie, and then by stealing Adam's phone, taking a photograph of Brianna in a compromising position with it, and then putting it in Rosie's handbag, which does not succeed. Rosie continues to be nervous when she hears a recording of Adam flirting with Brianna (he had been encouraged to in order to keep her calm and the center of attention). Things become worse when Izzie has a failed double date with Dylan, and she starts to become insecure about her own appearance, something that concerns Rosie.
When Adam is first shown on television, he is an instant hit, and he starts to become famous from it. This leads to Rosie becoming even more insecure, and worrying that Adam will take advantage of his fame and start looking at younger women. Her situation worsens further when her show is unexpectedly cancelled. Shortly after, Adam is given a role in an upcoming sitcom, and she is shocked to discover a speeding ticket sent to Adam showing him in a car with Brianna. Already in a foul mood, Rosie is forced to berate Izzie when, during a chance encounter with her friend, Henry Winkler, he reveals that Izzie and her friend had prank-called a number of celebrities in her phone book. She confronts Adam with the photograph of him with Brianna, and he is shocked, having never been in a car with her before. Rosie angrily breaks up with him. Despite this, Adam makes numerous attempts to reconcile with her, including refusing to film the new sitcom he has been offered to take part in until she is named a co-producer. Meanwhile, Rosie is looking through a bloopers reel of her old show, when she realizes that it was filmed at the time that the speeding ticket claimed Adam had been driving with Brianna, and deduces that the only person who could have sent it was Jeannie. She proceeds to confront Jeannie when Marty calls her to his office to offer her a job on Adam's sitcom, and hits her in the face, reducing her to tears. She then reconciles with Adam. Later, at a school talent show, she sees Izzie has finally succeeded in winning Dylan over, and watches as the two kiss. Mother Nature reminds her that, in growing older, she is making way for a girl like Izzie to replace her. | romantic, satire, feel-good | train | wikipedia | It had us ROTFL as we had gone through similar situations ourselves when we were dating.Paul Rudd is very funny much funnier than I remember him from Friends and Michelle Pfeiffer is perfect as the sexy, and somewhat insecure love interest.
The dialog in the film is clever and witty but light and self-parodying along the lines of Clueless.Overall, a very sweet and funny movie - I haven't enjoyed a romantic comedy this much since Annie Hall or Sleepless in Seattle..
Since the film won't be released for a few months, I'm not going to go into any specific plot details, however Hollywood's obsession with youth, plastic surgery, and untalented pretty people is amusingly (and sometimes disturbingly) exposed.Pfeiffer is a true movie star -- a brilliant actress and shamefully underrated comedian.
He's a talent power-house.Other notable fine performances are give by the one and only Tracey Ullman as Mother Nature, and Saoirse Ronan as Pfeiffer's daughter.I haven't laughed out loud at a movie in a long time, however I did last night -- many times.
I Could Never Be Your Woman is the first film directed by Amy Heckerling (Clueless) in like 7 years.
The movie was a light, fun romantic comedy that I enjoyed quite a bit (though I could have done without Tracy Ullman's "Mother Nature").
Her daughter is played by Saoirse Ronan, a talented young woman who is gonna be breaking out in a big way in the next year with this and roles in several other really big-name films.
I'd have to say that I was pleasantly surprised on how good this movie actually was.Michelle Pfeiffer and Pual Rudd have great chemistry throughout the whole movie.
He stars as Michelle's ex-husband in the movie and I laughed every time the both of them were on screen together.Pual Rudd was fantastic in this movie and it shows what he can do when given co-top billing in a comedy.
He was great in 40-year old virgin and in this he is no different.The movie has the same type of feel of Clueless, as it should, their both directed by the same person.
Give this movie a chance, it was funny and kept you entertained throughout the whole movie.I didn't give too much detail as you can tell, i just wanted to let you know a little bit of what to expect and how well the actors/actress's come together in this movie.Great date movie/or a movie to take your significant other.
I also loved the mother/daughter relationship between Rosie (Michelle Pheifer) and Izzie(Saoirse Ronan).
It handles the idea of older woman - younger man with a delicious sense of balance and farce; can it really be five years since Michelle Pfeiffer's last film?
And Paul Rudd stamps his charm all over this.The comedians, and there are a ton to spot here, especially British - a challenge to spot all of them - make up one of the better ensemble casts of the last few years.'I could never be your woman' is quite simply one of the best comedies of 2007 in our opinion - romantic or otherwise.
I could never be your woman unfortunately does not hit these highs but you will laugh and the characters have a certain warmth.The film really focuses on the relationship between Pfeiffer and her daughter which is unusual in the fact the most of the good comedy moments arise from the daughters relationship with her mother and her mothers personal life.
Her film posits that a middle-aged TV writer (Michelle Pfieffer) has some angst and insecurities in dating one of the new stars of her TV show (Paud Rudd), and it's not a bad premise.
This is also thrown in a quasi plot thread involving her daughter (Atonement's Saoirse Ronan, couldn't tell it was the same girl she's that good) as she tries to navigate her first possible boyfriend.A lot of this isn't delivered with all of the best execution- certainly it's hard to figure on what exactly makes the Tracy Ullman bits funny as they're slipped in with some awkward soft-focus and at ill-timing- and there's something kind of fishy about putting such an actress like Michelle Pfieffer, who is still incredibly beautiful for any age, in the role of an insecure woman who can't see herself with such a younger man after such a long break from being with a man.
At the same time, there is a good deal that does work to Heckerling's advantage, such as the bond between the mother and daughter in the story that doesn't ring as being sappy or trite like in other rom-coms or flicks with mother-daughter talks and such.
And almost in spite of the bright lighting, Paul Rudd lays on the same charm and wit carried over from the Judd Apatow comedies (if, of course, nowhere near as funny in the sensibility of crudeness).
Paul Rudd and Michelle Pfeiffer look like lovable people and decent actors.
Given that they live and work in Hollywood, a city where human relationships are based on appearance and people take extraordinary good care of themselves, it seems strange that somebody like Michelle Pfeiffer could be so insecure about her looks.
Now that we have grown up and Heckerling has too, she is skewering the beauty-obsession of Hollywood and its desire to look and be younger.Michelle Pfeiffer stars as the producer of a teen-based TV show, she's 40 and she's a single mom.
But that doesn't matter here because it's the right vehicle for all the hilarious Hollywood-bashing jokes.Heckerling is right-on-target with her many jokes, and her audience should appreciate the casting of "Clueless" vets Stacey Dash and Paul Rudd as actors playing high school teenagers.
Also stars Jon Lovitz as the ex-husband, and Academy Award nominee Saoirse Ronan as the daughter, plus even more great comedic actors.The right audience (teenagers of the 90s) should thoroughly enjoy "I Could Never Be Your Woman".
A Rom-Com with a built-in 10 year age difference (older woman, younger man) starring one of the most personable male leads ever (Rudd) and one of the most beautiful women since the Sumerians started keeping records (Pfeiffer), along with a wonderfully precocious teen star (Saoirse Ronan) as insurance.Mix in a (incredbly horrific) trope involving "Mother Nature" appearing in the story at random, and add one of Heckerling's favorite (but most over-rated) actors (Stacy Dash) and -- in theory -- you should have a hit.In fact, all you have when the dust settles is Rudd's charm and Pfeiffer's beauty and a very forgettable script..
Amy Heckerling brings forth a delightful romantic comedy centred around the romance between a younger man and older woman.
Heckerling gently presents themes like people's obsession with youth, plastic surgery, looks mattering more than personality and talent.Heckerling's exceptional cast The eternally gorgeous Michelle Pfeiffer takes a break from the negative roles and delivers a splendid performance.
For example, the scene where Rosie and her daughter play with Barbies, Adam 'acting around' with everyone, Nathan's obsession with looking young, Rosie arguing with Mother Nature.
The script gave little attention to the falling in love part of the romance between Pfeiffer and Rudd- what made him hit on her right out of the box?
(1) Feel free to gripe to the high heavens about MY take on it and (2) refuse to be so presumptuous as to issue dire warnings to others to avoid the movie like the plague.IMDb reviewers who trash this film and decree that others will obviously share their minority views do so knowing it has a respectable 62% IMDb rating, 80% Rotten Tomato rating and such as Roeper and guest host gave it four thumbs up.I was howling throughout most of this film which means (to me) they don't make enough such quality romantic comedies these days....and too bad it skipped the theaters.
To seal the deal the film tosses in minor albeit humorous roles by Jon Lovitz and Fred Willard, has a sharp, hip script, very good chemistry between Pfieffer and Rudd, a dash of Tracy Ullman and Pfeiffer's precious daughter Izzie who's an enchanting Beverly Hills 13 going on 23 type.
Finally, the broader comedy scope, beyond any May-December theme is the back drop of the film to wit: Pfeiffer is a tinsel town TV show producer and most are involved in and around her show.It is often said one can tell when actors are 'having fun' on the set.
The jokes are not funny, the romance is unbelievable, the scenes are written by the very people the film is criticizing and, when at least you think the point of view is somewhat fresh, they bury it in clichés.Michelle Pfeiffer is still cute, but she's forty.
Paul Rudd makes the entire film worth it, although he doesn't have to do much except clown around like a horny kid.
Lovitz did good work, Rudd was pretty solid, Pfeiffer did not bring her best, although she still shines--albeit excessively--in this turd of a movie.
The most enjoyable part of this movie was trying to predict which lighting option was gonna hit Michelle Pfeiffer in each scene.
40something comedy TVshow producer Michelle Pfeiffer falls in love with a young comedian who is 20s.
Let's be cool like this movie.The most impressive scene is the relationship between Michell Pfeiffer and her daughter.
I hated whenever she was on screen and the entire hour or so that Rosie and Adam were not together dragged.Paul Rudd is charming and Michelle Pfeiffer shines but it's almost not worth it to sit through the rest of the garbage surrounding them.
Yeah, maybe is not the best movie I've seen in years, but it's a comedy and sometimes you just wanna have a good time and laugh.
And trust me, you will because this movie has something, maybe in the writing or in the good performances that just makes every scene really funny.
Romantic comedy about Michelle Pfieffer and Paul Rudd.
Fred Willard as Michelle's boss, Wally Shawn as her daughter's teacher, Stacy Dash as the star of the wacky show that Michelle writes and Sally Kellerman as the head of the P.T.A. This film is soooo much better than all the lame, phoney romantic comedies and it would've been a big hit but now at least you can get the DVD.
Considering the talent involved - writer/director Amy Heckerling and actors Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd - I Could Never Be Your Woman could contend for the most high-profile motion picture yet to take the direct-to-DVD route.
Rosie (Michelle Pfeiffer) is divorced mother of Izzie (Saoirse Ronan) and a producer of a silly high school TV show.
I like Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd as a lovely couple.
But let's be honest, in fact, the movie is a big joke of the film industry focuses on all those who work, yes you guessed, in Hollywood.From one moment to other criticizing women frivolous and society interested in platitudes ceases to exist by showing a story focusing on the clichés of the genre and repetitive immaturity and little grace of Adam, who turns out to be irritating thanks to the child interpretation of Paul Rodd.So joke after joke film begins to lose its grace which makes for moments seem that history is not progressing and that several of the scenes seem a repetition of the other.Something that should commended is the way in which the limited appearances by Jon Lovitz get the stronger public laughs and it's really him, which allows the movie is not sinking in a boring sea of winks to the industry.I admit the trailer fool me again, I didn't laughed so much (2 times to be exact), yes, Pfeiffer continues her beauty but not her grace and sensuality (we will not forget the image of Catwoman), and leads me to home a bad taste.
This movie is by Amy Heckerling who is the one the brought you Clueless Which was another great film.
Director Amy Heckerling directed two of my favourite juvenile comedies,Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.But,after Clueless,her career declined with the mediocre film Loser and,now,with I Could Never Be Your Woman,a film with a lot of flaws.I Could Never Be Your Woman lacks of a good story,actors Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd do not have any chemistry,the characters are not well constructed and,the worst thing of all,this film bores pretty much.Pfeiffer has some charisma but her sympathy does not save this crappy film.I Could Never Be Your Woman is a crappy romantic comedy.In Clueless,Heckerling showed she can do something excellent when she wants,so I wish she will put the same enthusiasm she put in Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High on her next film..
Heckerling should have recognized what she had here and initiated major script revisions to amp up Ronan's screen time; especially more scenes of her playing off Paul Rudd (her mother's boyfriend) and Jon Lovitz (her father).
Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd (who played Cher's stepbrother in "Clueless") play the film's May-December romantic couple.
Then again when you try to figure out the film's target audience you realize that it is even narrower than the standard "chick flick", and unlike Heckerling's hit films there is nothing here of interest to the teen demographic.Rosie (Pfeiffer) is a middle age TV writer/producer whose once popular TV series needs a talent transfusion, and whose main occupation seems to be staying young.
The dynamic between the actors in the film, notably Pfeiffer, Soairse Ronan as her middle-school aged daughter and love interest Paul Rudd creates a world where even Jon Lovitz is enjoyable to watch.
I was rather disappointed that one of my favorite actresses Michel Pfeiffer had agreed to a movie like I Could Never Be Your Woman.
If Hollywood goes this direction with comedy, i might start looking out for it again.P.S. this movie might appeal to a younger public, but don't turn your back on it because of YOUR age!
Enjoyable mother/daughter movie, mediocre romantic comedy.
They have the perfect relationship with only one minor bump that's as deep as a plot device on a Disney Sitcom.Where the film really works, however, is with the mother/daughter relationship between Michelle Pfeiffer and Saoirse Ronan.
There are some great points about human nature that she gets to articulate, but it feels like the character of Mother Nature introducing the film and popping up at random to have conversations with Michelle Pfeiffer belongs in a more surreal film.Overall, a good light hearted film.
the film involves A LOT of funny jokes ( on the "fly" many of them) making fun of everything in Hollywood, from producers and "stars" to the way this business is handled on set.on top of it the mother-daughter relationship is Awesome.
On the upside is Pfeiffer herself, who manages to look sensational at 47 despite the technical deficiencies and appears relaxed and assured despite the unimaginative ways Heckerling drives the cliché-driven story.Set in LA (though filmed primarily in London), the film stars Pfeiffer as Rosie, both a successful TV sitcom producer in a cruelly youth-oriented industry and a recently divorced mother raising her adolescent daughter Izzie through puberty.
One funny conceit that Heckerling exploits is the casting of jaded older actors as the teens in the sitcom, and in that spirit, she recruits Stacey Dash and Paul Rudd, both from 1995's "Clueless", to play two of the actors.
While I generally like Tracey Ullman a lot, her role as Mother Nature feels so wedged in that I just wish Heckerling could have trusted the material more to avoid such a tired movie ploy.
Michelle Pfeifer looks gorgeous and Paul Rudd is cute and funny.
I thought the mother/daughter relationship was sweet and funny, and I thought that Paul Rudd was hilarious.
It's better than a lot of the silly rom coms of recent years.This is a good look at a May December older woman and younger man romance.
Michelle Pfeiffer (still lovely) and Paul Rudd are both well cast in their roles.
For those who love Clueless this is a great and different comedy that is just as good in it's own way.
It is normal for an older man to fall for a younger gal, but what happens when the younger one is the man???MOthernature scenes were not that good anyway, I would definitely without a doubt be with someone like Pfeiffer's character in the movie...MIAM!.
Yes, this is the kind of movie that will get you lucky with your girlfriend if you accept to watch it with her.The plot is simple and very clichéd but it works perfectly because Mother Nature is added as a recurring and supporting character.The movie deals with a sexy 40+ year old woman who after two divorces tries to start a romantic relationship with a 29 year old guy who teaches her that love has no age.Both meet on the filming on t.v. shows and well, many things in the likes of these kind of romantic comedies lead to funny and romantic situations that will please women specially.Jon Lovitz steals the show with his minimal appearances.
Michelle Pfeiffer is spectacular as always; I mean, she's very sexy, has aged very good, looks secure and delivers a charming funny performance.
Light, very light girls comedy/romance film, Michelle plays OK and sometimes we think she's acting from her own life experience.So why bashing something that's not that bad.
The first being the undeniable chemistry between Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd.
This, I think, is one of Paul Rudd's best movies ever.
The next part is Pfeiffer's film daughter, Izzie, played spectacularly by Saoirse Ronan, who is able to be funny and cute without trying to be too hip seeming like a real kid.
Romantic comedies abound, so I was hesitant to retry the genre with yet another film starring Michelle Pfeiffer.
Rosie's ex-husband adds to her difficulties by acting less mature than his barely teen-aged daughter.Paul Rudd was effective as the younger man (Adam) who falls for the beautiful older woman. |
tt0064501 | It Was a Short Summer, Charlie Brown | School is out for the summer and Charlie, Linus, Schroeder, and Pig Pen are planning to spend it reading every comic book, watching television, playing baseball, and playing classical music. However, Lucy tells them that she signed them up for camp. The girls are eager to go, but the boys hate the idea. (Charlie adds that it's like finding out that he was drafted.) The boys shove each other to get on the bus, while the girls line up in order. At camp, Charlie is chosen captain of the boys camp. The boys and girls have a swim race which the girls win easily. Then they have a softball game, which the boys lose with only one run. Other competitions are just as lopsided.
Afterwards, the boys sit around the campfire and reflect on how miserable they are (In this scene, the colors of the shirts of Schroeder and Linus are mixed up).
Charlie and Shermy, disillusioned by their continued defeat, see Snoopy arm wrestling with the boys. They realize that the boys might get even with an arm wrestling game, with "The Masked Marvel" (Snoopy) as their champion. Snoopy goes into training, eating the camp's awful food, doing exercises, and drinking a nutritious and noxious concoction. In the contest, Snoopy goes against Lucy. They both get sweaty and tired in the match, which ends when Snoopy kisses Lucy. He pins her hand: but she says that kissing her was a foul, and she is the winner.
Back at school, Charlie only comes up with 13 words on his essay that he and Linus are forced to write on the first day, after both boys are caught playing hangman in class. Linus gets an A but Charlie gets a C-. Linus then says "Oh, well, it was a short summer, Charlie Brown", followed by Charlie saying gloomily "And it looks like it's going to be a long winter". | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | It's Summer Camp. Sixth animated special based on the cartoon strips of Charles M. Schulz deals with Charlie Brown's attempts to write a report on what he did this past summer, and Charlie tells how Lucy signed everyone up for summer camp, where it was the boys against the girls, and the girls won every time, until the last match, which was an arm-wrestling competition between Lucy and the Masked Marvel(Snoopy) that ends quite unexpectedly, but decisively. The problem still remains if poor talentless Charlie Brown can still get a good grade on his report! OK tale is mostly routine until the bright finish with the Masked Marvel. The last one aired during the 1960's.. Process of Elimination, This Was The One. The one where Snoopy, dressed as the Masked Marvel, would arm wrestle Lucy at the end, while the infamously recognizeable Peanuts music (actually called Linus and Lucy's theme) played over the competition.What a fight. Lucy and Snoopy both sweated profusely, gritted their teeth, hair became ragged. Intense.I have just now seen Charlie Brown All Stars, the second of all the Charlie Brown specials, for the first time in who knows how many decades.I remembered that story more for the storybook that we could buy from the book store in the school library.I have since seen this camping episode in the past couple of years. I daresay I think my brother may have it recorded.But it was that arm wrestling match that was the coup de grace.Nothing like it ever seen for this kid.Oh, the outcome? Snoopy kissed Lucy, the music came to an end, and Lucy flew into one of the fiercest rages I have ever seen."Foul! Foul! I've got dog germs! I won! I won!" This has reigned with me ever since. Talk about poor sportsmanship.Or winning isn't everything if it brings about this behavior.charlie Brown, you never won, but trust me, kid, you were always the winner.. It felt like a too long movie, Charlie Brown. "It Was a Short Summer, Charlie Brown" is an American animated short film from 1969, so this one will soon have its 50th anniversary. The title already gives away that this is another Peanuts work by Melendez and Schulz of course, one of the earlier films obviously. The voice cast members here are all around the age of 60 now, slightly under for the most part. The animation style is typical for the Peanuts and this one here does not focus on a particular holiday, but on summer in general as one of the gang registered everybody for summer camp. No need to thank her! So for the most part of these 24 minutes we see boys vs. girls contests and discussions at summer camp. I have seen many Peanuts films, but this one here really doesn't do too much for me and it is nowhere near my favorites. So only watch it if you love the gang or at least like them more than I do. I thought it was on the boring side and the usual sobering melancholy is also not at the highest level admittedly in this one. It is definitely not a failure, but my advice is still to skip it.. Yet Another Funny Outing With the Peanuts Gang. One of the lesser known of the "Charlie Brown" shorts, but that doesn't make this story a bad one. In fact, it's downright entertaining and funny. This episode centers around the gang attending a Summer camp. While there a "boys vs. girls" series of competitions take place. The boys find new and interesting ways to loose to the girls and try to find a way they can win....just once...to save face. Enter the "Masked Marvel" (aka Snoopy). Do the boys finally get a win? You decide. Nothing serious in this special at all....it's all fun and (one sided) games. Be sure to catch the over the top and completely hilarious arm wrestling match between Snoopy and Lucy. |
tt0083891 | Enigma | Alex Holbeck (Martin Sheen) is recruited as a CIA agent. He is sent to East Berlin on a mission to steal an Enigma code scrambler. This is part of an attempt to stop the Russian assassination of five Soviet dissidents which is planned for Christmas Day. What Alex doesn't know is that the CIA already has a code scrambler. By stealing the scrambler in Berlin, they are trying to convince the Russians that they don't have it.
On arrival in Berlin, Alex finds that the KGB knows he is there. Alex must use numerous disguises and escape from a number of capture attempts. He seeks shelter with his former lover, Karen (Brigitte Fossey) before moving on as this is too dangerous for her. Karen and a number of Alex's other old friends are arrested and tortured by the police in an attempt to gain information about Alex's whereabouts. As he gets more desperate, Alex enlists Karen's help again: she seduces Dimitri Vasilikov (Sam Neill), the KGB man in charge of the hunt for Alex, in order to obtain information. In the end Dimitri catches Alex and Karen and finds the scrambler hidden in an exhibition artifact. As he is in love with Karen, he lets them go, however, keeping the scrambler which was in fact not needed. On Christmas Day the assassination attempt is successfully thwarted. | intrigue | train | wikipedia | Great acting, suspense and plot twists.
This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really is.
He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle to him.I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories).
There's a great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in the early 80's time period, and probably now also.The final scene had me on the edge of my seat.
This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect it.irenerose.
Plot does reveal an "Enigma".
I must admit, when I first began watching this film I had no clue what was going on.
So the beginning was a bit confusing for me.
However, that did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie.
The characters reveal themselves to be more complex than they may first appear, and that is what makes this a memorable film.
At first I heard this was a real "Hollywood" movie.
Although it obviously lacks the stereotypical "guns and fists" element, the convincing performances of talented actors such as Martin Sheen and Sam Neill more than make up for it.
I'd rather see a film with more substance than shooting any day..
Bleak as well as thrilling spy-film about a double agent who goes behind the Curtain Iron.
Passable spy film about the Cold War with confused plot .
The film concerns about a defector (Martin Sheen) who is recruited by the Secret Services (Michael Lonsdale) in an underground spies ring to attempt to encounter the key of five pending killings by locating a Russian coded microprocessor .
He must retrieve at whatever cost a device holding information that would unravel the murderous scheme .
He takes on unscrupulous men and astute spies , being only helped by a beautiful girl , his ex-girlfriend (Brigitte Fossey) .
Trapped behind the Iron Curtain the starring goes inside Berlin to find the artifact .
He'll confront evil head of Stasi (Derek Jacobi) and a cunning KGB officer .
Meanwhile the Soviet Politburo agent (Sam Neill) falls in love with the protagonist (Brigitte Fossey, though actress Lisa Eichhorn was originally cast in this movie but was forced to leave the film , she was replaced with Fossey), acting as a double agent.The film has suspense , tension , emotion , mystery and specially in its final a little bit of action .
Although the picture has various ingredients for entertainment , the plot is confusing and complex , screenplay has gaps and sometimes is embarrassing and absurd .
The star-studded casting is important , with known international actors but for a blurred writing , they sometimes appear acting with no much sense .
Fine acting by the great Martin Sheen .
Martin once said of this film: "it's the best role I've had since Apocalypse Now (1979)¨.
Publicity for this film stated that it was Martin Sheen's third consecutive British film in a row , the earlier films referred to were Loophole (1981) and Gandhi (1982).
Good support cast such as Sam Neill who stars as a Russian KGB agent in this movie , around the time of this film, Neill was famed for playing British spy Sidney Reilly in ¨Reilly¨ (1983).
Furthermore , there appears the French Michael Lonsdale , and British Derek Jacobi .
Adequate cinematography , the East Berlin locations in this movie were actually filmed in the French locations of Lille in Nord and Strasbourg in the Bas-Rhin .
The film belongs to spy sub-genre developed during the cold war and its maxim representations are John LeCarre's novels adapted to cinema in films as : ¨The spy who came in from the cold¨ (by Martin Ritt), ¨Deadly Affair¨(Sidney Lumet) and ¨Russia House¨ (by Fred Schepisi with Sean Connery).
The film was regularly directed by Jeannot Szwarc ; he was actually born, bred and educated in Paris and he returned to his homeland to direct this film that was completely shot in France .
Actor Martin Sheen and director Szwarc prior to this film had previously worked together in American television .
Jeannot's biggest successes were ¨Jaws 2¨ and ¨Somewhere in time¨ , but after his failures in ¨Supergirl¨ and ¨Santa Claus¨, he has been working for TV , in episodes as ¨Smallville¨, ¨Boston legal¨, ¨Bones¨, ¨Fringe¨ and many others .
Rating : acceptable , 6 .
Only for Martin Sheen fans and spy genre buffs ..
Great thriller!.
I first saw this film on hbo around 1983 and I loved it!
I scoured all of the auction web sites to buy the vhs copy.
This is a very good suspense movie with a few twists that make it more interesting.
I don't want to say too much else because if you ever get a chance to see it, you'll be glad I didn't say too much!.
Great Cold War Spy Movie.
The CIA discovers a Russian plot to assassinate five defectives on the Christmas Day, but they do not know who they are.
The defective Alex Holbeck (Martin Sheen) is recruited in Paris by CIA and sent to East Berlin to steal the scrambler of the Enigma, the machine used by the soviet intelligence for communication.
On the arrival, Holbeck discovers that the KGB and the East Germany government know that he has arrived and his contacts are arrested.
Holbeck meets his former lover, the lawyer Karen Reinhardt (Brigitte Fossey), and she gives a safe house to him.
The Russian agent Dimitri Vasilikov (Sam Neill) and the East German agent Kurt Limmer (Derek Jacobi) try to find Holbeck's whereabout using different methods, while Karen seduces Dimitri to get the information about the location of the soldiers that Holbeck needs.
However Holbeck does not know that the CIA has the scrambler and he is only a bait to convince the Russians that they do not have it."Enigma" is a great thriller with a complex story during the Cold War. The screenplay is very well written and with good twists.
It is strange only the cast speaking English since the characters are Germans and Russians, but the cast is good and makes worthwhile watching this spy movie.
My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Enigma".
Nice work my Sheen & Neill.
Based on R2 DVD by EuroVideo 98 minDirection and editing could be better as the story is occasionally confusing for no good reason, lacks tension and the ending is very abrupt.
The DVD is in 4:3.All that aside, both stars [looking very young indeed] turn in respectable performances and the locations look authentic.6/10 a little generous but worth watching on TV.
Scrambled Mystery.
In Paris, American-born East German defector and radio talk show host Martin Sheen (as Alexander "Alex" Holbeck) is recruited by the CIA to go to Berlin and steal "The Enigma Machine" which scrambles secret Cold War spy messages.
This will help the US thwart the USSR's planned assassination of five defectors to the west.
In East Berlin, Mr. Sheen fools the KGB with various disguises.
He sprays silver in his hair, but it looks the same.
Sheen seeks out former girlfriend Brigitte Fossey (as Karen Reinhardt) and she sets out to seduce their "unsophisticated but shrewd" enemy, Moscow swimmer Sam Neill (as Dimitri Vasilikov).
Sheen sometimes appears bored with this confusing adaptation of a good idea.
His co-stars make their final confrontation scene work well.***** Enigma (1/28/83) Jeannot Szwarc ~ Martin Sheen, Brigitte Fossey, Sam Neill, Derek Jacobi.
A dry, tedious and utterly confusing waste of celluloid.
After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them.
I was wrong.
Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast.
Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion.
In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash.
The "espionage" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable.
The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements.
This could have been so much better..
A thrilling spy story, interwoven with a beautiful love story..
Enigma is a computer part which scrambles Russian messages, so that America can't understand them.
They can only be read by the intended recipient.
The Americans know that the Russians are going to transmit a message revealing the plans of five political assassinations they want to carry out.So they send in former defector Holbeck (Martin Sheen) to grab the scrambler and substitute a false part, so they'll be able to decode the message, and block the assassination attempts.However, as we listen in on the Americans heads of the spy organisation, we find that they already have the scrambler, and they want Holbeck to try to steal Enigma, only to convince the Russians that they don't already have it.
They don't expect Holbeck to succeed.
That way the Russians, who had stopped transmitting with Enigma, just in case, will begin transmitting again.Enigma is in the computer in the office of Dimitri Vasilikov.
Somehow Holbeck must gain access, and in order to do that, he must find out when Vasilikov will be out.
He sends in his former girlfriend Karen (Brigitte Fossey) to seduce Vasilikov, so that she can look through his papers and find out his scheduled movements.
Karen is glad to do it, as they tortured her father, a university professor, to death.Because we know that it's better for the Americans if Holbeck fails, the movie becomes even more intense as a spy thriller.
We find ourselves hoping he can survive against the odds, especially as he uses ingenious methods to beat the Russians at every turn.But what's this?
Are Karen and Vasilikov falling in love?
Will Holbeck win Karen back, or will she actually end up with Vasilikov?
The romantic twist lifts this spy thriller, already worthy of a ten, even higher, for its originality.
The writing, the direction, and the acting all combine to make this new and fascinating twist a compellingly realistic one.You find yourself at the edge of your seat, gripping your armchair, not only for the excitement of the spy story but for the intensely beautiful romantic love story as well.
The two themes are interwoven perfectly, right up to the end.
You really want both sides to win.
So who does win, in the end?
You'll have to see the movie and find out, won't you!.
Mediocre.
This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphere—and also a want, or a lack of it.Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress.
Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors.
Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.I will be your true friend and break it to you—the flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked.
Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation..
would have given it 1 star if not for the surprisingly unexpected ending ....
OK, so it was near the end of the 'golden era' of the Cold War and people, including secret agents on either side were supposed to believe the competition between the two blocks was real and they ought to fight for the freedom of capitalism on one side and the security of the labor camp on the other so either nation would keep quiet, say nothing and obey the authorities ...but c'mon, even back in the day anyone with a little extra gray matter in their skulls would know how stupid the entire show was, thus how fake the chilling war ...yes, there are a few good moments in the plot but long story short, if it weren't for the surprisingly unexpected good ending, i'd have given this boring movie just 1 'bad star' ....
Slow-paced spy drama.
ENIGMA is an under-the-radar Cold War drama of the 1980s, basically unknown to modern audiences.
A youthful Martin Sheen is tasked with entering East Germany and stealing secrets from the Russians, but Sam Neill is hot on his tail and has other ideas.
This is less a thriller in the BOURNE style and more a slow, deliberately paced spy drama like TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY.
The moments of it I enjoyed were chiefly those featuring cast members Sheen, Neill, and an against-type Derek Jacobi as the antagonist.
The likes of Michael Lonsdale, Warren Clarke, and Frank Finlay are also welcome by their presence.
Where the film falls down is in the very slow pace, which saps life from the picture, and the presence of the obligatory romantic sub-plot which couldn't be less interesting. |
tt0080031 | Tom Horn | Tom Horn, a legendary frontier scout and tracker who helped capture Geronimo, drifts around the quickly disappearing western frontier. The story begins as he rides into a small town and provokes prizefighter Jim Corbett, ending up in a livery stable, unconscious and badly bruised.
Cattle company owner John Coble finds Horn in the livery and offers him his ranch to recuperate. He also offers him work investigating and deterring cattle rustlers who steal from the grazing association to which Coble belongs. He implies that the association will support Horn in implementing vigilante justice. Horn accepts the offer and receives the approval of U.S. marshal Joe Belle at an association picnic where he also catches the eye of the local schoolteacher, Glendolene.
Calling himself a "stock detective," Horn confronts cowboys at an auction whose cattle bear Coble's brand. After giving them fair warning he goes on a one-man crusade to kill or otherwise drive off anyone who rustles the cattle of his benefactors.
Horn's methods are brutal but effective. After a public gunfight, the local townspeople become alarmed at his violent nature and public opinion turns against him. The owners of the large cattle companies realize that while he is doing exactly what they hired him to do, his tactics will ultimately tarnish their image and begin to plot his demise. Joe Belle, who has political ambitions, wants Horn out of the way for the same reasons. Their conspiracy is set in motion when a young boy tending sheep is shot by a .45-60; the same caliber rifle Tom Horn is known to use.
Horn is slow to realize that he is being set up. Proud and convinced of his own innocence, he refuses to leave the county or avoid the town. Glendolene and Coble try to warn him to be careful, but Horn ignores the warning. Joe Belle coaxes Horn out of a saloon and back to his office where a man transcribing their conversation is hidden in the next room. Horn does not admit to the murders but states that "If I did shoot that boy, it was the best shot I ever made." Based on this conversation Horn is taken prisoner.
Unaccustomed to being unable to come and go as he pleases into his beloved hills, Horn seems lost. He breaks out of jail and attempts to flee. He is recaptured and convicted based on the testimony of the newspaperman who skewed the conversation between Belle and Horn.
As his execution nears, Horn accepts his fate and remains resolved in the moments before he is hanged. | cult, neo noir, violence | train | wikipedia | Directed by William Wiard and based on a true story, "Tom Horn" opens in 1901, in Wyoming, where McQueen meets John C.
Coble (Richard Farnsworth) who offered him to ease up at his place for a while
Tom accepted, but he said I'd to earn my keep
Seeing Horn with great ability with a rifle, and after speaking with the Association, John asks him to eliminate the rustlers who have completely wiped out their herd profits not to mention what the buzzards and the predators have done to their cash crops
But after one incident has disturbed the Association in town, and the rustling has stopped, they determined to get rid of Horn forgetting he was only doing what they hired him to do
Mc Queen plays well the Indian tracker "scared to death of lobster, the man of the West "afraid to lose his freedom and not be able to get back up in those hills again." Linda Evans is appealing as the school teacher from Hawaii who saw a man of the Old West trying to live in the New
Richard Farnsworth is the loyal friend John C.
Coble who was quite sure that Tom never killed that kid
John advices him not to try to break out of the jail
He knows he can do it, but it's just admitting his guilt if he tries
Billy Green Bush is the U.S. Marshal Joe Belle who asks the newspaperman to sit behind the door and write lying down what he hears real good
Slims Pickens is the old Sheriff Sam Creed who arrested Tom
With a legendary hero, great photography and good direction "Tom Horn" is very good Western to watch.
Watching a film again and again allows one to really study the work and pick up the director's deep intent for character and plot.Watching Tom Horn a few times allows one to see that it really is a good movie.
During the scene when Tom Horn escapes and is running from the deputies, I felt that McQueen was giving it his all, and that he knew his time was short, "so why not show the fans I've still got it?" The way he was gasping for air, and just gave up running made me think he wasn't acting, and however he felt after that take hurt me just the same watching it.So let's not totally ignore what McQueen was trying to do.
As Tom Horn, McQueen, then suffering from a deadly form of lung cancer that would take his life only six months after the film's release, had a fittingly poignant role as the famed scout who faces his execution (on trumped-up charges) with a quiet dignity and weary resignation.
Really an under-rated film.Although McQueen is tired (physically) from his cancer, he plays off his physical condition to portray a 19th Century western hero who is past his prime and society's 20th Century double-moral standards.He is quite believable in this one and manages to avoid playing Steve McQueen "Vin"/Josh Randall.Half-way through the film you have a pretty good idea how the story will end, but the characterizations are good enough to keep you in your seat or, now with videos, on your couch until the end.
The film is distinctive in four ways, the first being that Steve McQueen finally returned to the screen after having spent the 1970s elsewhere.
There were a lot of movies beginning in the late 1960s with Clint Eastwood's "spaghetti westerns" which focused on the grisly righteousness of law enforcement, but it wasn't until Eastwood's "Unforgiven" (1998) that he finally made a movie that approached the quality of "Shane" and "Tom Horn," and employed some panoramic camera work.
And it foreshadowed Farnsworth's sucide twenty-two years later, a few months after being nominated, finally, for an Academy Award for his brilliant portrayal in "The Straight Story." McQueen, on-screen, and Farnsworth, on-screen and off, epitomized that quality of the Westerner least understood by people in the rest of the nation.
The real Tom Horn said, "The people in the Northeast hire us to protect them from the people in the South," and, "We find the thing, whatever it is, then somebody else gets the glory for bringing it down, and somebody else makes the money for taking it back to the folks in town," but "You can either laugh or cry at your fate, and that's not much of a choice, is it, pardner?" The droll stocism and sardonic wit of the cowboy, and the western tracker whether white or Indian, has always enchanted and mystified the rest of the nation, and never really been understood.
The movie, "Tom Horn," is a fitting tribute to the history and people of the northern plains, to Steve McQueen's artistry, to the memory of Richard Farnsworth, and to stories that are not easy to tell.
This film removes any doubt that at this stage of his career Steve McQueen had moved beyond his King of Cool persona and had become a great actor.
When he looks at his real-life good buddy Slim Pickens and tells him "Keep your nerve Sam, 'cause I'm gonna keep mine", it's one of the most poignant farewells in movie history.
It's a shame that this was not Mc Queen's final moment on film, or that "Tom Horn" was not his final movie.
" Tom Horn" deserves more praise , since this is a good western and one of last movies of Steve McQueen.
I felt sad at the end and that was the whole point.The movie made me sad , because it was not only the goodbye to Tom Horn, but also to Steve McQueen ("Papillon") .
Interesting but boring Western about the last days of a real-life Wyoming gunslinger named Tom Horn with Steve McQueen in the title role.
Good support cast who provides the best moments as Richard Farnsworth as old-timer who hires Horn , Slim Pickens and Billy Green Bush , both of them as Sheriffs , furthermore a beautiful Linda Evans and brief performance by the eternal secondary Elisha Cook Jr .
The hero is the hero because he can kill the bad guys; the fact that lawlessness most often means the bad guys kill the heroes is conveniently ignored, while the law is stigmatised as corrupt.'Tom Horn', Steve MacQueen's penultimate film, is an uncommonly strong western, even though Horn is both a sharp shooter and morally virtuous.
The difference in emphasis between this film and, say, Clint Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' is subtle but crucial: whereas in that film, Eastwood's character was presented as morally compelled to kill, Horn is simply the victim of living through times where the boundaries of individual licence are coming under strain.
As one of my personal favorite westerns I have looked at this film several times and wondered how McQueen was able to give such a fine performance as the title role of Tom Horn.
McQueen signed on to do the role in 1977, and would spent three years researching the role and even spending the night at Tom Horn's grave to help develop the his character.
The saga of Tom Horn - a real-life "enforcer" of Old West days - held a particular fascination for another legend.
Hollywood icon Steve McQueen starred in and executive-produced what would be his next-to-last movie, a gritty, exciting recreation of Horn's latter-day career in a turn-of-the-century West where gentler ways supplanted the law of the gun - and Horn would be an unwitting victim of that change.Linda Evans, Richard Farnsworth, Billy Green Bush and Slim Pickens head a strong cast in a film capturing the essence of a time when a man's word was only as good as his guns or fists.
Shot on serenely beautiful Arizona locations, Tom Horn indelibly brings to life one of the West's truly unsung heroes.McQueen's Tom Horn remains to me an unfairly dismissed film.
The film also built up genuine suspense towards the end and the audience really felt sympathy for the Horn character, a quality hard to find in films of today.The script was also at times sharp and was humorous (look at the great scene between Horn and the soon to be Heavy Weight Champion of the World) and it really complemented McQueen's acting performance.The film boasts excellent photography, shot on beautiful Arizona locations (the hills, the sky, the sunset) and direction from William Wiard.
Tom Horn remains an underrated film of excellence which any fan of Steve McQueen or Western's should not miss out on....
I'm a fan of both Westerns and Steve McQueen, but I found this film disappointing.
"Let me ask you something...Are you really Tom Horn?"The question might as well be "Are you really Steve McQueen", as it's really him lying beaten in a horse stall to whom Richard Farnsworth asks the question, in this sad, bedraggled Western farewell both to the celebrated bounty hunter and to the Hollywood legend who plays him here.
"Tom Horn" was McQueen's first action-hero role in over five years, and though he would play another bounty hunter just a few short weeks later in his last film, "The Hunter", this feels oh too much like his goodbye.It's a sad film, too much so by my lights.
McQueen has discarded his crown as "King Of Cool", and it is a bit awkward seeing him so discomfited, even if his off-center performance gives "Tom Horn" nearly all the spark it has.Horn is a throwback to the old West, who in the dawn of the 20th century is hired to do away with some cattle rustlers plaguing a community.
The film then becomes a long, slow waltz, between Horn on one end and the gallows on the other.The film is credited to director William Wiard, though Mike Sutton of DVD Times and TrevorAclea on this site say it was McQueen himself at the helm, jumping in after firing more seasoned directors.
Whether Horn really did murder the boy in question seems in doubt, but McQueen's character allows for no explanation, a strange and frustrating stance for an innocent man to take."I'm a little bored," Horn says.
He gives one of his very best performances as Tom Horn, personification of the Old West with all its strengths, flaws and contradictions.
The director, William Wiard, was an experienced TV hand who feels out of his depth handling the bigger picture, although individual scenes are controlled pretty well.All in all, McQueen is the reason to see this movie, although its fundamental theme - the duplicity of vested interests - is unfortunately as current as ever.
What makes this movie at least partially interesting is the fact that it's based on the writings of actual Tom Horn, an Old West lawman, outlaw and gunfighter.
Character motivations are poorly established or they seem to change between scenes - I theorize this is because the real life events probably took place over significant amount of time, which the movie doesn't establish at all.
And then there's the ending, which I thought a total cop-out, but it is explained somewhat by the "based on real events" thing, so in retrospect it wasn't THAT bad.Still, Steve McQueen is rather good as Tom Horn, the rest of the actors are passable, the film looks fine given its age and if you like westerns, you should get your fix of cattle ranches, big open plains, gunfights and blue skies from this film.Not a good film in my opinion, mostly because they didn't seem to know how to adapt the original writings to a working film.
Tom Horn is one of the last pictures ever made by Steve McQueen.
This picture was released in theaters on March 28 1980 starring Steve McQueen as Tom Horn Linda Evans as Glendolene Kimmel, and Richard Farnsworth as John C Coble.
I thought Steve McQueen was great in his role as Tom Horn.
Some actors when they play a hero like Tom Horn let it go to their head and Steve McQueen was nowhere close to that.
"Tom Horn" is Steve McQueen's second to last film.
In the movie, he plays a real life character--a gunman in the west that was a hired gun and reportedly killed a lot of people.
The movie also shortchanges the extraordinary real early life of Tom Horn..
Yet, I was glad to have finally seen this movie, however, even if it was so long overdue, and think that many of the poor reviews (not here) are unjustified.This movie is SO Steve McQueen: a tough guy with few words, a likeble man ("Tom Horn,"the title character) who gets the job done no matter how tough the assignment; a guy the prettiest woman in town goes for and a man who gets respect of the other (good) men in town.
To paraphrase McQueen in this story, it's like, "Hey, if you don't know who I am and what I'm all about I am by now, well....do what you gotta do."Anyway, much of the film is a good western, nicely photographed and uniquely low-key with McQueen hired by a bunch of ranchers (an "Association") to put a stop to all the rustling that has been going on in the area recently.
**Contains Possible Spoilers** A dramatization based on the true story of a legendary frontiersman, `Tom Horn' depicts the final years in the life of this tracker, interpreter and hero of the Apache Wars.
Just another guy looking for work; and this is the Tom Horn that McQueen delivers to the screen, perceptively avoiding any feigned heroics or superfluous contrivances that would have given him that sense of being larger-than-life.
His Tom Horn is a proud man, without being steeped in ego; and it's that down-to-earth attitude that makes him real, and gives distinction to this film.
With an excellent supporting cast which includes Linda Evans (Glendolene), Slim Pickens (Sam), Roy Jenson (Mendenhour) and Geoffrey Lewis (Walter Stoll), `Tom Horn' is an honest study of life during an era of change; of the politics and prevailing attitudes that contributed to the shaping of a new century.
Steve McQueen's next to last film was a study of western legend Tom Horn and the last job he took in Wyoming as an enforcer for the big ranchers in 1903.McQueen's real life Tom Horn is in the same dilemma as the fictional John Bernard Books that John Wayne created for The Shootist.
In the end unlike Books in relatively civilized Carson City choosing the manner of his demise, Horn gets hung probably for a crime he didn't commit, but mostly because he was an anachronism in the 20th Century.Steve McQueen turns in a good performance as the aging Horn and such fine players as Linda Evans, Billy Green Bush, Slim Pickens, the aforementioned Richard Farnsworth ably support McQueen.
The real Tom Horn was one of the most tragic gunfighters of the Old West, but the story here only deals with the last couple years of his life, just as it's star was sadly winding down his.
Steve McQueen has always been one of my favorite TV cowboy and movie action heroes, and it was discomfiting to see him trudge through this role knowing that his end was near from the ravages of mesothelioma.A better film would have had a young McQueen portray the former Army chief of scouts who left home at fourteen to escape an abusive father, live with the Apaches, and later track Geronimo to his eventual capture.
For the spectator who has seen McQueen as the unbeatable hero of The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape,watching him carrying the rifle ,tracking down the rustlers while catching his breath,running heavily,but yet never missing a target, is hard to accept.As the film also reaches its end,showing Horn getting arrested,his look gazed at the mountains afar through the bars of the jail window,his bright eyes,his calm face,you realize that this is not a defeat.
I was so shocked by Steve McQueen's death, that I could not see this film during years.
Tom Horn is an unusual western, a must for everyone who likes the genre.
This idea must have sounded good over lines and drinks in pre-production.Mostly an uninspired retread of a standard Western formula - "a man of the old west trying to live in the new," as Linda Evans bluntly rasps in one of the awkward love scenes.
Steve McQueen is memorable, but "Tom Horn" isn't..
Steve McQueen delivers a memorable performance filled with character and nuance as the real-life Indian tracker, cavalry scout, and range detective in television director William Wiard's biographical western "Tom Horn," co-starring Linda Evans, Richard Farnsworth, Billy Green Bush, Elisha Cook, Geoffrey Lewis, and Slim Pickens.
That's for the story.Yet many 'better' stories could have been told about Tom Horn actually, the man was legend material yet never got a proper western to pay tribute to his legacy.
Horn couldn't care less about the twentieth century.It was quite a bold choice to dedicate the film to the anticlimactic demise of the Western legend, but who knew at that time that the destiny of Steve McQueen would follow an eerily similar path, ending brutally in 1980.
In the film, Horn isn't much a hero as a martyr of what remains from the 'frontier spirit'.Whether McQueen saw all that in Horn or simply wanted to rehabilitate him (which is good enough a reason) is irrelevant, just like Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" or Coppola's "Apocalypse Now", some movies are made in such frantic and chaotic contexts they can only be destined for the best or the worst, and some of them unfortunately get too personal for the business.
"Tom Horn" might have been greater or more iconic had Siegel directed it but I believe the film came just at the wrong time for the Western genre...
"Tom Horn" drifts across so many conventions of the Western genre, it could have been from Bloody Sam himself (hell, even Slim Pickens is there). |
tt0796314 | A Dog's Breakfast | Patrick (David Hewlett) is single, loves his dog (Mars the Dog) and still lives in his parents' house ten years after their death. Shortly before Christmas, Patrick's sister Marilyn (Kate Hewlett) visits Patrick to introduce him to Ryan (Paul McGillion), a science fiction television star.
After accidentally knocking Ryan out with a cricket bat, Patrick is shocked to learn of Marilyn's engagement to Ryan. Patrick also overhears a dialogue excerpt that Ryan cites over the phone, which makes Patrick believe that Ryan wants to kill Marilyn. From this time on, Patrick tries everything in his power to protect his sister. But an apparently fatal accident happens: While Patrick is on the phone with Marilyn, Ryan tries to mount Christmas lights and falls off the ladder. Patrick panics and tries everything to hide Ryan's death from his sister. As such, Patrick arranges a blind date between Marilyn and Chris (Christopher Judge) to get time to dispose the body in the garden and in a lake nearby. But Ryan's dead body reappears each time. When Marilyn alerts the police that Ryan is missing, Ryan's aunt investigates Ryan's disappearance. After first suspecting Marilyn, Patrick's cover blows.
Because it looks bad for Marilyn, the siblings decide to dismember Ryan's body and give it to Mars and the neighbors' dogs as food. Finally, when Patrick admits that Ryan has basically always been a friend to him, Marilyn reveals her plan: She and Ryan just faked his death, and the body that Patrick has been trying to get rid of has been Marilyn's sex doll all the time. Ryan has assumed the role of his aunt.
Some time later, when Patrick grows comfortable with the idea to accept Ryan as his brother-in-law, Ryan's sister Elise (Amanda Byram) arrives but is not enthused with the upcoming wedding. A love at first sight between Patrick and Elise is apparent. While Marilyn shows her sister-in-law to-be the house, Ryan leads Patrick to the lake, with a moose figure behind his back. | insanity, comedy, dark | train | wikipedia | I actually rented this movie expecting to be disappointed.We laughed almost the entire way through the film, and it was so strange and hilarious that I intend to purchase it at my first opportunity.
David and Kate Hewlett are obviously siblings, but they actually capture that antagonistic sibling relationship very well.These are the type of independent films I wish were being made.
David Hewlett, who wrote and directed, is hilarious as resentment builds to homicidal mania, showing an unsuspected flair for slapstick and pratfalls: its a (literally!) knock-out performance.
Paul McGillon (also from 'Stargate Atlantis') is a genial Ryan, the undeserving target of Patrick's frenzy, while Kate Hewlett (David's actual sister) is delightfully less demure than at first she seems.
The twisty story and hilarious characterizations made this first film of Mr. Hewlett's a pleasure to watch, Other reviewers have commented on the clever plot and terrific performances, so I won't repeat that praise here - suffice it to say that I giggled my way through the movie.Clever costuming really added to my enjoyment of the film - just quirky enough to establish character without distracting from the story.
Director Hewlett used wide angle shots with a stationary camera to great effect for some of the outdoor scenes without overdoing it - the choices he made really added to the mood of the film.
And actor Hewlett's expressive face and hilarious delivery made Patrick a very real person instead of the caricature that he easily could have become.
The perfect combination.I was lucky enough to attend the London screening of ADB at the beginning of February 2007, with Mr David Hewlett, his sister Kate, fiancé Jane and producer John Lenic from Stargate in attendance to answer questions after the show.
It's hard to review a movie like this without giving anything away, and I don't want to write any spoilers.
The sibling rivalry in the movie is great to see, and even funnier knowing that David and Kate actually are brother and sister.
The other roles were fairly short, all the actors were great, and I personally hope that we'll get to see "Starcrossed" - the space opera in the movie that is to become a real TV-show soon, so we can see what Paul and Rachel can do in a comedic role (and even if that's not the direction it will take, and even if Paul and Rachel weren't in it, I'd still want to see it.
Again, it's hard to say more without giving bits away, and every little clip from the movie is worth watching without knowing what will happen...
even though the second time you watch the movie (personal experience), you'll enjoy it even more.
And I wish I could say more, but again I'd go into spoiler-area.So from giggling, to laughing out loud, from going "ewww", to seeing a lot more David Hewlett than you've ever wanted to see (or finally enough!, depending on your point of view!), you'll want to watch this movie again and again, ask for a REAL theatrical release by MGM, or at least that the DVDs come out soon!!
This film, written and directed by David Hewlett of "Stargate Atlantis" fame, is a charmingly funny first endeavor.
It features several of his fellow cast members and friends from the Stargate franchise, as well as his witty and lovely sister, Kate Hewlett, who has also appeared on "Atlantis."As revealed by the cast and producers in the DVD commentaries, the comedy's delightful humor springs from the relationships of the people who created it.
Even the rain, mud, and muck of British Columbia provide key atmosphere and serve as comedic props.While many big Hollywood comedies of late seem to try too hard and go too far, the time spent with this goofy family is sure to put a smile on your face and giggles in your belly..
So, yeah, I had a really good time, and a lot of good laughs, and will definitely be buying this one on DVD when it comes out..
I thought this would be a so-so vanity project for an actor (David Hewlett), but this is one of the best comedies on film.
Think "Napoleon Dynamite" but better, oh Hollywood machine!Best of all, this film is very original - dark, but sophisticated, intelligent and good-natured.
I loved this movie - there were so many laugh out loud bits, but there were some great sequences which made you cringe, but left you unable to do anything other than watch in fascinated disbelief?
The bits you see on the clips from you tube are just the start.David, Kate and Paul have perfect comic timing, how they kept a straight face i will never know.
Lots of ohs and aahs at certain peoples screen appearances, with much applause and adulation at the end of the movie.This film rocks - and i don't think it is necessary to be a Stargate fan to appreciate it.
Not once did i feel that there was a lack in the budget or the strength of the acting.The dog's breakfast is a must see movie, and i would highly recommend it to everyone..
Oh and a Dog. The acting and timing is spot on perfect meaning that some scenes require no dialogue but are carried by the sheer strength of the actors' performances.
On top of that David Hewlett has gotten to know his fan base and asked them to get involved creating the "Squrirrels" who are helping to spread the word.
I adore independent films, however, and even if this movie had not been picked up by MGM it would have carried its own weight as such.There is nothing better than the comedic timing of skilled actors, and all those involved in this production had a chemistry that is second to none.
David and Kate have brought to film their childhood sibling rivalry and honed their skills as actors to pull it off.
They did so beautifully.I love David Hewlett as part of the Stargate franchise, as well as Paul McGillion, Christopher Judge, and Rachel Luttrell, but am now a huge fan of Kate Hewlett's as well.Well played, my friends.
I can't wait to get out the projector and have my own special screening of this film.Naturally, the star of the movie is Mars, the dog.
The interspersed scenes of the in-film science fiction series are an added bonus for anyone who is a fan of Hewlett's and McGillion's work on Stargate: Atlantis.
First off, let me say that I went into this movie not knowing anything about it other than the title, which only caught my interest because I thought it was a very obscure Kurt Vonnegut reference.About ten minutes into the film, (once I realized it had nothing to do with Vonnegut whatsoever), I almost turned it off.
David Hewlett's portrayal of the neurotic and disturbed Patrick is flawless, and the on screen chemistry with his real life sister Kate adds an amazingly real touch of sibling rivalry.
Paul McGillion plays the part of the cheesy actor to a T.The jokes keep rolling throughout the movie.
I'm not one to try to figure out the end of a movie, but the plot is thin to the point of the ethereal in a few spots, which allows one to easily deduce the film's resolution.In any case, A fine debut from David Hewlett, and I will watch what will likely be his meteoric rise with great anticipation..
It's one of the best I've seen!!Good job to all the cast (including the adorable doggies) and crew for making such a fantastic and enjoyable movie!.
Even after watching it a few times I will keep finding little things that I missed because I was laughing so hard before.
This is a great movie that I hope everyone enjoys as much as I did!.
I really enjoyed the performances as well, especially by Kate Hewlett & Paul McGillion, who, outside of Stargate Atlantis, I had not seen before.
And David Hewlett is just one of those people I would be happy to watch read the phone book.
I was unsure about watching a movie because i was a fan of the show the actor came from.
David Hewlett and his sister Kate Hewlett should do many more films together!
Having the Stargate/Atlantis in the cast was a plus for me, but i can't tell you how many people i've asked to watch who were not fan's of Atlantis and they've also loved this film.
I applause David Hewlett and all the actors in the movie for a job well done.
David Hewlett and Kate Hewlett play the family tie really well, and you can tell there are a lot of true brother-and-sister moments in the film.
David is so funny in the movie.
Lots of laughs, interesting story, and great actors.
Having been a fan of sci-fi for a long time it is always good to get to see actors you like getting to do something different.
I'm about to confess something no Stargate: Atlantis fan should ever confess: I didn't like "A Dog's Breakfast." I thought the humor was forced and stale for the most part.
But honestly, David Hewlett was playing a character altogether too similar to Rodney McKay, except ten times dumber, which is not a good thing, in my opinion.Although, admittedly, Chris Judge's couple of scenes were hilarious.
Almost worth sitting through the boring, forced mess that is the rest of the film, which has an almost Home Alone meets Sweeney Todd feel, without the stirring musical numbers (which it might have been able to use).Overall, I think Hewlett was just trying too hard..
I was probably expecting a little bit more which is pretty normal with any movie and I did catch onto the main plot concept very short into the movie, however, while I had an idea of what was going to happen, the way it happened caught me by major surprise.
If you are looking for a movie to laugh at, make you go "Did they just do that?" and then at some point see a scene and go "Oh my, I have actually done that before".
In the end great movie, great dog, but really Hewlett is the star and gives it everything it needs.
i was more than surprised at how fun this movie was.i do like David Hewlett in his TV roles,but not seen much of him in movies,i got this purely out of curiosity,and was not disappointed.
a great directorial debut,possibly hard to follow because now will be expecting as good or better next time.
by the way the big break out star of this movie is mars the dog,he was wonderful and cute too!.
A wonderfully witty, clever and just plain fun movie that the whole family can enjoy.Great acting, stunts and facial expressions that are absolutely hilarious.
The people are pretty funny too!As actor, writer and debut director, David Hewlett got this puppy right his first time out.And watch through to the end of the credits.
This movie proves that you don't need a giant budget and lots of special effects to make a great film.
Staying at the one location the entire time with a limited pool of actors.The humor is amazing and the acting is great, it was very funny to me to see the stargate actors out of their usual characters but they did a splendid job.
David Hewlett, as always, did not once look like he was acting.
Looking forward to seeing a lot more of you David!I enjoyed this movie a lot and it's one I've been recommending to everyone since the moment I saw it, it may take a while to get used to the unusual style but once you're in the rhythm you won't regret it!A very well deserved 8 from me..
David Hewlett wrote the script for this film, where he plays a slightly mentally challenged weird guy living alone and having to contend with his sister (played by his real sister) bringing a fiancée on Christmas.
Some of the guys in Stargate Atlantis also helped, although only Paul McGillion has a major part.The film is fun, a bit silly, feeling more like a 3 person play + extras rather than a movie.
When you laugh, you know you laugh because you are watching a comedy, not because you are "inside"; it would be pretty scary actually feeling inside the script, otherwise.Bottom line: I am not really the comedy type; I've watched the movie because of David Hewlett.
Other people might enjoy it more, I found it frustrating, but perhaps because I understood the main character a lot better than the "normals" in the film..
I was expecting regular B movie plots and acting, but I was quite surprised.
If you think all films should look like they were shot on a $20 million dollar budget with A list actors, do not bother with this little gem, that is OK, us Hewlett fans are fine keeping the film for ourselves..
David Hewlett does an outstanding job in the role of Patrick, the somewhat eccentric and slightly psychotic older brother of Marilyn, played by Hewlett's real-life sister, Kate Hewlett.The title of the movie is quite appropriate, although it may take you until the end of the movie to understand it.
This uproarious, black comedy is a must-see for anyone who likes to laugh and have a good time.
And you will see more of David "Dr Rodney McKay" Hewlett than you would expect.Also in the movie are Kate Hewlett (David's sister), Rachel Luttrell (Teyla), Paul McGillion (Dr Beckett), Christopher Judge (Teal'c) and of course, Mars, David's real life adorable dog.I was able to talk personally with David and his sister, Kate, who is the female star of the movie.
Given that it this is David Hewlett's directing debut (no doubt under the watchful gaze of long time Yoda and chum, Vincenzo Natali among others)Hewlett exhibits a creative flair that marks this film out as distinctively his own.
Perhaps horror.I personally love extremity of character, and Hewlett's performance as the endearing Patrick demonstrated well paced comic timing and relished in the sort of classy but not too crude slapstick that Peter Sellers would have been proud of.
Many who have never heard the word Stargate have absolutely loved it.I also wondered whether one of the more memorable scenes involving THAT dressing gown and McGillion, had been at all influenced by Cary Grant in 'Bringing up Baby';-)?I hope this is the first rung on the long ladder of Hewlett's directing career with preferably Jane supporting the ladder;-)yup, the boy done good!.
The really quirky wardrobe adds a bit of weirdness to these oddball characters and that's pretty fun, too.Since I'm a huge David Hewlett fan, I really thought I'd like his first attempt at directing and I was right.
Also, the extras such as how the film was made and how it all came together was interesting and amusing.Christopher Judge is really fun, and Mars the dog is a delight.
A Laugh out Loud movie even after you watch it..
I saw the trailer for this movie, and thought it looked funny, but when i watched it i never knew it was going to be probably one of the funniest movies i had ever seen.
David Hewlett's acting is superb, and so spot on, i thought all his facial expressions, and antics, well just everything was what made the movie so funny.
Paul McGillion and Kate Hewlett just added the comedy that David's screaming couldn't fill up.
You will be giggling through this whole movie.David Hewlett has managed to create a film that evokes all the fun about the "old-fashioned" dark comedy.
(The "violence" is all implied, in case you're squeamish like I am.) It not only features a great performance from David himself, but you also throw in his real-life sister Kate Hewlett and his friend Paul McGillion and you get a whole lot of fun.
(Look for David's dog Mars to steal several scenes while in the foreground and background.) You might recognize all of these actors (and much of the listed crew) from the TV shows Stargate Atlantis and Stargate SG-1.
This won't really take you there, except for poking a little fun at their other jobs."A Dog's Breakfast" is well worth watching as David Hewlett is sure to be a name to watch in the future..
It is English humor and slap-stick comedy at it's very best from the cricket bat to the karate fight to the ax scene.I just die laughing every time I watch the part where Patrick(David Hewlett's character) is yelling, "Dance, Monkey, Dance!" and then runs around screaming like a girlie girl.
It's done tastefully for the laugh and yet is still a great family film.
I love David Hewlett's acting and the acting of his sister, Paul, Chris, and Rachael.
All of the actors in this movie due a great job of making the laughter nonstop.A great movie to watch with teenagers and with families to poke fun at how strange families really can be together.The main character played by David Hewlett continually cracked me up, and made me think of what it would actually be like to have a brother.
I had to watch it twice because I was laughing so hard I missed things the first time though.The actor were fabulous.
Any Stargate fan will love this movie with David Hewlett version of it in the movie.
There is not a wasted line, a wasted frame, or a failed turn in plot.At first, I felt a tad put off by Patrick but then I related him to eccentric people I know and fell into watching the story play out with a final playful twist or turnabout.By the way, I loved the sister character and actress.
This film has both.This film feels like either a play or a made for teevee movie.
I felt this way throughout the film, but I am okay with having watched it to the end. |
tt0077530 | Eyes of Laura Mars | Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) is a glamorous fashion photographer who specializes in stylized violence (based upon the work of Helmut Newton, who provided the photos used for the film). In the middle of controversy over whether her photographs glorify violence and are demeaning to women, Laura begins seeing, in first person through the eyes of the killer, real-time visions of the murders of her friends and colleagues.
John Neville (Tommy Lee Jones), the lieutenant in charge of the case, shows Laura unpublished police photographs of unsolved murders that very closely mirror Laura's fashion shoots. Laura's visions continue, including visions of the killer stalking her and continuing to murder those around her. Meanwhile, Laura and Neville fall in love. The murders continue as Laura's various colleagues, acquaintances and past romantic interests come in and out of focus as potential suspects or victims, until a final confrontation between Laura and the killer occurs.
At her apartment, Laura is affected by one last vision of the killer, who has now come for her. The killer attempts to break in through her front door, but Laura deadbolts it before he/she can enter. Upon hearing her distress, Neville (who had been on his way to meet her) breaks through her balcony window. He proceeds to tell Laura they have caught the killer, a troubled colleague of hers named Tommy, and begins an elaborate explanation of Tommy's motivations and back story. Knowing Tommy well, Laura recognizes this as a lie and that Neville himself is the killer. As Neville details more of his own story, it is implied that he may have multiple personalities. Because of this, and his love for her, he cannot bring himself to murder her and instead asks that she end his life. She shoots him to death, calling the police as the camera view closes in on her eyes. | cult, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Combining the improbable worlds of violence and fashion, with a story that centers on a famous photographer (Dunaway) and her ability to *see* her friends and colleagues being stalked and murdered, *Eyes* has moments of serious suspense, but that's hardly the reason to see this movie.
Utilizing the actual photography of fashion god Helmut Newton, the film maker has exquisitely captured the 1978 New York fashion and disco scene in a way that none of the recent looks at the Seventies has been able to, but then, again, this movie was *made* in 1978, not 27 years later.
This 1978 chiller directed by Irvin Kerschner (RoboCop 2) and based on a story by John Carpenter, has Faye Dunaway as a fashion photographer who suddenly discovers that she has the ability to "see" through the eyes of a serial killer.
But I found it to be suspenseful and it could be considered a forerunner of today's erotic thrillers.Faye Dunaway is Laura Mars, a fashion/glamour photographer whose work is controversial in that some say it glorifies both sex and violence towards women.
She then finds out that a detective (Tommy Lee Jones) has already been investigating some cases where murder scenes closely resembled her photos.Dunaway is always consistent in delivering good performances and this one is no exception.
A surprisingly forgotten gem of a psychological thriller, Eyes of Laura Mars is a unique and sophisticated shocker that stands out from the normal variety of thrillers.NYC fashion photographer is having visions where she sees through the eyes of the murderer that's targeting the people around her.
But what will she do when she sees said murderer coming after her?Eyes of Laura Mars was originally based upon a screenplay by master horror director John Carpenter, which isn't surprising considering just how imaginative and effectively frightening that this film comes off.
Brad Dourif is good as the shifty-eyed driver, as is Raul Julia as Dunaway's wretched ex-husband.Eyes of Laura Mars is on a level above the average terror film.
It does manage to successfully keep you guessing just who the killer is.Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:--Contains a decent amount of fairly well-known actors including Faye Dunaway, Tommy Lee Jones, Brad Dourif (better known as Chucky from the Child's Play series), Raul Julia, and Rene Auberjonois (famous for his Star Trek: Deep Space Nine role).
Holy crap!Memorable Scene:--Nice climax to the film.Fun Fact:--The photographic art in the film is actually from professional "glamour" photographer Helmut Newton.Acting: 8/10 , Story: 8/10 , Atmosphere: 7/10 , Cinematography: 8/10 , Character Development: 7/10 , Special Effects/Make-up: 7/10 , Dialog: 7/10 , Music: 6/10 , Direction: 9/10Nudity/Sexuality: 5/10 , Violence: 6/10 , Gore: 3/10Cheesiness: 2/10 , Crappiness: 0/10Overall: 7/10Finally, I would recommend this to hardcore horror/thriller fans or film buffs.
Faye Dunaway {Mars}, Tommy Lee Jones {Neville}, Brad Dourif {horror staple that he is} and Rene Auberjonois give credit to well formed characters.
I won't blow the end of the film (as others may) by giving away the twists and turns.There are a few decent performances in the movie - including Rene Auberjunois as Laura's 'flamboyantly flaming' manager, assistant and best friend.
There are gripping scenes here to be sure, but the film drags quite a bit and nothing virtually happens for a long period of time.For seasoned giallo fans, we know the killer is most definitely gonna be the most unlikely one, and for a lack of suspects, I didn't find it hard to figure out who was guilty, but there's pretty much no logic to support it (but that's a giallo trademark, a pro rather than a con actually).
EYES OF LAURA MARS as we all know is a murder in furs drama with Joan Crawford...er Faye Dunaway dropping her NETWORK Oscar long enough to recommence more schlock, but this time with a camera.
In 1978 when "Eyes of Laura Mars" was released,it was hailed by both critics and public alike as an innovative super natural thriller but it is certainly much more than a popular film belonging to thriller genre.It is one of those films which continue to remain highly influential due to the times in which they were shot.There is hardly anyone who does not know about the swinging seventies and its importance in the history of American cinema.The fact that famous Hollywood actors like Tommy Lee Jones and Faye Dunaway played leading roles in this film have ensured that this is a film whose popularity has grown tremendously over the years as people seem to find new meanings and personal interpretations of what they see through the eyes of the leading lady character.Eyes of Laura Mars is also one of the most vivid,psychedelic glimpses into the realms of fashion and glamor industry where gorgeous models and innovative designers have definitely more foes than friends.It must be mentioned that the haughty arrogant of police bother them as they do not seem to get preferential treatment at police headquarters solely on the basis of their glamor and charisma.As far as the thriller element of this film is concerned,director Irvin Kershner gives too many frequent albeit severe doses of shocks to his audience.This is one of the reasons why in the end,the film's obnoxious killer turns out to be the man whom the crowd had least expected to commit savage atrocities against helpless beautiful women.A final word of advice.Do not be astonished if this film fails to impress you..
Faye Dunaway is an icy, Gothic presence as New York City fashion photographer Laura Mars, stooping and gliding in her chiffon wraps while taking pictures with sexy and violent themes for magazine layouts and chic advertisements.
It's like looking at one of the photo books about decadant urban nightlife - disco, models, lesbianism, gay b'day parties, Faye-dearest, Tommy lee-needs dermabrasion-Jones,and a token serial killer thrown in.
Faye Dunaway played Laura Mars, a successful, controversial New York City art photographer, with a psychic vision.
But the script was written by John Carpenter.Among the film's other assets are all the time-capsule location shots in Manhattan, the now-quaint disco soundtrack, the Helmut Newton-style "photo session scenes", and a strong supporting cast which includes Tommy Lee Jones as a homicide detective who becomes romantically involved with the titular Miss Mars.
With this work which John wrote "Eyes of Laura Mars" is one filled suspense thriller of drama and violence that keeps a viewer on the edge of their seat and it twist with a surprise.
Set in New York City Faye Dunaway is an art fashion model photographer who starts to have visions of killings that are being done by a serial killer just like a psychic she sees it before it actually happens.
And valuable for that reason.And they sort of define that old, over-used idea that "it's so bad it's good." Ultimately, despite the elements that don't entirely work, the overall film just does.Film critic Janet Maslin said about it at the time, "...It's the cleverness of EYES that counts, cleverness that manifests itself in superlative casting, dryly controlled direction from Irvin Kershner, and spectacular settings that turn New York into the kind of eerie, lavish dreamland that could exist only in the idle noodlings of the very, very hip..." And George Lucas hired Irvin Kershner to direct THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK on the strength of EYES OF LAURA MARS..
The plot = Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) plays a fashion photographer who takes pictures of models in violence situations, but soon she starts having dreams and visions of her friends getting killed, through the eyes of the killer, as she tries to figure out whats going on, she becomes romantically involved with a detective John Neville (Tommy Lee Jones) and they both try solve these crimes before it becomes too late.This thriller from the late 70's is a very slick and stylish affair, a good old fashioned stalk and slash fair, although not entirely a slasher movie per say, but still a pretty decent suspenseful thriller.
The stalking scenes and close-ups of the ice pick are just enough to add a psycho's tough to this underrated piece.Okay it's not perfect there are a few minor bad points, like the storyline do slow down in parts, like after a murder and the ending is also lacking thrills, but other than those points it's still a thrilling ride.The performances is what truly makes this movie work, Faye Dunaway is excellent as the lead Laura Mars, along with Tommy Lee Jones in one of his early roles as the detective and love interest, they're chemistry with each other and watching they're relationship develop further as the movie progressed was a real highlight.
The late Raul Julia plays the sleazy husband really well but we don't see enough of him, and the flamboyant friend Donald Phelps (Rene Auberjonois) was brilliant in his role, he switches from funny to serious really well and the models Lulu (Darlanne Fluegel) and Michele (Lisa Taylor) were stunning and a lot of fun, and this movie makes you feel for these characters especially when it comes to they're demise.So all in all a fashionable thriller with excellent performances with a fun 70's disco soundtrack and great suspenseful scenes..
It's the deliciously debauched and decadent late Seventies, and highly successful fashion photographer Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) plies her trade in the most sensational manner possible, using New York City as her canvas, painting images of violence and death to sell overpriced couture.But like some sort of cosmic karmic joke played on her, maybe by Death itself, Laura suddenly receives an unwanted and terrifying gift.
Dunaway gives one of her signature solid performances, and Tommy Lee Jones is pretty good in this early role for him, as the cop that Laura turns to for protection and much more.An also pre-stardom Raul Julia (here featured as "R.J." for some unknown reason) has what amounts to little more than a cameo, and just in case you had any doubts about the setting of this piece, Rene Auberjonois nearly peels the paint off the walls with his totally non-PC turn as Laura's flamboyant best friend and confidante.
I saw "the eyes of Laura Mars" when it was theatrically released and I must say it has not improved with time.French critics were raving about the "deep" "meaningful" "insightful" psychological implications of the screenplay (some are still ) but today it looks rather like a farce,a masquerade .Leonard Maltin was right when he wrote that the " Dunaway's colleagues' lifestyles are a real turnoff".The chic atmosphere of the whole affair has the sincerity of cellophane.Most of the ideas were borrowed from Hitchcock,notably "Marnie" , "rear window" and many more,without any talent or humor.Dunaway's part which leads her to overact as she never did before predates "Mommie dearest".The main attraction is Tommy Lee Jones we rarely see "young" in the movies of the silver screen."The eyes of Laura Mars" is finally a whodunit-with-the culprit-you'll-never- guess .Flashy and far-fetched..
It can really only ever be one person and without that mystery to lean on this film doesn't really have anything else going for it unless you really like watching Faye Dunaway fill up nearly every scene with the same awkward fit of hysteria over and over again.Sorry, I'll take some 70's Argento or something similar over this movie any day..
What could go wrong?Everything.A great premise is wasted and never used to full effect (did the killer have glaucoma?), a hideous Barbra Streisand title song, pedestrian directing, no tension (the killer is obvious from the start), no pace, wastes good performances by Dunaway and Dourif, the model's look like cheap hookers and finally every conceivable aspect is hideously dated.It is not even bad in a funny or kitsch way.
Totally lacking in any special effects, this film downplays the supernatural element (which is incidentally never explained or reasoned) in favour of a murder-mystery thriller type plot with copious use of red herrings.Faye Dunaway is the pale, fragile-looking lead, and being a leading actress of her time, as you would expect she is good and a character to root for.
The script was written by John Carpenter, better known as a director (although he did not direct this film), and the fact that the killer turns out to be a psychotic puritan motivated by moral objections to Laura's work might suggest what position Carpenter himself took in this debate.Producer Jon Peters originally intended the film as a vehicle for Barbra Streisand, who was his girlfriend at the time, but she turned it down (apparently because of "the kinky nature of the story") and the role went eventually to Faye Dunaway.
Dunaway gives a perfectly adequate performance, as does a young Tommy Lee Jones as Neville, but this is not one of her really great performances, certainly not when compared to something like "Chinatown" or "Network" for which she had recently won an Oscar.The film as a whole is a reasonably competent thriller, but is nothing out of the ordinary, at least in terms of its plotting and acting.
As Laura's visions continue, police detective John Neville (Tommy Lee Jones) frantically searches for the killer, as more and more people involved in Laura's life are killed off one by one in violent and disturbing ways by an unseen, brutal murderer.What seems to be a forgotten but very nicely done horror/thriller, "Eyes Of Laura Mars" is a film that I actually enjoyed quite a bit.
I have to admit that the premise is excellent, which isn't much of a surprise since it was based on a story written by John Carpenter, who released the horror film classic "Halloween" just a few months after "Laura Mars" hit theaters.
Plus, there are still enough plot twists and tricks that keep the culprit's identity hidden well enough.Overall, "Eyes Of Laura Mars" is an original and solid horror/thriller that consists of some wonderful cinematography, great writing and acting, and a few good jolts throughout.
The film is paced fairly well and aided with some solid acting by Faye Dunaway as Laura Mars, Tommy Lee Jones as a policeman, Rene Auberjonois as Laura's agent, and Brad Douriff as an ex-con, hippie-like chauffeur for Mars.
Controversial fashion photographer Laura Mars{Faye Dunaway) begins to have visions of murders before they happen, unfortunately for her all the victims are women who are pictured in her upcoming book.
In "Eyes of Laura Mars", Faye Dunaway plays the fashion photographer whose work draws ire to a killer.
Tommy Lee Jones, looking scary mad before age mellowed his face down a bit, is the romantic interest/investigating officer, Raoul Julia the drunken ex-husband, there's a wealth of gory killings and bikini-and-fur-coat photo shoots, Dunaway is on pretty good form but the whole affair is a little too cool and emotionless to really work out, there's plenty of campy screaming but no real feeling, and without much by way of an interesting or original plot (the whole psychic thing is left entirely unexplained, and the whodunnit ending is signalled a way off), this is an OK but not great addition to the old serial-killer genre..
Standard 70s thriller stars Dunaway as the title character, a controversial NYC photographer who has the ability to see murders through her eyes, as if she is the actual killer.
That's right, kids; before he made it big with "Halloween", Carpenter did odd jobs like writing the screenplay for "The Eyes of Laura Mars".And it shows.Now, that's not so much a criticism as much as an observation of how much more a Carpenter piece this is than it is Kershner's, Dunaway's or anyone else's.Watching "Eyes", I couldn't help but, with every POV (Point Of View) scene through the killer's eyes, think of Michael Myers stalking babysitters in "Halloween".No babysitters here, but lots of fashion models and other strange denizens of the fashion world.You see, Laura (Dunaway) is a photographer who has visions of these murders as they occur.
If you have, well, you probably already know, but why spoil it for everyone else?And if you ever wanted to see what high fashion looked like in 1978, here's your big chance.Rent "The Eyes of Laura Mars" and see what cool really is, baby.Six stars.Oh, one more thing, if you knew you had visions that impaired your own actual sight, would you go out driving?Me neither..
This is the second movie I see her in and she does a good job, but most of her character is about being afraid and have "visions".I do like the premise of the plot, it sounds sort of supernatural in an old fashioned way combined with crime thriller.
A renowned photographer can suddenly see through the eyes of a serial killerStarring Faye Dunaway and Tommy Lee Jones.Written by John Carpenter (Screenplay) and David Zelag (Screenplay).Directed by Irvine Kershner.Everything about this movie is average.
Under Irvin Kershner's direction and a screen play by John Carpenter, this film feels empty.What makes it irrelevant is the fact we have a hint of who is the serial killer and his attraction toward Laura Mars.
Through clairvoyant eyes, lurid fashion photographer Laura Mars(Faye Dunaway)sees her associates/friends murdered by a leather gloved killer using a sharp instrument, stabbing them in the eyes.
I feel "Eyes of Laura Mars", a film created from a story concocted by director John Carpenter(..perhaps inspired by the slate of Italian giallo thrillers populating the scene at the time), is very similar to the Italian giallo.
Outstanding acting by Faye Dunaway as Laura Mars the fashion photographer, Tommy Lee Jones as John Nevill the investigator, and a host of other fine actors.
Laura Mars is a bigshot fashion/art photographer in New York who suddenly starts to see visions of a killer committing murders of those around her.
The police have a hard time believing Laura but Lieutenant John Neville (Tommy Lee Jones) starts to as the killings continue, it's not long before Laura 'sees' herself being stalked by the killer & she is convinced she will be their next victim unless she can uncover their identity...Directed by Irvin Kershner I thought Eyes of Laura Mars was an OK thriller but nothing special. |
tt0089543 | The Man with One Red Shoe | An agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is arrested in Morocco on drug-smuggling charges. The person behind the smuggling operation is CIA deputy director Burton Cooper, who hopes the resulting scandal will lead to the resignation of CIA Director Ross, and Cooper's promotion to Director. Although Ross is aware of Cooper's complicity, but when questioned by a special Senate committee about the arrest, Ross tells the committee that he has not reviewed all of the facts of the case. The committee orders a full inquiry, and gives Ross 48 hours to present with the proper answers.
Ross devises a plan for Cooper's downfall. Ross knows his house has been bugged for sound by Cooper, so he purposely leaks a rumor that a man will be arriving at the airport who will clear him of the scandal, and orders his assistant to pick him up. Cooper, desperate to find out who the mystery man is, sends his own agents to follow Ross's lackey, Brown. Brown goes to the airport with instructions to pick someone at random from the crowd, leading Cooper and his team on a wild goose chase.
Brown spots a man wearing mismatched shoes descending an escalator and picks him as their random target. The man is violinist/concertmaster Richard Drew, whose percussionist friend Morris played a trick on him by hiding one of each pair of his shoes. This has forced Richard to wear one business shoe and one red sneaker on his flight home. Cooper takes the bait and starts tracking Richard, who proves to be carrying on his own intrigues.
Richard is completely oblivious to the intelligence operations centered on him, consumed by his own personal problems. He has been having an affair with Morris' flutist wife Paula, who plays in the same symphony orchestra with Richard and Morris. The affair was brought on by Morris' immaturity and his obsession with playing practical jokes on people, Richard being one of them. After eluding them at the airport, Richard is bumped into by Maddy, one of Cooper's operatives, who steals his wallet.
After damaging his tooth with a bag of gag peanuts given to him by Morris, Richard heads home to prepare for a visit to the dentist. While talking on the phone with Morris, Cooper, who has tapped his phone, learns that they are to meet with the Senators. Cooper thinks it is an inquiry with the Senate, but it turns out to be the name of the orchestral softball team for which Richard and Morris play.
While Richard heads to the dentist, Cooper sends his agents out to continue their surveillance, first by having Maddy lead a team to search his apartment for any information and bug it for sound, and then by having other agents intercept him at his dentist's office, believing his tooth has microfilm inside.
They learn Richard has traveled the world, including several Communist countries. Cooper thinks this is the perfect cover for a spy, and starts digging deeper. Soon, they suspect his sheet music is actually a code, and steal time on Defense Department computers to decipher it. Hoping to learn more, he sends in Maddy to seduce Richard and find out what he knows. While Richard is playing a violin composition he wrote for her, Maddy actually falls for him. Meanwhile, Morris catches glimpses of the operations of Cooper's agents, leading him to believe he may be going mad.
Ross, meanwhile, simply sits back and watches the antics unfold. Brown is concerned that Richard, the innocent man that he selected at random, may end up being killed as a result of Ross's plan to draw out Cooper, but Ross is only concerned about his career, and dismisses Brown's guilty conscience. When one attempt after another fails to yield any usable information, Cooper orders Richard killed, and eventually attempts to kill Richard himself. Richard remains completely oblivious to the plot until Maddy decides to thwart Cooper, and testifies in front of the Senate about the plot. Cooper is arrested, while Ross is demoted and replaced by Brown as Director of the CIA. Morris is committed to a mental institution, and Paula severs her romantic interest in Richard, believing that Morris needs her. Maddy agrees to testify against Cooper in exchange for her freedom, after which she is reunited with Richard. | comic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0047892 | Bob le flambeur | Bob, a middle-aged gambler and ex-con living in the Montmartre district of Paris, experiences a run of bad luck that leaves him nearly broke. Bob is a gentleman with scruples, well liked in the demi-monde community. He has unsuccessfully tried to rob a bank in the past, and has spent time in prison.
He hears through a croupier friend that the Deauville Casino holds undreamed-of quantities of cash, vulnerable in the early morning hours. Bob develops a complicated scheme to steal it, bringing in a tough but naive young protégé and an ace safecracker into his scheme, along with a few other underworld characters.
Bob also becomes involved with a young woman, Anne, who does not have her own place and stays with any man who can take her off the streets. Later, Anne begins spending time with Bob's friend and partner-in-crime, Paolo.
Meanwhile, Paolo trusts Anne and tells her the plot in which he is involved with Bob. However, in the evening of the planned heist, Anne betrays the gang to a pimp turned informant, Marc, without realizing that it was supposed to be a secret. Marc tips the possibility of a scheme masterminded by Bob to Inspector Ledru of the local police, whom Bob once saved from death. However, Marc is gunned down by Paulo just as he is about to confirm the specifics.
Ledru searches Bob's Montmartre haunts to warn him off the plan – in vain. At the casino, Bob fails to connect with his inside man, a croupier who has spilled the plan with his wife, who's also tipped off Ledru. An hours-long winning streak preoccupies Bob, a dance with Lady Luck he has waited for all his life. Suddenly, Bob is startled to realize it is the appointed hour of 5:00 AM, hurriedly cashes in a fortune in chips, and exits the casino floor. Just as his gang arrives, Ledru and the police descend, triggering a shooting spree. Bob rushes out of the casino in time to cradle his dying protégé, Paolo, then is arrested and handcuffed as casino employees trundle out stack upon stack of winnings and place them in the trunk of Inspector Ledru's car.
It is strongly implied that his lucky streak will hold, and he will get off with little or no jail time. Possibly, he quips, he will sue the police for damages – while the beautiful Anne waits for him at his apartment. | cult, humor, murder, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | Their influence on modern cinema has been incalculable - Melville's creative indepedence, location shooting and low-budgets inspiring the nouvelle vague; his filming of violent men in action everyone from Scorcese and Coppola to Tarantino and Woo; his deconstruction of genre encouraging Bava and Leone.Yet in many ways, 'Bob' is the least typical of Melville's thrillers.
Where 'Samourai' is a masterpiece of tone, in which direction, acting, cinematography, narrative, sound, colour, decor all cohere into a perfect whole, 'Bob' is a riot of clashing modes, more reminiscent of the gleeful iconoclasm of the nouvelle vague - parody and action, humour and seriousness, dream and realism, co-exist in fertile, thrilling tension.The hero is what the title suggests, a man who can't stop gambling, moving from one late-night backroom poker-game to another, betting most of his money on horse-races, leaving his diet to a throw of the dice; he even has a fruit machine in his well-appointed flat, where his art collection seems to consist of framed carpet.
Gambling is his only vice now; formerly a con, he did time 20 years previously for a failed bank job - he now considers himself too old for the criminal grind.After one particularly unprofitable spree, and a chance conversation with a pimp-turned-croupier, Bob and an old friend decide to rob the casino safe at Deauville, and begin rounding up the usual experts and investors, minutely orchestrating the heist.
Like all Melville's films, this is not the story of a gangster, but a dismantling of all the concealed codes, ideologies, assumptions, of the gangster, of masculinity, of Hollywood cinema.One of the ways 'Bob' breaks with traditional cinema is in its anti-Oedipal bias.
The use of the narrator is interesting too; voiced by Melville, creator of the film, he is also a kind of God-creator, talking about heaven and hell, taking us on a journey from one to the other; talking from the darkness, about how lives cross, but destinies don't meet, than creating a work where crossed destinies are crucial; intruding at bizarre moments, with prior knowledge of the characters' fates before the action has actually determined them.
This, of course, dissipates tension, as does the clownish music, mocking and undermining as much as it propels the action, and the characters' theatricality, their awareness of their roles (eg the rehearsals for the heist like a play).The filming of this goes way beyond Melville's heist models, 'The Asphalt Jungle' (his favourite movie) and 'Rififi' - after all the plot elements have been put in place - the plan, the preparations, the tip-off, the suspense - Melville moves to a completely different register, and what had been a crime film involving many interested parties becomes a solitary, private rite, Bob's gambling in the casino is a heightened, hallucinatory dream, not quite a rite of death, but a rite of middle-age, of letting go the trappings of youth, also paving the way for the great climax of 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly': the shoot-out is pure, beautiful, dream abstraction.For many, great cinema is defined in rarefied terms of high art, snobbily above the detritus of popular culture.
Daniel Cauchy as Paulo, Bob's right-hand man who also falls for Corey, acquits himself well too here and, on the DVD, delivers an intelligent and delightful 20-minute interview which gives some insight into Melville's working methods, the film's pain-staking shooting schedule (it took some two years to complete during which time Cauchy found time to appear in another four movies!) and also the director's insistence in portraying the 'correct' way of dying on screen.
Howard Vernon has a brief but pivotal role as the shady Scotsman who offers to finance Bob's 'scheme'.Apart from the usual conventions of typical French crime dramas, BOB LE FLAMBEUR introduces some new forms of technique which anticipated the off-the-cuff style of the Nouvelle Vague by some years: the editing has a strange, almost disjointed rhythm to it which is particularly felt near the end during the long gambling sequence at the casino; the hand-held camera-work lends it a slightly amateurish look which suits the mood perfectly; a vaguely avant-gardist touch is also evident in the set design, as in the domino-styled walls of the gambling-dens Bob frequents and the closet in his apartment that is fitted with a privately-owned slot machine!
Another interesting aspect (derived perhaps from Julien Duvivier's PEPE' LE MOKO [1936]) is the mutual admiration that is present between Bob and the Police Inspector played by Guy Decomble.Unlike most of Melville's other work, and particularly his film noirs, the gloomy 'atmosphere' is here counter-pointed by a deft playful mood that makes the film extremely enjoyable despite its fairly slow pace.
His work had a huge influence on the French New Wave led Godard and Truffaut (who cast him in a supporting role in 'Breathless' as an acknowledgment), and has proved to be a major inspiration for American film makers like Scorsese, Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson whose debut 'Hard Eight' owes 'Bob le flambeur' quite a debt.
Roger Duchesne is super cool as Bob, the ageing gambler on a perpetual bad streak, Daniel Cauchy is excellent as his cocky young protege Paolo, and Isabelle Corey is sexy and intriguing as Anne, the jailbait who gets involved with them both.
Jean-Pierre Melville's "Bob le Flambeur" (1955) has been often called the first film of the French New Wave.
Acting is great by everyone with Roger Duchesne unforgettable and Isabelle Corey as a young streetwalker Anne whom Bob took under his wing, absolutely marvelous in her first role - child-like innocent yet already perfectly aware of her powers over the men, by the words of Bob's friend, "she will go far -she knows what she wants but does not show it"..
The child of a former friend, Bob becomes the surrogate father figure to Paolo, looking out for him and making sure he isn't consumed by the lure of the mean streets.Bob le Flambeur was one of Melville's earliest entries into the gangster cycle that would later give birth to his better-known film, Le Samourai.
Like that film, Flambeur is a technically assured and understated journey into the underworld, employing a raw cinematic intensity, knowing irony and loose plot, which can probably be seen as an influence on contemporary filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Ringo Lam, Paul Thomas Anderson, John Woo, Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet and Wong Kar-Wai. It can also be seen as something of a revolutionary work, with Melville's bold use of real locations, available light and hand-held cameras offering an obvious precursor to the style of the later nouvelle vague, and, to great filmmakers like Godard, Chabrol and Truffaut.
Like those directors, Melville has a strong understanding of genre conventions and the post-war Gangster ethos, and thus, crafts a film that is both European in style and sensibility, but at the same time, nods to the classic gangster movies of 30's and 40's Hollywood...
giving us a cool and slick film, that still has enough edge and grit to make the characters seem like real people.The plot unfolds at a natural pace, slowly at first, but gradually building momentum once all the major players have been introduced, with Melville creating something of a confrontational three-way struggle between Bob, Paolo and Isabelle Corey's deceptive femme-fatal.
The story takes all manner of twists and turns along the way, with Melville keeping the story rooted in the details of his characters and the intricacy of the crime it's self, so that by the end the film the whole thing has seemingly worked towards chance and blind luck...
an evocative depiction of glistening black and white France, replete with shady gangsters, crooked cops, gambling dens, back street cafés and the ultimate heist, made all the more potent by the astounding performance of Roger Duchesne as the laconic and iconic Bob, and with great support from Daniel Cauchy as Paulo, Isabelle Corey as the wide-eyed Anne and Guy Decomble as Inspector Ledru..
Stanley Kubrick said he stopped making crime movies because Melville made the perfect one here.Great characters, a memorable score with jazzy sections, great performances, and probably the best pacing and story of any heist/noir/crime movie from the 30's, 40's or 50's.
Bob le flambeur (1956) **** (out of 4) Outstanding heist film about an old-time gangster and gambler (Roger Duchesne) who finds himself broke when he hears that a casino will have a large sum of cash available for the taking.
Nevertheless, the relationship between Bob and Ana is frought with sexual tension.Half way through the film, Bob loses all of his money and decides to put a crew together to rob the casino of 800 million francs (this reminded my a lot of Kubrick's The Killing).
It has lots of typical crime elements in it, such as an heist, likable 'bad guys' and the cat and mouse game between them and the police.It really is a fine made movie, that got directed by Jean-Pierre Melville.
Bob the Gambler was made in the mid 1950s, a few years before Goddard amongst a few others devised the French New Wave and made it popular with films like The 400 Blows and Goddard's own Breathless.
We discover a bit about Bob and his relation to the police as well as a bit on the shady past of the character of Paolo who will contribute to the plot later on since he works at the casino.But the film also consists of both outdoor and indoor scenes that are fascinating to watch.
If Melville had been a bit bolder and included some jump cuts, the New Wave would've started there and then no question.There is further proof that the film has aged well and that the director was thinking big at the time in the script.
That said, the script is full of witty putdown and lines that don't advance the story but are truly 'real'; very akin to today's Hollywood films after Tarantino gave everybody permission to do so.Bob the Gambler is a number of things and utilises a number of conventions that whilst watching in today's world, seem very familiar to us thanks to recent films but this was France, mid 1950s and even more fascinating: pre-French New Wave.
Bob Le Flambeur (the gambler) is played by Roger Duchesne in a performance that is as cool, concentrated, and amusingly intense as Jean-Pierre Melville's direction is.
And, hopefully, another viewing will change my mind.Isabelle Corey, who was not a 15-year-old as reported in several film noir publications, but in her mid-20s, was nice on the eyes and Roger Duchensne, as "Bob," the lead male also was interesting.The cinematography is pretty good but I've seen films noirs a lot better, not only in the photography but in heist stories.
None perhaps, other than Jules Dassin who went to Paris and made "Rififi", more lauded but not in the same class as "Bob Le Flambeur".It's a heist movie that starts off as a character study so that we get to know Bob and Paulo and Anne and the Inspector who hounds them, as well as numerous supporting characters like the stoolie Marc, the unreliable Roulette-wheel operator and his greedy wife and Yvonne, who runs the local bar.
I watched this film for the first time quite recently on France's TV Monde and found it exhilarating, years ahead of its time, and like Rififi something of a precursor in terms of heist movies.
In this classic film by Jean-Pierre Melville, Bob (Roger Duchesne), a brigand from the glory days of pre-war Montmartre has served hard time due to his refusal to use violence in a famous bank robbery.
Having allowed himself to be imprisoned to save the life of Paolo's father, Bob, who knew no father growing up, becomes the paternal figure for Paolo, surrendering everything to him, including the love of Anne, a gorgeous young woman "well-developed for her age" (Isabelle Corey, then only 16 years old).Realizing he'd ceded everything to Paolo, which is represented by the image of a broken Bob returning home at the early hours of the morning to find Paolo asleep in his bed, having triumphed at seducing Anne and hitting the jackpot on Bob's personal slot machine--something Bob had yet to do; Bob decides to surrender games of chance and after a 20-year hiatus from crime, return for the big payoff.Tipped by a nightclub owner and gambling accomplice, Roger (André Garet), Bob, Paolo and a team of safecrackers join forces with Roger in the seemingly-impossible task of cracking the Deauville casino's state-of-the-art safe.
A bittersweet ending decides the fates of the endearing characters, Bob, Paolo and the lovely Anne, completely dismantling all that was forged throughout the film.Film noir meets the game of love and chance in Melville's masterpiece, one of the greatest films of all time whose influence can be found in all that has come after.
He has unsuccessfully tried to rob a bank in the past, and has spent time in prison.Vincent Canby, writing in 1981, noted "Melville's affection for American gangster movies may have never been as engagingly and wittily demonstrated as in Bob le Flambeur, which was only the director's fourth film, made before he had access to the bigger budgets and the bigger stars of his later pictures." "Bob le flambeur" influenced the two versions of the American film Ocean's Eleven (1960 and 2001) as well as Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight", and was remade by Neil Jordan as "The Good Thief" in 2002.
Coming a few years before Jean-Pierre Melville's ongoing obsession with trenchcoats and fedoras, Bob Le Flambeur is probably his most traditional noir flick, centered around the titular Bob (played by Roger Duchesne), an aging gangster who decides to go in for one final gamble by robbing a local casino.
In fact Bob's apartment has a clear view of Sacré Coeur.The unique approach recommends this film, but if you are looking for intense heist movies, New Wave Cinema, or film noir, then there are better choices.
This does not change the fact that Bob is nearly broke, so when he hears that the local casino had almost eight millions francs in the safe before the Grand Prix, he ignores his previous bad luck with robberies and sets about planning to steal the lot and get away clean.Shown recently on FilmFour (the free cable station that does show some good film now and again), this film was screened as part of demonstrating to modern viewers that caper movies and "jobs gone wrong" are not new genres that Hollywood has a dominance over.
Although not imitating Hollywood, he improved his narratives by creating characters that captured his audiences' imagination with his cool vision of criminals at work."Bob le fambleur" is sort of an indicator for the big turn the French cinema wag going to experience with the arrival of the New Wave directors in the late 1950s.
The story is about an aging small time gambler Bob (Roger Duchesne a post war movie star), who doesn't sleep with the girl he loves (Isabelle Corey as Anne, according to Melville 16 years of age at that time), but leaves that to almost everybody else.
Interestingly, however, Melville's use of location work, hand-held cameras and improvisation that are so effective in this movie, later became regarded as "de rigueur" by the French New Wave directors who followed him.As the story begins, a cable car is seen symbolically making its steep descent to the "hell" of Montmartre and Pigalle which are the districts of Paris that Bob Montagne (Roger Duchesne) inhabits.
The way in which his profound addiction to gambling affects what happens to him and the rest of his gang that night leads to the movie's very surprising and highly ironic conclusion.Roger Duchesne is charming and cool as Bob and his extremely strong performance captures beautifully his character's unique mixture of toughness, kindness and melancholia.
The contributions of the rest of the cast are also superb."Bob Le Flambeur" has a good plot and an excellent ending but it's the quality of its characters and the atmosphere of their surroundings that ultimately distinguishes it from the more ordinary entries in the heist movie genre..
In a way, "Bob le Flambeur" carries many aspects of the classic film-noir and as a movie made by a fan, it can even be described as a masterpiece of copy in its recreation of the gangster underworld, yet the fan made a movie that inspired many filmmakers, and reinvented the heist sub-genre.
The film plays with all the conventions of a genre, only to provide a classic on its own, getting better after each viewing.The flaws are there but "Bob le Flambeur" shines as a powerful character study about a man who embodies a certain code becoming more and more obsolete, a certain fashion of life, and through gambling, the very attitude that would cause his demise and ironically could save him.
Bob le Flambeur is an interesting little crime film by a director that would prove very influential to New Wave cinema.
Director Jean-Pierre Melville's carefully plotted heist caper "Bob Le Flambeur" (a.k.a.
The cast consists entirely of French actors and actresses, but the director, Jean-Pierre Melville, gained a reputation for making good crime films, including "Le Doulos" (1962) with Jean-Paul Belmondo, "Le Samouraï" (1967) with Alain Delon, "Le Cercle Rouge (1970) with Yves Montand, and "Dirty Money" (1972) with Richard Crenna.Bob (Roger Duchesne) has already served as stretch for attempted bank robbery and he survives on his ability to gamble and win, but he experiences a hard luck losing streak that leaves him temporarily broke.
Bob develops the scheme to steal the fortune, and he brings in a safe cracker and a few other underworld characters to help out, and at the same time the middle aged ex-con becomes involved with young Anne (Isabelle Corey), who has no place to live and stays with any man who will have her. |
tt0062108 | Pedro Páramo | The novel is set in the town of Comala, considered to be Comala in the Mexican state of Colima.
The story begins with the first person account of Juan Preciado, who promises his mother at her deathbed that he will return to Comala to meet his father, Pedro Páramo. Juan suggests that he did not intend to keep this promise until he was overtaken by visions of his mother. His narration is interspersed with fragments of dialogue from the life of his father, who lived in a time when Comala was a robust, living town, instead of the ghost town it has become. Juan encounters one person after another in Comala, each of whom he perceives to be dead. Midway through the novel, Preciado dies. From this point on most of the stories happen in the time of Pedro Páramo.
Most of the characters in Juan's narration (Dolores Preciado, Eduviges Dyada, Abundio Martínez, Susana San Juan, and Damiana Cisneros) are also presented in an omniscient narration but much less subjectively. The two major competing narrative voices present alternative visions of Comala, one living and one full of the spirits of the dead. The omniscient narration provides details of the life of Pedro Páramo, from his early youthful idealization of Susana San Juan to his rise to power upon his coming of age to his tyrannical abuses and womanizing, and, finally, to his death. Pedro is cruel, and though he raises one of his illegitimate sons, Miguel Páramo (whose mother dies giving birth), Miguel does not love his father (who dies when Pedro is a child) or either of his two wives.
His only love, from a very young age, is that of Susana San Juan, a childhood friend who leaves Comala with her father at a young age. Pedro Páramo bases all of his decisions on, and puts all of his attention into trying to get Susana San Juan to return to Comala. When she finally does, Pedro makes her his, but she constantly mourns her dead husband Florencio and spends her time sleeping and dreaming about him. Pedro realizes that Susana San Juan belongs to a different world that he will never understand.
When she dies the church bells toll incessantly, provoking a fiesta in Comala. Pedro buries his only true love, and angry at the indifference of the town, swears vengeance. As the most politically and economically influential person in the town, Pedro crosses his arms and refuses to continue working, and the town dies of hunger. This is why in Juan's narration, we see a dead, dry Comala instead of the luscious place it was when Pedro Páramo was a boy. | allegory, psychedelic, horror | train | wikipedia | Flawless. I truly feel that this film is an unsung masterpiece. From the opening credits to the Don's last cry of "Susana," it's a captivating, mysterious, and rich work. It is an epic both dark and profound, exploring a range of human motivations and emotions.This film, based on the short novel of the same title, opens the flood-gates for the "magical realism" that would afterward fill the Latino arts. I cannot emphasize how well done the mysticism is. This is by no means a "ghost movie," but it's not afraid to use them. One scene in particular is so haunting and powerful it made me absolutely giddy. Our protagonist's visits to various residents of the run-down village are some of my favorite bits of cinema.Potential "Spoilers" Begin Here: I felt a common chord in the Don's obsession with Susana and C.F. Kane's nostalgia with "Rosebud" in "Citizen Kane." Both men become so consumed with ambition that they can no longer possess their ideal. Both men long for something so fundamental and simple that they smother it in their quest. Perhaps it is because this ideal *cannot* be possessed. The themes of possession with Susana are clear. She thinks of herself as belonging to Florencio, her father thinks he owns her as both daughter and lover, and of course Pedro Páramo thinks of himself as owner. But can a person own another? Can a man own the careless joys of his childhood? In Páramo's yearning for the unattainable, he populates and destroys an entire region. And so resonates one of the last lines of the film: "Todos somos hijos de Pedro Páramo!" ("All of us are the children of Pedro Páramo!") But aren't we? Aren't we all the offspring of misled ambition--genetically, nationally, culturally, ethically, or religiously? There is a Pedro Páramo looming somewhere in our origins.I applaud this film.. Breathtaking. I read the novel when I was around 13 years old and even though I did not entirely understand it by those days, I had the chance to analyze it later on and it became to me a fabulous book full of mystery, sadness, loneliness and yet a lot of Mexican Revolution realism. So as people might imagine I was kind of frightened of watching the movie, because I know that it is not something good to compare a film with a book, but sometimes there is just no way to avoid it, but after this Friday when I had the chance to read an essay about Ignacio López Tarso (Fulgor Sedano in the film), who is a very important actor in Mexico, and that I saw in a theater play when I was a kid, I decided to take the risk and watch it... At the end I could think that was the silliest thing not to watch it before. Not just respects the entire story of Juan Rulfo and keeps extreme similarity to the actual novel, but it is also a beautiful piece of art full of mystery, sadness and loneliness. Velo represents with extreme fidelity a Mexico that was being victim of a Revolution, the town, the costumes, the people, the houses. Each detail is loyal to those times, and the actings to me are awesome. "La Cuarraca" is a real ugly character and you feel like you need to see to some other place but the screen when she is on scene, Susana is fighting against her madness and the reality at the same time and just to look at her face you are able to feel her desperation and her melancholy, There is a point where (spoilers might be here) you cannot actually know if what you are watching the reality itself (if there is one) or another one of the dead bodies talking. You are not able to tell the very moment when Juan Preciado dies but by the other way it is entirely understandable almost at the ending, when he goes to the grave where his mother is and when he understands he died in some part of the journey and then you ask to your self "was it worthless?". There are some little things of the book that you cannot see in the movie but since its realization is so good, I would say they are not really important. I can recommend it to everybody. |
tt0081375 | Private Benjamin | Judy Benjamin (Goldie Hawn) a 28-year-old from a sheltered wealthy upbringing whose lifelong dream is to "marry a professional man", joins the U.S. Army after her new husband (Albert Brooks) dies on their wedding night during sex. Adrift, Benjamin meets a recruiting sergeant, Jim Ballard (Harry Dean Stanton), who leads her to believe military life will provide the "family" she seeks. He also tells her that the service is glamorous, comparing it to a spa vacation. She has a rude awakening upon arriving in boot camp. Judy wants to quit almost immediately, and is astonished to learn that she cannot, contrary to the assertions of her recruiting sergeant.
Army regulations and the continuing disapproval of Captain Lewis (Eileen Brennan) frustrate her, but when Judy's parents arrive at Fort Biloxi to take her home, she decides to stay and finish basic training, which she does with distinction after a wargames exercise. Upon completion of basic training, Judy meets Henri Tremont (Armand Assante), a French doctor, who is in Biloxi for a medical conference. They separate after a brief romance, Henri returns to Paris and Judy enters training for the Thornbirds, an elite paratrooper unit after basic training.
She quickly finds that she was chosen for paratrooper training because the unit's commander finds her attractive; he attempts to sexually assault her. When she refuses to comply, he attempts to have her transferred as far away from Biloxi as possible. Rather than accept what she sees as an undesirable post in Greenland or Guam, she negotiates an assignment to SHAPE in Belgium, and meets up with Henri again on a visit to Paris. He proposes marriage and she accepts, but when Capt. Lewis discovers that Tremont is a communist, Judy is forced to choose either her Army career or love.
After she chooses Henri and gets engaged, Judy discovers Henri's controlling side. He tries to "remake" her, and also forces her to sign a prenuptial agreement in his favor. Then, when she finds out Henri is still in love with his ex-girlfriend Clare, and has cheated on her with their maid, she realizes that she is capable of doing whatever she wants, and that she does not need Henri in her life. In the final scene, just as Judy is about to get married again, she walks out on Henri at the altar to go and live her own life. | revenge, satire, prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1166100 | Ghajini | Sunita (Jiah Khan) is a medical student, working on a project about the human brain with her classmates. When she was denied access by her professor to the curious case of Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), a man reported to have anterograde amnesia, because it is under criminal investigation, Sunita decides to investigate the matter herself.
It is later revealed that Sanjay loses his memory every 15 minutes. He uses a system of photographs, notes, and tattoos on his body to recover his memory after each cycle to remind himself of his mission: to avenge the death of his wife Kalpana (Asin). He systematically kills the people who were involved to the murder. His main target is Ghajini Dharmatma (Pradeep Rawat), a notable social personality in the city, and the man directly responsible for Kalpana's death and Sanjay's condition.
Police inspector Arjun Yadav (Riyaz Khan) tracks Sanjay down to his apartment and knocks him unconscious. Yadav finds two diaries in which Sanjay has chronicled the events of 2005 and 2006. The film flashes back to 2005 as Yadav reads the diary. Sanjay Singhania is the chairman of the Air Voice mobile telephone company. In the course of business, he sends his men to meet Kalpana, a struggling model of Mumbai, about putting up a billboard above her apartment. The owner of Kalpana's advertising firm misinterprets this as a romantic advance and, in view of a possible lucrative Air Voice ad campaign, encourages Kalpana to accept the overture. Kalpana thinks of it as an innocent prank that may fetch her better modelling work and decides to act as Sanjay's girlfriend. Sanjay goes to confront Kalpana about this but falls in love with her at first sight. He hides his identity and introduces himself as Sachin, and the two begin spending time together. The diary ends with Sanjay proposing to Kalpana and promising himself that he will reveal his actual identity if she accepts.
When Yadav is about to read the 2006 diary, Sanjay awakes and attacks him, tying him up. Ghajini realizes that someone is trying to kill him but is unable to figure out who. Sunita visits Sanjay's flat and discovers Sanjay's plan to kill Ghajini. She takes both his diaries before finding Yadav, beaten and bound, and freeing him. Just then, Sanjay arrives, he remembers neither of them and chases them out. Yadav is hit by a bus as he flees in terror, and Sunita, believing Ghajini is the good guy in danger, informs him about Sanjay. Ghajini arrives at Sanjay's flat and destroys all of Sanjay's photographs and notes, as well as the tattoos on Sanjay's body, so that Sanjay is left with nothing to help him recover his memory.
Meanwhile, Sanjay discovers that Sunita had warned Ghajini and he goes to her dormitory to kill her, but Sunita calls the police and Sanjay is arrested. Back in her dormitory as Sunita reads the diaries, the film flashes back to 2006, where it is revealed that Kalpana had accepted Sanjay's proposal. When this diary ends abruptly, Sunita investigates further and discovers that Kalpana was travelling to Goa for a modelling assignment when she came upon 25 innocent young girls being trafficked. She had saved the girls with the help of some army soldiers on board, who named Ghajini as the ringleader of the racket. Outraged, Ghajini broke into Kalpana's apartment with his goons to kill her. When Sanjay arrived, he found Kalpana stabbed. Ghajini then hit Sanjay over the head with an iron rod. Sanjay's last sight was Ghajini brutally murdering Kalpana with the iron rod. Kalpana's last word to Sanjay was "Ghajini."
Sunita, now aware of the shocking truth, finds Sanjay in the hospital and tells him the truth. He flies into a heartbroken rage and tracks down Ghajini with Sunita's help. He fights off all of Ghajini's henchmen with a superior and anger-fueled strength. Ghajini,upon realizing Sanjay is too strong for him, flees. Sanjay's memory loss strikes again, and he forgets who Ghajini is. Ghajini takes this opportunity to stab Sanjay and taunt him with the grisly tale of how he murdered Kalpana. As he is about to make Sanjay relive the experience by killing Sunita in the same exact way, Sanjay recovers the memory of Kalpana's murder, and overpowers Ghajini in a flash of strength. He finally kills Ghajini, in the same way Ghajini had killed Kalpana.
The film ends with a still-amnesiac Sanjay volunteering at an orphanage named after Kalpana. Sunita gives him a gift that reminds him of his bond with Kalpana, and Sanjay imagines Kalpana by his side, finally at peace with himself. | cruelty, murder, violence, flashback, romantic, revenge | train | wikipedia | Ghajini is an entertainer.It has loads of action,comedy,drama and romance which makes it a family packed entertainer.The story is good.Screenplay is penned very well.But the problem is that the movie is long,it could have been trimmed 15-20 minutes and the movie even gets violent at times,which could have been shortened.Direction by A.R Murugadass is excellent.The music is very good.Performance wise-Aamir Khan is menacing.He is superb.Newcomer Asin is very good.Jiah Khan is perfect.Pradeep Rawat is first rate.Overall Ghajini is an entertainer..
And any thought of all those things indeed vanished from my head the moment the movie started.Ghajini is one of the best thrillers to have come out of the Bollywood stable in recent years.
Aamir Khan once again proves that he's not just the best in business, but he's the one leading the way for Bollywood to make better movies.
Written and directed by A.R. Murugadoss, I don't see much of a nod of acknowledgement to Nolan's work, and in almost all literature, it only falls back on the fact that this is a Hindi remake of Murugadoss' own Tamil movie of the same name Ghajini, produced in 2005 (Nolan's was in 2000), which joins the ranks of films having their titles named after the chief villain.In any case this isn't the first time that we see very obvious similarities in premise and characters being adopted for Bollywood's own productions, and the shot-in-Singapore Krrish comes to mind as well, as they had the entire setting of John Woo's Paycheck incorporated into that film.
But of course in any version some merits could be found, but I believe some form of acknowledgement would be in order, other than, in this case, a quick flash of a very wordy disclaimer about Ghajini being gleaned from various short stories and material (and another paragraph which I missed given the fine print, and short duration on screen, but I'm pretty sure no mention of Memento).Well, there are some reasons why I chose to watch this.
But don't expect the same though, because Pearce's version was more of a thinking man who questions and second guesses himself, while Khan's version was in two parts to serve the story, one as a raging hulk monster who tears through his opponents with savage violence fueled by anger and hatred, coupled with the hurt he experienced and recalled (Hulk producers take note, in case Edward Norton decides against any more sequels, look in the direction of Aamir Khan), while the other as mild-mannered Sanjay Singhania, CEO of a telecommunications company in Mumbai.Yes, Bollywood's version naturally comes with built-in song and dance, which for once I would have thought looked quite out of place in the movie, if not for A.R. Rahman's score and music.
Factor in plenty of lovey-dovey moments of comedy and pursuit (under the guise of a different identity, like Shah Rukh Khan's Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi) which makes it perfect for a date movie, but with hindsight that you know this love is doomed from the moment it began, which actually makes it quite sad to watch the events unfold since you know what will eventually happen to her.Ghajini doesn't adopt or try to adopt those very cerebral mind-f* moments from Memento, but as I mentioned plays it out more like a straight forward action thriller, with a handful of inevitable moments of watching our protagonist get taken advantaged of because of his condition.
However you'll still be kept in the dark for some time as to why the designated thugs of Ghajini (Pradeep Rawat) would want to exact their mettle onto Sanjay and Kalpana, and you'll be held in suspense for almost 2 hours before the reasons get shown.I can only imagine the flak that this film might receive because of having to adapt, and not properly acknowledge perhaps that it's not original material, save for the romantic spin on it.
Rather, it would be best to view this film as a separate entity, something not quite at the standards of Hollywood's best but certainly above the usual clichéd Bollywood fare.Ghajini tells the story of a man called Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), who suffers from a condition called Anterograde amnesia, which prevents him from forming new memories, as a result of which he is unable to remember anything for more than around 15 minutes.
Ultimately, the film comes full circle in an awe-inspiring climax when past and present collide to bring a fulfilling end to the story.Aamir Khan proves his versatility as an actor yet again, playing not one, not two but three roles in this film.
Jiah Khan does okay as the medical student who gets dragged into Sanjay's quest for revenge while Pradeep Rawat may come across as an over-the-top clichéd bad guy in his role as the titular 'Ghajini'-but it works well for the story, believe it or not.This film is actually two films in that the darker 'present day sequences' of Sanjay's orgies of violence seem to belong to an entirely different genre from the lighter comedic flashback sequences, though the shattering of Sanjay's happy past life makes us understand the driving force behind his present day violence.
The style of music, dialogue and even settings for both sets of sequences is drastically different as a result-where on one hand you have fancy office blocks, garden parties and the beach side, on the other hand you have seedy back lanes and darkened parking lots.On the whole despite a few ridiculous plot holes, Ghajini is definitely one of the most entertaining, if not one of the best, films of Bollywood in recent years..
Had the movie not featured Aamir Khan it would not have been nowhere close to what it is now.Bollywood has had a history where many a venture has sunk despite hype but what worked for Ghajini was a sustained and immaculately planned publicity campaign.
The action sequences have a South Indian influence even though some of them are executed well.Ghajini, as a one time watch, was entertaining even for someone like me not particularly into action movies or Aamir Khan.
well...everyone has the right to their own opinion....but in my own i feel ghajini has heart..it is on of those movies which take you down to reality and touch every human emotional chord in your body...LOVE is what it talks about and how it drives a person so mad when he loses it...i think there is a person inside us who wishes he could play the role aamir did ....but we are scared of doing that...i think aam ir has done a fabulous job and my final judgment is...people who love crying and don't feel ashamed to let their emotional side touch them..its worth a watch..well you should deffo watch it...people who are heartless the main comment wud suit u....that is that aamir cant act no more...well guess what he can and and only passionate and emotional ppl who have loved once in their lives can understand that...5 out of 5...cheers....
Plus I liked the Bollywood flavor, since it introduces a love-story aspect.Excellent acting by Aamir Khan, as usual.
Director has tried to fix all these problems with more and more action which is impressive if you don't watch Hollywood Movies but If you have watched some good Hollywood Action Movies, you will find Ghajini's action ordinary.This film is remake of a tamil movie with same name but when you watch the movie you'll find that it has taken lots of scenes from successful Hollywood Movies as well like Hulk and many more.
An 'Indianised' Memento, Ghajini is a masala pot-boiler revenge film that is low on distinctiveness, instead relying on vibrant cinematography, over-the-top action sequences, and superlative performances by Aamir Khan and Asin to deliver the goods.
2. was it just the muscular skin show he wanted to show us on screen for 3 damn hoursOK so now let me get to the real review of the movie Direction : well Murgados should better stay in south and make such non sense cinema and which will be as big hit as his 2005 version of Ghajini and the crowd is going crazy for this one also.Acting : Asin did her job perfectly well she is a new addition of good performers in Bollywood, where woman lack talent to such and extent that they are only used in movies like Katrina Kaif.Aamir, the perfectionist has gone so lower than his level that i thought it as one more Aap Mujhe Achay Lagnay Lage of Hritik, and at times i just thought that he is always in short rolled sleeves in office to make a fashion statement ?
well in short if you want to see Aamirs new body this Ghajini is just made for that other than that it lacks soul, screenplay is lacking everything, direction is pathetic, and only one song is picturised good which is Behka, other than A.R Rahman is wasted here completely.Villain of the movie just make no sense who is he what is he doing and why is he doing that when he is owner of a Pharmaceutical company ?3 hours just wasted simply waste of money and above all when world is going through all the violence and hatred one should prefer watching lighter cinema, i was a huge fan of Aamir Khan but even it came to me as surprise that guy who gave us Lagaan, 1947 Earth, Mangal Pandey, Rang De Basanti and above all Taare Zameen Par.it may shatter box office records and all but all in all its just waste of time..
Kalpana played by Asin Thottumkal, an advertisement model goes around telling her advertisement crew that she is the love interest of Sanjay, in spite of her having never met him and also goes to the extent of giving an sheer conincidence an interview with a very local newspaper called Mayapuri about her relationship Sanjay.Sanjay happens to hear about this through the media and wants to settle scores with her.(Here, i love the part when they are trying to sell the sensational news item on a television commercial, also highlighting that if you buy the latest Mayapuri for the gossip, you will also get two packets of pav bhaji masala.)Jiah Khan comes quiet later in the story but upfront in the movie.
Gold fish could porbably be better at it, that reminds me, let's me try and list some top of mind amnesia based movies -* Finding Nemo (hilarious, can keep watching everyday, Dory was cute), * 50 First Dates (Romantic Comedy, once it OK, Adam Sandler was good, so was Drew Barrymore), * then you have the Bourne series - Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum (action oriented, all of them worth once, Supremacy also features Goa), * Memento (Aamir said don't compare), * Ghajini (what can i say, please continue reading...)My other problem in the movie is that the songs at a drop of a hat, which were completely unwanted, unrequired, unstorylike.
The movie scenes had really dramatic long pauses between Aamir Khan and Asin, where i was trying to peep into my neighbors Nokia camera phone to know what time it was?The villain was not at all menacing enough and took the protagonist and his illness too much for granted, which was completely uncalled for.
But I think personally Aamir Khan was excellent in this movie especially with his facial expressions as he doesn't have much dialogue but makes the most out of it.The Director(Muragadoss) has done a decent job and the heroine(Asin) acted pretty well like in the tamil one basically.
Jiah Khan surprisingly acted well according to me but some people i know didn't like her being casted so opinions differ on her character.The music director is A.R.Rahman..need i say more ?!As far as the story of the movie its pretty much the same as the tamil one except for the climax which was really the black spot in the tamil Ghajini but in this one its well thought out and most importantly directed and acted out well!The movie is based on a man(Aamir) who has short term memory loss and searching for the killer of his lover(Asin) called Ghajini.I don't want to give out anything else about the movie as it would spoil the experience.Go watch the movie...you'll like it!!.
If Memento stimulated audience's intellect to a scale of 10, Ghajini comes at 2..At the end of the day, what sounded like a promising picture ended up following the same old Hindi, sing and dance, malasa flick.This, probably was the las Aamir flick that we'd watch in theater..
Jiah was mis casted.This movie is a one time watch only for Aamir.By the way I don't think any corporate honchos would dress like Sanjay S.
This coming from the same guy who scored a triumphant music for "Slumdog Millionaire" is rather disappointing.Apart from Aamir Khan's dedication to his craft and his advertisement of "what steroids can do to the muscles of 40+ year old body" there is nothing much to talk about this movie.
What you instead have is a typical Hindi movie with a paper thin plot, numerous plot holes, terrible supporting cast, but some decent acting from Aamir Khan.As you may know, the story revolves around the character of Aamir Khan, who suffers from short-term memory loss and is trying to figure out who murdered his girlfriend by leaving himself clues, in the form of Polaroid photos and tattoos on his body.The movie starts out terribly with minimal explanation about Aamir's condition and jumping straight into the action.
After her part was over, it pretty much boiled down to more terrible acting from the supporting cast, more excessively stupid-and-trying-to-be-cool editing, further evidence that the plot was really crappy, repetitive background score and song and dance routines at awkward moments.Don't get me wrong...the songs in Ghajini are good (maybe not Rahman's best work), but the sound and music otherwise sucks.
I went as far as spending a big sum of money to buy tickets for a special screening of his most recent film, the much talked about Ghajini.I think it's awful.I like AK, his body is a marvel and worth staring at; his talent is unquestioned but what the heck is he doing in this movie?
NB:I have been a Great Great Memento fan since the time of its release and watched that movie a dozen times and Love it..For all those people who haven't seen "Memento" please don't compare it to "ghajini".This "Ghajini" is nothing like it nor could ever be."Memento" was a true masterpiece.After having said that...now I was forced to give 1/10 as there was no lower rating.It doesn't deserve 1/100 or 1/1000.I would have rated higher if Aamir was not in it.
well, some Bollywood-rigidity like the Hero never dies.Even though it's still humorous to see Aamir smash the hell out of four crooks and then suddenly look at them and wonder who the hell these four people are and why they are dead, it is Memento (the Hollywood movie, the origin of all Ghajini's) that still stands out.Not worth the first day first show, but worth a watch still.
I think actors like aamir who has put in year of hard work to have a build JUST for this movie should have chosen this project with some small time but good director.
Well i had a very good expectation from this movie but after watching it i was having a headache.....Aamir khan s acting is the only good thing in the movie...rest the story is the same old....a guy fighting for her girl....
revenge...n no mystery....all in all if u all have the guts to bare a movie which is dragged for 3 hrs n 30 minutes give it a shot...but a total disappointment....I hope Aamir khan does not end up in all these movie s again.......he acts really well and deserve s to do better roles...not like these with loose stories....
i had really great expectations from this movie Ghajini because of the actor Aamir Khan.
But i am sorry to say that after witnessing Ghajini(2008) i am shocked to say that starting from beginning to the end the film totally fails to impress even after the amount of promotion put behind it.Even the last Ghajini(2006) enacted by Tamil superstar Surya was way ahead and the worst part is that it completely tarnishes the image of Bollywood .So friends it is absolutely a no watch movie specially for children because of high amount of mindless impossible action shown which sadly undoes the good effect of taare zameen par.so it is 1/10 from me for the mindless action and the backward step taken by Indian cinema...
This isn't Aamir's best work, but he deserves credit for going where he hasn't ventured before.Jiah Khan impresses as an earnest but foolhardy character; she is the lynchpin throughout much of the film, serving as both the character who puts the story into action and acts as the link between Ghajini and Sanjay.
Excellent film from Bollywood and of course it has the wonderful actor Aamir khan who can act so good and superb..
I always had this impression that he did things in his own way and even though I had seen the Tamil version, which deserves a lot of credit in its own right, I didn't think that Aamir would be swayed to remake the film in Hindi.I watched this movie after more than a month had passed since its release.
Ghajini which is a remake of Tamil hit Ghajin by Surya and Asin had a good story unlike recent Bollywood movies.
Let me put it this way: Cancel whatever you're doing today and go watch Ghajini instead.Aamir Khan is suffering from acute short-term memory loss set off by the violent murder of his girlfriend Asin.
But a good start for a girl, who is trying her hand in Bollywood.It was like a Tamil movie with Aamir in the lead when you see the action scenes. |
tt0033058 | Sky Bandits | Sergeant Renfrew (James Newill) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Constable Kelly (Dave O'Brien) fly in search of a missing aircraft flown by Buzz Murphy (Eddie Featherston). Murphy was carrying a shipment of gold from the Yukon Mine Company. Local radio announcer Uncle Dimwittie (Dewey Robinson), has bugged the mine office, and is secretly transmitting information about gold shipments, in the guise of reading children's stories on the air.
The messages are picked up by a gang led by a crook named Morgan (William Pawley). They have forced Professor Lewis (Joe De Stefani) to work on a powerful ray gun invented by a scientist named Speavy (Dwight Frye). The radio beam the weapon sends out disables aircraft engines. Speavy is worried that his invention is being used by the crooks, and tries to warn Renfrew, but the scientist is killed by Morgan.
Madeleine (Louise Stanley), the daughter of Professor Lewis, tries to help Renfrew who finds a laboratory that Morgan is operating but it is destroyed. When no one on the force believes he has discovered the secret of the lost aircraft, Renfrew volunteers to fly the next gold shipment. Madeleine stows away on board the aircraft Renfrew is piloting. Morgan and his gang are also in the air, and while the professor can bring down Renfrew with the ray gun, but he turns it, instead on Morgan's aircraft. Constable Kelly then rides to Morgan's hideout and, with the professor's help, arrests the rest of the gang. | murder | train | wikipedia | Well used plot is given new life and plenty of laughs as the Mounties battle gold hijackers. One of the last Renfrew of the Mounties films starring James Newill is a fun Mounties meet sci-fi mix.The plot concerns a gang of hijackers shooting down gold planes in the great wilds of Canada. Renfrew and his buddy Constable Kelly have been assigned to try and find out what is happening to the planes which are disappearing with no trace. Renfrew's boss suspects that the pilots are stealing the shipments and flying them over the border. Renfrew thinks that something more sinister is transpiring. Renfrew is of course right and soon he has locked horns with the gang of bad guys who have moved from using bullets to bring the planes down, to using a ray that burns out the plane's engine.This is grand Saturday afternoon style adventure. Nominally a western without the cowboys this film is an action packed romp from start to finish as horses are often used to get from place to place. Actually the western connection is even closer with this being the second remake of Tim McCoys Ghost Patrol (Its also far superior to that earlier film).This is a great movie with many things going for it.I like that everyone in this film is a character of some sort and manages to make an impression on you as being an individual at some point in the film. The wise cracks are funny. The action is well done. Its also great to see Dwight Frye playing the extremely tightly wound inventor of the engine stopping ray.If the film has any real flaw is that Renfrew bursts into song about three times too often. The songs actually aren't bad, they are good in a corny sort of way, they just stop the action from moving for the two or three minutes that they are sung. Keep the remote handy and you'll be okay.Definitely worth a bag of popcorn and an hour of your time. |
tt0170181 | Rupan sansei: Kutabare! Nastradamus | Lupin III, grandson of the legendary gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, is a member of the international thieving ring "The Works", which specializes in stealing valuable objects from wealthy owners. Lupin beats his fellow Works members Fujiko Mine (his would-be lover), Pierre (a computer genius) and Jiro to the theft of an Olympic medal in Singapore, but is forced to surrender it to his rival, Michael Lee, when he threatens to kill him and Fujiko. At a meeting of The Works, Fujiko is hailed as the culprit behind the theft (thanks to her machinations), and Thomas Dawson, the leader of the organization, shows them the most valuable item in The Works' possession - the Crimson Heart of Cleopatra, a necklace commissioned by Mark Antony to symbolize his love for the Queen of the Nile. However, a ruby of Cleopatra's intended to complete the necklace is missing. A trio of thugs led by Michael - Royal, Saber and Maria - steal the necklace and kill Jiro and Dawson, apparently in revenge for "Edward Lam", resulting in the disbanding of The Works. Devastated by Dawson's murder, Lupin, Fujiko, Pierre and Daisuke Jigen join forces to find Michael and the necklace.
Within a year, Lupin and Jigen have established themselves as accomplished thieves, but Jigen grows weary of following Fujiko's false leads. While meeting with her, Lupin is turned in to the police in Thailand. He then meets Inspector Koichi Zenigata of ICPO, who informs him that Michael, using the alias Georgio Zhang, is arranging a major auction with Mamrachiao Pramuk, the chairman of Navarone Security and a crime lord in secret. Zenigata wants Lupin to 'steal' the items that they intend to sell to each other for the police so that he can arrest them; in exchange, Lupin's criminal record will be erased. Lupin accepts, and enlists Goemon Ishikawa XIII into the gang.
Fujiko meets with Michael, who explains that Edward Lam was a member of The Works and a father figure to them both, but after helping Dawson find the Crimson Heart and the accompanying ruby in Egypt, Dawson betrayed and killed him, and Pramuk stole the ruby. Michael intends to buy the ruby to complete the necklace. Lupin, who has been spying on the pair, tells Michael that no matter who wins the auction, he will steal the necklace. At the auction, Michael and Pramuk prepare to sell each other the necklace and the ruby respectively. During the transaction, Pramuk tells Michael that he was a former member of The Works, and killed Lam while trying to kill Dawson. Michael attempts to kill himself and Pramuk before the latter can buy the necklace, but Pramuk reveals that Royal, who (along with Saber and Maria) now works for him, disarmed the explosives. Pramuk buys the ruby for $200 million, and Michael destroys his reward cheque in defeat. Lupin, having listened to Michael and Pramuk's exchange via lip reading technology, calls off the theft to Zenigata's frustration.
Disheartened, Michael offers to join Lupin's gang to steal back the Crimson Heart and ruby from the Ark, Pramuk's stronghold, and is accepted. Lupin and Michael enter the Ark disguised as Zengiata and Commander Narong of the Thailand Army, and upload a virus into the Ark's networks in the guise of a calling card from Lupin. Jigen, Goemon and Fujiko attack the Ark's main defenses, defeating Royal, Saber and Maria in the process, while Lupin and Michael, aided by Pierre and Joseph (a hacker), along with prior research made by Goemon, penetrate the security defenses protecting the Crimson Heart. Pramuk traps the pair in the vault, intending to suffocate them. Michael places Lupin in the vault's safe and blows the vault door up, killing himself but saving Lupin. Lupin and the others are handed over by Pramuk to Zenigata and Narong, but they instead arrest Pramuk for his crimes, using the Crimson Heart as evidence. Zenigata then discovers too late that the necklace and ruby given to him by Lupin were fakes.
Later, Lupin unsuccessfully tries to get Fujiko to wear the Crimson Heart, and Zenigata returns to pursue them. Fujiko takes the necklace and escapes while Lupin and Jigen escape together in their Fiat 500. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034881 | I Married a Witch | Two witches in colonial Salem, Jennifer (Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel (Cecil Kellaway), are burned at the stake after being denounced by Puritan Jonathan Wooley (Fredric March) and their ashes buried beneath a tree to imprison their evil spirits. In revenge, Jennifer curses Wooley and all his male descendants, dooming them always to marry the wrong woman.
Centuries pass. Generation after generation, Wooley men - all played by March - marry cruel, shrewish women. Finally, in 1942, lightning splits the tree, freeing the spirits of Jennifer and Daniel. They discover Wallace Wooley (March again), living nearby and running for governor, on the eve of marrying the ambitious and spoiled Estelle Masterson (Susan Hayward), whose father (Robert Warwick) just happens to be Wooley's chief political backer.
Initially, Jennifer and Daniel manifest themselves as white vertical smoky 'trails', occasionally hiding in empty (or sometimes not-so-empty) bottles of alcohol. Jennifer persuades her father to create a human body for her so she can torment the latest Wooley. He needs a fire to perform the spell, so he burns down a building (appropriately enough, the Pilgrim Hotel). This serves dual purposes, as Jennifer uses it to get the passing Wallace to rescue her from the flames.
Jennifer tries hard to seduce Wallace without magic, but though he is strongly attracted to her, he refuses to put off his marriage. She concocts a love potion, but her scheme goes awry when a painting falls on her; Wallace revives her by giving her the drink she had intended for him.
Jennifer's father conjures himself a body. Then he and Jennifer crash the wedding, though they are at cross purposes. Daniel hates all Wooleys and tries to prevent his daughter from helping one of them. His attempts at interference land him in jail, too drunk to remember the spell to turn Wallace into a frog. Meanwhile, Estelle finds the couple embracing and the wedding is called off. Her outraged father promises to denounce the candidate in all his newspapers.
Wallace finally admits that he loves Jennifer, and they elope.
Jennifer then works overtime with her witchcraft to rescue her new husband's political career. She conjures up little clouds of brainwashing white smoke that "convince" every voter to support Wallace, and he is elected in a landslide, where even his opponent doesn't vote for himself. The unanimous vote for him convinces Wallace that she is a witch. In disgust, Daniel strips his daughter of her magical powers, and vows to return her to the tree that imprisoned them.
In a panic, Jennifer interrupts Wallace's victory speech, imploring him to help her escape. Unfortunately, the taxi they get into to get away is driven by her father, who takes them in an airborne ride back to the tree. At the stroke of midnight, Wallace is left with Jennifer's lifeless body, while two plumes of smoke watch. Before they return to the tree, Jennifer asks to watch Wallace's torment. While Daniel gloats, Jennifer reclaims her body, explaining to Wallace, "Love is stronger than witchcraft." She quickly puts the top back on the bottle of liquor her father is hiding in, keeping him drunk and powerless. The movie concludes years later, after Wallace and Jennifer have children, where the housekeeper enters to complain about their youngest daughter, who enters riding a broom. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | Utterly entrancing comic fantasy with a captivating Veronica Lake.The film is a light as air concoction directed by Rene Clair at breakneck speed which suits the material perfectly.
It's probably the greatest movie which Veronica Lake ever did, and probably one of the best classics to come out of the heyday of Hollywood.As captivating as Marilyn Monroe was to become,Lake is wonderfully demure and waif-like in her appearance, and Fredric March shows great range between befuddled and charmed by lake as she enraptures him.
Very well-crafted comedy with some memorable work by Veronica Lake and a charming role for Cecil Kellaway (perfectly cast in this picture).
This film has a great cast in Veronica Lake, Fredric March, Susan Hayward and Cecil Kellaway.
She's known more for her peekaboo blonde locks and for starring with Alan Ladd in several hit movies, but Lake was a good comedienne, too.Susan Hayward does well playing a snotty woman and Cecil Kellaway always plays an interesting character.
Listen, Bud, we Americans go so far back into the Middle Ages that at one time we used to burn witches!") The trials have given rise to a number of serious works of literature, such as Hawthorne's "The House of the Seven Gables" and Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", but they have also inspired some lighter offerings, such as television series like "Bewitched", "Charmed" and "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" (which featured a cat named Salem)."I Married a Witch" is an earlier example of using the witch trials as a source of comedy.
(The film, with its theme of a witch falling in love with a mortal, was the inspiration for "Bewitched").This was one of Veronica Lake's early star vehicles.
Although only 19, she had shown earlier the same year in "This Gun for Hire" that she was a gifted actress in film noir, and in "I Married a Witch" she showed that she could also turn her hand to comedy, making Jennifer a delightfully playful and sexy heroine.
In the long run, however, it was to be Hayward who proved the more durable; Lake's career was all but over by the end of the forties, whereas Hayward was to remain a leading lady throughout the fifties and into the sixties.There is another good performance from Cecil Kellaway as the drunken old reprobate Daniel, but the weak link is Fredric March who makes Wallace too much of a stuffed shirt for the hero of a romantic comedy film.
(Lake's fiery temper and her gift for making enemies were among the reasons why her career was to be a short one).Overall, "I Married a Witch" is one of those forties comedies which still remains watchable today, largely because of an often humorous script and a vivacious leading lady.
"I Married a Witch" is a delightful light comedy which I suppose is the basis for "Bewitched." Apparently these Salem witches cursed an entire family so that they would be unlucky in love, and the movie quickly takes us through the generations of miserable men (all March in assorted wigs) until it gets to the present when March, a gubernatorial candidate, is set to marry a human witch (Susan Hayward).
The very dignified March made a great politician, as the character in this film is - but he comes off as too old to be marrying Hayward or getting involved with Lake.
It is a: "park your troubles at the door" type of film which sweeps the viewer away into a world of whimsy.In the 17th century two actual witches, father Daniel and daughter Jennifer, are burned at the stake by Jonathan Wooley.
Now we come to modern day - 1942 - and Wallace Wooley (Fredric March) is about to marry the daughter of his political backer, Estelle Masterson (Susan Hayward).
From Jennifer accidentally taking the love potion meant for Wallace, to her casting a spell so that Wallace wins EVERY vote, to Daniel not liking his new son-in-law and being rather vicious about it.Veronica Lake was great here in a role that did not require a lot of range.
Veronica Lake is funny and charming in a role that really showcases her skills as a comedienne- in my opinion, it's a shame she didn't get the chance to do more comedies, since film noir seems to be what she is best remembered for today.
A beautiful 17th-century witch (Veronica Lake) returns to life to plague politician Wallace Wooley (Fredric March), descendant of her persecutor (also Fredric March).I come to this film as a fan of horror films, and this is certainly not a horror film despite the subject matter of witchcraft.
Veronica Lake and Cecil Kellaway seem to get into the spirit of this whimsical comedy about witchcraft--while Fredric March (who reportedly disliked working with Lake whom he considered an inferior actress) does not come off well in comedy.
In the 17th century, a witch named Jennifer (Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel (Cecil Kellaway) are burned at the stake by Puritans.
Jennifer immediately sets her sights on Wooley's latest descendant Wallace, a politician engaged to marry an unpleasant woman named Estelle (Susan Hayward).Very funny and charming comedy with an excellent cast headed by the sexy Veronica Lake.
Jennifer sets about wooing Wallace with every trick in the book, while Daniel is less than impressed and does all he can to overcook the broth.I Married A Witch is now rightly acknowledged as the inspiration for the hit running series Bewitched, and as good as I found that particular show, it could never replace the love I have for this delightfully breezy picture.
Frederick March is a rising politician with no noticeable moral qualities on the verge of his wedding (to classy Susan Hayward) and an election, who is caught up in a series of increasingly compromising situations with a witch come back to take revenge on his ancestor, in the form of Veronica Lake.
But, for my money, you'd be hard pressed to find a more likeable Rom-Com this side of Thorne Smith's other comedic creation, Cosmo Topper, in "Topper Takes a Trip" or "Topper Returns".The plot, partly taken from Smith's unfinished "The Passionate Witch" is more logical than the novel, which was finished by Smith's collaborator Norman Matson after his death.The film follows a more typical Rom-Com formula (Witch meets boy, falls in love with boy, and marries his ancestor 200 years later) than the book, but never mind.
Rene Clair directed this clever comedy that stars Frederic March as several generations of the Wooley family, starting with Jonathan Wooley, who has condemned two witches named Daniel & Jennifer(played by Cecil Kellaway & Veronica Lake) who are father & daughter.
Now in love with him, she tries desperately to save him from the curse and her vengeful father...Veronica Lake was perfectly cast here, stunningly beautiful and alluring, aided by a witty script and effective direction.
Ten years after taping this from AMC and about thirty after first reading about this in the East Baton Rouge Parish Library film listings (when they used to show movies on Saturday afternoons or weeknights), I finally watched Rene Clair's adaptation of Thorne Smith's I Married a Witch starring Fredric March and Veronica Lake.
What a wonderful fantasy-comedy-romance concerning the two leads and surrounded by such hilarious supporting performances of Robert Benchley, Cecil Kellaway, a young Susan Hayward, and that lady who kept singing "I Love You Truly" (Helen St. Rayner)!
Good Haloween romance comedy with a screwball flavor.Veronica Lake is enchanting despite her lack of acting skill and we even get some extra flavor from Susan Hayward!March is somewhat miscast but still manages to pull it off.Great special effects for 1942 and also makes a good prequel to the Bewitched TV series.An essential cult classic for fans of Haloween comedies.Almost a mainstream classic if it only had a more longer running time.Only for fans of the genre and fans of the lead actors......
I Married a Witch (1942) *** (out of 4) A witch is burned at the stake but comes back years later as a beautiful woman (Veronia Lake) to take revenge on a relative (Fredric March) of the man who had her killed in Rene Clair's comedy.
Susan Hayward adds nice support but it's Cecil Kellaway who steals the film as Lake's Warlock father..
It's Jennifer who together with her warlock dad Daniel,Cecil Kallaway, who came back to life with the help of a lighting strike to hunt the decedent of puritan Nathaniel Wooley, Fredric March, who condemned them both to death back in the 17th century for practicing witchcraft.
Working together as a team Jennifer and her dad Daniel take aim at Nathaniel's great-to something like the 10th generation-grandson Jonathon Wooley also played by Fredic March who's expected to win the election for the state governor as well as planning to marry pretty red-head Estelle Masterson, Susan Hayward, the same evening as part of a double-header!With Jennifer suddenly coming on the scene with her making Johathon save her life in a hotel fire he ends up cooked with his both political and marriage lives in her taking control of them.
But this all changes 200 years later when lightning strikes the tree and releases their spirits back into the world of the living-and the first place Daniel and Veronica go is to the house of a man named "Wallace Wooley" (also played by Fredric March) who is a direct descendent of Jonathan Wooley-and he is soon to be married to a woman named "Estelle Masterson" (Susan Hayward).
I'm also always intrigued when I learn that the two leads in a film didn't get on, as was apparently the case here with old stager Fredric March and young whippersnapper Veronica Lake and yet you'd hardly notice any of that in front of the camera.In short the movie's a delight with March and the much younger Lake perhaps in their mutual enmity inadvertently finding the spark which helps the comedy here.
He's the stuffed shirt would-be senator being led by the nose to marry the shrewish daughter of a rich newspaper magnate, while she's the mischievous witchy offspring of an eternal warlock dating back to the Salem witch-trials who harbours a grudge against the descendants of the witch-finder general who saw him burned back in 1670, whose present-day representative just happens to be March's Wallace Wooley character.March proves himself adept at screwball comedy but Lake steals the picture with her smoky-voiced sexiness as well as excellent comedic timing.
There are several funny scenes like the on-off-on-off wedding to March's haughty fiancee played by Susan Hayward and the witty years-later epilogue with the happy coup!e coming to realise that one of their own daughters might also be a witch.Miss Lake reportedly stood less than 5' high and this film runs for only 71 minutes but both these facts are proof that good things definitely come in small sizes..
If you're in for a good laugh, go for it; just know what you're getting into.Veronica Lake, a witch, and her father, Cecil Kellaway, have been tormenting a particular family since the Salem witch trials.
Burnt as a witch, Veronica Lake (Jennifer) and her father Cecil Kellaway (Daniel) put a curse on Fredric March (Wooley) and his descendants so that they will always be unlucky in love.
Veronica Lake is great as witch Jennifer, who with her father (Cecil Kellaway) was burned alive 270 years ago.
I Married a Witch was a good fantasy/comedy that could have been a great one if it were not for the fact that the leading man and lady couldn't stand each other.Fredric March thought Veronica Lake was a no-talent studio creation and Lake thought March a would be rake who was put out because she wouldn't give him a tumble.
A twenty year old Veronica Lake is "Jennifer", who had put a curse on the Wooley family for all time.
Some fun co-stars helping out - the low key Robert Benchley, Susan Hayward (will go on to win an Oscar 15 years later), and Jennifer's father ( Cecil Kellaway, from Postman...) There is a scene where Jennifer gets out of Wooley's bed as the housekeeper walks in, and the housekeeper is shocked - pretty rough stuff for 1942.
Luckily, the sorceress in this romantic-comedy is open to other colors than black.When the spirit of burnt witch, Jennifer (Veronica Lake), is freed from the tree holding her captive, she's released on Salem in the 1940s.
Eventually Jennifer encounters the descendant of the puritan (Fredric March) she cursed to never find true love, only to find him vying for governorship, and engaged to the daughter (Susan Hayward) of his biggest financial supporter.In a twist of fate, however, the enchantress ends up falling for the candidate on the day of his wedding.An old Hollywood romance with a dash of Paganism, this amiable albeit naïve witch's tale is surprisingly funny, but poorly acted on the part of its stunning starlet.Incidentally, when you divorce a witch she's entitled to half your life essence.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
270 years ago in Salem, a witch and her father were burned at the the stake by a New England Puritan, who is cursed along with all his descendants by black magic and will never find happiness in romance; jump ahead to the present day (circa 1942), the witches are released from their holding spot and the bewitching lass discovers the latest descendant is a handsome politician with a shrew for a fiancée (the witch's father tells her men always marry the wrong woman--it's the girls who get away who cause the real unhappiness).
And, even though this seemed to be the case, I'm pretty certain that movie-audiences back in 1942 loved this crummy, brain-dead comedy to pieces and excitedly looked forward to more of the same from Hollywood.When it came to absolutely annoying, grate-on-your-nerves characters, I'd say that the petite, peek-a-boo girl, Veronica Lake, as Jennifer, the witchy witch, had me repeatedly cringing with contempt for her every time she appeared on screen (no matter how attractive the make-up artists tried to make her look).Incompetently directed by Rene Clair (who was obviously just a bungling boob who knew nothing about directing coherent comedy), I have now completely sworn off ever watching another stupid and sickening Screwball comedy, ever-ever again..
However she places a curse on her accusers that they will always find misery in love.The witch aided by her despicable father returns in the present day as a beautiful woman (Veronica Lake).
She plans to take revenge on the descendants of one of her accusers (Fredric March) who is about to get married and is also running for political office.However in this comedy by Rene Clair, the curse goes awry and she ends up falling in love with him.This is a charming film, rather risqué in places with sharp insights about politics.Both March and Lake make the most of their roles as they have a topsy turvy relationship but Cecil Kellaway is the scene stealer as Lake's father who uses magic to cause mayhem..
It's a cute but pretty forgettable little comedy about a modern-day descendant (Fredric March) of a family patriarch who was cursed by a witch way back when and condemned to a legacy of bad marriages.
Luckily for him, a slinky little witch played by Veronica Lake reappears after an absence of a couple of hundred years to make mischief, notably by making March fall in love with her instead.
Unluckily for him, the witch's father (Cecil Kellaway) also comes along and gets up to much meaner hijinks (like setting skyscrapers on fire), which include interfering when his daughter starts to develop feelings of her own for the man she's bewitched.Much is likable about the film, but little sparkles.
Served as French film pyrotechnist René Clair's second Hollywood venture when he was a hired- hand by the studios, I MARRIED A WITCH cashes in on a light-hearted script about witchcraft and head-over-heels romance, and headlined by a 20-year-old Veronica Lake (in her iconic peekaboo coiffure) and a visibly too-old-for-the-bachelor-role Fredric March.The fatuous story develops around a witch Jennifer (Lake), after miraculously awaken by a thunder striking the oak tree where she and her sorcerer father Daniel (Kellaway) were burned centuries ago, now is frivolously bent on seeking revenge from Wallace Wooley (March), the descendant of her denouncer in Salem, by seducing the latter into marry her, so that she can break his heart.
Veronica Lake is Jennifer and Cecil Kellaway is her father, Daniel.
Now Morley Wooley (March) is slated to marry beautiful vixen Estelle (Hayward) until witch Jennifer (Lake) decides to enter the picture.
Veronica Lake's fooling, charming, biting witch (released from the trunk of a tree by a freak lightning storm, she returns to upset the household and descendants of the man who had her burnt a few hundred years earlier) was a role that suited her to perfection: she was a spry, punchy little cockerel from Broolklyn breeding ground of other feisty spirits such as Clara Bow, Barbara Stanwyck, Mae West and Susan Hayward whose beauty hid brains, and whose brains worked fast to seize a chance and make the most of it...
It is about two witches named Jennifer (Veronica Lake)and her father who are burned at the stake, and their remains are trapped in a tree.
The great René Clair's whimsical fantasy featuring the unlikely pairing of Fredric March & Veronica Lake.
Johnathan Wooley is a Puritan who denounced Jennifer(Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel(Cecil Kelloway) as witches and sorcerers, and had them burned at the stake.
If you like the TV series "Bewitched," you'll like this whimsical Thorne Smith comedy because the TV series is a direct rip off.Veronica Lake and Cecil Callaway are witches in colonial New England consigned to live inside a tree by the Wooley family of Puritans.
Frederick March is excellent as the modern descendant, and Veronica Lake is quite good as the witch. |
tt0758790 | The Tudors | === Season 1 ===
Chronicles the period of Henry VIII's reign in which his effectiveness as King is tested by international conflicts as well as political intrigue in his own court. Cardinal Wolsey plays a major part in the series, acting as Henry's trusted advisor.
In Episode 1, Wolsey persuades his King to keep the peace with France and the two Kings meet at Calais to agree a pact of friendship, while the pressure of fathering a male heir compels him to question his marriage to his Queen, Katherine of Aragon. He also has a string of affairs and, in Episode 2, fathers an illegitimate son with his mistress, Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, who is also one of Queen Katherine's ladies-in waiting (the son, Henry FitzRoy, later dies).
Anne Boleyn catches Henry's eye — she has been attending the French court — and she is encouraged by her father and uncle to seduce the King, though she also falls in love with Henry as the season unfolds. Her shrewd refusal to his open invitation to become his mistress unless he will marry her pushes him to use Cardinal Wolsey to take action against the Queen, the King instructing his trusted advisor to get papal dispensation for his divorce on the grounds that his wife did indeed consummate her marriage to his brother, Arthur. In Episode 6, Wolsey's increasingly desperate efforts to persuade the Catholic Church to grant a royal divorce, primarily as a result of Emperor Charles V's influence over the Pope as Katherine's nephew, starts to weaken his position.
In Episode 7, the mysterious sweating sickness arrives in England, killing both the high-born and low-born, and Henry, who is terrified of catching the plague, secludes himself with his herbal medicines in the deep countryside away from court. Anne Boleyn contracts the illness but recovers. A papal envoy finally lands on English shores to decide on the annulment and, at the end of a specially convened session at which both Henry and Katherine are initially present, eventually decides in favor of Katherine. Cardinal Wolsey is stripped of his office, in Episode 9, and banished to York, where he pleads with the King to restore him to office. Sir Thomas More, Henry's devotedly loyal friend, is chosen as his successor.
In the final episode (Episode 10), Cardinal Wolsey makes one last desperate attempt to save himself by allying himself with his old enemy, Queen Katherine, but their plot is discovered and Wolsey kills himself during his internment in the Tower of London after saying a brief prayer apologizing for his sins, but asking no forgiveness for them.
=== Season 2 ===
Henry will do whatever it takes to marry Anne Boleyn, even defying Pope Paul III. He prepares to take Anne on a royal visit to France, having demanded loyalty from the English clergy. The papacy in Rome organises an assassination plot against Anne but the assassins' attempts fail.
In Episode 3 the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury annuls Henry's marriage, clearing the way for Henry to marry a by now pregnant Anne, which also increases the growing rift between England and Rome. Bishop Fisher refuses to recognise the validity of Henry's marriage — after Henry issues a decree ordering all his subjects to recognise their new Queen — and is finally joined by Sir Thomas More, who is granted permission by Henry to retire from his public office. In Episode 5, Fisher and More's refusal to sign an oath of allegiance recognising Henry's supreme authority as head of the English church eventually leads to their executions.
In Episode 6, Thomas Cromwell, who has assumed More's office as Chancellor of England, announces his plans to cleanse England of dissenters to the New Monarchy. Also, England's relationship with France is complicated by King Francis's refusal to unite their kingdoms in marriage, thus causing Henry to question his decision to have married Anne. Episode 7 sees an increasingly ill and disillusioned Katherine who has been forbidden to see her daughter, Lady Mary, and Cromwell has legislation approved by Parliament agreeing to the dissolution of first the smaller and then the larger abbeys and monasteries.
In Episode 8, Henry has Cromwell initiate overtures to the Emperor to make peace with Rome as a bulwark against a hostile France, and the King starts to pay court to Lady Jane Seymour after Anne's two miscarriages following the birth of Princess Elizabeth. It is his long-time friend, Charles Brandon who, with Cromwell, eventually alerts Henry to Anne's apparent indiscretions and her fate is sealed. She is conducted to the Tower of London and her four supposed lovers, one of whom is her own brother, are executed followed eventually by her own — delayed by some hours as a result of the French executioner's late arrival from Calais. Her devious father, who shows little remorse at the death of his son and Anne's impending death, is allowed to go free but banished from court and is shown leaving the Tower without even acknowledging his daughter waving from her cell window.
On the morning of his Queen's execution, Henry enjoys a lavish breakfast, symbolically consisting of the mate of a swan he has seen outside his window, as he looks forward to a new start and heirs with Lady Jane Seymour.
=== Season 3 ===
Focuses on Henry's marriages to Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves, the birth of his son Prince Edward, his ruthless suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace, the downfall of Thomas Cromwell, and the beginnings of Henry's relationship with the free-spirited Catherine Howard.
Henry happily marries his third wife but his honeymoon period is soon spoilt by a growing resentment against the Reformation in the north and east of England. The growing band of rebels disperses in Lincolnshire but gathers strength in Yorkshire, primarily because of its able leaders such as Robert Aske and Lord Darcy. The royal troops, commanded by the Duke of Suffolk, are severely outnumbered and are forced to parley, whilst on the Continent the papacy sends a newly appointed English cardinal to persuade the Spanish and French monarchs to support the English rebellion, deemed the Pilgrimage of Grace by its followers as their objective is to restore the old Catholic religious practices.
In Episode 3 Henry is determined to stop at nothing to suppress the revolt, his fears stirred by remembrances of the Cornish uprising during his father's reign. He deceitfully persuades the rebel leaders to lay down their arms and disperse their followers, promising to hold a Parliament in York to answer all their grievances, which is never convoked. A second uprising is savagely suppressed and the leaders executed as Henry, via Cromwell, instructs Suffolk to shed quantities of blood to act as an example. Jane Seymour goes into labor and produces a baby boy, but she dies soon after as a result of her protracted labors. In Episode 5, Henry retires from public view, bereft by the loss of his Queen, but finally emerges: his first act is to get the church leaders to agree on a new Protestant doctrine, one that threatens to undermine Cromwell's Reformation.
In the ensuing episodes, the King has the last remaining Plantagenet heirs, the Pole family, put to death (mother, son and grandson) as a result of Cardinal Reginald Pole's actions to undermine his rule. This creates a schism with Spain and France and, upon Cromwell's urging, Henry agrees to an alliance with the Protestant League by marrying Anne of Cleves after first dispatching the English Ambassador to Holland to negotiate terms, followed by Hans Holbein to paint her likeness. However, Cromwell's plans to bolster the Reformation are undone by Henry's dislike for Anne, whom he calls a 'Flanders mare'. He is unable to consummate his marriage and vents his frustration on his Lord Privy Seal, which is encouraged by the Duke of Suffolk in league with Edward Seymour, as both want Cromwell removed from office. With his enemies encircling him, Cromwell pleads with Anne of Cleves to submit herself to her husband, but she is powerless to deflect King Henry's antipathy towards her. Finally, Cromwell is dragged off to the Tower after being accused of being a traitor by the King's Council and, despite writing a letter begging his master's forgiveness, is gruesomely beheaded by a drunken executioner.
In the meantime, Sir Francis Bryan is instructed by the Duke of Suffolk to find a woman to rekindle Henry's jaded love interest, and the beautiful and very young Catherine Howard, a distant relation of the Duke of Norfolk, is introduced at court and, catching the King's interest, he beds her in secret and a new romance begins.
=== Season 4 ===
The fourth and final season covers Henry's ill-fated marriage to Catherine Howard and his final, more congenial, marriage to Catherine Parr. The ageing King seeks military glory by capturing Boulogne, France. In his final hours, he is troubled by the ghosts of his dead wives.
Henry marries 17 year old Catherine Howard, and, besotted by her beauty, calling her "his rose without a thorn", feels rejuvenated. Catherine starts to dally with the King's groom, Thomas Culpepper, and is encouraged by her senior lady-in-waiting, Lady Rochford — Henry's sister-in-law — who is also being bedded by Culpepper. In Episode 2, Henry invites his former wife, Anne of Cleves, to court to celebrate Christmas as he wants to reward her for keeping her word to him and for her loyalty. She, in turn, is grateful for the charity he has shown towards her. After the festivities, he is struck down once again by his leg wound — from his former jousting days — while Catherine is with Culpepper.
Feeling the need for company, Henry visits Anne of Cleves and has a liaison with her. He and Catherine embark on the royal Passage to the North to forgive the former rebels, accompanied by the Princess Mary who is popular with the King's northern subjects. It is during this period that Catherine and Culpepper consummate their relationship and Catherine is truly in love with him. In Episode 4, Henry makes friendly overtures to the French Ambassador, hoping to prevent an invasion, and Francis Dereham, Catherine's former lover when they both resided with the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, arrives at court and blackmails the Queen into making him her private secretary. Some weeks later Henry receives a secret letter about their prior sexual exploits.
In Episode 5 the King grants permission to the Earl of Hertford to investigate the Queen's infidelity. He plans to pardon her but is then informed by his Council of her affair with Culpepper — revealed by Dereham under torture — and he has all three executed, along with Lady Rochford who has gone mad in the Tower. On the scaffold, Catherine states that, although Queen of England, she would have preferred to have been Thomas Culpepper's wife. In Episode 6, Henry is courted by both Spain and Rome to form a military alliance against the French, who have allied with the Turks, and he is persuaded to form an alliance with the Emperor and invade France. Thomas Seymour introduces Catherine Parr at court and she catches the King's eye, even though married. Henry pursues her and sends Seymour over to Belgium to remove him as a love rival.
Military preparations are made and English troops lay siege to Boulogne, bombarding it with cannon as an Italian engineer digs a tunnel to blow up the castle. Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk, captures a French father and daughter and falls in love with the daughter Brigitte. At home, Catherine Parr is acting as Regent in Henry's absence and uses her power to further the Protestant cause but is checked by Bishop Gardiner and his Catholic faction, supported by the Princess Mary. In Episode 8, the castle of Boulogne is overcome and the keys to the city handed over to Henry by the French mayor. Henry returns to court in triumph, leaving the Earl of Surrey in charge of the new possession.
At home, Henry is disturbed by the struggle between the Catholic and Protestant factions and Catherine alienates him through her support of the Reformation. Bishop Gardiner continues his campaign against heretics and gathers enough evidence to persuade the King to issue an arrest warrant against the Queen for heresy. In the meantime, Henry Howard, now Lieutenant General Surrey, loses a disastrous battle at Boulogne and, in an attempt to usurp power away from the new men like the Seymours and Richard Rich, he is arrested and tried for treason and executed, despite the paucity of evidence against him.
In Episode 10 an increasingly frail Henry is facing his own mortality. His mind is on the succession and he appoints Edward Seymour, the Earl of Hertford, to be Lord Protector until Prince Edward reaches his maturity. Catherine, knowing the mortal danger she is in, orders her ladies-in-waiting to destroy all their heretical books and no longer to discuss religious matters; she also submits herself to her husband and he pardons her. Charles Brandon, the King's most trustworthy friend and loyal servant, is reunited with Henry for one final meeting before he dies. As the end approaches, the ghosts of Henry's first three wives confront him over their ends and his treatment of their children. Henry orders his family to spend their Christmas at Greenwich, bidding them his final farewell and instructing the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth to care for their brother. The final scene has him approving the portrait painted for him by Hans Holbein, depicting him as a virile, youthful King. | intrigue | train | wikipedia | I'm glad to see Showtime taking on the Tudor era, even if they are doing it because Henry's life is a tabloid-seller's dream come true, and our culture is tabloid-obsessed.I love the casting of Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) and Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey).I read an earlier comment after I had already expressed the following thought elsewhere, and I completely agree -- Steven Waddington (Buckingham) would have been a better Henry VIII - he's bigger (he properly fills the screen, which in various shots J R-M painfully cannot, either in height or breadth); red-haired (as Henry was); and a POWERFUL, mesmerizing actor who's a better age for the part.
Some dramatic license is expected (like flipping France for Portgual b/c they introduced Francis I early on) but there is no GOOD excuse for making a composite of Henry's sisters by telling Princess Mary Rose Tudor's story, but calling the character Princess Margaret, which was her older sister's name.The real Margaret had a dramatic story, too -- and she's got the line to the current royal family through her great-granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots -- but they lost the chance to tell that by combining the sisters.
Having finished the first season and rewatched it a half dozen times as I wait impatiently for Showtime to unveil the second season of "The Tudors," I have to admit that this show has intrigued me in the history surrounding Henry VIII and his unfortunate wives better than any before it.
Like the fact that the little wrestling match between Henry of England and Charles of France actually did take place, or that the only time Queen Katharine lost her cool in all that she was forced to endure was over the succession, and subsequent threat to her daughter's rights to the throne.
Even certain of the dialogue is ripped right from the pages of history.True, things are pushed out of order so as to move the story along at a more rapid pace, and the worst bastardization of history comes in the form of the preposterous mingling of Henry's sisters Margaret and Mary into one individual (oddly enough, they don't even bother to push through the fact that one marriage lasted eighteen years and produced several children, which would have given them a lead-in for producing a later series built on this one about the heirs to the throne), but the reality is that this is solid film-making.
(It also doesn't give the audience much empathy for Henry, who seems incapable of "making love." Even his eventual tryst with Anne Boleyn has more primal boredom to it than wooing.) I know it was a low ploy by Showtime, cashing in on the "sex sells" shallowness of our culture, but the story is much more profoundly lingering without it..
I understand people may argue that there are many historical inaccuracies but these become irrelevant when you realise the quality of the sets, scripts and not to forget the incredible acting.I also think that the costume department also deserve an enormous amount of credit for designing royal attire that would have been fit for any Tudor King or Queen.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII was absolutely excellent throughout, he thoroughly owned the character and delivered with incredible passion and conviction.
This outstanding series composed by 38 episodes results to be a magnificent costumer , set in Henry VIII's (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) epoch .
The drama is based on so much sexual activity that it rather spoils the look for those who want to see also History without quite such great liberty taken.Costuming is less than stunning; and hair and make-up do nothing but enhance the physical beauty of the actors.
There are movies that embellished on Henry VIII...like HBO's HenryVIII, but, they stuck to the basic facts and the actors were cast brilliantly.At this point, for those of us who know our history, it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't help it...as horrible as it is, you can't turn away.I watch more now to see just how badly they can keep on screwing up.
I do know if I can make it through the first season, I won't be watching the second.Most of us "haters" were excited about the show coming out because that was a very dramatic time in history...to be more accurate we are now "dissapointed" by the show and feel let down.
After all, it is called the The Tudors...one would expect it to be a fairly accurate account of The Tudors...*all* of them.If they wanted to make a series about a King and his court, then do it...but don't call it by a name that is part of history then rape the real stories of the real people.That's just my 2 cents....
The people of this particular time period should have only wished that they looked this good."The Tudors" also take generous liberties with actual historical events, characters and costuming.
If you are truly interested in seeing a historical and accurate depiction of Tudor life and events, rent "Anne of the Thousand Days", "A Man for All Seasons" or the PBS specials "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" or "Elizabeth R"..
JRM's Henry8 would be at home on 'Growing Up Gotti' while the aplomb and skill of the other actors (most notably Neill and Northam) show him up as common and juvenile.None of the foregoing will matter, however, to viewers looking for mindless entertainment, and whatever its deficiencies, viewers are forced to learn some rudiments about one of history's most intriguing monarchs..
This rather lack luster series deals with the early years pertaining to the rule of Henry VIII, and trades, rather unfortunately boobies and gratuitous sex for historical accuracy.
- Jonathan Rhys Meyers - how can it be possible to be such a miscast, his looks can go so far as the first episodes after that he has to produce a strong character with the dimension and complexity of Henry the VIII at least, and basically be able to come across as a monarch not as a street ganger, with totally wrong facial expressions, moves, poses, lac of royal pose, after all he's a King and was born and educated to be one, it's not you grocery delivery boy down the street that was just promoted to be King.
that's a pretty big statement: so, it's for the Americans it's OK, they don't care about history and as long as it has pretty people in it, lots of sex scenes, and looks old and historical, everything goes....
hi friends, I'm coming from China, and very like history of world.From mid of 2007, I found this great TV series on net, and inspired by it immediately, as I know about a picture of King Henry VIII and imaging from books, he is a fat and normal looking man, had changed 8 wives, killed 6 of them, and his doctor is Queen Elizabeth I, but in this TV series, the actors makes me almost back to that age, all the environment, language, scene and people of that age comes to my eyes like a hurricane, their act and charming makes the TV becoming one of the greatest history TV series, like Rome and the Band of Brothers etc.The king is a most complex person, and also the Anne Boleyn was same, the two actors play the role from their soul, I think even the real King Henry and Queen Ann would be satisfied with them.my poor English level can't allow me to write more, but I'm very happy to know this series and waiting for the serious extended to Elizabeth age asap----the King Henry's time is long enough, IMO, kidding..
if only, the time of King Henry was a time of great drama and could have easily provided enough of a story without cherry picking costumes, period features, etc.It really is a shame, the potential was there but bad choices, 'acting' and research really let it down.Do not let this put you off watching for yourselves, it was entertaining at times..
There are some good performances and some of the scenery is breathtaking but why try to reinvent a saga like this: A prince destined for the church finds himself king of England against all odds when his brother dies young; he marries his brother's widow, imprisons and torments her for a decade, disowns his daughters, breaks with Rome and creates a new religion; marries five more women in succession, executing two of them; produces one male heir who dies before coming to the throne; makes martyrs of two of his close councillors.
I loved the way they had sexed up the historic characters.The other stroke of genius was to cast Natalie Dormer as Ann Boleyn.
Instead of casting capable age-appropriate actors to thesp the necessary roles, we're given a near predominantly nightmarish youth-cultured cast to portray king, country and subjects (mostly anyway).Henry the eighth was a pretty big man (for the period at least), and, like most kings, threw his weight around (no pun intended).
The acting and costumes, for all they're worth, is actually fairly respectable, but the direction in which the show started, and has continued, leaves much to be desired.In short, if advertisers want TV audiences to buy their clients' products via their sponsoring of television shows, then maybe they better do the following; A) LOWER the prices of the product; B) sell BETTER products (i.e. plastic-junk that doesn't fall apart a year after you buy it); C) do your own stinking research for once, instead of relying on the model-T of data gathering engines; D) make a show people will like.I've really wanted American TV to make a grab for historical dramas, much like Japan's highly successful samurai track record, as well as Europes (specifically England's BBC and ITV, as well as France and the Scandinavian countries).
Jonathan Rhys Meyers was excellent as king henry, the whole cast was fantastic.i think he made him, if its possible, a more likable character but Jonathan is much much more handsome of course than henry was, once i got used to the idea of henry not having red hair,i forgot all about it!i don't suppose i'll ever see anything as good as that again,in fact I'm going to watch it all over again!!!!
As much as I like JRM's good looks, he simply lacks the appropriate charisma for the role, and let's face it he and the other characters are way too skinny for the show to look the slightest historically accurate.
"Anne of a Thousand Days" with Genieve Bujold in the title role is a much more accurate depiction of the events surrounding Henry's divorce and eventual marriage to Boleyn.Part of the problem with this production is the casting seems radically off.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers seems like a good actor, but all wrong for Henry VIII, at least not the Henry who wooed Anne Boleyn.
For my money, the two best Henry VIII's on screen will always be Richard Burton in "Anne of a Thousand Days" and Robert Shaw in "A Man for All Seasons", certainly not easy acts to follow.
Some of it was unbelievable and the characters are far too pretty as is several other aspects but I wasn't watching a documentary on King Henry or his life.I really get bored of reading rants and raves like OMG it's not the same as the book, or OMG it doesn't follow history to the last detail.
Probably some of the finest set dressing and costuming ever assembled for a huge cast kept the eye entertained while the quality of acting included some of the more important actors of the day along with introducing some fresh and exciting faces: Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill, James Frain, Sarah Bolger, Natalie Dormer, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Jeremy Northam, Sam Neill, Hans Matheson, Henry Czerny, Peter O'Toole, Joely Richaradson, Max von Sydow, Joss Stone, Gabrielle Anwar, David O'Hara and on and on.
Terrible casting (or wasteful casting), bad acting, and historical inaccuracies (yes, so called history teacher from the U.S., it DOES matter!) Dumbed down, sexed up entertainment for those who would be just as amused watching a gerbil spinning around in his exercise wheel.
There is a good cast, including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill, Sam Neill and Peter O'Toole.
I've noticed that some of the reviewers have criticized "The Tudors" for historical inaccuracies
all I can say is that to expect filmmakers to honestly and accurately give a historical account of a story is like expecting a defense attorney to make an accurate accounting of the facts for his suspected client.I don't know much about the historical truths behind "The Tudors" so I just sat back and enjoyed the 4 seasons, which covers which I guess to be about the final 25 years of Henry's reign as King.
Although people seem to be complaining about some of the casting and such, but I find no such problems.I love the character of King Henry and of Cardinal Wosley.
I acknowledge that sex is something that is done and enjoyed, but the pilot had so many sexual scenes that it seemed like a pornography.I was considering in buying the series but after so many sexual scenes it would just seem like a porn collection that I would not share to my friends or family.There should be more acknowledgment of the history and their symbolisms: the Houses of York in Lancaster or epilogues to the reign of the King, the Market Bosworth, the legacy of Edmund Tudor; use those aspects in replacement of the repetitive pornos.This show made me really sad, it just demoralizes the English Monarchy and the real history in which it is told.This version is so condescending intellectually and hard to watch with all the inaccuracies involved.-Alex.
Likewise, ANY show that makes the average American viewer want to learn more about history of a country other than the US is praiseworthy.Now, I have read some rave reviews of Natalie Dormer's performance as Anne Boleyn and think something must be wrong with my eyes, or the rest of the world is going crazy.
I see that another reviewer felt that the actor chosen to play Henry was not well suited...I think you need to keep in mind that this is a television show and not a history book...The story line is staying pretty true to historical findings, while still remaining entertaining...sex appeal is part of television, so to cast an unattractive male lead, wouldn't work...I think you need to pay more attention to the actors ability to act, in which case the Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a good choice; he's attractive and a good actor...I think the fist episode was a slow start, but the show is picking up and becoming more and more interesting...I think if you have missed the beginning of the series you should try to catch up, if reruns allow...stay tuned....I see this getting even better..
This Showtime series focuses on the young life of King Henry the VIII of England and seems to be a direct response to HBO's "Rome".
Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the focal point of the series, playing the Renaissance man that was Henry the VIII.
Showtime's promotion of Jonathan Rhys Meyers seemed a risky venture for their final choice of that imposing and formidable Henry VIII, in their series, The Tudors.I get that Showtime is in hot competition with its cable foe, HBO, and I can just imagine a Big Shot and his Assistant, wrestling with the knotty problem, mired in deep contemplation, looking to make a quality A-list product.Big Shot (BS): "So the reason we're meeting today is because we've got to choose someone for the lead role in The Tudors." Assistant (ASS): "Ray Winstone?" BIG Shot (BS): "He'd be great!
Some people are complaining that the series is not at all like "Tudor history".
this series could easily continue for years, the characters fascinating, interesting and a good history lesson, Jonathan Rhys Meyers half naked would change most peoples mind about history!
The cinematography is good, and the pace is engaging, but I would have liked more adherence to the real facts of Tudor history..
Forget history, forget everything and understand this: this series created a fictional story based on real historical facts and characters.
"The Tudors" shouldn't be viewed by people demanding a historically accurate picture of the life of Henry VIII.
For those demanding a high-budget costume drama with sumptuous sets and a liberal amount of nudity, this will be up their street.Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Henry like a Tudor Robbie Williams.
It didn't matter that Jonathan Rhys Meyes didn't look like Henry he was brilliant, his acting made you forget about that fact as far as I'm concerned, and the rest of the cast were also fantastic.
I especially love Jonathan Rhys Meyers, he is an excellent actor and portrayed King Henry VIII perfectly!
And the development of the characters along the seasons really got my attention, especially, Henry VIII, showing that the actor had some talent, unfortunately in real life he's addicted to alcohol and drugs, and the Duke of Suffolk, the only true friend of the king.To sum up, The Tudors is a very well produced and directed TV series.
If you don't see a big problem if there are some differences in the story between the show and what really happened , after all is just a way to present us the court and the reign of Henry VIII and find interesting the medieval age, surely you will enjoy your time watching The Tudors..
British History quite clearly is only the starting point for The Tudors series which is not supposed to be a like-for-like account of historical fact.
Broadly speaking it is based on the events of the Tudor reign of King Henry but if we want an accurate account we can visit one of our many historical landmarks or read such books as 'The Monarchy' which is a great account of this period of British History. |
tt0089670 | National Lampoon's European Vacation | The Griswald family competes in a game show called Pig in a Poke and wins an all-expenses-paid trip to Europe. In a whirlwind tour of western Europe, chaos of all sorts ensues. They stay in a fleabag London hotel with a sloppy, tattooed Cockney desk clerk. While in their English rental car, a yellow Austin Maxi, Clark drives the family around the busy Lambeth Bridge roundabout for hours, unable to maneuver his way out of traffic. His tendency to drive on the wrong side of the road causes frequent accidents, including knocking over a bicyclist, who reappears throughout the film. At Stonehenge, Clark backs the car into an ancient stone monolith, toppling all the stones like dominoes, which they do not even notice as they happily leave the scene.
In Paris, the family wears stenciled berets, causing Rusty to be teased by young women at the Eiffel Tower observation deck. Clark offers to get rid of the beret for Rusty, but when he throws it away, another visitor's dachshund mistakes it for a Frisbee and jumps off the tower after it. Later, Rusty meets an exotic dancer at a bawdy Paris can-can dance show. The family's video camera is stolen by a passerby whom Clark had asked to take a picture of the family. Clark also angers a French waiter with his terrible French, making him say, in French "Go fuck yourself".
Next, in a West German village, the Griswalds burst in on a bewildered elderly couple, who they mistakenly think are relatives but who end up providing them dinner and lodging anyway, not being able to understand the other's language. Clark turns a lively Bavarian folk dance stage performance into an all-out street brawl, after which, while fleeing, he hastily knocks down several street vendors' stands and gets their Citroën DS stuck in a narrow medieval archway.
In Rome, the Griswalds rent a car at a travel office, but unknown to them, the men in charge are thieves, holding the real manager captive. The lead thief gives them a car with the manager in the trunk, claiming he lost the trunk keys. The next day Ellen is shocked to discover that private, sexy videos of her from the family's stolen video camera have been used in a billboard advertising porn, leaving her completely humiliated. After screaming angrily at Clark (who had told her he had erased the video), Ellen storms off to their hotel, where she encounters the thief who rented them the car. She confesses her recent troubles, still unaware that he is a criminal. The man then tries to get the car keys, which are in her purse, but fails. When the police arrive at the hotel, he kidnaps Ellen, prompting Clark to rescue her. On the flight back to the U.S., Clark accidentally causes the plane to knock the Statue of Liberty's torch upside down. | satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0029752 | Wells Fargo | In the early 1840s, Wells & Fargo employee Ramsay MacKay (Joel McCrea) comes upon a broken down carriage in the countryside and gives belle Justine Pryor (Frances Dee) and her mother (Mary Nash) a lift into Buffalo, New York, though he warns them he is in a hurry to make a delivery of fresh oysters. The ladies endure a very bumpy ride, and he arrives in time to enable his employer, Henry Wells (Henry O'Neill), to impress some bankers with the speed of his service.
Wells sends him to set up a branch office in St. Louis, which is quite convenient, as the Pryors reside there. MacKay and Justine begin seeing each other, though her mother disapproves, as does Justine's more socially prominent suitor, Talbot Carter (Johnny Mack Brown).
Impressed with MacKay, in 1846, Wells sends him to open trails to California. MacKay takes along Hank York (Bob Burns), a frontiersman who only works when he has to, and Hank's constant Indian companion, Pawnee (Bernard Siegel). Among his many duties, MacKay sets out to transport gold from a mining settlement to San Francisco. One of his customers is prospector Dan Trimball (Robert Cummings). When Dan expresses his longing for his sweetheart back East, MacKay recommends Wells Fargo's new shipping venture. Elated, Dan sends for his girl. Meanwhile, when MacKay sets out with the gold, he is shot and left for dead by two robbers. Though he recovers, he is threatened by his miner customers, who do not believe he was robbed. Fortunately, he shows them a draft from Wells & Fargo that will cover all their losses.
When MacKay and Dan meet the ship in San Francisco in 1851, passenger Henry Wells has a surprise for his star employee: Justine has come too (though only with the blessing of her father, played by Ralph Morgan). The happy couple get married.
Though their union is strained at times by MacKay being away so often on business, they have a daughter and remain in love. For the birth of their second child, Justine sends her husband to fetch her mother.
Then comes the American Civil War. The marriage is strained to the breaking point. Desperately needed gold is sent repeatedly from the west to the Union, but the shipments are intercepted. Wells & Fargo is assigned the task of transporting $2,000,000 in gold. MacKay, chosen to lead the wagon train, meets with President Lincoln (Frank McGlynn), who emphasizes to him how crucial this shipment is. However, Justine and Mrs. Pryor are fervent Southern supporters, and Justine's brother has been killed fighting for the Confederacy. When MacKay refuses Justine's plea to shirk his duty, she overhears the secret route he will take and writes it down. At the last moment, she crumples up the letter, but her mother has no such scruples. She passes the document along without her daughter's knowledge. As a result, MacKay is met by a Confederate force led by Talbot Carter. MacKay wins the battle, but both Talbot and Pawnee are killed. MacKay finds the letter in his wife's handwriting among Talbot's possessions.
When he returns to San Francisco, his house is empty. His wife and two children have gone with his mother-in-law.
Many years later, when MacKay goes east for a dinner in his honor, he has an unexpected visitor afterward: his now teenage daughter Alice (Peggy Stewart). She invites him to her seventeenth birthday party, but he declines, as he has to leave on business. However, he cannot stay away. When he enters, he sees his estranged wife and his heart softens. Then he discovers that she was not responsible for the bloodshed, and they are fully reconciled. | historical fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0360619 | The Green Goblin's Last Stand | The film starts off at night with Spider-Man jumping from building to building, following a car stolen by two crooks, late for a date with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy. He finally catches up with the vehicle and, complaining that he is late for his date the whole while, eventually manages to stop, overpower and web up the crooks.
Meanwhile, Gwen Stacy waits at a restaurant, saving a seat for her date, Peter Parker. Just as she concludes that Peter will not come, he arrives with roses and he apologizes for his lateness. After sharing a small kiss, Peter tells her that he was taking pictures of Spider-Man for The Daily Bugle - but before he can continue, Gwen angrily bursts out that she is sick of hearing Spider-Man's name all over (as she believes Spider-Man is responsible for her father's death). Peter - who secretly is Spider-Man - tries to protect his alter ego, but is distracted when he sees Norman Osborn riding in a taxi. Gwen notes that Osborn was in the amnesiac institution for millionaires (in another comic book storyline, Osborn, also the villain known as The Green Goblin, fought Spider-Man, figured out the superhero's secret identity, and got amnesia in the ensuing battle, leading to his institutionalization). Gwen is pleased, but Peter is worried that Norman may know his secret identity.
Norman Osborn returns to his apartment home and calls out through his apartment for his son, Harry (who had left New York out of stress). In his room, he looks at an old newspaper detailing a battle between Spider-Man and The Green Goblin that led to the explosion of one of Osborn's factories and Spider-Man returning to the police with Osborn's unconscious body, claiming that The Goblin seemingly perished in the explosion. Osborn begins to vaguely remember The Goblin, but has trouble remembering the figure. Before he can remember more clearly, he hears the door open - and believing his son has come home, he rushes to the door, only to find Peter Parker. Despite Osborn's irrational anger, Peter remains calm and tries to tell Osborn he was trying to find Harry and get them back in contact with each other. Norman calms down and leaves.
Peter and Gwen confront each other in Peter's apartment, The Darkroom, discussing Norman Osborn's return from the clinic. Peter express his worries about Osborn's return, telling her that Osborn could be dangerous if he remembers everything about his past, getting the feeling that Osborn didn't leave that institution with doctor's permission.
As Osborn glares at the old newspaper, he realizes that the explosion from the factory must have caused his amnesia. Seeing Parker's name on the paper, he descends further into madness, hallucinating that Spider-Man is in his house and chasing him through his house, into the streets of New York, all the way to a destroyed area where three low-lives harass him. Seeing one of them as Spider-Man, he attacks him. A fight breaks out, ending when one of the punks breaks a beer bottle over his head and the three run away. Osborn just lies there with his hatred of Spider-Man still intact.
Back in The Darkroom, Peter brings up Spider-Man in the plot to Norman Osborn's amnesia and Gwen expresses her hatred of the superhero at full blast, mentioning her belief that it was Spider-Man and the other freak (Dr. Octopus, though his name is never spoken) who killed her father. She walks out on Peter, and as he tries to calm her down, the phone rings. Torn between calming Stacy down and picking up the phone, he fails at both, learning from the answering machine that Harry Osborn is coming back to town.
The next day, Norman Osborn wakes up in the destroyed area and realizes it to be the warehouse he last fought Spider-Man in, screaming at him as he gets into one of the other parts of the factory and finds The Green Goblin equipment. His voice becomes more squeaky and sinister as he screams throughout the warehouse he is The Green Goblin once he is fully suited, vowing revenge on Spider-Man as he laughs throughout the destroyed warehouse.
Peter goes back to Norman Osborn's apartment and is shocked to see an old newspaper of a battle between Spider-Man and The Green Goblin. He pieces together that this may have caused Norman to relapse. Just as he is walking out of the apartment, he bumps into Harry Osborn, who still believes his dad is at the amnesiac institution for millionaires. While Harry tries to find the doctor's number at his father's desk, Peter rushes out of the apartment because his spider sense tells him danger will happen in The Darkroom.
Gwen returns to The Darkroom, now empty, looking for Peter and apologizing for her outburst. But when she sees a newspaper of Spider-Man that has the question if Spider-Man is really a friend or foe to New York, she angrily wishes that Spider-Man would just disappear from the world - a sentiment the Green Goblin echoes, appearing from nowhere and knocking her out.
Peter goes into an alley and slips into his Spider-Man suit, swinging from rooftop to rooftop all the way back to The Darkroom, where he finds only a pumpkin bomb, The Green Goblin's calling card. The Green Goblin taunts him from the rooftop as he holds Gwen's unconscious body. Spider-Man climbs to the rooftop, where after knocking the villain out, Spider-Man tries to get Gwen home. But The Goblin regains consciousness, returns to his glider and knocks Gwen away from Spider-Man - off the roof. Spider-Man quickly spouts a web to Gwen, catching her and pulling her back up to the roof. His relief turns to horror, however, when he finds that Gwen died in the fall anyway. The Goblin cruelly continues to taunt him, bringing Spider-Man to vow that he will avenge Gwen and The Goblin in cold blood. The fight is renewed, and Spider-Man nearly kills The Goblin, who barely escapes by throwing a bomb at Spider-Man at point blank range. Spider-Man crawls back to Gwen's body, grieving over her death.
Later, back at the ruins of the warehouse, Norman Osborn recovers from the battle and vows to kill all who underestimated Norman Osborn's intelligence. But before he can continue, he realizes Spider-Man has tracked him down, determined to stop him - and ready to kill him. A long, brutal showdown ensues. Spider-Man eventually smashes The Goblin's glider, which infuriates him; he is utterly apathetic towards Gwen's death and claims that she is just another worthless, pathetic girl. Enraged, Spider-Man pounds the Goblin mercilessly, and finally begins to choke him to death. Just as Goblin seems to pass out, though, he stops himself, truly realizing for the first time that he was actually going to kill someone, even a psychopath like The Green Goblin. Suddenly, The Goblin wakes up, telling Spider-Man he should have killed him, keeping him talking while he secretly activates his glider (which is still functional). Spider-Man pulls The Goblin back to his feet, pinning him against a wall as the glider slowly approaches his back, knives out. Just as The Goblin's glider is about to impale Spider-Man, his spider sense activates, and he quickly rolls out of the way, leaving the glider instead to continue rocketing forward and kill The Goblin.
The movie cuts to a cemetery where Peter Parker, a quarter of his face bandaged, apologizes at Gwen Stacy's grave as if talking to Gwen herself - sorry that he never told her he was Spider-Man and that his life is nothing without her, that the Goblin's death only made the pain worse, that he just wants to retire being Spider-Man all for Gwen - but he made a promise on his Uncle Ben's death that he would keep being Spider-Man, no matter what. The film then concludes with Spider-Man jumping and swinging around buildings at night, on the prowl once again.
After the credits, a title card asks the question "The End?" Thus far, however, Poole has not filmed a sequel.
Also, although they do not appear in the film, the Marvel Comics characters Mysterio, Bullseye, and J. Jonah Jameson appear in the trailer. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1911613 | Paranoia | Adam Cassidy is a low-level inventor who works for a corporation run by Nicholas Wyatt. After being fired for insubordination, Adam uses the company's credit card to pay for bottle service for his friends at a club. Wyatt and his enforcer, Miles Meachum, blackmail Adam into becoming a corporate spy for Wyatt by threatening to have him arrested for fraud.
Adam is trained by Judith Bolton and infiltrates a company run by Wyatt's former mentor, Jock Goddard. He provides Goddard, who stole several of Wyatt's ideas, with an advanced software able to hack into cellphones, with potential military applications. FBI Agent Gamble interrogates Adam, revealing that three other employees of Wyatt who transferred to Goddard's company were found dead, but Adam ignores him.
Adam finds out Emma Jennings, a woman he met during the party, is the Director of Marketing of Goddard's company. He initiates a relationship with Emma in order to steal files about Goddard's upcoming projects. Wyatt threatens to kill Adam's father, Frank Cassidy, if Adam doesn't steal a revolutionary prototype cellphone developed by Goddard. Adam later finds out Meachum and Bolton are monitoring him, so he destroys the cameras in his apartment. In retaliation, Meachum runs over Adam's friend, Kevin, with a car, nearly killing him. Adam is given 48 hours to steal the prototype.
Adam uses Emma's thumbprint lifted from a spoon to gain security access to the company's vault. He is confronted there by Goddard, who intends to take over Wyatt's company with evidence that Adam was acting as Wyatt's spy. Emma finds out Adam used her. Adam recruits Kevin to help him. A meeting is set with Wyatt and Goddard, where it is revealed that Bolton has spied against Wyatt on Goddard's behalf. Both men speak of the crimes they have committed to sabotage each other's companies.
Adam has secretly used software to transmit their conversation to Kevin, whose computer recordings are turned over to the FBI. Goddard, Wyatt, Bolton and Meachum are arrested by Gamble, while Adam is released for contributing to the FBI's investigation. He reconciles with Emma and opens a small startup company in Brooklyn with Kevin and their friends. | psychedelic, comedy, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113010 | Fair Game | Valerie Plame is employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, a fact known outside the agency to no one except her husband and parents. She is an intelligence officer involved in a number of sensitive and sometimes dangerous covert operations overseas.
Her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, is a diplomat who most recently has served as the U.S. ambassador to Gabon. Due to his earlier diplomatic background in Niger, Wilson is approached by Plame's CIA colleagues to travel there and glean information as to whether yellowcake uranium is being procured by Iraq for use in the construction of nuclear weapons. Wilson determines to his own satisfaction that it is not.
After military action is taken by George W. Bush, who justifies it in a 2003 State of the Union address by alluding to the uranium's use in building weapons of mass destruction, Wilson submits an op-ed piece to The New York Times, claiming these reports to be categorically untrue.
Plame's status as a CIA operative is subsequently revealed in the media, the leak possibly coming from White House officials, including the Vice President's chief of staff and national security adviser, Scooter Libby, in part to discredit her husband's allegation that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. As a result, Plame is instantly dismissed from the agency, leaving several of her delicate operations in limbo and creating a rift in her marriage.
Plame leaves her husband, further angered by his granting of television and print interviews, which expose them both to public condemnation and death threats. Wilson ultimately persuades her, however, that there is no other way to fight a power as great as that of the White House for citizens like them. Plame returns to him and testifies before a Congressional committee, while Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and given a 30-month prison sentence, although President Bush commutes the jail time on Libby's behalf. | violence, cult, comedy, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | And sometimes fans of pure action-entertainment are the target audience and we have a film like "Fair Game".This is a film which most people have a strong opinion of.
While it's true that no-one has been able to make a good macho-actioner since the 80s (except Steven Seagal and even he is now making films like "The Patriot"), this is a quality effort if there ever was one.
This has everything I want (a macho cop as the hero, a sexy woman as his sidekick, lots of action and gratuitous violence) and nothing I don't (a deep and original plot, Academy Award-winning actors, emotional scenes between mom and daughter...).
Actually many scenes here are so stupid that they could be considered campy and even if you aren't a fan of the genre, you might enjoy laughing at the movie's unintentional humor.One of the things which always means a lot to me in films is the score and "Fair Game" has one of the best scores I've ever heard.
In fact, "Fair Game" is like a throwback to the 80s, when Joel Silver still made good actioners (Commando, Action Jackson, Die Hard, Road House - all brilliant).
Even if you liked films like "Speed" and "Face/Off", you might not like this.Gunfights, explosions, gratuitous violence, gratuitous nudity (from Cindy Crawford, no less!), a brilliant score..what more could a guy who loves action ask?
I've never heard or seen anyone more stilted and lifeless except for a really bored telemarketer.The writing was just BAD, and the movie was just about look how good Cindy looks after being dumped in water and having no shower.
Let's just say that the man credited as her acting coach clearly didn't see all his efforts go unrewarded.And you have to give her and the rest of the cast and crew credit; no one ever pretends that "Fair Game" is anything other than an unpretentious action film, which can't be a bad thing.
(But then even Cindy's biggest detractors have never claimed she was pretentious.) While it is mainly for fans of the moled one, it's still short enough not to hurt, and it certainly improves on the last time the Paula Gosling novel it's based on was turned into a film (the truly awful "Cobra" with Sylvester Stallone), and you don't often see films starring lawyer characters doing something other than criminal law.
And before you point out that no lawyer ever looked as good as Cindy Crawford, remember that that never stopped Steven Bochco - or David E.
It must have sounded like a good idea at the time: "Die Hard With Legal Mumbo-Jumbo" with a twist: we'll have a sexy model as the star.Erm, it sounds good on paper, and perhaps it would have been a good idea if they hadn't screwed the damn thing up by giving us a weak script, even weaker plot, weaker villians and then give up on the sexy model as John McClane and turn her into a damsel in distress.It almost feels like Producer, Joel Silver is satirizing or parodying himself in the constant need for set-piece action after set-piece action strung together on the weakest thing to ever grace the screen.Everything that hits something explodes, cars hit telegraph poles and explode violently, tree's that are in the way explode even more violently...its almost too much to take in.
I know action is what was driving hollywood around the early 90s - but this is just TOO much.Anyway, the film pretty much nose-dives when Crawford - who looks stunning - turns into a damsel in distress with Baldwin acting like he's painting by numbers - just doing the thing because either Stallone dropped out or because of the money.Not even the "sex-scenes" can save this terrible affair.
That plan falls apart when the feisty and pretty civil lawyer Kate McQueen, Cindy Crawford, got in their way and had to be eliminated in order for them to keep up their illegal activities.
Attempting to assassinate Kate at the beginning of the movie as she was jogging down swanky Ocean Drive she has Homicide Detective Max Kirpatrick, William Baldwin, assigned to be with her around the clock to watch protect and defend her, it's a real hard job but somebody's got to do it, against other attempts on her life.
Far more violent then most action police movies with almost the entire cast wiped out, with the exception of Max & Kate of course, by the ending credits.
The action scenes of "Fair Game" are a lot like the old Saturday afternoon cliff-hangers with Max & Kate looking like they've had it and then just getting away from the bad guys every fifteen or so minutes in the movie.
The bad guys are as bad as they can get in what they do and try to do, you can just imagine anyone trying to hurt or kill Cindy Crawford has to be the biggest enemy against hu-MAN-ity in history.The last half-hour of the movie is non-stop action on the roads and highways as well as railroad trains and ships in the South Florida area with the most graphic boat sinking since, even though movie was made in 1995 but I haven't seen it until 2004, the movie "Titanic" in 1997.
I mean, Cindy Crawford plays a brilliant lawyer, for God's sake!Then there's the "infrared scope" scene, the stupidity of which is beyond my descriptive powers.And am I wrong, or was "They did it on computers!" a really lame explanation for all this, even back in 1995?And I have given up trying to understand how the bad guy's plan is supposed to work--I mean, what is killing one lawyer supposed to accomplish?
Whether this is because he's too stupid even to gain employment in Hollywood, or smart enough to have changed his name, I don't know.Idiot director Andrew Sipes (whose cinema career seems to have come to an abrupt and deserved end after he helmed this, his one and only movie) tries to add "excitement" to the first couple of "action" scenes by doing flash pans accompanied by "SHOOM!" noises, although he abandons this after the first couple of scenes and moves on to the even more clichéd slow-motion.If anyone had been stupid enough to give Ed Wood a $50-million-dollar budget (and if anyone had been, it would have been idiot producer Joel Silver), this is the movie he would have made.
I said that because Kirkpatrick (William Baldwin) and Kate (Cindy Crawford) were always on the run from danger.
What's more (or to add good expectations for the male side) you get a full glimpse of Cindy Crawford's bare breasts and the millionth Baldwin brother to take a shot at acting.
Lots of Action and Cindy Crawford Topless
How Bad Can it Be?.
After the rather absurd attempted shooting of Crawford in the opening scene, `Fair Game' begins rather effectively examining the loss of privacy in the digital world, a fresh idea in 1995 (`Enemy of the State' didn't arrive till three years later).
Fair Game incorporates elements from every terrible action/suspense/thriller movie and creates the ultimate viewing experience in that you get the best of everything and the worst of nothing.
i actually enjoyed this film, we know cindy Crawford isn't the academy award actor, but simply this movie had an amazing ambiance to it, the Miami setting, the score of mark mancina simply amazing let's you get involved, the cinematography was good, bad script and bad plots doesn't mean the viewer doesn't enjoy the movie, it doesn't have to be that bad script makes a bad movie, these types of films are for fun, entertainment, it doesn't want to be serious more than it has to be, i recommend it for all action lovers, this is the same as Armageddon,deep impact,the specialist, these movies are for fun, not every movie has to have a strong plot..
William Baldwin stars as a cop who protects a high powered attorney (Cindy Crawford in her career stopping performance!) from a group of terrorists who for some reason are looking to do our bubbleheaded attorney in.
Fair Game plays less like an action flick and more like an ego trip for Cindy Crawford and Billy Baldwin.
The reason Fair Game is so bad is it because it represents what is wrong with action movies as it comes from the "Bigger is better" school and although the explosions and action stock come from the assembly line, I think it is more important that we acknowledge that at one time there was a movie that said, not only can Cindy Crawford act but she can also play an intellectual who is a damn good lawyer too!
"Fair Game", essentially a remake of a painfully funny 1986 turkey, "Cobra", starring Sylvester Stallone and then-bride, hulking she-beast Brigitte Nielsen, tells the story of a beautiful lawyer and a studly cop being chased by baddies.
The cop is played by William Baldwin; the lawyer by model Cindy Crawford, in her acting debut.
In "Fair Game" you KNOW she's not to be messed with because: 1) she's outfitted in bulky black leather, 2) she speaks with a generic Eurotrash accent and says "witty" things like "Let mama make it feel better!" while beating up Baldwin, and, most importantly, 3) she's given a brutal haircut and has bright red lipstick slashed across her downturned mouth.
Just like real life.) Baldwin has never really been much of an actor, and he often seems to have little, if any, chemistry with his female co-stars (perhaps because he's usually prettier than them?), but I suppose he tries his manful best to give a credible performance (or at least as credible as is possible with this movie).
In fact, MOST of the bad guys here do the same thing, again and again: run up to fire at their target, then pause while Baldwin or Crawford can shoot first.
I think the reason Cindy Crawford was cast in this movie was because the producers were hoping that the audience would be so busy admiring her beauty that they wouldn't notice how bad the movie was.It's hard to find anything good to say about this movie.
There were moments where I was laughing at the unintentional humor, but mostly I sat there with my jaw on the floor amazed at how awful this movie was.Cindy Crawford looks hot, but that's the only positive thing I can say about this film.
Fair Game has been justly maligned for its bad plot arcs and often absurd dialogue, especially from the head Russian mobster, but the movie also has some positive attributes.
Before I start the review, I would just like to point out that Fair Game is not entirely bad because of Cindy Crawford's performance.
Nine years before this movie, Cobra (1986) which starred Sylvester Stallone in an action packed film that was great to watch.
Obviously this is not the greatest movie ever to hit the big screen but it can please action fans to a point because that is the strong element in this film.As the second adaptation to Gosling's book, other than Stallone's Cobra (1986), this film is mostly unrealistic because of how the plot was written up.
All in all, it makes a good popcorn flick for when you just want to sit down and watch some random action movie; but that's about it..
In fact, that annoying mole on Cindy Crawford's lip is the best performance in the movie.
i fail to see why this movie has such a low rating on this site(3.7/10).and i also seem to remember critics blasting it.again,i fail to see why.for me,Fair game is an intense,exciting chase movie.so what if it's generic and not that original.to me,it's more about what you do with the material.in this case,the filmmakers made an entertaining movie.it even had some funny one liners.and the stakes in this movie are a bit higher.the bad guys are not your typical bad guys.they're smart and deadly and have no problem killing people.William Baldwin plays Max,a cop who must protect Kate,(Cindy Crawford)a high powered attorney who has angered the wrong people.from this point,the movie is basically a high intensity chase down to the wire.William Baldwin does a good job,but that's not surprising.Cindy Crawford,not having acted before,did a fine job as well.she was i think the brunt of the criticism of this movie,and undeservedly.there are many actresses out there who are much worse than she is in this film.unfortunately her acting career ended before it began thanks to unfair critics and movie goers.if i were a filmmaker,i would cast her in a film,but then i saw potential where almost nobody else does.but that just shows how shortsighted people are.for me, Fair Game is easily an 8/10.
Kirkpatrick and Kate must work out who is trying to kill them and stop them before they are caught.This was Cindy Crawford's big vehicle to turn her from a model into a movie star - and it didn't quite work.
Now action films never really need that good a plot, but this needed a much better reason than it had for the criminals trying to kill Kate - when you find out what it is it's all a bit silly and killing her wouldn't actually have solved it!
The daftness is shown by the way that they try everything to kill her (blow up her house, shoot her on the street, car chases in public etc) and it's obvious that they don't care who sees - but when they eventually catch her, rather than kill her they kidnap her and keep her alive (don't know why) just so Billy Baldwin has time to come rescue her!The action itself is quite good - however the opening scene where a jogging Crawford is just missed by a bullet is the most tense scene in it.
It's all soft focus, bit of breast, bit of ass etc and the way it is forced into the action shows that they wanted to show a bit of skin but weren't sure where to get it in!Considering it's Crawford's film, she mostly has second billing to Baldwin as she doesn't have much to do except play the "woman-in-peril" card for all she's worth.
To show you how wrong this film is in terms of performances - Crawford is given the lead while a really good actress like Salma Hayek is given a tiny role as Kirkpatrick's quickly forgotten girlfriend.Overall some good explosions but don't you want more than that?
Fair Game definitely falls into the latter category.Some reviewers have commented on how great it was to see Cindy Crawford naked.
Much like the fact that she takes two (!) showers in the movie, but doesn't allow us to see anything.Of course the producers of the film didn't think people would be watching for Crawford or Baldwin's acting skills (they have none, of course), but rather to watch two sexy characters.
The movie itself is some thrown together by-the-numbers story about a cop (the always slimy William Baldwin) protecting a lawyer (Crawford) from a Russian out to kill her for a pretty stupid reason.
Laughably over-the-top action dud that does its best to cover up its silliness by focusing on attempting to make Crawford a movie star.
'Fair Game' belongs to the area of bad movies we love.The action-pope Joel Silver just wanted to introduct top model Cindy Crawford to the mainstream business.
Cindy Crawford did good in her debut role, I went to watch this thinking "Oh no" but she was fair to say the least.
lol i saw a review for this film the other day and was told it was terrible which i disagreed with i rememberer watching this 12 years ago when i was 14 and thought it was amazing but when watched it last night i thought it was absolutely terrible maybe watching it as a hormone obsessed teenager seeing cindy crawford probably made me have favourable memories of the films but its not so good watching it as a adult some silly moments and remarkable that with everyone trying to kill her in the film she doesn't seem to show any emotion to it whatsoever also heard the old stallone film cobra is based on this think ill give that a try instead its good to watch once but don't buy it on DVD you will feel like getting a refund if you do.
Your time will be better spent asleep than watching this movie......Cindy Crawford does not know how to act at all, but maybe it was this role that was horrible, who knows?
When I was 15 years old, and this movie came out, Cindy Crawford was the absolute bomb.
As one review put it at the time, "Cindy Crawford makes her film debut.
It can easily flow from late afternoon, before the sun starts to set at all, to well after the sun has set, in a matter of seconds.Choppers can't be heard over bad sex scene music and Cindy Crawford's disinterested moaning.Cops leave the safety off when they put their gun away.Trained assassins watch their target do a random Baldwin brother instead of actually doing their job.A bomb counts down from 2 minutes 57 seconds to 1 minute 47 seconds in just under 15 seconds.
Supermodel Cindy Crawford launches her star movie career,and promptly crashes it in FAIR GAME.The premise to begin with is heavily far-fetched as we're supposed to accept La Crawford as a high-flying lawyer in trouble with ex-KGB baddies intending to exterminate her at all cost over some nonsense concerning a boat belonging to an associate,while would-be macho cop Billy Baldwin is on hand to protect our Cindy when the ensuing mayhem starts.And what mayhem!
Have a few people get shot, blow something up real good and make Cindy Crawford take her top off.
It was little more than a try-hard action movie created to flaunt Cindy Crawford's apparently attractive body. |
tt0307156 | Michel Vaillant | For decades, the Vaillant family has been successfully involved in various kinds of motor racing competitions. Their most notorious driver is Michel, the son of the team's founder and owner Henri and younger brother of Jean-Pierre, the team's manager. One night, Michel's mother Elizabeth has a nightmare involving his death in an accident at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, racing against a car bearing the number 13 from Leader, a team with which the Vaillants had a historic rivalry for more than a quarter of a century. Henri conforts her, assuring that they are not planning to race at Le Mans, that Leader has been out of competition for 5 years and that no one has ever used the number 13 at the race. Meanwhile, in Canada, Michel and his best friend and teammate Steve Warson are both competing in WRC cars. Michel's victory spikes the wrath of Bob Cramer, a ruthless competing driver who is blocked by Vaillant's cars during the race. Cramer ends up threatening Michel's co-pilot, David. A few days later, Henri announces that Vaillant will have an engine at time for Le Mans, and promotes David to the driver's seat at the Rally of Italy, promising him a seat at Michel's car in the 24 hour race if he does well. In Italy, Cramer forces David out of the road, causing him to crash. David is caught in the car's explosion and dies. At the funeral, Michel meets Julie Wood, David's wife. She asks him for his husband's place at Le Mans, and Michel convinces his brother to let her on the team. Meanwhile, the Leader team returns to the competition, by the hand of Ruth, Leader's daughter. They announce that they will race at Le Mans with the number 13, hiring Bob Cramer as one of the drivers. Élisabeth worries that her nightmare can become a reality and tries to dissuade Henri from competing, but he refuses to do so. The weekend at Le Mans starts, and Ruth is determined to stop Vaillant from winning, so she sabotages the car delivery. The Vaillants barely make it on time to compete. This doesn't stop Ruth, and she kidnaps Henri, threatening to kill him if his team wins. Michel initially complies, losing a lot of time each lap. He finally tells Jean-Pierre about Ruth's plan and decides to go and save his father, asking Julie to pose as him during the race. Michel tracks his father's location through the GPS in Ruth's car, but she finds him. Michel is forced by Ruth to drive the Leader, posing as Bob Cramer after an accident puts him out of competition. Ruth and Michel find each other on the track and end up colliding violently, just like in Élisabeth's nightmare. Even though the crash was horrific, they both come out of the wreckage unharmed, and Michel goes with Steve and Julie to rescue Henri from Ruth's henchmen, who start shooting as they flee and injure Steve. The race ends with Steve's Vaillant crossing the line with a flat tire, inches before Leader's car, which had an engine failure and is being pushed by its driver. Unbeknownst to everyone, Michel was posing as Steve in the final laps. They all celebrate yet another Vaillant victory, while Ruth stares blankly in defeat. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | It's funny how much this movie is hated and bashed by mainly the French speaking people and critics for whom Michel Vaillant is a real icon figure, while in the rest of Europe and outside of it, this movie is regarded as a good movie!
It are mainly the people who grew up with the comic books that saw and hated this movie, hence the low rating on IMDb.com.
But for those who aren't familiar with the comic books this movie is a fun watching pleasure and very well worth seeing.
I'm sure when the movie gets more world widely released, the rating will go up as well, something this movie really deserves.This movie is a great example of how a movie based on a comic book should be.
The movie is very stylish and uses some great camera positions and editing (even though at times the editing is very sloppy)Granted that the story is absolutely unbelievable and dumb but in this case I had no problems or what so ever with it.
Keep in mind that this movie is based on comic books, so if you expect any reality or logic, this movie might not be your kind of thing.
Just sit back and enjoy and don't think too much about the story.Of course the best things about the movie are the races.
The races are really spectacular and should get your adrenaline flowing.I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more Michel Vaillant movies being made!8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
See it for the sheer pleasure of seeing a racing competition and a great display of technical achievements, and you won't come out disappointed.
What's left is a movie with some pretty girls, very nice cars and some good action sequences.
Well, the movie is very well made, personally I like the car racing world, and you can see in the movie that Luc Besson is fan of cars.
The script is very simple, is based on a comic, and it's not really very original, but the effects, and the way that frames were took made the movie interesting.
Don't expect a kind of stuff like "the fast and the Furious" or "taxi" because the movie doesn't try to be spectacular , it trys more to find quality images.
The rate I gave to the movie is a 7, and i find that the actual rate 4.5 is not enough.(If you have played to Pro Race Driver or went to karting you will enjoy more ;))..
I never read any Michel Vaillant comic book.
Maybe this is the reason why I found this film so great: the sound of roaring cars, the pictures of the silent sky, slow motion on details, expressive colours and a thrilling plot.
I truly believe after watching this film in its original French release that this is without a doubt the best Racing film ever, and probably will remain so for a very long time.
Not since Wong Kar Wai's "Ashes of Time" has a film been able to stun me with it's flawless shot composition, breath taking cinematography and frame accurate editing.
All I have to say are two things; first this ain't a suspense thriller or political drama its a RACING MOVIE so don't expect "The Sixth Sense", second if your a real film enthusiast or anybody who respects a directors work, you would never lower yourself to watching a dubbed film.
First thing that comes to mind when your watching this movie is STYLE, whats a decent racing movie without style to back it up.
The shots in this film some of most breath taking you'll ever see, things like a butterfly flapping its wings as the cars are about to take off, and Michel Vaillant sitting in a room filled with rotating fans as he contemplates the death of his friend.
This is one of the few commercial film directors out there who seems to understand the concept of using artistic cut aways and beautiful inserts in juxtaposition to actual story shots in order the give a film flare.
The directors use of music and non story oriented shots such as the cutaways to the clear open skies, or the rippling of a cup of coffee, or a drop of rain falling onto someone's shades really help to elevate this films worth.An finally this film has some of most incredible racing sequences ever caught on film from virtually every angle you can ever imagine in virtually every atmosphere you can think of.
Oh and the actors and actresses in this film are how should I say too cool almost like everyone's straight out of GQ magazine which may be bad for other films but really works for this film cause it really helps to build up that Racing mystique of beautiful cars and beautiful people.
The scenes with the cars are spectacular and that's the only good thing about this movie..
For any car enthusiast this movie is a real pain to watch.
I did not expect a documentary but at least some fast driving, good acting and some base in the real world.I read on the back of the cover that Luc Besson had a 200.000.000 Kr(!).
Bad acting, bad sound, bad story, bad plot, bad music, bad directing,...The actual racing was never realistic or fun to watch as in some real movies about cars.
This movie is for guys who like speed and good cars!.
First of all - all actresses are look like models and all actors are like from Men's Health magazine, so why don't like it?Seriously, almost all scenes shot with macro lens, and in some point of time you feel like you are in the movie or in the driver's cabin!Nature scenes are so beautiful and fantastically looking that only rude and not romantic persons wouldn't like it.I don't get other's comments about dubbing and acting and all that stuff, I watched it in Russian and like it, so it's not the director's fault and responsibility to translate.And guys, what you expect from action movie - how the actors suppose to play there?
Common, it's not a drama or something you don't have to make intriguing stories and unpredictable thrillers - it's just a good looking movie, watch and relax.I can rate it at least 8 out of 10.
During my teenage years I was a fan of the Michel Vaillant-comics.
The only thing this movie has to offer are a few decently filmed race scenes (the ones in the mountains).
Simple, they wanted to sell the film to an international (read English-speaking) audience.
Considering all the disasters when comic books are turned into movies,this one is not a complete failure .The beginning (Mrs Vaillant's nightmare) was taken from "Le 13 Est Au Départ"and all those who read the comics (Jean Graton created his character in "Tintin" in 1957)will like the Vaillant 's desirable mansion,their Moulinsart (Marlinspike) ,La Jonquière .Julie Wood appears but she is not Steve Warson's fiancée ;so does Gabrielle who is Yves 's wife (Yves who appeared very early in the series -"Route De Nuit" - is absent) in the comics .When they made a TV miniseries (13 episodes) in the sixties,they hired a professional racing driver (Henri Grandsire ,who sadly did not resemble Michel);here we have Sagamore Stevenin (Jean -François 's son)and Diane Kruger ,whose Julie is not a motocross star but a racer too;it takes a lot of imagination to believe they belong to the racing circuits;as for poor Steve Warson ,the actor does not look like the part ,being too short,too gentle ;this character was an orphan ,which explains he was a loudmouth when he met the hero who enjoyed a big family (Michel's parents,his brother Jean Pierre and sister-in-law Agnès who have got a daughter unknown to the readers!,all of whom appear);on the other hand ,Michel is not a married man -his wife Françoise is not in the movie- and he seems in love with Julie);as an user pointed out,what a mix-up!
Michel Vaillant is an incredible, artistic visual feast of a film.
The second being raw journalism, the kind of filming you'd expect if watching a car race on television and the third being incredibly artistic, turning a single moment into several minutes, or using ultra-high contrast grainy photography to convey mood and emotion.
It appears they filmed him doing his lines in English and then dubbed it over in bad French.
I would have been nice to have an actor who could have spoken a little better French, but it was not overly distracting to the film as a whole.
They were the dream of what a race car driver should look like, act like.
I cannot comment on the film's accuracy to the race world, but then again, it is a movie, adapted from a cartoon and to that end, it is phenomenal..
An action movie formatted to market requirements.Rare are the successful adaptations in this period and even more rare and interesting films on the motor sport.
The action is very exaggerated and grotesque compared to the mind of the comics.On the technical side of the film is doing very well and creates its own identity.
But despite some nice pictures, they are nevertheless far too artificial and the blue tone is annoying.Efforts are inconsistent: as shown by Valliant Rally cars, which are cars with a famous French manufacturer with three stickers and veryfew modifications compared to the shooting of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the establishment and listing of official teams for the shooting.Although the brands through sponsorship are omnipresent in motor sport, here are the brand placements are too much compared to the plot, so that we seem to attend a series of commercials.Besides the character of Cramer (the leader driver) starring Francis Levantal, the characters are too caricatured and despite the presence of Diane Kruger.For the motor sport amateurs and the more knowledgeable is always nice to see the screen elements of motor sports, such as circuits with" Magny-Cours"," Le Mans" or the "le Mas du clos" where the training is pleasant.A movie formatted, the law of the market here is what inspires this film.What a shame!
Check your expectations before watching this movie.
Great cinematography, slick cutting, good capturing of the dynamics of car racing and the events on and around a race track.
While this movie is not a major Hollywood production, the director did a tremendous job on blending narrative and real imagery from an actual event, the famous 24 Hours of Le Mans 2002.Years ago, I read a few of Michel Vaillant's adventures so I had a basic understanding of what this movie was about and of course, was keen to see this stuff being adapted.
And watching this movie, this is what you really need to keep in mind: It's an adaption of a comic strip which is mostly focused on telling a good action story and less on character development, pace of narration and the like.Some of the scenes are pasted together as they would have been in the comic strip, where subplots are sometimes told within 1-2 pictures.
I read some fans of the comic strip do hate the movie.
The plot comes up with a nice twist (SPOILER: Vaillant in place of Cramer trying to save his dad driving best he could, while Wood fighting him, thinking he's Cramer :)) and most arguably, a better script would have made more out of this.
Esp. Ruth Wong and partly Julie Wood (SPOILER: who acts like the Merry Widow after losing her man in a car accident.
Not sure if we will see another Vaillant movie.
As for the smoke coming out the front of the Leader: this is perfectly accurate as the Panoz LPM1 (aka "Leader") has it's engine in the front - one of the only racing prototypes at LeMans that does.Anyway, I found the movie really disappointing.
I was at LeMans 2002 when the two extra cars ran to film the sequences for this movie.
Lame story with far too many inaccuracies to make it it any way believable: no way anyone could run out onto the track (Odessa) and and and....They missed out completely on building up the atmosphere before the race and from the way it was filmed it looked like only the Vaillants and Leaders were racing.However, in Germany the DVD s well worth buying just for the additional material: making of and a series of complete laps of LeMans filmed from inside the Vaillant (Courage) and the Leader (Panoz).
I saw Michel Vaillant just one hour ago at TV and here is my verdict:TOP NOTCH: -the visual style, absolutely stunning, is the first thing what hit your eyes.
Also, because of so much action on the screen, the film has an essential quality: it's not boring.FLOPS: -unbelievable storyboard facts: the father kidnapped by Ruth Wong, a frustrated chick, and destined to death if his son, Michel, dare to win the race.
More, she's not an aggressive person and in race you're focused on your job, not to smash your competitor car.
-overacting: sorry to say, but Lisa Barbuscia (who play the Ruth Wong's character) appeared to be artificial and fake.Overall, a very good movie, worth not only a rental, but also to buy the DVD.
great race car action with a hint of suspenseful crime drama.
My expectations for this movie were to see familiar comic book characters come to live on-screen and to include great racing scenes.
I was a bit disappointed that it did not contain any formula 1 racing scenes which were the main focus in the comic series but I actually liked this movie quite a bit anyways.
I watched it in french and didn't understand much of the dialog, interesting enough all of the people in the Leader team spoke English which helped me understand more of the conversations.
Suspenseful racing action, sabotage, tragedy, love and crime drama: this movie combines it all in a fairly well-written story plot (I've seen worse).Having read almost all the comic books when I was a child I remember the characters well and for the most part the movie does them justice although I found several inconsistencies: Ruth was transformed from a caucasion woman with short blonde hair to an oriental with long dark hair(in the comic Ruth had an assistant who looked that way - I assume the director got confused???).
When you base a movie on a comic book series you should at least get the characters straight (can you imagine the uproar of fans if they would have changed the names of some of the characters in the Superman movies?)With Michel Vaillant they created a mishmash of story lines thrown together from different points in time (afterall the comic book series ran for several decades).
In my opinion the title character of Michel was a bit over the top, almost too cocky (he never would have done such an irresponsible thing like driving with his eyes closed in the comic books - KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!!!) The cast was well-selected otherwise and it's not the actors' fault that the director and screenwriters didn't do their homework.
Even though the movie wasn't entirely believable, at least it was not cheesy like the animated series or live action TV series.
One must bear in mind that the movie IS based on a comic strip geared towards kids and therefore reflects that (I used to read some of the stories in a kids comic book collection called ZACK when I was a preteen).Update: I have now watched the German version of this movie and was able to understand the conversations.
Bottomline: If there ever is a sequel to this movie I sincerely hope that the people responsible will do a better job to stay true to the comic book series..
I read most of the comics of Michael Vaillant when I was a kid, and I think this movie captured the spirit of the comics.
The story could be better, but it was entertaining.However I noticed 3 things that in my opinion are errors:*Spoiler Warning*The scene with Vaillant driving around Le Mans Flat out with is eyes closed...
I think nobody have done it and nobody will because it's impossible.The scene Vaillant and Warson refuel their racing cars in a regular fuel pump, I might be wrong, But the fuel used in racing cars is a lot different from the one we refuel our cars.The final scene with the Leader car in the final lap in the straight blowing is engine, why is the smoke coming out in the front of the car when the engine is at the back?*End Spoiler Warning*If you are a racing fan you should see this movie, don't think much about the storyline and focus on some nice images of cars.
For non racing fans, I doubt they enjoy this movie..
I've seen this movie just a couple of days ago, and I must say that I have mixed feelings about his movie.I'm a huge fan of the Michel Vaillant comics, ever since I was still a kid.
In fact, I think that Michel Vaillant is partially responsible for the fact that I'm a complete car nut.However, the movie has disappointed me with the fact that they have taken various elements from different comic stories, and put them together in one new story.
For example, the dream sequence in the beginning of the movie is taken from the comic 'Number 13 on the starting line', the trick of blocking the doors of Cramer's rally car at the rally checkpoint is taken from 'The cursed Safari'.Another thing that bothered me was the sequence in wich Michel laps Le Mans with his eyes closed to impress Julie Wood.
The real Michel Vaillant would never show of like that.One last thing: the Le Mans 24 hours feels like a sprint race in this movie. |
tt0060639 | Love Me, Love My Mouse | Tom, in love with Toots, goes to her house, carrying Jerry in a ring box to woo her. Tom presents Jerry to his love interest, but Jerry pretends to be frightened of Tom and cuddles up with Toots, who instantly sympathises with him, taking sides with the mouse.
Later, Jerry waves Tom and then aims to gain more sympathy from Toots by framing Tom to jumping into his mouth repeatedly in 3 times and Toots coming to Jerry's rescue. And later, Tom tells the Toots wants to eat something but refuses and smash the door with his hand before Jerry laughs with him, causing an angry Tom to grab Jerry and attempts to drop the concrete block flattens with him, but Toots interferes and causing Tom to drop the block onto himself.
In the next morning, Toots is putting baby powder on Jerry while a bandaged Tom hobbles to the table. Toots kisses Jerry , but while doing so, she soon finds that in addition to being quite adorable, Jerry is also quite tasty. She suddenly has a change of heart and decides to eat Jerry, now taking sides with Tom, who reacts with joy. Toots blows a kiss to Tom (as though to thank him for giving her Jerry, after all), and prepares to kill and eat him. But Jerry, now seeing that Toots is no longer on his side, escapes to the exit door. The now-evil Toots chases him with a fork and knife while Tom limps out and slowly follows her. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2781516 | WolfCop | Lou Garou (loup garou is French for werewolf), an alcoholic cop in the small community of Woodhaven, spends most of his day either asleep at work or at Jessica's bar. When his friend Willie Higgins phones in a complaint of occult activity in the area of his gun store, the police chief sends Garou to investigate. After meeting with Higgins, Garou dismisses his concerns as the actions of heavy metal fans. Higgins again reports a disturbance, and the chief forces Garou to investigate. When he arrives at the scene, Garou finds occultists in the middle of a ceremony to sacrifice an upstart politician who was running on a platform of reform and anti-corruption. Garou is knocked out and wakes up the next morning in his bed, not remembering how he got there, though he has a pentagram carved into his stomach.
Garou's senses become extremely sharp, and his wounds heal near-instantly. As he investigates the case, he surprises Jessica and his coworkers, all of whom had written him off as lazy and incompetent. As he goes over his notes at Jessica's bar, she encourages him to drink more and invites him to join her privately. Before he can, two criminals part of a local gang sneak into the bar and attack him in the bathroom. Garou, who is in the middle of a transformation into a werewolf, easily kills one and drives off the other. Angry that they did not kidnap Garou, the gang leader stabs out the eye of the escaped gangster when he claims to have seen Garou transform into a monster. Meanwhile, Garou ends up in Higgins' house, handcuffed to the bed. Higgins explains that he captured Garou and restrained him for his own safety. Higgins later researches his condition, and they learn that occult ceremonies in which a werewolf is sacrificed can strengthen the magic of reptilian shapeshifters.
Garou and his partner, Tina, investigate the deaths at the bar and a series of seemingly unrelated armed robberies by a gang who wear pig masks. Higgins convinces Garou that he must be restrained at night, and Garou submits to being locked in the town's jail. However, when the police station receives a call for help, Garou, who has since transformed into a werewolf but has retained his human intelligence, dons his policeman's uniform and heads to the local supermarket, where the pig-mask gang have taken hostages. Garou savagely kills all the pig-mask robbers and heads toward a meth lab. Higgins cowers in the car as Garou again savagely kills several gun-wielding gangsters. When they return to the police station, Jessica seduces Garou while he is in his werewolf form, only to reveal that she is a shapeshifter and also the town's elderly mayor. Higgins also reveals himself as a shapeshifter and theorizes that Garou's alcoholism has made him stronger than their previous victims, all of whom they were able to control.
Garou is drugged and brought to a second ceremony, where he is to be sacrificed during an eclipse so that the town's ruling elite, all of whom are reptilian shapeshifters, can continue to hide their true identity and rule indefinitely. Tina arrives and confronts the police chief, who shapeshifts into the gang leader, and Higgins. Tina and Garou kill Higgins, Jessica, and the gang members, but the chief surprises them with a sneak attack. Weakened by the approaching eclipse, Garou is wounded when shot by the chief, but he realizes that alcohol is the source of his enhanced power. As Garou consumes a flask of alcohol, Tina impales the police chief on a sword. He uses it to also stab her, but before he can finish her, Garou shoots and kills the police chief. Garou and Tina limp off together, and Garou promises to drop her off at a hospital after he gets another drink. | violence | train | wikipedia | The acting isn't very good, but the quality of the special effects is a real surprise; they actually turn out to be very good indeed, with some excruciating werewolf transformations that work well.
It's an amiable time-waster although those looking for genuine originality or insight will be disappointed; WOLFCOP is a film that offers nothing new for fans and instead is happy to go through the usual and expected motions..
As a series of strange and violent events start happening, an alcoholic policeman (Leo Fafard) realizes that he has been turned into a werewolf as part of a larger plan, so he investigates with the help of his partner and his friend.Bloody Disgusting gave WolfCop a positive review and stated, "A perfect storm of creature action, the occult, gore, intrigue, humor, and lycanthropic puns, WolfCop is destined for cult glory." Darn right, Bloody Disgusting.
He becomes the WolfCop.A low budget Canadian horror comedy flick in the style of Hobo With A Shotgun.
With a modest budget of a million dollars, Lowell Dean manages to make the film look and feel like it belongs with those 70's and 80's flicks you'd find at the bottom of a dollar bin at Wal-Mart.
! !I love films like this they are great fun, you don't need to take them seriously whatsoever, just sit back and enjoy, and have a good old giggle..
There are too many spoof films out there that just don't work and wreck the genre - this is a true 'B' grade movie with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
I'm not going to compare this in any way shape or form to the Evil Dead movies other than to say I almost like the lead character as much as Bruce Campbell himself, but for totally different reasons (unleash the hounds of criticism with that statement!!!!).
The film is a low budget campy completely non serious Canadian movie about a cop turned into a werewolf so that his blood can be harvested by shape shifters.
However, when you see the trailer of that other, insanely stupid looking, Canadian werewolf movie Wolves (which actually will get a theatrical release in Belgium) and know that one cost almost 15 million euro's, one can wonder why WolfCop doesn't suffice.
Wolf Cop seems like it should be a good or at least a fun movie.
The poster has a werewolf on it who is a cop, I mean how in the world can a movie about that not be worth watching on any single night of any week ever?Well this is how.Wolf Cop is disappointing on every single level.
I loved this film, it was funny, zany, silly and had a good straight werewolf character and the perfect comedy sidekick.The narrative and special effects were none too shabby and as a watching experience it was better than most Hollywood horror films that have budgets 40 times greater but zero love of the genre.
His chief forces to do his job and go out on a call for once and that's when things get hairy
yeah, I said it.Lowell Dean writes the screenplay and directs the fun film based off Bannister Bergen's weird story.
Trust me, guys and gals, you are not going to want to miss out.Hopefully WolfCop follows in the footsteps of Ginger Snaps, a fellow werewolf flick it tilts its figurative hat to in the film, and makes it to cult status because it is entertainingly amusing.For more FULL reviews of RECENT release, please go to our website..
As someone who enjoyed the wonderful b-level horror and action films of the glorious heydays of the 80s and 90s, I was rather looking forward to this werewolf themed cop film.
WolfCop turns into a werewolf they show him turning by showing his normal human penis (albeit obviously made of plastic) peeing blood to then in front of the camera turn dark and get covered with hair when he's finally turning...So yeah it's not for the kids either, I dunno who would like this, the jokes are just lame, if there are any jokes (hard to tell since I didn't find it funny one bit).I dunno I think that they got an idea that doing a movie about a cop that's also a werewolf and just halfassed a script.Best part of the movie is when the credits roll because the song that plays there is actually pretty good.If you want a comedy with werewolves I suggest "FDR American BadAss (2012)" instead, that's also kinda silly but at least it has some jokes to back it up...
This is a boring, low-budget werewolf cop film.
The special effects, beginning with the werewolf costume and continuing throughout the movie, are really poor, as is the acting from the almost entirely Canadian cast.
Whenever it falls flat, it feels more endearing than broken, which I suppose is due to the makers actually caring about what they were filming, and I'll take a lovingly crafted low-budget slopfest over an a-list blockbuster that wasn't given a single rat's behind by it's authors.With that being said, there isn't really anything that stands out as exceptionally good.
On the flip side of things, I couldn't find anything really horrible here either, as WolfCop is adept at covering its tracks (pun intended).Booming with b-movie grit and outrageously strange choices of plot elements, WolfCop is a must watch for fans of "so bad it's good" – films and those interested in amateur films.
WolfCopIf werewolves were allowed on the force, they'd no doubt be butting heads with the K-9 unit all the time.Case in point, the lycanthropic patrolman in this horror-comedy.Small-town police sergeant Lou Garou (Leo Fafard) gets mixed up in the occult when he stumbles on a human sacrifice involving a local politician.
This encounter leaves Lou with heightened senses and a hairy complexion.Still lucid while in his wolf form, Garou dons his badge and helps his partner (Amy Matysio) put an end to these otherworldly rituals intended to replenish the reptilian race (Jonathan Cherry, Sarah Lind) infesting their jurisdiction.A brazen B-movie through-and-through, this all-Canadian gore-fest utilizes its home and native land's second-rate production values and tepid acting abilities to jury-rig together a cult classic that every camp-loving Canucks can be proud of.Unfortunately, however, when wolf-cops are on-duty there is a drastic increase in unarmed cat shootings.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
It tells the tale of an alcoholic cop named Leo, and one night out investigating some pesky teenagers partying out in the woods, stumbles upon an occult like setup, gets banged over the head, wakes up in the morning with quite a hangover, and a pentagram carved into his chest.
Turned into a werewolf, a small town policeman with a drinking problem comes to realise that can use his wolf strength to fight crime on full moon nights in this horror-comedy filmed on location in rural Saskatchewan.
And yet, while there are some subtle humorous touches, like a fellow cop resting his doughnut on a corpse's knee, the film only really becomes laugh-out-loud funny in its second half as the title character begins to embrace his dual identity.
The cast is game, the pacing more than adequate (this clocks in at an appreciably brief 80 minutes), the gore is well done, and the makeup effects do look to be mostly practically done.Leo Fafard plays officer Lou Garou (the name itself is an in-joke, as "loup-garou" is the French term for werewolf), a hopeless drunk and pretty inept cop in small town Canada.
Alcoholic policeman Lou Garou (Leo Fafard) is turned into a werewolf by a cult of reptilian shape-shifters who, every 32 years, must drain the blood of a lycanthrope to enhance their powers.As its rather silly title and my above synopsis suggest, WolfCop is a film that sets out to be a whole load of cheesy B-movie fun, and in that it largely succeeds.
From the lead character's stupidly apt name—Lou Garou is a truncation of loup-garou, French for werewolf—to the ridiculously OTT gore effects, to the sight of the werewolf cop pimping his ride and firing a machine gun, WolfCop is one hell of a daft film.
Which also makes it one hell of an entertaining film.Once Lou has experienced his first unforgettable transformation (which takes place while he is taking a leak, resulting in the unforgettable sight of his penis swelling to massive proportions before bursting open in all of its hairy glory), the blood flows thick and fast, with our unfortunate lycanthropic lawman cleaning up his home town, tearing the criminals apart rather than reading them their rights (funniest moment: a guy having his face ripped clean off!).WolfCop also finds time to tick the gratuitous nudity box, Lou indulging a spot of sexy action with buxom barmaid Jessica (Sarah Lind), before a fun final showdown that sees WolfCop settling the score against the reptilian shape-shifters, with a little help from tasty female deputy Tina (Amy Matysio)..
No, the film is actually well-made, features some good acting and a story that's got a few new things.I think the best thing going for the film is that Fafard gives such a good performance that he perfectly brings this character to life and makes you like him.
Let me begin with saying that if you only can dig serious movies or real horrors that this isn't going to be your thing.
If you just see a werewolf having sex and then smoking a cigarette that must tell you what kind of movie this really is.Normally such kind of flicks are torn away by the buffs but this one here is surely worth picking up because the story is good and the effects used for the werewolf were above mediocre for a low budget.
all cops are bastards, especially WolfCop. break out your bongs for this low-budget horror comedy by writer/director Lowell Dean, featuring a killer soundtrack by stoner doom metal band Shooting Guns the storyline, though not terribly compelling, is original, the acting is competent, the humour more surrealist, in a good way, than laughter-inducing.
the werewolf design and make-up art in particular bear resemblance to Joe Johnston's Wolfman and are some of the best i've seen watch the trailer to get a fairly good idea of what to expect; you'll know whether or not the style suits your taste.
By far the most fun I have had watching a film for years I can't recommend this film enough.if you want a dark scary werewolf film this is not for you,if you a want film full crazy wolfcop madness you must watch it and you will love it.this film is best watched in a group as the laughter adds to the atmosphere and you will laugh.you must give wolf cop a chance at first it seems a bit oh another drunk cop film but it soon departs from the norm and the whole story comes together to make sense of the utter madness that is wolfcop So to sum up funny wolfcop film with lots of unexpected thing happening throughout the film can't wait for wolfcop 2.
When a movie has a premise of a loser cop getting transformed into a werewolf and opening a can of whoopass against crime it should definitely be a lot more fun (and way more funny and action packed) than this movie is.
The jokes were either just non existent or just plain bad, I groaned several times through watching it.There's a pathetic attempt at a "funny" werewolf sex scene that also fails.
The only plus I saw was good makeup.The acting could be a lot better but who knows if these people had anything good to work with.Hugely disappointed in what looked like it would be a fun movie experience..
There must be some pretty desperate viewers (Well, Saskatchewan as the source local for most everyone involved goes a long ways to explain my despair over script, acting, props, prosthetics.) Fantasy can have it's own reality in the viewer's mind but tossing out junk that makes no sense like this film does strains credulity to no end.
If you're into movies like Maniac Cop and even those of you who like the Howling may love WolfCop as it attempts to parody or pay homage to both,.
The story of an alcoholic cop, and starring an actor I'd actually seen in a film before (Not as the WolfCop itself though), it got me invested in the despair of the run-down crime-ridden town.
The first transformation from Lou Garrou into Wolfcop was sudden, effective an phallic, and the film took a shift from grim and dark into some B-movie style awesomeness with bad jokes (he's 'the fuzz'), faces being ripped off, and a whole lot of cleaning up town.
The shedding of the skin alone was an outstanding idea and would've made the movie worth seeing for Genre fans, but add in the gallows humor (the female deputy, Tina, for instance, brandishes the face of a dead man like a Halloween mask, taunting our hero; and WolfCop finds himself momentarily DING-A-LING-LESS during one sequence) and you've got something a notch or two above average.
Disappointingly, it also doesn't feel like there are enough all-out gory, funny, ridiculous scenes that would make it a true B-movie classic.A good example of where this film fails to deliver is when Wolfcop and his mate decide to do up the police car, A-Team-style.
It's meant to be a spoof on werewolf films and the horror/action genre; it's meant to be silly and fun.
"Wolf Cop" Takes Werewolf Movies to the next Level!.
Writer & director Lowell Dean's "Wolf Cop" qualifies as a landmark movie in the tried-and-true werewolf movie genre.
The horror in "Wolf Cop" is the over-the-top variety; we know nothing like this could ever happen, and Dean gets comic mileage out of it, despite the appalling amount of blood.
Actually, what Dean does with "Wolf Cop" reminded me of some of Peter Jackson's early horror movie with over-the-top, exaggerated shenanigans.
So how does the low budget film WOLF COP fare?In the small town of Woodhaven, police officer Lou Garou (Leo Fafard) spends most of his time drunk or sitting at the local bar.
Better those that enjoy movies like this still have something to look forward to.So let's start with the bad.
The end result is a movie that's more fun than serious, to be taken for what it is which is a low budget film that has heart, a creative endeavor that pays off in some ways and falls short in others.
The transformation scenes and other gore treats were awesome, old school effects as opposed to lazy CGI - this has the best skinless screaming dude's face since Raiders of the Lost Ark.The plot is pretty flimsy, and if you want to see a more serious Canadian werewolf movie, go watch Ginger Snaps (the sequel was great too, but the third was awful).If you want to see a wolf in a cop uniform driving around in a pimped up cop car (there's a whole car pimping montage and it's EPIC) beating up and blowing up bad guys while drinking copious amounts of alcohol and eating donuts (both seem to add to his wolfiness), you need to see this.It would have been cooler to see more wolf cop action - there's only a few ass kicking scenes and it would have been fun to have a bit more (the cheesy sex scene is kind of a waste of potential ass kicking time, but I guess the B in B-movie has always stood for boobs).In summary, lots of fun and well worth your time.
British film Hot Fuzz is good fun for more 'whole town run by creepy cult' type action..
When it comes down to the end of the day, 'Wolfcop' is just a hell of a lot of fun and packed with moments where you'll scream out "Yes" or "That was awesome."This is one of the few rare occasions where a low budget monster movie got things right.
Wolfcop takes you on a Canadian journey to the town of Woodhaven where an alcoholic cop(Lou)gets pulled into a occult ritual making him a god damn werewolf!
Then, you're the right target audience for this fun horror comedy flick.There has been a whole lot of hype in the horror community for this movie so I honestly didn't know what to expect.
This is just a fun, wild ride.The movie's entire plot is right there in the title, a cop becomes a werewolf, and continues fighting crime in ridiculous ways that will remind some of the outright carnage of recent movies like HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN.
The film is about a police officer that gets kidnapped by a cult and They do a ritual on him which makes him turn into a wolf every time the full moon comes out.
I really liked the ending of the film when wolf cop fights all the bad guys.
I thought the ending was over the top and exciting.wolf cop wants his revenge and he fights against the same people that turned him into a wolf along with some other bad guys and he slices and dices them!.the makeup effects and practical effects were good and the ending was cool and the musical score was badass.I liked the movie and was very amused by it,its a Must see!..
A cop at a crossroads comes to grips with the advantages of becoming a werewolf.Director writer Lowell Dean offers a nostalgia trip in WolfCop. It took me back to the golden age of VHS horror, a time when practical effects ruled and every now again you had to clean the heads on your Video Player.
If you can't determine by the title that this was going to be a cheesy B-movie, then you need to watch more horror.
If you enjoy Werewolf puns, Cheesy B-Horror Movies with splatters of Gore, I say you'll have a Howlin' good time with WolfCop. |
tt0084749 | The Sword and the Sorcerer | The film opens as King Cromwell (Richard Lynch) and his men land ashore of Tomb Island in search of Xusia of Delos (Richard Moll), a long-dead sorcerer who may be the key to overthrowing his rival King Richard, whose land of Ehdan is the richest in the world. Using one of Xusia's worshipers to awaken him, Cromwell convinces Xusia to join his cause. With the sorcerer's black magic at his command, Cromwell easily lays waste to Richard's formidable army.
Eventually, Cromwell becomes eager to be rid of Xusia. Fearing that the sorcerer could very well turn against him, he attempts to kill Xusia by stabbing him in the chest and chasing him off a cliff. With only one army left to defend the city, King Richard prepares to lead the charge against Cromwell in a last-ditch effort to save Ehdan. He orders his family to evacuate to the river, and entrusts his youngest son Talon with his triple-bladed projectile sword, instructing the boy to avenge his death should it occur.
When Richard fails to return home afterwards, Talon goes to find him. While searching the corpse-littered battlefield, he comes across Mogullen (Russ Marin), his father's closest adviser. Gravely wounded, the old soldier confirms that the battle is lost. At that moment, Talon spies his father in the distance, just seconds before his execution.
Enraged, Talon starts off to claim his revenge, but Mogullen holds him fast. Knowing that Cromwell will be heading to the river in search of the queen, he implores the boy to save the rest of his family. Talon desperately races to the river on horseback, but is too late to prevent his mother's death at Cromwell's hands. With Cromwell's men in pursuit of him, Talon has no choice but to flee. After narrowly surviving an ambush, the boy manages to evade capture and disappear from the kingdom.
Eleven years later, Prince Talon (Lee Horsley), now a seasoned warrior, leads a small group of mercenaries back into his homeland, seeking to fulfill the promise he made long ago. Meanwhile, in his subterranean lair, the sinister Xusia—still very much alive—vows to repay Cromwell for his treachery.
In the city of Ehdan, a rebellion has begun under Prince Mikah (Simon MacCorkindale), son of King Richard's closest advisor, who many believe to be the rightful heir to the throne. After confirming the final plans with Machelli (George Maharis), Cromwell's war chancellor (who is secretly a double agent), Mikah relays the news to his sister Alana (Kathleen Beller), but Cromwell suddenly bursts into their hideout and a battle ensues. Although Mikah is captured, Alana flees through the city streets, but eventually finds herself cornered by Cromwell's men. She is then rescued by Talon, who easily dispatches her assailants.
At a nearby tavern, Alana learns of her brother's imprisonment and asks Talon to rescue him, along with a faction of rebels who have been recently trapped by Cromwell's forces. Unable to bribe the lustful mercenary with gold, Alana reluctantly offers herself to him for one night. Satisfied, Talon departs on his mission, but Cromwell's men arrive shortly thereafter and capture Alana as well.
Successful in freeing the rebels, Talon infiltrates the castle through the sewers and is able to rescue Mikah, but is subsequently detected and captured by Cromwell. After forcing Alana into marriage, Cromwell invites the four neighboring kings to their wedding feast, where he intends to assassinate them with Talon crucified in the dining hall. Before the plot can be carried out, however, Talon summons the strength to pull himself free of the crucifix, just seconds before the rebels, led by Mikah, storm into the dining hall and overpower Cromwell's soldiers.
Cromwell attempts to flee the castle with Alana in tow, but Talon intercepts them. In the resulting skirmish, Machelli takes custody of Alana and brings her to the catacombs beneath the castle, where he reveals his true identity as Xusia. Although Cromwell tries to intercede, he is no match for the sorcerer, but Talon is able to resist Xusia's power long enough to strike him down with his projectile sword. He then engages Cromwell in combat, finally vanquishing the evil king. Afterwards, Talon saves Alana from a giant constrictor snake, but Xusia suddenly rises again, prompting Talon to finish off the sorcerer with a blade concealed in his gauntlet.
In the end, Talon yields the crown of Ehdan to Mikah, and Alana honors her commitment to spend one night with her brother's savior. As Talon and the mercenaries prepare to leave Ehdan, they are approached by Rodrigo (a member of Mikah's rebellion) who asks to join them. Talon agrees, and the group sets off for another adventure. | cult | train | wikipedia | The main reason this movie was even made was that they wanted it to be in theaters at around the same time as the film "Conan the Barbarian" in 1982.
(And Lee Horsley even resembles Errol throughout this film, which I was fortunate enough to see theatrically at time of release.)There are terrific villains galore, rip-roaring adventure, great castles and dungeons, complicated skullduggery, and comeuppance aplenty, all done with delicate humor.This is great screen entertainment with a '40s-'50s look to it, and that's a compliment.
The fast-moving story relies much more on quality writing, acting and expert direction rather than copping out with the sort of elaborate special-effects that producers/directors of such films seem to lean on so heavily now, nearly two decades later.I think it's a classic, and a model, of its type.Highly recommended to all except small children..
Richard Lynch eats the scenery with unalloyed zeal, and quite simply more of Lee Horsley as Talon would have made the movie world a better place..
Lee Horsley (Easily the most likable barbarian warrior) stars as Talon a mercenary hired to save the brother of a rebel princess, the reward of course is one night with that said rebel princess and so armed with a spring loaded sword which shoots out (Also looks heavy as hell) Talon takes on Titus(Richard Lynch) the man who killed his father much sword and sorcery action takes place.
So even though Pyun did direct the movie this is still a must see and I think it is perfect for anyone who likes the Sword and Sorcery genre.
Overall, The Sword And The Sorcerer is a fun, action packed fantasy film that does not take itself too seriously.
One of the first fantasy adventure flicks to cash in on the success of Schwarzeneggar's Conan, The Sword and the Sorcerer has stuck in my mind over the past 30 years thanks to its relatively high level of gore and female nudity.
Lame fight scenes, a confusing meandering plot, half-assed humour, characters with really dumb names, wooden acting, and terrible direction: they're all here in abundance.Let's concentrate on the positives then...Pop this one into the player and you'll be greeted by a surprisingly good opening scene in which ancient sorcerer Xusia, resurrected to help villain Cromwell (Richard Lynch) in his quest for world domination, demonstrates his power by using magic to tear the heart from a witch.
Boo hissss!Years pass, the story gets awfully convoluted and characters come and go, but at least we get some scantily clad wenches to help take our minds off the sloppiness of the script, best of all being buxom, doe-eyed beauty Alana (Kathleen Beller), who along with her brother Mikah (Simon MacCorkindale) is plotting a rebellion against Cromwell.
This one was a very well done fantasy adventure.Lee Horsley plays Talon deprived of his rightful place as king by evil usurper Richard Lynch who employs the black arts of sorcery to conquer the kingdom run by Horsley's father.
Talon who is a child at the time flees, but grows up to be an adventurer medieval soldier of fortune with one nasty triple sword that actually fires two of its blades like a spring, the better to take care of more than one adversary.In the meantime brother and sister Simon MacCorkindale and Kathleen Beller are having Richard Lynch now threaten their domain.
The story isn't deep, but that's a good thing it's not trying to be complicated just a typical fantasy revenge story that we've seen many times.It had a low budget but they used it well, it really looks like great effort was put into creating the fantasy world.
Like one scene where there were multiple evil solders and he touches all of them because logically he's never be able to cut all of them down on time.Cromwell is a good villain, he mensing and he's a power mongering butt head you love to dislike.
Really can make you nervous from his ability to rip hearts out with his magic but mainly that voice and how he delivers his lines.The action is very good and well choreographed, from swords shooting out at evil solders, to a big battle and final fight.
The score is also very good it's memorable, it has an epic adventurous swashbuckling tone.And of course the main highlight of the film is the triple bladed sword, which to me is one of my favorite fictional weapons.
Another problem I have was this film didn't become a franchise it was setting itself out to be and I'm not exactly sure why, it would of been cool seeing Talon fight against demons, dragons, and other creatures with that sword, but it didn't happen which is a lost opportunity and shame.Overall, "The Sword and the Sourcerer" is a fun fantasy film, so give this film a swing.Rating: 3 stars.
The prince Talon (Lee Horsley) and his silly three bladed sword, that can shoot blades as a projectiles.Now, all things considered, this is a silly movie.
not that I'm gonna give it 10 stars or anything, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, as far, that I liked it better than Red Sonja and that dreadful Conan The Barbarian sequel, Conan The Destroyer.Acting is pretty horrendous in this film, just as the plot.
It should have at least been mildly entertaining, but very little, if any, of this movie was entertaining or memorable.The Sword and the Sorcerer is a cult classic about a warrior prince named Talon, who sets out to bring down the evil king, Titus Cromwell, who killed his parents and stole his kingdom.
The funny thing is, you actually want to, but this movie gives you nothing to like about them.As the title suggests, there is a sword and a sorcerer in the movie.
It's an entertaining fight, but really doesn't redeem the movie.A weak plot, no good special effects and a lot of underdeveloped characters, I think this movie was still in post-production when it was released.
But I'll be damned, it's one of the best pieces of cheese out there and I hope we will get a blu-ray release any time soon.I highly recommend this for every fan of cheesy movies or fantasy flicks..
Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a pretty good fantasy-action movie all things considered.
They have never had to wait a generation to see a sequel to anything.Enjoy the Sword & the Sorcerer,& remember all sequels to good films don't come out the day after part 1 is on DVD!.
That having been said this film is so corny while still a good action adventure-fantasy that it becomes a guilty pleasure.
I'll never forget it though, Richard Moll as the demon covered in blood, our hero escaping from the bad guys after being crucified on that wheel only to kick butt with a 3 bladed sword that looks like it weighs about 100 pounds.
And the crucifixion scene, with the hero ripping his nailed hands free from the wood, comes right out of Howard's "A Witch Shall Be Born." I just wish 1982's *other* big sword-and-sorcery movie, _Conan the Barbarian_, had been half as faithful to the source material it was *supposed* to be adapting, and half as much fun as this delightful, low-budget, low-tech rip-off..
In his review of this film, Leslie Halliwell hoped that it would put an end to the then-popular "sword & sorcery" cycle; while he partly got it right because the proposed sequel proudly promised during the end credits which was to have been called "Tales Of The Ancient Empire" never materialized, I have to disagree with him because, not only am I a fan of those kind of movies, but THE SWORD AND THE SORCERER is actually one of its more tolerable examples.
Incidentally, this is one of those films I recall being released theatrically back in my childhood days but which I eventually missed out on; ironically, one of my earliest movie-going memories is a previous film from the same genre, CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981).THE SWORD AND THE SORCERER was the directorial debut of Albert Pyun who, over the years, seems to have garnered an unenviable reputation as a Grade Z hack but which, at least from the evidence on display here, seems unjustified; in fact, the film is quite an entertaining ride while it's on and the bloodthirsty action highlights are not only competently staged but even rousing on occasion.
Several of the lead actors featured in the cast were popular TV personalities of the time and I recall seeing them as their long-term personas in my childhood days, namely: Lee Horsely (MATT HOUSTON [1982]), Katherine Beller (DYNASTY [1982-84]), Simon MacCorkindale (MANIMAL [1983]) and Joe Regalbuto (STREET HAWK [1985]); also appearing in the film are George Maharis (as the deceitful Sorcerer of the title), Richard Lynch (as the villain of the piece), Nina Van Pallandt (as Horsely's mother who is dispatched by Lynch early on), Jeff Corey (as a sympathetic but ill-fated inn-keeper) and, unrecognizably, Peter Breck, Jay Robinson and Corinne Calvet!
Maharis and Lynch come off best as, respectively, the reptilian Machelli (at least in human form - another actor, Richard Moll, was under the icky Sorcerer make-up at the beginning and final stages of the film) and the vicious usurper Titus Cromwell (surely a more original surname could have been dreamt up for the character, no?); on the other hand, the younger actors try hard but are defeated by the confusing script brimming with peripheral characters and warring factions.
While "Conan the Barbarian" is one of the genuinely greatest fantasy movies ever made - and has one of the greatest film scores ever composed - aside from that silly sword "The Sword and the Sorcerer" is actually a FAR better Conan movie than either of the official Conan movies.
and, of course, Talon is far more like the "real" Conan of Cimmeria, as written by Howard, than the musclebound putz played by Ahnuld ever was.It's exciting, it's fun, it's funNY - both intentionally and otherwise - and it's some of the most unashamedly genuine Sword & Sorcery ever put to screen, straight from the pulp magazines of the '30s to the big screen of the '80s.
In retrospect, the movie is "campy" - it is a cheap, cheesy b-rated flick but something about it is fairly good.I recommend this film only to those who are deep into role-playing, D&D, fantasy and magic...
As the best of all the bad fantasy films produced in the early 80's, The Sword and the Sorcerer was a mild hit at the box office.
I've watched this film countless times over the years, and its effect on me is every bit as strong as an adult, as it was when I was a boy.While not the highest-budgeted fantasy ever made, this movie deserves extra praise for its atmosphere.
While Conan was a great film on its own, it just didn't entertain me as much as this one did.While it's definitely not for realists (as if there is such a thing when it comes to fantasy!), those who can manage to suspend their disbelief long enough to be drawn into this magical world should find themselves greatly entertained.
It was and is not about big men playing with magic swords and every place filled with busty females (always naked), but still these rip offs are so much guilty pleasures that I think I can sit the film for the second time in near future before selling my DVD away.The atmosphere is occasionally, especially at the end in the cave, pretty nice as the ground is covered with mysterious mist and fog.
The three bladed sword is pretty interesting and seems to work fine, too.Albert Pyun has made alarmingly many bad films (check out Cyborg (1989) starring Jean-Claude Van Damme), and The Sword and the Sorcerer isn't an exception.
He assists "Prince" Mikah (Simon MacCorkindale) and his cute sister (Kathleen Beller) to overthrow the evil king (Richard Lynch) and his former evil sorcerer (Richard Moll)."The Sword and the Sorcerer" debuted two weeks before "Conan the Barbarian" in the spring of 1982 and it's just a second-rate S&S adventure by comparison.
"The Sword and the Sorcerer" is decidedly bush league.The end credits claim that the sequel is "coming soon." Actually, it didn't surface until 28 years later under the title "Abelar: Tales of an Ancient Empire" (2010).The film runs 1 hour, 39 minutes and was shot in Southern Cal (Griffith Park, Los Angeles; Culver City; and Riverside).GRADE: C/C-.
I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes a great fantasy/sword/sorcery type movie..
Ugh. There are so many bad things about this movie, I don't have the time to list all of them: Incoherent plots (there were several at once), poor acting, boring storyline, and unappealing actors are but a few of the problems with this film.
If you want to see a really bad, slapstick, Viking movie go rent Eric the Viking (it's really good to heckle).Even watching The Sword and the Sorcerer with some drunk friends didn't help it (I wasn't drunk, but even my drunk friends thought it was terrible).
And, as I watched this, it dawned on me the very reason that I had forgotten it.The Sword and the Sorcerer tells the story of Talon (Lee Horsley), who has been given a lame three bladed sword, and he has to go on some kind of quest to save a princess or some such thing.
The acting is at times "flat", but the special effects and the overall production are quite good for a film made 25 years ago.
Good for "Cheesy Movie Nights" everywhere.What did surprise me though is that at the end of the film in the credits they say "Watch Talon's next adventure in 'Tales of the Ancient Empire' comming soon." I've never heard of it.
This movie was part of my childhood (although it has an '18' certificate) and I loved it from the moment I saw it...Combining the age-old story of good versus evil, a swash-buckling hero, great gore and some foxy ladies this is a must see for any fan of the genre.
If you're interested in some pretty highly entertaining schlock with some actual acting, and sans the real bilge many sword and sorcery movies trowel out, grab this one, slide it in the machine, might be good on a double bill with "Conan the Barbarian.".
If you like the genre (old-style fantasy topped off w/ a bit of comedy) then I can't recommend this enough.Contrived plot, ham-acting by pretty much everyone but Lee Horsey, so-so special effects--yet the film suceeds in spite (or perhaps because) of these things.
The plot is pretty basic and really rather inconsequential: evil Cromwell takes over the peaceful kingdom of Ehdan with the help of monstrous undead sorcerer Xusia, killing the king and his family but missing young Talon, he of the three-bladed sword, who will eventually grow into strapping he-man Lee Horsley and come back for revenge, along the way saving gorgeous Princess Alana (Kathleen Beller) and her brother Micah, who believes himself to be the rightful heir in the absence of Talon.
How can anybody take the triple-sword (which fires two of its blades like crossbow bolts) seriously, or do anything but laugh when Talon is crucified on a big wooden X at a wedding celebration but pulls the spikes out of his hands (mostly in slow-mo of course) and then goes on to start chopping up the bad guys as if nothing happened?
The film is clearly inspired by the success of Arnie's "Conan the Barbarian", but it contains enough original story elements and exciting special effects to be called a highlight of the fantasy-sub genre itself.
I really don't know how this one has stayed off my radar for 35 years.Anyway, in that Conan tradition boy sees mother killed by big bad and comes back for revenge with a very silly sword with three blades like some sort of disposable shaving razor.
That, and the fact that the budget stretches (for a change) to some half-decent special effects, especially involving the demon sorcerer, whose gruesome birthing scene at the film's opening is one of the highlights.I think that it's mainly Albert Pyun's influence that stops this being a genre classic; the direction just feels so slapdash and bored that it's impossible to enjoy things 100%.
TV's Matt Houston - Lee Horsley (who bears an uncanny likeness to Errol Flynn) stars in this entertaining tale of swords and sorcery as the dashing hero Prince Talon who's out to avenge the death of his parents at the hands of the evil King Cromwell (played by perennial B-movie 'baddie' Richard Lynch)Basically this is a fun albeit somewhat muddled feeling movie and one that in addition, curiously can't seem to decide as to it's intended target audience.
I found this movie to be very entertaining although the***SPOILER*** sword with two ejectable blades was kind of hokey ;P ***END SPOILER***This movie has a lot of action and the way the movie is pulled off just makes it fun to watch.
The special effects are also pretty cheesy, particularly the aforementioned sword and especially in a corny transformation scene toward the end of the film where a character literally pulls apart his human skin to reveal a demonic creature.
The only thing to come clean out of this dreck is a lively musical score by David Whittaker as well as Moll and MacCordinkale's performances, but otherwise, the movie as a whole is little more than standard junk for undemanding fans of this kind of trashy fantasy.When it's all over, just before the credits roll, there is a comment made that the hero will have further adventures in an upcoming film called "Tales of the Ancient Empire." Successful as THE SWORD AND THE SORCERER was financially, it's not really all that surprising that audiences were never treated(?) to such a sequel. |
tt0380817 | Winter Passing | Reese Holdin (Deschanel) is a depressed bartender/actress living in New York City. She regularly engages in casual sex, cocaine use and self-mutilation. When a publishing agent (Amy Madigan) approaches her, we learn that Reese is the daughter of a famous author named Don Holdin (Harris); and that her mother, Mary, recently died. Reese did not attend the funeral. The publisher offers the impecunious Reese $100,000 for a series of letters written between her mother and father at the height of their careers. When Reese learns that the kitten she rescued from the streets is dying of feline leukemia, she drowns it and buys a bus ticket.
Despite such family tensions, Reese travels to Michigan's Upper Peninsula to retrieve the letters. Returning to her childhood home, she finds it occupied by Corbit (Ferrell), a down-and-out Christian musician, and Shelley (Warner), a 23-year-old former student of Don's. Reese's father now lives, writes and drinks in his garage. Reese initially clashes with the doting Shelley (whom she accuses of sleeping with her father) but eventually accepts her after learning of the death of her parents and of Don's support of her during a near-fatal bout with endometriosis. She also bonds with the idiosyncratic Corbit, who spurns her sexual advances and has trouble playing guitar and singing at the same time. She feels out of place at home and fights with her father over childhood neglect, stating that her parents gave their typewriters more attention. She eventually finds the box of letters and, reading the emotional communiques, learns to empathize with her estranged parents. Shelly has also read the letters and asks Reese if she intends to publish them. Reese expresses ambiguity over the matter.
Don Holdin is still grieving over his wife's death. He keeps the tie she hanged herself with in a dresser in the backyard along with the rest of their bedroom suite, including their bed. He sometimes sleeps in the bed despite the bitter cold of winter. Reese starts to connect with Corbit and Shelly and is honest with her father about her reasons for staying away from the funeral. Soon after, Don overdoses on pills, and Reese finds him unconscious. He recovers in the hospital, where Reese sits by his bed and reads his latest manuscript, Golf, which he had Corbit bury in the yard. The experience helps the father and daughter find closure, and Reese buries the box of letters in place of the novel before returning to New York. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Inside the Box. Though the cover for the DVD of WINTER PASSING (a photo of the four main characters crowded into a box) may make many potential viewers pass over this little film, thinking that it must be silly slapstick, this is a fine film written and directed with finesse and style by Adam Rapp, a new face whose talents have been somewhat limited to working on episodes of the TV series 'The L Word'.
Rapp gives notice of a fine writer and an equally fine director in this barely noticed little touching movie.Reese Holdin (Zooey Deschanel) lives in New York, an actress relegated to small parts in off Broadway theater while spending her days as a bartender hooked on alcohol, drugs and casual sex.
But the spark of money moves her to ride a bus back to her Michigan home to salvage the letters to sell for publication.Arriving home she is greeted by the weird Corbit (Will Ferrell), a Christian electric guitar player and composer who ears black eyeliner etc, but does care for Reese's severely alcoholic father - the once famous writer Don Holdin (Ed Harris) who hasn't written a novel in years and lives in the garage of his home under the care of Corbit and an ex-student Shelley (Amelia Warner), a bright very young girl with demons of her own.
Reese works at reconnecting with her father, struggles with her resentment for the 'caregivers', and ultimately finds the letters she came for, only to make discoveries about her dysfunctional family and her father's status that alters her view of his value as her parent.The movie is rather stagy and most of the action is unspoken, and while that technique of telling this particular story seems exactly right to this viewer, there are some who will feel frustrated at the rather static pace of the film.
Ed Harris is superb as the wasted, quietly grieving has-been author, keeping his performance understated and in doing so creating a character that is indelible in our minds long after the movie is over.
In poor health and being taken care of by a former student (Amelia Warner) and a broken down rhythm guitarist (Will Ferrell), Harris is taken aback when his long lost daughter (Zooey Deschanel) shows up one day.
If Robin Williams could make the transition, surely Elf can.If you might enjoy multi-layered story telling, a tremendous performance by Zooey and can look past Will Ferrell, this movie has a lot to offer..
In addition to that, it has been some time since a film was able to be charming without being too forced, something I think they do not ultimately achieve, but it is not without merit.As mentioned above, it is worth the price of admission to watch Zooey Deschanel work her way from solipsistic bitch to humbled and hurt woman.
Adam Rapp did not over reach on any of these subplots and the performances, particularly by Deschanel and Harris, are very substantial, although Will Farrell was an interesting choice for his character.
In this way, what we get is a very introspective portrait of sad and lonely people; I know it doesn't sound right but that's all I'm going to say about the film.The thing is that when you love cinema, you watch films even if you don't know what they are about and you understand the nature of each movie; "Winter Passing's" nature is loneliness, not just its characters' but the sceneries' it's set in.
A weird and special actress (Zooey Deschanel), a comedian (Will Ferrell), a character actor (Ed Harris), and a rising English young star (Amelia Warren)
They all work perfectly together, because each of them understands the fragile situation of their character and the rest.By the way, Harris is working really hard these days and has a lot of films we still haven't seen.
And about Ferrell, I wanted to say this after watching "Blades of Glory", a regular and overrated film I didn't write about in which the comedian was the best element...Whether he does comedy or drama, his hair is long or short, black or brown; Ferrell always constructs his characters from zero.
You should pay close attention to his work in any film.Rapp crafted a solid screenplay that's maybe a bit over sentimentalist, but he intelligently clarifies it in a crucial part of the movie.
However, in his piece, and like in the best dramas, things are said better by means of the images and not of the words; and that's always appreciated.Also, if anything, "Winter Passing" is living proof that Zooey Deschanel is a fantastic actress; that when she wants she can leave eccentricity and also do great things (because she does great things when she's eccentric); that she can carry a whole movie by herself and that it should happen more often.
Winter Passing introduces a few great characters inside of an interesting family reconciliation plot, but fails to deliver with the results.
Will Ferrell however, despite being the go-to comedic relief in a very somber film, simply cannot disappear outside of himself enough as an actor to ever truly play a character other then his endless Saturday night live variations, and to me his awareness almost condescends the film's emotional impact.
This lack of a thought out finale will make the emotional attachments made throughout the film with the main characters not as hard hitting as the movie perhaps intended, but still delivers a pretty solid, if a little unfulfilled, drama..
The premise is simple: Actress Reese Holden (played by Zooey Deschanel) is offered a lot of money if she can get hold of letters written to and by her late mother and father, novelist Don Holdin (played be Ed Harris).
This would have made a great short film, and I don't mean that as an insult.The idea of the plot is an interesting one, but didn't seem to hold my attention for the whole film, although the festival audience didn't seem to mind that much.Adam Rapp is off to a good start as a director, it seems he hasn't done much, but I look forward to his next film.
One of the challenges Winter Passing faces is getting the audience to empathize with characters enough to ride the film's emotional ups-and-downs.
The risk, however, is that the audience won't invest enough emotionally in the characters to really care about what happens to them.The acting was quite good; I'm always glad to see Will Ferrell push beyond his slapstick beginnings, and he and Zooey Deschanel have very believable chemistry.
In between, not a heckuva lot happens either.Girl has been estranged from her writer father for years, and sees a chance to make money off him, pays him an awkward visit, which last 2/3 of movie, and then, well, like I said, not much happens.Actually, movie had some funny parts, NEITHER involving the main characters, but involved her father's living arrangements.
Now THAT was rather humorous, I found.Lead character girl, while not a sleazebag, was very unlikable, and not the type of person you'd root for, nor even care if her part ended twenty minutes after movie started.Waste of time, and would NEVER see it again..
The description for Winter Passing on the advanced screening pass said that `Ed Harris stars as a world famous Pulitzer Prize winning author.' This was not mentioned in the movie, but at one point we see a framed picture on the wall of the National Book Award.
Inconsistencies like this and poor writing about sum up Winter Passing, a bland and boring drama with self-indulgent characters that trivializes book publishing.Zooey Deschanel, who played Will Ferrell's love interest in Elf, stars as Reese, a cocaine addict living the bohemian actor's life in New York City.
After Lori Lansky, an editor from a big time book publishing house, offers her $100,000 to publish the letters between her father and her dead mother, Reese heads home to her reclusive father to find the letters.There she meets Corbit, an aspiring rocker played by Will Ferrell, and Shelly, who she first makes out to be her nemesis.
It almost seems like he just came out of film school, that Winter Passing tries to have edge with its drug addicts and self indulgent characters, but really has none.
Ed Harris gives the film's best performance as a once-brilliant writer on the verge of total collapse after the death of his wife and Will Ferrell shows once again the full capabilities of his range with this subtle, nuanced performance to go alongside his much broader roles of Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby.Though most of the actors do rise above the material, the material itself is often too cluttered and uneven to maintain the audience the whole way through.
Review: I quite enjoyed this movie, although it was a bit slow in the beginning and it doesn't really pick up until Will Ferrell and Ed Harris come into the picture.
All of the characters put in good performances, but it's Will Ferrell that makes the movie.
The main character, Zooey Deschanel, has a unemotional way of acting, which works in this movie and makes the movie what it is.
Stories of lost people attempting to rebuild their broken lives have been portrayed many times but there is a distinct style in Rapp's presentation and the way he brings it all together in this film wholely involving the viewer into the lives of these characters all of whom are searching for something.
For 90% of the movie Zooey Deschanel's and Ed Harris's characters are one way, and then in the last ten minutes they are suddenly completely different.
It didn't even fit the tone, and his sub-plot was a pointless way to pad out the running time.I didn't hate Winter Passing, I just thought that its story needed a lot more thought, focus, and fleshing out.
The bulk of the film was her return to the residue of the roots of her family, her dad, brilliantly underplayed by Ed Harris, as a reclusive world famous novelist, and two unusual people who looked after him.Try to forget that you ever saw Will Ferrell as a comedian and just accept him as Corbit, one of the caretakers.
I did not go into the film with much bias for or against the cast and director, and came away the same.I never quite got to the point of really caring about any of the characters -- I couldn't identify with nor "like'" the people portrayed, nor even find them very interesting.
Zooey tries real hard, but her "Anita" character from Almost Famous is out of place, nasty and unable to carry this film.While Will Ferrel and Ed Harris do well in their supporting roles, it is completely up to Ms. Deschanel to illuminate the plot, forward the action, and give us the resolution.
While the 25 year old has been working steadily since 1998, may be she just wasn't ready for the solo lead in a drama such as Winter Passing.We know she can sing and do comedy, perhaps a little seasoning is in order for her talents to carry a sincere dramatic role like this one..
In short, a young actress (Zooey Deschanel), daughter of two tortured but successful authors, returns to her Michigan home some months after her mother's suicide in search of love letters written by her parents during her courtship and willed to her by her mother, with an eye to selling them for publication.
The other is Shelly (Amelia Warner), a former student of Harris' who lives in the house and helps care for him.The characters are subtle, many faceted, beautifully written and exquisitely played.
I did not have a lot of expectations for this movie, but I really enjoy Ed Harris and have not seen a drama with Will Ferrell so picked it up.
Ed Harris delivered a realistic and dark performance, as did his film daughter, Zooey Deschanel.
The film delves into the dark, lost world of Reese Holdin (Deschanel), a young struggling actress, who runs to sex, cocaine, and self-inflicted pain to feel anything.
The character of Reese could easily be overly dramatized or even cliché, but it is Deschanel's amazing acting that carries the entire movie.
She tries to come to terms with her neglectful but good-intentioned father, humors the sweet attentions of Corbit, and resents Shelley, who seems to have taken over her role as a supportive daughter.Deschanel and Ferrell have an amazing acting chemistry, both in comedy and drama.
The film follows Reese, a young actress played by Zooey Deschanel, who returns home from New York when a book publisher asks her to find the correspondence between her parents, both famous authors.
Reese is drifting through life, so detached that she takes to slamming drawers on her hand just to feel something.She travels to her family home in Michigan, only to find that her ailing and eccentric father (Ed Harris) has taken in one of his former grad students (Amelia Warner) and a former Christian rocker (Will Ferrell), after the death of his wife and Reese's mother.
Reese's interactions with her father and the pseudo-family that has collected around him prompt her to expose her feelings about her childhood and relationship with her parents, and to come to terms with her own life.I thought this was an excellent film, especially considering this was Rapp's directorial debut.
Zooey Deschanel gives a wonderful, emotional performance as Reese, and Will Ferrell does a restrained, thoughtful turn as the rocker/handyman Corbit.
Rapp added that Ferrell was one of the sweetest people he's ever met.For Zooey Deschanel, Rapp had met with about 45 actresses, but felt that she had the kind of dynamics he was looking for, that she had an incredible intelligence, was very good with language, and at the same time had an incredible emotional life.
They worked to find a lot of female voices, like Cat Power and Dawn Landes, women around the same age as Reese, singing about things similar to what the character was going through in the movie.Asked about the scene where Harris and Ferrell are playing golf in a room in the house, Rapp said that he needed some way for Harris' character to destroy the room and turn it into something else, because the room was where he and his wife slept, and made love, and had their life.
WINTER PASSING (2006) **1/2 Zooey Deschanel, Ed Harris, Will Ferrell, Amelia Warner, Amy Madigan, Deirdre O'Connell, Sam Bottoms, Dallas Roberts, Anthony Rapp, Rachel Dratch.A Sort Of Homecoming.Zooey Deschanel is one of my favorite contemporary actresses on screen ever since I saw her as the Zen-like rock aficionado stewardess sister in "Almost Famous" and has continued to do yeoman like work since popping up in mainstream fare ("Elf") and indie jewels (stole the show from Jennifer Aniston in "The Good Girl") that she may be giving Parker Posey a run for her money as the Indie Queen.In this outing, a true showcase for her talent, she stars as a disillusioned and unhappily sardonic young woman named Reese Holden, a struggling actress who is the daughter of the brilliant genius of his generation author, Don Holden (Harris, in a rather low-key turn) who remains a recluse in their native rural Michigan.
At first Reese is hesitant and stand-offish but when she sees her miserably life is going nowhere fast with meaning less sex with an ex and a cancer stricken kitty (in arguably the film's saddest sequence) she takes the offer for $100, 000 ; half now half when she delivers and treks back home for a homecoming of sorts.Unannounced she arrives to find Don is rather unkempt and besides himself with grief over the recent suicide of his wife and Reese's mother that he has holed up in the battered outdoor garage, shirking his bedroom set of furniture onto the snowy backyard and converting that into a golf range for practice that he attends to daily with an odd young man named Corbit (Ferrell, dialed down low as well thankfully) a failed rock guitarist who looks over the frail Don for his own good and shares the cozy, yet old farmhouse with Shelly (Warner) a Brit who was one of Don's students who has also moved in sharing the care.
However she eventually comes to grips in the long run.Written and directed by Adam Rapp (playwright sibling of actor Anthony best known for RENT and has a cameo) the film is trapped in its play like acts yet also engages with some dark humor and occasionally well executed sequences of true drama.
Of course, she has a motive for visiting-collecting money if she can secure the love letters her dad wrote to her now deceased mother.The films just feels depressing and to me all the characters were stilted including Will Ferrell, who for a change acts in a dramatic role.dEd Harris is completely unrecognizable as the father.
Returning to Michigan, Reese finds that an ex-grad student and a would-be musician have moved in with her father, who cares more about his new friends than he does about his own health and well-being.The first thing you'll notice in this film is Zooey Deschanel's acting.
In the offbeat film WINTER PASSING, writer/director Adam Rapp brings an edgy and beautiful piece to the screen.
The film stars Zooey Deschanel (Elf), Will Ferrell (Stranger Than Fiction), Ed Harris (A History of Violence), and Amelia Warner (Quills), who each in turn deliver a strong performance.
I saw Winter Passing at a preview.Zooey Deschanel gives a solid performance as Reese Holden, as do Ed Harris (as writer Don Holden, her father) and Amelia Warner (as Shelley, a former student of Holden's), but when the biggest gasp from the audience comes from Rachel Dratch's appearance (as an MC at open mike night at a local bar) you know the movie is in trouble.
I didn't buy Reese's journey from self-destructive, sex crazed coke user at the beginning of the movie to loving daughter at the end.I absolutely did not buy Will Ferrell's character. |
tt0824262 | Yo soy Bea | Set in Madrid, the series tells the story of Beatriz "Bea" Pérez Pinzón (Ruth Núñez). She is a highly intelligent and well-educated young woman, but has trouble finding a job because of her unattractive appearance, which consists of oversized glasses, braces, big eyebrows, and a lack of fashion sense. She manages to get a job as a secretary at the coveted fashion magazine, Bulevar 21. She falls madly in love with her boss, Álvaro Aguilar (Alejandro Tous), the young, handsome newly appointed director of the magazine. Despite her mousy looks and social awkwardness, Bea earns the respect and friendship of many of her co-workers, including Álvaro, because of her hard work, dedication, and kindness. However, she still has to endure insulting comments from "the posh trio," made up of Cayetana de la Vega (Mónica Estarreado), Álvaro's longtime girlfriend, Richard de Castro (David Arnaiz), a photographer, and Barbara Ortiz (Norma Ruiz), Álvaro's other secretary. Bea documents her journey through love and work in an online blog entitled "Blog de una fea" ("Blog of an ugly girl").
Besides Bea's love for Álvaro, the main plot of the series is the power struggle between Álvaro and Diego de la Vega (Miguel Hermoso Arnao), Cayetana's evil brother. In order to keep Diego from taking the magazine's capital, Álvaro and his best friend and colleague, Gonzalo de Soto (José Manuel Seda), decide to set up a fake firm and move all of the capital into it. Álvaro convinces a reluctant Bea to head the firm by making her believe he is romantically interested in her. Bea believes she finally has the man of her dreams. During the course of their "relationship," Álvaro constantly mistreats Bea, cheats on her with Cayetana, and makes fun of her with Gonzalo.
Eventually, Álvaro, to his own amazement, genuinely falls in love with Bea. However, Bea overhears a conversation between Álvaro and Gonzalo discussing the set-up and breaks up with Álvaro. Álvaro tries repeatedly to get Bea to believe that he truly loves her, but to no avail.
Through the rest of the series, Álvaro and Bea endure many obstacles on their way back to each other: the firm being discovered and both Álvaro and Bea being arrested for embezzlement, Álvaro going to prison for a short time, various schemes and manipulations by Diego, other love interests, the death of Álvaro's father, and the revelation that Diego and Álvaro are half-brothers (Álvaro's father had an affair with Diego's mother). In the end, Bea becomes beautiful, Álvaro gets the magazine out of Diego's control, and Bea and Álvaro finally reunite and marry. Immediately after the ceremony, the two leave for Miami.
To replace Bea, a new protagonist, Beatriz "Be" Berlanga Echegaray (Patricia Montenero), is introduced. She wants to become a journalist and starts working at Bulevar 21. The other new protagonist is Roberto Vazquez (Àlex Adrover), the editor, who is later replaced by Cesar Villa (Miguel de Miguel), an investigative journalist. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0248617 | Yaadein... | Raj Singh Puri is best friends with L.K. Malhotra, who is the younger brother of J.K. Malhotra. The brothers are business tycoons and Raj works in their company.
Raj has three daughters. Their mother, Shalini Singh Puri, died from being hit by a car while shopping. The first one, Avantika, gets married through arrangement. The second one, Sania, marries her lover, even though Raj said the family will not fit with their lifestyle and how they're brought up. The last, Isha, doesn't believe in love. After a few weeks at her in-laws, the second daughter (Sania) returns home asking for divorce. After this, Raj becomes strictly against love and relationships.
All this changes when Isha falls in love with the heir to the Malhotra empire, Ronit, L.K. Malhotra's son. They ask for Raj's blessings; he bluntly refuses them. Isha understandingly shuns her relationship with Ronit. Raj arranges for Ronit to be married to the daughter of another tycoon. Isha agrees and makes him promise that he will not do anything, and would listen to his parents, but deep down she still has really strong feelings for him. Ronit is unhappy, but still goes along with the promise, and makes Raj realize that his fiancée's family is not right for them. Raj approaches the Malhotras to break off the engagement. J.K. Malhotra shuns him by calling him poor and small. The other Malhotras join forces to make J.K. realize his mistake and Ronit is finally married to Isha. At the end of the movie, Raj is still living in his farmhouse with his daughters, their husbands, and a granddaughter. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Though I am not a Hrithik fan, I went to see the movie because of Subhash Ghai.
After all he has given some excellent movies to Indian Film Industry.
But it seemed like it was trying to save itself (specially during song sequences, dance by Hrithik is only little good thing about the movie).
In last half an hour of the movie Jackie has given a credible performance.
From the trailers it looked like it would be a good movie, but like other reviewers at IMDB I feel that this movie was an utter disappointment.
The only thing that might save the movie are the cinematography, songs and the music, and _maybe_ the acting of Hrithik Roshan and Kareena Kapoor.
I had great expectation from this film but it bombed on the box office but yet i liked the movie.Yaadein is a very different film and is entertaining movie.Subhash ghai has once again proved that he is one of the best director.Music of the film is excellent.
Hrithik and Kareena have given very good performances.There is nothing to criticize about this film except for a very few..
However, Overall Great performances by the three main characters, heart rending music, good story line makes Yaadein a "must see"..
Subhash ghai attempts to make a love story which falls flat on its face.
The movie is a story of a father trying to become a dost of his three grown-up daughters who have been brought up in London.
Now obviously, the father is Indian to the core and there are enough dialogues in the movie about sanskriti etc.The father(played by Jackie shroff) wobbles between the two extreme views about mohabbat(whether it is good or bad) and there are a lot of sub-plots none of which is allowed to develop.
The romance between Hrithik and kareena is pathetic with all the usual fundas thrown in(viz saving the heroine, puppy love etc).
There are twists:) like rich boy-poor girl, love is good/bad, another girl, a dead sweetheart always dressed in white, sacrifice to show gratitude etc which are just ghai's attempts to borrow from the breed of directors who are adept at making love-stories.
I think the movie is far better than the low overall score that it has received.
Let's look at why I feel that "Yaadein" is a nice, entertaining movie (and justifies a score much higher than the 4.5/10 awarded to it:1.
The director is very well known.So why has this movie got such a low score?My personal belief is that Hindi movies get wild, inconsistent ratings from fans who have not thought the matter sufficiently through.
Is "Dil Chahta Hai" a better movie than, say, "Shawshank Redemption" which was rated 9.0/10?"Dil Chata Hai" is good.
I don't think so.It appears that very few people rate Hindi movies compared to the numbers of reviews that English movies get (45 people rated "Yaadein"; 75,837 people rates "Shawshank Redemption").
Roshan's acting and dancing is good as always, but unfortunately it is not enough of a saving grace to sit down and be tortured for 3+ hours.The movie can be described as one big advertising arena - for products ranging from Coke to Hero bicycles.
With "Yaadein" Hrithik Roshan delivers his first flop, commercially and artistically.
"Yaadein" is the kind of film everybody involved probably wants to leave behind and forget, despite its title..
It was a good movie but the first half was quite inadequate.
Kareena,Hrithik,Anu Malik Save Yaadein.
I went to see Yaadein on opening night at a theatre in Diamond Bar.There was an unprecedented crowd at the box-office for a Bollywood movie.
I finally saw the movie on Sunday at the 5 p.m. show.It was a disappointment in the sense that I expected a lot more from Subhash Ghai.
Kareena Kapoor and Hrithik Roshan are brilliant.
Anu Malik's score, despite poor lyrics by Anand Bakshi, is one of his best in recent times.
At least four songs - the title number and three others - are going to be big hits.Another asset of the movie is its outstanding photography by Kabir Lal.The movie has hit the top ten list in U.K. and is 19th in the US.Just in 3 days it has grossed approximately $645,000 from 59 theatres giving it one of the highest per theatre average.
To the best of my knowledge no other movie from Bollywood has reached this level of business in the US.However, from this Ghai should not conclude that his critics are wrong and he is right.In future he should shun those product placements.
To be a movie director is a great thing in itself.
Salim-Javed may not be writing scripts any more, but there is Javed Siddiqui who is equally good and with whom Mr.Ghai has collaborated very successfully in the past and can do so with greater success in the future.Finally, as moviegoers we should all go to see Yaadein and enjoy the great performances of Kareena and Hrithik and the intoxicating music of Anu Malik..
Could have a really good movie.................
Yaadien was one of the most anticipated films of 2001 in India, because not only was it a big film, but it was a film directed by showman Subhash Ghai, at the time considered the finest filmmaker in Hindi Cinema, it was also a film with chartbuster music, it was also a movie featuring two talented promising young actors/actresses Hrithik Roshan and Kareena Kapoor, and it was a movie also starring veteran actor Jackie Shroff.
I felt this movie will be golden, and it starred Hrithik Roshan, one of the best actors of Hindi Cinema, and my favorite actor, so I watched this movie, and man was I disappointed.
Kareena Kapoor, who back then was known to be a very over expressive actress, did a wonderful job, in this movie.
I have to say, the actors tried really hard and it shows, What saves the movie from becoming a total disaster, are the musical numbers.
Watch it only if you are a Kareena or Hrithik fan, DO NOT WATCH IT, THINKING ITS A SUBASH GHAI MOVIE, by the way, after this movie, Mr. Subash Ghai entered a career slump, and pretty much his career was over.
Yaadein is an o.k. movie but someone instead of Kareena Kapoor like Priety Zinta would have been much much much more better than Kareena Kapoor because shes not good enough for the role.Hrithick Roshan was fantastic though and so was Jackie Shroff.
Amrish Puri was good as well and so was everyone.Kareena Kapoor is just too much of a show off but she should know that shes boring.The songs were good and the director is a well known director but he can make more kinds of better films.Hrithick Rochan was better in Koi mil gaya,Lakshya and Kaho na pyar hai but he was still good in this film too.I do like this film but it can improve..
A Subhash Ghai film.
This movie tells you why Subhash Ghai's movies are different from others in the same genre (say, love stories?).
Watch out for Udit Narayan's version of the title song "naghme hain, shikwein hain..." Credit goes to the director the way he used Udit's voice to great effect in this piece and Hariharan's voice for the other one.
So, movie lovers not knowing Hindi should not miss this film.I watched this movie for the 4th time on DVD; but try to watch it on the biggest screen possible..
The thing about 'Yaadein' that people don't seem to like is that it clearly does NOT relate to them.
Hindi movie-goers want a sheer love story that is mysterious, and only breathes within your head, and your heart.'Yaadein' tells you that love can be extreme fickle.
Because of this, it probably disappointed many people who expected Hrithik Roshan to TOTALLY score with Kareena Kapoor.
This film gives the movie-goer a good message: That abandoning family for business changes you, and it weakens your heritage and tradition.
Money, business, and wealth kill tradition.One further point of concern: Most Hindi film titles contain the world "Dil," "Prem" (sometimes), "Ishq," "Hai," or even the infamous "Mohabbatein." This is 'Yaadein.' MEMORIES.
Try to cherish them, because love is not exploited in this film, like they are in others.
Though people might have high expectations from Subhash Ghai, even by normal standards, this movie is horrible.
Not only that, the blatant product placements is very insulting, imagine watching a commercial for Coke or 'Paas-Paas' in the movie itself!.
His work has been going down since Trimurti but with Yaadein, Ghai has scaled a new high of the most boring movies of all time or shall I say, a new low?
The movie was initially written as a father-daughter love story but Ghai wanted to en-cash on Hrithik's sudden stardom and the result is a big mess.
Despite the film having received bad reviews, people are still queueing up to see the film, possibly I suspect, to see how bad the film really is.What was Subhash Ghai even thinking of!
Jackie Shroff, who surprisingly is the pivot around which the movie revolves, just can't act.
The editing is clumsy, the rest of the supporting acts are average to worse, the cinematography is at places terrible, the dialogues make no sense, the story is patchy, the music is no great shakes...I could just go on.
Jackie Shroff is a middle-class restauranteur (with a swimming pool) living in England, a father of three daughters, who loses his wife (Rati Agnihotri, probably the only saving grace of the movie) in a shoot-out.
Hrithik is a foster son of his, who eventually falls in love with Kareena.
I don't think I'll be having Pass-Pass for some time to come, considering that it will immediately remind me of Yaadein.Subhash Ghai has gone or record saying that his target market is the foreign market where people pay 7-10$ for a ticket and he does not really care for the guy paying 10 rupees in a small town in Bihar.
Which may make economic sense (though I doubt it)...but doesn't the movie still have to be good?
Pardes was average, Taal was bad but had good songs and now we have the worst of the bunch, Yaadeun.
Ghai loyalist Jackie Shroff is the only saving grace in this melodramatic disaster.
Hrithik Roshan and Kareena Kapoor were bad and the characters actors like Amrish Puri weren't any better.Its the same cliché plot about a rich guy falling in love with a poor girl.
It seems to me Subhash Ghai hasn't been able to keep up with the times.
The one time hit director of films like Karz, Hero, Karma, Ram Lakhan and Saudagar has hit a rough patch.
A word of advice to Subhash Ghai next time give us something to remember and not something we would rather like to forget..
another bad movie by Subash Ghai.
i've read comments on this website about this movie about how only few people can relate to this movie but those commentators are wrong i of course find this movie crappy and sad any movie by Subhash Ghai will suck unless he writes it for some films or produces or presents it only old people can relate to this movie i definitely do think that this movie really deserves the rating it gets i give it an even lower rating this movie is not strong but just about relationships isn't there enough crap being made about it that the director had to do this i wish that in the future Subhashji tries something different next time this is just the same sad crap that he put into Taal and i hope maybe he will come up with lighter stuff than this.
Good Movie Wrongly Rated..
A rating of below 4 is an insult to the hard work and dedication of movie makers in the caliber of Subash Ghai.
Yes, Ghai, has made few stinkers ("Kisna"), but overhaul this man is an asset to the Indian Film Industry.
Why this movie is rated so low?
That said, the movie is too long and the story too twisted.
Great lyrics and good music.
The song/dance number at the Jaipur palace, was one of the best aesthetically choreographed numbers in Hindi Films.
I look forward to Subhash Ghai films every two years, I really do.
I loved PARDES (3.5/4), and I appreciated parts of TAAL (3/4), so the expectations for his next film YAADEIN were naturally sky high.
When TAAL released in the summer of 1999, one would have thought that Subhash Ghai would have taken the critics' reviews seriously.
Therefore, I thought that by now, Ghai would be able to craft a perfect film, as I heard the pre-buzz about the film to be good.
When the soundtrack released, I found the flak it received quite unfair, as I like the score, but I definitely did not think it was great.
A few songs are good, many are average and only one is truly great - of course, the well loved title track.Well, none of the hype lived upto the film.
The girls find love through different ways, but the last daughter (Kareena Kapoor) encounters the biggest problem when her lover (Hritik Roshan) is engaged (conveniently by force) to someone else.
Yaadein is a really great movie, I know there are a couple of terrible things about the movie, like the dresses and some of the unnecessary detours from the plot, but overall I really enjoyed this movie.
But overall no matter how many times I watch Yaadein it still brings tears to my eyes, because I UNDERSTAND what Subhash Ghai was trying to portray with this movie.
A coca cola solves everything in Subhash Ghai films 8.
It is possible to have great songs in a film yet still tank at the box office.11.
Never expected this from Subhash Ghai!!!.
How a director like Mr Ghai can ever do this?
That too with a star cast of Hrithik & Kareena.
And on the top a good actor like Jakie Shroff as well.
Although Jackie's performance in the movie was good.
But the whole storyline & plot is sickening, does not makes much sense.Two people are in love and there parents are friend as well but they can't marry.
And people expect some senseless values for an Indian bride (questions Jackie asks Hrithik's would be wife).
And on the verge is the climax where like any typical movie, everything is taken care of and everyone's happy.How could he get such a bad performance from actors like Kareena and Hrithik?
The songs of the movie are still okay.
I have to say that Hrithik Roshan is one 'beeeyootiful' man who knows it, or maybe thats just the way he was directed.
But this is very much a common gripe I have about this particular genre and we can over rule this for the time being.The movie started off really slowly with the long winded wind up to the events that lead to Raj Puri's return to India (this felt like it took hours).
I enjoyed the way that the movie seemed to be a montage of events which fitted well with the title Yaadein (Memories), Raj Puri had a lot more depth than most characters in this genre of movie and I found him very likable and very human in many ways.
I got the message that if children are traded like commodities then there is no hope of a better future for Indian people.
A film that could be great.
Subhash Ghai lost his head post PARDES, his most films were bashing NRIS(even PARDES but it was a good film) but TAAL though a hit was nothing great, YAADEIN could've been a great film.
The film was initially supposed to be a story of Jackie and his daughters but after Hrithik's popularity Subhash Ghai changed the script increasing his role.
The worst thing of the film is the shift in focus from father-daughter relationship which does have it's moments to Hrithik and Kareena portions,worst being the shameless ad placements which gets to the nerves.
Also the clichés and stereotypes and predictability irritatesDirection by Subhash Ghai is okay but he seems confused Music by Anu Malik is decent, some songs are hummableJackie Shroff as always gives his best in Ghai films and he is good though at times he goes overboard, Kareena Kapoor in her 3rd film was decent, Hrithik Roshan too does well though he overdoes at times Rati Agnihotri is okay in a cameo, Amrish Puri and the entire family seem straight from PARDES and TAAL.
Hrithik is still the best dancer on earth and even that and the pleasure of watching him dance just one fantastic song (Chamakti Shaam Hai) goes a long way to making me like a film that has practically no other redeeming qualities.6.
Any costume designers that worked Hrithik's wardrobe in this film should be banished from the industry, and possibly from the planet.
Cant believe the same person made films like Pardes and Taal.
Which two couples?( Hrithik Kareena or Jackie-Roti?) Who is the main character in the film?
( Hrithik or Jackie or Kareena or Amrish?
These were the few question that struck my mind when i saw the film, as far as i feel every film should have a purpose, it can be either to teach us something, to make us laugh or even to make us cry, or to make us realize something...but after watching this film i couldn't think of anything to gain from this piece of trash.About acting only Jackie was somewhat watchable, don't want to talk about Hrithik cos this one is probably his worst piece of acting together with MPKDH, he has done nothing but overacting and occasionally tried to put in some English accent..and people say SRK overacts.....
Kareena has come a long way since Yaadein, she couldn't even act to save her life, let go overacting, and in the dance sequences she was awful.in my opinion she didn't even look good.the others went unnoticed.the only good thing about the movie were the songs..though not all of them. |
tt1766093 | Smoke Screen | Sir Humphrey Appleby is meeting with his subordinate Sir Frank Gordon, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Sir Frank is worried about Jim Hacker’s proposal to use some of the savings from his “Grand Design” for a £1.5 billion tax cut. They both agree that the whole system of government depends on them controlling the Prime Minister and the Chancellor respectively, and ensuring a degree of mistrust between them. Sir Frank points out that the notion of a tax cut is the one thing that unites the politicians and he had great difficulty getting the Chancellor to eventually oppose it. Sir Humphrey advises that low productivity within the economy could be seen to be more important. However, according to Sir Frank it is the fault of the British worker for being “fundamentally lazy". Sir Humphrey then dashes off to catch up with an England cricket match.
A drunken Sir Humphrey relaxes in his box at the cricket match, courtesy of the British Tobacco Group. He chats to Gerald, one of BTG’s directors, and asks a favour on behalf of the Royal Opera House, which needs more funds. Gerald is happy to oblige and mentions that he happens to be meeting the Minister for Sport later that afternoon. Sir Humphrey asks if Dr Peter Thorn, the Minister for Health, will be attending, but Gerald tells him that he has refused, apparently because he has sided with the anti-smoking lobby.
Sometime later, the PM is in his office, lamenting the Chancellor’s refusal to agree a tax cut. Sir Humphrey explains that the Treasury does not like giving money back out of principle, and he elaborates on this. Traditionally, taxes aren’t raised by measuring the government’s financial needs, but by levying as much as it can before deciding what to spend it on. The Cabinet Secretary leaves as Hacker has a meeting with Dr Thorn. The latter has come up with a radical plan: he wants to progressively eliminate smoking by banning all forms of tobacco advertising and implementing steep tax rises over the next five years. He points out the number of lives lost each year to smoking-related illnesses. The PM sympathises but knows that the tobacco tax raises revenue of £4 billion a year and that the Treasury would dismiss Thorn’s proposal. He can’t support Thorn publicly, but nevertheless can see a way of using his scheme to force the Treasury’s hand. For the time being, Hacker asks the Minister to keep pushing the argument and to make some speeches on it.
Sir Humphrey comes back in to enquire about Hacker’s meeting, and laughs at Thorn’s plan. However, he changes tack when the PM tells of his support for it. Sir Humphrey points out that there is a counter-argument for Thorn’s statistics. If those who die of smoking were to live to an advanced age, then it has been proven that they would cost the Treasury more in terms of pensions and benefit payments than it currently pays out in medical expenses. So in financial terms, he argues, it makes sense that they “continue to die at about the present rate”. He also puts the case for tobacco sponsorship of major sporting events. The PM is coincidentally to meet the Minister for Sport that afternoon, and since he is a member of the tobacco lobby, Hacker is suspicious.
Hacker meets Leslie Potts, the Minister for Sport, at the House of Commons. Potts is a smoker himself and has the cough to prove it. He has got wind of Thorn’s paper and warns the PM that if it progresses any further, it’s not just sporting events that will suffer: there are many marginal seats with workers in the tobacco industry. Hacker pointedly asks Potts if he was once a paid consultant to BTG. The Minister admits this, but stresses it has nothing to do with his opposition to the plan.
Sir Humphrey meets with Sir Frank and Sir Ian Whitchurch, Permanent Secretary of the DHSS. They agree that there is definitely a moral principle involved, but with £4 billion of revenue at stake, morality is a luxury they can ill afford. Sir Humphrey remembers that during Hacker’s time at the DAA, they would both regularly visit events at Lord’s, Wimbledon, and Glyndebourne as guests of BTG. The PM is therefore implicated in receiving a great deal of hospitality at the company’s expense.
Hacker is back in his office and is pleased that everything is going well, but Bernard asks if he will withdraw his support for Dr Thorn once he gets his tax cut. The PM states that he will simply “rearrange his priorities.” Sir Humphrey joins them and tries his BTG hospitality gambit, but Hacker is unmoved: as he points out, enjoying drinks at the Russian embassy doesn’t make him a spy. Sir Humphrey is now on the ropes and can think of nothing, but when the PM reminds him of his desired tax cut, he begins to take the hint and leaves to make some phone calls.
Meanwhile, Dr Thorn is back to see the PM, brimming with confidence over the amount of support he’s been getting. However, Hacker tells him that the Treasury is causing problems. Thorn counters that he is serious about his proposal and will publicly resign if necessary. While Thorn waits outside, Sir Humphrey comes back in with news that the Treasury can encompass the PM’s tax cut, with the proviso that the anti-smoking policy is shelved. Hacker agrees, but tells him of Thorn’s threat. Sir Humphrey suggests that Thorn be promoted to a vacancy at the Treasury. After Thorn is placated by his rapid elevation (with the promise that his proposal isn’t dropped) the position of Minister for Health is given to Leslie Potts, whose smoker’s cough prevents him from expressing his agreement. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0452039 | Mind Game | Nishi is a 20-year-old loser with dreams of becoming a comic book artist. One late evening he runs into his childhood crush, Myon, on the subway. Nishi declares he has always loved her, but she tells him she is due to marry someone else.
They go to her father's yakitori restaurant, and see Myon's father and her elder sister Yan (who runs the restaurant). Nishi also meets Myon's fiancee, Ryo. Two yakuza gangsters enter, Atsu and a senior yakuza whom Atsu calls Aniki (lit. brother. A term used by Yakuza to refer to each other). They are looking for Myon's father, who seduced and stole Atsu's girlfriend, and now hides cowering behind a corner. It is later revealed through flashbacks that the senior yakuza is actually the first boyfriend of the girls' mother, whom was also seduced away by her husband during a disco in their youth.
As Atsu threatens Myon with a gun, Ryo steps in and tries to punch Atsu, but instead gets knocked out. Atsu then prepares to rape Myon, who calls out Nishi's name. Atsu turns on Nishi, who is rolled in a ball, terrified, placing his pistol against Nishi's anus. The gun goes off when Nishi suddenly moves, thus killing him instantly. The senior Yakuza, offended by Atsu's lack of control, shoots him dead, and then nonchalantly orders dinner.
Meanwhile, Nishi is in some sort of limbo where he encounters a being whose physical image changes every fraction of a second, Kami-sama (God). Kami-sama directs Nishi to walk into a red portal where he will disappear, but at the last moment Nishi runs for the opposite blue portal in order to return to life. Kami-sama becomes impressed by Nishi's sheer will to live, and so lets him escape.
Nishi returns to the moment just before Atsu pulled the trigger. This time, Nishi seizes Atsu's gun with his buttocks, and shoots him dead. He, Yan and Myon all pile into the yakuza's car, leaving the father and Ryo (still unconscious) behind. They speed off, followed by the massed yakuzas. The Yakuza boss rings Nishi using the yakuza's car phone and reveals that Atsu was a player on the Japanese national soccer team. Then after further chase the boss has his men force the trio in to a dead end on a bridge. However, Nishi steers the car off the bridge and they are swallowed up by an enormous whale.
Inside the whale, they meet an old man who was formerly yakuza and has been trapped in the whale for more than 30 years. (He is later shown through flashbacks to be the father of the senior Yakuza shown earlier). He shows them to the elaborate suspended house he has constructed over the 'sea' inside the whale's belly. Nishi attempts to escape the whale but he fails and they resign themselves to life inside the whale. Yan practices dancing and art, Myon practices swimming (a dream she gave up when her breasts got bigger), Nishi practices writing and drawing humorous manga and he and Myon finally become sexually intimate.
They attempt to leave the whale, again failing. And the old man reveals that the water level inside the whale is rising, and he believes the whale is probably dying. They concoct a plan to make a motor boat out using spare parts and fuel from the car they arrived in. On the day before the final match of the soccer World Cup, the whale returns to Osaka (their home town) and Yan, Nishi, Myon, as well as the Old Man, manage to escape.
As the four fly through the air, the film returns to its very first scene, with Myon running from the Yakuza, only this time she does not get her leg caught in the door of the train, and the Yakuza is left behind on the platform. This is followed by a lengthy montage, similar to that of the opening credits, showing the histories of the various characters. The movie ends ambiguously, with the phrase "This Story Has Never Ended" appearing before the credits roll. | romantic, psychedelic, alternate reality, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0255605 | Snow White | At the beginning of the story, a queen sits sewing at an open window during a winter snowfall when she pricks her finger with her needle, causing three drops of red blood to drip onto the freshly fallen white snow on the black windowsill. Then, she says to herself, "How I wish that I had a daughter that had skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony." Some time later, the queen gives birth to a baby daughter whom she names Snow White, but dies shortly thereafter.
A year later, Snow White's father, the king, takes a new wife, who is very beautiful, but a wicked and vain woman. The new queen possesses a magic mirror, which she asks every morning, "Magic mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in the land?" The mirror always replies: "My queen, you are the fairest in the land." The queen is always pleased with that, because the magic mirror never lies. But as Snow White grows up, she becomes more beautiful each day and even more beautiful than the queen, and when the queen asks her mirror, it tells her that Snow White is the fairest.
This gives the queen a great shock. She becomes envious, and from that moment on, her heart turns against Snow White, whom the queen grows to hate increasingly with time. Eventually, the angry queen orders a huntsman to take Snow White into the deepest woods to be killed. As proof that Snow White is dead, the queen demands that he returns with her lungs and liver. The huntsman takes Snow White into the forest. After raising his knife, he finds himself unable to kill her and he spares her life. Snow White is told that her stepmother wants her dead and to get far away from the kingdom as possible. He instead brings the queen the heart of a wild animal.
After wandering through the forest, Snow White discovers a tiny cottage belonging to a group of seven dwarfs. Since no one is at home, she eats some of the tiny meals, drinks some of their wine, and then tests all the beds. Finally, the last bed is comfortable enough for her and she falls asleep. When the dwarfs return home, they immediately become aware that someone snuck in secretly, because everything in their home is in disorder. During their loud discussion about who snuck in, they discover the sleeping Snow White. She wakes up and explains to them what happened, and the dwarfs take pity on her and let her stay with them in exchange for housekeeping. They warn her to be careful when alone at home and to let no one in when they are away delving in the mountains.
Meanwhile, the queen asks her mirror once again: "Magic mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in the land?" The mirror replies: "My queen, you are the fairest here so true. But Snow White beyond the mountains at the Seven Dwarfs is a thousand times more beautiful than you". The queen is horrified to learn that the huntsman has betrayed her and that Snow White is still alive. Planning to kill Snow White, the queen disguises herself as an old peddler. The queen appears at the dwarfs' cottage and offers Snow White colorful, silky laced bodices and convinces Snow White to take the most beautiful laces as a present. Then the queen laces her up so tightly that Snow White faints, causing the queen to leave her for dead. But the dwarfs return just in time, and Snow White revives when the dwarfs loosen the laces.
The queen then consults her magic mirror again, and the mirror reveals Snow White's survival. The queen dresses as a comb seller and convinces Snow White to take a beautiful comb as a present. She brushes Snow White's hair with the poisoned comb and the girl faints again. She is again revived by the dwarfs when they remove the comb from her hair. When the mirror again indicates that Snow White still lives, the queen makes a third and final attempt on Snow White by disguising herself as a farmer's wife, an offering a poisoned apple to her. The girl is at first hesitant to accept it, so the queen cuts the apple in half, eating the white (harmless) half and giving the red poisoned half to Snow White. The girl eagerly takes a bite and falls into a state of suspended animation. This time, the dwarfs are unable to revive Snow White. Assuming that she is dead, they place her in a glass casket.
After a short period of time, a prince traveling through the land sees Snow White. He strides to her coffin. Enchanted by her beauty, he instantly falls in love with her. The seven dwarfs succumb to his entreaties to let him have Snow White. The moment he lifts the coffin to carry it away, the piece of poisoned apple falls from between her lips and Snow White awakens saying "Where am I?" The Prince then declares his love for her and soon a wedding is planned. Snow White and the prince invite everyone to come to their wedding party, including Snow White's stepmother.
Meanwhile, the queen, still believing that Snow White is dead, again asks her magic mirror who is the fairest in the land. The mirror says: "Thou, lady, art loveliest here, I ween; but lovelier far is the new-made queen", which enrages the queen. Not knowing that the Prince's bride is her stepdaughter, the queen arrives at the wedding and sees that the bride is Snow White, whom she thought dead. She chokes with rage, falls down, and dies. Snow White and the prince reign happily over the land for many, many years and sometimes traveling into the mountains and visiting the dwarfs, who had been so kind to Snow White. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | I like Kristin Kreuk (Lana Lang of Smallville TV series), she is so cute, she is a perfect pick for Snow White.
On the DVD extra the writer/director explains that this version is more in line with the original Snow White tales that were handed down from olden times.
Maranda Richardson, known best for her work as Ms Tweedy in CHICKEN RUN, is really good as the stepmom who wants Snow White dead.
It's not your traditional version of the Grimm's famous story, but this effort by Hallmark Entertainment (distributed by Disney) certainly has it's merits!Caroline Thompson's script tells the traditional story of the princess with "skin as white as snow" and the jealous stepmother who wishes her stepdaughter dead.
For instance, Snow White's father, John (played by Tom Irwin), releases a "jinn" or "genie" type creature (Clancy Brown) from a frozen prison in the ice.
So, Elspeth's first spell of manipulation is cast.Another added plot twist borrows from another Grimm's story, "Snow White and Rose Red".
In her usual brilliant way, Richardson's performance is deranged yet humorous all at once.Kristin Kreuk (WB's "Smallville") as "Snow White" gives a deeper performance than one would expect.
Faces to look for in the dwarf cast: veteran fantasy film star Warwick Davis ("Willow", "The 10th Kingdom"), as Saturday, Michael J.
You'll be smiling from the beginning to the end.And you'll get three fairy tales for the price of one - the main storyline of the Snow Queen (Andersen) and a theme from Snow White and Rose Red (Grimm) are included as well..
Hallmark Entertainment's seemingly remorseless quest to film every fairy tale ever made meant that they'd eventually get to the Grimm brothers' tale of Snow White and the seven dwarves - except that as told by adapters Caroline Thompson and Julie Hickson only six of them are dwarves, as part of their development of the classic tale.
Unfortunately, you know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions."Snow White" also works in a few elements of "The Snow Queen" - the shards of Queen Elspeth's mirror flying into people's eyes and causing them to not see her evil for what it is - but also adds some interesting twists to the yarn; her psychosis is for once given some basis (the Queen's insecurity over the hideousness that is her true self is the ultimate cause for her going over the edge when her mirror informs that it is her stepdaughter, not she herself, who is the fairest of them all), and the septet - the days of the week in...
Miranda Richardson has much more scope as the wicked stepmother, and is clearly enjoying herself (although you do wonder why nobody notices the woman is obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic), but a few less wisecracks would have helped - "It looks like I finally left you breathless!" she cackles post-poisoned apple delivery.A lot more wonder would also have helped; "Snow White" is sadly short of magic, and doesn't really take as much advantage of its story as it could (except for the sadly truncated attack of the garden gnomes...
This is a pretty good re-telling of the Brothers Grimm story, indeed one I'm sure they would have been pleased with, whereas they would hardly have recognised the Disney version which was made purely to entertain young children.
There are excellent performances by Miranda Richardson as the menacing, calculating, and very beautiful step-mother, and Vera Farmiga as Snow White's birth mother, although we don't see nearly enough of the latter.
The oddball assortment of 'dwarfs' provide much of the comic action with their hilarious antics and valiant efforts to save the day.The big let down for me was the weak and distant performances by Kristin Kreuk in the title role, and Tom Irwin as her father.All in all very enjoyable, well worth looking out for.
"Snow White" is a classic story, one which is so perfect in its original form that there is really no need (or room) for improvement.
Kristin Kreuk as Snow White, looks the part, but doesn't act it.
As the wicked queen, she is as beautiful and compelling as ever, but this adaptation undercuts her fine performance with a terrible back story in which she is originally a hag who is turned into a beauty by her well-meaning spirit of a brother.The Seven "Dwarfs" are played so broadly that they are totally ineffectual.
The dark wonder of the Brothers Grimm, the quixotic imagination of writer/director Caroline Thompson (The Addams Family, Edward Scissorhands), state-of-the art special effects by Reel Elements and the breathtaking spectacle that has become a symbol of Hallmark Entertainment combine for a truly visionary retelling of the classic fairy tale .
Salvation comes unexpectedly when the father's tears melt the frozen tomb of a bewitched creature, the Green-Eyed One. In thanks, the insinuating beast grants John three wishes: nourishment for Snow White, a kingdom in which to raise his family and a queen by his side.
Lots of neat symbolism - I thought Miranda Richardson did a killer job with a tight script, some great sets (the room of mirrors is brilliant)sharp directionand great cinematography.I can't think of a better film depiction of a woman who suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder - it's clinically right on the button - - I guess itjust depends on why you watch a movie - for me it was really arrestingI do agree Kirstin Kreuk was probably out of her depth atthe time (2001)against Miranda Richardson...
The characters I like best were, of course, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
It's often an example of so-bad-it's-good entertainment, with plenty of overacting and bizarre situations to take your mind off the shortcomings of the script and set-up.Certainly compared to the recent likes of SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN, SNOW WHITE: THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL is a cheap version of the tale.
The acting is hardly of a high standard either: as Snow White, Kristin Kreuk (the world's first part-Chinese Snow White?) is pretty but wooden, while Miranda Richardson can't resist but to ham it up terribly as the evil Queen.Still, there are better actors in support, and these include Clancy Brown who looks fantastic underneath some truly 'Grimm' make-up.
That is not to say that Snow White is a complete mess, I did love the costume, photography, lighting and set design, the music has a mystical quality and there are two good performances from Vera Farmiga and Warwick Davis and a great one from Miranda Richardson.
On the other hand, Kristen Kreuk is very dull and passive albeit beautiful as Snow White, likewise with Tom Irwin.
Now, after watching this film i am greatly disappionted in one; the dramaticly changed, and at times confussing plot line, and two; Vincent Schiavelli role within the film.After watching 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest' just the other night, and now seeing Schiavelli in this dud of a film, i must say how disheartened i was to see such a great actor stoop to a awful rendition, as this was.Although it was ment to be a more 'modern' insite to snow white, it really didnt do anything for me.
Change of story line, bad acting, and over-done 'special effects' are only a few of the things that ruined this film..
I disagree with some of the comments that Kristin Kreuk both looked like we would expect Snow White to look and that she would be the fairest in real life too.First of all, Kristin Kreuk's makeup in the movie was too pink.
Her cheeks and her lips were pink, when Snow White's skin is supposed to be like snow and her lips blood red.And secondly, while she is no doubt beautiful, I'm sure other actresses could have played her just as well if not better.
He's a talented actor that we don't see a lot of, and Irwin certainly didn't deserve having one of the largest parts in the movie.Even my 10 year old niece thought he was a little too precious in the father role..
This movie strays from the true tale of Snow White far too much.
I'm not saying it should be a Disney's Snow White clone (although, Disney's version is absolutely wonderful and always melts my heart!), but it should have stayed a little more true to the story.
Even though there were major differences, there were nice touches on old things, such as the way Elspeth is told she is not the fairest one of all (Snow White's figure leans out of the mirror(s) and says 'I am.
the sets were colorful, the effects were "cool" (especially the mirror effects), even it was only for TV, it said so much of the story, and a remarkable presentation by Miranda Richardson, as alwaysit's nice to see a talented newcomer like Kristin Kreuk.
She plays the Evil Queen with a delightful wickedness and the special effects of the magic mirror have to be seen to be believed!There's a lovely new twist on the 7 dwarves with each one being a day of the week and a part of a rainbow, and newcomer Kristen Kruek is wonderful as Snow White..
I have seen quite a few adaptations of Snow White in my time, but nothing as dull or as boring as this recent one, i know in the picture books and other readings of this lovely story, you will find that Snow White is not always noted for her enthusiasm, or intelligence, but when i saw how Snow White had been betrayed in this film, to the extent of having completely no personality nor facial expressions, i just assumed she was merely an extra on the side, giving away all the credit to her more famous and much more exiting evil stepmother ,who was played brilliantly by Miranda Richardson.
The film dragged ruffly along with the story of Snow White, but then all of a sudden, there they were, the dwarfs, and then you notice that they don't really look like dwarfs at all, as cute as they were, they actually look more like the munchkins from the wizard of oz, but without the laughter and cheer, one of them im sure was a woman and the other a 6foot tall man, what's that all about, and gone were the famous names that made this movie famous like dopey clumsy, and so on, they were now all named monday, sunday tuesday, the days of the week, this was only worth watching because of the fact that Miranda Richardson was in it, and showing that one person can definitely hold a film together, while its crumbling down beneath your feet..
But as the magic fizzled out of BEAUTY & THE BEAST, I longed for Kristin back in her heyday, so I did some research, Wikipedia, IMDb, and found SNOW WHITE, a Canadian TV movie, so, some trepidation there, and I couldn't find a trailer.
The whole thing is quite uneven, we have kind of a new take on the original, yet we go through a bit of a bumpy ride along the way, you kinda feel like a fool for watching at times, then it rights itself again, then the cart tips over again...Miranda generally gets rave reviews, but I think she's kinda corny, just a big gutsy performance, but totally unpolished, just, like, here I am, I give a whole lot to the part, I'm really at it, film me, there it is, you got it.
For one thing the characters are very flat: the wicked stepmother is evil, but she lacks evilness, the gnomes are annoying, Snow White lacks character totally and the king will stay in my memory as the stupid-looking clown inside a mirror.
I won't claim that I've seen particularly many adventure/fantasy flicks, or many fairy tale films, or even more than three versions of this story(the other two being Snow White in the Dark Forest and the Disney cartoon version).
Kristin Kreuk (of WB's "Smallville) was a perfect choice for the title character and looks exactly as one would expect Snow White to look.
Snow White's father was a complete wimp from beginning to end, although looked the part of a fairy tale king.
Queen Elspeth was one dimensional, making a convincing totally self-absorbed beauty, but seemed to soft pedal her evil.The story itself was okay, and serves as a stand-alone movie as long as the viewer has never once read the original fairy tale or seen any other version of it (even the famous Disney animated masterpiece), but somehow just doesn't fit together in this production.
Snow White has a few nice turns of dialogue, a plot that feels heavily padded, a few competent actors (Miranda Richardson, Clancy Brown, Warwick Davis), one or two decent effects -- and almost no life at all.Maybe the movie should have been named "Sleeping Beauty," as it features some nice sets and locations, but they are inhabited by actors who intone their lines almost expressionlessly in an almost stationary, dreamy, sleepwalking fashion.The only actor who seems to be having any fun is Vera Farmiga, and she dies in the first five minutes.
Miranda Richardson is amazing as the queen to the point where she makes up for the fact that Snow White is just reciting lines and her father is overly dramatic and completely unbelievable.
Sixteen year later, Snow White (EuroTrip's Kristin Kreuk) is grown up, Elspeth has pretty much taken over the kingdom with King John neglecting his daughter, but the Queen craves a new younger husband.
With the magic of the mirrors on the wall the queen makes sure that she is still the fairest of them all, but one day the mirror tells that Snow White is the fairest, and the evil Queen is ready to kill her beautiful niece.
After trying to suffocate Snow White with a sash, the Queen decides to use her small magic mirror to disguise herself as the princess's dead mother, create a half poison, half edible apple to give her.
So with the dwarfs out of the house, Snow White is tricked into eating the poison apple, and Elspeth goes back to the kingdom to transform back to her beautiful self, but she has gone back to being ugly.
In the end the gnomes strangle the evil Elspeth to death, and Snow White wakes with the true love kiss of the prince, the dwarfs go off to see Sleeping Beauty, and they all live happily ever after.
Richardson enjoys her role as the typical pantomime female villain obsessed with her looks, Kreuk is beautiful but very dull to watch, one or two of the dwarf actors get their moments, and Irwin is most boring as the king.
Not the cloying Disney musical (sorry, I've never liked that film) but a modern retelling of the story, a live-action version originally done for TV.
This Snow White is a little different in that it's told by a woman with a woman's point of view.The story is pretty much like the Bros.
Kreuk comes off as oddly unappealing (a real feat for her); we never warm up to her Snow at all, and I really think we're supposed to.Overall this isn't a bad rendition of the story, but it's not a great one, either, and probably for most people Disney's version will reign supreme.
When you figure that Disney's Snow White is one of the top 50 U.S. films of all time (and the best thing Disney has ever done), you can understand why Hallmark and writer/director Caroline Thompson (who did such a good job on Black Beauty and Edward Scissorhands) would not want to do that version of the fairy tale.
Kristan Kreuk's performance as the title character is feeble; the director should have been able to get a whole lot more from her, but Miranda Richardson as the Evil Queen was wonderful.
And Kruck is such a sterile non-sensuous beauty that she fits the antiseptic way in which the director apparently wanted to under-portray the character.Vincent Schiavelli who stole the show in "Ghost" also steals all the seven dwarf scenes.Vera Farmiga does a great job as Snow White's mother, especially when she plays the Queen impersonating the mother.
Interestingly, in the original story it was the mother (not a step-mother) who was trying to kill Snow White,The ending is a bit anti-climatic as it almost instantly goes from everything being totally bleak to everything being right with the kingdom.
(Watch as she pulls a face and still gets her desired answer ;)) When suddenly Snow white (Kristen Kreuk) is fairest of them all this throws the queen into a fit of jealousy.
Speaking of Snow white, Ms Kreuk plays a rather sassy version of her, as the following lines from the movie may show:Prince Alfred: Princess, you are so beautiful.
Richardson can't save the project on her own and this is Kreuk giving her most bland, raw delivery--and that's saying something.I have no clue where they got the idea to make Snow White's father an ordinary man who was made into a prince by a jinn (a rather demonic Western genie who looked like he'd have been more at home on an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys) or why they made the wicked Queen a hag sister of the jinn who spent her days turning unsuspecting dwarfs into lawn figurines, but really just wanted to be beautiful and adored.
She seems to be enjoying herself immensely.Kristin Kreuk is okay but not very original as Snow White.
She seems to be just like Snow White is in every other film.
It was an interesting twist that the person sent to kill Snow White wasn't some guy that the queen brought in but one of the servants who was under a spell at the time. |
tt0810743 | Mr. Jingles | Young Angie Randall witnesses a spree killing clown named Mr. Jingles murder her parents, before he is shot to death by Officers Baines and Guinness. Before dying, Jingles tells Angie, "I'll be back for you!" The traumatized Angie is institutionalized until she is a teenager, at which point she is released into the care of her aunt Helen Jameson and cousins Dylan and Heidi.
At the local cemetery, a visitor is killed by someone dressed as Jingles. Baines (who is now mayor) and Guinness are called to the graveyard by the man who found the body. The stranger tells them that this is just the beginning and reveals he knows that Baines and the police force (excluding Guinness) covered up the fact that Jingles was wrongly lynched and imprisoned when Angie's father and several others thought he tried to abduct Angie at her fourth birthday party, when in reality he had saved her from an actual child predator. After the three men leave, two of Dylan's delinquent friends are slain by Jingles while trying to steal his tombstone for a prank that they, Guinness's daughter Melanie, and a reluctant Dylan intend to play on Angie at a birthday party Heidi is setting up for her.
In his home, the stranger tells Guinness that he believes that it is not a copycat and that Jingles has actually come back from the dead. The stranger (who reveals he was once employed at the penitentiary where Jingles was placed and witnessed the tortures inflicted on Jingles that drove him mad) presents occult objects that he found in Jingles's prison cell as evidence, prompting Guinness to remember that Jingles did chant something in a strange language as he lay dying. The two grab the items necessary to banish Jingles, who confronts them as they go to leave, killing the stranger, and wounding Guinness.
While Angie, Heidi, and Heidi's friends are partying in the Jameson house, Melanie dresses up like Jingles with the intent of crashing the celebration, only to be axed by the real Jingles. Jingles breaks in and kills Heidi, Dylan, and the rest of the revelers, leaving only Angie. An unknown amount of time later, Baines and two police officers enter the house, and find a hysterical Angie clutching Jingles's axes, making it appear as if she is the murderer. As she is being hauled away by a police officer, Angie is saved by Guinness, while Jingles attacks Baines and another officer. | paranormal, violence, humor | train | wikipedia | This movie was awful, the acting sucked, the plot sucked, it just confused me, it skipped around everywhere, and the only time it even made since was the last 15 minutes, and even then, it wasn't very good.
It looks like a homemade movie, that i could even do better with.
This movie is not for a horror fan, the gore and everything looks like something and 8 year old kid would make and something you would buy at a Halloween store.
The producers knew that no one with any taste whatsoever in film would watch this movie to the end.
After getting past the credits you are rewarded with something that looks like it was filmed with a cell phone camera.If you are in the mood for a scary movie, do not watch this movie.
You will laugh at the effects and acting that went into the making of this film..
I see it's been said, but if you need some more reassurance, do not watch this movie.Plot seemed simple, Killer Clown out for revenge.When you see the words "killer", most assume that the movie is a horror, or at least a suspense.
In one shot, I could even see an UN-cleaned spot on the lens.And the acting, my god, a Razzy would be too good for it.An obvious low budget amiture movie.
I bought this Movie at a cheap discount warehouse in Australia for two dollars, the cover looked very cool and the idea of a killer clown seemed (though not original) something that might be entertaining.What a mistake, the acting is awful the victims still seem to be moving and breathing, the make up is pitiful, the lighting is bad, the sound is bad (gunshots sound like a toy cap gun) Don't mistake my comment for one of those ïts so bad it must be cool comments, its so bad its just plain terrible.I cannot begin to describe how bad this movie is, the camera work is so bad using the old trick of editing and cutting to create gore, the sound is very bad, the acting is bad, the story,effects,directing,plot is all bad.Basically this movie sucks, i give it 1 because you cannot give a lower score.
I think more money was put into making the cover than the actual movie.
This could have been an idea that worked out if they handled the contrasts correctly--an orphaned teen seems non-chalant instead of horrified, police act mildly amused as the shoot the clown in the opening sequence, and the omni-present blood looks like day-glow silly string It doesn't have enough bad lines to be accepted as camp, just faulty cinema..
Typically when I rent a movie I look at the cover and read the back to see what it's about and if it sounds interesting i'll watch it.
It looks as if someone just grabbed their dad's camera and a few friends and made a very terrible movie and sold it to Lionsgate.
the kills are just so stupid, it looked so unrealistic, and on top of all of that Mr. jingles is the most retarded serial killer ever!at least other movies in this category are at least half way descent, in this case it had a bad plot, no set up, bad backgrounds, no noticeable actors, and a completely retarded killer!worst horror movie ever mad don't waste your money on it unless you are a idiot and love fake kills and bad movies!
I should have guessed it was going to be this terrible when the opening credits read like those of a porno movie: "Tommy Brunswick".
this movie was still not anywhere nearly as bad as "Dungeon Girl." You must check it out, even if it's only to make Mr. Jingles look like an Oscar-winner in comparison.
They both fall into the great-cover-tricks-you-into-renting-an-eye-gougingly-terrible movie category, but Dungeon Girl is far more terrible..
I thought to myself, hey, I love crappy/cheesy horror movies, I'll give it a shot.
Let's look at the terrible aspects of this movie shall we...Terrible acting...Terrible presentation...Terrible killer...Terrible plot...Terrible ending...Terrible special effects...Terrible all-around.
After actually watching the whole movie, because I feel that I must finish it to put closure on the experience, I've come to the conclusion that nothing good came out of this movie...nothing.
The only thing I have now is that I can brag to my friends that I've watched one of the worst movies ever made..
This movie was a complete waste of money and my time(all 15 minutes and 39 seconds of it)..
Most seem to have been lured in by the Clown featured on the cover, which should be noted, does not resemble the horribly sad excuse see in the "movie" Don't get me wrong, I love over the top characters, excessive violence, and cheesy gore films, but Mr. Jingles is by far the worse "movie" I have ever seen in my life.
And despite the fact I don't believe in God, I actually prayed for the "writer/director" (was this thing written with a crayon?) to be struck down, or maimed in a way that he would never be able to create another "film".
I thought i had seen the worst movie when attack of the killer tomatoes was released until this piece of pooh came along.
it is actually worse than the worst movie ever made, so Websters dictionary need to make up another word for this garbage.I would have rated it -0 but the counter starts at one..
the script sucked , i still haven't watched the whole movie, but then again how could you stay awake long enough to endure the absolute boredom this film brings.
Angie, fresh out from the mental asylum after seven years there due to trauma suffered from the grisly murder of her family by a 'Twisted Metal' like clown, wants to leave the past behind her, but Mr. Jingles (aforementioned clown) has other plans for her in this supremely sub-par horror effort.
I had tried to watch Mr. Jingles a prior time and got through 5 minutes before others in my party voted to turn it off.
It seems more like a movie filmed by a couple of bored teenagers looking for fame rather than a good quality horror movie.
It is an indy production that went straight to video, so I don't expect quality.Now, the production values weren't too bad, but the acting was terrible.There just wasn't enough action to keep you interested.Seeing the bloody dildo flying through the air was funny.Jessica Hall was the best thing about this movie.
the cover was pretty cool, to bad the real Me.jingles looks NOTHING like the cover.
I'm sorry, this film was a bad excuse for a killer clown movie..
so then I bought it watched the trailer and i went uh oh this looks gay so i put it on and watched it to the part where the cops shoot the clown and he hits the ground so people do not buy or rent this movie i think they just got a 40 dollar camera and decided hey lets make a movie that basically a rip off of S.I.C.K another shitty movie that has bad acting and crappy lighting so just listen to me and DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE!.
And to think this film is a sequel to the 2003 direct-to-video killer-clown movie "S.I.C.K.".
One survivor has spent years in an asylum to recover from what she saw, but upon her release, Mr. Jingles returns to finish what he started.I shot a movie off of my cellphone that turns out better FX and dialogue than this movie...
I watched better movies in highschool that were done for film projects...
I am a man who loves bad horror movie but Mr. Jingles really was a disappointment to me.
Mr. Jingles antics and attempts at witty commentary do make the film almost comic but it is still hard to watch.Effects and sound quality were terrible.
I understand that this was a low-budget movie, but honestly, any movie that sucks that bad, should not be put on a shelf.It looks like my best friends school project, actually, that was better.All I was thinking throughout the entire thing was "why am I still watching this" and "how was this possibly sold."Biggest pile of crap I've ever found on a shelf.Its not worth watching, unless you've got some urge to watch and make fun of the most ridiculous thing you'll ever see.My mom and friend actually fell asleep a little after the insanely long beginning-credits..
This thing, this horrible waste of time and space is not a movie.
It may be because of the terrible dialog or it may be because of the crappy acting, but some scenes were just so bad that it was funny.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to make this movie and put their name on it should be pitied...Mr. Jingles is, so far, the worst horror movie I've ever seen.
The only one in the movie that seems to have any acting skill to speak of is the titular killer clown, who is perfectly over the top and cheesy and makes the film much more of a comedy than a horror movie.
And if you are looking for a horror that's so stupid and terrible that its funny, then Mr Jingles is perfect for you..
Okay, so I rented this and a few other horror flicks last weekend thinking it would be a good time for me and my friends.
JINGLES it completely caught our attention, as we excitedly agreed that this movie was totally rent-able for the night.
Well, we were unfortunately wrong, but at the same time i have absolutely no regret to renting this movie for the wonderful amount of humor that i received from it...and i'm sexually frustrated, so the oral sex scene really was up my alley.
BUT, anyways, I will probably show this movie to every single person that I am in a social relationship with, so that we can laugh at the low budget, piece of poop film that was bull crapping on front st.
as we rented...really, the cover looks like its not far from the restless nights of sleep that were rewarded after watching many other scary movies.BOTTOM LINE: rent this mother trucker, and show it to absolutely everyone you know, it's great in a comical point, not horror.
Jingles pays great homage to the horror movie formula we all know and love blood, boobs, and monsters.
But it does it without seeming canned or tired, and manages to include some humor; and even tosses in a thing or two that - trust me - you haven't seen before.If you are a fan of good old fashioned horror and independent film making, and if you are sick of the gimmicky, predictable, trite films Hollywood spits out to make a quick buck, then check out Mr. Jingles, and find out that horror movies can still be fun!.
My best friend and I LOVE horror movies and we rented this movie hoping for a scare.
The only thing scary about this movie was the horrible acting and the ungodly bad film quality!!
The cover looked half decent and we were like, "Yeah let's get it and give it a watch" and to our surprise, It literally changed our lives.
The movie was so stupid and so poorly filmed and acted that my brain gave out for at least 2 hours after watching this film.
I was wondering if its is as bad as Killer Clowns from Outer Space, I have been trying to find a good circus horror type movie.
Not that Killer Clowns was that good but without a big budget for a film, almost any movie is bound to suck.
I thought the DVD cover looked cool, but now adays the movies pay a lot to do DVD artwork, and its hard to tell if it is decent budget or low budget.Oh well if anyone knows a good circus type horror flick let me know.
You cant compare a low budget film to a Stephen King flick, there is a big enormous difference i quality, you should beware of that before renting low budget films, I personally like horror genre and can put up with some bad stuff, but get tired of renting something that looks half OK, and it turns out like a movie I could probably have made with my camera..
The first thing i should state about this movie is that, if you're expecting a low budget classic where the script showed some heart and is actually a fun, mildly creative horror movie such as Satan's Little Helper, not only will you be disappointed, but you will want to subsequently shoot the TV, take out the DVD, chew it up, and spit it back into the DVD case and then return it to the store.
However, if you walk in knowing it's going to be crap and you want a laugh, then this movie is gold.
now, if i didn't know better, i'd think that people who make movies were NEVER teenagers.
jingles meets up with a crazy bum and the mayor (who is by far the worst actor in this movie btw) and the bum tells them how mr.
The Worst Killer Clown Movie Ever Made.
And once the movie starts, you will realise that the only work the special effects company did must have been the fading job on those credits.In horrors, you tend to have a set up.
The only problem with it is that it is so bad, I actually thought that these people were having a dress up party and some clown guy was pretending to kill someone, and then they laugh about it afterwards.
Yes, really - watch it.I invited some friends around, just to share the horror of this film with them.
I did this, and I laughed myself into a paralytic state.My friends all agreed that if we filmed our own little movie, using a cellphone camera, it'd turn out better than this.
This would have to be one of the worst movies I have ever wasted my time in viewing.
i was going to give this film a 10 like for the hilarity, because the acting is something else and the special effects and the killings in this movie, phew, movies really are booming in the year 2006.
to be fair, it did have me laughing a fair bit, thats probably the bonus.there's not a lot i can say about it because it was the same from start to finish, bad acting, dodgy kills, dire special effects.
I love B-movies but this film had nothing going for it.
I went into Family Video to rent this, because the front cover made the movie look scary.
The DVD case is better than the actual movie.
It looked like the movie was made from a cheap Flip Video Camera.
This movie was a sequel, and I didn't know that when we rented it from family video.
The cover was convincing, it looked scary; but when we watched it, the DVD menu was even low budget.
It took me out of the movie.Second: The lighting looked as if some film-school drop out did it.
I saw the cover of "Mr. Jingles" and read the back, it seemed interesting, but then after watching those long credits, I knew the movie was going to be a disappointment once the picture showed, it was obviously a home video made.
I have watched horror movies all my life, and I have had my share of bad ones.
Lately actually, just in the past 2 years, I've had the bad luck of being tricked by movie boxes at the store, and when I go home I find a badly made home video.
The plot line sucked, the ending was confusing & possibly unfinished, the acting was terrible & the special effects were even worse.
At the beginning of the movie when the cops shoot Mr. Jingles, the sound the "gun" gives off doesn't even remotely resemble that of a gunshot.
There's one scene where the man gets his fingers chopped off, but in the next shot he's missing his entire hand & bleeding from the wrist.Despite the terrible acting & effects, I loved this movie.
The acting is laughable (The M.D. who does Jingles should consider sticking to his day job.), the special effects are cringe-worthy (You'll love the famous "gun scene" in the very beginning.), the pacing makes an eighty- minute movie feels like a three-hour movie, the script seems to have come from another planet where the aliens there do very bad impressions of humans, and the music will literally put you to sleep if you haven't injected yourself with three hits of Redbull for an entirely new movie- watching experience.If you've a bad case of coulrophobia that you can't shake, then I have wonderful news for you: buy this movie.
I'm sure they were working on a budget and couldn't get the best cameras but they made do with the ones they had and created movie that had me jumping and laughing at the same time.
me and my friends had hell of a lot of fun pointing out how bad it was and our witty comments are always fun *thanks for that guy who made this terrible film* 2.the story i have to admit was good in some parts not so ...
There are some real interesting kill scenes in this movie that have not been presented before.
It is a low budget indie horror movie that hits all the right buttons at the right times.
It's too bad that not all low budget films do that.
I highly recommend this movie if you want a good old fashioned low budget scare to watch and mold your own productions after. |
tt0156043 | Sanam Teri Kasam | Vijay Verma (Saif Ali Khan) is a rich and selfish playboy who enjoys playing with women by giving a fake name to every girl. His friend, Gopal, (Atul Agnihotri) tells him several times to stop this act otherwise he will regret it. One day, Vijay meets a lovely tourist, Seema (Pooja Bhatt) and falls in love with her after a few meetings. During a separation, Seema sends Vijay a letter about her father agreeing to marriage with Vijay. He replies saying that he will leave immediately to get to her place. This is when the narrative introduces a shocking heel turn. Seema's father arrives at the airport and is greeted by his future son-in-law, and, shortly after, Seema's marriage ceremony takes place. After the marriage, Seema finds out that the person who has married her is none other than Gopal and she was tricked into marriage with him; when he knew that Vijay loved her too. Seema and her unexpected new spouse turn up at Vijay's home, and it's frustrating then to see Vijay quietly take the abuse doled out by the two-faced husband. Lots of yearning glances exchanged between Vijay and Seema, lots of smirking by the husband. It's a revenge tale, of course. There's a reason Seema got tricked into wedlock. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Typical Hindi movie. after seeing this movie, one feels like one has seen a number of Hindi films with the same theme like 'Phir wohi dil laya hoon' Jab Pyar kisse se hota hai etc., where a lookalike son comes in to claim the property competing with the real inheritor son, the hero, who got separated early in life and accidentally comes in touch with the heroine, who may also have a similar separation for some different reason, and then making love with the heroine, which unquestionably throws a sad party number like the one shown in this movie, after the story has thrown in a couple of fast romantic songs with the real hero and heroine, in charming locations. It seems the saga has not changed, but one does not mind seeing the rhetoric, if it has good songs and music. Majority of such bollywood movies have been a success, if they have good music, songs and dance. It also reminds one of another hit movie 'Tesri manzil' where the location is Simla and the hero is a singer in a hotel there with a bit of murder mystery.. remake of Nasir Hussain films. Nasir Hussain (uncle of Aamir Khan and father of Mansoor Khan) made a couple of films with the same storyline like Phir Wohi Dil Laaya Hoon with Joy Mukherjee and Asha Parekh. Sanam Teri Kasam is a remake of these movies. A man suspects his wife of having a affair. She leaves him taking her son with her. Man comes to know that his wife was innocent and searches her but she doesn't want anything to do with him. He adopts a girl and brings her up and becomes rich. Now the son is grown (Kamal Hassan) falls in love with the adopted girl (Reena Roy) and the father is against the union. The father thinks that someone else is his son (Ranjeet) and wants Reena to marry his son. If it had not been for R.D. Burman (another Nasir Hussain standard) this film would be forgettable. Gems like Sanam Teri Kasam (by kishore and a version by Asha), Jaana O Meri Jaana and other songs make this film watchable. |
tt0096419 | Warlords | The film is set in China in the 1860s, during the Taiping Rebellion. It is based on the assassination of Ma Xinyi in 1870. In the beginning, there is a battle between loyalists and rebels, during which all of the loyalists are killed except Qingyun, the general. Qingyun goes to a village nearby where the inhabitants engage in banditry, being led by two men, Erhu and Wuyang. He offers his assistance in executing a raid against a rebel convoy. However, a loyalist army assaults the village shortly afterward and seizes the spoils for themselves. Around this time, Qingyun begins an affair with Erhu's wife.
Since the villagers are poor and starving, Qingyun convinces them to fight the rebels as an independent loyalist war-band. Erhu and Wuyang are distrustful of Qingyun, so the three of them perform a blood ceremony where, under the pain of death, they promise to care for each other like brothers. The war-band wins a series of victories. Qingyun becomes ambitious and prepares to attack Suzhou and Nanjing. However, the government becomes fearful of Qingyun's growing influence, and decides to deny reinforcements and provisions. As a result, the attack on Suzhou becomes a year-long siege.
Erhu attempts to kill the enemy commander by sneaking into the city in disguise. He is quickly captured, but to his surprise, the enemy commander was already planning on surrendering, and allows Erhu to kill him in exchange for sparing his troops from execution. However, Qingyun refuses to honor the deal and has the prisoners massacred. Erhu considers desertion, but Qingyun convinces him that the attack on Nanjing will liberate millions of innocent lives.
Nanjing is easily taken, and Qingyun, in return for his grand success, is awarded the position of Nanjing's governor. As Qingyun waits for his inauguration, he tries to make friends with other upper-class people. Erhu, however, has been jaded by the war, and does improper things such as handing out bonus pay without permission. Qingyun responds by arranging for Erhu's murder, fearing a loss of reputation with the upper-class. Erhu, as he dies, curses the name of a rival, not realizing that he was betrayed by his own brother.
Wuyang, having discovered Qingyun's betrayal and Qingyun's affair with Erhu's wife, reacts by killing Erhu's wife. On the day of the inauguration, Wuyang jumps out to kill Qingyun, but is unable to defeat him. It is then revealed, through a flash-back, that Qingyun's promotion was fake, and that the government's real desire was to murder Qingyun for gaining too much influence. At this point, a government soldier appears behind Qingyun and shoots him in the back. The government then frames Wuyang for the murder and gets ready to execute him. The film closes with Wuyang observing that "Dying is easy. Living is harder." | satire | train | wikipedia | Endless car chases, a hand-puppet mutant, and David Carradine Fred Olen Ray strikes again.
I sure hope the actors working in Fred Olen Ray's films are having fun when they're making them.
Because we, the viewer, sometimes have no fun at all.Enter WARLORDS.
Some sort of MAD MAX-inspired cheese that has really little point(except for blowing up a few cars, and displaying some of the cheapest effects since GHOULIES), WARLORDS is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Anyone who finds this entertaining should go back to the hospital, 'cause you've gotta be sick to like this.Dawn Wildsmith, once married to Fred Olen Ray, is the damsel in distress, Sid Haig is the bad guy, there is bad chase music, a mutant sidekick, and caves.
What Fred Olen Ray movie would be complete without some cave footage(perhaps he is homaging EEGAH?)WARLORDS is probably no worse than all the other films that Fred Olen Ray directed that year, but this is hardly bragging rights.
When the measuring stick is this short, what's the point in playing at all?.
" How could Nuclear deterrence work if the men with the button couldn't give a dam ".
The star of this film " Warlords " is suppose to be David Carradine, (Kung-Fu) but I wonder if he regrets it?
I have not seen a movie this bad since 'Blair Witch.' The film is directed by Fred Ray who claims to know his craft.
Not after this poor offering.
The premise is of a post apocalyptic world where Dow, the hero (Carradine) wonders the land in search of his long lost wife.
With him as a companion of sorts is a mutant head in a box which talks, constantly complains and makes snide remarks.
Joining Dow is Danny (Dawn Wildsmith) a renegade woman who is constantly firing her guns and rifles, but can't seem to hit anything.
Sid Haig plays 'The Warlord' who with his menagerie of bare-breasted women, is as menacing as a loose tooth.
The warlord plans on recruiting a mutant army with the help of Ross Hagen as Beaumont, Fox Harris as the double crossing Colonel Cox and Robert Quarry as Dr. Mathers a veterinarian.
You might consider watching this film if you are totally bored out of your mind, which is what will happen to your head if you finish it.
To say this film is bad is an understatement.
The question remains, why did a fine actor like David Carradine do this film?
It has got to be the worse movie of his career.
*. Almost So Bad It's Good.
Yeah, it's dreadful.
If you see it in a video store, there will usually be some empty space on either side - the nearby movies have subtly scootched themselves over, for fear this movie is contagious.My favorite bit was the "mutants" who have become dependent on radium in the atmosphere.
Therefore, they have to wear gas masks with _radium in them_ in order to breathe.
The fact that this allows the hero to kill the same three guys over and over again is purely coincidental, I'm sure.
I can just imagine the director talking to these guys: "OK, after you get shot, we'll pan away for a second.
Run around the tent and attack again.
Then go the other way.
It'll be great"It's also rather amusing to note that, while civilization seems to have completely collapsed, silicone breast implant technology seems to have survived intact.
Either that, or it's an effect of the radiation..
brainless rubbish.
Surely someone like David Carradine would be smart enough to getting involved in this low budget rubbish.
This movie is the pits, low budget, daft story-line, a puppet mutant and a rip off Mad Max two.
It has a interesting side story, of an army officer who comes a likely Allie of the Heroes in this movie.
For someone who is a high ranking army officer, he seems to be a imbecile who couldn't even run a ant farm, let along an army.
Interesting at the start, it shows him coming out of what appears to be a white van, than a underground bunker.
Why is he alone, wouldn't there been other soldiers with him.
Later he shows up, appearing to have live in a desert for years, yet his uniform is in good shape, like it been iron the night before, and chances it was, its not even dirty or ragged for someone who sleeping in the desert for years.There is many boobs, even with the opening scenes of two babes been chase by bandits over the desert, when they catch them, rip off their tops, revealing their boobs.
There is another sense, with the warlord, were it appears one of the bandits is push into the front of the camera by one of the film crew.I only watch half the movie, when the puppet shows up, i had enough of this and switch it off in disgust, well i really fast forward to see if there was anything Elsa worth worthing.
There wasn't.Don't watch this movie, watching an ant crawling up the wall would be far better waste of time, than watching this brain dead, low budget, crap feast..
A horrendously awful late 80's post-nuke end-of-the-world sci-fi atrocity.
Leave it to the unsparingly pathetic Fred Olen Ray to spit out one of the worst, most hideously drab and annoying two-cent post-nuke sci-fi action snorefests to ever feebly limp its way across your TV screen.
A haggard, burnt-out, desperate hack actor for hire David Carradine assumes stoically rugged heroic duties as Dow, a cranky DNA-enhanced synthetic super warrior who wanders the arid, infertile nuclear fallout devastated desert lugging around Ammo, a gnarled, prune-like malformed talking head with spindly arms, a mouth full of snaggle teeth, and constantly rolling googly eyes who's forever ripping into Dow with an endless barrage of tiresomely witless caustic quips (Ammo's trebly, piercing tenor whine is pure murder on the ears).
You see, Dow wants to get both his hot honey wife (slinky minx Brinke Stevens) and a cowed, spineless gene-splicing scientist (meek Robert Quarry) back from the wicked, megalomaniacal the Warlord (grandly overplayed with trademark leering, lip-smacking élan by Sid Haig, who also served as 2nd unit director), a sleazy gun-running greedy mercenary (gravel-voiced Ross Hagen, who in better days directed the 70's grindhouse hoot "The Glove"), and the Warlord's loyal army of disfigured mutants (actually just a bunch of extras in tattered rags and dimestore gas masks).
Dow's aided on his brave mission by profoundly unappealing smartaleck distaff survivalist Danny (an insufferably peevish Dawn Wildsmith, Fred's buxom, blowzy redhead former real-life wife) and Colonel Cox ("Repo Man" 's Fox Harris doing his standard flaky in-his-own-singular-orbit shtick), who's an incessantly jabbering bicycle-carrying fruitcake.This is your characteristically substandard by-the-numbers dreadful Fred Olen Ray bilge, replete with flat, graceless cinematography, a grindingly trite cookie cutter script, a noisy, blaring, guitar-screeching trash-rock score, lousy sarcastic dialogue ("Would you slow down, I'm gonna be sick!," a captured lass yells to her abductors in a speeding automobile), lethargic pacing, slackly staged action (mostly crummy shoot-outs, uninspired car chases, and tired hand-to-hand fisticuffs, with a few brightly exploding cars saved for the pitifully unexciting "let's blow what's left of the paltry budget" last reel finale), deeply irritating and hopelessly unfunny sardonic, insult-laden rat-a-tat-tat banter between Dow and Danny, a light sprinkling of gratuitous nudity (perpetually topless B-picture starlets Michelle Bauer and Debra Lamb briefly appear so their shirts can get torn off to expose their bare breasts), no semblance of style, facility or distinctive individual flair to be discerned from the nondescript direction, disconcertingly over-familiar Bronson Canyon locations (Al Adamson's old shooting grounds, no less), slipshod editing, cheap, not-convincing-for-a-second (way less then) special effects (the cheesy matte painting at the start of the film is atrocious, while the laughable, rubbery phony puppet noggin Ammo takes the booby prize), and the sad, spirit-deflating sight of watching a handful of weary, washed-out veteran thespians embarrass themselves royally for the sake of a quick, easy paycheck.
So bad it's not even enjoyable on a something-for-nothing schlock movie level, this unbearably talky, hardly-any-story, skimpy-on-action, but heavy-on-tedium low-budget loser like nuclear war itself should be avoided at all costs. |
tt0033806 | Lady for a Night | Social climber Jenny Blake owns of the casino steam boat Memphis Belle, together with the influential Jack Morgan. Most of the customers are from the upper layers of the city's social life, but they have little respect for Jenny and her - in their opinion - vulgar occupation. Jack is secretly in love with Jenny. To show her what it really is she aspires for he arranges for her to be queen of the high society ball at the Mardi Gras festivities. Her crowning angers many of the established members of society and she is mocked in public. However, she doesn't give up her dream.
She decides to use one of the old plantation owners, Alan Alderson, as a leverage. Alan is burdened with debt and manages to lose his plantation, "The Shadows" when gambling at the casino. Jenny makes Alan an offer, to strike his debts at the casino if he agrees to marry her.
Alan sees no other alternative than to agree to the proposition, and Jenny is secured a respectable position in society. They marry in a hurry, and Jack is informed of the bond soon after.
Jack is devastated by Jenny's marriage to Alan, and doesn't try to save the Memphis Belle when it catches fire. Everyone in Alan's family has a hard time accepting Jenny, except his aunt Katherine, who is suffering from mental illness.
Jack goes on to sabotage the relationship between Jenny and Alan. He gets help from Alan's aunt Julia, who goes to lengths to ruin the marriage. Julia starts off with insinuations that Jenny has an improper relation with Jack, and goes on to ruining a ball Jenny is hosting.
Jack saves Jenny and the ball by using his political influence to make the guests attend even though Julia has tried to keep them away. Jenny is almost killed when Julia goes on to let her ride in a carriage pulled by a blind horse.
Jenny retaliates by ordering Julia to leave the plantation. The infuriated Julia then mixes a poisoned drink meant for Jenny, but Alan beats her to it and dies from drinking it. Jenny is accused of murdering her husband, and there is a criminal trial. Aunt Katherine is the only person who knows that Julia mixed the drink, but she is forced by her sister to testify against Jenny in court.
Jenny is convicted of murder, but Katherine soon confesses that it was Julia who mixed the drink, and a few years earlier also killed Katherine's fiancée in a fit of jealousy. Jenny is released and cleared of all charges. She meets Jack and they start working together again. She finally gives up her dream to climb the social ladder and accepts Jack's proposal to marry him. | melodrama, satire, murder, historical fiction | train | wikipedia | Lady for a Night is a Joan Blondell film with John Wayne as her leading man.
When Ray Middleton gambles away the title to the old Alderson family estate, Blondell offers to marry him to save the good gentry from being thrown out on their duffs.
It's a marriage she has soon cause to regret.Blondell sings a nice number entitled Up In a Balloon on the riverboat stage and I bet she was looking around for Busby Berkeley.
Hattie Noel plays Blondell's black maid and it's a total ripoff of Hattie McDaniel from Gone With the Wind.
Edith Barrett copied Patricia Collinge as Birdie Bagtry Hubbard from The Little Foxes and Yurka is another Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca.Still it does mix well and while it's not a great film, Lady for a Night is a passably decent one, though it's far from the usual Duke..
John Wayne was young and good looking, standing straight and tall.
Old man time sure beats the heck out of all of us.Some people will raise and eyebrow at the plantation type scenes with the blacks dancing and singing.
Hattie Noel played the maid (Chloe) of Joan Blondell (Jenny).
Hattie Noel may not have had the good fortune to be in Gone With The Wind, but she would have done quite nicely.The best acting came from Edith Barrett who played the kinder Alderson sister Katherine.
She gave a terrorized, impassioned performance.Also enjoyable was John Blondell's singing performances as the part owner of the riverboat.
In fact, she was so good that I wondered if a professional singer had dubbed her voice, even though I was aware of her own musical talents.Blanche Yurka played the evil sister Julia, and how she could ooze evilness, with those eyes boring into anyone who crossed her.
She hadn't changed much from her earlier days as Madame Defarge in A Tale of Two Cities.Leonid Kinskey played John Wayne's bodyguard.
Although Mr. Kinskey was always a good character actor (remember him as the funny bartender in Casablanca?), the reason for the part in the movie escapes me.
I guess John Wayne needed a sidekick.The rest of the cast was adequate, but nothing noteworthy that I can remember.
His part was overshadowed by larger parts going to Joan Blondell and the Alderson sisters.
To start, this is not a John Wayne movie.
The primary character is Joan Blondell as Jenny Blake, the owner of a gambling boat on the Mississippi.
Desperate to be accepted into society, Jenny is thrilled when she is announced Queen of the Mardi Gras, not knowing that man-about-town Jack Morgan (Wayne) rigged it.
Aunt Julia (Blanche Yurka), an evil looking woman, starts to scheme almost from the get-go, going out of her way to get rid of her new in-law.
Blondell, a wonderful leading lady at Warners in the 30's, gets to show off her singing and dancing abilities in the "Up in a Balloon" production number.
Later, at Jenny's party, there is a campy rendition of "Ba Ba Ba Boom De Yay!" during which Jenny's lively black maid (Hattie Noel, an obscure character actress, equally as funny as Hattie McDaniel) gets into the act.
It is a camp moment that is still treasured by those who adore over-the-top cinema.Wayne does not have much to do but step in to rescue Blondell in her times of need.
This was not an important film for him, but for the cast playing the evil Alderson clan, it was a chance to show off their acting skills (or at least their hamming ability!).
Phillip Merivale has little to do but disapprove of Jenny as Alan Alderson's elderly father, but his sisters (Yurka and Barrett) have great opportunities to show off their talents.
A stage star in the 1910's and 20's, Yurka is a combination Lady MacBeth and Madame DeFarge as she sets on her sites to make Jenny miserable.
The scene where Barrett accuses her sister of having murdered her fiancée years before is powerful stuff, and makes us realize that underneath her fear of her sister, Katherine has a strong side determined to come out.The less said about Middleton as Steve Alderson, the better.
While Hattie Noel's character may raise some eyebrows in today's society because of stereotypes, she does create many laughs, especially when she arrives at the Alderson house by breaking down the side door when she is rebuffed by the stuffy black butler.
You just have to consider the time that this was set in and accept the fact that it would be many, many decades before the treatments of blacks began to change.Although Leonard Maltin gives the film only two stars, I have to disagree with his review.
And Joan Blondell's character is the one who proposes the marriage, not the other way around.
First off, anyone who watches this film because it's a John Wayne film (like me) may be disappointed because he is really a supporting actor.
This is because he'd only been a regular starring actor in small-budget B-Westerns and in larger budget films he was mostly in secondary roles until the mid-to-late 1940s.
Second, because the Wayne screen persona was not yet solidified, lovers of the Duke might also be shocked to see that for most of the film he plays a love-sick man who loses his woman to another.
The real star of this film is Joan Blondell.
Unlike Wayne, her star was starting to fall, as her prime as a leading lady was definitely the 1930s.
Here she is a bit older and heavier, but this is also perfect for her role as a casino owner and singer.Blondell's ambition is to leave the casino life to Wayne and marry a society man in order to ensure herself a play in polite society.
Ultimately, the plot takes a very dramatic twist near the end until it is all wrapped up nicely in the end.The only serious negative about the film is that the plantation she moves to in Reconstruction-era Memphis is ridiculous and full of racist stereotypes.
No, the Blacks do not eat watermelon or act as bad as Stepin Fetchit, but they play out an even more insidious role--happy Blacks who are content with the good treatment by their White "betters".
Yawner starring Joan Blondell as a woman from the "wrong side of the tracks" who is desperate to get into high society and doesn't care much about what she has to do to make it happen.
John Wayne plays a riverboat operator in love with Joan.
I love John Wayne but this role was just not a good fit for him.
I love Duke and I really like Blondell (in her 1930s films at least) but this just didn't do it for me.
John Wayne is the primary selling point to this but it probably isn't going to appeal to many people who watch it for him.
It is one of several movies that Joan Blondell, a very popular actress of the time, made in that year.I think when you look at a movie of this type, which was an average, run-of-the-mill movie of the time, what you get out of it is a snapshot of what viewers of the day expected to see in a movie.
While this movie is a period piece (looks like it takes place in 1875-1885) it says much about 1942-- what people then would view as acceptable viewpoints for the script to put forth.I think there are two major themes in this movie that can give today's viewers an historical insight as they are entertained --the attitudes that were allowed to be expressed in that day and time about black Americans, and the Lost Cause mythology.
The black actors in this movie mug, roll their eyes, and in general follow the degrading norms set for blacks in the entertainment world of 1942, which was dictated by black-face comedy-- an odious farcial comedy common in the south, which was acted out by white men.An arresting black character in this movie is Joe, the Conjure man.
The movie Gone with the Wind was released 6 years prior to Lady for a Night.
The plantation in ruins, with a formerly noble family now fallen on hard times, eking out lives of genteel poverty due to their Confederate sympathies within its crumbling walls, is a scene familiar to anyone who has viewed Gone With the Wind.
The scenes set in Jenny Blake's gambling barge (these probably did exist, I haven't researched it) would be familiar to those who had attended vaudeville shows-- joke telling, elaborate musical numbers, dancing girls, and barbershop style male singing.The costumes in this movie are absolutely first rate, and as a seamstress, I enjoy them each time I watch this movie.
Jenny Blake's costumes had to hold up to a great deal of active movement and yet they always appear graceful and feminine.I find it interesting that John Wayne's character-- a behind the scenes political wheeler/dealer, manipulated the affairs of his little empire from his position as the owner of a gambling house.
I wanted to let other people know why I like this movie.
Jenny Blake is the owner of a river boat for gambling, dancing, drinking and women suffice to say that she is not really accepted into polite society in the way she always dreamed of being.
So whenever drunken plantation owner Alan Alderson gets into serious debt with the gambling boat Jenny proposes to wipe out the debts in return for his hand in marriage and the fast track into high class society.
These produce a film that just looks to keep you happy for about 90 minutes but not do anything special during that time or have any impact past the end credits.The characters are very simply painted in the script and are simply delivered by the cast.
Wayne is a secondary character who's only purpose is to be a decent man who turns up every 10 minutes to help Blondell in some way.
There are a large amount of black characters, with two main ones in comedy roles modern audiences may find them hard to watch because they are ethnic stereotypes that are overplayed for comedic effect.
At first I was a bit taken aback by this (although I know it is of its time) but then I thought about modern movies that do the same thing (albeit with a cooler, hip hop, ebonics stereotype) and wondering if, in 50 years, that these films would be viewed as rather racist.
Anyway, it was interesting to see the stereotypes but I must admit to have been a bit caught off guard when John Wayne threatened to send Hattie Noel 'back to Africa'!Overall this is an instantly forgettable movie that only wants to keep you semi-entertained for the running time without doing anything special or making a lasting impression.
Jenny Blake runs the gambling boat Memphis Belle, but she yearns to be accepted by the high society.
Casting off her love interest Jack Morgan, Jenny accepts an offer of marriage from non compos mentis plantation owner Alan Aldredge.
Tho primarily a romantic drama, there is often humour within the script, most often when John Wayne {Jack} and Joan Blondell {Jenny} are sharing the screen together.
Joan Blondell is the real star in this Rebecca-like tense drama.
She outshines John Wayne who has not yet found his relaxed, easy "Duke" acting style.
Although it is set in deep south USA just post civil war in a period when black people were still the servant class, they are portrayed in a very stereotyped, clichéd manner which makes for distinctly uncomfortable viewing nowadays.
Probably best just watched for historical interest for all the reasons set out above and in particular for Joan Blondell's Standout performance..
Unusual roles for John Wayne and Joan Blondell, unusual setting, and unusual drama for Republic, and they all add up to a wonderful movie that offers lots of fun for us, the audience.Blondell and Wayne make a strong pairing, something Hollywood should have considered before and again.
And Wayne, looking good in formal city-slicker attire, plays a character of politics and urban corruption (which, in fact, are so often the same thing) who still is essentially decent.It's a familiar story in some ways, but it's familiar because it seems to happen enough in, as we laughingly call it, real life.Wayne and Blondell should be enough for any movie, but they are backed up by a sterling, by an incredibly varied and tremendously talented cast, even including the amazing The Hall Johnson Choir, with some astonishing soloists.Stealing every scene she's in is Hattie Noel.
She just dominates every shot, with her skill at delivering her lines and an overwhelming personality -- and some brilliant and funny dialogue.Despite his drunken character, Ray Middleton comes close to stealing his scenes, too.
He endows his character with an undeniable and innate decency, despite the drunkenness.Middleton doesn't sing in "Lady for a Night" although he was a trained singer with a beautiful voice, beautiful even in speaking.Perhaps the climax is just what we expect, but it is also what we want.
And the ending, the final scene, is also what we want.Wayne again proves he is an actor capable of many different roles, and Blondell again is so adorable, and so beautiful, their presence alone would make any movie worth watching just for them, but "Lady for a Night" is well-nigh perfect for its entire cast and its excellent script.I have no hesitation rating it a ten and recommending it highly.It's available at YouTube..
Jackson Morgan(John Wayne) was sure right.
Jenny Blake(Joan Blondell): his partner in running the casino steamboat Memphis Belle, was crazy to encourage the fire she accidentally started on her boat("I'm burning my boats behind me" she remarked).
Joan and her maid, played by Hattie Noel, were certainly the most dynamic characters.
Joan was first billed over Wayne, and the most seen character.
I had never seen her in a film before(and probably won't again), but she steals every scene she's in, and made me laugh various times.
She danced a bit here to the song played at Jenny's ball.
The second is at her plantation ball, where she had invited a French dancing troupe to do the Can-Can. Of course, the guests where uniformly shocked, but Wayne voiced his approval by clapping his hands, followed by the others.
Another important player is Blanch Yurka, who played the evil Aunt Julia, who vehemently opposed the arrival of Jenny to the Alderson's, and, long ago had poisoned the fiancé of her sister: Aunt Katherine, who cowered in her shadow, probably afraid she would be poisoned if she got out of line.
Doloros Gray sings "Has Anybody Seen my Man", at The King's Club, which Wayne built after the Memphis Belle burned, and will eventually be co-owned by Jenny.
Like a lot of actresses I've run across since then, I never realized how good looking she was until I caught some of her earlier work in pictures.
I don't think I've ever seen Blondell looking this glamorous before, and if you want to make that before and after comparison yourself, get hold of the fifth season Twilight Zone episode 'What's in the Box' and you'll see what I mean.One of the interesting things here is that Blondell is actually top billed over John Wayne, who got his start in pictures before the actress but who's fortunes didn't start to rise until that big breakout in 1939's "Stagecoach".
They start out as a couple in the story before Blondell's character Jenny Blake decides to short cut her way into society by marrying an alcoholic playboy portrayed by Ray Middleton.
However when she moves into the family mansion 'The Shadows', she quickly realizes that she's an intruder in a world in which she doesn't belong, and the rest of the upper crust around town let her know it.Through it all, Jackson Morgan's (Wayne) a pretty good sport about it, and maneuvers things behind the scenes to soften Jenny's hard landing when she learns what rotten characters her in-laws are.
What might put off potential viewers if you haven't seen pictures of the era like this, are the way some scenes are handled concerning black characters.
In particular, Morgan delivers a sit up and take notice line when he chides Jenny's black maid Chloe (Hattie Noel) with "...get out, or I'll ship you back to Africa"!
With the time frame of the story taking place shortly following Reconstruction days, the treatment of blacks in the story is still fairly subservient, but Chloe and fellow Alderson domestic Napoleon (Lew Payton) handle things with humor and relative good cheer.Speaking of which, I couldn't get over how closely Chloe came to just about perfectly describing what it felt like to get drunk, following a lively party at the Alderson's - "Every time I lays down, the floor rears up, looks me in the eye and sneers".
The reason I bring it up is one time I had a bit much myself and I recall feeling pretty much the same way as Chloe.
"Lady for a night"(pun intentional?)set in Memphis during Mardi Gras with a cast of several,most of whom are masters of hyperbole.There are truly terrible songs,some dancing from Miss J.Blondell whose thighs are just a tad thick for such extreme exposure,a rather fey performance from Mr J.Wayne (and you don't see that very often) and an opening crowd scene that rapidly accelerates out of the control of director Leigh Jason - a man who was to gratefully grasp at the straw later offered to him by the nascent TV industry.
Full of Southern stereotypes with dodgy accents,"Lady for a night" satisfies all the criteria for a Camp Masterpiece.Miss Blondell's Gaming House looks as if it might fall down if someone leaned against a wall,Mr Wayne with a top hat is a sight to see indeed and the evil female relative is a dead ringer for Mrs Danvers. |
tt0483781 | Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones | The game is set after the events of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, in which the Prince kills the Dahaka, saves Kaileena and prevents the Sands of Time from being created. Unlike the previous games, the story is narrated by Kaileena. The Prince's actions alter the timeline of events that took place before that point. In the original timeline, the Vizier and Maharajah traveled to the Island of Time and found an hourglass filled with the Sands of Time. In the modified timeline, they find the hourglass empty. Since the Vizier never released the Sands of Time and fought the Prince, he is still alive at the beginning of this game. Farah, who helped the Prince during the events for Sands of Time, has never met the Prince.
As The Prince and Kaileena return to the city of Babylon, they find it being ravaged by war. Their ship is attacked and destroyed, and he and Kaileena wash ashore. The Prince awakens and watches as enemy soldiers take Kaileena away. The Prince fights his way into the palace and confronts the Vizier, who kills Kaileena with the Dagger of Time, unleashing the Sands again. The Vizier then impales himself with it and makes himself immortal. The Prince is also affected, having a whip-like weapon known as a Daggertail embedded in his skin when the Sands infect the wound. However, in the confusion following the release of the Sands, the Vizier throws the Dagger aside and the Prince manages to steal it before the Sands infected him completely.
The Prince falls into the sewers and gets carried to the outskirts of Babylon. As he travels through the city once again to kill the Vizier, he finds that the infection caused by the Sands of Time is affecting his mind, giving rise to an alter ego called the Dark Prince (voiced by Rick Miller), manifested by a voice within. The Dark Prince is cold, cruel, arrogant and sarcastic; he attempts to convince the Prince that he should strive to serve only himself, using his vengeance as a catalyst for his other emotions. On many occasions, the Dark Prince seizes control of the Prince's body and the Prince is fully transformed into a hybrid sand monster with abilities that allow the Prince to pass otherwise insurmountable obstacles.
Later, the Prince encounters Farah (voiced by Helen King), who is surprised that the Prince knows her name. Despite this, the pair begin to grow an entirely new romance together. The Prince eventually starts to ignore the Dark Prince, and begins to fight against the suffering of his people, which the Dark Prince had always spoken against.
In the palace gardens, the Vizier captures Farah and casts the Prince into an ancient well, where the long silent Dark Prince emerges once again and tries to take permanent control. The Prince desperately tries to resist the power, driving slowly deeper into the well looking for an escape, but he slowly weakens. At the bottom of the well, the Prince stumbles upon the dead body of his father Sharaman. He mourns for Sharaman, accepting the consequences of what he has done and wields his father's sword to resist the Dark Prince's power.
At the top of the Tower of Babel, the Prince confronts and kills The Vizier with the Dagger of Time. The Sands released from the Vizier slowly takes the shape of Kaileena, who cleanses the Prince's infection and disappears. As the Prince finds Sharaman's crown, the Dark Prince takes it and lures the Prince into his mind, where the two struggle until the Prince abandons his shadow. The game ends with Farah asking how the Prince knows her name and the Prince beginning to tell his story. | violence | train | wikipedia | I'd say the past ten years or so it has been discouraging because these video games are so difficult to learn and play.
Once Super Nintendo came on the scene my video game days were almost over.Even still, I decided to give Prince of Persia a shot.
I took the game to work, I played endlessly trying to beat that game.
The graphics were awesome, the movements were smooth and cool, and the fact that his fighting was hand to hand combat instead of shooting just made it that much better.
There was a good story that went along with the game.
Fighting the opponents was the same, and when the prince turned into the Dark Prince the fun was just beginning.Like I said, I have very little reference for a good game versus a bad one, but this game was lovely.
It's the best game I've played this year!
The speed kills add a whole new look to the game, Speed Kills allow you to take out your opponent before he even knows you're there as long as you hit the buttons at the right time, of course.
If you fail to do this, then you will have to fight all of the enemies normally, for they will all now be fully alerted.Overall, like I said, it's the best game I've played this year, in my eyes.
its a wonderful continuation of the pop series and presents a befitting end to the series.The prince looks great as ever and the various new features which are present in this game add an extra spice to it.The speed kill system is wonderful and makes the job quite easy for the prince,also in this game i cant recall a single instant where the game presented bad camera angles as are present in the previous two games.The game play is although pretty much similar to the previous two games but the platforming in this one is really great.There is one more added attraction in this game that is chariot racing which is quite nail biting stuff.Also in this game there aren't any monotonous boss fights as were in the pop warrior within.All in all a wonderful gaming experience,a must play for everyone and i give it a well deserved 9.5/10..
My favorite Prince of Persia game...has the best flow..
Yes, this game is the final installment for this particular prince of Persia, a new one is waiting in the wings.
However, as far as this prince is concerned this is the best game he is in.
Throw into that more boss fights than the previous two installments could muster and a nice little change in the prince as he becomes a dark self.
The game is a bit short though, and the way it picked up with the sorceress of time alive as she died on the only play through I did in Warrior Within.
The dark prince side is rather cool and can slice and dice opponents very effectively.
The regular prince is still effective to at what he does and fighting and stealth kills are his thing too.
So for my money all in all this is the best of the three prince of Persia games..
Fun, some new incredible acrobatics and some cool fights..
The only bad thing about this game is the bloody conflict between his inner "bad" self and his "good" self, now you think "but hey, isn't that what the game is all about?" you are most certainly right my friends, but that is not what i mean.
You can only be the dark prince when you must, there is no choice here.Good prince :"hm i sure could use a chain here" ZAAAAAAAAP, "yeah baby I'm ready and I'm a dark prince but not really evil because i kill just like the good prince" But surely he must be evil, he is wearing black (well his body is).
I hope you understand my point, its kind of silly.This game would have been the best of the three (with the sands of time theme) if you would have more choice, if you could chose your destiny.Anyway, it looks really great and like a fairy tale, but i personally like sands of time and warrior within more for their ambient graphics.The "speed kill" which is new, is the most welcome addition to the game in my opinion, it adds some need for timing and skill.
No new skills, the only skills that you will probably need is rewind and slow-mo.This game could have needed some more time in the plot-making factory and the skill-creating office, otherwise a really really fun game to play.If you are a fan of pop, do buy this game.
This completes the new series, and takes the consequence of the ones before it, similar to how Warrior Within(the saving method of which this retains) built on the first.
The Free Form Fighting System is also still in use, so spamming powerful attacks is still possible, however, this comes closer to The Sands of Time in the combat, with more strategy and tactics necessary, among other things because of those archers...
It's a way to take out opponents, typically when they aren't yet aware of your proximity, and all you truly need is to get the timing right, albeit the first time you try the specific ones, before you know what's coming, you will have to react split-second, as well as not get trigger-happy.
I recommend this, and the entire franchise up to this point(the pre-beginning of new millennium-ones are immensely well-done, as well, they just happen to be old, and you can tell), to any fan of action-adventure titles, anyone who enjoys the culture, and all who appreciate swordsmanship in games.
The Last Good Pop Game.
The 3rd and final game of the trilogy with a great conclusion to the series and to me it's the second best out the 3 right behind ww, it has the charming and likeable prince of the first game and the dark side of the second.the game it self is so similar yet different from the other 2 but one of the new things they added to the gameplay is qte speed kills which i was ok with it and i like the fact that the game is pretty straight forward and you don't go back to the same locations like ww and i like that but some fans may not like the fact the it's a liner game.this was the time when ubisoft knew when to start and when to end the series and it wasn't like nowadays were you get endless ac games with no good story to tell, i hope if some day we get a new pop game they put some work into it and make something good not another mindless cash grab..
The Two Thrones is the third and last installment in the Prince of Persia trilogy that started three years ago with the astonishing Sands of Time, a game that turned the popular 2D platform series into a complete and spectacular 3D adventure.
Jumping, swinging, grasping, hanging off ledges, solving puzzles and graceful combat made up for one of the best games I ever played.
Now I know that many people weren't too happy with the dark and grim atmosphere in Warrior Within, but I was actually quite satisfied with this new style.
The extremely spectacular free-fight system that came with it, allowing the player to battle up to 6 enemies at the same time, was especially noteworthy, as well as the great storyline that kept twisting and turning in unexpected ways.The Two Thrones returns to the sunny style of SoT, with minimal bloodshed and less body parts flying around.
The Prince has defied death on the Island of Time, and is returning to his hometown of Babylon, only to find a fierce army murdering and looting its way through the city.
The Sands of Time, however, have altered him slightly, causing him to change into a dark alter ego, the Dark Prince, from time to time.
This is a nice way of bringing some innovation to the game play, as the Dark Prince makes use of a particularly vicious razor-chain, that allows him to make long jumps and dispose of his enemies much more efficiently.
Yet, it does not revolutionize the game play as much as I hoped for.
Changing into the Dark Prince happens when the story calls for it, not when the player wants it.
Life energy slowly diminishes when playing the Dark Prince, which gives a certain amount of pressure to move and waste enemies fast in order to replenish energy quickly, but we already saw something like this in WW, when playing as the Sand Wraith.
Other innovations include the speed kills, which enables the player to kill an enemy with a few strokes, and adds a little stealth to the existing game play.
It is nice that you can use this techniques to quickly get rid of a few enemies when you are faced with many, but there isn't much variation in speed kill moves, and it takes away a lot of opportunity to go into an adrenalin-pumping free-fight frenzy.
Speed kills become much more varied and useful when fighting the mini-bosses, and the resulting battles are quite spectacular to see.The same can be said from the chariot races that you can do once every while.
But just like the Dark Prince appearances, they come only incidentally and they're over just when they become fun.
Most of these innovations feel like nice extras instead of fully integrated new parts of the game play, like the 3D platform action and free-fight system.There are more aspects of the game that give the impression that development of TT was slightly rushed.
As a result, the game is only half as long as Warrior and can be finished in mere days instead of weeks.
The graphics and FMVs are okay most of the time, but the in-game cut-scenes look at best five year old.
When not playing as the Dark Prince or riding a chariot, I found that jumping and running along walls was getting a bit monotonous after the two previous games; difficult puzzles are scarce, and finding solutions to situations becomes increasingly simple, with only speed kills offering some variance most of the time.
The influence of Jordan Mechner, who wrote history with the original PoP and rewrote it with SoT, is dearly missed at some times.But as harsh as this all may sound, by no means does this make TT a bad game; it merely prevents this game from becoming a masterpiece like SoT and (to a lesser degree) WW.
Although the thrills I got from playing its predecessors were a bit absent, I still got a good time playing TT.
Just continues in the same track as the previous two games, then suddenly at the end, they rush it incredibly to wrap stuff up, and even failed in that.
You have the Prince struggling with his dark self this time around, it's not really what you'd expect and is the games weakest points.
New to this game is the Speed Kill system, if the enemy hasn't seen you, you can get behind them or over them, and start a little "timing-mini game" where your dagger will flash for a brief second, that's when you need to press the attack button.
The game looks incredibly UGLY, I know games out in 2001 that looked 20 times as good.
There are MASSIVE amounts of clipping errors, and I believe the 2 earlier games in the series looked better.
The Story: I love the storyline of this game.
It picks up from the predecessor in the Prince Of Persia: Sands of Time series (Warrior Within), this being the third game.
The Prince returns to his homeland on a ship with Kaileena, the Empress of Time, whose fate he managed to change by messing with the sands time or likewise.
The colours work great, the settings look pretty cool.
But only a few times.Audio: The audio is excellent, I like the narration and the personal comments from the Prince.
The interactions with the Dark Prince are class.
The music has a dramatic, old-school feel to it, fits the game nicely.
This game plays out fairly smoothly, the environments are very interactive which is a quality I demand in a good action-adventure style game.
The agility of the Prince is great fun when moving through the game and for incorporating into battles (more later), the combos kick ass.
When you're playing as the Dark Prince (Prince has been 'infected' so to speak), you have totally different combos and weaponry, as the Dark Prince has a dagger-chain weapon embedded in his arm that you can manipulate, including to drag and drill enemies with (reminiscent of Scorpion from the Mortal Kombat series).
Having detailed basic interactive abilities like switching sides on ladders, ledge-shimmying, a take on 'tight-rope' scenarios, stealing weaponry, wall-running & wall-jumping complete with transitions and jumps, and being able to use the environment in battle is sweet.
That's to be expected, it's an adventure game with puzzle elements.
Good storyline, great graphics, very smooth and fun game-play, audio is ace.
As for the Dark Prince, the Daggertail is quite entertaining.Negatives: The only negatives I can figure from this game are constantly having to use the right analog stick, the mild feeling of motion sickness that constantly switching views gives me after a while, and the fact that when you start out playing it's very easy to make a mistake and jump to your doom.
Even later in the game, just from mixing up what I should do next (as I said, yay for GameFAQs, though I try not to spoil myself).
I try not to be overly picky about video-games, so that's really the only note-worthy minus points I could gather.Overall: 9 out of 10..
Good game play but the dumbest story in the trilogy.
The Two Thrones (TTT) is the final chapter in the Sands of Time trilogy.
Expecting a warm welcome, he is instead shocked to see his home ravaged by war.After a crash landing, the Prince sees Kaileena being captured and rushes in to save her.
To his shock the evil Vizier is alive and responsible for the carnage (since the Prince stopped the Sands of Time from ever being created, the events of SOT never happened).
The Prince is also affected, having the dagger tail embedded in his skin when the Sands infect the wound.
However, the Vizier drops the Dagger and the Prince manages to steal it and escape before he is totally infected by the Sands.He finds out that the Sands of Time have affected his mind becoming two personalities:, one who tries to do good but is full of vengeance and the Dark Prince who often mocks him.
He also takes control of Prince's body during certain scripted sequences, i.e. you cannot turn into Dark Prince whenever you want.Similar to SOT, TTT takes place in confined environments as the Prince uses acrobatic skills to navigate the environment from A to B.
The Prince can use stealth to his advantage when behind or above enemies, initiating a quick time event to silently kill them and continue his acrobatic adventures.But combat suffers as it is now a last resort.
The Prince is slow and is barely able to defeat Sand monsters, compared to WW where he was god of death incarnate.
Just to summarize - avoid combat this time unless the game forces you.2.
Playing as the Dark Prince.
The Dark Prince - similar to the Sand Wraith in WW - loses health over time and has to be constantly 'recharged' by killing enemies and destroying stuff.
The acrobatic and speed kill abilities are improved due to the dagger tail, but combat still sucks, you cannot equip secondary weapons and you just have to wave your chain around to win.You still have the Sands of Time to undo your mistakes should you make too many and Sand powers.
Six Sand Tanks this time too.TTT takes the throne (pun intended) for dumbest story ever.
After seeing the trailer and game play footage, I found it better than the Two Thrones in certain aspects.
1. After reaching Babylon, the Prince and Kaileena find a war zone.
The Prince fights the enemies but since Kaileena is alive, he cannot use his Sand abilities, is overwhelmed.
Kaileena commits suicide, unleashing the Sands of Time again.
He is more deadly and brutal and doesn't look like a freak, he has a golden glow similar to a Sand monster.
You could also equip secondary weapons as well.Use fire to transform into the Dark Prince and water to transform back WHENEVER you want.3.
Two endings depending on whether you select the Prince or the Dark Prince.Anyways, the game has its trademark platforming, graphics, and Arabian nights inspired soundtrack.
While the story and combat suck this time and playing as the Dark Prince is disappointing, the game is still good.
okay first of all what happened to the bad ass Kalina she is now an old whore who is aways calm but in the second game she was evil twist did whatever the *bleep* she wanted she didn't care who she hurt or how it was done she would do anything to save herself.
next is the prince himself he was sissified since the second game now he is stupid and who ever voices him should burn inf *bleeping* hell!
the awesome sound track from the second is replaced with the worst band in history maybe i did make the mistake of playing the second game first but it did rule.
i really tried to like this game but i just couldn't.
but there is no fun in this game this game is garbage and the controls suck and the camera is bad when you try to move it up or down and the story is the worst of the seris. |
tt0042466 | Flicka och hyacinter | A young woman is playing the piano at a wild party. When asked to play a special tune, she begins but stops abruptly and rushes out, visibly upset. Alone she starts to walk home through late night central Stockholm. Crossing a bridge, she has a conversation with a drunk artist, and after his persuasion, out of kindness, she gives him money for the sketch, but does not take it. Arriving at her apartment, she straps a rope to the ceiling and hangs herself. The next morning her body is found by a housekeeper.
The police arrives and ask questions to her neighbours. The young woman's name was Dagmar Brink, and she was something of a loner. Nobody knew much about her, although she had lived for a while in the building, but everyone states that she seemed like a sweet and nice girl. Her closest neighbours in the flat next door, writer Anders Wikner and his wife Britt, are both shocked by the girl's suicide. Soon Anders starts to investigate what happened. He contacts the few people who knew her and asks them questions. He meets artist Elias Körner who painted a portrait of her, an old bank manager who had a cold meeting with her, a woman who shared a room with her once, an ex-husband, and the singer whose party she attended the night of the suicide. Anders' wife also turns out to have a story about Dagmar and what happened one night in Dagmar's apartment. The different people's meetings with Dagmar are told in several flashbacks. | tragedy, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0047686 | The Yellow Tomahawk | Scout and tracker Adam Reed is handed a yellow tomahawk by Cheyenne warrior Fire Knife to deliver to a U.S. Army fort commanded by Major Ives as a proclamation of war, a warning to evacuate women and children before the attack.
Ives is known as "the butcher" for having given Cheyenne women and children no such warning during previous bloodshed. Ives scoffs at the tomahawk and Adam decides the major's superior officers at another fort must be notified of his actions.
The only woman who heeds Adam's warning to leave is Kate Bohlen, sweetheart of Lt. Bascom, who misses her native Boston. An attack is mounted before Kate can safely get away. Adam is knocked unconscious, but Fire Knife makes sure his life is spared. Bascom and many others are killed.
Extending the bow as a gesture of peace, Adam appeals to Fire Knife to let the major's fate be left up to the Army's justice. Fire Knife's thirst for vengeance is too great, so he prepares to kill Ives, who in desperation reveals that he is actually of Cheyenne descent himself. Adam cannot allow Ives to be killed in cold blood, so he kills his Indian friend.
Riding off toward the next fort to report what has happened, Adam leaves with Kate as a humiliated Ives pleads with him not to reveal his secret. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Another western sleeper from the 1950s with good plot, acting, characters of some depth , and violent action.
Major Ives (Warner Anderson), one of the commanding officers of the infamous Sand Creek Massacre ( an actual event) is building a fort in Cheyenne territory.
Fireknife(Lee Van Cleef) , tells his friend Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun) to warn the soldiers that they must go or be killed.
Reed and Fireknife may actually have been blood brothers as they refer to each other as brothers and Reed tells Catherine (Peggy Castle) "the Indians are as much my people as you are." The arrogant Ives won't listen, the Indians attack and the action is unusually violent for it's time.
(When Catherine tries to find her former fiancé she says, with a look of horror " I can't tell if it's him") The survivors are forced to go through Cheyenne territory to another fort to reach safety, and this sets up a confrontation between friend Reed and Fireknife.This is another example of a modestly budgeted western with a superior script, very good acting and characters of some depth.
Reed tells Catherine " It might surprise you but Indians love their children and are loyal to their friends." And Fireknife does save his life There is also a very interesting twist in the end which I do not believe has been done before or since.
Definitely worth seeing.The film was originally shot in color but only black and white prints were every released on television.
Twenty-seven year old Castle fills out her tight-fitting shirt and jeans and makes her presence known as she breaks her engagement with an army officer and falls for Calhoun--who, as a scout, rescues her and the commander after the raid.
But the rescue is only temporarily as, on their way to the nearest fort, they are attacked again by Indians led by Lee Van Cleef.
It was there, in history, that the Federal army slaughtered Indian women and children without giving them a chance to surrender.
Calhoun wants to keep him alive and take him to the fort for court-martial so to help stop future slaughter of Indians.It's a typical 50's Western but one of the good ones--perhaps because of Rory Calhoun (who was always good) or Peggy Castle who made cowboys glad they were men.
Calhoun spends much of his time in this film, warning the builders and settlers of a new army outpost, that they will be wiped out by the hostiles.
The 1950s was the decade of the message western, and this is a low budget version of the genre.
This story about a bloody confrontation that is the direct result of a barbarous US general's attempt to occupy Indian lands is surprisingly brutal, sympathetic to the native Americans, and much more cynical about the inherent decency of those in power than one would expect from a movie from this era.
Rory Calhoun and Rita Moreno are the recognizable stars here -- and they are playing types, rather than roles.
Rita Moreno has an obnoxious role as the cute native American who has attached herself to Rory's Mexican sidekick).
This looks like a film in bad need of restoration, particularly as much of it was shot against sagebrush that was actually in bloom..
As rugged Indian scout Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun) rides in the open country of Utah towards a US Cavalry outpost, he is stopped by his close friend, Cheyenne warrior Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef).
Fire Knife gives Reed a yellow tomahawk to give to the outpost commandant, Major Ives whom he and Chief Red Cloud call a "butcher" and hold mainly responsible for the Massacre at Sand Creek.
That site is a real historical event (1864) where the US Cavalry killed over 100 Indians, most of whom were women and children.
The yellow tomahawk is a warning – more than the Cavalry gave earlier to the Indian – for the soldiers to clear out of the planned future fort or face the consequences.
The soldiers will be allowed to depart peacefully.On his way to the military encampment, Reed spots blonde and nubile Kate Bolden (Peggy Castle) bathing and swimming in a pond.
At the post, arrogant commander Ives (Warner Anderson) is adamant: he has no intention of leaving, even though the encampment is in Cheyenne territory.
No lover of the Indian, Ives believes that the red men are dangerous to civilization.
When the violence ends there are only nine survivors: the major, a corporal, a private, a Mexican Indian scout Tonio (Reed's friend, Noah Beery Jr.), Tonio's Indian girlfriend Honey Bear (a lovely Rita Moreno), an army engineer/surveyor, a slimy prospector (Peter Graves) who has murdered his two partners for gold, blonde Kate, and Reed.
Reed wants to keep the major alive at all costs so that he can stand trial (court martial) for provoking an Indian war.
When Reed and Fire Knife have a parlay, the latter says he will let the dwindling survivors leave peacefully, except for Ives.
The western was shot in Technicolor but released to television in black and white..
The film is about the conflict between a scout (Rory Calhoun) and a Major (Warner Anderson), where the scout understands the Indians and feels for them, who were victims of a massacre (the Major was responsible) whereas the Major thinks they are barbarians who will destroy civilization and must be eliminated.
The screenplay by Richard Alan Simmons (Three Hours To Kill, The Incredible Shrinking Man, among many others) from a story by Harold Jack Bloom (The Naked Spur) shows this was not intended to be a routine western.
Also two interesting actresses, the charismatic and pretty Peggie Castle and Rita Moreno, wasted in a very caricatural role.
Although color would have been nice for this western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, The Yellow Tomahawk is no frills, brutal, and bloody western about some survivors of a massacre trying to make it home to safety.
The Cheyennes however are only retaliating for the infamous Sand Creek Massacre in which the commanding officer had a big part.
The commander is Major Warner Anderson who has some real issues of his own.Rory Calhoun and Noah Beery, Jr. play a couple of scouts who see the problem, but are helpless with Anderson's intransigence and stupidity.
Anderson even after Sand Creek is now building an army fort on Cheyenne land and the Cheyenne don't take kindly to that.
They send the army warning signal of The Yellow Tomahawk which is their way of saying clear out.
The scenes of the massacre of the cavalry and some civilians including women is not for the squeamish.Peggie Castle and Rita Moreno play the women paired with Calhoun and Beery.
You won't believe why he ordered the Sand Creek massacre, but it's actually curiously relevant to issues coming before the Supreme Court to be rendered as I write this..
The Yellow Tomahawk is directed by Lesley Selander and written by Harold Jack Bloom and Richard Alan Simmons.
It stars Rory Calhoun, Peggie Castle, Noah Beery Jr., Warner Anderson, Peter Graves, Lee Van Cleef and Rita Moreno.
Music is by Les Baxter and cinematography by Gordon Avil.Scout and tracker Adam Reed (Calhoun) is handed a yellow tomahawk by Cheyenne warrior Fire Knife (Cleef).
It is to be given to Major Ives (Anderson) as a proclamation of war, a heed to get women and children out the way prior to attack.
Ives stubbornly rejects the threat...Another splendid 1950s Oater begging to be sought out by fans of the genre, and another reason to laud Calhoun as underrated in his time.
Story wise there are familiar tropes, but it's always nice to see a screenplay sympathetic to the Native Americans, where here led by *ahem* Van Cleef they are fed up of encroachment and seek to defend their tribal lands.
There is honour in the actions, which in turn solidifies a believable friendship between Fire Knife and Reed.It's also in parts sexy, which gets its first marker during Reed and Katherine's (Castle) first meeting, god bless water!
Filmed in Colour but released to TV in black and white, a Western fan can't help lament this fact.
Sometimes, it is "advertising" for products, such as tobacco companies, soda companies, or what have you.Here, either Director Selander, or writers Simmons and Boone, looked to want to add their own flavor to a fairly routine cavalry Western.Like most Westerns of the day, the Indians are depicted as semi good guys with evil white men upsetting the apple cart.The overkill of the evil white men has always been very politically correct, and especially was in the decades that followed this movie.However, the real sidebar here is what happens with the evil corrupt cavalry officer who causes at least two massacres, quite knowingly, quite viciously.Also, a few red herrings come into play here.
The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's.
It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's.
I was a fan of Rory Calhoun back in the late Fifties when he appeared in the Western TV series lead role of "The Texan".
There was no reason to believe that he wouldn't fall for Peggie Castle's character, especially after she broke off her engagement with cavalry Lieutenant Bascomb (Patrick Sexton).
In addition to Calhoun and Castle, the other interesting casting decision made here was Lee Van Cleef in the role of Cheyenne warrior Fire Knife.
You also had Peter Graves in the role of a renegade gold prospector who killed his partners for their dig, eventually proving to be a thorn in the side of Indian scout Adam Reed (Calhoun).
But it doesn't end there - Noah Beery's on hand as a cavalry hand named Tonio Perez, and he finds himself fending off the advances of Nez Perce maiden Honey Bear.
Rita Moreno is not quite convincing as the fawning young squaw infatuated with a grizzled old goat twice her age, and I kept wondering if Reed might cast an eye in her direction.
Maybe he would have if she opened the picture swimming in the buff instead of Castle.The story itself gets downright brutal in a number of scenes, particularly the attack on Major Ives' (Warner Anderson) new fort under construction.
The finale is a bit of a twist, as Reed holds to his own principles just as dearly; the chief should have accepted the gift bow back when it was offered.If you're paying attention to the opening credits, you'll wonder as I did why 'Color by Color Corporation of America' heralds the start of a black and white picture.
I guess I've seen enough films to not be surprised by such a minor detail, but it would have been cool to actually see the yellow tomahawk..
The ever popular Rory Calhoun plays Adam Reed, a Wyoming Indian scout, who has a strong bond with Fireknife(Lee Van Cleef), a Cheyenne warrior.
Against a treaty with the Indians, the army decides to build a fort on their land.
The fetching Peggie Castle plays Calhoun's love interest.
On the lighter side Noah Berry Jr. plays a Mexican that scouts for the army and falls in love with a beautiful Indian girl Honey Bear(Rita Moreno).This almost forgotten B western features a star-studded supporting cast: Peter Graves, Warner Anderson, James Best, Ned Glass and Robert Bray.
The theme of "an eye for an eye" revenge is carried to the extreme with the brutal massacre sequence where soldiers, women and children alike are slaughtered without mercy.The film opens with army scout Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun) being brought to Cheyenne Chief Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef).
The chief warns of an impending Cheyenne attack on an army encampment in retaliation to one led by commanding officer Major Ives (Warner Anderson) who has been branded as "The Butcher" by the Indians for his slaughter of women and children.Reed brings a yellow tomahawk to Ives as a warning from the Cheyenne.
Reed meets Katherine Bohlen (Peggie Castle) skinny dipping and sparks fly.
At the same time, Tonio is being pursued by the young Indian squaw named , now get this, Honey Bear (a very young Rita Moreno).Into the camp comes prospector Walt Sawyer (Peter Graves) and his wounded partner.
Subsequent events reveal that Sawyer has a hidden agenda of his own.Then the Cheyenne attack and savagely "kill all white eyes" except for Major Ives who was away obtaining buried ammunition, Tonio who had been escorting a wagon load of wives escaping the attack, Sawyer and Reed.
The survivors which also include Cpl. Maddock (Adam Williams) and Private Bliss (James Best) then try to reach the distant fort while being pursued by Fire Knife and his braves and.......................................................................................Although the massacre sequence is not as graphic as one would see today, it is nonetheless brutal and totally unexpected.
Calhoun is a stalwart hero who had been appearing in a number of low budget westerns at this time.
Lee Van Cleef is also excellent as the Indian Chief.
Walter Reed, Dan Riss and Robert Bray round out the cast.A quirky unexpected ending round out this opus ably directed by veteran director Lesley Selander..
Director Lesley Selander's thoroughly routine outdoor yarn "The Yellow Tomahawk" (1954) pits the Cheyenne against the U.S. Cavalry with leathery tough Rory Calhoun in the middle as the seasoned, buckskin-clad Indian scout who has to lead the survivors to safety.
This United Artists western was lensed in color but the TV print that Turner Classic Movies aired was inexplicably in black & white.The action opens with Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun of "Black Spurs") eluding several Indians and riding up to palaver with his old friend and Cheyenne chief, Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly"), who has killing on his mind.
Fire Knife warns Adam that his Cheyenne braves are poised to wipe out a nearby cavalry fort under construction because it violates a treaty that the Indians made with the government.
On his way to inform stuck-up camp commandant, Major Ives (Warner Anderson of "Objective, Burma!"),about the impending Indian attack, Adam discovers a beautiful wood nymph seductively treading water in a lake.
Katherine 'Kate' Bolden (Peggy Castle of "I, Jury") is another of those silly women in westerns that bathe nude in the middle of Indian country without a care in the world.
Castle appears to be genuinely nude in her bathing scenes, too, perhaps the most memorable scene of all in this otherwise predictable western.
Naturally, Major Ives dismisses Adam's warning from Fire Knife until the commander realizes that somebody has raided his ammunition dump far outside the fort.
No sooner have they made this discovery than the Indians attack, knock out of hero, and leave him as the only survivor.
Before this attack, a pair of white prospectors rides into the fort.
While Adam is getting hot water to help in removing the arrow, the greedy Sawyer grinds the shaft in deeper and kills his helpless partner.
Noah Beery, Jr., plays a aimable Mexican scout pursued by a sexy Indian damsel appropriately named Honey Bear (Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno of "West Side Story") and Robert Bray of "Lassie" fame is on hand briefly as the ill-fated cavalry officer that Kate had planned to marry.
The biggest surprise in this unremarkable western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, is that the evil cavalry officer Ives, who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children at the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, has been keeping a secret that he is a Native American, too!
Ironically, the taut bow that Fire Knife gives out of friendship to Adam at the outset of the hostilities is what our heroic scout uses to kill the stalwart Cheyenne warrior after he has run out of bullets.
The survivors reach another outpost, Fort Ellis, where Adam and Ives furnish their respective reports about the issue to an army general, but we never learn the outcome of this meeting.
Ultimately, "The Yellow Tomahawk" is one of many pro-Indian westerns that appeared in the aftermath of "Broken Arrow" (1950) where the Native American is viewed as a noble savage unjustly treated by some but not all whites.
Calhoun stands out of an above-average cast as the always serviceable leading man, and good looking Castle is worth watching for her feminine charms.
One of several films I'm familiar with that relates to the infamous massacre of peaceful Cheyenne, mostly women and children, at Sand Creek, CO.
The historic Chivington, who led this slaughter, is renamed Major Ives(Warner Anderson).
...The basic story is that Major Ives plans on building an army fort on Cheyenne land, besides his duty of escorting immigrants through Cheyenne territory, on their way to Oregon.
This raises the ire of Red Cloud(whom we never see), and one of his lieutenants: Fire Knife, who uses the presence of his soldiers on their land as an excuse to attack the temporary camp of Ives, which includes some women and other civilians.
Most of the soldiers and civilians are killed, but, inexplicably, Ives survives, and journeys with the rest to the nearest fort.....Vagabond scout Adam Reed(Roy Calhoun) happens upon Bostonian Kathrine(Peggy Castle) swimming in the nude in a small lake.
After her boyfriend is killed in the Indian attack, she soon latches onto Reed as the man most likely to insure her survival.
Given Reed's preferred wandering lifestyle, I'm not sure they have a future together, in which case, Kathren probably will return to the civilization of Boston....A more convincing developing couple consist of Mexican Tonio Perez(Noah Berry) and Nez Pierce maiden Honey Bear(Rita Moreno).
Rita provides a beautiful impish presence, being more charismatic than blond Peggy Castle.
Besides Major Ives, there is another villain on the European side in Peter Graves, as Sawyer. |
tt0121232 | Dulaara | Raja (Govinda) is the step son of Florence (Farida Jalal) and James (Dalip Tahil). James was a target killer who was killed in an encounter with police and died in front of Florence. After James funeral, Florence found out a new born baby lying, she takes him with her and makes him her son. This toddler is Raja. At college Raja has Morarilal(Rakesh Bedi), Deepak(Satyajeet)and Gulshan, aka Gullu, (Gulshan Grover)as friends. Priya (Karishma Kapoor), the sister of Inspector Vijay Chauhan (Ranjeet), joins the college. After a series of tiffs with Raja, Priya begins to fall for him.
In the meanwhile, various college girls get killed by a mysterious killer. Inspector Chauhan is given charge of these cases. During a merry Christmas party, Raja goes with her mother to meet Priya, suddenly Deepak's sister, Ranjana, dies falling from the building. Gullu, who was in love with Ranjana, confirms that he saw her meeting with Professor Verma. meanwhile, Professor Verma is seen furious and tries to call police station. At the same someone tries to attack him with knife, but Verma snatches the knife and runs. Suddenly, while running, Raja finds him in front and accidentally stabs him with that knife which Verma was holding. Raja, runs from there and gets hide out to some other place.
Next day, everyone is shocked by Verma's murder. Inspector Chauhan starts taking fingerprints of everybody in the college. Raja, terrified of his crime and the fact that he turned out just like his father, gives unclear fingerprints. Gullu makes him realize that by doing this, he has actually incriminated himself. On that day was Priya's birthday party where Raja and his friends were invited. Priya's nephew (and Chauhan's son) pointed out towards Raja as the murderer of Verma. Soon, Inspector Vijay realises that his son was the main eye witness of Verma's murder Vijay's son saw it through the window. When Raja learns that the murder was committed in front of Priya's home and that Priya's nephew (and Chauhan's son) has suddenly become silent since the day of murder, he realizes that Priya's nephew has seen him. Next day someone tries to (what ??) Vijay's son but soon Vijay comes and the killer runs away. Inspector Vijay confirms it ot be Raja and provides security guards to his house.
On the other hand, Inspector Chauhan finds out why the girls were murdered on the basis of a sex scandal. Raja is immediately branded as a blue film maker. To make matters worse, Raja runs away to another place with his mother not knowing the fact. On the other hand, Chauhan frees Watchman Badruddin
Chauhan eventually arrests Raja and interrogates him. Raja tells the truth, but is shocked to learn that the Professor was stabbed 20 times. He realizes that the Professor was killed by someone else and is still on the loose, tying up all leads. Realizing that Chauhan's son is in danger, he escapes from the police station and kidnaps Chauhan's son from the hospital. When Raja asks him why he told a lie, Chauhan's son says he did not. Just then, the real killer comes to kill Chauhan's son. Raja is shocked to see that the killer is Deepak.
Deepak says that he and Verma were involved in blue film making. The victims were killed because they were threatening to expose Deepak. When Verma was stabbed by Raja, Deepak saw an opportunity to eliminate his partner and make his side safe. Then he saw Chauhan's son and knew that he had another problem. Deepak killed every person who knew his secret, as incriminating Raja was his only option. The reason Chauhan's son pointed to Raja as the killer was that Deepak was standing behind him!
Deepak tries to kill Chauhan's son, but Raja fights him on the hospital roof. Deepak dies when Inspector Chauhan arrives on the scene and shoots Deepak, who falls to his death. Chauhan lets Raja go, telling him that his mother is in hospital in a critical state. Raja succeeds in saving his mother and the statement of Inspector Chauhan proves his innocence. | murder | train | wikipedia | One of Govinda's BEST! A MUST SEE!. I saw this movie long time ago when i was a kid and ever since then i enjoyed Govinda's movies, still do! Out of EVERY movie i've seen i must say that Dulaara along with Khuddaar are both One of the Best movies! Govinda acted very well in this movie in which he is an orphan raised by Farida Jalal. It's just such a pity that this movie was not rated well enough, instead of being a HIT it turned down as one of the 'Ok/Good' movies but i strongly disagree with that decision, this movie deserved to be a HIT and still does, so regardless of what the outcome was for this movie i would still recommend everybody to see it. When and If you do see it you will realize how great this movie is and how much you enjoyed watching it. If you have not seen this movie yet then i would strongly recommend you to watch it! a true classic movie which cannot be missed!. Aimless gory thriller. I knew that the golden age of murder mysteries had died since the 1970s with BR Chopras and Raj Khoslas and Vijay Anand (who made classics like Kanoon, Gumnaam, Woh Kaun Thi, Ittefaq, Teesri Manzil and Dhund..) 1990s, the era of thus film, is not well known for murder mysteries and Dulaara proves exactly that..Violence , cheesy obscenity, unappetizing gory bloodshed have substituted the fine art of pulse pounding, nail biting style of the old, unfortunately in this college caper where Govinda and Karisma with their dancing skills first try to impress and then, stupid, unnecessarily screaming fuming 'third degree loving' cop Ranjeet and ridiculous sidekicks like Rakesh Bedi make a thorough hash of the mystery story..Final scene where the real killer is shown is quite ridiculously picturized ; when the killer had the hero in a corner and was under no pressure to confess how he did it, simply starts blurting out the long confession just for our sake saying " you wanted to know, how I did it , Na?"..This is quite an avoidable movie on any day..see a re-run of Kanoon or Dhund or Hamraaz any day... |
tt0081738 | The Watcher in the Woods | Americans Helen and Paul Curtis and their daughters Jan and Ellie, move into a manor in rural England. Mrs. Aylwood, the owner of the residence who now lives in the guest house next door, notices that Jan bears a striking resemblance to her daughter, Karen, who disappeared inside an abandoned chapel in the woods thirty years earlier.
Jan senses something unusual about the property almost immediately, and begins to see strange blue lights in the woods, triangles, and glowing objects. Eventually, Ellie goes to buy a puppy she inexplicably names "Nerak" (an anagram for Karen). After seeing the reflection of the name "Nerak" (Karen spelled backwards), Jan is told about the mystery of Mrs. Aylwood's missing daughter by Mike Fleming, the teenage son of a local woman, Mary.
One afternoon, Nerak runs into woods, and Ellie chases after him. Jan, realizing her sister has disappeared from the yard, goes into the woods to find her, eventually locating her at a pond. In the water, she sees a blue circle of light, and is blinded by a flash, causing her to fall in; she nearly drowns, but Mrs. Aylwood saves her. Mrs. Aylwood brings Jan and Ellie to her home, and recounts the night her daughter disappeared.
Later, Mike discovers that his mother, Mary, was with Karen when she disappeared, but she evades his questions. Meanwhile, Jan attempts to get information from John Keller, a reclusive aristocrat who was also there that night, but he refuses to speak to her. On her way home, Jan cuts through the woods, where she encounters a local hermit, Tom Colley, who tells Jan he was also present at Karen's disappearance. He claims that during a seance-like ceremony on the night of a lunar eclipse, Karen vanished when lightning struck the church bell tower.
Jan decides to recreate the ceremony during the upcoming solar eclipse, hoping it will bring Karen back. She gathers Mary, Tom, and John at the abandoned chapel, and they attempt to repeat the ceremony. Meanwhile, Ellie, while watching the eclipse from the front yard, suddenly goes into a trance-like state, apparently possessed, and enters the woods. At the chapel, the ceremony is interrupted by a powerful wind that shatters the windows, and Ellie appears. In a voice that is not her own, she explains that an accidental switch took place thirty years ago, in which Karen traded places with an alien presence from an alternate dimension; thus, the Watcher has been haunting the woods since, while Karen has remained suspended in time.
The Watcher then leaves Ellie's body, manifesting as a pillar of light, fueled by the "circle of friendship". It engulfs Jan and lifts her into the air, but Mike intercedes and pulls her away before the Watcher disappears. Simultaneously, the eclipse ends, and Karen, still the same age as when she disappeared, reappears – still blindfolded. She removes the blindfold just as Mrs. Aylwood enters the chapel. | gothic, paranormal, cult, horror, flashback, psychedelic, revenge | train | wikipedia | When I sat down to watch it, I was instantly drawn into a world of eerie mystery that's surprisingly well-done, especially for a film that bears the name of Disney, notorious for their sanitized, 'family-friendly' fare.
I have the 1998 VHS that has a cover with a marvelous photograph of Davis on the back.Florence Engel Randall's plot in her novel, "A Watcher in the Woods," goes like this: The Curtis family, Helen (Carroll Baker), her husband Paul (David McCullum), & their 2 daughters, Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) & Ellie (Kyle Richards), rent an old English manor from it's owner, Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis), who lives in the guest cottage.
Although she's very reluctant to talk about it, Mrs. Aylwood tells Jan the story about her pre-teen daughter's disappearance in the same woods 30 years ago.The supernatural cinematic effects are well done.
The eldest daughter Jan (Lynn Holly Johnson) begins to notice strange things happening in the home and in the woods surrounding the manor.
To add to all the distribution problems, Bette Davis was reportedly bored rigid on set and thought Lynn-Holly Johnson was a lousy actress, often commenting on how much she'd wanted Diane Lane to star as Jan Curtis instead.The atmosphere of the film is undeniably creepy, largely thanks to the music featured in it - both the score and the tune from Mrs Aylwood's music box are first rate.
Much better is adorable Kyle Richards (who had previously appeared in the horror film Halloween and as Alicia Sanderson Edwards in TV's Little House on the Prairie) who plays Johnson's younger sister.
However, it is a shame that Davis, Carroll Baker and David McCallum are all sadly underused - the last named has hardly any screen time at all.Definitely one to see, IF you DO manage to catch it, which is unlikely - the film was never available to buy on videotape in England and has only been on TV about twice in 20 years!NOTE: The film did get a fabulous special edition DVD release in 2001, with all three endings so fans of the movie could FINALLY see the deleted scenes with the alien watcher of the title!.
THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS Aspect ratio: 1.75:1Sound format: Dolby StereoAn attempt by Disney to lift itself out of the doldrums following a creative and commercial downturn in the 1970's, THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS takes its plot from a Young Adult novel by Florence Engel Randall in which an American family takes residence in a creepy old house in the English countryside.
The film has visual style to burn (cinematography and set design are especially eye-catching), and there's a couple of terrific PG-level scares, but all the technical gloss in the world can't make up for a listless pace and repetitious plot line, and Johnson's one-note performance transforms a strong, resourceful heroine into little more than a whining goody two-shoes.
Worse still, co-stars Bette Davis, Carroll Baker and David McCallum are given almost nothing to do, and there's much evidence of editorial tampering during some of the opening scenes.Originally slated to conclude with an ambitious visual effects sequence, the version which premiered in 1980 was basically unfinished and led to scornful reviews which doomed it from the outset.
Florence Engel Randall's book "A Watcher in the Woods" becomes abysmal, dumbed-down entry in Grand Guignol territory by the Disney people, an unusually bland ghost story offering special effects galore but nobody to care about.
"The Watcher in the Woods" was made at a time when Disney was getting ambitious, making PG rated films and dipping its toes into different genres; other efforts, of course, include "The Black Hole", "Tron", and "Something Wicked This Way Comes".
In no time at all, the two daughters, teen aged Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) and younger Ellie (Kyle Richards) are besieged by other worldly forces, and Jan realizes something must be done to resolve the case of Mrs. Aylwood's daughter Karen, who'd disappeared many years ago when she was Jan's age.
It was originally shown at 100 minutes, with an abrupt ending, then given an elaborate special effects based finale, then reworked again for the films' re-release the following year.
A watcher, is in the woods, which surrounds the house, and it watches, waiting, surrounding the family with some of the most creepiest scenes in film history!
The Watcher in the Woods is the best horror film made by Walt Disney!
An all-American family (mom Carroll Baker, dad David McCallum and daughters Lynn-Holly Johnson and Kyle Richards) move into a beautiful estate in Britain watched over by the houses owner (Bette Davis).
And how about Johnson looking just like Davis' daughter that disappeared 30 years ago?Weird hybrid of ghost story and sci-fi from Disney.
After enduring multiple gentle Disney movies, like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", "Robin Hood" and "Mary freaking Poppins", our second grade teacher suggested to watch a slightly more mature and serious film, this being "The Watcher in the Woods".
For some reason I never saw it again until now, nearly 20 years later, and that's quite a shame because "The Watcher in the Woods" is a movie you're supposed to see at young age.
Disney decided to make a movie more of a horror nature and this is the result.An American family move into an English house in the middle of some woods and it turns out to be haunted, as do the woods.
She appears during another eclipse towards the end...This movie is very creepy in parts and is not recommended for younger children.The Watcher In the Woods has an excellent cast: Bette Davis (The Petrified Forest, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?) as Mrs Aylwood, Bond girl Lynn-Holly Johnson (For Your Eyes Only), Man From UNCLE actor David McCallum, Ian Bannen and Eleanor Summerfield.
Good acting from all, especially Bette Davis.The Watcher In the Woods is certainly worth seeing, especially for fans of ghost stories.Rating: 4 stars out of 5..
even if the movie is not scary the opening titles music gave me goosebumps.Holly Johnson gives a wonderful performance as "Jan" what happened to this girl?
Bette Davis is top billed in this movie but admirers of the screen legend should take note that her role -and those of other "adult "stars ,David McCallum and Carroll Baker-is little more than an extended cameo -and that the main dramatic weight and screen time is handed over to younger performers ,notably Lynn -Holly Johnson .
Davis plays a widow who earns a living renting out her lavishly appointed English country house to well to do visitors .The family this time around is headed by a composer (McCallum ) his children's author wife (Baker ) and two young daughters ..It is not long before the elder daughter (Johnson )begins to experience a sense of unease as there seems to be a ghostly presence in the woodlands on the estate -a presence linked to the mysterious disappearance many years earlier of Davis' daughter .
But I'd never even HEARD of "The Watcher In The Woods," so after seeing the many glowing reviews, I was determined to download it and see it as soon as humanly possible.I just finished watching this excellently crafted movie from 1980 and must say, it REALLY stands the test of time.
It started off feeling quite a bit like a horror film, then started moving into territory closer to that of the recent gem "Pan's Labyrinth," introducing a decidedly magical element that really got under my skin, and stayed there for the remainder of the movie.I totally agree with narnerbee's review stating that Disney really doesn't make films like this anymore.
"The Watcher In The Woods" is one such vision, and although I wouldn't go so far as to call it a MASTERPIECE, it's definitely a great piece of movie-making history, and one which I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to any fans of dark fantasy or magical fiction.
I have seen The Watcher in the Woods a couple times now, and I think it's a great movie.
I know many people think that Disney doesn't make good movies, but they have some excellent films.
I still remembered it twenty-odd years later.I would recommend it as good viewing (for pre-teens perhaps?) if you like `cheesy' horror films.
However, I noticed that at least in the case of "Watcher in the Woods", it has appeal for all ages and isn't just another Disney family film.
The Watcher In The Woods marks the Disney Studios only venture into the horror film genre.
Ultimately the edge that horror films have to have is lost because you know there will be a happy ending with Disney involved.Your average American family the Curtises have come to the United Kingdom to work and have rented an English country estate, the kind that abound in all those old murder mysteries.
Husband David McCallum, Wife Carroll Baker, and daughters Lynn-Holly Johnson and Kyle Richards move into the estate while the owner from whom they rent, Bette Davis lives in the guest house.
At the time, for a Disney movie, it was pretty scary for a little kid.
RELEASED IN 1980/1981 and directed by John Hough, "The Watcher in the Woods" details events in England when an American family moves into a country manor for the summer while the mysterious owner, Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis), lives in the guest house.
But, I grew to be a fan of mysteries and thrillers and this movie was pretty impressive.Based on the novel by Florence Engel Randall, The Watcher in the Woods is about an American family who moves into an old English house in the woods.
There, daughter Jan Curtis (Lynn-Holly Johnson) experiences paranormal activities in the woods and suspects it has to do with the daughter of the house's owner, Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis), who disappeared years ago.It's a good old-fashion supernatural tale with built-up suspense throughout the film, from Jan first sensing the abnormality of the woods to the apparition images of Mrs. Aylwood's daughter.
It is a very tricky feet trying to mix both the horror and family genre, but this film I feel is one done right because it's able to successful balance out both without watering itself down.I really like the production value and even cinematography of the film which I think have some memorable visuals; I really liked how the film used the forest locale, the use of light and shadow which made the woods a character in itself as it emits a sense of mystery and menace.
Or even the viewpoint of the Watcher which adds to the creep factor because you not sure what this thing or entity is about to do, even thought it's not doing anything now you know it will soon.Music is solid, though not memorable which to me is one of the weak points of the film, I wish this film had a more memorable score but still it was good enough to give the film the right moodiness it has.I really like the story, it's not really a ghost story there really isn't a ghost per say it's more of a psychic mystery thriller, which I think is cool since we don't get nearly enough of those in the horror genre.
Anyway, I like that she's not some stereotypical annoying little sister but she a sweet girl, she has a bit of charisma, loves dogs, despite young she's not totally naive she does exercise some intelligence.Lynn Holy Johnson I also thought was solid/decent as Jan Curtis, her character is solid, she takes charge, cares for her little sister; there's a good back and forth between both of them, and I like that she's very open doesn't dismiss what's happening as things shes just seeing.
I personally really liked the original ending they choice for the film it felt right and well balanced, though I even liked the alternate ending which I thought good let alone even stranger, I won't say what it is you just have to see both for yourself.Like any sight in the woods is worth a watch.Rating: 3 stars.
Directed by John Hough, it's a movie from Disney's glory years and while it may not be quite as good as say "Escape to Witch Mountain"-also directed by Hough-the film does manage to weave a story that includes mystery, suspense, and magic that only the old school Disney can produce.
Set in the seemly untouched English country side-a land rife with tales of strange occurrences-the story begins when Jan Curtis (the underrated Lynn-Holly Johnson) and her family move into large, old house owned by a reclusive woman named Mrs. Aylwood (the legendary Bette Davis).
Granted, the movie does have its faults, such as the fact that Jan's dad (the charming David McCallum) seems to disappear halfway through the film and a few inconsistencies with the story ( I suspect this may be due to having to re shoot new endings after the original failed to please target audiences.
But the film more than makes up for this with the chemistry between Johnson and Richards, the performance of the late, great Bette Davis who ,although in her seventies at this point, still had it as well as effective music that manages to be both haunting and beautiful.
I must say, however, that "The Watcher In The Woods" movie is pretty good in what it wants to be: a horror-flick for kids.
Some scenes are downright scary, the woods look creepy and Bette Davis could scare the bee-jeebies out of every little kid just by looking at it.
Bette Davis, as the mother of the girl who disappeared thirty years earlier, seems to be channeling her roles in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" and "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte", with a soft demeanor and eerie gaze.The movie isn't outright pathetic.
Watcher in the Woods, The (1980) ** (out of 4)Disney's attempt at a horror movie had all sorts of problems during production, including various endings shot and when the film was finally released it bombed at the box office, which for some reason had the studio go back and re-edit it some more.
A family moves into an old, creepy house where the oldest daughter (Lynn Holly Johnson) begins to see visions of a young girl named Karen who mysteriously disappeared years earlier.
Shortly after their arrival, the two daughters, Jan & Ellie start to see and hear unworldly things, could it have something to do with the disappearance of a young girl many years ago?.Forget that this is a Disney production from the very off.
Not soon after moving in, the daughters realize that there are strange things happening in the woods surrounding the house.Again, this film was very scary for me when I was a child, and I could still see that happening with children these days.
This movie is a strange attempt by Disney to make a Horror Film that everyone can enjoy.
I'm fairly sure I haven't seen a Disney movie since my age hit double figures; and I never really had any intention of doing so, but I didn't do my research before getting myself a copy of this film and it became the first in years.
It's not long before the family is plagued by strange occurrences and after a little investigating, they discover that the daughter of a local, Mrs Aylwood, died in mysterious circumstances and the eldest of the two daughters comes to believe it is her ghost behind the haunting.The film does actually have a fairly strong horror backbone.
I remember seeing trailers for this film on the Disney movies my family rented when I was a kid (I was born in 1973).
A family moves in to a lovely country home owned by Bette Davis and immediately the older daughter (cult favorite Lynn Holly Johnson) begins to sense something evil waiting out in the woods.This classic Disney effort came at a time when the company first began courting older audiences and their nervousness about this film was evident in the original trailer that featured a warning to parents to check out the film themselves before bringing the young ones.
The two sisters, Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) and Ellie (Kyle Richards), begin to experience strange phenomenon and sense a dark presence in the woods surrounding the house and they believe that the strange caretaker of the house, Mrs. Aylwood (played by the brilliant Bette Davis) has the answer.
As time goes on, the mystery begins to unravel, and Jan and Ellie must discover what happened to Mrs. Aylwood's daughter, Karen, who went missing in the woods years before, or they may become victims themselves.
"The Watcher In The Woods" is an eerie and entertaining little horror/mystery, that is targeted as a family film but is surprisingly subtle and genuinely creepy.
Bette Davis and David McCallum are good, the rest are pretty bad although Kyle Richards gets a pass due to her age and her creepy performance in the original ending.
Their daughter Jan sees, and daughter Ellie hears, the voice of a young teenage girl who mysteriously disappeared during a total solar eclipse decades before.....The early eighties saw Disney go through a dark period with their live action films.
To make matters worse, Disney also decided to bring the films release date forward, to capitalise on the 50th anniversary of Bette Davis's first movie.
we had recently seen "something wicked this way comes", another movie i vaguely remembered as a child, which was really scary and excellent film, especially for Disney, and was very dark, and we thought "watcher" would be in the same vein as "wicked", since they were only made a few years apart.
something wicked this way comes which came out a few years later was FAR Superior, genuinely scary, great acting, and just all around a better film from Disney studios..
I'm aware of the rocky history of "Watcher," and I can DEFINITELY see why Disney finally reshot the original horrible ending a year later.Lynn-Holly Johnson acts about as convincingly as your average high school cheerleader, and Bette Davis is totally wasted. |
tt0066050 | A Man Called Sledge | Luther Sledge (Garner), a wanted outlaw, is visiting his prostitute girlfriend, Ria (Antonelli), when one of his gang is shot over a poker game. Sledge kills the murderers, and is recognized by an old man (Marley), who follows him. Sledge waylays the old man, who then relates a tale of a periodic, gold shipment that is heavily guarded by forty riders, but stops at a prison where the old man was incarcerated for years.
Sledge assembles his regular gang (including Joyce, Bice, Gutherie, Beetle, Kehoe, and Hooker), they investigate the story, and equip themselves for the endeavor. The local sheriff (Preston) recognizes the old man from the prison, causing a shootout, and Sledge and his gang flee.
The gang begins observing the gold guards and testing their defenses. Seeing how difficult it is to approach, the gang decide to get into the prison, turn the prisoners loose, and steal the gold in the ensuing havoc. Sledge is taken to the prison by Ward (Weaver), who poses as a US Marshal needing to lock up his prisoner for the night. The warden (Garrone) is reluctant to incarcerate Sledge because he thinks it is the sheriff's business, but the sheriff arrives and attacks Sledge for killing a deputy earlier, convincing the warden to allow them to stay in a cell for the night. Later, Sledge, Ward, and nearby prisoners overpower the warden, killing him in the process. Taking his keys, they free the remaining prisoners, who begin to take over the rest of the prison. Sledge's gang dynamites the prison gate, creating enough noise to be heard in town, and the gold guards head to the prison.
The gold is held in a safe in a cell, but only the warden knew the combination. Sledge locks the old man up in his former cell, adjoining the cell with the safe, which he heard being opened for years. By sound, the old man guides Bice (Corazzari) through opening the safe. The gold guards arrive and encounter armed, rioting prisoners and Sledge's gang. Ward is killed in the battle with the gold guards. The sheriff arrives again, and is killed in a running, horseback rifle-fight with Sledge.
The gang escapes and later stop to split the gold, with Sledge taking a double share, which the old man notes aloud. A musical montage shows a myriad of poker hands in which it appears the old man wins a substantial amount of the other outlaws' gold. Playing against Joyce, the old man finds that he has been cheated with sand substituted for gold dust and kills him. Guthrie (Piani) objects to this, and angrily leaves after Sledge defends the old man's actions. Sledge then proceeds to win the old man's gold at poker, and most of everyone else's as well.
Sledge leaves with his winnings despite the gang's protestations, and the old man proposes they kidnap Ria. With her, they follow Sledge to a Spanish Mission town, deserted for a local festival. The old man, now leading the gang, attempts negotiating with Sledge, while one of the others tries to ambush him. Sledge is wounded while killing the bushwhacker, Kehoe, but still refuses to bargain, so the old man reveals their kidnapping of Ria, who is then badly hurt by Bice throwing her from a high wall.
Hearing her screams, Sledge abandons the gold while fighting his way to Ria, who says they did not need the gold to be happy, and uses her dying breath to warn that Bice is behind him with a rifle. Sledge kills Bice, then Hooker (Akins), and wounds the escaping old man, who threatens that he has hidden the gold where it can never be found without him. Remembering Ria's words, Sledge kills the old man and rides away empty-handed as the town refills with locals. | violence | train | wikipedia | If nothing else can be said about it, A Man Called Sledge is a slightly above average spaghetti western.
It boasts James Garner,playing against type, as Luther Sledge, a brutal robber who gets involved in a plot to steal a shipment of gold stored in a prison.It's a departure from his usual easygoing roles and he gets good support from TV western stars Dennis Weaver,Claude Akins,and Wayde Preston.
In the Old West, a gunfighting outlaw called Sledge(James Garner) connives his way into a prison in hopes of getting his hands a cache of gold on stored there .
Sledge join forces with a varied bunch of bandits (John Marley , Dennis Weaver , Claude Akins , Bruno Corazzari , among others) attempting to take a large shipment of gold into a prison fort .
It is a mainstream Western amusement with a lot of surprises , thrills and including a love story between James Garner and a whore played by gorgeous Laura Antonelli .
This film realized in Spaghetti style contains action-Western , gun-play , fist-play and is pretty bemusing .
Vic Morrow's spaghetti western, probably won't be making too many top ten lists, but its an agreeable flick .
Although by many to be director Vic Morrow's finest film , this is a tale of fear , greed and murder , as some partners fall out over the gold they have robbed from an impenetrable safe .
Furthermore , John Marley is very good as a cunning old man and remaining support cast is pretty well .
"A Man Called Sledge" is unique among the spaghetti westerns I have seen so far because it is the only one directed by an American.
Vic Morrow must have been a big fan of spaghetti westerns himself, because he really got it right.
It must have been a lot of fun for an American director to go to Spain and Italy to shoot an authentic spaghetti western back when the genre was still being pumped out.I wasn't expecting much spaghetti style from this film because I knew it was by an American director with mainly American actors, but the movie really surprised me.
A couple of parts sound a little too much like jazz for me, but most of it is well-suited for the genre, especially the tunes with vocals and over-the-top cheesy lyrics.Don't let the fact that this movie is one of the later-era spaghetti westerns and has James Garner in it fool you into thinking it's one of those goofy comedy type of Euro-westerns.
James Garner and Dennis Weaver, both of whom have usually portrayed happy/funny do-gooders in American films and television shows, do an excellent job here in their roles as seriously bad people.
I've got nothing against James Garner, but he just didn't say "spaghetti western protagonist" to me.
I am really glad that I did dispel these initial reservations, because Man Called Sledge makes great viewing from beginning to end.Luther Sledge (Garner) is introduced to us as he enters a bar with one of his cohorts.
The old man recounts how he spent time in the jail, with his cell sitting side by side to the safe.The lure of the gold is too much for Sledge, and he is soon devising a scheme to get his hands on the horde and allow him to settle down and lead an honest life with Ria. And what better way to get access to the treasure than to find ones self imprisoned in the jail......A simple yet highly enjoyable idea for a story, with double crossing aplenty and a cracking soundtrack.
If truth be told, I am still not completely sold on Messrs Garner and Weaver in the spaghetti genre, but the film itself more than makes up for such minor grumbles.
If you have read my profile I am a huge fan of Spaghetti Westerns, Film Noir, and Italian Giallo..this film has a mixture of all 3....in many ways this film does not look like a Spaghetti Western, almost like the recent film Open Range about average cowpokes who are very human and have to get by the best they can....Soundwise it is a very Spaghetti i.e. the high-pitched carbine sounds of the weapons and in an Italian Western it could be anything from a Derringer, rifle or Gatling Gun or even a small cannon, but that is what gives the Spaghetti Western its own identity, like bad effects are novel for a Godzilla film....anyway the storyline is very nourish especially James Garner who is quite excellent in this atypical role of a ruthless and merciless outlaw.....The Giallo comes in at 2 points, the creepy and ghoulish way one of his men ride thru town sacrificing his life shooting from his horse a la EL CID...and all 3 of the genres in the latter 3rd of the film.....the score by Gianni Ferrio is quite moody and hip for its day, today it is a little dated, but hey I like dated, again it gives it an identity...I am very proud to own the film finally on DVD in its original widescreen format of 2:40 to 1 ratio....and I enjoy anything that Dino De Laurentiis has produced, from Ulysses 1954 to most recently RED DRAGON with Anthony Hopkins...if you are a Italian Western buff I highly recommend this film..p.s. this film was shot in English but as most Italian productions most of the audio is Post Production, that explains why actors like Tony Young was evidently not available for post ADR and they had to re-voice it with another actor.....
Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out.
And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them.
But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head.
After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run.
But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed.
But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends.
A Man Called Sledge is directed by Vic Morrow and Morrow co-writes the screenplay with Frank Kowalski.
It stars James Garner, Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley, Laura Antonelli, Wayde Preston and Ken Clarke.
Music is by Gianni Ferrio and cinematography by Luigi Kuveiller.Luther Sledge (Garner) is a wanted outlaw who upon hearing about a huge gold shipment stored in a prison, promptly assembles his gang and sets about executing a daring robbery.A Pasta Western filmed in Technicolor/Techniscope out of Andalucia in Spain, A Man Called Sledge is a most interesting and entertaining addition to this splinter of Westerns.
Added into the mix is a rather cheeky premise, that of gold being stored in a working prison, which is naturally heavily fortified, protected and seemingly impossible to breach, but Sledge and his cohorts have other ideas that gives the narrative and dramatic drive much strength.You couldn't take it with a pope!In spite of the odd flecks of humour, such as a terrific organ sequence and Akins' constant cynical asides (both orally and visually), pic is grim in texture, there will be blood and the unfurling of other hateful human traits.
The story plays out through differing back drops, be it a snow storm, an arid landscape or a sweaty bar - not least the imposing prison at the centre of the plot - Morrow is taking his story through visual variations.I would have died for you Sledge!There are a number of great scenes to enjoy, usually where action is concerned, not least the quite exhilarating show-piece involving a jailbreak, where here we are treated to top stunt work as dynamite and a Gatling Gun join the usual bullets and blood carnage.
James Garner leads an outlaw gang with gold fever.
Released in 1970 and directed by Vic Morrow (and Giorgio Gentili), "A Man Called Sledge" stars James Garner as the leader of an outlaw gang, who experience gold fever after hearing about a cache of gold temporarily stored at a desert prison.
Dennis Weaver and Claude Akins play members of the gang while John Marley appears as an old man who joins them.
Laura Antonelli is on hand as the striking babe while Wayde Preston appears as the sheriff.Aside from his TV work with shows like Maverick and Cheyenne, Garner only appeared in nine Westerns with just four being serious Westerns (rather than comedy-tinged Westerns).
And his band of owlhoots get zero sympathy from the get-go.While often referred to as a Spaghetti Western, "Sledge" is actually a Dino De Laurentiis production with an American director/writer (Morrow) and main cast, but shot in Spain with Italians and other Europeans in peripheral positions (cast & production); for instance, the Spaghetti-flavored music by Gianni Ferrio.The movie comes across as a mish-mash of Sergio Leone Westerns, "The War Wagon" (1967), "Mackenna's Gold" (1969), "The Wild Bunch" (1969) and "There was a Crooked Man" (1970).
Unfortunately, the movie features some clumsy editing in the third act starting with the card game and the immediate aftermath.The film runs 93 minutes and was shot in Almeria, Andalucia, Spain, and Rome (interiors).
Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances.
Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character.
But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre.
Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski.
The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment.
Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game.
A Man Called SledgeThe main proponent of laxed prison sentences is always the man who prints the Wanted Posters.Mind you, the outlaw in this Western doesn't need any likeness to land him in jail – just the promise of untold riches.Tipped off to a regular gold shipment that is locked up overnight at the nearby prison, notorious bandit Luther Sledge (James Garner) rounds up his gang (Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins) and plots to purloin the bullion by getting himself apprehended.Incarcerated, Sledge frees the inmates and escapes with the booty during the melee.However, infighting amongst Sledge's men over the gold during a poker game results in bloodshed, and the kidnapping of Sledge's prostitute girlfriend.An unorthodox Western thanks to its substantial Italian influence, A Man Called Sledge features a refreshing departure from the affable gunslinger characters that Garner usually played.Furthermore, pioneer prisons were notoriously ineffective on account of their sod roofs.Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
Dreams of the thrill, as they feel their dust spill, through their fingertips, And they laugh at the curse that follows other men's gold.Remember man, you are dust, and to dust you'll return.
to tell the tale of the curse that follows other men's gold.Remember man, you are dust, and to dust you'll return.
of the curse that follows other men's gold.Remember man, you are dust, and to dust you'll return.
A Terrific Spaghetti Western with James Garner and Dennis Weaver!.
Many American leading men trailed Clint Eastwood to Europe during the heyday of the Spaghetti western in the 1960s and 1970s.
Surprisingly, lightweight leading man James Garner crossed the Atlantic for "War & Peace" producer Dino De Laurentiis to star in a savage western "A Man Called Sledge" with former "Combat" star Vic Morrow at the helm.
Fellow "Combat" alumnus Frank Kowlaski co-scripted "A Man Called Sledge" with Morrow.
Dennis Weaver of "Gunsmoke," Claude Akins of "Return of the Seven," and "Colt .45" star Wade Preston fleshed out the "Sledge" cast along with fellow Americans Ken Clark and Tony Young.
Essentially, "Sledge" emerged as an impossible heist western, similar to director Don Taylor's "The 5-Man Army" (1969) with Peter Graves and James Daly."A Man Called Sledge" opens--in Sergio Corbucci country--with Luther Sledge (James Garner) and Mallory (Tony Young of "Taggart") robbing a stagecoach on a snowy mountain trail.
An old man (John Marley of "Love Story") witnesses the gunfight.
The old man goes berserk after Sledge trusses him up so he cannot watch an escort of 40-armed riders take a gold payroll into a nearly prison for safekeeping.
Paper money don't whisper to you like gold does through six inches of steel." Sledge decides to steal the gold, but Ward (Dennis Weaver) and Hooker (Claude Atkins) are leery about the heist.
I want a little taste of living before I go." Sledge and company follow the gold from mine to prison but find no flaw in the security precautions.
After the death of one of their own, Ward and Hooker are really reluctant about the gold shipment robbery, until Sledge devises a daring plan.
The way that Sledge gets out of being taken by Ripley to the Rockville City Jail is clever, too.Thematically, "A Man Called Sledge" concerns greed and the song 'The Curse that Follows Other Men's Gold' summarizes the storyline.
"A Man Called Sledge" qualifies a gritty but entertaining Italian western!.
Even Brian Garfield in his book, 'Western Films' says that this one is "brainless but well acted." I happen to like it more than he does since James Garner is out of type here, but I can never see him as a totally convincing evil guy although this film tries to make him out as one.Anyway, James Garner, Claude Atkins and Dennis Weaver plot to rob some gold that's stored in a maximum security prison for safe-keeping.
The plan is that since Sledge (Garner) already has a price on his head, they take him there so he can get on the inside.
In the confusion and gunbattle outside, Weaver gets killed and Sledge is pinned down until all the prisoners overpower the guards.
They wind up killing her and take the loot off of Sledge's horses.Although Sledge wins in the end, he loses all the gold because his dead partners hid it and he doesn't know where it is.
We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....BUT...
Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch..
A MAN CALLED SLEDGE is a US/Italian western featuring a starring role for TV actor James Garner.
It very much feels like a US rather than a spaghetti western, and it has a notably dark and nihilistic streak that makes it worth a look for those who think they've seen everything the genre has to offer.
Garner plays the usual sharpshooter who teams up with a few ne'er-do-wells (including character actors Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver) in order to rob a gold shipment that's heavily guarded.The most entertaining part of the movie is the midsection which sees Garner going undercover in prison in order to effect a breakout.
A Man Called Sledge is a lackluster western, with great ideas.Thinking about this film as if I was to describe it to someone, I can't see how I wouldn't put it in a good light.
Dennis Weaver should have been cast as Sledge, he would have brought intensity to the role.
Shot in Spain and Italy (check out all the Italian names in the credits) with American stars and director, this is one unusual psychotronic Spaghetti western !
A few years before he was to find a bloody horse head in his bed in THE GODFATHER, veteran actor John Marley (as the Old Man) shows us he could actually ride one for real ;) Finally, I don't care what the credits say, this is definitely NOT gorgeous Italian beauty Laura Antonelli playing Ria (Sledge's girlfriend) ...
Ruthless outlaw Luther Sledge (a splendidly nasty performance by James Garner in a rare change-of-pace full-blooded villain role) and his band of thieves try to figure out a way to steal a fortune in gold that's stored in a prison fortress.
The sturdy acting from the sound cast qualifies as another major asset, with stand-out contributions by Laura Antonelli as Sledge's loyal and worried main squeeze Ria, Dennis Weaver as the laid-back, pragmatic Erwin Ward, Claude Akins as the fierce, hot-tempered Hooker, John Marley as a wily and rascally old man, and Wayde Preston as the vengeful Sheriff Ripley. |
tt0253840 | The Triumph of Love | Léonide, Princess of Sparta, disguises as a man called Phocion to enter the household of her enemy, Hermocrates, an old philosopher. Léonide does so because she has seen and fallen in love with a young man who lives in the household, Agis. Learning that he is the rightful heir of the late Cléomènes, King of Sparta (usurped by Léonide's own uncle in revenge for Cléomènes' kidnapping of his mistress), Léonide has determined to restore him to power.
Léonide and her servant Corine (also disguised as a man) arrives at Hermocrates' house, pretending to be philosophy students. As they discuss their plans, they are overheard by Hermocrates' servant, Arlequin, but they pay him to co-operate with them. Léonide then meets Agis by chance, but the gardener, Dimas, becomes suspicious and calls Hermocrates' spinster sister, Léontine, to expel the two 'men'. In order to stay on the premises, Léonide pretends to fall in love with Léontine, and seduces her into supporting her.
Léonide then meets Hermocrates himself, who sees through her disguise and accuses her of coming to seduce Agis. Léonide admits that she is a woman (calling herself by the false name of Aspasie), but successfully convinces Hermocrates that she has come to seduce him, not Agis. He allows her to stay. Hermocrates tells "Aspasie" that he is plotting to overthrow the Princess of Sparta and place Agis on the throne.
Léonide finally has a conversation with Agis himself. Agis, it transpires, has sworn against love, because it was love that destroyed his parents. Léonide therefore tells him that she is disguised as a man because she is a young woman fleeing persecution from the Princess of Sparta (herself, in reality), and Agis promises to help.
Léonide is now juggling three contradictory relationships: both Léontine and Hermocrates are in love with her, while she has only a passionate friendship with Agis. Over the course of the rest of the play, she works things to her advantage, while Agis falls in love with her. In the play's climax, Hermocrates, Léontine and Agis realize they are all in love with the same person. Léonide reveals she is the princess and wishes to marry Agis, thus restoring him to the throne. Hermocrates and Léontine are left disappointed in love. A royal retinue then arrives to bring the Princess and her Prince back to the palace. | romantic, philosophical | train | wikipedia | You simply have to accept the conventions of this type of story, just as you do when you read/watch Shakespeare's plays.
I thoroughly enjoyed it; it was witty, fast paced, sexy, the acting was fantastic (especially Kingsley though Sorvino is no slouch)etc.
An entertaining movie if you like classical French theater.
Mira Sorvino is, of course, lovely in the starring role(s)..
the play was first performed in 1732 but i think the plot meets (and excels) today's standards.
Mira Sorvino did a great job as did all of the other cast members.if you liked Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" or any Shakespearean style plots of mistaken identity, deception, lies, love, comedic betrayal, and that sort of thing, you will enjoy this movie.(of course it is supposed to take place in France, but as everyone knows, they apparently all speak with English accents there.
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing.
Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage." While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.(originally written 5/29/2002).
fiona shaw and ben kingsley both falling hard for mira is enough for anyone!
This movie is about a princess simultaneously seducing a prince, his protégé and the protégé's sister, portraying herself as either a man or woman, all in the name of undoing a wrong that her family has done to the prince's a long time ago.
This film just didn't have that, although it did produce some laughs when the protégé and his sister both come out dressed in clothes they otherwise would never be caught wearing.
The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film.
The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period..
Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy.
Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists.
For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming.
When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.-Matthew McGuire.
While the film has it's slow moments it's still beautifully made and true to the original play.
Better than Shakespeare in Love, but with awful editing.
This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce.
In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun.
And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing.
Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities.
despite every comment, I like this movie.
Not a great movie, but I like it.
Love triumphs, but the film doesn't.
I really wanted to like "Triumph of Love;" several of the elements, in fact, might be organized into a film I could enjoy.
There's the elegant period sets and costumes, the gender-bending undertones, a couple comic servants, and Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw giving fine performances as a pair of emotion-disdaining intellectuals who become undone by their own vanity.
But "Triumph of Love," sadly, proves to be all promise and very little payoff.Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man.
Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw).
Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time.
Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night." Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role.
Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino..
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while.
Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie.
The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film).
The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material.
Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre.
Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's.
Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that.
Surely, I am not talking of sex when I say the main plot lacks shyness, but of a certain perversity of thought, a scheme for love.
"Triumph of Love" is a silly little comedy about a woman (Sorvino) who dresses like a man to woo a woman and reveals her true sex to two men to woo them.
"Triumph..." is theater on film; a fact of which we're reminded by shots of an audience cloistered among the garden shrubs...an annoying interjection.
A clumsy adaptation of theater for film, "Triumph..." will likely be of interest by only the most ardent aficionados of period plays.
I thought Mira Sorvino did a great job as did Ben Kingsley and all the others, however my real praise is for the woman who played the young man's patroness, Fiona Shaw, what a performance she produced, intense and perfect timing as well, absolutely great.
I recommend the film as good fairly clean fun and a pleasure to watch.
The author was of course well known in his day, and the play upon which this film was based was first performed we are told in 1732.
I thought the attempt to include an audience very clumsy and actually did not realize what they were trying to do as I watched the film, right up to the ending credits when the cast appeared for a bow wearing modern clothes it escaped me.
The ups are delightful (dialog, costuming, movement); the downs are simply awful (acting, timing, editing, concept).
The reference to the play as play by intercutting scenes of modern-day audience watching the play and the cast "curtain call" in modern day dress are distracting.
The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.Stupid, stupid story and horrible production.
It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw.
Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other.
Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play.
If I had seen this before I'd seen some of the movies based on Shakespeare, I might have felt that the dialogue was weird and the story contrived.
However, having seen filmed plays like Twelfth Night and read a few early modern plays makes me appreciate what's going on more.
What seems silly, stilted, and improbable to a modern audience is actually a very understandable play that follows traditional story beats and tropes.
When watched from the right point of view and state of mind, it's actually quite an amusing story with occasional moments of romance and heartbreak.
Perhaps the best thing about this movie for a modern audience is watching Ben Kingsley, Fiona Shaw, and the others enjoy their roles so thoroughly.
Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her.
She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters.
Who ever is responsible for the production editing of this film should be ashamed/sacked/run-out-of-town/laughed at/never used again.I liked this film for what it is; a play written in 1732 and brought to the screen.
Possible the story is a little outdated and not very plausible but it was fun and I think thats the point, it is a "farce" in the same style of a shakespearean play.
I also wondered if anyone has seen a film with a women playing a man's part and the audience actually believes that it is a man?
I have seen guys play women and be really convincing but I don't think I have seen a women "fool" me in a movie.
Surely Ben Kingsley deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here.
Mira Sorvino, a princess, falls for a young hunk who's been brought up by his bachelor uncle (Ben Kingsley) and spinster aunt (Fiona Shaw).
I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love.
That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love.
Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie.
Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title..
A quirky film based on a classic story.
I wasn't sure what to expect upon renting this movie, and as it began, my first thought was that I had wasted a good four dollars.
The plot is based on Pierre Marivaux's romantic comedy from the 1700s in which a princess will do practically anything to be with the man she loves...who happens to consider her his sworn enemy.
If you're looking for something a little different but entertaining, then look into "The Triumph of Love.".
If you are looking for a romantic comedy that borders on a fabulous farce, this film is for you.
It's an adaptation of an almost 300 year old French stage play that is full of fun and frolic.
An intellectually intriguing yet love-less film....
Triumph of Love' is a period piece that at times can be quite enchanting, and at other moments may seem like a droopy, overdramatic and mundane film.
Director Clare Peploe adapts a Marivaux play first performed in 1732 co-written by Marilyn Goldin and Bernardo Bertellucci into a fairytale.
Mira Sorvino stars as a Princess fixated on returning her homeland's throne to its' rightful heir who happens to be a prince under the protective custody of a deliciously uncovered Ben Kingsley who portrays a famous philosophist.
Little does Agis know that he is the rightful heir to the throne and the film's momentum slowly builds upon this tiny aspect.
Reminiscent of Shakespeare in Love', Sorvino plays a Princess who must disguise herself as a gentleman caller in order to penetrate the grounds Agis inhabits.
The film structures itself through a triangle of deceit, manipulation and false love as the Princess must first gain access into the grounds and then find a way of being welcomed as a guest.
Seduction of the sexes is a primary factor as the Princess eyes both man and woman in hopes of luring the young Agis who she is ultimately in love with.
Director Clare Peploe crafts a witty period piece that will appeal mostly to its' intended audience who appreciate and understand the manner in which these films unravel themselves.
Peploe uses her camera wisely and enjoys tracking the actors in their scenes as the play is removed from the film.
Furthermore, watch for an interesting musical finale lifted from the play that explains why throughout the film we see audience members dressed in current day clothing within a period piece.
While it is a clever and crafty little film, the film will not appeal beyond its' intended audience due to the fact that while it is an interesting piece at times, it tends to get bogged down in semantically torrid and comedic sequences that deter the picture.
It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching..
Pretty Good Script/dialog Let Down by So-so Acting.
The script and dialog of "The Triumph of Love" is often first rate in this movie, directed by Claire Peploe.
Though I don't know how much the original story or script has been altered for modern tastes, the main problem of the movie is the uneven acting.
Lead Sorvino is good in some scenes but stilted and off in others as is curiously Ben Kingsley.
Anyway the movie features some very good scenes especially toward the beginning and end.
I Didn't care much for the liberty thrown in with touch of the modern play towards the end.
An 18th century princess(Miss M.Sorvino) wants to restore the rightful heir to the throne of her country.He is incommunicado,living with a famous philosopher and his sister deep in the countryside.She decides the only way to get close to him is to seduce the philosopher,his sister and the prince himself in no particular order.Miss Sorvino has all the knowing innocence required of a Comedy Francaise heroine.Of course she is not in the least believable,but that's the whole point."The Triumph of love" is,in its entirety,an exercise in deception.But it is not a deception that is meant to fool anybody but the play's characters.
None of the performances is particularly subtle,nor are they meant to be.This is not serious drama,nor serious anything else.We are seeing a filmed play,a comedy of the sort that was once popular all over Europe,Miss Peploe could not have made that much clearer short of putting the camera crew in the action.
A "free" DVD loan from the library, Kingsley and Sorvino are the reasons to see this film..
THE TRIUMPH OF LOVE is a film based on a 1732 story, and has a Shakespeare feel to it.
By today's standards the story is implausible, but the acting of Mira Sorvino as the young lady dressed up as a young man, and Ben Kingsley as the old philosopher, are reasons to see this film all the way through.
If one can get past the implausibility, and just watch it for the performances, it can be an entertaining 106 minutes.some SPOILERS follow ...The sole objective of Sorvino's character, the usurper of the crown, is to get accepted at the home of the philosopher and his spinster sister, to get close to Agis the rightful heir whose parents had been killed.
The whole film presents one of these stories where you wonder how she will get out of the current deception, and she always does.
In the end, "love triumphs", as the title indicates. |
tt4273570 | Shok | The film starts by scenes in present-day Kosovo, in which the adult Petrit (Kushtrim Sheremeti) finds an old bicycle like Oki's in the middle of the road.
The story shifts back during the 1990s war in Kosovo and centers on two young boys, Petrit (Lum Veseli) and Oki (Andi Bajgora). At the start of the film, the two ride on Oki's new bicycle to see a group of Serbian soldiers, to whom Petrit gives several slips of paper for rolling cigarettes. The soldiers' leader, Dragan (Eshref Durmishi), pays Petrit for the papers, and Petrit splits the money with Oki. Oki stays the night with Petrit's family, and Petrit asks him about making another delivery the following day. Oki is at first reluctant, thinking the soldiers cannot be trusted; but Petrit assures him he is safe, showing him a pistol he keeps hidden away. He also says he will soon be able to buy his own bicycle with the money he is earning, and Oki agrees to help him again.
The boys arrive at the soldiers' hideout, first a soldier (Fisnik Ademi) asks them for what are they here and Petrit says to see Dragan, where Petrit brings Dragan more paper slips; but as they leave, one of the other soldiers demands Oki's bicycle, intending to give it to his nephew. At Petrit's insistence, Oki complies; but he later berates Petrit for cooperating with the soldiers, calling him a traitor. Oki does not speak to Petrit for several days, despite the latter's apologies, until a bus they are on is stopped by the soldiers. The boys and several others are removed from the bus and searched; and when a soldier finds Albanian schoolbooks in Oki's backpack, Petrit claims they are his. In response, Dragan hits Petrit in the stomach with the butt of his rifle.
Oki comes by later to thank Petrit, and the two reconcile. Oki again spends the night at Petrit's, but the house is invaded by soldiers the following morning. Petrit and his family are led outside and lined up along the wall, while Oki remains hidden inside. As a soldier threatens Petrit at gunpoint, Oki appears, pointing Petrit's pistol at the soldier. The soldier takes the pistol, which he finds is not loaded, and throws Oki in line with Petrit's family. Another soldier then orders them all to leave the town and not look back, or else they will be killed. As Petrit's family, Oki, and several other residents walk out of town carrying their possessions, they see a young boy riding Oki's bicycle. Oki looks back at him as he passes and is shot through the head and killed by one of the soldiers. Petrit who is splattered with Oki's blood keeps walking with his family
The film switches to the adult Petrit. He rides off on the bicycle and eventually reaches the now-empty town, looking out on it forlornly as the film ends. | violence, cruelty, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1261046 | Death Racers | In the year 2030, a civil war breaks out in the United States. In a final attempt to restore order, the president declares martial law. In 2033, a massive prison camp known as "the Red Zone" is built in a desolate city that soon holds over one million insane, violent felons. The United States is declared safe.
A dangerous criminal known as the Reaper (Scott "Raven" Levy) has been extracting sarin, which he plans to spill into the nation's water supply. One of the prisoners, FX (Dustin Fitzsimons) secretly films the Reaper with a Wi-Fi digital camera as he discusses these plans, and the state's governor, Reagan Black (Robert Pike Daniel) finds out about them. Black develops a plan to hold a "death race" within the prison system, assembling four teams of racers:
The Severed Head Gang, consisting of Danny Satanico (Koco Limbevski) and Fred "The Hammer" (Jason Ellefson), two members of the largest gang in the United States, known for decapitating their enemies. The team is given a customized 1995 town car.
Homeland Security, consisting of Colonel Bob (Paolo Carascon) and Captain Rudy Jackson (Rick Benedetto), formerly honored, but now disgraced members of the United States Army. The team is given a vintage 1943 Willys MB.
Vaginamyte, consisting of Double-Dee Destruction (Jennifer Elizabeth Keith) and Queen B (Thereese), two serial killers who seduced and murdered over 72 male and female victims. The team is given a yellow Lotus with a black widow spider design.
Insane Clown Posse (Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope), whose violent form of hip hop was attributed as indirectly influencing multiple murders, acts of terrorism and a school massacre which resulted in the rappers being convicted for these murders and being dubbed as "the Charles Manson of their time". Although the group's music has been banned, it continues to retain a strong fanbase. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope are given an ice cream truck customized with a meat grinder, machine guns and "all the bling-bling these two Detroit locals could find".
The race is televised live, hosted by anchors Harvey Winkler (Stephen Blackehart) and Jennifer Ramirez (Caroline Attwood). Black offers the teams gathering points for killing loose prisoners, promising freedom to the team that brings back the Reaper—dead or alive. When Danny Satanico suggests that the four teams escape, Black reveals that each team member has a chip implanted in their bodies which would kill any member that breaks the rules, using Satanico to demonstrate.
When Insane Clown Posse's truck gets a flat tire, a fight ensues between the teams and loose criminals. In the distance, Violent J witnesses an explosion. The teams investigate, finding the burning Homeland Security jeep with two corpses inside. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope find FX filming the race. He tells them that there will be an ambush at their first destination, and they let him ride in their van. Each of the teams work together to surprise and kill the ambushers. Metal Machine Man (Damien Puckler), under the order of the Reaper, kills FX and attacks the racers before being hit by missiles fired by a pair of mysterious men.
The teams fix their cars before dispatching. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope arrive at the Reaper's lair, and successfully infiltrate the fortress, preventing the Reaper and his henchmen from releasing the sarin into the water. The mysterious men arrive, firing a rocket into the room, and reveal themselves to be Colonel Bob and Captain Rudy, who were hired by Governor Black as inside men, and faked their deaths to convince the other teams that they had a chance of winning.
Believing the Reaper died in the explosion, Bob and Rudy retrieve his severed hand and leave in Insane Clown Posse's truck. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope emerge from the rubble. Because Violent J is injured, Shaggy 2 Dope goes after Bob and Rudy alone. The Reaper appears and attempts to release the sarin as Violent J attempts to stop him. The Homeland Security team members arrive at the finish line, presenting the Reapers hand to Governor Black. Shaggy 2 Dope rises from the back of the truck, shooting at Bob, Rudy and the governor. Black presses the button to activate the explosives in the bodies of the Insane Clown Posse team members. The sarin explodes, causing a chain reaction which destroys the country. | cult, comedy, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0056677 | The War Game | Filmed in black-and-white with a running time of just under 50 minutes, The War Game depicts the prelude to, and the immediate weeks of the aftermath of, a Soviet nuclear attack against Britain. The narrator says that Britain's current nuclear deterrent policy threatens a would-be aggressor with devastation from Vulcan and Victor nuclear bombers of the British V-bomber force. A Chinese invasion of South Vietnam starts the war; tensions escalate when the United States authorises tactical nuclear warfare against the Chinese. Although Soviet and East German forces threaten to invade West Berlin if the US does not withdraw, the US does not acquiesce to communist demands and the invasion takes place; two US Army divisions attempt to fight their way into Berlin to counter this, but the Russian and East German forces overwhelm them in conventional battle. In order to turn the tide, President Johnson authorises the NATO commanders to use their tactical nuclear weapons, and they soon do so. An escalating nuclear war results, during which larger Russian strategic IRBMs are launched at Britain. The film remarks that many Soviet missiles were, at the time, believed to be liquid-fueled and stored above ground, making them vulnerable to attack and bombings. It hypothesises that in any nuclear crisis, the USSR would be obliged to fire all of them as early as possible in order to avoid their destruction by counterattack, hence the rapid progression from tactical to strategic nuclear exchange.
In the chaos just before the attack, towns and cities are evacuated and residents forced to move to the country. On September 7 at 9:15 a doctor visits a family with an ill patient. As he finishes checking up on her and steps outside the air-raid sirens start to wail in the distance, followed by a klaxon horn from a police car. The doctor rushes back in with two civil defence workers and starts bringing tables together to create a makeshift shelter. Suddenly, the town of Rochester is struck by an off-target 1 megaton Soviet thermo-nuclear warhead aimed at RAF Manston, a target which, along with the Maidstone barracks, is mentioned in scenes showing the immediate effects of the attack. The missile's explosion causes instant flash blindness of those nearby, followed by a firestorm caused by the blast wave. The air in the centre of the firestorm is replaced by methane and carbon dioxide and monoxide and the temperature rises to about 500 degrees. The firemen soon pass out from the heat in the chaos. By then the V-bombers carrying green bamboo gravity bombs and blue steel cruise missiles reach the border of the Soviet Union and presumably breach anti-aircraft defences by using a special instrument in their cockpits to jam defending radar signals. They head to their counter value targets, civilian cities. Later, society collapses due to overwhelming radiation sickness and the depletion of food and medical supplies. There is widespread psychological damage and consequently a rising occurrence of suicide. The country's infrastructure is destroyed; the British Army burns corpses, while police shoot looters during food riots. The provisional government becomes increasingly disliked due to its rationing of resources and use of lethal force, and anti-authority uprisings begin. Civil disturbance and obstruction of government officers become capital offences; two men are shown being executed by firing squad for such acts. Several traumatised and bewildered orphan children are briefly featured, questioning whether they have any future and desire to be "nothing." The film ends bleakly on the first Christmas Day after the nuclear war, held in a ruined church with a vicar who futilely attempts to provide hope to his traumatised congregation. The closing credits include an instrumental version of Silent Night. | allegory | train | wikipedia | THE WAR GAME {Short} (Mai Zetterling, 1963) **1/2. After the August 1963 premier of this short film at the Venice Film Festival and the later one in December of her current film THE MAN WHO FINALLY DIED (co-starring Stanley Baker and Peter Cushing – which I own but have yet to watch), Swedish actress Mai Zetterling would only ever appear in a few more movies in her lifetime. Perhaps it was her winning the Best Short category in Venice that decided her in abandoning a 20-year-old career in front of the cameras for a more rewarding one behind it. Whatever the case may be, her best directorial achievements came in the first decade of her transition, were made in collaboration with her writer/husband David Hughes and culminated in her being one of several international film-makers to helm an episode from the official 1972 Munich Olympics film, VISIONS OF EIGHT (1973).Although I own a trio of her other more renowned works, THE WAR GAME – not to be confused with Peter Watkins' later anti-nuclear short that was eventually banned by the BBC – is the first of her efforts that I am watching. The 15-minute short has a simple enough premise: two young lads (ostensibly left in the care of the indolent grandfather of one of them) spend a lazy Sunday afternoon chasing one another with toy guns, firstly through the desolate London streets, then through the staircases of a block of flats and, finally, up on the perilous rooftops. Just as the blonde-haired antagonist is about to slip and fatally lose his grip, he clutches the shirt of the dark-haired protagonist; this life-saving event seems the right thing to make of them lifelong pals thereafter
if only the former's real gun had not fallen to the ground and their subsequent tussle for its possession leads to the predictable tragedy occurring offscreen! While not a particularly great film, it is sensitively and unobtrusively observed and, given the increasingly indoor nature of children's relaxation, one does wonder if such incidents can still happen 50 years on. very short and simple but effective. This film has no dialog and could be seen by anyone worldwide. It starts with a little boy of about five playing with a cap gun--shooting it right and left. Then, another boy, about a year older, appears and you briefly see his gun, but it does not appear to be a toy. But, because the glimpse is so brief, you find yourself really wanting to see it again and know if they are in danger.Well, like kids do, the boys begin chasing and fighting with each other and by now it's plain to see that the gun is indeed real. Again and again, you think it will go off and kill someone, but this does not occur. Later, and this part is a bit inexplicable, the boys climb to the very roof of the apartment building and could easily fall (why introduce this element into the film, I don't know). Then, they scuffle over the gun and you hear it go off (but the action stops so you are left wandering).Overall, the film is very effective and well constructed. A decent short. |
tt0099263 | The Christmas Toy | When no people are around, the toys still play in the playroom. But since a toy will be frozen forever if a person catches it out of position, they have to be very careful. It's Christmas Eve, and Rugby the Tiger remembers how he was the favorite Christmas toy last year and wants to be the favorite again this year, as not to be replaced by another toy. However, he doesn't stop to think that if Jamie unwrapped him again this year, she'd see him out of his normal place that she usually puts him and he'd be frozen forever. It's up to Apple the Doll, whom Rugby supplanted as favorite toy, to tell him what's in store. But Rugby won't believe her, and tries to get into the Christmas package and lets Meteora, Queen of the Asteroids loose. Unfortunately, she doesn't know she's a toy, and thinks she's landed among aliens. And it's up to Apple, Mew (the Cat's toy mouse), and the other toys to get Rugby out of the box and Meteora back in it before they're found and frozen forever.
But Mew is caught, and frozen. Only then does Rugby realize what a good friend Mew has been to him, and how selfishly he has been acting. Rugby sings, telling Mew how much he cares for him. This brings Mew back to life, and then the other toys also know how to revive their other frozen friends.
On the morning of Christmas Day, Jamie and Jessie enjoy their new toys alongside their current toys. While the kids are away, the toys sing "Together at Christmas." Kermit joins in at the end of the special. | flashback | train | wikipedia | A Christmas classic!.
Imagine being the light of someone's life, the favorite plaything of a child, only to feel rejected when a new plaything gets in the way?"The Christmas Toy" is a 1986 made-for-TV Christmas special that aired on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC-TV) in December 1986, and centers around a playroom full of toys, including Rugby, a self-centered tiger, Apple, a sweet-natured curly-haired doll, Balthazar, an aged teddy-bear, and Mew, a catnip toy mouse, among others.
The toys come alive when no one is around.
On Christmas Eve, Rugby learns that he will be "replaced" by a new favorite toy, and is determined to get inside the box of the new toy.
Rugby and Mew go on an adventure to the living room, where Rugby opens the box of Meteora, a She-Ra-esque doll that causes havock.
When Rugby and Mew go back to the playroom, Mew lags behind, and becomes frozen, just like the cute little clown doll, Ding-a-Ling.
Can Rugby still compete for his owner's heart?This was a great program that, according to my mom, never aired again.
It took forever to be released on video, but those of us who saw it in 1986, and even have it on tape, remember it fondly.
I have mine on a tape my parents made in 1986, and it has the old "Kraft" recipe commercials, and my best friend and I thought the recipes were disgusting looking.
I love how Kermit hosts the program, and the characters are the same voices as the great Muppets we all know and love.My favorite parts are when Rubgy opens the box to find Meteora, the introduction with Kermit (I LOVE KERMIT!), and the ending, which I won't give away!This was well-done and beautiful to watch, and a great Christmas story that teaches viewers not to be conceited, and that you're never forgotten.
Definitely watch this at Christmas time this year, and remember an undying classic for all ages..
Christmas Favourite.
I watch this Henson film every Christmas & it never fails to move me.
It has that essential combination of tears, laughter, story, great characters & song.Rugby, a conceited, cuddly tiger & Mew, a sweet, loyal cat toy lead an irresistable cast.
Their friends include a doll, a ride-on horse, an old teddy, a robot & every kind of toy you can imagine.
Will capture the hearts of adults & children alike.
Together at Christmas.
A stuffed tiger named Rugby was a little girl's Christmas toy last year.
Wanting to relive that experience, he intends to sneak into the box of this year's Christmas toy and replace it.
His toy friends try to stop him before he's seen by a person.
If people see the toys when they're moving around, the toys will be frozen forever.This is a delightful Christmas special from Jim Henson with Kermit appearing at the beginning and end.
Some good songs (and one not so good near the beginning) with absolutely charming characters and a lovely story.
As other reviewers have mentioned, there's an obvious similarity between this and Toy Story.
This is something Muppets fans or fans of great old Christmas TV specials will certainly appreciate..
A timeless Christmas jewel for all ages to enjoy.
Fans of Jim Henson, like me, will simply love The Christmas Toy. I love Christmas, toys and Jim Henson's work so The Christmas Toy was a perfect treat.The visuals are splendid, right from the camera work, the toys themselves, the set design and the colours.
The music delights too, with hummable melodies and lyrics that really sparkle with wit, freshness and poignancy.Story-wise, The Christmas Toy has lots of charm and heart, and succeeds in appealing to children and adults.
The writing has a perfect balance of humour and sentiment without overdoing either.Might I also mention how adorable the characters are and how consistently good the voice work is from everybody?
Overall, a jewel that anybody would love, albeit sadly underrated.
10/10 Bethany Cox. perfect.
This is a great movie I always enjoyed as a kid watching every Christmas.
I was only four when the movie came out but my parents taped it and we watched it every year after that point.
My sister now has my parents copy and she watches it with her children.
My niece loves it.
It is a great Christmas movie for all ages.
I wish they would re-release it on DVD.
I love the movie and want a new copy of it.
I looked for it on amazon and someone was trying to sell a used VHS copy for $100.
I could not believe it.
I would prefer it on DVD due to VHS tape not working after time.
I would even enjoy seeing it on TV again.
This is a movie to share with generations to come.
Animation of the past shared with the future..
The Christmas Toy. As the mother of two females, I would recommend this movie, even to the young of heart.
We first saw this movie when my youngest, must have been around 2 1/2.
Her older sister, who is now an elementary educator was around 9 1/2.
We loved this movie.
I had taped this to a VHS tape that no longer works.
I have been looking for it for quite some time and watching for it on TV.
I was afraid I had the title incorrect.
As we are about to become grandparents, for the first time, I would love to obtain a DVD for our future generations to enjoy.
I would love to have my (soon to be) grandchildren see this "classic" when they are visiting their grandparents.
What a wonderful tradition we can start.
It's a wonderful movie and I am so glad I finally found it.
Thank you Jim Henson!.
Toy Story inspiration.
Two reviewers have already mentioned 'Toy Story'.
I can't help but wonder if John Lassetter had seen this special before he made that movie.
This isn't in any way to take away from the genius of either Henson or Lassetter, both of whom have been named as latter day Disneys, a sentiment I agree with.There are some intriguing similarities:1 - The overall idea of toys coming alive.2 - The theme of a toy being replaced in a child's affections and how the toy might feel.3 - Toys to the rescue!4 - A science-fictional toy believing they are real.
Can't you just see Meteora and Buzz Lightyear hooking up?!.
Child's Play.
On Xmas Eve 1986 I saw the first 10 minutes of this special but I had to go out and I missed the rest of it.
The idea of toys coming alive might not seem like such a new idea in post-Toy Story world, but since this is live-action, and uses the talents of Jim Henson, I'd prefer this over the Pixar behemoth.The story is virtually identical to Toy Story, with toy boss Rugby (a stuffed lion) not too keen on his rule being usurped by the imminent unwrapping of this year's present.
The Christmas Toy has a new edge though in that if the humans catch them out of their reset position they remain frozen forever.It's shot and lit in a magical way though it goes on just a bit too long.
I am still glad I finally managed to figure out what exactly it was, it only took me 27 years. |
tt0371939 | Secuestro express | The film follows the kidnapping of Carla (Maestro) and her boyfriend when they are suddenly kidnapped in Caracas, Venezuela. Carla (Mía Maestro) and Martin (Jean Paul Leroux) are a young upper-class couple fresh from a night of dancing and partying when they cross paths with Trece (Carlos Julio Molina), Budu (Pedro Perez) and Niga (Carlos Madera), three men who make their living by kidnapping unwitting young adults to extort quick money from their wealthy parents.
Carla and Martin become their next victims and are sent on a terrifying overnight journey through Caracas as they wait for Carla's father Sergio (Ruben Blades) to hand over twenty thousand dollars - a small amount for a rich Caraqueño, but the equivalent of more than 8 years of the Venezuelan minimum wage.
They are emotionally and physically hurt, but soon form a relationship with their captors to try to escape. However, none of their plans pan out. They continue in the Land Cruiser, listening and understanding, even if slightly, their captor's point of view. Through the many mishaps they encounter, they begin to, albeit scarily, bond with the kidnappers.
Martin flees the kidnappers in a crowded square, telling Niga to kill his girlfriend, abandoning her. However, he is soon apprehended by one of their cronies and returned to them and murdered in the trunk of a taxi.
After her father pays their ransom, the kidnappers heatedly argue over her fate, between murder, rape, and release. Trece pays his share to the others to release her unharmed, and Carla is soon released, only to be found by another set of kidnappers. However, Trece returns to the scene and shoots them, freeing her again at that time. In the final scene she can be seen with much more modest attire and an inelegant car, continuing her work with sickly, impoverished children. | violence, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | It is sad, but real, people in Latin America are going to situations just as described in the movie.Mia Maestro, really showed to all of us her talent, for those Spanish speakers know how different the Argentinian accent is, and she was able to imitate the Venezuelan accent perfectly.I am sure does who are related to Venezuela when they go and see this movie will have an after taste in their mouths for several days.
"Secuestro Express" shows the underbelly of a society that is decaying as we speak, a place torn apart by economics and class differences, and a place that is unforgiving and cruel to most of its population.The 24-hour drama follows a kidnapped couple and their victimizers as their drama unfolds.
Years ago, Warner Brothers re-released its two landmark gangster films of the thirties, "Little Caesar" and "Public Enemy" with a brief prologue that said the gangster was a problem "we the public must eventually solve." Writer/director Jonathan Jakubowicz's "Secuestro Express" ends with a epilogue that notes that "half the people of the world suffer from malnutrition, the other half from obesity." It's a stunning message, but it almost gets lost because the film it caps is a stunning thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat and for the most part, keeps you from focusing much on the social issues involved.Set in Caracas,Venezuela, the film examines what has become almost a regional pastime in Latin America, kidnapping.
Jean Paul Leroux is also good as the male half of the trendy couple, a man with secrets of his own.But the star of this film is the female kidnap victim, played by the beautiful and unreasonably talented Mia Maestro.
"Secuestro Express" is a neat little twisty thriller in the exaggerated style of gritty British crime dramas like "Layer Cake," with a pointed political and social overlay.Using swooping, in-your-face close-up cameras, limited narration and dossier-style on screen character and time descriptors, writer/director Jonathan Jakubowicz, in his full-length fiction debut, captures a docudrama feel to make the kidnapping of a young, lighter-skinned couple by a motley group of "nigros" (darker-skinned) thugs, with a variety of psychological and financial motives for doing this "work", a commentary on class in Latin America, specifically in Caracas, Venezuela.The individuality of all the characters, including the criminals, adds to the explosive unpredictability as stereotypes of Latin American culture are ironically skewered, including oligarchies, macho men, religion and sensuality, as each person uses political and class rhetoric to justify greed, selfishness and condescension on all sides.Drugs are caustically shown to have pervasively corrupted and enthralled all levels of the society through a harrowing picaresque exploration of "the ghetto" (as the subtitles translated the geography).The acting is excellent, particularly Mía Maestro, of TV's "Alias," who goes through an entire spectrum of emotions.
Jean Paul Leroux as her boyfriend "Martin" is very good at shifting gears as our sympathies shift around him.The song selection felt very atmospheric and the soundtrack kept the tension ratcheted up.The "fire next time" coda didn't quite work or add much to what we think the characters learned that night except assuring us that life ominously goes on among all the classes despite the continuing sharp differences..
"Secuestro Express" is an independent film about a common frequent reality in Latin America: Kidnappings.
After Jakubowickz made his story longer, the characters took shape, and what could have been a tale of soulless kidnappers, is a glance at human beings who care for their city, even when they do what they do.Jakubowickz' ferocious camera is a representation of the Venezuelan reality; it moves unsure, it accelerates constantly.
In fact, there are thousands of kidnappings like the ones this movie illustrates, every day."Express"; quick, effective and only sometimes successful.
But that message won't make anyone change, because it takes a lot more in a world like this one.What I can say for sure are two things: "Secuestro Express" is a calling to Venezuelan cinema, these days when it's so difficult to make a complete movie; and it is so real and so true, that you will be scared to be out on the street after watching it..
Maybe the photography and shooting could have been better.Second and finally, and for those who called this movie "unrealistic", definitely they do not live in Latin American Cities (Caracas in this particular case).
Gave it the benefit of the doubt thinking it could be the theater's fault, but once again nope: letters in Twisted-Metal-Black evoking style started popping up on screen naming each character in the movie, and those letters were decently sharp and in focus.
The acting was good enough, even great at some points.Now, the movie can be a little bit biased, which is not necessarily bad.
When you see the trailers you expect no more than a action movie...but for those who live in Venezuela ( as myself) there's nothing of action o fiction in this movie, what you see there is the sad but true life that we live here in Caracas, every day when you're walking down the street, when you're driving you're car, when you're at home, you're always thinking, am i going to be next?
TO not make it so much of a complain about Venezuela but about the way the film was turned, I would like to say, this movie may be "fiction"cause its was taken in an controlled environment, but what you see in that movie happens everyday, its not something COOL, or JUST "bang bang" its a reality for all those who live here, it would be great if people saw that and not just ohhh cool another action movie....
Probably Jakubowicz is the start of a new wave of filmmakers long time needed in Venezuelan Cinema.This movie has a new kind of approach in every aspect: production, direction, screen writing, marketing, etc.
The film representation of the characteristics of poverty in Latin America, and of the phenomena it originates, has developed through the years, from the populist portraits of the 1930s and 1940s, in which being poor almost equaled sainthood (as in "Nosotros, los pobres"), to the movies of today called "porno-misery" by some critics.
As almost all of the good or bad films dealing with poverty, there is no intention to point reasons: in these movies, you seldom hear of bad distribution of national wealth, hoarders, landowners or creole oligarchies that have sold their countries to transnationals.
For example, when the kidnapped woman (Mia Maestro) is released momentarily in a lonely place, far away from Caracas, instead of running for her life, she falls and cries in the dust, a strategy that permits the director and cinematographer to make a few nice shots of Maestro, and a chance to add a second ending to the story.
Even though the violence is present at all times in the movie it is done in a very artistic and professional way, without recurring to unnecessary crudeness (the violence in itself is quite crude).When watching this, just keep in mind that this is the reality of people living in Venezuela.
More people have been killed by guns in Venezuela than in the Iraq war in the same period of time (and both countries have pretty much the same population).This movie was also very much disliked by the government, as it shows one of the many truths they want to censor.Finally if you understand Spanish you'll notice the big difference between the language that the "rich" and "poor" people speak (it is widely exaggerated, though, but a very nice touch indeed), so subtitles are highly recommended.
I hope that they are happened to those producing of Hollywood to make a better movie completely in Venezuela, where they show our reality better with regard to the delinquency, the traffic of drugs or the political problems.
And for those who say it's unrealistic I'll just tell you this: EVERYBODY that lives in caracas has a close friend or family that has been mugged, kidnapped or ruffied.True story.For those that say actors don't play well: Those guys are known Venezuelian singers and come from a very poor background.
They know the life, they have lived it, they surely have never kidnapped everyone but in an environment where growing older than 25 years old is considered lucky, they have seen and done their fair share of violence.Little side note, this movie was supposed to be presented at the Oscars for the Best foreign movie.
It'll sound perverse, but it's an amusing situation; one of a number of gut wrenching and rather harrowing predicaments a number of characters find themselves in within Venezuelan born Jonathan Jakubowicz's film; a man painting a grim, glum and quite frightening picture of his home nation, indeed, his home city: the sort of place where the criminals try one over the criminals by targeting the weak in-between.That city is Caracas, the capital of the aforementioned Venezuela, as a number of short and sharp voice-overs consistently remind us.
Express Kidnapping, to give it its English title, sees a young couple in Carla (Maestro) and Martin (Leroux) swiped off of the street by a gang of equally young, but significantly less-better off hoods armed with guns; a 4x4; a taste for ransom money and, eventually, an equally alarming taste for the lone female in the vehicle.
That isn't to say the danger evaporates, because it doesn't, but the kidnapped leads come to realise their situation and a similar progression is occurring with the audience as our own opinions and realisations on the situation are unfolding at exactly the same time.If we think of films that are either wildly kinetic in their delivery and overall feel or just carry that lush, good-looking sensibility from recent years, of which they might also be categorised as 'crime' films, Pierre Morel's 2008 film Taken might spring to mind.
One of the very few films of this ilk from recent years that I thought pulled off this 'all over the place'; 'revenge and violence carries a certain "to be looked at-ness" appeal' without ever feeling exploitative was Tarantino's first Kill Bill volume; a film that utilised its female lead's chaotic and tragic circumstances to project real sense of anger as the film unfolded to whatever style and atmosphere Tarantino implemented on his text.I think Express Kidnapping balances whatever political or social issues the director has with what he's studying with that trashy, pulpy, throw-away approach you feel he wants to additionally get across.
The film's ending is deceptively upbeat, but Jakubowicz is telling us the only real way anything is ever going to get done is if the scum continue to stalk the other scum and wipe them out for us, 'us' being the more innocent Venezuelans as well as the government themselves.Express Kidnapping doesn't exploit its subject matter for purposes of entertainment, while its shifts from a relaxed sense to a thoroughly frightening scenario throughout never feels mis-guided nor mis-judged.
The acting is very good, but the image quality is not very sharp or maybe the theater I saw it was not very good.I have been to Caracas, Venezuela, many times on business trips and I have never been robbed or kidnapped.
It seems like the wealthy director Jakubowicz (he acknowledges that on a newspaper interview), wants to purposely portray his own country as hell, just for the purpose of discrediting the current elected government, which favors the poor.On the other hand, the movie perpetuates stereotypes found in Venezuelan and other Latin American media: The dark-skinned ones are the criminals, the bad guys, or the servants.The last movies I've seen filmed in Venezuela were The Revolution will not be Televised (ChavezTheFilm dot com) and Arachnophobia, highly recommended, especially the former..
"Secuestro Express" translates roughly as "quick turn-around kidnapping" and, according to the makers of this film, is becoming an increasingly common crime in Latin American.
The film is a gritty, grainy, low budget flick about three thugs who kidnap a beautiful woman with and her boyfriend to get some fast cash via the secuestro express methodology.
Okay but nothing to get excited about and fraught with the usual subtitles, obvious budget constraints, etc., Secuestro Express makes for a worthy watch for those who like their crime flicks straight up with a twist and a message from south of the border.
The bad taxi cabbie in the "it's a small Caracas we live in" was insulting, not to say implausible.Although it dragged the subject of the poor against the rich, criminal against the wealthy, this could have been a much better film without that red hot politically-charged layer.
Last night, after leaving my house I drove into the same streets that were reintroduced to me on screen shortly after having reached the movie theaters here in Caracas.The film opened with a raw and realistic, yet beautiful introduction to our city, especially during the strike of 2002, showing footage of the most violent scenes during that time, but also showing some very typical things with which anybody from Caracas can identify with.Visually the Film is very well done.
If you do understand the language, however...and by this I mean "Venezuelan slang", you'll enjoy the fresh and funny dialogs unlike any other Venezuelan movie due to the improvisation of most of the actors, who I think did a very good job.The movie feels very real, yet the film doesn't get stuck on trying to portray a political or social situation.
There IS a story and there are several interesting, funny and f*cked-up twists.It's a very entertaining and enjoyable movie and without a doubt a treasure of Venezuelan cinema...****SPOILER***** Personally I found the ending extremely corny for several reasons.
this is kinda how it would be..., but there ARE good, healthy and decent people in this city and I do think that perhaps the movie failed to show this a little bit.
A. cop-show "Dragnet" on the road, it might play something like "Secuestro Express." "This is the city, Caracas, Venezuela.
This movie is simply an offensive, unreal and exploitative movie made by a Cheap Tarantino rip off, who didn't hesitate to sell out his country culture to get a shameful pass to Hollywood..Jakubowikz is even lower than the characters depicted in his awful piece of cinematic dung.It portraits Caracas (and Latin America by rebound) as a horrible and inhospitable hellhole of drugs, constant street violence and utterly corrupt and extremely putrid Cops (and Military) , with nothing redeeming and not a trace of law and order at all.The stupid, unreal kidnappers depicted here justify their actions by pointing out that most of the country is starving, like it were an excuse to commit crime and behave sadistically."Gangsta" Robin Hoods, what an original idea !!
The darker a guy is, the worse.3.- The "poor little rich girl cliché" who volunteers at a public clinic and loves the "poor and the pauper" but also likes to party wildly, swallow tons of pills and several other drugs (a cross between Mother Theresa and Sid Vicious) AND, inexplicably, is deeply in love and ENGAGED with 4.- An incredibly shallow, insensitive, inhuman, unmoral, cocaine-loving, unlikable, twisted sociopath, stupid, antipathetic upper class boyfriend.There's some unreal situations: After a five year relationship and in a matter of few hours, Martin, the creepy Boyfriend:1.- Goes "out of the closet" and, in a hateful and Homophobic manner, he sodomizes (and enjoys it!!) a gay drug dealer who just saved his life (and who happens to be an old friend!!) in a middle of a death threatening situation, with his five-year-relationship fiancée left alone with the thugs, with both of their lives at stake.It takes a mindless, utterly twisted inhuman pervert in hard drugs to have that kind of behavior in a situation like this.
Maybe He'd like to hatefully sodomize a Gay guy while both his and her girlfriend's lives are at stake.Or maybe He already did it.This exploitation movie is Venezuelan (And Latin American) cinema, pride and dignity at his lowest.BTW, The miserable, sold-out, Tarantino cheap rip off Director IS A LIAR, He has NEVER been Kidnnaped, He LIED to gain Publicity and to Justify and to give "social relevance" and "reality" to his repugnant,vile and UNREAL excuse of a movie.When the movie debuted in Venezuela, He pointed that He had never been Kidnapped.
And the latter enjoying it.Mia Maestro shows She can act, is really a shame she was part of this repulsive abomination.PLEASE, don't believe this atrocious movie, Venezuela is much more than that.Is not ONE out of ten, is ZERO out of ten.
I think it could have been done more cleverly by explaining why Martin didn't immediately go to the police and by somehow making it more likely that he'd end up in the hands of the kidnappers' friend..
is verified that to all of us, be Venezuelans or not, we they like the true histories, without fiction neither nothing, that show more the misery of our countries, and that better shown of the life in Caracas that shows "Secuestro express".It can show what we have lived the Venezuelans in this despotic government of Chávez, How?
All in the movie works too well."Secuestro express" is a masterpiece, and not only I say as Venezuelan, as critician too, the special effects with the DV cameras it really throw us to an exciting movie and I can see many times without getting tired of it.So, to the world, Venezuela is a truthfully country, very rich, but as you well know, with presidents as Chavez, we are screwed up and we're converted in a "País tercermundista".
Directed by Jonathan Jakubowicz, from Venezuela, his movie focuses on a deadly reality of the country, as well of some Latin America countries where kidnapping is serious business for a criminal element that knows the ropes as to what to do.
I guess the director is antichavez like most upper-class people in Venezuela, but mixing politics seems unnecessary to me in this case, since at the end you get to see why Chavez is there in the first place, which is the huge inequality left by the so called democratic governments throughout Latin America. |
tt0148508 | Il mio West | The story begins in 1860 in Basin Field, a small (fictional) village on the slopes of the great mountains that border Canada in the "Far West." The film depicts the idealistic lifestyle of an old West farmer, his Indian wife and half-breed son, who narrates the tale. The main character is "Doc" (Pieraccioni), the village doctor, his Indian wife Pearl (Holt) and their son Jeremiah.
Their idyllic life is disrupted when Doc's father Johnny Lowen (Keitel), an old gunslinger, suddenly shows up on the farm. Johnny says he has returned home to find rest and to finally retire. The family is not happy with his return, given his past lifestyle and mistreatment of his family.
After his arrival in the village, Jack Sikora (Bowie), a killer who has been chasing Johnny for years, and his two henchmen hears he has returned. Jack is determined to kill Johnny, and does everything in his power to force his rival to accept a duel to the death. Mary, the Saloon madam tries to kill Sikora, but is killed in the process. Given Jonny's reluctance to accept a duel, Jack kidnaps Doc's son Jeremiah. Johnny accepts the duel in order to save Jeremiah, but ultimately the village idiot manages to kill Jack by an accidental fire. | western | train | wikipedia | Good subtle humor and still real..
If you would enjoy seeing some of the formula characters and scenes in a western presented in new ways, you might like this.
Some of these formulas are treated with quietly humorous disrespect, be warned, if you take westerns seriously.
Think of a good "Gunsmoke" episode made as a movie for the level of plot depth.
Scenes weren't always smoothly connected, some had a "plot requirement" feel but I do wonder what ended up on the cutting room floor.
People wore dirty clothes, gunshots produced blood, town citizens were parochial and short-sighted, the basics I need to stay involved.
Bowie is appropriately evil, and does sensible evil things to achieve his goals!.
NICE MOVIE, FUNNY COMEDY.
It isn't a Pieraccioni's movie.
Yes, he play in that movie and he write something about that movie but he is not the director, and so it is different from the other Pieraccioni's movies, but it is funny , not like the other, but it has got a nice story too.
one among the worst Italian movies ever..
Leonardo Pieraccioni is a nice, handsome man who made some successful comedy (romantic)movies in Italy, targeting the 20-30 years middle class womans.
No gross matters, no sex , no curse language , I would to say no humor and no fun but it is just my opinion.This time he make an attemp with a spaghetti comedy western and failed miserably.
The plot is absurd and amateurish, the actors (pretty goods) were wasted in a crappy plot with just some glimpses .
Do you want to enjoy yourself a Italian comedy?
Do you want to see a spaghetti western?
Schmaltzy Stuff, Kietel And Bowie Make It Fun Though..
Aging gunfighter Harvey Kietel returns to his family after twenty years, to find his wife dead and his only son a pacifist doctor.
He's soon followed by degenerate hick David Bowie, who wants his chance to best Kietel and won't take "No" for an answer.The first half of this tender-hearted, politically correct Italian western (the first in awhile) is pretty syrupy, but alright as long as you're not expecting a rip-roaring spaghetti western.
Harvey Kietel is as excellent as always and the location photography pretty good.Things get weird in the second half, when a scenery-chewing Bowie and his motley crew arrive to begin a vigil outside Kietel's house.
Here he's quite amusing, talking with the same fake southern accent he used for his cameo appearance in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me and even getting a chance to strum his guitar and sing, that is until he bashes it over the head of another character.I couldn't help but like it..
Several of the comments here show negative response to what I feel is really a kind of tribute film to the great Sergio Leone.
This film could easily have been Parmesan cheese atop the fabulous westerns Leone and Clint Eastwood created, but I think it keeps a good blend with the genre.
Yes, the main character, Doc, is speaking in Italian and English is dubbed in.
But that's a big part of the charm of all "foreign" films, especially the spaghetti westerns.
And having spent my childhood in Oklahoma, I thought Bowie's psychotic bad man accent was surprisingly good (although I think Dwight Yoakam would have made a better casting choice).
I thought the choice of the Marley's reggaeesque tune was more than suitable, especially since one of the "bad guy" characters was Rastafarian - one of many colorful additions that, in my view, bring nice flavors to the genre.My only complaint after seeing the film once is that it's too short.
If it were expanded to include more about Keitel's character and his earlier relationship with Bowie's, the climactic scene could have carried more punch - maybe not along the lines of the Bronson/Fonda gunfight in Once Upon a Time in the West, but richer character development would definitely have added more suspense and contributed to bringing a well-worn genre into the 21st century.I don't think anyone who is a true fan of spaghetti westerns would be disappointed in spending 95 minutes with a tastefully created, colorful, quirky film like this..
One wonders if this film was actually directed by a single human being with a creative thought process.
It feels as if the screenplay was generated by some sort of computer after being fed with the essential plot points of the Hollywood western.
The film lurches along awkwardly, trying not to miss any of the preprogrammed beats.
It's rather a grubby combination of far far better films such as "Shane", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "The Shootist", "High Noon" or even that evergreen, "The Angel and the Badman".
"The Gunslinger's Revenge" even throws in some "Dances With Wolves" moments among the local population of amazingly genial and chipper Native Americans.
One would hope this can be attributed to the script which relies on every Western gunfighter cliché ever produced and handcuffs the actors to characters without any range or depth.And speaking of Lee Marvin's brilliant performance as the vile, mentally unhinged Liberty Valance...What cinematic genius suggested that David Bowie try the ghastly pseudo-Southern dialect as the mentally unbalanced gunfighter who tracks Keitel to his hometown?
It sorted through the data and decided in lieu of being able to dress Bowie as former Nazi officer (always a quick way to establish a character as a freelance sadist), they would opt for a Confederate officer instead.
Of course, it all makes perfect sense -- just like the rest of this appalling film..
Shot in the Apennines mountains in central Italy, by Italian Box Office breaker Piraccioni and his friend Veronesi, this 'comedy'- of- sorts makes us crave for the days of REAL spaghetti-westerns...
Apparently Bowie wanted to 'have fun' and "work with Harvey Keitel, an actor I very much admire...".
This is no "Once upon a time in the West" by 'maestro' Sergio Leone.
Such good taste as a musician (Bowie) doesn't guarantee the same when it comes to choosing a script.
p.s. Mr Keitel, on the other hand, has a shoddy 'track record' too, with the exception of a handful of 'stand out' films and roles...
"You got a nice little town here...
GREAT PLACE TO DIE!" Spoken with what could be the worst British/Southern/Western accent ever recorded, psychopath gunfighter Jack Sikora (Bowie) tries to draw out retired gunfighter Johnny Lowen (Keitel).
This is not a comedy, though I understand why someone would try to pass it off as one- it IS funny to see Bowie try to act 'old west'.
That didn't happen here, though I suspect audience response (in the US, anyway) caused those responsible for the movie to re-think their strategy and throw the comedy label on it.
Making sound bites from Bowie's western phrases has been a hoot (or as he might say, 'a hut').
"This ain't a bad dream, Johnny, it's really me", says Jack/Bowie.
Beginning with his first line of dialogue, one hopes that the main character (Leonardo Pieraccioni) will get shot.
Keitel can't do anything with the script (and you can't blame him for not really trying).
I don't understand the complaints about Bowie ...
But it's the dialogue, story, and main actor that kill the film.
The main characted give his lines in English, but has clearly been dubbed by a native speaker (unfortunately, not an actor).
Attempts to reclassify it as a some sort of intentionally pastiche cult comedy are wishful thinking.
Not that the film doesn't inspire a degree of laughter ....
Only because of Bowie.
This spaghetti-western is worth watching only because of one thing.
O.K., maybe two: the stars of the project are Harvey Keitel and David Bowie.
During the first half of the movie we're dealing with some strange combination of a cowboy story, comedy (not very bright, I must say) and...
family movie.
Something interesting starts to happen when Bowie gets on the stage, but for his appearance we have to wait for a fifty minutes (fifty three, to be more specific).
In case you don't admire the gentleman, you should forget about "Il mio west" - it's the kind of a flick that makes you think: why the hell someone decided to film this?.
Anybody knowing the previous movies with Pieraccioni will be very mad.
It's not a western, it's not a romance, it's not a comedy.
Absolutely the worst movie in many years!!.
I was so surprised how this movie had bad writing, a worse storyline while employing a cast like Harvey Keitel and David Bowie.
Not to mention the fact that, while dubbing a movie ruins a film altogether, they've dubbed the doctor's lines in English.
We were wondering why that actor was so bad.The dubbing ruined part of the intensity the actor might have brought, but it could have never made up for the multitude of flaws and the bad ending this movie had.
Is it any wonder the voting for this movie is going lower and lower?I had "Unforgiven" in the DVD player, ready to go, but put it off until the end, just to see how the movie turned out...
Two bad guys, one lousy good guy and one irritating kid..
Lousy excuse for a western.
The protagonist is hard to like at all, and his Grandfather, Harvey Keitel as Johhny Lowden, is misused and colorless.
The worst part of the whole script is how a tribe of Native Americans sit at their village and wait for the village news carrier come and tell everyone of the arrival of Johnny Lowden and then David Bowie's character (one of the worst characters I've ever seen).
The village never does anything but be a sounding board and then parties after the bad guy is dead, and one must wonder why the hell do they care?
The town loon is a poorly developed character who looses a chance to be of much value except at the end.
Even Harvey Keitel finds it hard to fake laughter at the conclusion.The western genre is not dead, but this poor excuse for a story should have been a "pass" and never green-lighted..
I think that Pieraccioni made one very good film that is "Il ciclone", then he used the fame he got with this movie to sell other ones.
I think he should stop, and then appear again only with a movie at the same level as "il ciclone" was; otherwise he is going to ruin the good image he has now..
Not only does "Gunslinger's Revenge" qualify as a pre-Sergio Leone style western from the 1960s when European filmmakers imitated American westerns before Leone reinvented the genre, but it also emerges as a post-Sergio Leone, neo-spaghetti western in an age when only a handful of horse operas are produced.
Clearly, the filmmakers didn't want their movie to resemble a traditional spaghetti western and it doesn't look like a typical European oater.
Although "Gunslinger's Revenge" was lensed in Italy, the lush, green surroundings where it was photographed look more in keeping with an American western.
"Suddenly Paradise" director Giovanni Versonesi and actor/scenarist Leonardo Piersaccioni freely adapted Vincenzo Pardini's novel Jodo Cartamigli for "Gunslinger's Revenge." Since I haven't read the novel, I have no way of verifying whether Versonesi or Piersaccioni remained faithful to the source material.
Okay, you can tell that they dubbed some of the actors, simply because their dialogue is far too loud and far too clear.
On the whole, despite the oddball casting, Versonesi has fashioned an interesting, above-average western with a surprise ending.
"Gunslinger's Revenge" is all about the theme of family.
Its' live-by-the-gun or die-by-the-gun theme is the standard stuff of 1950s American westerns."Gunslinger's Revenge" opens with the words: "The West is where every child played cowboys and Indians." Indeed, "Gunslinger's Revenge" is a western more in the tradition of "Shane." Like the novel "Shane," "Gunslinger's Revenge" is told from the perspective of a young, cheerful, half-breed, elementary school age boy named Jeremiah (Yudii Mercredi) who would rather play hooky from school than suffer indoors at the mercy of a stern schoolmarm.
Notorious gunslinger John Lowen (Harvey Keitel of "Pulp Fiction") returns to his home town of Basin Fields after a lifetime of wandering to hang up his six-shooter.
He wants to renew his family ties with his son, Doc Lowen (Leonardo Piersaccioni of "The Prince and the Pirate"), who has never carried a gun but has acquired a reputation for settling fights between the townspeople.
John Lowen discovers that his son has married an Indian squaw and his success at doctoring the locals has allowed his wife and him to live a normal life without prejudice.
Initially, Doc isn't overjoyed to see his long lost papa; he doesn't like it that John abandoned his mother and him in his youth to wander in search of adventure.
Nevertheless, Doc and his wife Pearl (Sandrine Holt of "Starship Troopers 2") allow him to stay with them in the same house that he grew up in as a youth.
John Lowen has such a reputation that a detachment of cavalry shows up in town to observe his behavior.
John convinces the captain that he has come back home, never to leave again.A psychopathic gunslinger, Jack Sikora and his multi-culturally diverse gang of pistoleros show up in Basin Fields after the cavalry leave.
Sikora has come to kill John.
The unusual casting of British rock star David Bowie as Sikora is hard to swallow at first, but Bowie is appropriately homicidal as Sikora and he is prepared to kill anybodyman or womanwithout a qualm that poses a threat to him.
Sikora's gang consists of a white guy, a black guy, and a woman in leather with a six-gun.
John had buried his shell belt and six-shooter in the graveyard to keep his son happy, but the happiness doesn't last long once Sikora and his gang arrive to terrorize the town.
A crazy man named Joshua (Jim van der Woude who looks like long-time Hollywood supporting actor Hank Worden) live with Doc, Pearl, and Jeremiah.
Predictably, Sikora tries to prod John into a gunfight, but John will have nothing to do with Sikora.There is a good scene early in the action after John Lowen comes to town.
He scares the villain off when he assures his opponent that he can draw somebody else's gun and shoot him quicker than his opponent can clear leather.
Lowen's advice about how to win in a shoot-out is unlike anything you've ever seen in a western, too.
Meaning, if your opponent is a right-handed shooter, you jump to the right and shoot because he won't move in the opposite direction."Gunslinger's Revenge" is actually pretty good for a foreign western..
"If a man's got a good sense of balance, he'll never die.".
Johnny Lowen's (Harvey Keitel) advice to 'go the other way' to his young grandson was well executed by crazy old Joshua (Jim van der Woude) in what was a cool ending for an evil David Bowie.I have to admit, seeing Bowie's name in the credits was the main reason I tuned into this one on the Encore Western Channel.
Besides that, I really didn't need another one, as Westerns are my favorite genre and I catch as many as I can.
Another surprise was this one turning out to be a spaghetti Western of sorts, but instead of your classic Ennio Morricone score, the opening music more resembled something coming out of "The Godfather".
So in that respect this was more like a gangster Western, especially after Bowie and his crew showed up in Basin Flats.On the subject of Bowie as a Western villain, I had to groan a bit when he first came on screen.
Poor Mary, there was no way Jack Sikora (Bowie) could have known about the knife, but he didn't really need a reason to shoot her given his character.
Later he borrowed a page from Peter Townsend and The Who by whacking Joshua across the head with his guitar - nice touch.I suppose I should be more critical of the picture because other than Bowie, Keitel and the colorful cast of characters, this isn't one of the better Westerns you're likely to come across.
I didn't care a whole lot for Leonardo Pieraccioni as Doc Lowen; it's OK to be a pacifist in a Western but his luck would have run out if gunslinger Dad hadn't ridden into town.
One suggestion I would have made in the casting, since Joshua looked so much like Keith Richards, that's the guy I would have called on for more of a rock and roll flavor.
But man, you can't beat that weirdo showdown where Bowie looked like the man who fell to earth..
I liked this film for many reasons.
For one, many Native actors were involved, although it was a little on the Hollywood side.
Another reason: Sandrine Holt.
Even though she's not Native in real life, she may as well be one because she looks way more like a First Nations person than anything else.
I love how she portrays Native people in films!
I'm surprised that this one was completely directed and produced by Italians!
I mean it's a historically fictional Western.
Fortunately it's not another one of those spaghetti westerns where Clint Eastwood does his heroic stuff, although I like Clint Eastwood too.One thing did bother me about Johnny Lowen, it was obvious that he lip-synced his dialogue.
Now, I think it was really dumb to have Italian actors and actresses in this one because it ruined the film.
Obviously he can't speak a word of English in real life so I just feel that it was stupid to have a voice-over come in and speak for him!!
Other than that, it's still a fine film.
The Native actors were great as they usually are and Sandrine Holt was also great.
But what I found strange is WHY Jack Sikora confronted Johnny Lowen.
Some films will do that where the audience draws their own conclusions. |
tt0050839 | Peyton Place | In April 1941, in the seemingly idyllic New England town of Peyton Place, drunkard Lucas Cross (Arthur Kennedy) stumbles out of his house as his step-son Paul - fed up with Lucas' alcoholism - leaves town. Lucas's downtrodden wife, Nellie (Betty Field) goes to work as the housekeeper for Constance "Connie" MacKenzie (Lana Turner), a rather prim-acting local dress shop owner. The daughters of the two families, Allison MacKenzie (Diane Varsi) and Selena Cross (Hope Lange) are best friends and are about to graduate high school.
Following an argument about the merits of a good education, a stranger to the town, Michael Rossi (Lee Philips), is hired to be the new principal of the high school by the president of the school board, Leslie Harrington (Leon Ames), the owner of the local woolen mill; the students' choice for the position is long-time teacher, Miss Elsie Thornton (Mildred Dunnock). The board is composed of Dr. Matthew Swain (Lloyd Nolan), the town's main physician; town attorney, Charles Partridge (Staats Cotsworth); his snobbish and gossipy wife, Marion (Peg Hillias) and Seth Bushwell (Robert H. Harris) the editor in chief of The Peyton Place Times, the town's local newspaper. Dr. Swain and Seth become friends with the newcomer.
Arriving at the school, Rossi wins over Ms. Thornton by telling her that he wants to work with her. She is pleased with the newcomer and they get on well.
Later, while picking out dresses for Allison's birthday party, Connie encourages her daughter not to invite Betty Anderson (Terry Moore) to the party, due to Betty's overtly sexual style; ultimately, Constance reconsiders and allows Allison to invite anyone to her party. Betty arrives at Allison's party with Leslie Harrington's son Rodney (Barry Coe), who swiftly turns the affair into a make-out party and kisses Allison; the party is ended, however, when Connie walks in, embarrassing Allison by making a scene.
Later on, Allison becomes a witness to Lucas beating and abusing Selena.
Later that week, Rossi arrives at the MacKenzie house to announce that Allison has been named valedictorian, and he asks Connie to chaperone Allison's graduation dance, and the two slowly develop a romance. Meanwhile, Harrington tells his son, Rodney, that he will not accept his going to the graduation dance with a girl with such a bad reputation as Betty Anderson, and forces Rodney to call Betty and uninvite her to the dance.
Instead, Rodney goes with Allison, though Allison is in love with another classmate, the shy Norman Page (Russ Tamblyn) who has an overprotective, widowed mother, Evelyn Page (Erin O'Brien-Moore). When they get to the dance, Rodney splits off to make out with Betty in his car, but she is angry at him for dumping her and refuses to have sex with him. She hits him with her purse and storms away from the car.
During the traditional singing of "Auld Lang Syne", Rossi, realizing he is still new and not part of the town's traditions yet, asks Elsie Thornton to lead the singing, to the dismay and horror of Marion, who never liked Elsie, even going so far as to call her a drug addict. Outside, after dancing with her, he kisses Connie, but she again rejects his advances. Selena is escorted home by her boyfriend Ted Carter (David Nelson), and is later raped that night by her drunken step-father, Lucas.
Selena becomes pregnant, and when she goes to Dr. Swain for an abortion he refuses, and she confides in him that her step-father raped her. Swain confronts Lucas, and he is forced by Swain to promise to leave town after signing a confession, all of which Nellie accidentally witnesses. Lucas chases Selena out of revenge when she returns home, and although she escapes, she trips, falls and injures herself. After treating her, Swain enters the operation as an "appendectomy," though in fact she has had a miscarriage, blackmailing his nurse into cooperating. Nellie then becomes morosely despondent in response to what has happened.
At a Labor Day picnic that same year, Rodney and Betty reunite and go skinny dipping while Allison and Norman go swimming, in proper suits, nearby. Marion sees the nude couple and falsely making an assumption, tells Connie it was Allison and Norman, whom she had earlier seen on their way to the lake. This disgusts her husband, Charles.
Connie explodes at Allison for causing rumors. They fight, and Connie tells her that Allison's father was actually married to another woman when she became pregnant with her. Allison runs upstairs and finds that Nellie Cross has committed suicide by hanging herself in a closet. This puts Allison into a state of shock, and she is confined to a bed for a time. Sometime after, Rodney and Betty elope, infuriating Rodney's father Leslie. Allison tells her mother that when she is well enough she is going to leave Peyton Place for New York City, even if she is forced to do the same things her mother did. After saying a tearful goodbye to Selena, Allison makes good on her promise to leave town.
World War II erupts during December 1941, and the men of Peyton Place go off to war. However, when Rodney is killed in action the next autumn, his now-chastened father offers to take care of his widow, Betty, and she is at last welcomed into the family. Meanwhile, during Christmas of 1942 Connie visits Rossi to apologize for being so dismissive of him, and, when she confesses that she was a married man's mistress, Rossi decides to stay in Peyton Place and promises her his offer for marriage is still open. During the same time, a drunken Lucas returns from the Navy and tries to rape Selena again, but this time she bludgeons him to death in self-defense.
Shortly after Easter of 1943, Selena tearfully confesses the killing to Connie and is later arrested and tried by the District Attorney (Lorne Greene) for murder. Allison, still estranged from Connie, returns for the trial, as does Norman, and the truth about Selena's self-defense, her step-father's abuse and her miscarriage - as well as Dr. Swain's false report and Connie's failure as a mother - all come to light. Dr. Swain also admonishes the town for their gossipy nature, and their failure to offer help to Selena when she needed it, to the disgust and fury of Marion. Ultimately, Selena is acquitted, and she and Ted are free to marry.
Allison, after seeing her mother's emotional breakdown, has a change of heart, and approaches Connie at the steps of their home with a hope of reconciliation. Norman is also welcomed into the house. | murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | And the film's unraveling of the town's secrets is handled well - building up like a ball of snow as each successive scandal is unearthed.We meet the townspeople from the point-of-view of Allison Mackenzie(Diane Varsi), the sweet and sheltered daughter of Constance(Lana Turner).
Peyton Place is a movie that strips away the candy-coated exterior which surrounds many a 50s film, and shows the raw and flawed lives of people who are struggling with issues that viewers in today's society can still relate to.Although a different genre, it wasn't until I delved deeper into Film Noir that I discovered more films that presented an edgier and raw window into the world of the 40s and 50s.
Everybody knows everyone so if things aren't quite fitting the America of Norman Rockwell you keep them behind closed doors.Like Lana Turner never bothering to tell daughter Diane Varsi that she's an out of wedlock child, like poor Russ Tamblyn not being able to relate to the opposite sex in his teen years, like Hope Lange living with a brutal rampaging father in Arthur Kennedy who physically abuses her mother Betty Field and does more than that with her.Leon Ames as the town's employer, owner of the mill where most of the town works maybe the leading citizen, but the town's moral authority is Lloyd Nolan, a very wise and caring doctor, the kind of small town doctor who's a passing memory.It's impossible to describe the plot of Peyton Place because there are so many strands in the plot fabric.
The whole thing is narrated by Diane Varsi as Allison McKenzie who grew up and wrote a book about her home town.Peyton Place got nine Oscar nominations, but unfortunately lost a lot of awards it was up for to The Bridge On The River Kwai.
Russ Tamblyn and Arthur Kennedy split the vote and Red Buttons won for Sayonara for Best Supporting Actor and the same thing happened with the Best Supporting Actress with Diane Varsi and Hope Lange splitting for Miyoshi Umeki to win for Sayonara as well.The Code was still firmly in place and had it not been I think Russ Tamblyn's character would have been more explicitly gay.
Then as now, gays are not real comfortable in most small towns.Still for those who like their big screen soap operas, you'll love Peyton Place, even with changing mores the film holds up well..
Based on the bestselling novel by Grace Metalious, Peyton Place is a solid melodrama all about the secrets and scandals of a small New England town.
Small town scandal has been a topic for movies forever and a day, but none better than PEYTON PLACE.
But Lana Turner, Diane Varsi, Russ Tamblyn, Terry Moore, Barry Coe, Mildred Dunnock, Lloyd Nolan, Leon Ames, and Hope Lange give enormously sensitive performances that will live with me for a long time.
Lana Turner gets top billing in this film adaptation of Grace Metalious' scandalous novel, Peyton Place, a small town in the New England states just before WWII.
The actors that really come off the best are Terry Moore, as the town tramp (who's really not that bad;) Diane Varsi (as the daughter who discovers who or what she really is;) Arthur Kennedy as the town drunk, who's totally in character; Lloyd Nolan, as the doctor providing care and common sense to those that will listen; and lastly Lana Turner, who was given only one Oscar nomination in her movie career, for this film.
Grace Metalious' blockbuster of a novel had remained on the New York Times best seller list for more than a year, and its film adaptation was highly anticipated by millions who had devoured the trashy book.
Her fellow residents protested, but readers didn't care - they were fascinated by her tawdry tale of sex and scandal hidden away behind the white picket fences of small-town America.Peyton Place is peopled by a colorful array of characters, chief among them Constance Mackenzie, owner of a dress shop, a cold, repressed woman and single mother of poetic and virginal Allison, a high school student and aspiring writer.
"Peyton Place" isn't all sex and sin; set during the period leading into World War II, it also captures the mood of a small town as it prepares to send its young sons off to war.What no longer stands the test of time is the acting of most of the cast.
The best performances are offered by players in secondary roles, particularly Mildred Dunnock as Mrs.Thornton, the teacher whose dream of promotion to principal is dashed by the arrival of Rossi; Arthur Kennedy as Lucas, Selena's hard-drinking, abusive stepfather; Terry Moore (who allegedly later married Howard Hughes in a secret ceremony) as Betty Anderson, who sets her sights on Rodney as a steppingstone to a better life; and Leon Ames as the elder Harrington, who scorns his son's choice of a bride.
(While none of the cast made any attempt at a New England accent, Varsi's speech pattern suggests a regional dialect that's both undefinable and at times grating.) In general, the acting styles on display here are those found in most sudsers of the decade, overly dramatic and punctuated by facial expressions rarely seen in real life."Peyton Place" seems ripe for a remake.
There's more filth and dirt in the dumpster!" While it's true that the world has taken more than a few spins since 1957, and while it's true that the film tends to date a bit, "Peyton Place" is still, at it's best, top-notch entertainment.Lana Turner, in what was, regrettably, her only Oscar-nomination, scores solidly as the pivotal character of Constance McKenzie.
Arthur Kennedy lends his usual understated but powerful presence to the principal heavy of the piece, Lucas Cross, and the young Hope Lange, whom a later generation probably remembers best for TV's "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir," gives a solid performance as Selena Cross, the girl with a secret from the wrong side of the tracks.
Others in the notable cast include such reliable performers as Lloyd Nolan, Russ Tamblyn, Betty Field, and a two years pre - "Bonanza" Lorne Greene, all turning in fine performances.If you can, see this film in letterbox, if only for the beautiful Camden, Maine, scenery, beautifully captured by William C.
"Peyton Place" was historically very interesting cause it was virtually the first miniseries in movie theaters.After viewing it,you 've got the strange feeling of having been told ten stories or to have seen ten or twelve episodes of a miniseries.Adapted from a bestseller which spawned a -real-TV miniseries this time- in the sixties,Dorothy Malone and Mia Farrow replacing Turner and Diane Varsi ,it is the granddaddy of the soap opera miniseries we've been seeing for all those years.Classy soap opera indeed.Although the McKenzie (Turner and Varsi) are in the center of the plot,you can hardly call them "main characters"."Peyton Place" is made of many subplots which interfere or don't.It depicts life in a small provincial town where the main danger is gossips.The fear that" people will talk" is everywhere mainly if ,like Constance ,Serena and her mother you have secrets to conceal.Doctor Matthew Swain 's final speech deals with the talk of the town.A soap opera maybe ,but one which depicts a not so rosy world: child abuse was not a subject movies often broached in the late fifties.My favorite scene is very short and might seem to some very down to earth: the drunkard's boy licks the home made cakes of the picnic,then stuffs himself with hot dogs and watermelon which he washed down with plenty of cola.This is not a comic relief,it makes you think:this boy is miserable,because ,even if the monster is away,he knows there's a crack in the mirror at home.Psychologically,they call that "compensation".My favorite character is Russ Tamblyn's.Although many of the problems of PP are dated now,his is still around today: the shy boy,whose mother is over possessive ,who does believe he is "a sissy,a coward" and who thinks he will never know a girl's true love because he is too gauche.There are plenty of them even now.Peyton Place is no masterpiece but it is really an entertaining film.Like this?Try these....Imitation of life Douglas Sirk 1959Rebel without a cause Nicholas Ray 1955.
In spite of the flaws (or even because of the flaws?), many of the performances, including Lana Turner, Hope Lange, Arthur Kennedy and, especially, Lloyd Nolan as the town doctor and the voice of reason, were outstanding.
I just finished the book Peyton Place last night and was excited to get the movie on laserdisc to see how Hollywood interpreted the true to life stories of the numerous characters in the novel.
For people who dismissd Lana as a plastic creation out of the MGM dramatic school,check out this fine film.The settings are beautiful,the acting first rate.Although Lee Phillips as Michael Rossi seems a bit bland.Jeff Chandler (who appears in the sequel) might have been a better choice).Possibly the flop teaming he did with Turner in The Lady Takes a Flier might have caused him to be passed by.The fine cast of character actors really makes this picture work,especially Lloyd Nolan as the town doctor and Arthur Kennedy as the town drunk.Passed over in comments was Mildred Dunnock as the devoted teacher who is passed over to be principal.Her words to Allison about it are very touching.Miss Dunnock usually played nagging mothers,so it's a treat to see her playing a nice,vulnerable person.Susan Hayward was supposedly set to play Constance but Lana was definitely the best choice.The pity is Diane Varsi never followed up her career and quit the business.Her Allyson was very good..
Grace Metalious' mega-selling "Peyton Place" (1956) made it to the big screen the following year, and came to represent small-town sexual repressions; moreover, it set a standard for a new kind of soap opera, with its characters' sexual practices pushed up a notch.
There were "Oscar" nominations for protagonist writer Diane Varsi (as Allison MacKenzie), tightly-wound mother Lana Turner (as Constance MacKenzie), shack-dwelling friend Hope Lange (as Selena Cross), sensitive boyfriend Russ Tamblyn (as Norman Page), and alcoholic janitor Arthur Kennedy (as Lucas Cross).
If they had been given, "Peyton Place" might have won some casting and acting ensemble awards.********* Peyton Place (12/11/57) Mark Robson ~ Diane Varsi, Lana Turner, Hope Lange, Russ Tamblyn.
Today, given the lack of restrictions and censorship, the results would have been more graphic and the film would have exploited all the more vulgar aspects of the novel.Lana Turner gives her finest mature performance as Constance, the worried mother who keeps her past a secret until she finally reveals it to her rebellious daughter, well played by Diane Varsi.
Their emotional confrontations are highly satisfying from a dramatic standpoint, making it easy to understand why both actresses won Oscar nominations.Others in the large cast do exceptional jobs--everyone, from Russ Tamblyn (as Norman), Lee Phillips, Hope Lange, Arthur Kennedy, Mildred Dunnock, Lloyd Nolan, Leon Ames, Terry Moore, Betty Field--all give compelling performances under Mark Robson's direction.
Franz Waxman's soaring musical score is one of his finest, completely capturing the moods and seasons of this New England drama.Another novel of small town hypocrisy was made into a stunning movie in 1942--KING'S ROW--and it too did a marvelous job of transferring a bulky, rambling novel into a coherent multi-plot film.
Scenes are designed with the dramatized emphasis of a fashion magazine photoshoot, practically screaming that, yes, the film has a big-budget, and yes, it can afford to be filmed in CinemaScope.Peyton Place isn't a smart melodrama cut from the same cloth as Written on the Wind, but thanks to shows like Twin Peaks, vintage soap has been given an entirely new edge.
All I will say is that Lana Turner is named Constance McKenzie (a name that was perhaps chosen by a soap opera character generator), and she, along with her daughter (Diane Varsi), acquaintances, and old-time friends, live in Peyton Place, an idyllic town stationed in rural New England.
Lana Turner gets to look pained throughout as the frigid matriarch Constance McKenzie with her own dark secret but does so with aplomb, Arthur Kennedy tears into his part as the reprobate villain of the piece and Diane Varsi is good as Alison, the town's awakening conscience.
Glossy melodrama directed by Mark Robson allows star Lana Turner to suffer nobly, playing single mother to graduating teenager Diane Varsi, harboring a skeleton in her family closet while being romanced by high school principal Lee Philips (in an appealing performance).
Lana Turner gives her best performance ever, minimizing any annoying postures, heading a mostly noble ensemble cast, with the possible exception of Lee Phillips, handsome as the small town's new principal, but somewhat grating in character.
It would have been a good, but not great movie.Peyton Place with Lana Turner is a time capsule of small town Ameicana, without some cliché's which remained for later versions of Peyton place and its TV versions.The original film also captured the way Americans were affected by the coming of WWII.
Based on a controversial (at the time, at least) novel, PEYTON PLACE is a story about the lives and secrets of people who live in a small New England town.
"Peyton Place" is one of those old films that dutifully records the values and mores of a conservative, Victorian era, especially in the Lana Turner character.
The story is about Allison MacKenzie, played by Hope Lange, and her life in a small town in New England.
The outstanding cast, especially the principal leads: Lana Turner, Russ Tamblyn, Diana Varsi, Hope Lange, Terry Moore have never been better.
The cast is headed by fine character actor, Lloyd Nolan, newcomers Diane Varsi, Hope Lange and Lee Phillips (who later became a reliable director of television films), the underrated but highly talented Russ Tamblyn, perhaps Lana Turner's best performance, and the always engrossing Arthur Kennedy.
In the novel, Allison McKenzie (the aspiring writer), Norman Page (mama's boy), Selena Cross (Allison's best friend who is sexually molested by her stepfather Lucas), Ted Carter (Selena's boyfriend), Rodney Harrington (Allison's crush), and Betty Anderson (the town tramp) attend Peyton Place Junior High School.
Michael Rossi, who wins Allison's mother, Constance Mckenzie's heart, comes to town to accept a job as principal at Peyton Place High School.
The story takes place in the late 1930s and begins as the High School's new principal, Michael Rossi (Lee Philips), arrives in town to assume his duties...Constance MacKenzie (Lana Turner) is an attractive widow who owns a dress shop...
She runs it efficiently but is an over-protective mother who removes all choices from her teenager daughter, Allison (Diane Varsi), including her selection of friends
Allison seems a strong candidate for rebellion once the opportunity arises
Allison's best friend is Selena Cross (Hope Lange), who lives in a shack on the wrong side of town with her mother, Constance's housekeeper Betty Field, and her drunk stepfather, Lucas (Arthur Kennedy).There is also Russ Tamblyn, "stuck" in a failure cycle emotionally, and socially; Barry Coy, the wild son of the town's richest businessman; Terry Moore, the high school flirt; David Nelson, the boyfriend of Selena Cross; and Doc Swain (Lloyd Nolan), the voice of logic...
In 1941, in the small town of Peyton Place, Michael Rossi (Lee Phillips) is hired as the new principal of the local high school.
However, Dr. Swain exposes the sordid, hypocrite and despicable moral behavior of the local gossipy and intolerant dwellers and tells the drama of Selena to the jury."Peyton Place" is a dated melodrama, a soap opera that shows the stereotypical lifestyle of a small town in America in the 40's.
Now, with that I really take exception, and the reason is that I grew up in a small town in the 1950s (the story takes place in the 1940s), and I could identify with most of the characters in the film.
It all comes down to how to save Selena from life in prison after she murders her stepfather, who intends to rape her a second time.Lana Turner gets top billing here, although it's actually Hope Lange and Diane Varsi who really have the dominant roles.
Lee Phillips plays Michael Rossi, a newcomer to Peyton Place who has been hired as the new high school principal, a job that all the students were sure would go to beloved English teacher Ellie Thornton (Mildred Dunnock), who finds himself attracted to Constance MacKenzie.Despite John Michael Hayes' somewhat watered down screenplay, the spirit of Metalious' steamy novel still pervades as we watch small town morality being challenged and championed at every turn.
Lee Phillips plays Michael Rossi, a newcomer to Peyton Place who has been hired as the new high school principal, a job that all the students were sure would go to beloved English teacher Ellie Thornton (Mildred Dunnock), who finds himself attracted to Constance MacKenzie.There are some dated elements here, but this film pretty much invented the genre known as soap opera and a few years later, in addition to a sequel, would become the first prime time television soap opera, which was actually broadcast two days a week.Mark Robson's sensitive direction is a big plus and the cast is first rate.
Even Lucas Cross (Arthur Kennedy) gets his secrets kept, and he's guilty of raping and impregnating his step-daughter, Selena (Hope Lange).The glue of the story is Lana Turner's Constance McKenzie, a beautiful but sexually frustrated "widow" with a teenaged daughter (Diane Varsi) about to graduate from high school.
Director Mark Robson would go on to direct the 1967 film version of "Valley Of The Dolls", while Peyton Place would inspire a sequel book and film, as well as a primetime soap opera from 1964 to 1967.A box-office smash upon its release in 1957, more than partly due, no doubt to the scandal which immediately followed the 1958 Oscars for which Turner, Varsi, Lange, Kennedy and Tamblyn received nominations for their performances in the film. |
tt0072822 | Cornbread, Earl and Me | The film focuses on three African-American youths living in an urban neighborhood. Nathaniel Hamilton (Jamaal Wilkes, credited as Keith Wilkes) is a star basketball player from the neighborhood, who also goes by the nickname of "Cornbread." In the movie, he epitomizes the dream of the neighborhood to be successful, as he is about to become the first from his district to enter college on an athletic scholarship. He is also a local hero to the much younger friends Earl Carter (Tierre Turner) and Wilford Robinson (Laurence Fishburne). The plot thickens after a pick-up basketball game ends because of a heavy rain, and all the kids run to the local store and hang out, waiting for the rain to end. All the kids leave, except for Cornbread, Earl and Wilford. Earl and Wilford get into a playful argument about how fast Cornbread can run home. It is decided that Cornbread should make it home in 25 seconds, so he runs off, after buying another soda for himself. Unknown to all of them, an assault suspect is in the neighborhood, and is dressed like Cornbread. The two police officers are hot on the suspect's trail, but lose him in the rain. As the police officers are coming out of an alleyway, they see Cornbread running by and mistake him for the suspect they're looking for. Subsequently, Cornbread is shot in the back, and dies in the middle of the street. Wilford screams hysterically, and a riot ensues. The coroner's inquest is hampered by severe police intimidation, and no one knows anything about the shooting, except for Wilford, who becomes a man on the witness stand by telling exactly what he saw, in graphic detail. | murder | train | wikipedia | Early Comment on Racial Profiling.
A kid witnesses the shooting death of the neighborhood basketball star.
The basketball player had been mistaken by the police as a crime suspect.
The kid is subjected to harrassment from the policement involved to keep quiet about what he knows.
The cops even go so far as to intimidate his mother.
This is an early film appearance of Lawrence Fishburne's.
He was thirteen or fourteen when he did this movie.
The always magnificent late Rosalind Cash plays his mother.
The film makes a sharp comment about the conflicts people have with the very people who are supposed to be protecting them..
The message and delivery are BOTH great.
I was very disturbed by the negative review given by a man who actually lived during the times dramatize in "Cornbread, Earl and Me." I am a 26-year-old Black female watching this movie for the first time.
I found that every issue addressed in this movie is transcendent, relevant even today.It amazes me that we overlook the importance of a message simply because of the delivery.
In all fairness to this movie, there is no blaxploitation present; the language, attire, scenery, etc., everything necessary for a realistic plot, is perfect for the setting and time frame of this movie.
Regarding the comment about "ghetto language" there is a balance between the use of the formal and informal in the movie.As an English teacher, and one who has a strong disdain for negative images of African-Americans, I can honestly say that this movie's depiction of African-American life was very well done.
It was also poignant and ahead of its time.
It is movie that, when the time comes, I will show to my children as a reference to how very little times have changed regarding the ease of wrongful deaths, slandering of names, harassment of witnesses because of racial advantages, or rather disadvantages.The movie is GREAT;-).
Promising film hampered it's by music.
This is a rather well done film with great performances.
Where it drops the ball is on the overdramatic music that sledgehammers the emotional tone of the more dramatic scenes.It resists the temptation of villianizing all of the antagonists, especially the judge (which no doubt would've been portrayed as racist and corrupt in a similar film made today).Bernie Casey (who I'll always think of as U.N Jefferson in Revenge Of The Nerds) is terrific and it's too bad I don't see him in too many films today.Great 70's feel and the first appearance of Larry Fishburn makes this a film to check out..
Heartfelt and moving film.
I think the label of blaxploitation for this film is quite unfair- it's heartfelt, various Black and White characters are shown as flawed rather than the "us vs.
them" mentality of many racially charged films of that era- and you deeply care about what happens to everyone involved.
Plus Moses Gunn is as fine an actor as ever set foot on the silver screen.
Just thoroughly enjoyed it in spite of low budget feel and some clichéd moments.
Additionally, I was quite saddened to find that so many of the cast died relatively young.
For a film from the mid 70s, there's an awful lot of actors in this movie no longer with us..
HORRIBLE, cheesy Movie!!!!.
I saw this film in the theater in 1975 when it came out.
It bothered me a lot then, because I was a 10-year old, insecure black boy and I believed the things I saw on film.
I was really sensitive to violent images on screen in those days (not that they mean nothing now, but I'm definitely more desensitized).
Anyway, seeing an 18-year old black man shot and killed on screen really made me feel insecure about my own future.Anyway, I just watched this movie again for the first time in 30 years.
This movie sucks!!!
All of the black characters are like "Ohh, Lawd...
we in de ghetto, sho nuff!" All the white characters are horribly racist and every time they open their mouths, no matter what they say, it seems to come out as "nigger!" I'm sure some will say, "Well, that's the way it was in 1975 and these blaxploitation film paved an importance on the way to current progress.
This movie is so bad it's more of a joke than Saturday Night Live..
The film does have a moderately intriguing mesage about polkice brutality and political corruption being obscenely hoisted upon African American communities in the urban United States.
That said, the film is horribly dated, and elements of it are unnacceptable by today's standards.
I mean the slain icon's name is Cornbread for Pete's sake!!!
Moreover, the societal corruption is presented in a way that makes us feel sad and powerless rather than angry and indignant.
This is really a product of the early seventies Blaxploitation genre that would be utterly offensive by today's standards were it not for the still relevant and timely subject matter of the film.
I fear, however, that the film's excess could leave white biggots laughing at the maudlin African American stereotypes on parade rather than addressing the political concerns of the film at all..
Sad Story about Black America.
This movie seemed to show what really goes on in inner-city America between black people and the police in general, even if the police like in this movie are black too.
This movie is set in 1974 Watts, fast back cars, number running pimps, soul music, Afro haircuts, everything 70's.
What happens in this film is two cops, one of whom is black mistake a black basketball player for a rapist and shoot him to death accidentally.
This basketball player Nathaniel "Cornbread" Hamilton is a well liked, talented, nice kid who is headed off to play D-1 ball.
He has never committed a crime in his life and has done well resisting ghetto temptations that lead to bad things but unfortunately for him, he is mistaken by the police and is shot to death on the spot before he can do anything else.
When his parents hire a black lawyer to charge the police for wrongful death, we see some really Uncle Tom type police officers who will stop at nothing to keep the truth from being revealed.
The black officer who pulled the trigger calls all the blacks in the neighborhood "savages" and the black precinct captain threatens to take away a woman's welfare check for having her son testify against the police.
Of course there are racist white cops too but that is expected in any Blaxploitation.
I feel this movie was pretty real based on things I've heard about the 70s and I think anyone who wants to see how bad it is between the black community and police departments anywhere and why it will remain bad in years to come..
A very flawed film of rare and beautiful moments; worth a look.
Cornbread, Earl and Me is a long way from a perfect film.
Some of the characters are overdrawn, and some are cornily acted.
At the center of the films' inevitable and staggering sequence is a very young Laurence Fishburn as the nominal "Me".
I had heard the odd-sounding title of this film for decades without seeing it.
When it came on THIS network, I settled in to give it a watch, expecting something poignant and earnest.
To snipe at the film unfairly, perhaps, I wish that the police hadn't been so corrupt by design.
I wish that the investigators from central precinct hadn't been so fast to act like jerks.
I guess I wanted the epically weepy, tragic vibe of the central scene to carry on for at least the middle third of the film.
But in rapid succession after the death, we are presented things which turn our sadness to anger and then to militancy.
At that point, even the most naive viewer will be aware of how heavily we are being manipulated by the film's makers.
The danger of subconscious and then conscious satirical reaction and resulting camp "failed seriousness" is never far away in the last half of this film.I don't disagree with the politics.
I don't disagree with the film's matter-of-fact assertion that police are often abusive of the privilege and power that their gun and authorization to use it gives them.
But knowing it, that's the thing: I don't have to sit still to be told it and retold it for an hour and a half.
Evoking a touching, bitterly poignant moment ...
now that's something many and many a freshman film maker attempts, and achieves only clumsily or not at all.
I have to give this director and writer kudos for lining up the awful moment where the two halves of the film, the pastoral and the horrific, collide and fracture the characters' world.
But I think they made a mistake in not allowing the rare and beautiful chord they achieve -- The Truth, wound up in sorrow-- to sustain for a bit longer.The courtroom scenes and a lot else in the last half are rather amateurishly staged and acted.
But, thank God, we will always have the first half of this film, with Laurence Fishburn's incredible breakdown, Rosiland Cash's terrible epiphany and the harrowing minutes after that.
These moments would seem to guarantee the film immortality.A generous 7 of 10 stars.
When this film is good, it wails.
When it is bad, it is truly some of the worst "blaxploitation" footage I have ever sat through.
If ever any film did, this one proves that a film's heart being in the right place will keep you on it's side, even as it wheels off it's axis and into the void..
Laurence Fishburne's First Role.
It was funny seeing the great actor Laurence Fishburne as a 13 year old child in this movie.
He could act back then.This movie had a whole lot of great actors who were guest stars in popular black sitcoms of the seventies.
Rosalind Cash as Laurence Fishburne's character's mother.
Antonio Fargas is type-casted with the same type of role in every movie that he is in.
This movie was made in the early 1970s.
A police shot an innocent black man.
The same thing is happening here today, over 30 years later!
Yes cops intimidate people just like they intimidated people in this movie..
Cornbread in 1975 is relevant to the lives of young Black men in 2006.
How many young Black men have been shot by police in the past few years?
Ignoring the number of men who have actually committed a crime, some police officers seem eager to shoot up our young men.
Consider the young man out for the evening with friends celebrating his bachelor party.
Yes it is political--what meaningful movies aren't?
It is meaningful in that the 1974 movie just foretold what was to continue for years to come.
It was rather goofy and poorly written but despite the script, the people in the movie are fine actors.
I liked it because it showcased some of the best actors in Hollywood from that period.
Watch it and judge for yourself..
Mislabeled as blaxploitation, this is too filled with heart and universal themes to keep that label..
You'd have to hold a heart of stone or be the world's biggest bigot not to shed a tear at this tragic story of a promising athlete cut down at the prime of his life, all because the police mistook him for somebody else.
It's as if this was ripped off the headlines today, yet told both with reality and compassion and fairness to everybody involved.
In short, this is a masterpiece that just happened to be released by a film studio known for making violent exploitation films that were made for a black audience.
This is a film that screams out to be seen by those who believe in civil justice for everybody, regardless of social status, color of their skin, and where they happen to live.When you first meet Cornbread (Keith Wilkes), you can tell that he has potential, not only as an athlete but as a human being.
Preteen neighbor Laurence Fishburne adores him, and the sudden murder of Cornbread by the police practically destroys him and his loving mother (a wonderful Rosalind Cash), stirring up the neighborhood and cresting hardships for Cash due to her disagreeable boyfriend and shifty city officials who want the case to be dropped.
They use all sort of threats to stop the case against the city from proceeding, even threatening to close Cash's welfare case, necessary because of her heart ailment.Moses Gunn is commanding as the legal counsel for Cornbread's family, the voice of ethics for the whole situation, and a real hero.
He's basically playing the Gary Cooper/James Stewart role in a very Capra like movie, a lost cause that needs to be fought, but not in the way some social justice groups try to fight the system today.
Cash is superb, winning the audience over when she shows despondence over Fishburne shoplifting a candybar, obviously determined to reach him right from wrong.
As for the character of Cornbread, he's shown to be a typical fun loving but family and neighborhood devoted young man, pranksterish as he involves his parents in an early morning basketball game in their dining room.
Madge Sinclair, as the mother, shows both amusement and sternness as she insists that the game be moved outside while complaining about being fouled in an attempt to grab the ball.
It is little bits like that which humanizes the characters in this urban neighborhood, although there are a few shady faces thrown in, too, particularly Antonio Fargas's one-eyed numbers runner who obviously intends to corrupt young Cornbread.
If this has one flaw, it is the fact that it tries to show too much in a short period of time, indicating that the intended slice of black urban life needed to be expanded a bit and that this was far too important a film to be released as a B picture.
40+ years later, this has the potential to become a masterpiece made before its time.
For me, it's a film I will cherish because it gives me a different perspective to look on when stories like this make headlines..
Cornbread, Earl and Me is NOT a blaxploitation film, what a ridiculous idea.
This is a serious, beautiful, and powerful drama that is well acted and thoughtfully conceived.
It also has a great soundtrack.
Obviously, it is also highly underrated.Everything in this movie rings true to real life, so it is funny to notice that some other reviewers say the opposite.
It seems to me their problem is that it doesn't ring true to the fantasy of motion pictures, rather than that it doesn't ring true to reality.Does the courtroom scene not seem realistic?
Here is a news flash: the real life drama that goes down in real life courtrooms is chaotic and often bizarre.
Everything in this film felt true to me, and it rings true as a human story, leaving politics and ideology completely out of it.And speaking of the courtroom scene, the way the coroner in charge of the courtroom treats the people coldly and superciliously and then gradually becomes ashamed of himself as they behave with grace and dignity is TOTALLY TRUE TO LIFE.
It doesn't even have anything to do with race, which is one of the beautiful things about this film.
The black people in the gallery feel like it has something to do with race, and the movie makes you understand how they would feel that way, but it also leaves the door open for you to understand that from the coroner's perspective race really might not be any factor in the equation of his behavior.
He's just trying to churn through the usual bullshit and get through the day.You don't know there are poor people who try to maintain their dignity and want to pay their way instead of signing off on a poor man's waiver?
If you think that's not reality, you haven't seen much of the world.
You don't know that their lips sometimes tremble when they reject the waiver and pay their cash instead?So much of this movie is really beautifully acted.
Laurence Fishburne puts in one of the best performances from a child actor that you will ever see.
Several of the adults are even better.To put it simply, this is a great film.
The scene when the cops shoot Cornbread is as good an example of how the wrong person can end up being shot as you will find anywhere in motion pictures.
The cops are afraid, they're doing something brave under difficult circumstances, we in the audience can practically feel the rain pouring down on us and clouding our vision, and they shoot the person they legitimately believe to be a murderous criminal running away from them.
They aren't bad men, or even bad cops, they just made a bad decision under a bad set of circumstances.Or is the basketball element and the families involved supposed to be a caricature that should offend us?
Because it could have come straight out of the documentary Hoop Dreams which was produced twenty years later.
Are we meant to suppose that all of the people depicted in Hoop Dreams decided to base their whole lives and personalities off of Cornbread, Earl and Me?
Or can we admit that in fact families, neighborhoods, and characters like this existed in real life?Apparently Cornbread, Earl and Me is too real for some people.
Or maybe it just goes over many audience heads.
The beauty of its drama is sometimes subtly wrought, to be fair.
But if you can watch it with an open mind it is an extraordinary film and well worth your time.Having seen it once as a teenager, and once again recently (many years later), I feel strongly enough about it to create an account to write this review. |
tt0448090 | The Proud Family Movie | The film opens with a man named Dr. Carver, the great-great-grandson of George Washington Carver, trying to generate a super 'Gnome Warrior', a prototype for an army of humanoid peanut warriors, but it disintegrates. The scene then turns to Penny Proud, who is celebrating her 16th birthday in her hometown of Wizardville, California, and fails her driver's ed. She and her friends are excited to be a part of 15 Cent's (Sticky's cousin and parody of 50 Cent) dance group, Spare Change. When 15 Cent drives her home, Oscar Proud, her over-protective father, gets mad when he finds them kissing. After Oscar gives her the worst grounding of her life, and essentially forbids her from ever becoming an adult, Penny wishes he wasn't her father, to which he states he wished he never had her as a daughter. This marks the culmination of their relationship as seen over the entire series.
Oscar has invented an everlasting multiplying formula that was supposed to make his Proud Snacks tastier, but it instead causes the snack to expand and explode. As he is hauled away from his presentation, he proclaims that his formula has no expiration date. Dr. Carver, overhears Oscar's ranting, plots to get Oscar's formula since he has never gotten his experiment to stabilized. Disguising himself, Carver invites the Proud family to Legume Island. Trudy forces Oscar, Sugar Mama, and Penny to go in hopes they will re-bond. The family meets the inhabitants of the island, short peanut creatures called the Genomes.
Carver tries to negotiate obtaining the formula from Oscar by offering him $10 million. However, a G-nome named Wally convince Oscar not to. When Oscar refuses (who doesn't have the formula with him), Carver constructs evil peanut clones of his family from DNA snatched from them while they were partying. Oscar runs away and tries explaining to his family, but they don't believe him. The clones get a mix-up when the real Penny comes with them back to the mainland to search for the formula; Penny's clone remains with the original family. Penny soon enjoy the free life which the clones allowed her, in spite of their bizarre personalities and Oscar's clone becoming a celebrity, but quickly tires of it. She discovers that Cashew, a G-nome she befriended earlier on the island, had stowed away; he wanted to see what it was like to have a 'real family'. He also reveals to her the true nature of the clones.
At that moment, Wally leads the Prouds and the Penny clone on a perilous journey to the other side of the island, where he claims there is someone who can answer their questions. Along the way, the Penny clone proves to be the kind of daughter Oscar desires – obedient. When they meet the person Wally wanted them to meet, he turns out to be the real Dr. Carver. Dr. Carver explains that he moved to the island and began his goal on cloning technology and created the friendly island creatures, but wanted someone to inherit all that he learned and cloned himself, it was true success but unfortunately, the clone went sizzling crisp in the sun one day and turned evil. Donning a disguise of his original form, the clone took over the island and forced the G-nomes to work for him (excluding Wally) and began using Carver's peanut research for world domination. Oscar realizes his formula is the key and tells the family he had left it in a necklace for Penny's birthday, which she opened back home. Her clone informs the other clones, who took the formula. Penny and Cashew gather her friends to go back to Legume Island and rescue the family. They steal 15 Cent's yacht to get there, but Penny accidentally sinks it.
Unfortunately, the Carver clone has already prepared to leave to take over the world with his Super G-nomes. The clones attack Penny and her friends and family, but she convinces the Oscar clone to help - by bribing him with hot dogs which he had become obsessed with earlier - and he defeats the rest of the clones. Dr. Carver unleashes a sea creature on them, but the original Dr. Carver recognizes the monster as a former experiment that went bad convinces it to being good. Seeing the Carver clone making his getaway, the original Dr. Carver reveals a possible solution - a container of gas that could instantly turn solid peanuts into peanut butter. Penny takes the gas, boards the clone's airship, and battles him with help from Oscar, who para-sails up using one of Sugar Mama's giant underwear. Just as Penny is on the verge of releasing the gas, Dr. Carver offers her to join him and live a free life, without rules or responsibilities. However, Penny retorts that, even though they aren't the perfect one, her family is who she cares about and unleashes the gas, foiling the clone's plot and destroying the army. The clone, having only been hit slightly by the gas, turns back into a peanut and falls into the ocean. Oscar then gives Penny her birthday necklace, stating that he now knows she's mature enough that she is ready to make her own decisions, and finally accepts her for who she is, and they then make up on national TV.
15 Cent has Penny and her friends sing instead of acting as his back-up dancers and the crowd loves them. On Legume Island, the real Carver and his peanut people along with the Proud clones listen as a radio announcer says that Penny and her friends' song has been popular for five weeks (35 days) in a row.
In an extended ending, the scene fast-forwards three days later where Cashew is now part of the Proud Family, Penny is receiving her driver's license and, unfortunately, she helps Oscar by driving through town advertising his new drink Pork-Nut-o-Rade, but Puff drank it back home earlier, turning him into a large and rampaging monster. He chases them around the world up to China, until Suga Mama, who also drank the concoction, takes him home. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Disappointed in Disney.
Disappointed in DisneyThe Disney name used to represent an assurance to many parents that the content of a show would be family oriented and of sound moral ethics.
The Proud Family Movie presents cloning as a trivial detail in weak plot with no indication of the moral or ethical questions involved.
The plot is weak.
The music is formula synthesized junk.
My children watched it because the "couldn't find anything else on" I don't censor their viewing heavily, and allowed them to watch this poorly constructed program.
It's too sad that Disney is too now just a money machine like so many other companies.
Movie Rating; D minus..
Both Kim Possible TV-Movies were WAY better than this..
For the record, in the world of The Proud Family, nothing normal ever happens, so I wasn't as put off by talking peanuts and the scientific and sociological details of cloning as many were.
At least "Kim Possible," it's two TV movies, and "Batman; The Animated Series" had relatively plausible explanations for the weirdness that goes on in their worlds.
As another IMDb user indicated about the regular series, some episodes were okay, some were "ehh..." I agree, but I think some were extraordinary, like "Love Thy Neighbor," "A Hero for Halloween," and "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly." This, unfortunately is not one of them, but that doesn't make it entirely bad.
As for me, I didn't find it so confusing at all.
But dumb?
Well, I have to admit, yes.After an opening segment on Legoom Island at the villain's(Arsenio Hall) lair, we find Penny and her crew in high school during a driver's-ed course.
I know schools complain that they don't get paid enough money, but is the Proud's school district so poor that they still have old Chrylser K-Cars from the 1980's for their Driver's Education course?
I'm not so sure the standard demographics of this show/movie recognizes these cars.
Penny and her girls are invited to become members of a dance troupe for young rap star 15 Cent(Omarion Grandberry), and when he sees Penny, he falls head over heels for her, and habitually refers to her as "Ponytails." When Oscar Proud(Tommy Davison) finds Penny kissing the young rap musician, he grounds her and cancels her planned 16th Birthday Party.
Just then a strange man knocks on their door and tell Suga-Mama she won a trip to Legoom Island.
Trudy thinks this is the perfect opportunity for family togetherness, something Penny prefers to do without.
In fact, Penny is angrier at Oscar than we've ever seen her on the series, As it turns out, the man who invited the Prouds to Legoom Island wants a secret formula for a preservative Oscar created for his Proud Snacks recipe.
At first, he offers Oscar a whopping $10 Million for the formula, but Oscar gets a warning from one of the island's inhabitants, and decides to up the ante a bit more.
So, he sends some clones of the family back home to search for it, and Penny and her clone get mixed up on the return trip.The villain is actually a clone of a descendant of George Washington Carver.
And like the evil clone, Dr. Marcus Garvey Carver II tried to make clones out of peanuts.
Unlike the real Dr. Carver though, his evil clone is making an army of other evil clones to take over the world, and when Penny finds out about this, she has to stop them.
Not so confusing after all.Throughout the series(including the series-ending movie), there are lots of things I wanted to see that never took place, like Zoey gaining a steady boyfriend, viewers finally getting to see Wizard Kelly from the neck up, or some kind of settlement in the would-be romance between Dijonay & Sticky, whether she gives up, or he gives in.
It also would've been great if somebody had enough guts to beat the living daylights out of the Gross Sisters.
I know of an unearthly character from the "Danny Phantom" episode "Splitting Images," who's got such a grudge against bullies he might actually have an impact on them.I still think Kyla Pratt is a much more attractive young woman than the character she's been providing the voice of for the past four years.
The least sensible aspect of the movie, is that while Penny is turning 16, Bebe and Cece are still the same age as they were when the show began in 2001.
Despite a few amusing lines, and the general feel of a series finale, I can't say this was anywhere as good as I hoped it would be..
confusing and dumb.
OMG!!!
ummm.......
first of all, it is hard to find the exact word for this movie!
Repulsive, and the worst waste of 2 hours.
Th plot includes talking peanuts, which speaks for itself.
The series was OK, but the movie was a big disappointment.
I do not recommend this movie for people with a brain.
The characters still have their spunky sense of humor and Oscar Proud delivers a great performance, but unfortunately that was not enough to save this movie!Now, there have been some weird proud family episodes(such as the new one where penny saves an evil duck), but this movie and plot is just downright confusing and overdeveloped.
The best part of the movie was the beginning where we see Penny learning how to drive.
It gives the audience a sense of the proud family series, which was actually watchable.
I was glad, however, to see Penny's group of friends(Dijonay,LAcieniga and Sticky) back..
Proud Family goes to an island, Mad Scientist clones them, Clones try and reveal the secret recipe to Proud Snacks..
It was repulsive.
I couldn't stand it as soon as I saw what was happening I just turned off the movie to a more entertaining show.
No offense but this movie should be burned and its ashes should be buried.
I feel so bad for the people that like this movie it doesn't make any sense.
But it was kind of funny but not really really funny.
But it was cool that the secret recipe was kept safe but thats just what I've heard.
But I do applaud to the voices of the proud family and the rest of the cast.
I just think this movie should get some more work on it if anyone agrees with me say "I"!Thats just what I think so see ya later!.
terrible.
I watched this movie because I didn't really have much to do.
It was a Friday night,nothing on.So I clicked on the Family channel, got comfortable and glued my eyes to the screen.I really should have picked something else...It was boring,pointless,irritating,racist,and arrogant.The characters were highly annoying and the writing was horrible.Kyla Pratt is pure annoying and I hate her character Penny.Penny is self-absorbed,arrogant,and super-fiscal.I also really hate Trudy and Suga Mama, they are brats and they are also annoying.
I have never liked The Proud Family and wasn't expecting anything good.
But I got a horrible waste of my life!.
Rather Disappointing.
I was really disappointed after seeing this movie.
I happen to enjoy this show, and I expected a lot more from the film.
I felt that the plot was all over the place, and rather far-fetched.
(SPOILER) *I didn't mind the talking peanuts, but the clones were too much!!* Fortunately, Sticky, Zoe, LaCienega, and my girl Dijonay, saved this movie from total disaster.
(SPOILER) *I loved that battle dance!* Much more use could have been made of Uncle Bobby.
He's always good for some comic relief.
Does anyone know who did Uncle Bobby's voice?
I'm sure it wasn't Cedric, the Entertainer.
Perhaps the new season of shows will offer more to the viewer than this movie.
At least I'm hopeful.
Out of ***** I give "The Proud Family Movie" **.Bonita NC.
The Prouds ROCK!!!.
I loved this movie!
I especially liked that it was in widescreen instead of fullscreen like it's a DVD or on theaters.
Not a whole lot of TV movies do that.
Also, great plot.
Penny's having trouble with her family(mostly her dad), her and her family go on a vacation to an island called Lagoom Island, she makes friends with Kashew a G-Knome, Dr. Carver tries to take Mr. Proud's secret formula, and because he refuses, the Prouds' are cloned and now it's up to Penny, Kashew, and the rest of the Prouds to stop Dr. Carver and his army of G-Knomes!
Great ending too.
Like when right before Dr. Carver went into the ocean, he said "I'm a little peanut." in a squeaky voice, also dancing and music!
Don't forget that!
The people who do the voice overs for the show did a good job too, like they usually do.
except for Sticky(Orlando Brown) and Fifteen Cent(Omarion).
Fifteen's voice didn't fit his body(too grown up, deep) and Sticky's voice sounds different from what I remember it..
Okay movie bogged down by continuity errors.
I need to get this off my chest.
The Proud 'clones' didn't make any sense.
First of all, when you clone something, it is generally an embryo.
The Proud Clones should have taken at least 40 something YEARS to be intelligent and grown-up enough to go on that mission.
Not only that, it doesn't really make any sense to mix peanuts and stuff in there when he already had their DNA.
Duplicates or robots would have been a better term to use but I'll let it go.GOOD POINTS -Oscar was hilarious as always.
-Penny and the rest of the Proud Family were in character.
-I liked the ending where Oscar and Penny were on Dr. Carver's blimp.
-The evil Dr. Carver was hilarious, especially his villain songs.BAD POINTS -The movie just sort of...let itself go with the Oscar robot (I refuse to call it a clone).
It seemed to vanish after a blurry scene where it knocked itself out -There were a number of continuity errors (where did the other robots get the clothes that Oscar and company put on) and (how the heck did the peanut robot of Carver get a sunburn anyway?).
-"Battledance!?" -Not enough use of the Gross Sisters All around, I'd give this movie a round 5 out of 10.
Oscar and Dr. Carver saved it from a 3. |
tt0068524 | E poi lo chiamarono il magnifico | The young English nobleman Sir Thomas Fitzpatrick Phillip Moore (Terence Hill) arrives in the West following the wish of this late father who years earlier had to leave England due to an affair. The trouble led to a conflict with "Vicci Windsor". In the West, the young man joins up with his father's former pals, the stagecoach robbers Monkey (Dominic Barto), Holy Joe (Harry Carey Jr.) and Bull (Gregory Walcott).
The characters are introduced as time moves on during Tom's journey, beginning with Bull who works at a stagecoach station disguised as a mute man. After Bull has listened in on the conversation of two headhunters and found out about the death of "The Englishman" (Tom's father), he begins a journey of his own. In a small town he finds a preacher who's in his church, conducting a fiery sermon to a somewhat dubious audience of drunkards, gamblers and easy women who he had to drive into his church just as he had to have the saloon's pianola moved into the church right before. Both of them then proceed to Yuma, where the third one, Monkey is in jail as usual. Through deceit they manage to free Monkey after they manage to keep him from taking revenge on the sadistic warden, because according to Holy on the day of the Lord you don't shoot people. From there they travel to the Englishman's gang's old hideout in the mountain, which is also the destination of Tom's journey, who had just before been in a stagecoach robbery performed by the masked trio of Monkey, Bull and Holy.
Tom was just about to inspect the property around the log cabin when suddenly his walking stick is shot out from under him by the three crooks, who do not know who Tom is and therefore suspect him to have come back to retrieve the stolen money.
Soon the situation is explained by Tom showing them a photograph of his father along with giving Holy a letter of his father for the three of them.
In his letter the father asks them to make a "real man" out of his progress-loving son. Initially they fail miserably since Tom refuses to touch a weapon and would rather ride his bicycle than a horse. This changes once he meets Candida (Yanti Somer) in the town's thrift store, the landowner's daughter who he had once met before when she travelled in the same train as him and had captivated his thoughts. There she asks for Books of Lord Byron, which he can procure, unlike the trader. Candida returns his love.
Since Morton (Riccardo Pizzuti), Candida's father's rough ranch administrator has also set his eyes on the girl this leads to several brawls during which Tom initially ends up on the receiving side. Only after an intensive course in all things brawling, shooting and spitting which his father's accomplices put him through Tom not only manages to put Morton in his place but also Candida's father (Enzo Fiermonte) who has been convinced of Tom's skills. It ends with a happy end although Monkey, Bull and Holy leave the town in which progress has taken a footing, driving them to flee further toward the west. In the last scene they reach the Pacific, shocked to hear the whistle of a steam train and so they turned back. | western | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0047766 | Quatermass II | === The Bolts ===
Meteorites are falling over Northern England, one of which is observed by an Army radar unit. After a farmer finds one of the objects in a field, the soldiers become directly involved, and Captain Johnny Dillon decides to unofficially ask the father of his fiancée, Paula, to investigate. Paula's father is Professor Bernard Quatermass of the British Experimental Rocket Group — "the rocket man!", as one of Dillon's troops puts it. Quatermass and the Rocket Group, now including Paula and mathematical genius Dr. Leo Pugh, are recovering from the news that one of the two nuclear Quatermass II rockets has exploded during a ground test in Australia, killing hundreds of staff and ending their project to build permanent bases on the Moon.
Quatermass agrees to accompany Dillon on an investigation and the pair visit the farmer, who refuses to talk and sends them away. At a pub, they find out that the nearby village of Winnerden Flats has been leveled to build an enormous industrial plant protected by armed guards, which is identical to Quatermass' moonbase design. Upon investigating a newly fallen meteorite, Dillon is sprayed from it with ammonia gas, and a distinctive mark appears on his face.
=== The Mark ===
Similarly 'marked' armed guards arrive from the plant and take Dillon away. Whilst being taken Dillon threateningly tells Quatermass not to follow. After the guards' departure Quatermass speaks with a tramp, who explains that there used to be a small government research unit consisting of a few huts by Winnerden Flats, and that a year ago they expanded and bulldozed the village, and built the plant and a prefab town for the construction workers. At the prefab town, Quatermass sees that 'the mark' and strange behaviour are associated with those who find the fallen meteorites, but before he can find out more the community police order him away.
Quatermass returns to the Rocket Group, where Leo has reconstructed the meteorite, which can carry ammonia and other gases and travel through the atmosphere to the ground in one piece. In London, the Metropolitan Police claim they have no jurisdiction over the matter, so he goes to his contact Fowler at the ministry, who reveals that the plant is a top secret project to make synthetic food, but Vincent Broadhead MP, who is conducting an inquiry into the project, reveals that there are identical plants in Brazil and Siberia. Upon gaining entry to the inquiry, Quatermass notices that one of the civil servants has 'the mark'.
=== The Food ===
As he tries to investigate further, Quatermass finds that other figures in high levels of government have gained 'the mark' after coming across meteorites. Quatermass leaves the inquiry, then returns with Fowler to find that Broadhead has been 'marked' and now claims there is no problem with the project. Fowler takes Quatermass to meet with civil servant Rupert Ward, who has the authority to inspect the plant. Back at the Rocket Group, Leo and Paula deduce and discover with a radio telescope that an asteroid is orbiting the Earth invisibly and discharging the meteorites when it reaches the near point, 400 000 miles over Southern England every 14 hours.
Ward helps Quatermass and Fowler gain entry to the plant and they find that Dillon has been discharged from the infirmary and has left. They then look around and discover that gases are pumped to the giant pressure domes from the pilot plant: ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen and methane, as opposed to oxygen as in Quatermass' moonbase pressure dome idea. Meanwhile, the guards intimidate and then murder a family who were having a picnic nearby. Back at the plant, Ward slips away to look inside a dome, and Quatermass and Fowler find him stumbling out of it dying and covered in black slime, which before his death Ward reveals was inside the dome instead of food. Fowler and Quatermass escape back to the Rocket Group and analyse Ward's tie with Leo and Paula, finding that the slime is a corrosive, poisonous substance, fatal to all forms of life on Earth. Meanwhile, the asteroid is approaching its near point.
=== The Coming ===
Quatermass deduces that an alien life-form which comes from one of the moons of Saturn, which lives on ammonia, hydrogen and methane, but to which oxygen is a deadly poison, travels to earth in the meteorites, and in the few seconds they spend out of their shells before dying they possess human minds, and transmit knowledge to each other in a collective consciousness. From this, they assume that it was the population of Winnderden Flats itself who demolished the village and built the plant. Quatermass decides that they can use the remaining Quatermass II rocket like a nuclear bomb and destroy the asteroid, much to Leo's protest at the rocket being unsafe to fly. Fowler tries to steal information about the other plants from the ministry, but is overcome and possessed by a makeshift meteorite hidden inside a filing cabinet.
That night Quatermass travels with journalist Hugh Conrad to the prefab town where they meet with construction workers who say that work has been suspended for all except the 'zombies' ('marked' people). They claim that the meteorites are only over-shots from the plant after one of them lands in a pub. These recent meteorites are falling in hundreds and being collected by special guard teams then returned to the plant. Quatermass steals a guard's uniform from a lorry to gain entry to the plant. As he does this Conrad returns to the pub to telephone his newspaper and reveal everything about the secret alien invasion, but he becomes 'marked' before he can finish. The construction workers, however, hear what he says and decide to take action. Meanwhile, Quatermass is inside a pressure dome, where he sees guards putting meteorites into the tanks of poisonous slime that killed Ward, where together, in the recreated atmosphere of a moon of Saturn, they combine and grow into the first of the enormous ammonid alien creatures.
=== The Frenzy ===
Quatermass is narrowly saved from discovery by the rioting construction workers, who storm the plant and along with him are besieged inside the gas distribution centre, where they pump oxygen into the completed pressure dome to poison the ammonids, however some of the workers succumb to propaganda from the plant controllers, who offer them the chance to see inside the dome. The guards kill them by blocking the pipe with their bodies. In anger, the remaining workers fire on the dome with a bazooka, igniting the hydrogen and subsequently destroying the entire plant, killing the ammonids and releasing ammonia gas into the surrounding area.
Quatermass escapes the plant in a gas mask and meets up with Leo, whom he finds unconscious in his car nearby. With little time left to prevent more ammonids returning in meteorites, he and Leo are forced to use the Quatermass II to attempt to destroy the asteroid, despite the known flaws in the rocket's design and its liability to explode. They return to the Rocket Group, but British Paratroopers led by Johnny Dillon take control of the firing base.
=== The Destroyers ===
The team invite Dillon up to the control room, where they see he has written orders from the very top, showing that the ammonids have long been in control of the government. They appeal to his human side to allow them to continue, which he does so after Leo tells him the rocket must launch. Despite both being old and unfit, Quatermass and Leo are the only two who have the scientific knowledge to make such a flight. They fly to the asteroid and land on it, but en route Quatermass finds out that the night the plant exploded Leo was possessed by the ammonids.
Leo intends to kill Quatermass to prevent the destruction of the asteroid, and also to allow the ammonids to travel back to Earth en masse in the Quatermass II. He tries to kill Quatermass with a gun, but the recoil sends him floating helplessly off into space. Quatermass returns to the rocket and jettisons the nuclear motor, then flies the rocket back to earth as the motor blows up the asteroid, killing the remaining ammonids and relinquishing control over Dillon and all the 'marked' humans, returning mankind to its former freedom. | violence, cult, murder | train | wikipedia | By far the most frightening serial ever shown on British TV and in 1955 the Beeb took the unprecedented step of warning viewers before each episode that under no circumstances should children view this film and anyone of a nervous disposition would be best advised not watching.
My own father, a man one would view as strongly masculine to the core was absolutely terrified at the concepts here and deeply disturbed by the music - Holst's Planet Suite: Mars: The Bringer of War. For years after and until his death in fact, he could never listen to that piece of music without leaving the room.
The first real horror came at the end of episode 2 I think when Quatermass stumbles across some poor worker who has tumbled down a flight of metal steps having tried to get into the dome.
The concluding episode saw the locating of the asteroid and Quatermass's final flight there to destroy the alien threat.
You wouldn't have laughed in 1955!Val Guest's big screen remake: ENEMY FROM SPACE many years later, was certainly OK but could never hold a candle to this original work which as many have commented is just about impossible to find.
I actually have a softcover book of this great film series, complete with the entire dialog and several plates from the old black and white serial.
Like most folks, I watched all the movie versions of the Quatermass saga before seeing any of the hard-to-find BBC television serials.
The effects are, of course better in the silver screen treatments, but the television serials let a lot more exposition and explanations get out, so things make even more sense and characters and situations get fleshed out in some rather interesting ways...the movie (Enemy From Space) has an unmanned rocket being launched at the aliens, while the serial has Quatermass and a fellow scientist taking the rocket up to face the aliens.John Robinson makes a great Quatermass...very arrogant and domineering, but at the same time you can sense some concern for humanity in the man.
He's no quite as good as John Mills in the last installment of the series (The Quatermass Conclusion), but he does make the serial much more enjoyable than the movie (nothing against Brian Donlevy in that particular production).It's also fun to see Roger Delgado (best known as The Master on Doctor Who) in the role of the reporter who comes with Quatermass to the strange little town of Wynnerton Flats.Unless you frequent the newsgroups and video-trading circles, you don't have much chance of finding this little gem...but if you do, remember that it is definitely worth the four hours to watch..
The 1957 film version of "Quatertmass II" was superior to its predecessor, and one can only assume that the serial was too; again, it obviously goes deeper into the various themes than the film does, but it's interesting to see how Kneale was able to compress his own work without losing the essential quality and potency of his concept (we've seen several films which have had large chunks removed from them with the result that one would hardly recognize the original - but it's certainly not the case with the Quatermass series!).All things considered, I guess I prefer the films to the serials for two reasons: one, the fact that the former - even if still done on a low budget - were invariably more polished (given their crisp photography as opposed to the fuzziness of a TV program); the other reason is the essential tautness of the films - the serials don't necessarily feel draggy and are certainly never boring but, watched in one sitting (which, I guess, was never the intention to begin with!), Kneale's gripping and thought-provoking plots could make for a tiresome overall experience!!
John Robinson replaced Reginald Tate (who had died in the meantime) as Professor Quatermass; he does a good job at it but, from the three actors who performed the character on TV (I haven't watched John Mills in the final serial, named simply QUATERMASS, from 1979), he's the one who comes closest to Brian Donlevy's interpretation in the first two films and which so dissatisfied Kneale!
The cast also features Hugh Griffith as Quatermass' assistant and future stalwart of British horror cinema Rupert Davies as a government official.The fact of these being live broadcasts was betrayed more than anything else during this particular serial by the surprising number of lines flubbed by the actors throughout - chief among them Robinson himself!
Besides, even if scenes that were made memorable by the films (which I obviously watched prior to the serials) generate their own tension and excitement on the small screen, the film's ending is preferable to the one presented here - in which Robinson and Griffith are flown into outer space in order to destroy the planet which was attempting to colonize Earth..
The very best of the Quatermass stories.
Having recently come by a pirated copy of this on VCR recently, I can honestly say after several viewings that this has to be the best of the Quatermass seriels made by the BBC in the 1950s.
Broadcast live on UK TV in 1955, this is an altogether more together piece than the remade Hammer film of a few years later and has a much more involving plot.
One of the main diferences in the story has Professor Quatermass actually travel to the alien asteroid with his assistant Leo Pugh to destroy the ammonid things before more of them reach the earth.Another plot addition is the introduction of little metallic cases to contain the aliens in and make them more readily available for transportation to one victim to another, a side plot sadly missing from the afformentioned Hammer film.
The character Broadhead from the film version is called Ward here and it is only a 3 man expedition that enters the Synthetic Food plant at Winnerden Flats, during this visit Ward dies covered in black slime and Quatermass and a character called Fowler discover to their horror that a nearby picnicking family have been gunned down by the impossing Zombie guards.
News is doing the rounds that the serial may be making it's way onto DVD this year and hopefully it will make it..
I had never heard of the Quartermass series before and after seeing Quartermass II: The Enemy From Space, I hope I can find the others.Being honest here, I never have been too much a fan of British made films as comparatively they always had what I (personal opinion - NOT meant as a negative!) felt was a cheap, amateurish feel to them.
but to enjoy these old films, people must realize watching it to make a comparisons with modern productions will always be disappointing.Watch films like this for the fun of seeing how people back then saw sci fi.
I have to passsionately disagree with people who have come onto this page claiming this is the best of the QUATERMASS serials .
I`ve not seen the original BBC QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT but both QUATERMASS AND THE PIT and the 1979 ITV serial are far better than this .!!!!
POSSIBLE SPOILERS !!!!The script as you would expect from Nigel Kneale is fairly good but far from his best and there is a slight problem watching this in 2004 and that is the basic plot of mankind being infiltrated by pods taking over human beings has been done to death over the years .
We`ve seen three versions of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS , alongside THE PUPPET MASTERS , THE INVADERS etc the plot is rather stale now though to be fair the aliens in this are totally apolitical as compared to being communist .
Another thing you`ll notice if you`re watching this on a pirate video tape is that the story itself is very episodic ie when character A is killed off after their use to the plot is finished character B is introduced to push the story forward and after they die character C comes along .
Obviously people didn`t notice this when the episodes were broadcast in 1955 but it`s strange when Kneale wrote THE PIT he included a radio report in the first episode which ties in with Quatermass`s TV speech in the final scene .
John Robinson was cast at very short notice in the title role and it`s painfully obvious he`s not had enough time to learn the lines never mind get into character which does bring the proceedings down and the rest of the cast give either laughably over emphatic performances , are totally wooden or sound like Dick Van Dyke in MARY POPPINS .
To be fair no one from a working class background became actors in the 1950s so maybe I shouldn`t criticise a bunch of RADA trained thespians trying to portray the proles but it`s difficult not to notice the manual workers don`t sound like manual workers , and Monica Grey who plays Paula Quatermass gives probably the most annoyingly stagey performance in the serialDirector Rudolph Cartier work is also patchy .
When he`s good like in the classic scene where Quatermass looks into an inspection hatch and sees the alien pods hatching he`s excellent but since I`ve complained about the acting the director should bare some blame for that and there`s too many jarring scenes where it`s obvious location film footage cuts to a studio interior , but again because television was a fledgeling media I shouldn`t criticise too much .
Alas Cartier`s biggest mistake is as producer where the serial`s climax takes place on an alien asteroid out in space .
Considering the show was broadcast live with severe technical limitations it seems a bad idea from the outset on having the climax take place here as the final result shows , and am I alone thinking the Hammer film version took a more sensible approachSorry if I give the impression I disliked QUATERMASS 2 .
I don`t but it`s a severe disappointment especially when I consider QUATERMASS AND THE PIT to be the greatest telefantasy series ever broadcast.
Great sci-fi with atmosphere, tension and good pacing – well, until it loses the plot in the final episode at least (SPOILERS).
Every generation thinks they invented everything themselves and that everything under the sun is new; for myself I find it easy to believe that mistrust of Government, alien conspiracy and the like are all themes which came into sci-fi with the X-Files, and that in the 1950's it was all thinly veiled Communist allegory and nothing else.
I have seen the film versions but fellow IMDb user Theo Robertson kindly lent me his DVD of the original series so that I can find out about it for myself.
The first season offered potential but unfortunately only a couple of episodes existed, but it was enough to make me keen to watch the second season (all of which remains).As before this was broadcast live – amazing to someone like me who is used to such a thing being a "special" event a la ER or 30 Rock doing it.
Using some recorded external shots, the show is impressive for being live – the odd flubbed word but no break in reality and no visible problems (although the inability to precisely hit the 30 minute mark must have been a big headache of the BBC at the time).
The build within the show is mostly strong – from the very early episodes through to the bigger Governmental conspiracy it is mostly all very well done because it remains within the real world and takes real world suspicious and flips them within sci-fi.
Heading into this episode I had assumed that the rocket would be used as a missile to destroy the aliens high above earth; when Leo got infected I assumed that the rocket would need a pilot and that he would sacrifice himself in a good ending.
While not great ideas, these are better than what we got which was a manned rocket mission which ends with Quatermass returning.
It is a poor ending to an otherwise strong run of episodes and it did feel like the season could easily have done without it.
Not sure what the fans feel (I may have just committed blasphemy here) but for me it was excessive, a bit silly and went against the tension and drama that had been so consistent up till that point.The cast are different from the previous season – in particular we have a new Quatermass in the form of Robinson.
His voice took me a minute to get used to because at times he sounded like he was acting in a theatre rather than TV, but quickly he is natural and good – able to deliver complex dialogue but yet make it dramatic and urgent.
She speaks very clearly, her dialogue is as crisp as the finest BBC announcer and it would not have surprised me if she had delivered some of her scenes with three books balanced on her head to show how good her posture was; every time she is on screen she is unnatural and rather disruptive – fortunately she is not on too much.
I remember as a child laughing myself silly at the idea that the aliens in V were easily spotted by not being able to wave without their fingers sticking together in a certain way, here it is almost as obvious – not a massive problem again, but it meant the "menace" that Quatermass describes feeling isn't really as creeping or as hidden as I would have liked.Overall though, this is a very impressive piece of sci-fi.
Technically the live broadcast is all the more impressive for the fact that it isn't obviously live but it is the writing and delivery that makes it work.
Feeding on themes of conspiracy and paranoia, the plot develops at a good pace and builds menace and tension throughout – it is only some wobbly moments and a really weak final episode that let it down.
I recently watched this TV serial back-to-back with the Hammer movie version.It was originally broadcast live, but was recorded off monitors using two different systems.
As a result, the image quality is highly variable, but is still good enough for an evaluation of this early TV classic.It inevitably suffers from the limitations of live broadcasting, but also looks under-rehearsed.
Quatermass and the Pit was also broadcast live but is a much slicker production all round.It was probably too ambitious for its paltry budget.
In retrospect, the final episode, set in space, was probably a mistake.
Although the Hammer movie was shot on a tight budget and was only half as long, it still cost ten times as much.All this can be taken for granted.
The movie had to grab them immediately and lead them from plot point to plot point as efficiently as possible.This serial was a distinct improvement on The Quatermass Experiment.
When Kneale was hired to write the movie version it was an opportunity to rethink aspects of the story.
I give a few examples.In the movie, the problems with the atomic rocket are established with a just couple of lines of dialogue.In the TV version, this takes two complete scenes.
However, to allow Robinson time for his costume change, this second scene starts with Paula Quatermass and Pugh discussing the set-back.
This means another character has to be introduced to get Quatermass into the plant and it is he who falls into the food.
The movie version is both more efficient and more plausible.On TV, Quatermass takes a reporter to the workers' village where he gets infected by an alien.
Now convinced Quatermass is right, the reporter phones in his story.
This provides much better motivation for the workers' subsequent attack on the plant.On TV, we first see a farmer possessed by the aliens, then Dillon, a little girl, Broadhead, a Minister, the reporter and, finally, Pugh.
They are not really missed.On TV, we have two climaxes: the destruction of the pressure dome, followed by the destruction of the asteroid in the next episode.
The puncturing of the dome releases the aliens and the destruction of the asteroid kills them, making for a neater and more striking conclusion.Overall, therefore, the TV version has the advantage of a more measured build-up of tension and can include plot details I regret were not in the movie, but is more diffuse, more obviously padded and less well plotted.
The movie is arguably a bit too efficient, but in the final analysis, it is not only better made, it is better written too.However, I am delighted this TV version is finally available for viewing.
He says things like "What's dat?" and "Both aya" (for "Both of you").It's the story that carries the movie, and a great story it is.
Quatermass is pulled into the government conspiracy to hide the beach head "factory" of the alien invasion force when his subordinates spot the unusual series of meteor showers and his own assistant is spirited away by guards of the mysterious plant.Less is definitely more in this story.
Granted, the scene where a man, coated with the pitch- like "food" manufactured at the forbidden factory, dies in agony in front of Quatermass is horrifying, even now.
As people are taken over, and Quatermass's search for his missing assistant is thwarted again and again, the tension builds.
But after that, as the viewer actually sees what Quatermass is talking about, the story becomes a lot less powerful.
Ultimately, the story reached for one horror too many, and was further undercut by the especially poor special effects at the end.That being said, it was terrific Sci-Fi for 1955, imaginative, technological, and filmed locally to enhance a "this is now" feel to the horror.For Doctor Who fans, the similarities to SPEAHEAD FROM SPACE and INFERNO are unmistakable.
Some of the long shots of the plant look like shots from INFERNO (and, much later, from THE HAND OF FEAR). |
tt0030608 | Porky's Hare Hunt | Several rabbits are eating carrots and ruining crops. Another rabbit warns them to evacuate by saying "Jiggers, fellers!". Soon, Porky and his dog meet this rabbit and try to outwit him in the forest. Porky and the rabbit get in a long, long fight and soon the hare thinks he has won the battle. However Porky finds the rabbit and he doesn't have any brainstorms to protect him. The rabbit shows Porky a photo of himself and of how many children he has with his wife. However, when Porky's about to shoot him, the gun fails.
After Porky attempts to shoot down and procure the rabbit, he asks Porky: "Do you have a hunting license?" As Porky reaches for his pocket to obtain the document, the hyper-hare suddenly snatches it out of Porky's grasp, rips it in two, remarks, "Well you haven't got one now!" and makes a getaway by twisting his ears as though they were a helicopter propeller, flying away. But Porky suddenly throws a rock at the hovering hare which sends him crashing into a haystack. He emerges from the stack, appearing injured, but fakes it and then goes marching like one of the spirits of '76. Ultimately the rabbit wins when Porky throws dynamite into the cave in which the rabbit is hiding and he throws the dynamite back at him. Later, Porky is in the hospital and the rabbit comes to him with some flowers. Porky tells the rabbit that he'll be out in a few days. "That's what YOU think!", the rabbit declares, then pulls on the anvil in Porky's bed, adding to his injuries and runs off into the forest laughing in the sound of Woody Woodpecker. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Cute cartoon starring an early hybrid of Bugs.
The little white nameless rabbit with the bulbous black nose is considered by many as the very first version of what would later become Bugs Bunny.
An early Porky goes rabbit hunting with his dog and is outwitted again and again by this "granddaddy" of Bugsy!!!In June 2001, Cartoon Network ran an almost entire filmography of Mr. Bunny, beginning with Porky's Hare Hunt.
The second cartoon in this "filmography" featured this same pinkish-white bunny with a big black nose in a haunted house with 2 dogs.As the weekend marathon, known as "June Bugs" progressed from this 1938 cartoon to the very latest of Bugs' works, we saw the little pinkish white rabbit who was kind of daffy and hyper metamorphose into the wise cracking, brazen hare of Tex Avery and Robert Clampett fame, and then into an older, kinder, more mature Bugs that Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and Robert McKimson preferred.
As a lifelong fan of Bugs and the Looney Tunes, I could not ignore the need for this little cartoon to be mentioned..
"Porky's Duck Hunt" hilarious redux.
And thus is born the earliest version of Bugs Bunny (informally called Happy Rabbit).
Though anonymous in "Porky's Hare Hunt" and hardly resembling the rascal famous today, the screwball rabbit is one of the funniest characters whom I've ever seen.
Sporting a Woody Woodpecker voice, he does pretty much the same sorts of things that the early Daffy Duck did in "Porky's Duck Hunt".So at the very least, this cartoon should be required viewing for animation historians.
The hooligan hare utters Groucho Marx's "Of course you realize this means war!" for the first time.
It would still be two years before audiences would hear "What's up, doc?" spoken by the rabbit's more familiar form, but there's a sense that this bunny has some really cool tricks up his sleeve.
You gotta love it.All in all, definitely a cartoon milestone.
Available on YouTube..
Bugs In Embryonic Form.
By the late 30's, the Schlesinger studio had crystallized their in-house style, which echoed the spirit of the live action Warner Bros.
features.Tex Avery's unit had created Daffy Duck the previous year who stole the show in Porky's Duck Hunt, which caught audiences by surprise.
He started to appear in a handful of shorts in 1938.
Ben Hardaway, inspired by Avery, directed a similar titled short featuring what he called "that crazy duck in a rabbit suit".
This also got the attention of audiences.
As most fans know, this rabbit became Bugs Bunny within the next two years, molded by several directors and artists.
It's also interesting to note Porky's development during this time-frame.
He went from a very round character to a slimmer refined design.
Although there were still different Porky designs depending on the director.
Clampett's Porky around this time closely resembles the Porky we know today.
Hardaway used a very similar design for Porky that Tashlin was using at this time, which was wide-eyed and boyish.
To the casual observer, the rabbit would not register as Bugs Bunny as there's virtually no physical or personality resemblance.
This is one of the more memorable and enjoyable B/W Looney Tunes from the period..
Porky's Hare Hunt was a fascinating look at an early version of what would become Bugs Bunny.
On the Cartoon Brew site, Jerry Beck linked from YouTube a video by one Martha Sigall called The Story of Bugs Bunny.
Who is this woman who's now in her 90's?
She was in the Ink and Paint department at "Termite Terrace" during the various formations of what would become "that wascally wabbit".
It's quite a fascinating tale with Ms. Sigall using a framed demonstration of the various character poses and different drawings of the wabbit to the one we know of him today.
That YouTube segment led me to watch the original cartoon that featured what was the first version of what became Bugs Bunny (named after the director who made this cartoon, Ben "Bugs" Hardaway) on the same site.
It's sort of the same short as Porky's Duck Hunt made by Tex Avery except Porky's hunting rabbits.
"Bugs" here is actually all white and has the voice and laugh of Woody Woodpecker which is not surprising since this rabbit's voice originator, Mel Blanc, would create that same voice and laugh for that character at Walter Lantz a couple of years later.
Anyway, there were some creative gags I liked such as when a toy decoy rabbit kicks Porky's dog Zero in the face or when the rabbit uses his ears as propellers in escaping from Porky and his dog.
And how about the first time he quotes Groucho Marx's line from Duck Soup, "Of course you know, this means war!" Quite enjoyable this early short but since Daffy Duck was already the resident "crazy", it was decided to make Bugs more of the wiseguy type by the time Avery recreated him in the form we know him as today in A Wild Hare.
Good move, Tex!
So on that note, I recommend Porky's Hare Hunt.
P.S. Ms. Sigall has a book about her experience at Leon Schlesinger Productions/Warner Bros.
Cartoons called "Living Life Inside the Lines" out now..
I like to think this is Bugs Bunny and that this is his first appearance..
Some people disagree on whether this episode is Bugs Bunny's first appearance.
The rabbit/ hare here is incredibly different from the Bugs we know today.
However, I like to think that this is Bugs Bunny and in ways I prefer him to the later Bugs.
I just slightly prefer what he looks like in this to his nowadays state (and his size).
Bugs Bunny's original name was Happy Rabbit, which I think suits him here.I like this episode because of the personality of the old Bugs Bunny, the gags (which are a little like Disney gags) and Zero (Porky's dog) is sweet.
It may have little plot, but this is hardly a flaw.
Indeed, it could have been better with a plot, but it was not necessary.What happens, is that (like in Porky's Duck Hunt) Porky is hunting, but this time for rabbits.
With his dog Zero Porky Pig tries to catch the wild and Houdini-like Bugs Bunny, but is not seeming to be managing...Recommended for people who enjoy old Looney Tunes and who would like to see the most charming Bugs Bunny ever!
Enjoy "Porky's Hare Hunt"!
A hugely entertaining hare hunt.
Love animation, it was a big part of my life as a child, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry, and still love it whether it's film, television or cartoons.While not one of my favourite cartoons of all time and never will be, 'Porky's Hare Hunt' is nonetheless very well made and very entertaining.
It is interesting to see a proto-version of Bugs Bunny before Bugs Bunny became famous and Porky Pig paired with a character that wasn't primarily Daffy Duck.
There's not much wrong actually in 'Porky's Hare Hunt', it is very slight on story and there's not much original in it.Porky is a lot of fun and very likable in a type of role that suits him, but he makes more of an impression as a supporting character later on, he sometimes was a little bland in early lead roles.
Having said that, there is so much to recommend.However, the animation is very good.
It's beautifully drawn, very detailed and it's done in a crisp black and white, complete with some great expressions for particularly the rabbit.Carl Stalling's music score is typically lushly and cleverly orchestrated, with lively and energetic rhythms, it's also beautifully synchronised with the action and gestures/expressions and even enhances the impact.
All of those things Stalling was an unparalleled master at in animation, or at least in my view.The rabbit is no Bugs, not as interesting in personality, but the character drives the action to fun effect.
There are a lot of very funny and cute moments.
Zero is the same.
Timing is lively.
Mel Blanc's versatility as ever shines impeccably.Overall, very good.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Some guys spend their middle school years grabbing P-U- .
. -Y and getting away with it, which gives them the confidence to become President of the United States.
Mel Blanc, on the other hand, said during broadcast interviews that he devoted his time in junior high to perfecting his "Ha Ha Ha HAA Ha!" Heckle-and-Jeckle cackling laugh, which he tries out here first on D.
Bugs Bunny (the "D" standing for Daffy).
The "hare" in PORKY'S HARE HUNT is meaner than Yosemite Sam, nastier than Nasty Canasta, and more Satanic than the Tasmanian Devil.
By the end of Porky's ill-fated rabbit quest, Prototype Bugs has put the porker into a hospital bed, with his broken leg winched toward the ceiling in traction.
Beta Bugs stops by to visit Porky, bearing a bouquet of buds.
However, when Big Pig informs Funny Bunny that he's "okay," expecting to be discharged in a week, the nightmare hare chortles "That's what you think!" proceeding to inflict MORE fractures upon Porky's limbs and loins.
This all goes to prove that IF Mr. Blanc had NOT frittered away his middle school years in idle pursuits, but instead done something worthwhile such as groping girls (mastering The Art of the Feel), he too could have been a POTUS contender. |
tt1341188 | How Do You Know | Softball player Lisa Jorgenson is devastated when she is left off the Team USA roster. Unsure what to do next, Lisa begins dating Matty Reynolds, a pitcher for the Washington Nationals. She also receives an intriguing phone call from a young executive, George Madison, who was advised by a friend of Lisa's to give her a call. George calls out of politeness because he wants to explain that his relationship with his girlfriend has just become more serious. But life takes an abrupt turn for the worse for George when he suddenly finds himself the target of a federal criminal investigation for corporate malfeasance at a company run by his father, Charles Madison. George is fired from his job and abandoned by the company, with the exception of his father and his pregnant secretary, Annie.
Still reeling from this blow, George goes to his girlfriend for sympathy and is stunned when she immediately breaks up with him. On a whim, George calls again to invite Lisa to dinner and she accepts. It turns out to be a disaster; George is so overwhelmed with his troubles that Lisa eventually asks that they just eat in silence, and they part ways not expecting to see one another again. Soon, Lisa moves in with Matty, who has a penthouse in the same upscale building where George's father lives. Matty is rich, well-meaning and fun, but is also immature and insensitive, and continues to have casual affairs with other women.
George is indicted and could face prison time. Annie is so loyal that she tries to give him inside information in advance, but he urges her not to lose her own job. Matty tries to do better in Lisa's eyes, promising to consider seeing fewer women on the side. He inadvertently offends her, so Lisa moves out and spends a pleasant, tipsy evening at George's modest new apartment. George's father then drops one last bombshell on his son: It was he who committed the illegal act for which George is being charged. Due to a previous conviction, Charles would spend at least 25 years — basically, the rest of his life — in prison, whereas George would only do three years at most.
On the night Annie's baby is born and her boyfriend proposes, Lisa begins to reconsider her previous reluctance to settle down. George is clearly smitten with her, but Matty pleads for another chance and she accepts. George makes a proposition to his father: He will take one more shot at persuading Lisa to be with him; If she will, Charles must go to jail, and if she won't, George will take the rap for his dad. At a birthday party that Matty throws for her, George confesses his feelings for Lisa and goes outside to give her time to think it over, Charles looking on from above. Finally, Lisa says goodbye to Matty and joins George outside. At the end of the movie, they are seen boarding a bus together. | romantic, boring | train | wikipedia | from people going in to see this movie, expecting a chick flick and being disappointed.I believe the reason for the poor reviews of this movie are due to the fact that is has been advertised and delivered as a romantic comedy.True, it is fit for the romance genre, comedy..
Humour is few and far between for a comedy-seeking crowd, however for those who connect to the characters, the humour is purely intended for those devised from caring for the characters.Reese Witherspoon has perfected the role of Lisa, this is the movie that I would beg girlfriends to watch, due to her total delivery of the character throughout the entire picture, which is something most girls and women can relate to (whether they've reached that hurdle yet or not).
Brooks to write a film that pleased him and not have to pace it like most other "successful" Hollywood crap movies.
I also thought the relationship between jock-player (Wilson) and over-the-hill jock Witherspoon was sweet and funny in its own way.However, Kathryn Hahn steals every scene she's in as Rudd's personal assistant who hates what's going on and is also a single mom-to-be.
No. Is it a highly enjoyable romantic comedy with good supporting performances and funny scenes?
It wasn't until my Uncle pushed it on me, "Didn't that tank?" "Yeah, but it's actually good!" I think the reason why this movie got such bad reviews is people expected the typical rom com (I did).
What it is, is a REAL movie, with depth, great characters, smart dialogue, and the complexity of reality, with some jokes and a love story thrown in.
Ok, so I went into this thinking- The ratings are pretty bad, but then again how bad can a movie with Paul Rudd and Reese Witherspoon be?
This is the best performance yet by the wonderful Paul Rudd, a return to form for Owen Wilson, and the first truly sexy turn by Reese Witherspoon, always an excellent actress but never this yummy heretofore.
Also, with actors like Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson (plus how it was advertised as a comedy) I was expecting to do a lot more laughing in the movie than I really did.
I think if you go to this movie knowing it's more of a romantic comedy than a typical Owen Wilson/Paul Rudd style comedy then you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I am glad I did not let the ratings and reviews dissuade me, because this is a great movie.If you like Paul Rudd (I am a big fan), don't mind Reese (I like her even more now), like Owen Wilson (yep), love Jack (who doesn't?) and loved Terms of Endearment and As Good as it Gets, you will NOT REGRET watching this movie.
And let my tell you that Resse its great here, Paul to, and Jack, well maybe it will be his last movie so he's great to, but the big win is James, he it's a master of feelings, he is the best for making me laugh and cry, one of my favorite directors.
Reese Witherspoon is as cute as ever and Paul Rudd is is still the wholesome boy next door but even with these three actors, the movie was a total waste of time and money..
No, how can you take a movie with Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson and Jack Nicholson and basically throw away their talent by wrapping it around insanely boring and random dialog?
The first few times the characters think they are saying something witty that makes no sense to where the movie isn't going, it is irritating.
There's a girl (Reese Witherspoon), who's having a really bad day and is dating a completely idiotic guy (Owen Wilson), who's supposed to be funny I guess but totally isn't, and then there's a guy (Paul Rudd) and he's having a dreadful day as well and somehow the two meet and start pouring their souls out to each other, but in a boring-nothing-makes-sense kind of way.
Two whole hours of movie which seem more like five and will let any who tries to watch it as tired as Coach Mo after running the marathon...If you're hopping for something in the lines of "As Good As It Get" with smart dialogues like "The Simpsons" then you're in for a disappointment..
Seeing Owen wilson and Paul Rudd on the cast, i thought this movie would be Rom Com. But as i start watching, i found out it's a Romantic Drama with lots of life lessons.
Those are good enough signs to like a movieWhile Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd might not make to the really A list of stars, its nice to watch them.
Starts with Reese Witherspoon going into a relationship with Owen Wilson, while Paul Rudd is coming out from his.
Wilson is an athlete.The movie does not have a plot like a Inception but the dialogs are not expected either like 'I love you' and 'I love you too.' There's a very believable character in form of Rudds assistant.
So, for example, Owen Wilson, in many peoples' minds relegated to dependable one-note-johnny status as an actor, actually conforms himself to the spunky charm of the written character and gets to jump up on the mountaintop, alongside Olivier, for a few touching, precious moments.In short: This is the real scourge of Hollywood: That the movie-going public has been trained over the years not to expect, let alone demand, good writing.
Get hip to the music of good theater writing, and learn to expect nothing less from the movies that you spend your precious life's moments watching..
I've seen Resse in much better movies, she is not a Legally Blonde here.I wonder if it's even a love story, or even romantic, because it does not look like that.
Of course, as films always do, there are stumbling blocks.The first stumble is that Ms. Reese is first hooked up with a real character played by the wonderfully talented Owen Wilson as Matty, the professional baseball player.
While the males are showered with obscene amounts of cash and attention, the equally great, or even perhaps better, female athletes have to settle for little more than faint praise and a pat on the back.) I was also highly entertained by a wonderful supporting cast, led by none other than the legendary Jack Nicholson as Charlie, Rudd's father and playing as fine a slime-ball as ever graced the silver screen.
It ends up playing out like a romantic comedy rather than a drama, but there is still a lot of thought and simple honesty to the whole thing.This is the role that I have been waiting for for Paul Rudd.
Yeah, I like Reese Witherspoon, maybe I was hypnotized by here the whole movie..., who knows.
Maybe that was why so many people gave this wonderful movie a low rating :o( Paul Rudd is now one of my new favorite actors.
It is a way funny movie GO WATCH No one appreciates a good comedy that isn't full of raunchy comments the whole time.
I quickly found myself waiting and hoping for her next appearance.And frankly, while I'm not giving them their own numbered paragraphs, Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd, who have the workhorse roles and the responsibility for carrying this movie on their shoulders, really come through.
George tells his father that he is in love with Lisa and he will propose her; if she accepts, he will not accept to take the blame for the fraud."How Do You Know" is one of the most deceptive romantic comedies that I have recently seen, considering the cast with the names of Jack Nicholson, Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson that are wasted in a poor screenplay.
The pointless story is illogical and uninteresting, with Paul Rudd performing a naive executive with the behavior of an intern or student; Reese Witherspoon performing a softball player with an erratic behavior that does not justify the profile of her character; and Owen Wilson completely lost in a dull character.
As for a romantic comedy, then "How Do You Know" was fairly slow and lacked some of that special ingredient to make it stand out from the many, many others in the same genre.Sure the movie had an impressive list of cast, and there was some good chemistry between Reese Witherspoon (playing Lisa) and Paul Rudd (playing George).
Most impressively was seeing Jack Nicholson (playing Charles) in this movie, he truly is a diverse actor.The story in "How Do You Know" is basically right out of the romantic comedy cookbook; two people meet and eventually get to find love, and of course need to get through the obstacles along the way.
But for fans of Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd or Owen Wilson, then this movie is a good addition.
"We're all just one small adjustment away from making our lives work," says one of Reese Witherspoon's two love interests in her upcoming movie, How Do You Know.
And by "small adjustment" he meant the addition of Reese's love into his own life - a life which had taken a bit of a wrong turn without any fault of his own but which he knew could be course-corrected with the love of the right woman by his side.How Do You Know takes a contemporary and romantic look at the question, "How do you know (when you are in love?)" In this movie, Reese has two equally-cute but horribly messed up men vying for her love - played by Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd.
Those of us who love light-hearted romances, simply want a break from our every day lives and in that respect, this movie delivers enough charm, laughs and touching moments to qualify as a a great chick flick.Parisa, www.CelebMagnet.com.
Great cast, but it's quite sad to see all those good actors having nothing to do on screen.I could see people playing with their mobiles during the film, usually i find this very annoying, but in this case, i couldn't blame them, as you just simply get bored watching this.Don't waist your time and money watching this..
Oh, one more thing...there is absolutely no love, comedy or story line in this movie.
I would rather be put on fire than to watch this again.All the actors in this film are great but WOW, this movie was so bad.
If like me, you've followed Jack Nicolson for years and want to check out everything he's ever done, simply pretend that you didn't read his name on this cast list - save two hours of your precious life as this lot are definitely not worth it, what is sadder is that they genuinely seem to think that they are!Reece Witherspoon is as attractive as always but Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd must surely take equal honours as THE most boring men in Hollywood, let alone two hunks that Witherspoon's character would want to actually date!She's supposed to a softball champ but since dropped from the National team hits a low spot and so baseball hot-shot (Wilson) gets her attention but she can't seem to make him commit to anything serious.
OK, now that we've got that out of the way let's start with the review,, Firstly, this movie is a huge disappointment because having a cast that is this talented and a director that has a very good comedic history produce such a film is very depressing.Secondly, This movie is BORING!
It's been a long time since I watched a movie that was as confused, unfunny, meandering, and insufferably boring as this one was.I think it's fair to say if Brooks hadn't been behind it, no one would have had anything to do with it.The story can be distilled down to Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd going through personal traumas that should magically be put in their proper perspectives (I guess) with a shot of love.
But none of them live in the wasteland that is "How Do You Know." Skip it, you'll miss out on a good two hour slumber only.This is Rom-Com by the numbers...the complete opposite of a wittily written gem like "(500) Days of Summer." Can this genre of movie simply be that hard to pen?
The potential of the film's good actors is completely wasted by an improbable scenario, awful dialogs, no chemistry, no rhythm and uninteresting cinematography.It is very hard to categorize the film as one is not sure the film's director had any idea what kind of film he wanted: comedy, drama, sport movie or else.So it isn't that "How do you know" is a bad romantic comedy or terrible relationship drama, it is a universally bad film, which I am not sure deserve a 10-line long critic.But I rate this film 10 out of 10 for the insomniacs: they will find sleep sooner than later..
So if you are really not up to seeing the journey of this two very insecure people get back on their feet together, just don't go watch it because you are not going to consider it funny since it is always crucial to understand the concept and like (or love) the characters (or something about them at least) in order to enjoy the jokes...I found it clever different and extremely adorable...
The acting was fantastic (as it always is for them three) SPECIAL REQUEST TO IMDb USERS: Dig deeper into films go watch them for concept and message instead of just to get a good laugh or see cool 3d effects because if one takes that as the main focus then we miss out on the true essence of movies which I like to call...soul.
All I gathered was that Reese didn't make the USA softball team, so she's upset and ends up with 2 men--a knuckleheaded (but warm-hearted and well-meaning) pro ballplayer (Owen Wilson) and the CEO (Paul Rudd) of a business that is in legal trouble thanks to the CEO's father (Nicholson, who must have been desperate for money to star in this movie).No need to go into more details.
I honestly felt bad watching this movie for all of the actors, because generally I think most of them are pretty good.
The overall message of getting up and countering the beatings of life does get taken by the undertow of romantic interaction, but does it with enough charm, that I forgot about the lost potential.That said both Witherspoon and Rudd bring a charming novelty through their characters, coupled with a surprisingly efficient performance by Owen Wilson as the well-meaning, but mindbogglingly spoilt baseball star, bring a novel feel to the humour, which has awkward sensibility, far from the more up front standard people are used to.
Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Kathryn Hahn have good chemistry.
The only person who gave this movie a little bit of humor or life was Owen Wilson's character.
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
Can not be bothered to write a review as wasted enough time watching it, waste of good actors, lame plot and a shambles of a film..
hours, and every minute is just pure pain to watch.All I can say is: what a waste of talent, Witherspoon, Rudd, Wilson, Nicholson, all are very good actors, but not in this movie.
Really flat characters, bad acting, VERY bad and predictable story...The only good parts are the ones with Owen Wilson, he's as good as usual, but Rudd and Witherspoon are just bad.
I didn't expect a decent performance out of Owen Wilson, and he didn't disappoint.I did expect Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd to make this a worthwhile movie, but the incredibly awkward dialog and failure of direction made this movie unbearable to watch..
Terrific great quirky romantic dialogues between Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson are the core of this funny and feel good romantic comedy.
Lets start by saying, I had expected so much more, As Good as it Gets is definitely one of the films I like very much in the comedy genre and I had hoped this was up there.
Unfortunately it does not have the same intriguing story or the same level of comedian enthusiasm, but its not all bad.The roles that Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd plays are great, and especially the way the audience really can believe that they are two troubled human beings, dealing with each their own problems.
I had hoped that Jack Nicholson had a larger role then what he had, I simply loved him in As good as it gets, in this he has a smaller role but he is still good, I especially love the last scene with him and the face he makes (that's priceless).I did like the film, but I could have wanted some more fun and more "action" on the way, it takes time in developing and showing us the characters and usually that's not a bad thing, but when you expect comedy all the way, then it takes to long to get acquainted..
It was bad.Owen Wilson, same as Paul Rudd, it seemed they both didn't understand the type of movie they were in.
The comedy is the scenes between father and son, Jack Nicholson and Paul Rudd. |
tt0179148 | The Devil's Arithmetic | The book is a little different from the film. Hannah Stern is a 13-year-old Jewish girl living in the present day (time of publication: 1980s). She is bored by her relatives' stories about the past, is not looking forward to the Passover Seder, and is tired of her religion. When Hannah symbolically opens the door for the prophet Elijah, she is transported back in time to 1942 Poland, during World War II. At that time and place, the people believe she is Chaya Abramowicz, who is recovering from cholera, the fever that killed Chaya's parents a few months ago. The strange remarks Hannah/Chaya makes about the future and her inability to recognize her "aunt" Gitl and "uncle" Shmuel are blamed on the fever.
At her "uncle's" wedding, the Nazis come to transport the entire population of the village to a concentration camp near Donavin, and only Hannah knows all the terrors they will face: starvation, mistreatment, forced labor, and finally execution. She struggles to survive at the camp, with the help of a girl named Rivka. Uncle Shmuel and some other men try to escape; the men are caught. Fayge, who was going to be married to Shmuel, is killed because she runs to Shmuel when he is about to be shot with the men that were caught. Yitzchak escaped and lived in the forest with the partisans, fighting the Germans.
Later, when Hannah, Rivka, Esther, and Shifre are working, a guard overhears them talking instead of working. Shifre tries to reassure the guard they have been working, but he takes them anyway and leaves Hannah by herself. As the three are about to leave, Hannah takes Rivka's place by putting on her babushka. Since the guards don't know their faces, this goes unnoticed by the officer. The women are led to the gas chamber. She is then transported back to her family's Seder. Aunt Eva calls her over. Hannah looks at Aunt Eva's number; it is the same as Rivka's.
Hannah (when she was Chaya) was really the woman she was named after, Rivka was Aunt Eva, and Rivka's brother, Wolfe, was Grandpa Will. (Aunt Eva said that they changed their names when they got to America.)
The epilogue at the end of the novel reveals that when the camp was liberated, the survivors were Gitl (weighing a mere seventy-three pounds), Yitzchak, Rivka, and Leye (a worker in the camp) and her baby. Gitl and Yitzchak immigrate to Israel where Yitzchak becomes a politician while Gitl organizes a rescue mission that is dedicated to salvaging the lives of young survivors and locating family members. The organization is named after Chaya, her niece that died a hero. | storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0101538 | Campfire Tales | The first story involves a young couple returning home after hearing on the radio that a murderer with a hook on his right hand has escaped from the local insane asylum and is terrorizing the countryside. Upon returning home, the girlfriend discovers that her parents have been decapitated. As she runs to get help from her boyfriend she discovers that he has also fallen victim to the hook. A battle ensues and she comes out victorious, killing the escaped prisoner with his own hook.
The second story involves two stoners searching for marijuana. Upon finding a large quantity, and a very strange drug dealer, they return home to smoke it. When they awaken they are sickly and appear to be rotting. They return to get more and notice that the dealer is suffering from the same symptoms. But they take no notice and return home to indulge once again. Again, they awaken more sickly than before. Instead of seeking medical treatment they return to the dealer, only to find that he is no longer there. His plants are still in the apartment and the two take all of the plants with them back to their place. They indulge once again. As they smoke, they begin to fall apart and eventually turn to slime.
The third story has to do with a greedy, selfish man returning home to his mother for Christmas. He kills her for the inheritance, pushing her down the stairs leading into the basement. He leaves the body and heads over to his brother's house to watch his two children while he and his wife leave for the emergency room due to the husband breaking his arm putting up their Christmas Tree. The children tell him a tale about an evil Santa Claus known as "Satan Claus" who comes and punishes those who do evil things throughout the year. He leaves to head back to his mother's house, plotting what he is going to tell the police and his brother. Upon returning he is attacked by Satan Claus, who rips his heart out.
The fourth story and final story is about a shipwrecked pirate on a desolate island. He discovers a man who warns him about buried treasure on the island being guarded by zombies. The pirate kills the man and goes in search for the treasure, ignoring the man's warnings. He discovers the treasure only to be attacked by a large group of pirate zombies. After running from them for some time they eventually catch and kill him.
The wrap around story involves the young men going to sleep with the narrator revealing a hook on his right hand. | cult | train | wikipedia | Very Entertaining Low Budget Film.
It was many years ago that I saw this movie and I haven't seen it recently so I am working off of old memories here but I seem to remember that this was a fairly gory, low budget, short story movie with Gunnar Henson (Leatherface) telling the stories.
The first story is an old classic about a guy and a girl in a car going out to a lovers lane type place.
They get attacked by a man with a hook and you can probably guess the rest.
The second story is about two guys who smoke too much weed and end up falling apart because of it (litterally).
The second story is about a killer Santa Claus (always hilarious) and the last story is about a pirate looking for lost gold on an island filled with zombies.
This was a rather entertaining film even if it is blatantly obvious that it was on almost no budget.
I enjoyed it and I am sure if you took the time to look the movie up you will enjoy it also..
Very cheap, but entertaining.
When I watched this movie three years ago at TV I thought it was going to be a turkey.
that´s was perhaps the reason why I enjoyed it.
This extremely cheap but effective movie is divided in several stories and I can remark specially two of them: "Satan Claus" a terrific Christmas story and one chapter in which a guy arrives to an island searching for a treasure and becomes the victim of a group of pirate zombies, but the other two stories are also funny and you can watch some gore here(not very much), so, what more can you expect?
If you are a fan, rent it and you will have a lot of fun..
Cheesy Low Budget Fun.
"Campfire Tales" (1991) is no where near being a great horror flick: the acting is- for the most part- not the best and one can clearly see right off the bat that it is a low budget picture.
And yet, the movie manages to somehow be entertaining.
The movie centers around three teenagers who are camping out in the woods when town drunk Ralph (Gunnar Hansen who manages to play the role of storyteller pretty good) tells them four tales: one about a murderer with a hook for a hand, one that is an obvious tribute to "Reefer Madness" (with a more graphic image, mind you), another about Satan Claus (my personal favorite of the bunch), and one about a marooned pirate who learns the price of treachery.
Even with the shoe string budget, the film crew manages to do a decent production job with each individual story in the areas of tone, lighting, bizarre music, and (again, considering that this is a low budget movie) very well done makeup.
I'll admit, I'm a sucker when it comes to anthologies (especially now that nobody seems to make them anymore) but if you're like me and you like to see the filmmakers put some effort into their work (especially if they're working on a low budget) then check out "Campfire Tales".
PS: Not to be confused with the 1997 version.
Also, this movie is available on you tube but just to give fair warning, you will have to put up with a software water mark on the screen.
However, with the movie's charm, you might not notice it after a while..
Another uninspired horror anthology..
In this very low-budget horror anthology, Gunnar Hansen plays Ralph, a booze swigging homeless guy who joins three young horror fans around their campfire in the woods and recounts a series of scary stories, which, as one might expect from a guy who has rotted most of his brain cells with cheap alcohol, aren't very good.
In fact, all four stories are so elementary that they can easily be summed up in a single sentence: 1) An escaped maniac with a hook kills people.
2) Two guys smoke bad weed and melt.
3) On Christmas Eve, a heartless yuppie receives a visit from Satan Claus.
4) A mutinous pirate is attacked by his zombie shipmates.Although writer/directors William Cooke and Paul Talbot's obvious energy and enthusiasm for the genre does result in some cheap and cheerful, unsophisticated entertainment along the way, particularly whenever the blood is being thrown around, it is the film's weak script that prevents it from being a success, with each uninspired story notably lacking any satisfactory resolution (whereas most anthologies strive to deliver a neat pay-off or cool twist ending, these tales are happy to just peter off at the end).
By the fourth and final story, the least enjoyable of the bunch, I found myself seriously struggling to stay awake..
Worth watching.
Campfire Stories (1991) This is very low budget movie, the movie did look cheap, I don't let that get in the way, As this turn out to be really decent after all,3 boys about 12-14 years old go camping and then Bum or Home less man Join in and then he tell them 3 StoriesThe first story is about Young couple who making out, in the woods hear on the radio that a murderer with a hook on his right hand, as escaped from the local insane asylum , So boy takes to her Home.This story wasn't to bad but It didn't feel creepy at all but there decent a mount of blood in this story, Which made it more watch able.
4/10Next story was about two stoner's who are looking for some drug and run into this strange guy who's selling these drugs.They take but next day, they notice them are rotting away, slowly before try to get more before they rot away.The effect was not bad, very decent for low budget movie, 5/103rd story is about Man who come home for Christmas soon, he want is mother money, so he kills her by pushing her down the stairs so he leaves and goes to brother house to watch his kidsOne kids tell story evil Santa Claus known as "Satan Claus look who comes and punishes those who do evil things.When kids go to bed and then he stalked by someone, until come face to face with Satan ClausThis story sound really good, they could I have done a lot more then that, Satan Claus was not that scary at allThe acting was not that good in that story and it wasn't really that bloody at all.
3/10The Fourth and Finally story was pirate, who been shipwrecked and another Man warn the pirate about Zombie pirate if find the buried treasure but I as didn't care for what man said , he digs anyone and finds it.Soon Zombie pirate are out to get him and they don't look bad at all, they some make up effect looked really decent and some looks a bit odd but I don't think there scary at all.Then boys goes sleep and there is a little small twist, which anyone could see coming.None of the stories were that scary or creepy at all they just watch ableI give this movie 4 out of 10.
Enjoyable low-budget horror anthology.
Grizzled derelict Ralph (genre icon Gunnar Hansen in fine creepy form) relates a quartet of scary stories to three boys around a campfire: A hook-handed psycho embarks on a murderous spree, two potheads smoke toxic weed with dire side effects, an evil yuppie receives a late night visit from fearsome demon Satan Claus on Christmas Eve (this one boasts a great gruesome punchline), and a pirate finds himself stranded on a remote island that's overrun by zombies.Writers/directors William Cooke and Paul Talbot ably craft a fun ooga-booga spooky EC Comics-type atmosphere, display an utterly engaging wholehearted affection and enthusiasm for the horror genre, maintain a constant pace throughout, deliver a handy helping of graphic blood-spurting gore, and top everything off with an amusing sense of pitch-black humor.
The pirate yarn features some pretty gnarly zombies and a strong 17th century period flavor while the wrapround segment has a decent twist at the end.
A cool little fright flick..
Entertaining anthology.
Extremely low budget horror anthology that is surprisingly entertaining.
I have to admit, I am a bit of a sucker for a horror anthology.
Let's face it, most horror films only have enough plot for 20 minutes anyway, so this format really seems to work well.Okay, the plot - three young lads set off into the woods for a sleepover and chance upon a 'bum', who proceeds to tell them four tales to chill the blood:1 - The Hook: serial killer with a hook.2 - Overtoke: two guys become addicted and then infected by cannabis.
Eventually they start melting and are rendered into dribbling skeleton's due to the power of the 'sh1t' they were smoking.
Plenty of bubbling, liquefied flesh kept me happy.3 - The Fright Before Christmas: a morality tale about Xmas.
An Evil Santa, complete with black Santa outfit and mutant reindeer(!), murders a yuppie for lack of spirit of Christmas.
He is the Anti-Santa.4 - Skull & Crossbones: A pirate abandons ship and leaves his crew mates to die, whilst scarpering with the loot.
Needless to say, they are not amused, and return as Angry Pirates.
Angry Zombie Pirates.
Angry Swordfighting Zombie Pirates.
By far the weakest of the bunch, and the reason this didn't get top marks.Nevertheless, I enjoyed this a lot..
Scary tales around the campfire..
William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines.
Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand.
Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed.
They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t.
As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off.
One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus.
The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse.
A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale.
The acting is understandably not award worthy.
Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H.
Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann..
Definitely worth a watch!.
This movie is NOT well made, let's make that clear right from the beginning.
But it is obvious (to me) were horror fans that were trying to make a horror movie.
It is EXTREMELY fun to watch.
It's ridiculous, but it's SO ridiculous, that it makes it worth watching.
Unlike most B-Horror flicks made by fans, it seems to have a budget.
The writing and acting are awful, and yet it somehow comes off as a horror fan's fantasy film.
Rock music throughout make it look like an 80's music video.
For the lack of a better word, I continued saying "Awesome" throughout because I had never seen anything quite like it.
The killer in the first segment actually TRIPS ON A PIE!
It's just insanity, but worth a watch. |
tt0057869 | Bande à part | Odile (Anna Karina) meets a man named Franz (Sami Frey) in an English language class. She has told him of a large pile of money stashed in the villa where she lives with her aunt, Madame Victoria and a man named Monsieur Stoltz in Joinville, a Parisian suburb. Franz tells his friend Arthur (Claude Brasseur) of the money – and his nascent romance with Odile – and the two hatch a plan to steal it.
Meanwhile, Franz and Arthur try to seduce Odile. Ultimately, Arthur wins Odile, and they spend the night together.
Arthur's uncle learns of their plot and wants a cut of the money. Franz, Arthur, and Odile now must commit the robbery the night before they had planned, the night they knew M. Stoltz would be away from home. Moreover, M. Stoltz grows suspicious, and he hides the money and changes the locks.
When they arrive, Franz and Arthur tie up Mme. Victoria and lock her in an armoire. They only find a small amount of cash in the house, and when they open the armoire, to interrogate Mme. Victoria about the rest of the money, she appears to be dead. Franz, Arthur, and Odile flee the scene at once, until suddenly, Arthur declares he will return to the home, to verify that Mme. Victoria is in fact dead.
This is a ploy: Arthur knows where the rest of the money is hidden, and he plans to take it for himself. But on the highway, Franz notices Arthur's uncle heading in the direction of the villa; he and Odile turn around to follow. There, they witness Arthur being shot by his uncle repeatedly after finding the rest of the money in the doghouse. As he breathes his last, Arthur shoots his uncle in return. Odile rushes toward the body, but Franz pulls her away as M. Stoltz pulls up to the house. M. Stoltz gathers up the pile of money that is on the ground and walks up the stairs of the house. This is also where we learn that Mme. Victoria is alive, as she appears in the doorway and meets M. Stoltz as he enters the house.
Odile and Franz drive off with a small stack of money from the robbery. Odile, crestfallen, declares, "I'm disgusted with life." The two decide to flee to South America, and the narrator declares his story has ended here, "like in a pulp novel," and promises a technicolor sequel chronicling Odile and Franz's tropical adventures. | psychedelic, atmospheric | train | wikipedia | Acting wise, the film is stolen by the lovely Anna Karina (who was Godard's wife at the time) as the sweet, vague woman at the centre of the trio.
Godard himself does the voice-over narration relating the story.Filmed on the cold, de-glamorised streets of urban Paris, the film has a spontaneous feel that adds a lot to the exhilarating feel of the whole work.This film is a charming, fun and suspense filled picture from one of the world's most interesting film-makers..
Unlike in his debut, Breathless, here the characters - two young men Arthur (Claude Brasseur) & Franz (Sami Frey) and the young woman Odile (the beautiful Anna Karina) - are quite accessible (at the least watchable) to those who aren't used to Godard's treatments of his main players.
That, along with a style including artful but elegant and, in opposition, gritty and 'cool' cinematography by Raoul Coutard and a striking, upbeat musical score by Michel Legrand, gives Jean-Luc Godard the edge in creating one of the most influential films of the new-wave.
What makes Band of Outsiders a great film is not just the last act, but that the lead up to it, the filler, is rather extraordinary in its good grace to keep the audience entertained even as they know they're watching an art film (a good analogy is that Godard narrates much like Cocteau narrated over Blood of a Poet, except that here it's over a crime instead of a series of surrealistic events).
There are also little moments that are funny and/or fascinating, and they go to show there's more emotion in this triangle than would usually be found in any kind of conventional film-noir.After now seeing four of his films (Breathless, Contempt, Week End, and Band of Outsiders), this is my favorite.
Wheeler Winston Dixon, in his book _The Films of Jean-Luc Godard_, a rather good exploration of Godard's cinema, devotes a single paragraph to Bande a part, having written several pages each for such other Godard films as Breathless, My Life to Live, and Une femme est une femme.
He doesn't say it, but it is just as easily said that it is also a repitition of Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player and Jules and Jim.Why would Godard, who has just expanded into making a film, a major film, like Contempt (and will go on to make Pierrot le fou (which I haven't seen yet, though I will in the next few days) and Alphaville) go back to a cheap crime movie?
The three main characters, Arthur, Odile and Franz do this great dance (kind of a proto-line dance, although a lot more attractive) to a great jazz piece (the music is great throughout, like it is in all of Godard's other films; he has quite the ear for it).
And its greatness escalated steadily as the film progressed, until it ended.Let's discuss for a moment the acting of Anna Karina, at the time Godard's wife and obsession.
The leads, including Jean-Luc Godard partner Anna Karina, are young and charming and their quick dialogue keeps things light.
Fantasizing and discussing Hollywood B-movies and pulp literature, they decide to rob the house with the help of Odile.Godard goes to even further extremes in "violating" traditional storytelling with his voice-over narration, giving the viewer information during the action and letting his characters talk to the camera.
It might not be Godard's most innovative release, compared to let's say BREATHLESS, CONTEMPT and TWO OR THREE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER, but is probably more entertaining and accessible to modern audiences than almost any other pre-1970 film he made (his later work is difficult to grasp for any audience).
When Anna Karina jokes that Stolz probably made his loot from cheating on his taxes, then repeats it again in the final scene- this time as stated fact, it shows you how deeply these characters are entrenched in the fiction of it all, how the wisecracking becomes a way of living.
Godard's overwrought, sickly poetic narration is obviously a gag, as is Arthur's hilariously overacted death scene; the minute of silence at the soda shop where Godard cuts the soundtrack completely is great, and the synchronized (well, almost) dancing is just precious, and I loved it.
Band Of Outsiders is definitely worth seeing if you like Godard's way of filmmaking; to me, it falls a little short of greatness, but it does have its moments.
Regardless of the brilliant avant-garde cinematic techniques that pepper the Band of Outsiders, one is also stuck with the characters, an aimless lot without a lot of talent, charm or magnetism, rootless folks who ignore others completely as long as they can run about and steal and make noise and act like unruly children.
He also makes reference to this films famous dance scene in 'Pulp Fiction' and he supposedly showed the scene to Uma Thurman and John Travolta so that they could be inspired.All of these reasons inspired me to watch this movie and I was slightly disappointed with what I saw.
Jean-Luc Godard's 1964 film "Bandè a part" (sometimes titled "Band of Outsiders") is an adaptation of an American crime novel that transcends its pulp origins through Godard's cinematic invention.
The young lady Odile (Anna Karina), who isn't very bright, meets lowlife Franz (Sami Frey) in an English course and makes the mistake of telling him that the home in which she lives with her aunt holds a large amount of cash.
There is also dancing, as in the film's most famous scene Odile, Franz and Arthur interrupt their plotting for an amusing line dance in a café, over which the narrator tells us their unspoken thoughts.And then there is Godard's many references to the film canon.
Jean-Luc Godard has long been the darling of the French New Wave, beginning with the 'stereotypical' nouvelle vague film, "Breathless." While "Breathless" is the film that everyone regards as 'the one,' the true beauty in Godard's filmmaking is expressed with "Band of Outsiders." Once again featuring Godard's beautiful wife Anna Karina, "Band of Outsiders" is the kind of crime film that you're not entirely sure if you like or not.
But at the same time, Godard is letting his imagination run wild, filling our minds with life's little pleasantries and random absurdities.While Truffault's films as a whole are more widely recognized around the world, Godard truly is the grandfather of the French New Wave.
Jean-Luc Godard, who chattered before the arrival of the color widescreen, talked about the trembling lights in the cold fog and Shakespeare in the translation class, a minute of silence and a nine-minute record, and a third-rate story ending in the cold-blooded narration.
Director Jean-Luc Godard shows his talent for visuals and there are a number of scenes in the film that really stay in your mind.
Sometimes French films are actually extremely (Wages of Fear, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe, City of the Lost Children) but I feel like most of the French movies I've seen in my life were exactly what I hate about Godard.So, how is Band of Outsiders for someone who hates Godard?
But there is an interesting silent flirtation that starts up during the reading that is rather fascinating.So this movie gives me some understanding of what Godard is trying for in his films, I think.
And it makes me understand why Hal Hartley, who I love, has said Godard is a major influence (Hartley's films also have long conversations with people talking at each other, but his dialog is quirky and fascinating, which is very un-Godard.The story involves a love triangle and planned robber featuring a dumb woman and two men, one a major creep and one a minor creep (predictably she likes the major creep better).
Like most French new wave films that pay tribute to genre film making, Godard has drained most of the energy and suspense out of the crime genre in this film, so the story is never particularly compelling and the movie's slight twists are poorly done and seem like an afterthought.
Jean-Luc Godard, creator of the quintessential New Wave film, 'Breathless' directs and once again shows that if a film has style and energy, plot and characters can take a backseat without too many problems.
Band of Outsiders is muddled and doesn't seem to know exactly what it wants to do; but it doesn't matter, because the life that Godard injects into it more than makes up for it's lack of direction and even though many of the scenes have nothing to do with the actual plot; the film manages to work, and work very well.
The crime at the centre of the plot is so petty that it feels wrong to put this in the same genre section as films such as 'Rififi' and 'The Asphalt Jungle'; but then again, that's Godard's intention with this film.Band of Outsiders continually mocks convention, and scenes such as the impromptu dance in a cafeteria (Pulp Fiction, anyone?) show that Godard just wants to break convention, even if it comes at the expense of the plot.
Why he did this is unclear, but thank God he did, as, in my opinion, it's an ultimately better film.Shy student Odile (Anne Karina), is befriended and by two partners in crime, the quirky and silent Franz (Sami Frey), and the confident and reckless Arthur (Claude Brasseur).
In using the title for Macado de Assis's novel as my summary for this particular Godard film, i'm trying to bring up the fact that this is a post-modern narrative, with the narrator (Godard himself) constantly breaking into the action to give us (the audience) not just an idea of what's going on, but to clue us into feelings and ideas that his characters (Franz, Arthur and Odile) can barely express.
It may not be as technically dazzling as ALPHAVILLE or WEEKEND, but BAND OF OUTSIDERS is a contradictory movie: photographically, the black-and-white images of the suburbs of Paris are often delicately mournful, and Michel LeGrand's music is wistful, yet it's a film filled with love, love for movies, love for its leading lady, Anna Karina, and love for the audience, whom Godard is always addressing..
The character study is a lot more effective than that in "Breathless" and makes a good social commentary.The first hour of the film sustain a light tone of romantic-comedy, which appears to be about a weird love-triangle.
However, you may not be too bothered about what is going as you are more concern about what the characters are thinking and feeling.This great film change my viewpoint of Jean-Luc Godard and makes me more willing to see his other works.P.S. My vote for "Breathless" is 8 out of 10..
A joy to watch as always, running through the Louvre, the Madison dance scene in the café, the sleazy Arthur, the beautiful young Odile, the slightly hapless Franz who loves Odile but is being bested by Arthur, the plan to rob the money in her aunt's house.
Very much a French New Wave film but also a Film Noir which pays homage to B Movies.Imho it's Godard's best or at least most accessible film..
There's a good deal of adolescent knockabout fun; the two men delight in play-acting as gangsters and reliving scenes from their favourite American movies, all three characters get up and spontaneously dance 'The Madison' in a cafe and the poor Simca sports car in which they drive around is repeatedly and mercilessly thumped over kerbs and pieces of scrap-yard junk.
The cafe-culture is more centred around Traditional Jazz than Rock-and-Roll and even the way the characters dress appears to be from a time as yet untouched by the very youth-quake that Godard and his fellow New-Wave film makers helped to promote.
Bande a part or Band of Outsiders, directed by Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most important films of the French New Wave.
Band of Outsiders might be a little hard to understand if one's unfamiliar with Godard's own influences: Robert Bresson, b-class film-noir, neo-realism and especially Jean Rouch.
Jean-Luc Godard clearly builds his films around this philosophy of film; the combination of reality and fiction - both of which can never be separated from each other.Band of Outsiders is both a tribute to American b-class crime films and a poetic description of Parisian suburbs.
In the middle of the encounter and the heist, the group of three has time to dance, chit-chat, act crime scenes, sit still and quiet for one minute and run through Louvre in a new record time.Jean-Luc Godard himself called Band of Outsiders a "suburb western" and to my mind that's maybe the best description one can give about it.
Band of Outsiders is perhaps the biggest tribute to cinema from all of the films by the Nouvelle Vague directors.The film is part of a certain era in Jean-Luc Godard's career.
So the one who seeks for a political message or a deep study of humanity from Band of Outsiders will find oneself in a dead end and I think that's exactly what happened to me on my first viewing, but after a few years times have changed and I've become much more aware of the French new wave and Godard.This certainly doesn't mean that Jean-Luc Godard wouldn't be political but during the 'Anna Karina' era his films were playful, light and joyful with the exception of Alphaville.
It's a real eye-opener for all of who are interested in French New Wave, Jean-Luc Godard's work, his relationship with Anna Karina or poetic narrative..
"Band of Outsiders" is a pulpy crime flick with great wit, fun characters, good performances and a well-told story, and that's all it is.
Bande à part (1964) **** out of **** Directed by Jean - Luc Godard With Anna Karina, Sami Frey and Claude Brasseur Brilliant, poetic film about a Karina being the desire of Frey and Brasseur while their dances, sing, play and travel in Paris drifting stole Colpeyn's money.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)Even though I haven't gotten around to finish watching Jean-Luc Godard's celebrated Breathless (1960) despite trying a couple of times, I'm pretty sure I like Band of Outsiders better.
It is her naivete that makes the film work as two petty, would-be criminals, Arthur (Claude Brasseur) and Franz (Sami Frey) seduce her into helping them rob a surprisingly large number of francs from her Aunt's house.
And then the fantasy life returns as the film ends.Godard's story, his plot, isn't to be taken seriously, but his characters are.
"Bande à part" is one of the main movies of "Novelle Vague", the French cinematic movement between the end of the Fifties and the Sixties.This films belongs to the best Jean-Luc Godard period, when his movies still had a strong story and were not politicized yet.Arthur, Franz and Oldile form a band different from the other ones...
One of the many installments in the New Wave (in fact, Nouvelle Vague appears on a cinema marquee), it portrays small-time crooks Arthur and Franz - both fans of B-movies about gangsters - enlisting young foreign language student Odile to help them pull off a crime.My interpretation is that the movie has many aspects.
But also, Godard likes to imitate some of the tricks used in film noir B-movies - as well as with the storytelling - without getting silly.
But to be successful it's important that you commit crimes with fake tattoos, a noticeable limp, and an Irish accent.Unfortunately, the thieves in this heist movie decided to go with their native French tongue.Taking an English class together, three disfranchised Parisian youths, Odile (Anna Karina), Arthur (Claude Brasseur) and Franz (Sami Frey), decide to fleece a houseguest of Odile's aunt of his fortune.Attracted to Odile, both Arthur and Franz agree to the heist; however, their plan is expedited after Arthur's uncle gets wind of the available cash.Forced to rob the visitor at once, the trio's simple plan becomes a problematic bloodbath.A subtle stick'em up, imbued with director Jean-Luc Godard's New Wave vision, Bande à part is an unconventional love story amid an unprofessional heist.Besides, don't French robbers have a reputation of surrendering their arms if you saw you're German?
In and around Paris, beautiful ex-model (and director Jean-Luc Godard's young lover) Anna Karina (as Odile) attracts two criminally-minded young men in her English language class - attractive Sami Frey (as Franz) and aggressive Claude Brasseur (as Arthur).
Very much in the same vein as his break-out hit Breathless, Band of Outsiders works just the way it is supposed to, an homage to the pulp crime novels and B- movies of America.
Band of Outsiders (1964) *** (out of 4) Jean-Luc Godard film about two friends (Claude Brasseur/Sami Frey) who love "B" crime films and hope to one day pull off their own heist.
What strikes me most about the film now (and, really, about all of Godard's crime movies) is the humor.
Bande a Part deserves praise as one of the finest achievements of the French New Wave and represents a great doorway into that style of film-making for the uninitiated..
Well Overall, Not as important to the history of the French New Wave, like Godard's other movies, but surely a treat for his fans.
Therefore on this weekend, after finishing a big research paper, I decided to finally watch a Godard film: Band of Outsiders.Band of Outsiders tells the story of Franz and Arthur two young men who are out to make a quick buck so they can live the easy life.
Narrated by Godard himself, Band of Outsiders is almost like a novel on film when Godard delves into the minds of the characters and reveals their thoughts.
Many of Godard's films, while loved by the lovers of the French New Wave, are not particularly approachable to the average viewer. |
tt1105733 | Kismat Konnection | This is a story about an architect Raj Malhotra (Shahid Kapoor) who lives in Toronto, Canada. While he was a top student in his school and college days, he is not having much luck in finding work, clients or projects. All he does, seems to go wrong. Raj goes to a gypsy named Haseena Bano Jaan (Juhi Chawla). She advises him that his luck is not good and he needs a lucky charm or a person who can change his life. Afterwards, Raj meets Priya (Vidya Balan), who is ready to help the citizens of a community by trying to save a community center. Although they do not get along at first, Raj eventually realizes that Priya is his lucky charm. Priya ends up helping Raj through sticky situations and Raj eventually figures out that she is, in fact, changing his life. Knowing this, Raj lies to Priya by telling her that he will help her save the community center, but instead, he is trying to build a shopping mall there so he can finally be recognized as an architect. He also falls in love with Priya and she too falls for him. However, when Priya finds out the truth about what Raj is trying to do, she becomes very upset and hurt. To make up for his lie, Raj sells everything he has, not caring about his job. He proposes a plan to save the community center and ends up winning Priya's love and admiration. After Priya and Raj finally get together, Raj's life changes and he becomes prosperous. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | The chemistry between Shahid and Vidya was not very good.
All in all it is not a movie worth wasting your time and money on.A lousy effort..
Aziz Mirza returns with his new movie after "Chalte Chalte".
But this time its not Shahrukh but Shahid in a role of next to door young person with a mission to make it big.
The movie starts off lazily with some repeated scenes of a middle class person looking for work and this gives you a feeling about what will be coming in the later reels.The story line has the same old tried and tested formulas of love & misunderstandings so there is nothing new to see.
You feel restless watching the movie as it becomes bore and slow most of the times.The only lighter moment comes with Juhi Chawla who plays a fortune teller and who guides Shahid for his future and about his luck factor.
But even this interesting part is not handled well enough and it completely fails to entertain the viewer.Shahid tries to do his best but he doesn't have an author backed role.
Music department has only one foot tapping song from Pritam and all the other songs are just OK.Even when the promos of this movie started, they failed to create any excitement and the same was the result after its release.
Good Movie , Great Shahid.
The movie is really fun to watch it's not the typical Hindi movie shahid really done great job with this project loved his acting the dancing was brilliant the plot is simple with no over acting from vidya or shahid yes he do look like srk in the movie with the hair and the director who only worked with srk how could we not compare him with shahrukh but he done it his way Guys u really have 2 stop comparing him with srk some said it's a srk movie but it's a shahid movie live with it .
This was a much better movie then expected.Raj Malhotra, who was once the most popular person in his college.
In fact his Kismat is bad until he meets a Gypsy woman who begins to predict things for him and that he needs a lucky charm to change his life.Inspired by the Hollywood movie "Just My Luck," it stars Shahid Kapoor, Vidya Balan, Vishal Malhotra, Juhi Chawla, Om Puri, Himani Shivpuri and Boman Irani.
The voice over is by Shahrukh Khan and is directed by the director of movies such as "Chalte Chalte, "Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hidustani" and "Raju Bangaya Gentleman," Aziz Mirza.This is definitely one of the better movies for Shahid Kapoor and one is able to see some sort of chemistry between him and Vidya Balan, who also looks quite gorgeous.
There are also some moments that are at times funny and Aziz Mirza has done a good job of this and has managed to bring out the best from both his main actors - Shahid and Vidya in terms of expressions.Conclusion: Although the story is predictable, this is one movie that can be watched with family members and children.
I've always liked his films, especially those starring Shahrukh Khan and Juhi Chawla, because they have a unique charm and quirkiness and I love the fact that the story of his films usually revolve around the common man and his problems.
The script draws inspiration from Hollywood films like 'Three To Tango' and 'Two Weeks Notice' but it's not a scene by scene ripoff.This time Mirza introduces a refreshing pair: Shahid Kapur and Vidya Balan.
Kapur's Raj Malhotra has Shahrukh Khan written all over it and the actor acts almost exactly like Khan minus the raw energy and natural spontaneity.
Vishal Malhotra gets a decent role this time and does an adequate job (but sometimes he's a little over the top).As a whole, 'Kismat Konnection' works to an extent but unfortunately, it does not reach the levels of Mirza's earlier films like 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman', 'Yes Boss' and even 'Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani' because of the following reasons: 1.
What made Mirza's previous works likable was that they were set in India and concerned common problems of the ordinary man but in this film, it is presented like just another NRI story when it could have easily been set in India.
Not to put down their performances but even though Shahid and Vidya share a good on-screen rapport it's no match for the on screen magic between Shahrukh and Juhi.
However, he's picked one of the worst music directors for this film and as a result 'Kismat Konnection' suffers.
Dialogues were another strength in his movies and 'Kismat Konnection' has plenty of those.
I understand that the writer's intentions weren't ill but it just looks out of place and a crucial scene like that needed strong but to-the-point lines.Yet, even with the flaws 'Kismat Konnection' is quite an alright flick.
For me, even a bad Aziz Mirza film would be worth watching and this one ain't so bad..
A number of things drew me to see it: Jab We Met was a good movie, so I wanted to see if Shahid was continuing his momentum.
Wanted to see how Shahid and Vidya worked together.
But I just didn't come away feeling the way I did after other recent movies like Jab We Met. So 6/10..
The movie hardly connects with the viewers.There is hardly any chemistry between Shahid and Vidya.
In fact Shahid looked like a kid in presence of Vidya.The whole movie could be predicted from very beginning.
Only thing good in the movie was the costumes of Shahid and the shooting location i.e Canada.
this movie is really exciting and heart touching..i just loved the movie..the acting the story it is so building and really entertaining and one of the song is really good..its worth watching it..really great movie!if you are into love stories and romancing movies then this is the movie for you.the story is really good and the acting are perfect..there is nothing negative i can say about this movie all i can say is that i just loved it!!!!so go and watch it..i am sure if you are into Hindi love story movies then you will enjoy this movie....by R-A-S-H-3-L.
This Saturday night I got to see this movie, and I am very thankful to the new love birds of bollywood, Shahid kapoor and Vidya balan that they have made it.
Movie start with "kismat" and ends with the same.
The best part of movie is that it raises a nice cause besides the entertainment, it has a really nice massage for all the businessman and even common people.
Shahid kapoor is once again a true nice innocent guy in the movie.
In the end I will give a 9 to this movie because of comedy, charm, entertainment and a real good massage delivered in the movie..
I feel so sorry for those who seen this rubbish movie on the cinema because I got to see it for free in my friend's house and I hated it right from start to end.
The whole movie was so boring that I felt like ripping my arm out and constantly bash my head with it.The music isn't even good, the only catchy song is Aai Pappi and the rest of them do not jar and lacks instant recall after the first hearing.
It is directed by the awful director Aziz Mirza who also made movies like Chalte Chalte & Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani which were specifically made for the brainless audience.
Yes the movie is shot in Toronto so that should be interesting enough right?
If only the story was more credible and the script stronger than what we had to see.I liked the dress of the actors and the general colors of this movie.
The music was too modern I didn't like it.It's the kind of movie to watch once and never again.My vote: 5/10.
Males look upon the females they love or like as lucky for them and it's just a wild thought that their association brings good luck to them.
Kismat Connection (2008) tells such a story only.Set in Toronto, the story of Kismat Connection (the connection of luck) is the story of two young architects - Raj (Shahid Kapoor) and Hiten (Vishal Malhotra).
While continuously approaching Mr. Gill (Om Puri), a director of a construction firm - Batra and Gill in their bid to get a contract, they stumble upon Priya (Vidya Baalan) who runs a community centre meant for the modestly earning people.
Soon Raj starts feeling that Priya is his lucky charm.
Love blossoms in his heart for Priya and he expects better days for him when two significant developments take place.Raj comes to know that Priya is engaged to Karan Behl and they are going to tie the sacred knot soon.
After a good dose of comedy in the first half and a good dose of sentiments in the second half, the movie ends in the Bollywoodish 'All's well that ends well' style.The director of this movie is Aziz Mirza and it is the signature movie of this director who had earlier directed movies like Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman (1992) and Yes Boss (1997) having a similar tone.
It's a weak movie all the same with the director trying to pack too many things in the climax when the hero delivers his emotional speech and gets what he wants.The first half of the movie which focuses on comedy is more interesting and makes the viewer sit through it.
However everything remains quite predictable and the audience knows the end beforehand.It's difficult to understand why the filmmaker has set the story in Canada whereas the same could have been narrated with an Indian backdrop in a much better way especially when all the characters of the story are Indian only.
Setting the story on a foreign land has diluted its impact for the Indian audience because it becomes difficult to relate to it on account of this very reason.Vidya Baalan has replicated her Lage Raho Munna Bhai act because she has got a similar role and similar script as well.
Shahid Kapoor, Vishal Malhotra, Om Puri, Boman Irani and others including Juhi Chawla in a cameo have done their respective parts well.
More than the chemistry between Shahid and Vidya, it's the chemistry between Vidya and her peculiar friend Boman which impresses the audience.Technically this movie is good and the beautiful locations of Canada have been captured very well by the cinematographer.
Pritam's music is good.I recommend Kismat Connection as a decent entertaining watch to the regular movie buffs.
The idea is pretty stale probably belonging to the roaring 70's (Sanjay Chhel, how did you manage to market the lousy stuff?).Aziz Mirza's Raju Ban Gaya & Yes Boss contributed towards numero uno status for SRK and with the same hope Shahid Kapur gives his best.Hey Baby, you need some serious advise on fashion ie.
Vidya Balan at her awful best.Vishal Malhotra as a side-kick is becoming monotonous in his la Rajendranath roles.Om Puri is wasted.The lucky mascots donning the narrators and fortune teller hats don't help either ie.
initial chemistry does exist...whether its shahid's boyish charms, or vidya's believable eyes.....
It's a good movie.
Hey, it's at least better than Sawariya.On the positive side, I at least got $2 worth of entertainment from my $10 ticket, because of Vidya Balan.
Better "Luck" next time Shahid!!!!!!.
I missed you a lot in this movie because I thought it was going to be you but it turned out be an imitation of shahrukh.
Like your pairing with Vidya Balan.
You look too young for her and in some scenes you both are like chalk and cheese.You acted good in some scenes but the dialogues were so silly like when you tried to make karan and priya happy by taking both sides.
Maybe you thought that we would like the way your luck flip flops predictably.
Maybe you thought that your speech in the movie was inspiring for the audience.
Whatever it was, you made a wrong decision for your "Kismat" as this movie didn't "Konnect" at all with us.Anyways Id like to gift these two stars to you.
As for Aziz Mirza and the writers of this movie, the less the said the better.
Movie starts of well with Shahid being a winner in his college but a loser in the big bad world of business because his Luck seems to have run out.
Shahid lies loves and does all things to keep his "Lucky charm" with him however things end up in a different manner...Shahid Kapoor acts well but vidhya balan is almost like his elder sister or something.
Shahid and Vidya fail to ignite the combustible chemistry expected in a film like this..
Kismat Konnection is the kind of film you might truly enjoy if the last film you watched was Yes Boss all the way back in 1997.
Like most of director Aziz Mirza's films this one too is at its core an old-fashioned tale about a guy-next-door and the clash between his ambition and his middle-class values.
Kismat Konnection is simply a rehash of Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman and Yes Boss, but it doesn't have the charm of either of those films because it's constructed from a script that's ridden with flaws.Shahid Kapur plays Raj, a struggling architect in Toronto who hasn't earned a dime in five years, but still manages to turn out in the trendiest of clothes day after day.
His lucky charm turns up in the form of Vidya Balan who plays Priya, an honest-to-goodness girl who, when she isn't busy ramming her car into Raj every other day, bides her time protesting against the construction of a mall where a community centre currently stands.
As luck would have it, the contract for the construction of this mall is exactly what Raj is hoping to land, with a little help from his lucky charm.Director Aziz Mirza pulls out every other plot point from his old hat and applies it in this film -- guy uses girl to further his career, guy falls for girl but she's already engaged, guy suffers from bout of good conscience and decides to give up everything in exchange for girl's love, girl feels betrayed when she finds out guy had been lying all along, guy admits his mistakes in a gathering filled with too many extras and wins girl's heart eventually.
You see, you've heard this story before.Intended as a breezy entertainer, Kismat Konnection -- like Mirza's previous films -- banks heavily on the audience's ability to relate to its characters and their simple everyday concerns.
Shahid and Vidya deliver earnest performances, but they fail to rise above the flawed script.
Kismat Konnection doesn't work for many reasons, but perhaps its most fatal flaw lies in its snail-paced screenplay which includes so many boring scenes where nothing much happens.
But walking out of the cinema once the lights come back on, you're just glad it's finally over.Believe me the best thing about this film is Himani Shivpuri and her fabulous comic moments.
If Ur a fan of Aziz Mirza films and used to like YES BOSS, RAJU BAN GAYA GENTLEMEN then this is an old wine in new bottleThe film is set in Canada and is nothing even watchableIf u like romantic films, this may work for uThe film is a remake of JUST MY LUCK but the indianised version is like the 90's romantic films which u have finished watchingThe romance is too ordinary, though the confrontation towards the end is good but the ending is again, mundaneAziz Mirza shows nothing great in this film Music is good, some songs are niceShahid Kapur had evolved as an actor since JAB WE MET but in this film he continuously hams like SRK and apes him but gets better towards the end Vidya looks too old to be paired opp Shahid though they are of the same age, her wardrobe is damn pathetic and her acting well nothing great in this role actually so can't blame Juhi is alright Om Puri and Himani are great Vishal is as usual, a jerk in another seen type before role.
fun filled film...good for a Sunday evening a few things which i thought the director missed..and a few things that could have been avoided1.
the film starts with shah rukh khan's narration...but when he comments on the house number of the character Raj malhotra..he says NO.626...but clearly..the house number displayed is NO.617..lol 2.
4. costume and hair do for vidya balan could have been better...some times you wonder which one of the two has longer hair...vidya/shahid 5.
Good entertaining movie.
The first being that Jab We Met was better, and second being that the movie is all over the place.In general, they are right.
I am glad I saw it and enjoyed it thoroughly, and I hope that folks who read my review are actually encouraged into watching this movie.Since I don't really care for SRK's acting, I don't go by the comments that SRK would have done better justice to the role of Raj Malhotra.
His ability to get into a character is in full evidence.To put a long story short, Vidya Balan's Priya is Raj's lucky charm, and the narration builds it up in the first quarter very well.
The second quarter is Raj finding himself falling in love with Priya.
The third quarter is about Raj getting the kabab mein haddi out of the way, and the fourth is when he must convince Priya that he loves her more than his Kismat.
The denouement is superb, where we find Raj getting Priya, and his new found Kismat remains intact.
In fact, Priya's realization that she is very important to Raj's cause, gives her a new meaning to her life.Where is the script weak?
When Priya gets in the way of Raj on his important billiard's shot, no doubt. |
tt1303901 | Silent Hill: Homecoming | At the start of the game, the player controls Alex through a nightmare concerning his younger brother, Josh, before Alex wakes up in the cab of a truck driven by Travis Grady, the protagonist from Silent Hill: Origins, who gives him a ride to his hometown of Shepherd's Glen. The town, named for a distant ancestor who helped found it, is covered in fog and deserted. At home, he finds his mother in a catatonic state, murmuring about his father leaving to find Josh; promising to find Josh, Alex leaves.
Alex soon discovers that many more people have gone missing in Shepherd's Glen since he left when he finds his childhood friend Elle Holloway pinning "missing" signs to a board outside the police department. As Alex explores the town, he witnesses the separate deaths of Mayor Bartlett and Dr. Fitch by monsters in the Otherworld, both of whom have a child who is missing. Back in Shepherd's Glen, Alex allies himself with Deputy Wheeler in the police department. Alex eventually learns that his father was involved in the secrets of the town and had left to attempt to resolve the town's problems, but before he is able to get answers from his mother at home, he is knocked unconscious when The Order—a religious cult from Silent Hill which has been taking people from the town— kidnaps his mother.
Alex, Elle, and Wheeler take a boat across Toluca Lake to find Alex's father in Silent Hill but are intercepted by the Order. Elle and Wheeler are taken to Silent Hill's penitentiary, where Alex attempts to rescue them. He finds his mother bound; the player must make a decision regarding whether to kill her out of mercy or not, which will affect the outcome of the game. After rescuing Elle's mother, Judge Holloway, and separating from Wheeler once more, Alex finds the Order's church, where he listens to his father in the confessional; the player may choose to forgive him, again affecting the outcome of the game. Alex later runs into his father, who reveals that Alex was never a soldier and has been in a mental hospital since "the accident" occurred. He begs forgiveness before he is killed by a monster called the Bogeyman (Pyramid Head from Silent Hill 2).
Continuing to the Order's underground facility, Alex is captured by Judge Holloway, who reveals that everything that has happened is due to a broken pact. One hundred and fifty years ago, the four founding families broke away from Silent Hill's Order to move to Shepherd's Glen. They were allowed to do so on the condition that once every 50 years they would sacrifice one of their children in a preordained fashion. On this occasion, while Joey Bartlett, Scarlett Fitch and Nora Holloway were successfully sacrificed by their parents, the Shepherd sacrifice failed, and as a result, the Order had been reformed to try to appease their god. Judge Holloway tries to kill Alex, who kills her in self-defense. Alex rescues Elle from the facility and, after finding Wheeler injured and allowing the player to choose whether to save him—once more affecting the game's ending—continues on alone to find Josh.
Realizing he was the intended sacrifice, Alex experiences a flashback showing Josh's true fate. When Alex was younger, he had taken Josh rowing out on the lake, where Josh showed Alex a ring, which his father had chosen to give to him instead of Alex. Out of jealousy, Alex struggled with Josh to try to take the ring, and as they fought Josh accidentally fell into the lake and drowned. His father retrieved the body and explained that Alex had "ruined it for all of us", since he had chosen Alex, and not Josh; unable to accept Josh's death, Alex was then sent to the mental hospital, and with Josh instead of Alex sacrificed, the Order's pact was broken. After fighting the final boss, the manifestation of Josh's spirit, Alex finally has the chance to apologize and states that he never wanted Josh's death. Alex leaves the family ring and their father's angle-head army flashlight on Josh's body and exits the chamber.
There are five endings available, which depend on the player's actions during the game, including whether the player kills Alex's mother, forgives Alex's father, and saves Deputy Wheeler. These range from the single positive ending to the game—where Alex comes to terms with his past actions and reunites with Elle to leave Shepherd's Glen—to three other endings: Alex getting drowned by his father, waking up in the hospital and receiving a shock treatment, or being turned into a Bogeyman. There is also a joke ending, where both Alex and Elle are abducted by a UFO while Wheeler witnesses. In addition to these endings, if the player collects all of Josh's pictures or clears the game on the "hard" difficulty, a first-person post-credits scene is played where Alex finds Josh sitting on the bottom bunk of his bed and Josh takes a picture of Alex with a camera. | revenge, gothic, violence | train | wikipedia | As an avid fan of the Silent Hill series, I understandably, had this pre-ordered way back 2 months ago.
All fans of Silent Hill know the formula -it's that oppressive, dark, dense, anxious build up.
These elements are synonymous to Silent Hill and were severely lacking in this game.
The plot, length, atmosphere, quality and overall feel of this game was quite frankly nothing more than an American travesty of something that was unique and brilliant.
A Silent Hill game?
For starters the game is more combat oriented with the introduction of using various combos and finishing moves to kill your enemies, you can also aim the gun yourself giving you the freedom to place a few pellets in certain monsters critical zones which can be really handy when your conserving those last 4 bullets that you 'wasted' 2 minutes ago fighting another creature.
The horror factor stands up to the silent hill name, really gory, really twisted and leaves you feeling cold due to the attention paid to certain details.
It's also great how you can have a combat buddy fighting alongside you, blasting monsters back to back.My only complaint is the fact that the game is really anti-climatic towards the end, in many cases it feels that the designers just got bored and didn't bother with some greater in depth story line unlike in SH2 where you get two bosses and a scene explaining more of the story.
Overall the game is good and I give it 8 stars for the reason that the ending wasn't as good as it could have been, but it is definitely worth the look..
Although still a somewhat good trip to Silent Hill it is also disappointing..
Yes, I was excited when I found out Silent Hill would be coming to the next generation consoles and I bought it soon after its release.
Let's just say I like Silent Hill 2, 3, and Origins more than this one.
I liked it a bit more than Room and I have never played one so I can not really say if I thought it was better or worse than that game.
Even though I thought it was overall better than Room, its story is not quite as good as that game either.
It does boast the best graphics of the series to date, the monster look good, and the characters do too, the problem is the story is not up to par with the other Silent Hill entries I have played.
Also, the combat is not as good as the last game of the series Origins, as in that one the character was a lot tougher than Alex in this game, beating enemies with his fists.
Of course, in the end it leads back to the town of Silent Hill.
A couple of plot points just did not really work for me, the game featured members of the order like those seen in the movie, I am not sure if they appeared in the first game, but I know I never saw them in any of the other games I played.
It seems this one focuses a bit on the religious cult more than previous games, but a lot of stuff presented here just did not add up.
So for the best looking of the Silent Hills play this one, story wise though it is a bit weak..
Silent Hill: Homecoming (PC experience).
The majority of Silent Hill: Homecoming is based in Shepards Glen which is a very risky idea.
I found it was more interesting discovering how a second town was rapidly descending to the nightmarish underworld of Silent Hill...I bought this on PC format for the purpose of my new laptop and I have to say I really enjoyed playing it.
Despite some very long loading times between levels & scenes it was quite easy to control, although as much enability you are given to explore the town its too freaky to go of wandering.
The monsters are freaky as ever, there are many ways to attack, dodge and tackle them and as you progress through the game its more clear how they behave.I know most people compare this to Resident Evil but this is what makes your skin crawl....
"Silent Hill: Homecoming" is arguably the weakest entry in the series, yet it still has the feel and the tone of previous entries, and is a good game overall....
Each entry in Konami's "Silent Hill" franchise has explored a deep and dark portion of the human psychological makeup.
The second game focused upon a man in perpetual grief, who comes to the haunted town to find his missing (and deceased) wife.
Each game has that sort-of Grimm's fairy tale quality- there is always a moral, no matter how hard the trials may be, and "Homecoming" is no exception.
It tells a tale about loyalty and love within the family unit, set within a hellish facade of horror and mayhem.Being that this is my first review of a video-game, I'm going to do things differently- I'm going to give a brief, spoiler-free plot synopsis, and follow it up with an analysis of each major aspect of the game.
(Graphics, sound, etc.)The game follows Alex Shepherd, a soldier who returns home from battle to the small town of Shepherd's Glen.
He has had a troubled relationship with his family- he cares deeply for his younger brother Joshua, but has grown distant from his mother and especially from his strict and seemingly emotionally abusive father, Adam, also an army man, who lives by the strictest of rules.Alex notices that something is wrong the second he arrives.
Feeling a special bond with his brother, he decides to go look for him, starting a quest that will take him to the bowls of hell and back, and eventually to the dark town of Silent Hill itself, on a mission to save the one family member that truly seems to appreciate him.That's the basic plot, now here's a breakdown of actual game mechanics and facets, rated on a 1-10 scale:Graphics...
This holds true for Alex, who looks like an animal with bared teeth during conversations.
"Silent Hill: Homecoming" controls beautifully when your exploring areas and searching for clues.
The developers tried to make this a more action oriented game than previous entries, and therefore beefed up the combat system, adding new attacks, new weapons, a new "evade" button, and more.
6 out of 10 Everyone in a "Silent Hill" game seems to be looking for something on the outside, and something on the inside.
But for their first "Silent Hill" game, they did a great job, and stayed true to the spirit of the game.Overall, I give this game a 7 out of 10.
I am possibly the biggest Silent Hill fan I know, I've managed to introduce several friends to the wonders of this series and many of them enjoy it too.
I always say that no matter how bad a Silent Hill game is I will always finish it.
What really sucks about this game is that they had the atmosphere just right; the town of Silent Hill, the fog, the whole atmosphere was pretty much perfect.
What makes a Silent Hill game for me is not the constant fighting, but the wandering around in the fog, and that helpless feeling you get when you hear a strange noise in the distant.
In this game they pretty much took out all of these things and threw in a bunch of extremely annoying enemies that take about fifty hits from the axe to actually kill, that is before they've already knocked you on your ass half a dozen times.
I'm not saying there was a bunch of ammo everywhere you looked in the previous games, but hell, this is like playing Resident Evil - only even goddamn harder, and you can imagine what that's like.
That being said, Origins which was also made by the Americans was a lot better than this game, so maybe they just went wrong somewhere.
Anyone who enjoys action and combat should try this game, but if you're a true Silent Hill fan who still considers the second game the best of the bunch, I'd say rent it.
When Alex comes out of a military hospital and returns to where he grew up(after having been gone for years), he finds his mother catatonic, his younger brother missing(is there going to be a creepy kid in every installment of this series?) and his father(John Locke) seemingly having gone in search of the aforementioned sibling.
It does still build atmosphere, effectively with the excellent sound-side, the grotesque creature designs(there's a four-legged man-sized spider with blades for legs, a tight-clothes-wearing psychotic nurse with bouncy cleavage(...why?) and a knife with your name on it, and the second-hand-smoker's worst nightmare that you'll want to keep away from you; then again, this does have the worst dogs(it's the only bad case, really), they're essentially skinless with a head that's the cross of a newt and a leopard...
If we define Silent Hill as what we got in the original three and what the fourth was a different artist's take on(not the same, yet interesting in its own right), then this, well, ain't it.
The psychology holds up, and it makes you think, like the rest of them.
Good as a game, bad as a Silent Hill game.
Much too often the most important thing for the creators is to pander to the tastes of the AVERAGE gamer, who often thinks, "Hey, I fork out my parents' hard-earned bucks and I want to get what I already know and like fog, flashlight and Pyramid Head, 'cause he was sooo cool and I wanna be like him!
Team Silent concocted four highly ORIGINAL and INVENTIVE works of art.
SH is officially dead to me.THE REVIEW PROPERI feel that with the new team the main concern was how many bucks the next SH game would/should earn.
It's like they wanted to play it safe and their main goal was to please the old fans and at the same time make the game attractive to casual gamers.
Hence, to me Silent Hill is no longer about art or new ideas it's about making easy money through imitation rather than creation.Here's what I find wrong with SH Homecoming:In short, the game is well-produced but STALE.In more detail:1) FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPTIt's repetitive all the trademark features of the previous SH games are used in a basically unchanged way, which makes the game dull, predictable and unscary.
Cases in point: flashlight, fog, locations (hospital, sewers, prison), monsters (nurses, dogs, straitjacket monsters), music (exactly the same ambient stuff we've already heard so many times before) and the most important thing: storyline (an ugly imitation of SH2 story and some elements from the movie).
Jeez, the overexposure just makes the game BORING.2) TWO IS A COMPANY, THREE IS A CROWDThere are too many characters in Homecoming (I think around a dozen in total!).
Some characters are totally irrelevant to the plot and you can't help but wonder why they're in the game at all.
In my humble opinion, the graphic nature of some of the scenes is out of place in a game like SH.
The other three acts of violence were implied!) Please, don't turn SH into "Hostel", for Mary's sake!To sum up, although well-executed, the game is derivative on all fronts and doesn't introduce anything substantially new to the series.
If you enjoy the feeling of deja vu in your gaming experience you will probably like this game.
The goriest Silent Hill game ever.
I enjoy virtually all Silent Hill games.
Starting from Silent Hill 2, 3, 4, and the latest one is Silent Hill Homecoming - the last title out for PC (no word on PC version of Downpour as of yet, quite a letdown indeed).Homecoming offered an interesting plot: a soldier returns home from battlefield finds his family is a mess: his brother and father are missing and his mother, while not missing, is no less tragic.
So it's up to the soldier to find out the truth behind the disaster, and the rest is as we've all expected - trapped in the demonic dimension of a Silent Hill neighbor called Shepherd's Glen, and followed by the traditional story (for Silent Hill series anyway) of human sacrifice and things - No, I wouldn't reveal the plot further, you just have to experience it yourself.The atmosphere - as we have all expected - is spooky enough.
The graphics, while not as good as, say, Heavy Rain, are great, not surprising though giving it is a PS3/X360-class game.
Boogeyman or Pyramid Head, I honestly agree (and most of you I think will too) that he is one of the scariest enemies in horror games.One most distinctive feature is that Homecoming employs more gory scenes than before.
This is NOT the Silent Hill I know.
Maybe it's because I loved the other silent hill games so much, and had such high expectations for this one.
Either way, I have to say that Silent HIll: Homecoming is a sorry excuse for a Silent Hill game.
I consistently enjoyed every other SIlent HIll installment, even SH4, which had a different feel than the others, but had the same essence.
On the surface Homecoming may have looked like the other SIlent HIll games, but when you look closer it actually has nothing in common with them aside from the name.
I think the foremost thing that the Double Helix team missed about Silent HIll is the element of mystery and the unknown.
Previous Silent HIll games were about subtlety, and hinting at things, but not actually affirming much.
"Fear of the Unknown" is what drove Silent Hill.
The little nuances and creepy occurrences were what made the other SIlent HIlls great.
These creepy little imaginative things made these games, and are what Homecoming lacked.
Homecoming had a lot of over the top gore and brutality, reminding me of the cheap "eww" moments of American horror films (including the silent hill movie) and not the eeriness of SIlent HIll. There was nothing at all that left you wondering.
Also, the monsters in this game were all about combat, and not at all about evoking fear in us.
There were the big-boobed nurses from the SH movie, the dogs that have been in all of the games, some sewage monster, and some other creatures with big blades that were hard to kill.
I don't buy silent hill games to fight.
Another thing I want to acknowledge about this game is the lack of desperation and loneliness.
Usually in a video game I would think that the last level would be building to a climax.
In previous silent hills, the last level is where everything goes to *beep* showing you that this is really it, and that something really horrifying is coming.
In short, this game may have had some new bells and whistles (new combat, seamless room transitions) but I'll take the clunkier SIlent HIll games any day.
This game lacked everything that I loved about Silent Hill.
I'm not an avid gamer, but I played Silent Hill because it was different.
Welcome Home: a Silent Hill review.
Silent Hill is a survival horror series that's focused on psychological horror rather than shock horror.
I've played a few games in the series, I wasn't too interested in the original Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2 was pretty good, I didn't play Silent Hill 3, so I can't judge that one and same thing goes with Silent Hill Origins, as for Silent Hill 4: The Room, I didn't like that game at all.
I'll tell you in this review.Story: The game is about a former soldier named Alex Shepard returning home after his service from the war but he's not getting the homecoming he deserved.
Alex goes on a search for his missing brother Josh but his search would take him to the foggy ghost town that is Silent Hill where the mystery of the missing citizens of Shepard's Glen takes a dark turn.
Alex must unravel the dark connection between Silent Hill and Shepard's Glen and find out why his little brother Josh and everyone else had disappeared.
5/5 Graphics: Like Silent Hill: Origins, Silent Hill: Homecoming wasn't developed by Team Silent.
When I first played this game, I was surprised Double Helix Games pulled the graphics off really well.
Double Helix even took some inspiration from the Silent Hill film for the Otherworld moments which is a plus.
5/5 Gameplay: In Silent Hill 4: The Room, I felt the controls were stiff, melee combat was delayed, holding ten items until you put them in a chest was tedious and repetitive, and the first person perspective just didn't serve a purpose.
As I said before, Silent Hill: Homecoming is a huge improvement.
Not only Silent Hill: Homecoming goes back to the basics of previous games, it also implements the over the shoulder targeting mechanic and has greatly improved melee combat.
Once again, Double Helix Games really pulled it off on the gameplay.
5/5 I truly recommend this game to anyone who's a big fan of Silent Hill or survival horror games in general.
Silent Hill: Homecoming is a great game and go check it out but don't take my word for it.Final Score: 5/5.
Pretty good, I think - little terrifying, and the combat's great.
I liked it, but I don't think it holds a candle to Silent Hill 2, but then again I had the static turned off and the screen rather bright.
Anyway, my favorite part of this game was probably the combat system.
But before you enter Silent Hill the (first?) time, when in...
I'd recommend it to anyone who likes that kind of combat system, for sure, as long as you don't mind a little terror along the way. |
tt0089382 | Joshilaay | The film revolved around two men Dara (Sunny Deol) and Karan (Anil Kapoor). Both were wronged by Jogi Thakur (Rajesh Vivek) and his partner Raja Singh (Kulbhushan Karbandha). Daara was separated from his family and left near a circus where he was brought up and Karan´s family was murdered in front of him. After Jogi and Raja rob a village they are nabbed by the police. In the chase Raja betrays Yogi and hands him over to the police running away with the loot himself.
Twenty years later, Raja Singh has become Raja Saab, a dreaded ruler of many village and a respected man. Daara and Karan are both grown men now thirsting for revenge. Where Daara is the fun and witty type Karan is the silent and angry type. Jogi Thakur is also released from jail and thirsts revenge against Raja. The twists incurs when Daara wants Jogi Thakur alive to find about who his parents were and Karan wants Jogi Thakur dead. | revenge, cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0036166 | Mission to Moscow | The film chronicles ambassador Davies' impressions of the Soviet Union, his meetings with Stalin, and his overall opinion of the Soviet Union and its ties with the United States. It is made in faux-documentary style, beginning with Davies meeting with president Franklin D. Roosevelt to discuss his new appointment as United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. It continues to show the Davies' family's trip by boat to Moscow, with stops in Europe.
While in Moscow, the movie alternates between Davies' interpretations of Russian politics and communism and his family's impressions of Russian life. It includes a memorable scene with Mrs. Davies at a Russian department store. The movie gives Davies' perspective on various points in Soviet history. It begins with the real ambassador Davies stating, while seated in an armchair, “No leaders of a nation have been so misrepresented and misunderstood as those in the Soviet government during those critical years between the two world wars.” The film then cuts to the film Davies and begins its narrative.
Davies is shown witnessing the famous show trials conducted by Stalin in the 1930s (known as the Moscow Trials), which are portrayed as trials of fifth columnists working for Germany and Japan.
The voice-overs continue throughout the film, interspersing storyline with Davies' opinions. The film's narrative focuses on the journey of Davies and his family. First, their physical journey from the United States to the Soviet Union. And, second, their less tangible journey from skeptics of communism and the Soviet Union into converts and enthusiasts. The narrative of the movie and the book are almost identical. | alternate history | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0100129 | Meet the Applegates | The film starts off in a forest with a family being attacked by a family of huge Brazilian Cocorada. It then moves to a typical-looking family moving into a well-off suburban Ohio neighborhood. They are the bugs that were seen earlier, after they took on human form and met every "normality" standard from the magazine Family Bazaar. They moved to the suburbs after the husband, Richard, got a job at a nuclear power plant; he works there to one day cause an explosion that would rid the world of humans and let bugs be. But after a while they drift from its normalities — the son, Johnny, a straight-laced A student, begins listening to heavy metal and becomes a junkie; Richard and his wife, Jane, drift away from each other, he having an affair at work and she becoming attached to her credit card; lastly the daughter, Sally, becomes a pregnant lesbian after being raped by a jock from the high school.
They each show their true bug form at least once in the film—Johnny does while smoking marijuana with his metalhead buddies, Sally while being raped by the jock, Richard when infiltrating the nuclear plant, and Jane when two Family Bazaar agents come to their house. As they drift away from normality (and nearly been found out by the neighbors) their aunt, Bea, is sent to help. She becomes a nuisance and they decide she should be taken care of. Richard decides to not blow up the plant, and kills Bea instead. At the end of the movie they return to their lives in Brazil, and are visited by the townspeople that grew to love them, although the plant did not blow up, enough radiation was released to remove the hair from much of the town's population.
A deleted scene reveals that Aunt Bea survived and still intends to destroy the world. | cult | train | wikipedia | Angered by a logging company encroaching deep into their natural forest, a family of large insects camouflage themselves as humans and blend themselves into a small American town.
Despite being a little too gory for my tastes, this comedy is actually quite sharp in it's main satire on American life.
The main joke for me was the way the family of bugs are sucked into the lifestyle of American mores the mother gives in to commercialism, the son to drugs, the daughter to teenage sex and the father to adultery.
What is clear is the eco message which pokes fun at those who would make war on nature (whether bug or human) without respect for other life forms.For a 90 minute film it all works pretty well and is actually quite imaginative.
The kids are OK but the best performance is an outrageous performance from Coleman as the queen of the species complete with full drag and moustache!Overall this never quite delivers as many laughs as it's clever and funny pitch but it is still worth a watch.
I couldn't disagree more with the other comment posted for this (unavailable..any body know of a release date for a DVD?) clever adult satire on the American dream and the life that accompanies it.
The movie is hilarious (as are the 4 films mentioned above) in its own twisted little way..
"The Applegates" can easily be considered a cult classic for three obvious reasons; a strong cast, a powerful story, and moments that will remain in the chambers of your brain.
Director Michael Lehmann,, who also directed a personal favorite film called "Heathers", knows how to make a socially viable comedy that doesn't feel dated or tired.
Who would have imaged I would be sitting here, typing on the computer, indicating to you that I deeply enjoyed a film starring Ed Begley Jr. and Stockard Channing or even the fact that Dabney Coleman was mixed in there as well?!?
They were working together to create comedy (yet again another concept that seems to escape modern cinematic farces), they played off of each other, building their small character into something believable and witty for the greater good the movie!
The human elements that invade these bugs' lives are over-developed for this film, but they work impressively well.
These Applegates, as well as the actors that portray them, prove to humans that even if they come to us, we will still destroy their sense of what is right or wrong."The Applegates" used a powerful technique for keeping this film easy on the eyes.
I wanted to laugh, bring in thoughts of what is destroying our world, and see a film that was fresh and genuine; and I was able to see it with "The Applegates".
Our obese lifestyles are killing these bugs, and Lehmann isn't afraid to show us that to our face.Overall, I thought "The Applegates" was yet another strong film released by Michael Lehmann.
It is a sad story of our human lives, wondering if others would ever watch this film and see us in such a light, one can only wonder.
I would give this film a 7.0.This is the kind of film you watch with a big bowl of popcorn.Stockard Channing is always great and the role of Sally Applegate is played extremely well.This film should be required viewing for Ed Bundy.I love the surreal and outrageous humour.We all seem to be afraid of being invaded by aliens but I do believe that not many of us considered cockroaches even though they may among the few species that survive..
The comic premise of giant bugs disguising themselves as humans is no more difficult to accept here than it was in "Men in Black," except this is a much better movie.
The predictable left wing environmental theme is here, but is by no means overpowering enough to detract from the riotously funny look at middle class suburban life, with all its pretensions, facades, commercialism, and sexual foibles that this movie supplies.
Though this film has a very strong moral (people who think insects are disgusting and live disgusting lives should first take a look at the human race) the whole thing is marred by the fact that it can't seem to decide whether it's a comedy or a more serious ecologically-themed drama.
The insect family trying to fit into human society and coming to terms with it could have been hilarious, but the film is too mean-spirited and bleak to be funny (the family daughter is date-raped, the father commits adultery with his secretary, the son takes drugs, the dog is poisoned by the same drugs and ends up reverting back to an insect before being crushed to death).
There isn't much I could add to Tom's comment, except that for an European it is so refreshing to see an American director really make fun of America and Michael Lehmann definitely is always doing an excellent job at just that.
The Applegates (Ed Begley Jr, Stockard Channing) are a peculiar suburban family.
Meet The Applegates doesn't meet much intelligence, however, it is a fun movie to watch if you just want to watch, and not think.
I want to warn you, even though Meet The Applegates is in general a comedy, there are a few yucky scenes ( I won't spoil any of them for you, that would spoil the fun...and that's all I can see that this movie was made.
Director Michael Lehmann's second movie which takes a very witty look at the typical suburban American family, in all its cliched glory.
However, they soon realise that there is no such thing as the perfect family and very quickly things start to go wrong.The dialogue is sharp, witty and always amusing, although the directors attempt at a screenplay is not a patch on that of Dan Waters who wrote his first movie Heathers.
Keyword reference for this film indicates scenes of interracial sex.There were no scenes of interracial sex - barely scenes of interracial interaction (other than the law enforcement official that meets a slimy end -- no sex, though).Did I miss something?In fact, the sex scenes are not much to worry about -- the daughter's romp is not the least bit erotic, or funny -- for that matter.
Smelly and disgusting would-be comedy about a typical looking suburban family (led by Ed Begley, Jr. and Stockard Channing) who are actually giant cockroaches in elaborate disguises.
"Meet the Applegates" is a terrible movie that tries to be funny, but has too many unnecessary adult themed elements.
In 2007 however, it just looks tired, when people such as Tim Burton are capable of handling these things with far more subtlety.The satire is misjudged here because the wellspring itself is from other movies rather than anything close to real-life.
If this is an attack on American values then it adheres strictly to movie convention, because I refuse to believe that EVERY family over there contains the requisite sex-object daughter and pothead son.This takes aim at small screen morality on a bigger budget, and it's very rare that TV is a microcosm, so almost all of the jabs feel watered down when filtered through an entertainment medium.
A family of cockroaches living in some tropical country are disgusted with humans destroying their habitat, but they have a plan to put an end to their carelessness.
Head of the household, Richard Applegate (Ed Beagly, Jr.), a suave engineer, will pose as a worker at the local nuclear power plant, and then use his privileged access to figure out the layout of the plant and the key eliminating the human race, and pretty much every other living and non-living thing.However, their plan starts to fall apart when the perfect all-American storybook Applegate gradually turns into a seriously dysfunctional family.
Dabney Coleman is pretty funny in this movie with his small role as "Aunt Bea," the queen of the cockroach clan.
He plays pest control specialist, Greg Samson here.This kind of movie is really an acquired taste, and is a much different satire than Lehmann offers in 'The Heathers.' It is certainly a wild satire--cockroaches disguised as the perfect human beings?
And the question in the end is, is global nuclear destruction really necessary for humans to appreciate cockroaches, or hell, to quit destroying species in general?
The movie, too, may go overboard with some things such as the young Applegate daughter being raped by the horny jock, turning her into a lesbian.
Well it's not the best movie in the world, if it could possible help people understand the negatives of destroying the rainforest then its worth a watch in my books..
They had a good concept going at first, the unnecessary had to flush story down the toilet and replace it with unecessary rape, very cruel looks at life and dramatic problems with families that are considered funny.
MEET THE APPLEGATES is a comedy horror movie and I guess on that level it works very well as a bunch of giant praying mantis disguise themselves as an all American family and live in middle America while planning to sabotage a nuclear power plant in order to save their jungle environment So far so good as far as the premise goes but you quickly find yourself asking the question as to what the film is trying to say .
Surely if the movie has a green conscience it should appeal to children but within 20 minutes we've already seen an attempted rape while more and more bad language and adult situations like adultery and drug taking are introduced into the story and long before the movie ends you notice that there's a very uneven feel between scenes which makes for a very strange movie Okay I'll be generous and take it as entertainment in which case MEET THE APPLEGATES just about succeeds if that's what it's intended as .
A lot of "Meet the Applegates" (alternately called "The Applegates") is just straightforward comedy, with the insect family trying to behave like a "typical American family" in the suburbs.
No, it's not the funniest movie ever, but it's got some funny stuff mixed in with the ecological message..
Ed Begley Jr. has been in some pretty outrageous movies (see Eating Raoul), but it has to be both outrageous and entertaining, which this film is not.
Applegates is the duo's followup and what a delicious wedge of trash it is, a tart with a heart kind of a movie easily mixing the downright unpleasant with the lightly comic and a bit of social and environmental commentary.
The Applegates are not your ordinary suburban American family: they're giant insects bent on world destruction.
I started watching this expecting that the bug natures of the family (excellently played by Ed Begley Jnr, the always brilliant Stockard Channing and two bright young things whose careers have since faltered) would be played down because of the tight budget.
Someone somewhere has decided ropey-schmopey they're going with the effects lending a wonderful air of B-movie to proceedings.I said before that the Applegates weren't an ordinary American family but they are recognisable as a sort of hellish recreation of one in the late twentieth century and they evolve fast.
There's lots to love here: cross dressing Queen Bea (a lovely turn by Dabney Coleman), Kevin and Kenny the twin dealers who now look like something out of a time warp and a whole lot of gore.
But a broad streak of comedy and a thin veneer of environmentalism gives this in many ways bleak film plenty of heart and if the dialogue sparkled a bit better then this quite political tale (is it really about communism vs.
Meet the Applegates, there's the head of the family Richard Applegate (Ed Begley Jr.) also known as Dick, his wife Jane (Stockard Channing) & their two teenage children Johnny (Robert Jayne as Bobby Jacoby) & Sally (Camile Cooper as Cami Cooper).
The Applegates at first glance appear to be a normal middle class American family when they move into a quiet suburban town somewhere in Ohio to all their new neighbours & friends.
But in reality the Applegates are in fact giant cockroach type insects from the Amazonian rain forests disguised as humans.
Dick talks himself into a job at the local nuclear power plant & plans to cause a meltdown, the Applegates & their species then hope the resulting radiation leak will wipe out the entire human race & leave the insect kingdom to live in peace.
At first things go extremely well & their plan works perfectly but soon enough the pleasures & peril's of everyday American life begin to have an effect on their family unit & their plans.
First Sally has sex with Vincent Sampson (Adam Biesk) whom finds out that she is a giant cockroach so Sally cocoons him & takes him home which causes problems as Vincent is the son of one of the Applegates neighbours, Greg Sampson (Glenn Shadix) who is a bug exterminator.
Their carefully thought out plans & the very existence of their species lay in tatters as living an everyday American life has all but destroyed them, but others of their kind are on the way...Co-written & directed by Micheal Lehmann I thought Meet the Applegates was a highly original & very enjoyable comic horror.
The script by Lehmann & Redbeard Simmons really hits the nail on the head with it's witty & satirical look on middle class American life.
I loved the scene where Jane wouldn't have sex with Dick so he finds a picture of two insects having sex & masturbates, or the scene when Johnny questions if smoking dope is safe & his two spaced out friends say "we do it all the time" "and look at us", in fact Meet the Applegates is full of great individual scenes.
The Applegates descent from the perfect American family into the emotional wrecks they ended up as was just spot on for me & although obviously the story is pure fantasy it seemed almost believable.
Meet the Applegates is rather silly when all said & done but if you want something a little different & you are able to just go with the bizarre notion of giant cockroaches disguised as humans then you should be rewarded with a great viewing experience, the ending was a bit of a cop out though.
The acting is pretty much spot on from everyone & all the characters are likable except Johnny Applegate & Aunt Bea (Dabney Coleman) who both irritated me.
Overall I really liked Meet the Applegates, it's a very original piece of storytelling that definitely stands out as being just that bit different which makes a nice change.
In the wilds of Brazil, as yet more rainforests are being cut down to make way for burger bars and other such makers of food which doesn't taste as nice as the little cardboard boxes it comes in, an unknown species of giant bug finds a children's 'Learn to Read' book which contains pictures of the 'ordinary' family.
In no time, the outsized mantids are disguised as a human family and are on a mission to cause a nuclear disaster which will wipe out humanity.Though this film does have serious things to say about ecology, it is also a black comedy about the seedier side of families and married life.
Now one of the reasons that this movie doesn't work is because the concept of it, giant insects moving into middle class America and disguising themselves as humans, is really something aimed at children, yet a lot of the in movie concepts, such as the continual drug references and hints at homosexuality, is something that only adults can understand.
I don't know if this movie flopped, but in America it did receive an R rating (which is MA in Australia).Now let us look at the critical side of the film.
Meet the Applegates focuses on the middle class society and it seems to satirically attack what is considered average.
The Applegates are supposed to be the average American family so that they don't look out of place.
What angered me was that the guy practically raped her, yet at the end of the movie it is the Applegates that are accused of being bad.
The bug killer is attacked but in general all of the things that went on in the movie seem to be ignored.
It's fun and bold satire that had been done as a little skit which was a cross between black comedy and gory horror.
I told you earlier it's the movie where the human must emulate the more perfect creatures : the bugs !
what an acrid criticism for a movie that is.(Stockard Channing) exceeded everybody, (Ed Begley Jr.) was good but lacks charisma and looks always cold plus he didn't add anything to his role, (Dabney Coleman) was disgusting for no reason but being odd !
Meet the Applegates is a black comedy that isn't particularly funny.
The costumes and set design are going for that 50's era kitschy look that John Waters uses so well, but Applegates is just a cheap imitation.The "story" is about a bunch of giant bugs disguise themselves as humans and invade America in an attempt to sabotage a power plant and wipe out a town as a first strike in the war between mankind and bug puppets.
Along the way we get some environmental messages that are more forced than the average Captain Planet episode, but not nearly as funny.Dabney Coleman is much better in other movies, as for the rest of the cast...
Ed Begley and Jr. It's about as bland and dull as the stereotypical American family they're mocking in the first place.If you have insomnia and happen to stumble across Meet the Applegate on late night cable as I did, you might want to keep flipping, with all the channels we've got there's definitely something better on. |
tt0984200 | Incendiary | A young woman (Michelle Williams) is married to bomb-disposal officer Lenny (Nicholas Gleaves); they have a four-year-old son (Sidney Johnston).
While the young mother has sex with reporter Jasper (Ewan McGregor), Lenny, their son, and about 1000 others are killed in a terrorist attack carried out by six suicide bombers at a football match. Both Jasper and Lenny's boss, Terrence Butcher (Matthew Macfadyen), who is in charge of the anti-terrorist division, try to comfort the mother; both are also romantically interested in her.
Through Jasper's investigation into the bombing, the mother discovers the identity of one of the terrorists. She befriends his teenage son (Usman Khokhar), who only knows that his father is missing since the attacks. When he finds out what his father did, he panics and runs, causing the police to suspect him to be a terrorist. When he tries to take something out of his pocket they think he has a gun or wants to trigger a bomb; they shoot at him, but he is unarmed. The mother, who tried to protect him, is wounded, but not severely. Later, the terrorist's wife and son apologize to the mother for his part in the killings.
Terrence confesses to the mother that he knew that a suicide attack was going to happen and could have stopped it, but he did not in order to be able to continue his investigation of the terrorist group. He says that he did not know in which stadium it would happen, and also thought it would be of a smaller scale. Although he knew Lenny and his son would be going, he did not warn them.
Sometimes the mother is confused, thinking that nothing has happened to her son. Throughout the film, for therapeutic reasons, she writes a letter addressed to Osama bin Laden, who is assumed to be responsible for the attack.
In the film's final scenes, the mother has another son by Jasper, who is seen running to the hospital and asking for her at the nursing station. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1695994 | The Virginity Hit | Four male teenage friends in New Orleans, Louisiana: Matt, Zack, Jacob and Justin, buy a bong and agree to use it only to celebrate when one of the four have sex for the first time. The boys are beginning to lose their virginity and Matt is the last one. Matt is the adopted brother of Zack after Matt's mother died from cancer when he was 9. Matt's father had drug issues, and only plays a minor role in his life. Matt has been with his girlfriend Nicole for almost two years and the two decide to lose their virginity together on their second anniversary. Zack decides to videotape the entire process to make his own documentary-type film.
As Matt prepares for the big night, he discovers that Nicole has cheated on him with a college fraternity member, Harry. Zack goes to find Harry to confirm if it is true, but he refuses to answer. Matt and the guys assume she did in fact have sex with Harry and the plan for the big night is soon altered. Zack decides the best thing for Matt to do is still have sex with Nicole but break up with her immediately afterwards. He feels this would be great for the documentary he is making. Matt and his friends set up a date for Matt at a hotel, but when Nicole realizes they are being filmed and recorded from the adjoining room, she becomes angry at Matt, and admits she did not go very far sexually with Harry. She claims he had only sucked on her breasts. Nicole's father then comes and takes Nicole away from Matt and then pushes Matt into a bush after he breaks up with her. The entire segment on the failed date soon becomes popular on YouTube. A young woman, Becca, sees the video and claims that she feels bad for Matt. She leaves a video response letting him know she is experienced and would love to be his first. Becca's first requirement for the date is that Matt buys a very expensive suit. Matt is then reminded by Zack that his mother left him a large amount of money and convinces Matt to withdraw it for the suit. Matt then learns that his father withdrew the money when he was younger and the funds are not available. Angered by this, Matt decides to confront his father about it. After doing so, he learns his father has no desire to pay him back and claims the money was used for drugs. The boys and Krysta, Zack and Matt's adopted other adopted sibling, get drunk and camp. During this time Krysta unsuccessfully tries to have sex with Matt. When the boys return home, they come up with a plot to steal the suit, which is successful.
Matt finally meets Becca and she tells him that she has a son. They then plan the date and as she is leaving, hands Matt a note that lets him know he needs to be shaven in all parts of his body including his pubic region. Preparing for the date, Zack ends up shaving Matt's pubic region for him. When Matt arrives at Becca's residence, he is told by Becca the cameras cannot stay and film, and that he must practice sex on a blow-up doll, which has an inflatable penis as well. Instructed by Becca, Matt uses the doll's penis in place of the vagina. Becca then leaves for nearly 3 hours before Matt leaves. The film then shows Becca on a video blog admitting her name is not Becca and that she is actually a graduate student studying male behavior and notes that he waited over twice as long as any other male had in the past. She also admits that her child was not hers, but someone else that she used for her studies. The video of him with the blow up doll becomes a huge YouTube success and ends up leaving Matt ashamed and embarrassed, leading to him staying in his room for two weeks.
In an effort to get Matt out his funk, the boys come up with a plan for Matt to have sex with his favorite porn star, Sunny Leone. They contact her and she agrees as long as the funds are paid. The boys and others raise the funds and then come up with a plan that Jacob is going into the military to be able to get Matt out of the house. They go to a strip club and meet Sunny and then go out to her bus so Matt may have sex with her. In the bus, Sunny lets Matt know that she has changed her mind and says that he should find someone he loves to have sex with. He then requests to spend five minutes alone with her, which is granted. After a few minutes, Matt emerges from her bedroom and we see Sunny putting her shirt back on. He sucked on her breasts to even out what Nicole did to him. He then finds Nicole at a party, explains what he did, and the two have sex. The boys use the bong to celebrate Matt losing his virginity. | adult comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0030469 | Mr. Moto Takes a Chance | Over the ruins of Angkor Wat in Cambodia we see the airplane Victoria Mason, aviatrix, flying around the globe. But her actual destination is the kingdom of Tong Moi in French Indochina. Already in Tong Moi, Mr. Moto is posing as an archeologist, and newsreel cameramen Marty Weston and Chick Davis are traveling up the river. Once she is overhead, Mason lights a flare and bails out of her smoking plane which crashes nearby. Rescued by Moto, Mason goes into the village with Bokor the head priest of Shiva. As Weston and Davis arrive at the crash site, Moto has discovered the flare that “caused” the accident.
While trying to film Mason and Tong Moi’s ruler, the Rajah Ali, Keema, the Rajah’s favorite wife mysteriously dies. Bokor claims that the foreigners and their camera caused her death and they are taken away for a trial. Meanwhile, Moto finds the true cause of Keema’s death, a poison dart.
At the temple of Shiva, Weston and Davis are pronounced guilty and are about to be thrown into a pit when an elderly guru appears. The guru impresses Bokor with his ability to charm a snake and to not be burned by a flaming poker. Bokor releases the foreigners at the orders of the guru.
The following day Moto offers to pay the cameramen for images of the interior of the temple. They agree, and return to the temple with Mason. The three are confronted by the elderly guru who tosses their camera down the well. Bokor, seeing this, asks the guru to kill the foreigner, Moto. The guru agrees and returns to the temple, there discovering a concealed ammunition cache. After disposing of a guard, the guru disappears into a secret passageway. There he reveals himself to be Mr. Moto, in disguise.
Moto writes a note saying that he discovered the ammunition and that Bokor is the leader of the revolt. He sends the message off by carrier pigeon but the Rajah kills the bird and intercepts the message. Later at a feast held in honor of the visitors, Moto is served the cooked bird on his plate and the Rajah reveals that he got the message.
In his cabin, Moto is marking the secret ammunition cache on a map of the temple when one of Bokor’s men comes in to kill him. After killing the intruder, Moto disguises himself as the assassin and sneaks into the night. Bokor begins searching Moto’s cabin but is interrupted by Mason, who finds the hidden map.
Bokor and his men follow Mason to the temple and capture her. The guru appears and pretends to hypnotize the captive. Meanwhile, Weston followed Mason to the temple and tries unsuccessfully to rescue her. Bonfire signals are made and Capt. Zimmerman the gun-runner arrives with Davis, who is taken captive as well. Zimmerman has been selling weapons to Bokor so that Bokor can start a revolution and depose the Rajah Ali. Zimmerman is killed by Yao in “payment” for his services.
When Mason reveals Moto’s identity, a fight ensues. Yao is killed and Bokor escapes and rounds up Zimmerman’s men. The four inside the temple hold off the men with the weapons that were just delivered. Mason reveals that she is a British Secret Service agent and Moto reveals that he is also a spy. Rajah Ali arrives with his army and rounds up Bokor and his men. The Rajah’s plan is to use the weapons Bokor purchased to revolt against the French. As the Rajah prepares to have Moto and the two cameramen executed, Mason distracts him so Moto can threaten to blow up the ammunition cache. The Rajah falls into the cache and the four heroes escape down the secret passage as the temple explodes.
All ends well with Mason and Weston beginning a romance and Davis planning on becoming Moto’s assistant. Davis faints when Moto tells him that his next assignment is to capture a murderer living on a volcanic island as the guest of headhunters. | cult, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | The Good & Bad Of 'Mr. Moto Takes A Chance'.
One is never quite sure who is what except we know Mr. Moto is a good guy and the two cameramen are innocent but too goofy.
This, the fourth in the Peter Lorre-starred series of Moto films, re minded me of the Monogram latter-day Charlie Chan films, with Mantan Moreland, in which some silliness sometimes overtook the crime story.
It also reminded me a bit of some old Tarzan films where you see stock footage of animals.The mystery starts right in the beginning when we see "Victoria Mason," a Amelia Earheart- type female who flying solo around the world, suddenly sabotaging her plane and parachuting to safety.
The pretty and nicely- shaped Rochelle Hudson plays Victoria.Anyway, to summarize briefly, the story is about a few Cambodian revolutionaries and a secret tomb- like cache for munitions.
The story is fair, nothing super, but the characters in here are odd, which is good because it keeps our interest in the film.
The silliness is supplied by a two-man American two-man film crew working the jungles of Cambodia.
Yes, an actor named Chick playing a guy named Chick!.They are more like Abbott and Costello than documentary filmmakers, and their lines are really dumb most of the time.What looked even more unrealistic but, in reality, wasn't as much as I thought, were the two main characters of from the host country in this story.
Edward Bromberg who plays "Rajah Ali." Both these guys look and sound American, especially Bromber but Regas, who looks like comedian Henny Youngman, is from Greece and Bromberg is from Hungary/Romania!
When this film was shot, she was 22 or 23 and still could have passed for a good-looking 30-year-old.
Sadly, this actress died of pneumonia while only in her 50s.Anyway, if you don't mind some of the sappy dialog and you still enjoy Lorre and his disguises, this Moto episode should be worth your time checking out.
Granted, there is more than enough silliness to go around -- Lorre's disguise as an Asian sage is, to be blunt, not *entirely* successful, but he plays the impersonation tongue in cheek, and the end result is nothing if not amusing.I cannot imagine what is offensive except possibly the dreaded racial stereotypes, which surely are endemic to the whole series.
Her performance in this Mr. Moto movie is well worth watching.
Also in the mix are a couple of goofy newsreel photographers (Robert Kent, Chick Chandler) and an aviatrix (Rochelle Hudson).In most of these Moto films, Peter Lorre seems to be having lots of fun and this one's no exception.
J. Edward Bromberg seems like comic relief at first but his character's pretty sinister.
Next to Lorre, Rochelle Hudson is the best reason to watch this.
She has more sex appeal with a ripped shirt exposing one bare shoulder than most actresses have fully nude.This one plays more like a jungle adventure film than a detective one.
But it's pretty fun, with neat temple sets and nice performances from Lorre and Hudson..
For the 4th Fox Moto the script took a nosedive and crashed like Rochell Hudson's plane did at the beginning.
The overall intelligent production and sinister atmosphere generated by the sets more than make up for it though and keep me coming back."Grave-digger" Moto played beautifully superciliously by Peter Lorre is trying to discover and stop a plot to overthrow a Cambodian Rajah (?) played by mincing and wincing J.
It takes a long time coming but the 2 Yanks escape an execution, Moto gets to show his incredible disguising (!) and energetic jujitsu skills off, and Hudson nearly got raped too (well, what was that about with the pervy High Priest if not?!) The High Priest/Temple scenes reminded me of George Zucco in The Mummy's Hand a few years later, another great film with a gossamer-like plot than smacked of Serial.
Even so, there's a few surprises along the way, and the 61 minute running time simply flew by, because you see, I enjoy watching this type of movie: I can laugh at its many faults at the same time as revelling in its many good points.I only wish they had made this as a 13 part serial, there'd be so much more to enjoy..
I've only seen the first three Mr. Moto films at this point but this was easily the least of them so far.
Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre) poses as an archaeologist in a Cambodian jungle to sabotage the anti-government plans being cooked up by leader Rajah Ali (J.
He is helped out by a female spy (Rochelle Hudson) who has "conveniently" crashed her own plane on the island.
Detracting much from whatever enjoyment there is here are two silly American newsreel photographers who work their way into the story, providing what I suppose they think is comic relief.
Peter Lorre stars in "Mr. Moto Takes a Chance," in this 1938 entry into the series.
Lorre, of course, as Moto is the main reason for watching this film, but the rest of the cast here is very good: Rochelle Hudson, J.
Edward Bromberg, Robert Kent, and Chick Chandler.Working for the government, Moto is on assignment in French Cambodia to defuse two antigovernment plots, one lead by a holy man, Bokor against the local leader, Rajah Ali, and the other plot, led by Rajah Ali, who wants to start war against French rule.
There are also two goofy newsreel photographers who keep getting into trouble.Moto plays a double role here, that of Moto and an elderly mystic who looks like he could be over 150.
It's highly unlikely that Darryl Zanuck wasted five minutes thinking about the Mr. Moto series, except, of course, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
While the other Moto films featured production and entertainment values considerably above that of the average "B" film, this silly and embarrassingly amateurish entry is barely recognizable as part of the same series, with its lame-brained phony Orientalia and sub-Republic serial story line.
Worst of all, Peter Lorre--the only reason to watch a Moto film in the first place--spends an inordinate amount of time either offscreen or muffled in a disguise that's preposterous even for Moto..
Soon after he arrives, an Amelia Earhart-like woman conveniently "drops in" as well as two wildlife documentary film makers--making this part of rural Thailand about the busiest place in the entire country!!
MOTO TAKES A CHANCE are very good and make this a stand out film.
Second, like the earliest Moto films, our hero is NOT above killing his enemies--making Moto quite the different from Charlie Chan.
I have recently gotten into watching the Mr. Moto series and what a treat I have discovered.
Peter Lorre's diminutive Mr. Moto was an exceptional series.
When a female aviator, an Amelia Earhart type, whose a spy, on an around the world trek, deliberately crashes her plane near Moto's Tell.
Of course, they were alligators, but the stunt man was at one end of the canoe and two 'live' alligators were at the other, those bad boys can fly in the water and it took some brave stunt man to hop in there with them.Anyway, the plot involves a revolution in a tiny Asian..Siamish type country that was French controlled.
Moto disguises himself as a Tibetan monk guru...and when you see him...you will know, where they came up with the character...Yoda, in the Star Wars series.
The Mr. Moto series was as popular as Charlie Chan back in the thirties and I can see why.
I think Lorre's mean streak, flipping guys all over the place, then killing when he had to was more entertaining than the cerebral Charlie Chan, at times.
Don't miss any of the Mr. Moto series they are fun viewing and Lorre is a real charmer!.
Mr. Moto Takes a Chance (1938)** (out of 4) Fourth and so far least entertaining film in the series has Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre) doing some work in the jungles of Cambodia.
Soon a female pilot (Rochelle Hudson) crash lands as well as two reporters all of whom are about to witness a high priest perhaps commit a murder.
This is certainly the weakest of the first four films, which is something I really wasn't expecting because I thought seeing Moto in a jungle would lead to a lot of entertaining things but it didn't.
What makes all of this even stranger is that Moto is pretty much in the background for most of the film and I even wondered at times why he was there at all because there was so little of him.
Fans of white-suited Mr. Moto may be aware he loves to masquerade in order to manipulate the unwary and the villainous, and in Mr. Moto Takes A Chance, Peter Lorre slips on a disguise...well, you just have to see it to believe it!
It also appears that the studio's Central Casting dragged a couple of folks off of Hollywood Boulevard and strapped them into what might be Neo-Asian Drag, as it is a little difficult to know from looking at the poor things exactly what cultural background they are supposed to represent.There's also an ancient temple crawling with vines, a cobra in a basket, and all the trappings of a wonderfully silly Saturday afternoon matinée adventure--all this and Rochelle Hudson!
Not one of the best Mr. Moto adventures, especially when Lorre, in his Moto makeup, spends far too much time under another layer of disguise to mystify the villainous as well as willing viewers--that said, if Peter Lorre's in it, the film is probably worth a look!.
She is up to something and she torches the plane to set it on fire and parachutes out.There are also camera men from another country in a canoe with a large camera there to take pictures of that country.Moto is at archaeological dig.
Whites are referred to in a bad way by the tribal people.Moto is on a mission he plays a prophet or something in disguise and also a archaeologist.
He sends Bokor and his men away to watch Moto at the dig.
Victor Sen Yung that plays in Charlie Chan as a son is a soldier uncredited in this movie.There is lots of shooting, lots of fires, lots of people from different countries, music, humor and mystery..
Among the Best Moto Films.
In the jungle near Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre) poses as an ineffectual archaeologist and a venerable holy man with mystical powers to help foil two insurgencies against the government.When one of the characters say this of Lorre, you know the film is a winner: "If I was casting a horror picture, I'd have him playing the murderer." Just a brilliant nod to Lorre's career at that point, with such notable films as "M" and "Mad Love" under his belt.One cannot deny the excellent makeup, which remains creepy even close up.
MOTO TAKES A CHANCE (20th Century-Fox, 1938), directed by Norman Foster, stars Peter Lorre in the title role of the Japanese sleuth based on the character created by John F.
As much as this being the studio's attempt for another "Charlie Chan" franchise, this short-lived movie series succeeds mostly due to the star presence by non-other than Peter Lorre.Taken from an original story by Norman Foster and Willis Cooper, the plot opens with Victoria Mason (Rochelle Hudson), an aviatrix traveling alone around the world in her private airplane, flying over Cambodia.
While in the jungles, Victoria meets with Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre), a Japanese detective on assignment posing as an archaeologist searching for ancient ruins for his museum; Marty Weston (Robert Kent) and Chick Davis (Chick Chandler), a couple of newsreel photographers from Chicago; The Rajah Ali (J.
Edward Bromberg), a ruler who intends on making Victoria his next wife; and Boko (George Regas), a high priest who wants all whites out of Asia, and promising a bloody day of deliverance.
Later, Moto, Victoria and the cameramen face danger as they are held prisoners in the temple by Boko and Captain Zimmerman (Fredrick Vogeding), surrounded by high explosives inside and gunshots being fired their direction from the outside.In tradition to the series, some characters in the story have hidden secrets about their identity.
For Mr. Moto, whose usually works alone on his assignments, also goes about donning various disguises in the similar manner as Sherlock Holmes.
Kent is the romantic type interested in the lady aviatrix (Hudson), a character somewhat inspired by Amelia Earheart, while Chick Chandler is the comedy relief who gets himself in trouble with his antics, ranging from falling into a tiger's pit, to demonstrating tricks to the Rajah, one that involves the Rajah's most precious watch, and so forth.Not shown regularly on commercial television since the 1990s, MR.
MOTO TAKE A CHANCE, and other installments in the series, have become available for viewing on DVD.
Even at a brief 64 minutes, the film on occasion seems a bit longer than it actually is, but with Lorre's know-how performances that manages to make this a watchable little item.
The fourth in the series of Twentieth Century Fox films featuring Japanese detective Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre) opens with jungle stock footage right before aviatrix Victoria Mason (Rochelle Hudson) sabotages her own airplane and parachutes to safety in the Cambodian wilds of Tong Moi. The logistics of that plane crash and her parachute landing practically right on top of Mr. Moto on an archaeological dig isn't very believable, but it does set up a fast paced adventure involving native revolutionaries and a secret munitions base.
As in the first two Moto films, Lorre dons a disguise for part of the story, this time as an aged Hindu wise man.
As the two newsreel reporters continue on their way following the first encounter with Moto, Marty Weston (Robert Kent) comments to partner Chick Davis (Chick Chandler) - "If I was casting a horror picture, I'd have him play the murderer".If you pay attention the first time Moto reaches for a carrier pigeon to relay a message to his government contact, you'll note that the cage door is already open.
J. Edward Bromberg adds to the colorful proceedings as Rajah Ali, walking a fine line between Bokor's (George Regas) native upstarts and his French government superiors.
This time around, in addition to Moto's clever detective work and martial arts skill, he also shows he can be deadly with a machine gun.
Unlike his Oriental counterparts Charlie Chan and Mr. Wong, Moto can mix it up pretty well with the bad guys, and leaves a trail of dead bodies in his wake that would make Dirty Harry proud.All in all, an offbeat and different kind of mystery for Mr. Moto, reminiscent somewhat of the much later Charlie Chan film, 1948's "The Feathered Serpent" which takes place in an Aztec jungle setting.
At least Moto looked more comfortable in a safari suit.Oh, and lest I forget, let me get my vote in now for Rochelle Hudson, the actress with the sexiest shoulder of the 1930's!.
I liked Lorre as the Guru, reminded me of Yoda.
There isn't a lot going on here-natives revolting, gun dealiner, the Rajah knows about it but strings things along for his own ends, etc.
MOTO'S GAMBLE which is really a 'Charlie Chan' pic, this is the least of the Moto series.
Peter Lorre's Moto spends a third of the picture as an ancient holy man (looking & sounding like a precursor to Yoda from STAR WARS), and combining the comic relief with the romantic subplot only makes things worse.
Mr Moto's series are decently written escapism.
There is an episode of SG-1 (when the team goes back in time due to an old recording they found of themselves) which duplicated the cache of weapons as Mr Moto finds in this movie.
Mr Lorre's character in this series allowed him to show his variety of skills - he was not limited in the roles he was given..
This one may be just a programmer, but Peter Lorre as Kentaro Moto makes it interesting.
"I find it very wise not to interfere with the customs of other people," says Kentaro Moto, export dealer, hand-to-hand combat specialist, expert with disguises and, in Mr. Moto Takes a Chance, a spy for the French in Indochina.
After the great start of the series with Think Fast, Mr. Moto and Thank You, Mr. Moto, this third in the outing sticks us back firmly in the low budget, do-what-it-takes, quickie category of programmers.
Take away Peter Lorre as Moto and we'd have a tired jungle drama of nefarious natives, banana plants and the occasional crocodile.
The only real mystery is how Mr. Moto keeps his white suit so clean in the jungle.
The plot involves a plot, of course, and this one is by Bokor, high priest in the royal village of Tong Moi, not too far from Angkor Wat. He wants to do some overthrowing which will involve the Raja Ali, a seemingly jolly, chubby man who delights in his wives so much that he plans to add Vicki Mason, aviatrix and adventuress who had to bail out of her plane, to the roll call.
One spy is Mr. Moto (Peter Lorre), disguised as a timid archaeologist, and the other is aviatrix Victoria Mason (Rochelle Hudson), who fakes a crash landing in the kingdom.
Edward Bromberg) and an oily, conniving high priest, Bokor (George Regas).
Posing as an archaeologist in the wilds of Cambodia, Moto is undercover trying stop a plot to overthrow the government.
He is joined by an aviatrix whose plane has crashed and a couple of bumbling newsreel photographers.This was a first time viewing for me.
First off, I was struck with how different Mr Moto Takes a Chance is from the other Moto films I've seen.
Technically, it's as good as you'd expect.As far as the acting goes, all I really need to say is Peter Lorre.
Rochelle Hudson proves to be Lorre's equal. |
tt0117866 | Taxi | Taxi portrays director Jafar Panahi as he courses through the streets of Tehran while pretending to be a share taxi driver. He wants to hear a piece of his passengers' life and declines any payment for the services. His earliest passengers include a conservative-minded man who supports capital punishment and a woman supporting its abolition, a pirated video vendor named Omid who once lent foreign films not available in the country to Panahi, an injured man and his wife who both insist on recording a last will due to their panic, and a pair of superstitious old women wanting to release their goldfishes to a holy spring.
Eventually, Panahi picks up his niece Hana at her school. She discusses about filmmaking and wants Panahi's advice on creating a short film for a school project; her teacher has said about several rules on creating films in Iran, including the avoidance of siahnamayi, or portraying a dark image about the country. However, Hana's teacher also stated that people should create film as they see fit. The two stop near a coffeehouse where Panahi meets with a family friend he has not seen for 7 years. The latter inquires about a burglary he recently experienced and his dilemma of not informing the authorities about the thieves, whom he personally knows, as they are poor and have nothing else to lose. Meanwhile, Hana films a case of siahnamayi herself when she spots a boy who steals money from a couple of newlyweds and refuses to return them.
Finally, Panahi and Hana meet with Nasrin Sotoudeh, a human rights lawyer about to see the imprisoned Ghoncheh Ghavami and possibly convince her to give up her hunger strike. While adjusting her seat, Hana stumbles upon a purse belonging to one of the old women with the goldfishes. Sotoudeh decides to leave early so Panahi can deliver the purse, but not before giving him a rose as a goodwill for filmmakers. Panahi and Hana proceed to the springs and are able to return the purse; at the same time as this happens, a pair of thieves ransack the taxi, before the film cuts off. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0075917 | Dead of Night | Architect Walter Craig (Mervyn Johns) has been invited by Elliot Foley (Roland Culver) to his country home in Kent to consult on some renovations. Upon arrival at the cottage, he reveals to Foley and his assembled guests that despite never having met any of them, he has seen them all in a recurring dream.
He appears to have no prior personal knowledge of them but he is able to predict spontaneous events in the house before they unfold. Craig partially recalls with some dismay that something awful will later occur, and becomes increasingly disturbed.
The other guests attempt to test Craig's foresight and set him at ease, while entertaining each other with various tales of uncanny or supernatural events that they experienced or were told about.
These include a racing car driver's premonition of a fatal bus crash; a ghostly encounter during a children's Christmas party (a tale cut from the initial USA release); a haunted antique mirror; a light-hearted tale of two obsessed golfers, one of whom becomes haunted by the other's ghost (another cut from the initial USA release); and the story of an unbalanced ventriloquist (Michael Redgrave) who believes his amoral dummy is truly alive.
The framing story is then capped by a twist ending in which Craig murders one of the guests, then escapes into a feverish montage of scenes and characters from the house guests' tales. At the climax, the dummy Hugo is strangling him when Craig suddenly wakes up at home from the nightmare to the sound of a phone ringing.
The phone call is from Elliot Foley, inviting him to his country home to consult on some renovations. As the end credits roll, Craig is again driving up to Foley's cottage, exactly as in the film's opening. | suspenseful | train | wikipedia | From the team who brought us "Trilogy of Terror" comes a follow-up TV produced three part anthology by writer Richard Matheson and director / producer Dan Curtis.
There's no real wrap-around story holding these tales together, but it opens with quite an atmospheric beginning to kick off proceedings.1/ "Second Chance" - (20 minutes) A young man buys an old vintage 1926 Jordan car, which he restores, every single feature, including the original number plates.
The DVD has loads of extras, including 36 music cues by Dark Shadows composer Robert Cobert, deleted scenes, and a complete, 50-minute pilot called "Dead of Night" that Dan Curtis pitched to ABC back in 1969.
Joan Hackett is excellent (as usual) as Bobby's mother, and Lee Montgomery is equally good as a boy who goes from sweet victim to hellish tormenter.
This is pretty cool!Richard Matheson and Dan Curtis(NIGHT STALKER,SCREAM OF THE WOLF)again collaborate.This was a failed pilot for a proposed tv series,but the movie can be enjoyed for what it is.There are 3 tales here,with "Bobby",the 3rd story,being the most chilling.Worth a look..
Dan Curtis gives us another effective film, told in a trio of stories.First has Ed Begley Jr. as a young man whose love of a car sends him on an intriguing time-travel excursion that, while not original, is at least satisfying.Second has Patrick Macnee in a period piece as a husband worried over his fear that his wife is the victim of a vampire.
Film has a clever twist that you may not see coming...Third tale called 'Bobby' is by far the best, reminiscent of "Trilogy Of Terror" in how it tells the scary tale of a guilt-ridden mother who turns to the supernatural to resurrect her drowned son, a decision she comes to regret horribly...tense and effective, with a hair-raising final scene that will not be soon forgotten, after seen....
Dead of Night (1977) *** (out of 4) Wrongfully forgotten made-for-TV film from director Dan Curtis and writer Richard Matheson.
Finally, in "Bobby" a mother (Joan Hackett) is coming to terms with the death of her child when her wish is granted that he returns to her.
As with TRILOGY OF TERROR, the final story is the one that goes for scares and it's a creepy little tale that ends with a brilliant sequence that I won't spoil here.
Dead of Night is one of those legendary TV anthologies that tends to haunt the memory of anyone who saw it when they were young and impressionable, but like Trilogy of Terror, that 'other' fondly remembered anthology from director Dan Curtis and writer Richard Matheson, it's just one story out of the three that really warrants the attention.The first story, 'Second Chance', is a rather charming time-twister of a tale which sees Ed Begley Jr. taking a trip into the past in his restored classic car and inadvertently saving the life of its original owner.
It's well told and well acted, and contains a clever Twilight Zone-style twist at the end (not at all surprising since Matheson penned many an episode for Rod Serling's classic series) but this fantasy is just a little too gentle to sit comfortably as part of this collection.Tale two, 'No Such Thing As A Vampire', has Patrick Macnee playing a jealous professor who exploits local superstition about vampires to do away with his wife's lover.
Too far fetched to take seriously and a tad predictable, this is the least memorable tale of the trio.As was the case with Trilogy of Terror's unforgettable Zuni Fetish Doll, the best is saved for last: 'Bobby' is a well crafted and genuinely scary occult story that stars Joan Hackett as a distraught mother who resorts to black magic to try and bring back her late son Bobby from the dead.
Atmospheric and very eerie, with a really creepy turn by Lee Montgomery as Bobby and a killer of a finalé, this is best watched alone in the dark on a stormy night for maximum effect..
"Second Chance" is a uneventful story about time travel with a twist in the end that justifies what's gone on before but little more than that.
He drugs him and pits falsely accuses him of being a vampire which leads him to have a stake driven through his heart.The final story is about a mother (Anjanette Comer) whose son Bobby (Lee Montgomery) accidently drowns in a lake but she makes a pact to have her son come back from the dead.
Almost as good as segment three--very creepy and memorable.Overall, you've got two great episodes and one good one--not a bad outing for Dan Curtis--the man who also brought us "Dark Shadows" and many wonderful monster films in the 60s and 70s.
Incidentally, all three were scripted by genre expert Richard Matheson, with the second episode adapted from one of his own stories, the third an original and the first inspired by the writings of Jack (INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS) Finney."Second Chance": this actually has the feel of a "Twilight Zone" with car fanatic Ed Begley Jr. buying a scrap of metal (the remnant of an automobile-against-train accident from 50 years before) who restores the vehicle to its original state.
He goes to sleep by the porch of some house and finds himself once again in his own time, later meeting a girl from school he was sure he had never seen before; when she introduces him to her family, he is surprised to learn that not only is the girl's grandfather a car aficionado as well but he actually still owns one from his youth
and it turns out to be the very same vehicle he himself restored, so that, by way of the three-second delay that it took him to intervene, the accident that claimed the life of the man and his female companion was miraculously averted!
"Bobby": like the famous Zuni Doll segment from TRILOGY OF TERROR, the best episode is left for last – interestingly, this draws both from it (a woman is terrorized in her remotely-located home by a strange presence) and from the afore-mentioned DEATHDREAM (a mother resorts to the occult to have her dead son restored to life).
I never saw this one, but it was directed by Dan Curtis the master of small-screen suspense, who was behind both "Dark Shadows" and "Kolchack, the Night Stalker" and who directed several superior TV movies like "The Norliss Tapes" and "Trilogy of Terror" as well as the very scary theatrical film "Burnt Offerings".
Curtis' direction is pretty serviceable, and famed horror writer Richard Matheson's stories are all above par, but the length and some of the acting is a problem.The first story about an old car that transports its new owner back to a time when it's original owner was killed trying to beat a train is obviously intended to be more of a supernatural mystery tale than a horror.
It has elements of "The Monkey's Paw" where a distraught mother (Joan Hackett) wishes her drowned son (Lee Montgomery) back from the dead.
It also has elements of "Prey" the final Matheson-scripted tale in "Trilogy of Terror" with "Bobby" taking the place of the African fetish doll.
This horror anthology film that was made for TV features three stories.
The first, 'A Second Chance' stars Ed Begley Jr. as a young man who finds that his newly purchased antique car can travel in time.
It's an interesting little tale reminiscent of The Twilight Zone, but it doesn't really have any place in a supposed horror film (even one that was made for TV.The middle tale, 'no such thing as a vampire', stars Patrick Macnee as Dr. Gheria, a wealthy British man whose wife believe that she's been the victim of a vampire.
This tale was better than the first one, but even though it is enjoyable enough and boosts a nice twist, it's still nothing that special.Which brings as to the third, last & hands down best story in this movie, "Bobby", in which a long deceased boy is brought back to life via the dark magiks that his distressed, grief-stricken mother partakes in.
Lee Montgomery is suitably frightening as the titular Bobby and it remains one of the best short horrors ever made for American TV (now if only the first two parts were even half as good) My Grade: B+ DVD Extras: deleted/extended from the 'no such thing as a vampire' segment; alternate intro vioceovers; Music score highlights; the unaired 1968 pilot episode of 'Dead of Night' (A Darkness at Blaisedon); & a photo gallery.
From two legends, writer Richard Matheson and TV producer / director Dan Curtis, comes this decent three part anthology.
There is no connecting thread, but there is a narrator at the outset to set us up for the (mild) thrills and chills to come.An appealing Ed Begley Jr. headlines 'Second Chance' as Frank, a young man whose hobby is restoring old cars.
It's very likable, to be sure, but has no real impact when it's over.'No Such Thing as a Vampire' is a period piece starring Patrick Macnee as Dr. Gheria, who has a young bedridden wife played by Anjanette Comer.
Joan Hackett plays a grieving, unnamed mother who uses black magic to resurrect her son Bobby (Lee H.
Summary taken from IMDb.Com: This anthology tells three stories: a man (Ed Begley, Jr.) buys a car that takes him back and forth through time; a tale of vampires; and a distraught mother asks for her drowned son to come back to life and gets more than she bargained for.This film comes to us from director Dan Curtis and writer Richard Matheson.
Curtis is also a veteran horror director and his work ("Trilogy of Terror") is now classic in its own right.This collection starts off slow, with a time-traveling car.
Called "Bobby", it is a variation on the old "Monkey's Paw" story where a mother wishes her son back from the dead (not unlike Bob Clark's "Dead of Night", coincidentally), with not so amazing results.
DEAD OF NIGHT is another made-for-TV horror anthology from producer / director, Dan Curtis.
PART THREE: BOBBY- A mother named Helen (Joan Hackett- THE POSSESSED) is willing to do anything, in order for her dead son to be returned to her.
As in TRILOGY OF TERROR, Dan Curtis has saved the most harrowing, terrifying tale for last.
He was responsible for some of the most modest yet delightfully entertaining genre outings back then, like the vampire epic "House of Dark Shadows" (based on his own cult-series) and the infamous "Trilogy of Terror" (featuring a segment with Karen Black versus a crazed Zumi doll).
For this relatively unknown "Dead of Night", Curtis had the honor and pleasure – I presume – to work with the acclaimed writer Richard Matheson ("I Am Legend") who penned down three versatile short stories of – and I quote the narrator – mystery, imagination and terror!
The segment in the middle is called "No such thing as a Vampire" and is primarily worth checking out for its cast that contains names like Patrick MacNee, Elisha Cook Jr. and Horst Buchholz.
I never knew the same Richard Matheson segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR 2 was a remake and DEAD is the original.
Joan Hackett, looking like a cross between Karen Black and Barbara Parkins, is older here than Lysette Anthony in TT2, and frankly does a better job with the part, introducing a subtle ick factor in her interactions with 'Bobbie' thats nowhere to be found in Lysette's version, and suggests just why the kid despises her so much.Also included on the disk is a failed pilot for a Dan Curtis TV series about psychic investigators.
Dead of Night (1977)Another horror anthology movie, I did get confused with the 1945 version with the same title (which is also an anthology), (I was hoping to see that one), I should read the first review first.First story, I was watching on my Phone, While I was on the Bus, as the movie is on you tube.Second Chance" I not sure think of this story, it did make me think for few hours after wards ,I liked how the story flowed.This man buys classic car and fix up and then takes for Drive only find out that he as somehow went back in time.While back time, The Car he was driving is taken by someone, who he tries stop, soon walks back and then wake up , Knowing he back in really time.He falls love with Girl he never noticed before (That was first hint) Which I didn't get at the time but as the story went, it made more sense.I thought this was very decent story, it wasn't scary at all but It' did make we think and the acting was really good.Next story No Such Thing as a Vampire"(I hope I don't sound like broken record, As you know i am not big fan vamps movie)Patrick Macnee as a doctor whose wife is suffering from the symptoms of vampire attacks.I found this story decent, there were some cool decent and creepy moment in this short that made really well.The music in this segment was okay as it added bit more creepy feel to the story and I really enjoyed how the story came to a end Bobby - (This is where Trilogy of terror 2 got this from) This is was lot more slowly paced then ^ Movie named there and it did have bit more creepy feel to it.I liked how they try not show the face of kids though out the segment, it makes it feel a lot more darker,I loved end of this short, now that is what you call decent Demon face, as that looks at more scary, then end of Trilogy of terror 2 Bobby segment.7 out of 10.
The late great Dan Curtis brings us three horror/fantasy tales from the pen of Richard Matheson, featuring a strong cast.
A nice double feature this would make with his superior omnibus, Trilogy of Terror(..starring the incomparable Karen Black).The first tale(Second Chance) stars Ed Begley Jr as Frank, a young man with a knack for restoring older cars, with a knowledge and love for them.
The second tale(No Such Thing as a Vampire) features Patrick Macnee as a professor whose wife(Christina Hart) seems to be falling prey to a vampire, under his own nose, asking a colleague(..played by Horst Buchholz)to assist him.
And, the third, final, and best tale(Bobby) stars Joan Hackett as a deeply traumatized mother who desperately longs for her deceased son, who mysteriously drowned(Lee Montgomery;BURNT OFFERINGS), going as far as using black magic, attempting to conjure him back from the dead.
The first film better belongs in a TWILIGHT ZONE anthology movie than in a Dan Curtis production.
The time travel one had me wondering if I'd put on the right movie and if I was watching a horror anthology at all, and the vampire story which I liked even less didn't even actually have a vampire in it!
Three tales of mystery and suspense.First and most so-so yarn, "Second Chance" - Frank (a liable Ed Begley Jr.) buys and restores an antique car that transports him back to 1926.
The grim surprise ending and rich Victorian era milieu make this story a winner, plus there's a juicy role for veteran character actor Elisha Cook Jr. as antsy butler Karel.Third and most frightening segment, "Bobby" - The mother (an excellent Joan Hackett) brings her son Bobby (a supremely creepy portrayal by Lee H.
It does feel very much like Night Gallery episodes put together, though the first one is more akin to the early Twilight Zone series' sentimental type story of time travel or wishful thinking.
Lee Montgomery and Joan Hackett were excellent in this cautionary tale wherein the mother turns to black magic to summon her dead son.
Much like Trilogy of Terror, Dead of Night is made up of tales written by Richard Matheson (the first segment is based on a Jack Finney story) in a portmanteau format.
Originally airing on March 29, 1977, this TV movie is not as well remembered.There are three stories: "Second Chance," where Ed Begley Jr. buys a car and goes backward in time; "No Such Thing as a Vampire," which has The Avengers' Patrick Macnee as a doctor trying to deal with an undead man who keeps attacking his wife; and finally "Bobby," which is all about a mother trying to figure out how to deal with the loss of her son (played by Ben's Lee Montgomery).Of these tales, only "Bobby" is actually scary.
This trilogy of terror begins with a very lovely Time travel tale adapted by Richard Matheson from a Jack Finney short story.
Second up we have NO SUCH THING AS A VAMPIRE, based on Matheson's story; it ends with what I would call a "Transylvanian Twist." The last is really the least interesting in terms of Story (it's THE MONKEY'S PAW all over again), but it's done really well (everything's underscored by the always capable Robert Cobert, whose DARK SHADOWS theme has haunted many a dream).
All around, an excellent telemovie from the era in which B movies were being made for television (and, more often than not, being crafted far BETTER than the theatrical releases that preceded them).Also on the disc that I rented was the 1969 pilot for another Dan Curtis series (shot on video, like DARK SHADOWS), DEAD OF NIGHT.
This story seems to fit in more with the likes of The Twilight Zone than the others.The second tale is a period piece involving a vampire, starring Patrick Macnee.
Curtis never specified what time period the piece takes place in but given their clothing, even if it was the late Victorian era, they certainly did not have technology like that!The third and final tale is entitled "Bobby." The story involves a mother who dabbles in black magic with the hopes of bringing her deceased son back to life. |
tt0050524 | Hot Summer Night | Out of work but on his honeymoon, Bill Partain, a newspaper reporter, reads about a bank robbery in Sedalia, Missouri pulled off by notorious criminal Tom Ellis and his gang. Having once interviewed Ellis's girlfriend Ruth Childers for a Kansas City paper, Partain figures an exclusive interview with Ellis could assure him of landing a new job.
Lying to his new wife Irene about where they are going, Bill drives them to a small Ozarks town where he believes Ruth is living. Townspeople are reluctant to help Bill locate her, and deputy Lou Follett warns him that almost everyone in the community is afraid of Ellis.
Bill finally finds Ruth, who remembers him favorably. She manages to arrange his being taken to Ellis by a young man named Kermit who is not in the gang, but sometimes works for him. Ellis grants him an interview, boasting of his crimes, to the consternation of gunman Elly Horn, who suddenly shoots both Ellis and Kermit. He also shoots his own gang member, Oren, by mistake.
Irene, left behind, is desperate to find her husband, who is now being held by Elly for a ransom of $50,000. She gets the address from Ruth, hitchhikes to Ellis's hideout and notifies the police, who arrive just in time to rescue Bill. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0068663 | The Groundstar Conspiracy | Employee John David Welles attempts to steal rocket booster plans from the Groundstar facility. His attempt goes awry and he is badly disfigured in an explosion and barely escapes. He stumbles to the home of Nicole Devon, and collapses. She calls an ambulance, the authorities are alerted, and soon Welles is operated on, given plastic surgery and interrogated by a gung-ho government official named Tuxan. But Welles claims to have no memory of his crime. In fact, he claims no memory of his life at all, save for brief glimpses of a woman and small boy frolicking on a beach.
Despite Tuxan's brutal interrogation techniques (electro-shock and water submersion), Welles still maintains his story of total amnesia. Tuxan allows Welles to escape, hoping he will lead them to the people behind the attempted theft. Welles goes to Nicole's home and begs her to help him remember. But she knows nothing.
Eventually the inside conspirators behind the attempted theft are found, and Tuxan reveals the truth to Welles, who still cannot remember any details of the crime. John David Welles actually died en route to the hospital on the night of the explosion. The man we have come to know as Welles is really Peter Bellamy, a government employee who recently lost his wife and son in an accident. Bellamy, feeling that life was no longer worth living and remembering, volunteered to have his memory wiped and to play Welles in order to draw the conspirators into the open. | romantic | train | wikipedia | A super secret government space program laboratory known as Groundstar gets blown up while a woman, (Christine Belford) whose parents have recently died and is also recently divorced tries to find some solace for her shattered life in the summer house she was left in the will which just happens to be in the direct vicinity of the above mentioned lab.
The lone "survivor" of the explosion stumbles to her house with a disfigured face followed by government security guru George Peppard and his crew who take him away to a high security hospital.
The next time we see him, he turns out to be Michael Sarrazin.
And what follows is a moderately intriguing story that delves into some of then, today's, and for all times big issues, such as unchecked government surveillance, brutal interrogation techniques, and brainwashing.
The deft intermingling of personal elements with the government security apparatus and some political and public relations angles makes for a fairly sophisticated and complex movie..
There are not too many spy films which can conjure up a team of excellent actors for a movie.
"The Groundstar Conspiracy" is a dramatic thriller of sorts, except that in this movie, the private company is the target not the country.
An explosion in a top secret installation causes a great deal of damage and sets off an investigation to find out who was behind the espionage.
Enormous amount of destruction to be sure, but what the chief investigator (George Peppard) Tuxan wants to know is who is behind the sabotage.
His only clue is in the form of a single survivor named John Welles (Michael Sarrazin) AKA Peter Bellamy, a man who has no memory of what happened.
This is an excellent vehicle for the Cat and Mouse game which follows.
The survivor is having tremendous difficulty trying to remember who he is or was and Tuxan is allowing him to struggle while he watches out for any of his friends to come and help him recover.
It's an excellent film and one which gives the audience just enough information to follow the hero to the surprising ending.
A good film and one which is enhanced by Nicole Devon as Christine Belford and Cliff Potts who plays Carl Mosely.
This is the best Peppard performance.
Probably not, but he's fairly mesmerizing as an incredibly ruthless investigator whose superiors "only talk to God." Think "Banacek" without one shred of charm and you'll be about halfway there.
The film shows its cheapjack TV movie origins in many ways, but the script is tight and the supporting cast (especially Belford doing a nice Rita Hayworth impression) is way above average.
It's always been fashionable to hate Sarrazin, but today he'd be Keanu Reeves.
Lamont Johnson worked a lot in television but he also directed some interesting films that should be better known; A Covenant with Death, The McKenzie Break, The Last American Hero, You'll Like My Mother and Lipstick.
(Even Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone has its felicities!) The Groundstar Conspiracy is a low budget but fast moving thriller with a few twists and turns until the tense ending.
All the elements of music, photography and dialogue are pulled together neatly to serve the narrative's momentum.The plot may strain a little at the edges but the film is helped along by some good acting.
Michael Sarrazin as the accused man is convincing.
Sarrazin's face helps, it looks beat about and haunted.
George Peppard as the government man gives one of his best performances.
A real hard case, driven almost by paranoia, single minded and ready to do anything to keep the state secure.
Christine Belford and Cliff Potts are good too.
It's a good little film..
It's a good little film..
Not That Bad. Just re-saw The Groundstar Conspiracy after some 20 something years.
Always been a big fan of both George Peppard and Micheal Sarrazin, so I was looking forward to this flick.
There are twists and turns.
Action, suspense, drama, and even a little romance thrown in.
Humor, at least a few lines, would of helped a lot here.
There is a nice surprise sort of ending.
Clearly this is not a masterpiece of a cold war thriller like The Spy Who Can In From The Cold or The Ipcress File, but The Goundstar Conspiracy is a nice little entertaining film.
George Peppard looked great here and Micheal Sarrazin was in his prime.
It's not their best roles, but if you're a fan.
it's a good way to spend a rainy night..
Clever, sharply made, well acted Thriller.
Rewatchability: Very High DVD: Pretty sharp for a DVD (Anchor Bay, now OOP, but I have it : ).
This is truly one of my all time favourites.
I hadn't written a review of it until now because I had been concentrating on newer films, but I just got through watching it again with my Dad. I had almost forgotten how awesome it was.
I was VERY fortunate to score the Anchor Bay DVD just before it went OOP.
Hard to believe that now it is going for over $70 used, if you can find it.Anyway, George Peppard has always been one of the coolest guys, at least in his Pre-A Team days, and especially early on (check out some of the Banacek episodes if you have a chance.
The Pilot is particularly good.
I do have both the Pilot and 2 seasons : )Michael Sarrazin has always been pretty slick too, and he is good here.
But, it is primarily the great story that REALLY makes this film special.
Also, I think the director did a particularly good job in keeping the pace and action very tight and the mood suspenseful and involving.
I personally feel that it was one of THE very best Thrillers made around that time.
A GREAT unknown movie..
I saw this in its original run in a college theatre.
Peppard is terrific.
Great spy film.
This is a great movie to watch especially if you love a good, hard twist in the end.
Just when you think you know what the truth is and who the evil bad guys are, the last five minutes takes you in another direction you did not see coming.
George Pappard's character's is fantastic as the government troubleshooter willing to go to any lengths to ferret out traitors and moles among top secret government operations.
There are a lot of great lines in the film too that helps the viewer to appreciate just how much power the troubleshooter has to protect the country, and scary when you realize he actually needs that much authority to do the job.
There is no way they could remake a better movie now unless they filled it with a lot of thrilling action scene or sex scenes.
Even if they did, it would not match the psychological thrill of this original..
No-Star Mediocrity, The. When George Peppard is the major name' of a movie especially one made in the 70's you may suspect you're on dodgy ground from the off.
When his co-stars are Michael Sarrazin a one-trick pony whose career spiralled downwards sometime around 1975 when the trick had been seen too many times and Christine Belford a brief escapee from TV movie hell you know it for a fact.THE GROUNDSTAR CONSPIRACY is a far-fetched thriller with sci-fi undertones that moves far too slowly, telegraphs most of it's twists' far too early (apart from the big twist at the end, which, believe me, sends this sad effort way off the credibility meter) and suffers from some horribly clunky dialogue.
Perhaps a director at the very top of his game may have been able to salvage something, but, unfortunately Lamont Johnson another journeyman whose labours have mostly been in television was never that good a director.
Peppard, as a tough, no-nonsense agent, seems to be rehearsing his Hannibal role in THE A-TEAM without the humour, while Sarrazin flashes puppy-dog eyes and tries to look puzzled.
Lucky Christine Belford, then: her role calls for her to look bewildered much of the time, and, when she does, she looks completely natural.
Approach THE GROUNDSTAR CONSPIRACY as a mediocre B-movie, ignore its obvious and woefully unrealised ambitions, and you may just wring some drops of entertainment from this old flannel..
This film originally had the more evocative title "The Alien".
David Janssen was to play the title role with Robert Stack in the George Peppard role.Talented Douglas Heyes ("Kitten With a Whip", "Captains and Kings", "Aspen"), who wrote the screenplay, was set to direct.
David Levinson (the Emmy winning Hal Holbrook series "The Senator") was going to produce.Genevieve Bujold was originally set to play the Christine Belford role.
This delayed the start of filming, and Janssen had to leave since the film was already scheduled to finish just days before he would start his Jack Webb series "O'Hara, United States Treasury".Apparently they couldn't find an actress hungry or brave enough to come in immediately and replace Bujold.
I might have tried to get Sharon Acker, Diana Muldaur, Gena Rowlands, Salome Jens or Rosemary Forsyth to just jump in and do their best.I think David Janssen could have given the story a more mysterious, magnetic core than Michael Sarrazin did, and Janssen would have had interesting chemistry with any of those five women.I also think Peter Falk (who was starting "Columbo" the next season) could have been even better than Stack or Peppard as the tough-as-nails investigator.Steven Spielberg and John Badham were hot Universal TV directors at the time.
This might have been an interesting first film for either of those young Turks..
A man without memory and identity as sole survivor of the destruction of a super classified research plant and the sole bearer of its secrets.
A super secret space research plant is blown up with all its six responsible members of the team, but one manages to get out of the inferno alive, although there is not much left of him, least of all a face.
The story of John Welles, played by Michael Sarrazin, is intriguing indeed, as he finds himself without identity and memory as he is returned to life by extreme surgical efforts supervised by George Peppard as the man in charge of the investigation of the disastrous sabotage.
As Michael is the sole survivor and the only one left who could have known about the secrets of the plant and why it was blown up (for the purpose of selling its secrets abroad), George Peppard has every reason to be extremely concerned about his case and bringing not only the survivor back to life but also and above all his memory.
This proves more or less impossible.This is the beginning of the plot, which leads into an abyss of mysteries and thickening intrigue unto the very last moment, when everything clears.
It's an ingenious story, and although the environment of the film is dreadful, bunker prisons of mammoth overwhelmingness, it is nevertheless highly recommendable, and there is Christine Belford to add some necessary softer touch to the dreadfulness and inhumanity, which unfortunately is the dominating element of the film; and when Michael finally gets even with George Peppard, even that infallible dictator must admit that he deserved it..
...with stunning views of 70's Vancouver beaches,mountains and architecture, this drama has great actors with a suspenseful plot,yet kind of slow.
Silly plot, great retro-seventies decor.
This movie isn't really interesting in itself: the plot is far-fetched, the characters are wooden and the action scenes probably would have been considered dull even when the movie was made.
"I would plant a bug in every bedroom in the country".
The Groundstar Conspiracy is your average spy thriller with George Peppard as the ruthless investigator from an unnamed government agency and Michael Sarrazin as a scientist who is the only survivor of a lab explosion at a top secret US space program called Groundstar.
Peppard knows that Sarrazin is not who he says he is.
But how did he get clearance in the place, what may or may not have been taken from the lab that the explosion covered up are the questions Peppard has answers for.
Because Sarrazin's memory has been wiped clean.The key character in The Groundstar Conspiracy is Peppard as a ruthless government investigator, a man who could be J.
That title phrase comes from Peppard's mouth who would like to bug every bedroom in the country for security's sake, better to ferret out would be subversives.Of course Peppard plugs up his security leak, but Sarrazin, freedom, and Sarrazin's freedom pay a price.The Groundstar Conspiracy has some interesting notions to put forth, but the productions values are pretty skimpy.
Christine Belford as a woman that Peppard's using to keep tabs on Sarrazin has her role very poorly defined.
The players do their best, but the film's general mediocrity weighs heavily on their work..
Good Thanksgiving Fare (it's a real turkey).
A top-secret government lab blows up, 1 saboteur (Michael Sarrazin)survives and a super-abrasive, super-tough government super-agent reins Sarrazin in then reels him out like a super-fisherman playing with his catch.
All the "suspense" in this movie comes from the fact that Sarrazin can't remember the secret data that's supposedly locked up in his brain and can't even recall who he is working for, while super-agent George Peppard spends nearly the entire film trying to get Sarrazin to cough up said data.
Other than the weak and unconvincing interplay between the two principals and Sarrazin's dallying with a lonely widow, there is simply nothing happening in this film.
The "action scenes" are about as exciting as watching someone mow a lawn and the big "twist" ending makes little or no sense.
The author of all this nonsense must think that having a secret lab blow up, having the blower-up be an amnesiac and having the blow-ees become crispy critters is very exciting, but alas it's not.
He doesn't seem to understand that characters need to be more than one-dimensional and stories - even sci-fi thrillers - need to be interesting as well as plausible..
Very good!.
This is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't usually produce.
In Hollywood, there has to be a clear distinction between "good" and "evil" to win audiences and revenue.
Unfortunately, this destroys a lot of significant films from being made.
Groundstar Conspiracy was atypical in that there was a definite blur between "good" and "evil".
None more so than in the character of Tuxan, played by the late George Peppard.
Peppard plays a government operative who is maniacally obsessed with protecting national security.
You like the guy at the beginning, but when he starts interrogating "The Alien" - played by Michael Sarrazin (in the same year played in "Never Given In An Inch", and has a striking resemblance to the singer BJ Thomas), you like Tuxan much less.
"The Alien" allegedly committed terrible espionage crimes, but cannot recall due to amnesia.
You immediately empathize with "The Alien" as a guy who has to act tough, but you can tell is a regular guy.
The whole point of the movie is that Tuxan is dead-set on capturing "The Alien" at all costs.
The ending has a strong moral message, and you have to decide whether you agree with what Tuxan does for a living or not.
That is the strength of the movie - you have to decide upon morality for yourself (a powerful dilemma in America during the early 70s)..
This is a movie as easy to watch as to forget but it's quite entertaining.The story is very far-fetched,but in this kind of spy thriller including amnesia ,mysterious conspiracies and who-the-Hell am I?
subject,it's the rule of the game.George Peppard tries hard to be evil but he does not always succeed;Michael Sarrazin is the perfect victim/culprit (God only knows) .The love story may seem derivative and it is,but there are enough unexpected twists to sustain interest throughout.The working title ("the plastic man" ) was perhaps a better choice than "The Groundstar Conspiracy "but it might have been a spoiler..
good spy thriller from the 1970's.
A lonely young woman looking for peace and quiet decides to spend some time in her old weekend home.
This is an unfortunate miscalculation, since the house is located near a top secret government installation which blows up in a giant explosion.
Out of the rubble crawls and stumbles a badly wounded man.
Bleeding profusely, he collapses in front of the terrified woman...Aaah, the 1970's - a golden age for dystopian and/or paranoid tales about secrets, conspiracies, abuse of power and malfeasance.
"The Groundstar Conspiracy" is certainly one of the better entries : it is a nicely compact and efficient spy thriller with an intelligent, twisty plot, good performances and well-chosen locations.
At times the movie veers into a science fiction direction, but in a good way.
(I didn't like the musical score, but one can't have everything.)"Groundstar" contains interesting reflections on the conflict between state security and individual rights, such as the right to privacy.
(Watch George Peppard as an investigator so relentless that he taps everything and anything tappable, including his own phone.) There is also food for thought on the themes of memory and identity.
What is it that defines us humans as individuals - our faces, our names, our pasts ?
Suppose, for instance, that you had a terrible accident and that doctors had to provide you with a more or less workable face - not a beautiful face nor an ugly one, just an average face different from your own.
Would your life veer into an entirely new direction ?
Or suppose that you've suffered a bad accident, but that doctors succeed in duplicating your old face, down to the tiniest wrinkle.
Is it possible that you would not recognize the face - or yourself ?
Do watch "Groundstar", it's well worth your time. |
tt0231050 | Toransufômâ: Kârobotto | Several thousand years ago, the planet Cybertron was consumed by a civil war by the two Transformer factions, the Autobots led by Optimus Prime and the Decepticons led by Megatron. Optimus jettisoned the AllSpark, a mystical artifact that brings life to the planet, into space, but Megatron pursued it. Megatron crashed in the Arctic Circle and froze, and was discovered in 1895 by explorer Archibald Witwicky. Witwicky activated Megatron’s navigational system, which scanned the AllSpark’s coordinates into his glasses. The glasses end up in the possession of his great-great-grandson Sam Witwicky. In the present, Sam buys his first car, a rusting Chevrolet Camaro, but discovers it has a life of its own.
In modern Qatar, Blackout attacks and destroys a United States military base in a failed attempt to hack the military network to find information on Megatron and the AllSpark. A team of Army Rangers led by Captain William Lennox escape across the desert, pursued by Blackout’s drone Scorponok. They fight Scorponok off, aided by aerial reinforcements, and travel home with Scorponok’s stinger, discovering sabot rounds damaged the armor. At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense John Keller leads the investigation into the attack. Sound analyst Maggie Madsen catches another Decepticon, Frenzy, hacking into the network while onboard Air Force One. While the hack is thwarted, Frenzy downloads files on Archibald’s glasses, tracking down Sam with Barricade, disguised as a police car.
Sam and his high school crush Mikaela Banes are rescued by the Camaro who turns out to be Autobot scout Bumblebee, but he is mute and has to communicate through his car radio. Previously sending a beacon to his fellow Autobots, Bumblebee takes Sam and Mikaela to meet the new arrivals – Optimus, Jazz, Ironhide, and Ratchet. Optimus explains the details of their situation, revealing if Megatron gained the AllSpark he would transform Earth’s machinery into a new army and exterminate mankind. Sam, Mikaela, and the Autobots travel to Sam’s house to retrieve the glasses, but the teenagers are captured by agents of Sector Seven, a top secret government branch led by Seymour Simmons. The Autobots stop the agents, but Simmons calls for backup, who take Sam, Mikaela, and Bumblebee into custody, while Optimus obtains the glasses.
The respective groups connected to the Transformers are gathered together at Hoover Dam by Sector Seven’s director Tom Banachek. Inside, the group discover the frozen Megatron and the AllSpark, but Frenzy, who smuggled away in Mikaela’s bag, summons the other Decepticons to attack. Bumblebee is released to protect the AllSpark, shrinking it down to a handheld size so it can be transported to safety. Megatron escapes the dam after thawing out. A lengthy battle occurs in Mission City, with most of the Decepticons being killed, but Megatron murders Jazz. He prevents Sam’s attempted escape with the AllSpark, and begins to fight Optimus. After a long brawl Megatron seems to get the upper hand. Optimus then tells Sam to push the cube into his chest in order to ensure their mutual destruction, but Sam rams it into Megatron's chest instead, extinguishing his spark. Starscream is the only Decepticon to escape, but Barricade remains on Earth.
Optimus salvages a shard of the AllSpark from Megatron’s body. The United States government shuts down Sector Seven, disposing of the dead Decepticons in the Laurentian Abyss. Sam and Mikaela then start a relationship while the Autobots secretly hide out on Earth, Optimus sends a transmission into space inviting any surviving Autobots to join them. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | Every time the latest iteration of Transformers comes out, old-skoolers like me immediately run out and disparage it for not being as good as the last.
After the Success of Beast Machines, The Animal transformers series had finally finished along with the original G1 story that started back in 1984.
Just called "Robots In Disguise" The Toyline went back to its vehicle mode idea from the original transformers series.
So instead we got "The Predacons" back into transformers, Most of the toys and characters were composed of Repaints of Classic Transformers introduced in the late 1990s and of course 1 or 2 Beast wars toys.It was pretty unusual.Anyway, The TV series follows the same idea of the Autobot/Decepticon-Predacon battles.
The Series was dubbed by Geneon (Mahoromatic, Gungrave, Cowboy Bebop, Heat Guy J, etc) and the actors did a pretty good job with the voice work in this series, and I especially like the script work in this series, Its pretty close to the G1 and Beast Wars scripts as our gonna get so be grateful ;) A lot of people say its Lame, Poor and just not worth watching.
Well anyone who says that needs to give them self a good punch in the jaw and realise that this was the Last great Transformers series to come along in the 21st century.and Believe me, This series is got pretty funny jokes and sometimes doesn't have the time to get too serious.Sadly the series ended in 2002 and then the Unicron Trilogy began which complety took transformers a turn for the worst.Bottom line...This is a fun, Enjoyable and Great Transformers show which shows you how great Transformers can be without the serious tone which Beast wars and G1 took.
His voice is mean and a lot more threatening than people give credit.I like the new Scourge, he's an evil Optimus Prime!
There are even references for Beast Wars fans, with stasis pods and slapsticky bumbling Predacons.Who wouldn't like a singing Sky-Byte?!
I am a TF fan I loved Generation 1 (the original series from the 80s), Beast Wars, but didn't care much for Beast Machines.In this series, the Autobots are back.
It is a dubbed version of the series Car Robots in Japan.Basically involves Megatron kidnaps a young boy's (Koji) father.
He is a young kid who wants nothing more than to chase the girls, well red sports cars that he THINKS are girls.They are later joined by 3 trains that can also merge into a giant gestault robot, 4 construction vehicles that also form a gestault, 6 ninja expert robots know as the spychangers, and two more autobots.Megs also has his lackies.
I am one of the biggest fans of the original Transformers series, and I know this dosen't compare to the original, but you can take it many ways..Try this on for size:After G1 Optimus Prime and the Autobots returned to Cybertron(sometime before 2001, when this new show takes place)to fight G1 Megatron and the Decepticons, R.I.D. Optimus Prime (from around the time Beast Machines ended) was sent back in time to watch over the earth.
(Two different Primes running into each other would more than likely have some sort of effect on time) Same with Megatron and the Predicons.Now, that might make R.I.D. fit a little better.
First off here is a brief explanation of how this series came to be - After the success of Beast Wars : Transformers in America, it was transferred to Japan, where it was redubbed and did just as well.
A few years passed and the Japanese audience began craving more Transformer goodness, so Car Robots (later known as Robots in Disguise) was created.
To cash in, on the Beast Wars craze of the time the creators set this series in an alternate universe, allowing them to have Autobots, Predacons and Decepticons.
The reason many of the names have carried over from the original series is because if they are not used they will be lost to other companies (as an example Rodimus Prime was lost a while ago and is now known as Rodimus Major).Now, what alot of people tend to forget is that this series had to compete with Pokemon and Digimon, it was also made in another language so many of the jokes dont exactly cross over and it was made with a younger audience in mind rather then those of us who grew up with the original series.So with all that in mind I begin my review - The two biggest flaws as I see it with Robots in Disguise (RiD) is rather weak voice acting, and the weaknesses of the villains.
In RiD the villains are both stupid and weak, a flying skunk versus an SUV or a flying shark against a firetruck aren't my idea of fair.So overall I rate this series fairly low when compared to Transformers Beast Wars, and the Original Series, but that isn't what is meant to be rated against.
So, as a stand-alone series using Transformers for the core of its story and competing with the like of Digimon and Pokemon, I give it a 6.5 out of 10.
In fact, it takes an excellent product like beast wars to even make us forgive a TF series for existing.Sadly, RID isn't excellent like beast wars, so old fans will think they won't like it.
The writing is childish because it was meant for pokemon-buying kids, and the producers were at least kind enough to use some stuff from previous series, like the flying shark from the japanese Beast Wars, the combaticons and Ruination's ability to "scramble" from G1, and the stasis pods from Beast Wars.Fortunately the show doesn't take itself seriously, something that already makes it better than Armada and Beast Machines.
As a long time fan of the Transformers this one is perhaps the most underrated series and often times the forgotten one.Transformers: Robots In Disguise is the first Anime Transformers series to be dubbed for an American network.The story line features Optimus Prime and his Autobots facing off against Megatron leader of the Predacons and Decepticons as they battle on Earth.For this series the Autobots Include: Optimus Prime, The Autobot Brothers Sideburn,X-Brawn and Prowl, Ultra Magnus, Team Bullet Train: Railspike, Rapid Run, Midnight Express Spy Changers: Hot Shot, R.E.V., Crosswise, W.A.R.S., Ironhide, and Mirage.The Decepticons and Predacons include: Megatron, Sky Byte, Slapper, Gas Skunk, Dark Scream.
Decepticons: Scourge, Mega-Octane, Armorhide, Movor, Ro-Tor and Rollbar who together form Ruination.The series was taken from Car Robots in Japan and dub to Transformers Robots In Disguise.
The Animation style is hand drawn and each character design is very good with attention to detail for the Transformers.
It's more than meets the eye and an entertaining series too it feels like Transformers.
The voice acting doesn't really work either, Barry Stigler as Scourge and Peter Spellos as Sky-Byte the only ones that properly stand out in a good way, the rest range from overdone(David Riordan's Megatron) and bored-sounding(Lex Lang's Tow-Line).
The story lines could have had more complexity and did feel on the juvenile side, it's not quite as bloated as the Unicron Trilogy Transformers shows but there is too much of a filler-feel with Robots in Disguise.
And not all the animation is consistent, the sleek character designs and vivid pastel colours are nice, but the static backgrounds, the tendency to look too over-saturated(could have used more foreboding colours) and lack of fluidity, not so much.Overall, Robots in Disguise is better than Energon, Cyberton and especially Armada-the three parts of the Unicron Trilogy, and not really worth bothering with-, also Beast Machines(but only just), but for better shows in the franchise look to the original 1984 show, Beast Wars, Prime and Animated.
The original cartoon had its funny episodes and so did Beast Wars.
Seeing the Autobots and Predacons duke it out in this series is less like seeing the conflict between Autobots and Decepticons in the original cartoon, and more like Bugs Bunny Vs Yosamite Sam. THe first few episodes were perfect in keeping with the sci/fi adventure feel of Transformers, but after than, everything descends into a laugh-a-minute.
An autobot flirts with a red sports car every episode, Predacons whine like schoolgirls and over-the-top lameness typical of comedic Japanese anime(see huge sweat drops and super deformed characters/chibi) get thrown into even the most serious and emotionally charged scenes, thereby ruining whatever impact those scenes were meant to have.If the humour works, i would have no qualms.
Too bad about the material they had to work with, or this series could have been so much more than it currently is.Fans would enjoy the sleek re-designs of many classic characters.
this series has very good combiners, like rail racer, landfill and omega prime.Optimus is way better as a fire truck, which shows that he goes, to protect people!
I also love megatron/galvatron he looks wicked, changes into 6/10 different forms, instead of just a jet or a gun, i must say, i do like the original, but this is great for entertainment.
but don't all the great classics have failures as bad guys, we like things to be unfair and disadvantaged, just look at how more powerful and clever Galvatron was.
I just thought it should be pointed out that in the original Japanese version, all of the characters (except Gas Skunk) had different names.
They were NOT intended to be new versions of old characters like Optimus Prime, Megatron, Prowl, etc.
If you are a fan of the original Transformers, you will more than likely enjoy this show as well.
Fans of the original should be pleased with this updated version of their favorite robots in Disguise, and first-timers will get to marvel at the awesomeness that is The Transformers!.
I really can't believe people actually stick up for this mindless drivel that FoxKids has foisted upon unsuspecting Transformers fans.Now, first, I will state that I have no real qualms with things like Optimus Prime being a fire engine as opposed to a tractor-trailer or X-Brawn being an SUV.
The animation gets extremely goofy for no good reason (robots sweating, gimme a break), the dialogue is bland, tacky, and uninspired (I could never be a voice actor on this show, I feel sorry for the ones on there now), and the plots are laughable at best and downright ugly at worst.
I can only moan in frustration while watching them "fight", shouting each other's "attacks" as they open fire, coupled with the monotonous transformation sequences (at least in Beast Wars and Beast Machines they didn't keep up the "Maximize/Terrorize!" or "I am transformed!" lines for the entire series) that infest the show.The show was written to the lowest denominator, the problem is, they know it will show anyway because it has a strong toy line and the same little kids who watch the brain-cell killing Pokemon and Digimon will like it's basic plots, childish characters, and tedious attack-calling and transformation sequences.This is the worst Transformers show ever.
This Transformers is not like the 80's.But it not to bad, the concept have changed alittle.I must Spike and his father,but the animations is very good.And the story is very well written.All in all this new Transformers of the Fox kids generation will bring in a new generation of giant robot lover."Autobots transformers...and roll out".
One thing I have to say: "God bless the hardcore."Sure, this isn't the Transformers you know and love from the 80s, but let's face facts: Did you really expect it to be?
This is another rehash of kiddie anime from the good folks that brought you such fare as Digimon and other unmentionable failures (anyone remember DinoZaurs?).The point is: you will find your viewing experience bettered if you take it (with a grain of salt, mind you) for what it is: A new twist on an old idea..
I like Digimon,Pokemon but this Transformers is bad.
I only saw one episode and the movie of the old Tranformers and I watched Beast Wars and Machines from begining to end but I read the story of the old transformers and the biggest thing that makes this one bad is that is dose not fallow the old story at all.
From before the show even aired, I never liked the fact that Hasbro decided to re-use 80's American Transformer names for this totally unrelated Japanese series.
What I did look forward to was seeing the Japanese "Car Robots" transformer series in English.
The truth is that Hasbro wanted to ride the popularity of other Japanese translated shows such as Digimon and Pokemon and try to pick up the die-hard 80's fans that only could accept hand-drawn cars and classic names as being true transformers.
I can only hope that Hasbro for the next series (if this doesn't kill the line) would hire back the writers of Beast Wars and Beast Machines and make an original series that at least takes place anywhere in the Northern American transformers timeline.
I grew up on Transformers, and when I heard a new version involving the robots was back, I was excited.
I hope that the people who made Transformers great are watching this series and try to get back involved, because after this show has run its course it may have alienated all the of the original fans.
I don't want any excuses about how it wasn't meant in Japan to be the original characters, Optimus in robot mode looks WAY too much like the old Optimus.
It's a dub of the Anime series "Car Robots," where they all have different names.
just like most kids cartoons.Basically, enjoy the new series and don't take it too seriously.
Maybe the original Japanese Version is better, but this translated show seems to be lacking in plot & character development.However, if young kids are watching this show for the First Time and have no concepts of Transformers, they may enjoy it, as it has a very "Digimon" & "Pokemon" feel.
I like the new Fire Truck design of Prime, voice was okay too.
It takes place in a fictional city somewhere in Japan I presume (I've only ever seen the untranslated version) and from what my friends and I can figure out, the shows are self-contained (apart from the overall link of on-going battle, kidnapped scientist and a surprisingly annoying tourist woman whose vehicles end up trashed in each episode during one of the many fight sequences) and are all to do with the trials and tribulations of being a transforming vehicle (or animal, in the case of the Destrons) and, in the case of Convoy, an effective leader to a group of heroes.The funniest episode to date (and probably of the whole series) saw a group of the Destrons forced to take community service in order to join the Autobots.
HUGE!) is one of the best moments I have witnessed on TV in a long time.Let's hope Hasbro (is that who still makes the show?) pick up on the obvious market for this new version of the already popular toy and TV series and start dubbing it right away.
Yep it has tobe said that this cartoon is dire, very poorly written, very bad voice acting (the only decent voices was that of Omega Primes and Midnight Express).They take the name Transformers, slap the names Optimus Prime and Megatron on these two characters a hire bad writers and voice actors to devlope them...Yes this is a dubbed from the japanese car robots series, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that the cartoon sucks.As bad as the new Armada cartoon is, it's 100 times better than this, better voice acting and better plot, same bad animation though.Hasbro should take a page out of Mattel's book and make a Transformers show for a mature audiance again (like Beast Wars was) hire some decent writers, don't make another Transformers series untill you can come up with a decent story and decent voice actors, and please don't make it another joint effort between the US and Japan again, it's really ruined the new Armada series with stupid name mistakes and horribly annoying children running around the autobots base as if it where a playground..
Now, there is Robots In Disguise, a story that combines original Transformers and Beast Wars.
In RiD...every energy extraction mission is the exact same (except for the location), and ends more because of Predacon stupidity than Autobot skill.I've heard that the Japanese version of this, Car Robots, is much better...it would have to be, I can't see it being much worse.
While Beast Machines and Beast Wars were intended as kid shows, they didn't talk down to the audience, had sharp dialogue and cohesive plotlines, kept the cornball factor to a minimum, didn't alienate the adult audience, and put in references to the original 1984 TransFormers cartoon for the nostalgic fans, especially towards the end of the series (even if you hated the whole organic thing in Beast Machines).With RiD, we have something that is considerably less.
In the Japan version of RiD, or Car Robots, Prime's name is Fire Convoy.
Good lines abound in this series and it often has a little easter egg for us G1 fans like Beast Wars did.
After the surprising depth of the original series, the 1986 movie and the 3D animation of Beast Wars, this is what we get.
Even though I haven't watched it for a little bit I don't think that Robots In Disguise is all that bad.
However, because the show is basic anime it can come off as predictable and dull, and also Transformers (which is basically robots beating up each other) is an acquired taste that only a specific group of people (generally fans who grew up with the TF cartoons/toys) can enjoy.
Like the other series before it, "The Transformers", "Beast Wars", and "Beast Machines", the series focuses on the war between two rival factions of giant robots from another world. |
tt0041142 | Awful Orphan | Charlie is showing various thing in the form of a dramatic presentation that ends with him as the major thing and this causes the people present to walk away in disgust. Charlie then hitches a ride a pet shop truck. He arrives in Porky's hotel room who kicks him out. Porky calls the pet shop owner saying: "I ordered a canary not a monster!".
Porky proceeds to try throwing the dog out several times but fails, including an incident in which Charlie pretends to be a baby and fails causing Charlie to drive him out disguised as an old lady and Charlie succeeds; he is driven out after Porky closes the window after Charlie jumps outside as part of a fake suicide gag.
Charlie begs in for Porky to keep him after he infiltrates in a lunch platter, he manages to coax Porky into adopting him after promising to do several chores. Porky pretends to have Charlie as his pet but, with an evil cackle, wraps Charlie and sends him to Siberia, but he ends up coming back kicking Porky in the rear while doing the Cossack Dance. Porky's noise awakens the upstairs neighbor, who then proceeds to call Charlie and threatens him by saying he will come down to stop the noise if it doesn't stop. Charlie responds by counter-threatening the man. Charlie tricks Porky into going upstairs and the man then proceeds to beat him up.
The man then returns with a beaten up Porky who finally submits to make Charlie his pet. However, Charlie decides otherwise and wants to leave due to Porky's place being uncomfortable to live in; as he tries to walk out the door, Porky proceeds to approach him with an evil look in his eyes as he forces Charlie to stay. The screen fades to black and then the cartoon ends with a scene from earlier with the roles of dog and master from an earlier but reversed; with Charlie trying to leave but being forced back into the chair when Porky growls at him. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Ah, The Benefits Of A Dog Over A Bird.
A dog is out on the street advertising the world's greatest thing - himself!
However, there are no takers, so he jumps into the "Acme Pet Shop" truck.
The next thing we see is Porky Pig answered his door and getting a draped bird cage.
He's excited as he ordered a canary, a pet he's been looking forward to receiving.
When he pulls down the cover, there's the dog squeezed into the cage!Porky calls the pet shop to complain but the dog has already severed the phone wires and is pretending to be the pet shop owner, extolling the virtues of a dog and calling Porky a lucky man to have such a pet.
Porky grabs the dog and escorts him out of the house.
The dog quickly re-enters saying, "You don't have a pet, and I don't have a master.
It's inevitable that we should be together." He continues the sales pitch, telling him how much better he is than a canary.Porky keeps kicking him out , and the dog (a pointer whose idea of pointing is saying, "There it is!") keeps returning.....in a bunch of disguises that are very clever and very humorous.
Porky doesn't fall for any of them.
This was much funnier than I'm making it sound - a solid animated short.P.S. The ending is diabolically bizarre..
A funny but somehow unsatisfactory cartoon.
Chuck Jones's 'The Awful Orphan' features one of the lesser known recurring characters in the Warner Bros.
repertoire; Charlie Dog. Unlike the more unusual antics of lesser known characters like Hubie and Bertie or The Goofy Gophers, Charlie's gimmick is heckling in the classic Warner tradition.
However, unlike the unprovoked anarchy of early Daffy Duck or the justice-meting of Bugs Bunny, Charlie's heckling is given a bittersweet edge by the fact it is motivated by his homelessness.
In 'The Awful Orphan', he attempts to persuade an unusually hot-headed Porky Pig into adopting him.
Charlie is a fairly likable character but you also feel for Porky as his home is invaded by the smart-alecky mutt.
Still, much of what Charlie puts Porky through is very funny indeed.
The jokes in this cartoon, while mostly falling short of riotous, are largely unpredictable and amusing.
Only a nonsensical gag involving a stack of mattresses misfires.
For all its rib-tickling gags, however, 'The Awful Orphan' leaves me feeling a little unsatisfied, probably due to the fact it is almost entirely set in a bland apartment which means it is less that exciting to look at, unlike many of Jones' sumptuous creations.
It's always interesting to see one of these less frequently shown Charlie Dog cartoons and I always enjoy them but when they're over I can't help but conclude that it's easy to see why he never became as big a star as his contemporaries..
Awful Orphan is a really funny Porky Pig-Charlie Dog cartoon.
This is one of several cartoons starring Porky Pig and directed by Chuck Jones that also stars Charlie Dog who is always trying to get Porky to accept him as a pet with the pig always refusing.
Love hearing Mel Blanc give Porky a really evil laugh whenever he tries to get rid of Charlie.
Also love many of the disguises of Charlie and one of Porky.
But Charlie always comes back, more obnoxious than ever!
Plenty of hilarious visual gags and the turnaround at the end was really funny.
Writer Michael Maltese really outdid himself this time.
This is on disc 3 of The Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Vol. 1.
Well worth seeing for animation fans especially the Warner Bros.
kind..
how to hound someone.
More of wise guy mutt Charlie Dog trying to get Porky Pig to adopt him, with Porky getting progressively more irritated.
"Awful Orphan" isn't much that we wouldn't expect, but always great to see.
In my opinion, the best scenes in the Charlie Dog cartoons are what happens after Porky sends him to another part of the world, in this case Siberia (it looks like even the Termite Terrace crowd had to jump on the Cold War bandwagon, if only lightly).Anyway, it's a nice, funny way to pass time.
Life will never get old as long as we have these cartoons.
It's a good thing that I'm watching this when I'm old enough to get the jokes (as a six-year-old child, I wouldn't have known about Siberia)..
Aw, shucks.
Honestly, who in their right mind would turn down Charlie Dog?
He's so cute and lovable.
And his desperation to be loved as much as he loves back just makes him even cuter.
I would love to Charlie Dog as my pet.
Why does Porky Pig feel such a strong resentment towards him?
You guess is as good as mine.After Charlie stowaways in a bird cage to infiltrate Porky's apartment this get out of control.
The usual game of cat and mouse (or dog and pig) follows as Charlie takes to increasingly insane measures to prove to Porky that he's a loyal and trustworthy pet, far better than any bird.
Unfortunately it doesn't work out in the end.But Charlie, I'll have you any time you want..
not awful at all.
Porky Pig orders a bird from the local animal shelter, and the deliveryman gives him a birdcage with a blanket over it, but when he lifts up the sheet over the birdcage there's Charlie Dog smooshed in the cage.
What follows is an amusing game of cat and mouse that's akin to Tom and Jerry, but in this case Dog and Pig that pushes the put upon pig pass the breaking point.
A funny short, if not an exactly memorable one.
But I did enjoy it and some of the gags are pretty damn funny, if i do say so myself.
This funny cartoon can be found on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" (which you should buy NOW, if you still don't own it)My Grade: B.
Better than a ham sandwich:).
I must admit that Porky Pig has not been one of my favorite Looney Tunes character.
I always prefered his nemesis (well everyone's nemesis) Daffy Duck, but he has grown on me in recent years.
It is odd how like comic books, some of the best Looney Tunes are ones with only one character in the limelight- though that is certainly not always the case.
But, I like the simplicity of this toon, and I love how it bears resemblance to the Tom and Jerry toons.
Very good one.
Thhhhat's All Folks.
Sorry, I couldn't resist:).
Better than I expected.
I've never been a big fan of the overbearing Charlie, but here the interplay with Porky works very well, with plenty of funny moments and an inventiveness you can always rely on from Jones.
"You're gonna stay-uh-stay all right.
I'm-I'm getting' to like you".
Having been practically raised on Looney Tunes, several of them still hold up as classics or close.
Porky is a good character if not one of my favourites, being more effective when partnered with a stronger character like Daffy.While not quite one my favourite Looney Tunes cartoons or quite classic Chuck Jones, 'Awful Orphan' is still a wonderful cartoon and one of Porky's best.
The only thing for me that didn't work was the stack of mattresses gag, that was very rushed, not very inventive or funny and it was pretty...dumb, actually.Everything else in 'Awful Orphan' works wonders though.
The animation is very good, even though the action is mostly restricted to a room of an apartment it's all beautifully drawn and vibrantly coloured with lavish detailed backgrounds and distinctively Chuck Jones-style character designs.
Carl Stalling's music score is outstanding, it's lushly and cleverly orchestrated, very lively rhythmically and full of character and it adds enormously to what's going on and contributes towards the effectiveness actually of some of the gags, the rousing bombastic energy in the Russian Cossack disguise gag in particular.'Awful Orphan' is incredibly funny and often hilarious.
There is the usual sharpness and wit in the dialogue, Charlie has the funniest lines but Porky has the most memorable.
The gags, with the sole exception of one, are inventive, brilliantly timed and range from highly amusing to hilarious, the highlights being Charlie's granny and Russian Cossack disguises and the wonderfully bizarre ending.
The story is not much new, but with it being so well paced and the chemistry between Porky and Charlie delighting as much as it did that wasn't an issue at all.Both Porky and Charlie make a great impression here, and their chemistry is a delight.
Sure, Porky being nastier than usual (he's quite violent here and quite deranged even at the end) but he's amusing too and it was nice to see him more interesting than usual.
Charlie practically steals the show from under him, he's overbearing but that's essential to the two characters' conflict and it works wonderfully well, some of the funniest lines come from him and he relishes it and his physical comedy and disguises are equally great, making one wonder as to why he wasn't more popular.
Mel Blanc as always is superb, especially as Charlie.Overall, wonderful Porky Pig and Charlie Dog cartoon.
9/10 Bethany Cox. One of the better Porky cartoons..
"Awful Orphan" is a very funny cartoon that features a very needy dog who is begging to be adopted.
When this doesn't work, he decides to force himself on Porky and MAKE the pig adopt him!
But Porky has no interest and he just wants to be left alone.
Too bad the dog just won't take a hint and again and again, he tries various schemes to get Porky to take him.
How all this ends is pretty clever, as Porky loses his mind and gives the dog a taste of his own medicine.It's nice to see that after well over a decade of Porky cartoons that they still had some original ideas--and "Awful Orphan" is packed with originality and laughs.
Not a great Warner Brothers cartoon, but a very good one..
Merrie Melodies.
Awful Orphan (1949) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Classic Merrie Melodies short has Porky Pig being taken over by an orphan dog looking for a master.
No matter what Porky tries the dog keeps coming back and getting on his nerves even more.
I think this here is one of the better known shorts from the series and it's certainly hard to resist its charm.
Porky gets to do all sorts of great things and you can't help but feel sorry for him as this dog drives him nuts.
It's also nice to see Porky flip out at the end and it can't help but remind you of Daffy whenever he goes off the deep end.
The vocal work on the dog is priceless and also very fun.
One of the best scenes in the movie has Porky packing the dog up and ready to ship him to Siberia..
An excellent pig/dog conflict.
Porky Pig asks the Acme Pet Shop to deliver him a canary, and instead he receives an obnoxious, playful dog who causes nothing but misery for him.
From here on, all Porky wants to do is get rid of the dog to maintain peace in his apartment, but no matter how hard Porky tries, the dog will not go away.
And that is the basic plot for "Awful Orphan," a fun, entertaining cartoon directed by Chuck Jones.My favorite gags in this short are the following (DO NOT read any further until after you see it): The ubiquitous dog proves himself to be a pointer by actually pointing a finger in certain directions and saying, "Dere it is!" Porky then points to the door, says "Dere it is," and literally kicks the dog out!
Later on, Porky quickly wraps the dog up and mails him off to Siberia.
Believing that he is finally rid of the pesty dog once and for all, Porky realizes he is mistaken when the dog returns in a Russian military outfit & busby hat and greets Porky in a thick Russian accent.
(Of course, no other voice artist could do accents as hilariously as Mel Blanc could.) The dog then dances a lively jig and repeatedly kicks Porky in time to the music.
And during the film's opening credits, thanks to the musical genius of Carl Stalling, we hear one of my favorite songs, "You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby." "Awful Orphan" is definitely a cartoon that supplies a great deal of laughter.
It might not be too difficult to feel sorry for Porky, but he at least does get his revenge in the end..
Cartoons cartoons cartoons!.
Charlie starts the cartoon by a gathering of people around him.The card says: Attention, look!
You should have it in your home.It's colossal!
It's stupendous!
What is this great boon to mankind?
LOL that's so funny.
Some of my SAT vocabulary is in there.
Great way to learn SAT vocab is to watch Looney Tunes there's always a few in there.The angry crowd leaves and Charlie hops into a pet shop truck.We see Porky at his hotel getting the bird cage but finds out that there is a dog inside.
He tries calling the bird store but Charlie broke the cords and is pretending to be the store owner.
Porky kicks him out, but he comes back in by opening the door and coming in through the top window.Charlie then tries to leave and he "commits suicide", Porky sees him on mattresses and gets angry.Porky then tells Charlie that he can have his own dog cage, then evilly wraps him in the package and mails it to Siberia, Russia.
Charlie returns and kicks Porky in the butt.
The man from upstairs calls and Charlie threatens him.
The man beating Porky as a result, throws him back to Charlie.
Porky says he acquiesces to Charlie and he can stay, but Charlie debates on it and decides to go elsewhere.Porky then has a change in personality and begins to laugh manically and saying "I'm getting to like you".The last scene concludes with Charlie sitting in the couch and Porky on the floor sleeping.
Charlie tries to escape, but Porky sees him and growls.
Charlie is very scared now as the cartoon irises out.It is available on the Golden Collection Disc 3 #5 as a low pitch cartoon with the blue ribbon from 1957-58.10/10 I like the ending..
Porky Pig continues his career as a .
. born loser, looking a gift dog in the mouth and not seeing the forest for the teeth as Warner Bros.' animated short THE AWFUL ORPHAN Unspools.
Sometimes a person might have a legitimate reason to kill the goose laying golden eggs.
Gold is pretty heavy, and goose eggs are fairly large, so if this potentially lucrative goose nest is perched five or ten feet above the only place you or your child can rest their head, offing the dangerous fowl might be more of a case of self-defense than one of poor financial planning.
On the other hand, when a talking dog falls into your lap, especially a canine fluent in English, you'd be nuts to shoo him away, right?
But that's exactly what Porky Pig does, since Porky lacks any sense of showmanship.
Even when this gifted mutt proves himself to be in possession of genii-like qualities, such as conjuring a stack of 650 bed mattresses outside Porky's high-rise window or making a round trip from America to Siberia in less than 10 seconds, Porky tries to reject his Good Fortune.
Despite his would-be pet's talent as a song-and-dance dog, Porky just can't wait to get back to his boring bachelor solitude.
It all makes you think that if pigs could fly, they'd flock to bookkeeping school. |
tt0061073 | Teesri Manzil | Sunita (Asha Parekh) lives along with her widowed father in a rich neighborhood of Delhi. deeply disturbed by the suicide of her elder sister Roopa in Dehradun a year ago. All she knows was that Roopa committed suicide due to her involvement with a hotel live band drummer "Rocky". (a role played by Shammi Kapoor who was repeating the drummers role from his 1959 block buster "Dil Deke Dekho" with the same co-star and director)
On the way to Dehradun, Sunita meets a charming but mischievous young man Anil (Shammi Kapoor) on the train. Anil gets attracted by Sunita's beauty and spirit and decides to pursue her.Later he overhears Sunita saying that she would definitely take revenge on "Rocky" who was the cause of her sister's suicide. Anil's stage name being "Rocky".
Narrating his version of what happened to his friend he reveals that he was never interested in Roopa and she was the one who always pursued him. one evening telling him that she would be coming to his room in the hotel and if he did not open his door, she will jump and commit suicide. later that evening when she starts banging on his door, he does not open the door, and then he hears a shriek and a thud. When he rushes out and looks down from the 3rd floor lobby balcony (TEESRI MANZIL) he sees Roopa's body on the Compound below, apparently she having jumped as she had threatened.
He tries to explain everything to Sunita but always postpones it. He takes the help of a rich patron of their hotel, Mr. Kunwer to pose as a rich heir in front of Sunita's father. But after some time it is revealed that he was no one but Rocky. He tries to explain to Sunita but she wouldn't listen. his pursuit of Sunita's attention and affection along with the hotel club backdrop giving many a chance to break out in song and dance, this movie is a watershed musical well worth watching.
Police arrest Anil and later release him. To his surprise, they reveal that Roopa didn't commit suicide was murdered. A fact the police kept silent to catch the actual murderer. They also warn Anil that the killer might target him as he was closely linked to the case.
Anil suspects Ruby (Helen), his co-dancer and his admirer but she is murdered before his eyes and although he chases the killer Anil is unable to catch him. then he suspects Ramesh (Prem Chopra), Roopa's fiance but finds no clue. Later police tells him that murderer wanted to kill Anil but Ruby came in between. A mysterious young woman calls him one night and asks him to go to a certain place in her car to know the truth about Roopa. But the car's has been tampered with and goes of a cliff and with no body found everybody thinks that Anil is dead. But he survives and investigates further and at last finds the actual killer and the motive behind Roopa's murder.
Anil and Sunita go to a hotel to investigate the mystery. When Sunita is away, Anil finds the mysterious lady going in a car. Anil follows her to the hotel owned by Mr Kunvar. The two men search for the lady but are unable to find her.
Mr Kunvar insists Anil to spend the night here and locks him from outside. Anil discovers an important evidence for Roopa's murder. The killer is revealed to be Mr Kunvar himself. Anil confronts the woman who is actually Kunvar's mistress. She confesses to the police about the crime. The mistress tells Anil that she was having relations with Kunvar when the latter was still married. Kunvar's wife discovered the affair and in the scuffle, Kunvar accidentally shot her dead. Kunvar and his mistress were burying the body in secret when Roopa witnessed everything. Kunvar chased her to the hotel and threw her from the higher floor, murdering her.
Kunvar arrives and kills his mistress. Anil and Kunvar fight each other and Anil overpowers him. The police arrive. Kunvar commits suicide. The film ends with Sunita and Anil together. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | A Perfect Musical Thriller to be enjoyed again and again.
In todays world when not even the producers know what they are serving the audience in the name of 'Entertainment' this beautifully made film still is a landmark in film making.
It is in true sense a 'Musical Thriller' that today we see only written on posters!
Beautifully shot and choreographed, this film is a gripping tale of suspense, drama, and a flavor of humor that keeps the audience excited even today.
The lead actors have given their best performance and each character has something to contribute in the story.
A very rare thing in Hindi films.
The music was so ahead of its time that even today they are being re-mixed for the new generation and are a hit!
This type of film comes once in a while and is a must to add to your film library.
A must see for every film buff!
Nobody can say enough for the film...Just bring it home and enjoy the roller coaster ride!
Happy viewing!!.
Gross Entertainment.
This movie is one of the landmarks in the history Hindi Cinema.
For 158 minutes the audience is enthralled by a spellbound plot, music, dance, songs and suspense saga.
The performance of Shammi Kapoor, Helen, both Prems, Iftikar and Rashid Khan is classic.
Even during the 5 mt brief intermission, the cine-goer prefers to be glued to his seat lest the entry of Premnath, immediately after the intermission be missed.Comedy is at its zenith.
The entry of Kapoor on the New Delhi Rly platform and his extraordinary style of walking is mind boggling.Even 40 years down history, its music and songs are as hit as they were when the first gramophone records were released in 1965.
I remember people queuing before the radios in shops and halt in the streets when the songs were played.
Needless to say, not a single Wednesday program of Binaca Geetmala in 1966 thru 1968 was aired without a Shammi number either from Teesri Manzil, An Evening in Paris and Bhramachari.The music, drama, settings and perspiring expressions of Kapoor during the climax of accidentally locating the intriguing "gem-studded coat-button " is scary, hair raising and traumatic.A film for all classes and all age..
Zestful!.
This is a perfect example of Indian pop cinema from the 1960's reflecting the relentless encroachment of Western style music and beat generation dancing - however R.
D. Burman composed some good tunes for this, perfectly showcasing the talents that were Asha Bhosle and Mohammed Rafi.A woman is murdered and her old friend played by Shammi Kapoor feels obliged to help track down the culprit.
As it goes it's done pretty well, but of course the music is the thing!
Although I liked his older brother Raj and along with this one some of his other films too I could never understand Shammi's over-expressive style of acting or his appeal (not being a woman maybe) - imho he almost ruined some of the songs here with his mugging and jerky movements.
But of course, Shammi once seen never forgotten!
Favourite bit: O Mere Sona - I used to wind on and play the vid just for this just to marvel in the incredible dexterity of Asha's vocals in the asking of Shammi's forgiveness; it's much easier with the DVD!
The only copy I've ever seen has a rather fluid colour, occasionally lending an unintentionally surreal atmosphere at times but not detracting from the enjoyment.It's an inconsequential treat much better than Viva Las Vegas, but clocking in at nearly 3 hours means patience, patience I think ultimately rewarded..
Near-perfect blend of mystery, humor, romance and music..
While the filmmakers may have been trying for a Hitchcock-like blend of suspense, humor and romance, the eye-popping pastels of the film's Eastmancolor cinematography and outlandish, energetic musical numbers blend to create a delightful Bollywood concoction.
Lead actor Shammi Kapoor is wonderfully fruity in what is probably his best performance, and dancing queen Helen is in classic bad girl mode.
Not to be missed by anyone interested in 1960's Indian pop cinema..
A best thriller made in Indian cinema with good music which i love to watch again and again.
A Hitchcockian thriller to be watched again and again.
The suspense has been maintained well till the end of the movie.The film is basically about the murder suspect.The climax scene where the real murderer is found is very thrilling.The music of the movie is very good.One interesting aspect in this movie is the murderer is founded out accidentally at the end of the movie.The movie can be watched by all ages of people.Enjoy a three hour thrilling experience.The movie is very fast and it increases the heart beats of the people who watched this movie.This thriller is very much equivalent to thrillers made in the Hollywood.Never forget to watch this thriller and keep guessing the murderer till the end..
Songs, romance, action and drama-what more can you ask for??.
I first saw this film a few years ago and since then I must have seen it at least 20 times.
First and foremost, the songs are excellent.
I could listen to every single one again and again, especially O Haseena Zulfon Wali.
Mohd Rafi truly is the greatest Indian playback singer to date.
Asha Bhosle provides excellent support, particularly in the O Mera Sona Re song.
Secondly, both the acting of Shammi Kapoor and Asha Parekh is great, both of them can pull off the comedy and the seriousness.
Thirdly the plot of the movie is quite good too, with enough suspense to keep you hooked until the very end.
This movie has been credited as the first murder mystery in Indian cinema and although at times its very clichéd and a little unbelievable, it still holds your attention.All in all a typical 1960's movie but with that added masala that is bollywood!!.
Bollywood at its best.
This is probably Shammi Kapoor's best performances after JUNGLEE(1961Its quiet different to see him in the role of a framed musician with an eye for the ladies He has like three bad girls who love him A young woman fell in love for Shammi and committed suicide but the girls sister thinks her sister was seduced and jilted which is why she wants revengeThe movie is a Hithcock-influenced romance with a small murder mystery thrown inThe movie has fantastic song stand outs like O Hasina Zulfonwali Jaane Jahan and Tumne Mujhe DekhaShammi Kapoor stands out in his role Asha Parekh is the spunky revenge seeking sister Premnath is convincing Helen's role is small but effective Prem Chopra is average Rashid Khan is scary with his stare the rest are okay.
Thrills galore!.
Teesri manzil is above all an entertainer.
The film stars Shammi Kapoor, Asha Parikh, and the evergreen Helen.
A woman is thrown off a roof and killed.
Her sister Sunita (Asha Parikh) is heartbroken, knows of her association with a night club singer (Shammi Kapoor - called Anil Kumar Sona "Rocky" LOL!!) and thinks he is behind the killing.
The only clue is a coat button that the dead woman was clutching in her hand.
Shammi Kappor is at his goofiest best, the suave drummer Rocky who is a babe magnet.
His courting Asha Parikh on a train is hilarious.
She does not know he is Rocky and he does his best to preserve this state of misinformation.
In the meantime strange waiters, men with cigars, other sinister looking people lurk about in the hotel where Rocky performs.
There is also a women's hockey team led by a rather large Manorama that is stalking Rocky.
Laxmi Chayya is the best friend - this is a film from the 60s where having a best friend (or several of them) was a must!
Rocky makes use of Prince Kunwer (Prem Nath) to preserve the secret of his identity so he can woo Sunita, much to the chagrin of her almost fiancée Prem Chopra.
Rocky is being pursued by Ruby (Helen) and her machinations cause his identity to be revealed at a most inopportune moment.
Who is the real murderer?
Why is Rocky now a target?
These secrets are hidden in a most ingenious way and revealed at the 11th hour.A Nasir Hussain production and story, this one was directed by Vijay Anand.
The mystery was sustained well and the story engaging.
Yes there were some flaws - too many characters were introduced too late in the film.
Some of the cloak and dagger behavior was never explained.
But the overall entertainment quotient was very high and the film enjoyable.A word about Shammi - he was handsome, goofy, vulnerable and great in the action sequences.
Asha had a huge rear end, but was cute and could dance well - even in the jiggling Aaja Aaja number!
Helen was a beauty, but strangely enough her dance skills were underutilized.
Prem Chopra was the perfect slimy guy and Prem Nath suave.A must see film for the fun, the suspense and the outstanding music (RD Burman) - O Haseena Zulfon wali, O mere Sona re Sona re, Deewana mujh sa nahin, Aaja Aaja main hoon pyar Tera, Tumne Mujhe Dekha ho kar meherbaan and Dekhiye Sahibon..
not a landmark, not a thriller, not that good.....
shammi kapoor is perhaps the worst actor in Indian history.
he's a guy you just can't take seriously.
his silly eye rolls and one-liners are cringe-worthy, ensuring that the viewer NEVER takes this guy seriously.
he seems like the kind of guy you'd want to punch in the face two minutes after meeting him, he's THAT annoying....i must protest this film being called a 'thriller', since there are really no thrills on offer, rather a tired, straight-forward whodunit, masquerading as something hitchcockian, but failing miserably.
by the time the mystery is revealed, you already knew the solution two hours earlier and have stuck around for reasons other than wanting to know how it ends....like many other Indian films of this era, the point was to fill it up with as many random songs and one-liners as possible to disguise its lack of plot.
silly bollywood clichés abound throughout the entire thing and there's really no story here at all, other than the typical 'girl likes boy but plays hard to get' plot that is used in just about every bollywood film ever made.'teesri manzil' is an exercise in style over substance, which is the reason why it was such a big hit and so influential.
it's all dressing, no substance.
flashy, colourful clothes, sets and music are used, announcing India's entry into the mod scene.
this movie is a showcase for that and nothing more.
it simultaneously tries to be a comedy, drama, thriller, musical and romance and as a result, ends up failing at all of these...
sadly, as is so common in the story of Indian film, it was popular, so its style became endlessly imitated, recycled, regurgitated and consumed again by hopelessly trend-following indians, so at least vijay anand can take credit for something with this failure.... |
tt0066989 | Les deux Anglaises et le continent | The film begins in Paris around the year 1902 when Claude Roc and his widowed mother are visited by Ann Brown, daughter of an old friend. Ann invites Claude to spend the summer on the coast of Wales with her widowed mother and sister Muriel. While she enjoys Claude's company, her hope is that he may be a husband for her introverted sister. In the event, Claude and Muriel do start to fall in love and Mrs Brown, with the agreement of Madame Roc, says they must live apart for a year.
Returning to France, Claude moves in artistic circles and meets many attractive women while Muriel gets increasingly despondent in Wales. Ann leaves home to study art in Paris, where she falls into an affair with Claude, only to leave him for Diurka, a dashing publisher who takes her off to Persia. When Muriel is told of the affair, she collapses into deep depression. Ann falls ill and returns to Wales, dying among her family with Diurka at her side.
Diurka tells Claude that Muriel is leaving home to take a job in Belgium. Claude meets her ship at Calais and they spend that night together in a hotel. In the morning she says they must now part for ever. Later she writes to say she is pregnant, raising Claude's hopes of marriage, but a second letter says she has miscarried and their relationship is truly at an end.
In an epilogue set in the 1920s, the unmarried and orphaned Claude, now a successful author, still dreams of the artistic gifts of Ann and the children Muriel might have had. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0105211 | Radio Flyer | Mike (Tom Hanks) is observing his two sons fighting; with one insisting that a promise doesn't mean anything. To make them understand that a promise does mean something, he tells them the story of his youth. Young Mike (Elijah Wood), his little brother Bobby (Joseph Mazzello), their mother Mary (Lorraine Bracco) and their German Shepherd Shane move to a new town after their father/husband leaves them. There, Mary marries a new man named Jack (Adam Baldwin), who likes the others to call him "The King". Unbeknownst to Mary, the King is an alcoholic who often gets drunk and beats Bobby.
The two boys, seeing that their mother has found happiness at last with the King, are reluctant to tell either her or the police about the abuse. They instead try to avoid the King by exploring and having adventures amidst the turmoil and traumatic experiences. In the process, the two devise a plan for Bobby to escape the King once and for all.
Inspired by the urban legend of a boy named Fisher who attempted to fly away on his bicycle, the two convert their eponymous Radio Flyer toy wagon into an airplane. With it, Bobby flies away. Though Mike never sees him again, he continues to receive postcards from him from places all over the world. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0064603 | The Love Bug | In 1968, Jim Douglas is a down-on-his luck racing driver, reduced to competing in demolition derby races against drivers half his age. Jim lives in an old fire house overlooking San Francisco Bay with his friend and mechanic, Tennessee Steinmetz, a jolly Brooklynite who constantly extols the virtues of spiritual enlightenment, having spent time amongst Buddhist monks in Tibet, and builds "art" from car parts. After yet another race ends in a crash (and Tennessee turns his Edsel into a sculpture), Jim finds himself without a car and heads into town in search of some cheap wheels. He is enticed into an upmarket European car showroom after setting eyes on an attractive sales assistant and mechanic, Carole Bennett. Jim witnesses the dealership's British owner, Peter Thorndyke, being unnecessarily abusive towards a white Volkswagen Beetle that rolls into the showroom, and defends the car's honor, much to Thorndyke's displeasure. The following morning Jim is shocked to find that the car is parked outside his house and that Thorndyke is pressing charges for grand theft. A heated argument between Jim and Thorndyke is settled when Carole persuades Thorndyke to drop the charges if Jim buys the car on a system of monthly payments.
Jim soon finds the car is prone to going completely out of his control and believes Thorndyke has conned him. Tennessee, however, believes certain inanimate objects to have hearts and minds of their own and tries to befriend the car, naming it Herbie. Jim's feelings about his new acquisition soon improve when it appears Herbie is intent on bringing him and Carole together. He also discovers Herbie to have an incredible turn of speed for a car of his size and decides to take him racing. After watching Jim and Herbie win their first race together, Thorndyke, himself a major force on the local racing scene, offers to cancel the remaining payments Jim owes on Herbie if Jim can win a race that they will both be competing in at Riverside later that month. Jim accepts, and despite Thorndyke's underhanded tactics, he and Herbie take victory. Over the next few months they go on to become the toast of the Californian racing circuit, while Thorndyke suffers increasingly humiliating defeats. Thorndyke finally snaps, and persuades Carole to take Jim out on a date while he sneaks round to Jim's house. After getting Tennessee drunk on his own Irish coffee recipe, Thorndyke proceeds to tip the remainder of the alcoholic coffee and whipped cream into Herbie's gas tank. At the following day's race, an apparently hungover Herbie shudders to a halt and backfires while Thorndyke blasts to victory. However, as the crowd admires Thorndyke's victory, Herbie blows some whipped cream out of his exhaust pipe, covering Thorndyke.
That evening, Jim returns home in a brand new Lamborghini 400GT, having agreed to sell Herbie to Thorndyke to pay the remaining installments he owes on it. Jim states he needs a "real car" for the upcoming El Dorado road race, but finds no sympathy from Tennessee, Carole, or Herbie, who jealously proceeds to damage the sleek sports car, proving to Jim once and for all he has a mind of his own. By the time Thorndyke arrives to collect Herbie, he is nowhere to be found, and Jim sets off into the night hoping to find Herbie and make amends before the car is seized by Thorndyke's goons. After narrowly escaping being torn apart in Thorndyke's workshop, and a destructive spree through Chinatown, during the Chinese New Year's parade, Herbie is about to launch himself off the Golden Gate Bridge when Jim reaches him. In his attempt to stop Herbie from driving off the bridge, Jim nearly falls into the water. Herbie pulls Jim back to safety, but then is impounded by the San Francisco Police Department. There, Tang Wu, (Benson Fong) a Chinese businessman whose store was damaged during Herbie's rampage, demands compensation that Jim can no longer afford. Using the Chinese he learned while in Tibet, Tennessee tries to reason with Wu, and learns that he is a huge racing fan who knows all about Jim and Herbie's exploits. Wu is willing to drop the charges in exchange for becoming Herbie's new owner. Jim agrees to this, as long as Wu allows him to race the car in the El Dorado. If Jim wins, Wu will be able to keep the prize money, but has to sell Herbie back for a dollar. Wu replies to this proposal in clear English: "Now you speak my language!"
The El Dorado runs through the Sierra Nevada mountains from Yosemite Valley to Virginia City and back. Before the start of the race, Thorndyke persuades Wu to make a wager with him on its outcome. Thorndyke (with his assistant Havershaw acting as co-driver) pulls every trick in the book to ensure he and his Thorndyke Special are leading at end of the first leg of the race. As a result of Thorndyke's shenanigans, Jim (with Carole and Tennessee as co-drivers) limps home last with Herbie missing two wheels and having to use a wagon wheel to get to the finish line. Despite Tennessee's best efforts, it looks as if Herbie will be unable to start the return leg of the race the following morning. Thorndyke then arrives and claims that this makes him the new owner of the car. Wu regretfully tells Jim of the wager and that in accordance with its terms this is true. Thorndyke, thinking he is Herbie's new owner, gloats to Jim about what he's going to do to Herbie and kicks Herbie's front fender, and punches Jim, but Herbie then unexpectedly lurches into life and chases Thorndyke from the scene, showing he is more than willing to race on. Thanks to some ingenious shortcuts, Jim is able to make up for lost time in the second leg and is neck and neck with Thorndyke as they approach the finish line. In the ensuing dogfight, Herbie's hastily welded-together body splits in two. The back half (carrying Tennessee and the engine) crosses the line just ahead of Thorndyke, while the front (carrying Jim and Carole) rolls over the line just behind, meaning Herbie takes both first and third place.
In accordance with the terms of the wager, Wu takes over Thorndyke's car dealership (hiring Tennessee as his assistant), while Thorndyke and Havershaw are relegated to lowly mechanics. Meanwhile, a fully repaired Herbie chauffeurs the newlywed Jim and Carole away on their honeymoon. | cult | train | wikipedia | Dean Jones plays a race car driver who meets a pretty young woman (Michelle Lee) he sees working in the window at a fancy car dealership.
The car dealer tries his best to keep Herbie from being a success.Jones and Lee did well in their parts but they seemed like they were acting.
Mystic-minded hippie-type Tennessee Steinmetz (Buddy Hackett) argues that this is the case when his roommate, down-on-his-luck race driver Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) acquires a Volkswagen Beetle that frequently refuses to comply with its driver's demands.
Jim believes his own driving skill deserves the credit for his newfound success, but finally comes to believe the truth about Herbie in time for the final climactic race.By far the funniest and best of Disney's Herbie series, The Love Bug is silly fun that's still smartly written enough to be fun for all ages.
However, the real comic gold comes from Buddy Hackett as the offbeat Tennessee, who in Jim's words is `just in off a flying saucer,' and David Tomlinson as British rival Thorndyke, whose angry outbursts are deliciously over-the-top without crossing the fine line into obnoxious overacting..
He lives with a Buddhist named Tennessee Steinmetz(Buddy Hackett)who finds a soul in everything.Jim soon looks for a new car and comes across a fancy dealership, only to be embarrassed by the owner Peter Thorndyke(David Tomlinson) who refuses Jim's $80 offer for a gorgeous race car.
Herbie blows the competition away and Jim falls in love with the car's speed, but Tennessee knows it has heart and names it Herbie.Soon Jim, Herbie and Tennessee are winning races and Jim's ego inflates while Thorndyke's temper grows since he too races and loses every time to Herbie.
Thorndyke decides to sabotage the little car and when he succeeds, Jim turns his back on Herbie.
For comedic relief David Tomlinson was terrific as was his assistant Havershaw(Joe Flynn of McHale's Navy fame).Yes there are some over the top, goofy and somewhat embarrassing sight gags and a few interesting moments(i.e. Carol thinking Jim has ulterior motives when Herbie brings them to a make-out point, i.e. when Herbie tries to kill itself, and when Jim finally admits to Carol that he's just a bum), but the film has heart, like Herbie.
In each one, Jones was still down on his luck but nothing like the sad figure he portrayed in Love Bug. Great classic film, filled with 60's nostalgia..
A movie about a car with a mind of it's own, a vw beetle with a heart, how could you not love a movie like that.
Among all the great characters are the evil Peter Thorndyke, the beautiful Carole, the down on his luck driver Jim Douglas and the best one of the bunch Buddy Hackett as the wonderfully eccentric Tennessee Steinmetz, Tennessee has a Buddhist soul and does not discount the car as being alive.
You will see the headlamps as eyes and the wing mirrors as ears...This lovely film is a timeless classic, packed with cute moments, great music, and fantastically funny lines !!
One criticism I have of the later movies is that I would like to have seen Herbie stay with his original owner Jim Douglas, and follow his adventures with that family rather than see him owned by lots of different people - partly because Jim, Tennessee and Carol are great owners for Herbie, but also because how does the poor little car feel being passed from owner to owner?!
Love Bug's outing in which Herbie is racing in competitions , it is full of pranks and car stunts that are great fun to see .
. It deals with a down-on-his-luck race car pilot named Jim Douglas (Dean Jones who also plays the role of the hippy in the drive-in scene), who lives in an old run-down fire mansion in San Francisco with his partner , an occasional alcoholic mechanic called Tennessee Steinmetz (Buddy Hackett) .
Then, a big race was coming up and Herbie, the Volkswagen Beetle with a mind of its own undergoes the famous international car race called EL Dorado but encountering all sorts of comical obstacles along the way .
Jim and Tennessee along with Thorndyke's previous assistant named Carrol Bennet (Michelle Lee) , repaired Herbie before the race .
Fortunately, the couple of pilots have a sleeve in the form of Herbie , the fantastic car , as they take the magical Wolkswagen Bug with a mind of its own as both of them compete in the notorious race and attempt to beat .
As always, Herbie the love bug , is helping the young couple (Dean Jones , Michelle Lee) find romance but encountering all sorts of hilarious problems along the way .
Herbie with the number 53 intervenes in the biggest car race and win the Grand Prize , a challenge among top competitors circle the world's most famous racing circuits and quickly slipping in the ranking.This delightful Disney comedy displays great loads of amusement , fantastic race cars , slapstick , fun , giggles , chases are great fun to watch and being pretty entertaining .
It's an enjoyable movie for kids and for those who enjoy cars racing round and round and bounds and leaps carried out by Herbie .
The actors seem to enjoy immensely , as Dean Jones and Buddy Hackett play of sympathetic manner and the mean-spirited villains performed by David Tomlinson Joe Flynn are top notch.
This first version " Love Bug ¨ results to be the best version , it is amusing story with lots of laughs but is a familiar film .
Since, I was three years old I have loved Herbie, the Volkswagen Beetle with a mind of his own.
When Jim Douglas, played by Dean Jones, starts to have a fluke in his racing career he almost gives up hope.
He is stunned by a car dealership that is owned by Thorndyke, played by David Tomlinson, where he first runs into the famous Herbie.
Tennessee, played by Buddy Hackett, knows that it is the little car and not Jim. Tennessee also influences Carole, played by Michele Lee, who took a little more convincing.
Having the actors know how to act and having the little car doing all of the stunts played a really made a difference in this movie.
This is a wonderful movie and families every where will fall in love with Herbie and the rest of the cast..
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed The Love Bug. It is such good fun, and I do agree that it is by far and away the best movie of the series.
The entire cast from Buddy Hackett, Dean Jones, Joe Flynn and Michelle Lee is very strong, but at the end of the day Herbie is the one who steals the show, quite cute and endearing for a car Herbie is.
All in all, while not the best of the live-action Disney movies being a touch too long, it is thoroughly enjoyable and I can see completely why people love it.
This movie has something for everyone, comedy romance back in a time when Disney knew how to make a family film.
This movie has a bit of everything, comedy, appeal to kids, romance, racing, Disney villains who are as likable as they are bad.
Carole Bennett(Michele Lee)decides to join forces with Jim and Tennessee, and make sure that Peter Thorndyke(David Tomlinson) don't get all the glory.
But until Disney Studios put out The Love Bug, cars definitely did not seek out their owners.Yet that's what happens when one day racing driver Dean Jones comes into the auto show room of David Tomlinson who usually deals in the most pricey of cars.
This first Love Bug movie had a good cast of supporting players who were finding the Disney Studio their employer of last resort.
It's one of the reasons I like the Disney films in general.The Love Bug set a good standard for the future films.
Yes kids, we're introducing you to the wonders of alcohol in this family film.Still, this film about a race car driver and his Volkswagon Beetle is a good film.
Herbie the Love Bug is a car with his own personality, even more than the General Lee or KITT.
It was the first film to feature the character Herbie, who of course is none other than the lovable Volkswagen Beetle car who has a mind of its own.
The film climaxes in a memorable race scene.Set in and around picturesque San Francisco locations and boasting a nice lush soundtrack, The Love Bug is a fun, good natured romp.
What to say about this movie its so good and well made its so amazing Disney put more time on this movie then he did with any other Herbie films this one has to be the best in the series its my favorite Herbie movie they put this movie on car who has a mind of its own and I really like Volkswagens and this one has a name he's name Herbie with love in the air and happens in is heart its very funny and fun and it looks so realist.
Sorry to sound like Scrooge, but after seeing these films once again in the late '90s, I did not particularly enjoy this late '60s Disney movie favorite, nor its sequels.
Meanwhile, the driver of the race car (Dean Jones as the annoying "Jim Douglas") thinks he's responsible for the race victories.
So, I'm not really making fun of the premise but it just looks and sounds so dated 40 years later, especially the San Francisco hippie scenes."Herbie," by the way, was a likable "guy." It was good to see Benson Fong (Charlie Chan films) again, and Joe E.
Ross (Bilko, Car 54, Where Are You?) and even goofy Buddy Hackett as "Tennessee Steinmetz." I always found it a shame, though, that humorous stand-up comics like Hackett and Don Rickles played so many stupid roles in these '60s films..
Yep. Herbie Was One Nasty, Little Car. Well - I know one thing for certain - Whatever it was (and it was never explained) that "possessed" Herbie (the VW Love Bug) - I'd say that this bewitched, little vehicle was clearly of an unsound mind.Not only did "Herbie" have a peculiar attitude towards being irrationally destructive - But he also threw perplexing temper tantrums and had strong suicidal tendencies, as well.With disturbing qualities such as these - Had "Herbie" actually been a real person - You can bet that he'd be under the close observation of a very concerned psychiatrist.I think it's interesting to note that the VW logo was never featured in this live-action cartoon at all.
When it comes to live action Disney films I am not impressed but The love bug is by far one of my favorite Disney movies of all time.
I really wish Disney would make another sequel to the Herbie series as I really enjoyed this movie and its sequels as well But I guess this is why it such a classic film.
Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) is a struggling race car driver.
Robert Stevenson directed this appealing comedy that stars Dean Jones as unemployed race car driver Jim Douglas, who comes into possession of a Volkswagen Beetle named Herbie that somehow has a life of its own, and as soon as Jim realizes this, with the help of his friend Tennessee Steinmetz(played by Buddy Hackett) Herbie goes to work winning races for him, and helping him meet an attractive lady(played by Michele Lee) He must compete against his chief rival Peter Thorndyke(played by David Tomlinson) to win the big climatic race.
I remember vividly how VWs took off like crazy after this movie came out.Since one of my aunts had a VW Bug AND looked almost exactly like Michelle Lee, I used to love going to visit her.
The one thing that has always bugged me about the movie is how they NEVER call it a Volkswagen - always "the little car" or something..
Herbie goes on to star in 4 sequels, a re-made for TV movie and a short lived TV series.The title of the film seems to indicate that the main crux of the plot involves Herbie playing cupid to Dean Jones and Michelle Lee. Although the little bug does try to play matchmaker it's much more about Herbie being a race car, kinda like the Mach 5 in 'Speed Racer', accept that this car is alive.
But actually the film is more than just a race car movie with silly Disney Moments; it's about the complex relationship between the driver and his car.The main comic hijinks steam from the story line that this VW bug is alive with a mind of its own.
The comedy springs up from the characters and the situations that they are in as opposed to having wacky things happen just to get a cheap laugh.The whole cast, Dean Jones (lots of Disney films), Michelle Lee, Buddy Hacket, David Tomlinson (Mary Poppins), Joe Flynn (Macale's Navy) and Herbie (Herbie Fully Loaded) himself are delightful folks to hang out with for a couple hours.
I got the complete sets on video until the recent release of "Herbie Fully Loaded" I love that Tennessee Steinmetz, as portrayed by Buddy Hackett.
Jim Douglas, as portrayed by Dean Jones develops the love for the little car.
Christened "Herbie", Jones and welder-pal Buddy Hackett race their discovery at all the major tracks, infuriating the Bug's original owner, a snippy antique car dealer who also races (and isn't above dirty tricks when he loses).
Disney gives no death or injury count for the opening credits, but San Francisco race-car driver Dean Jones (as Jim Douglas) emerges with only a scratch.
She works for car dealer and racing rival David Tomlinson (as Peter Thorndike), who treats a shiny white 1963 Volkswagen Beetle badly.
Jones' Buddhist mechanic Buddy Hackett (as Tennessee Steinmetz) names the car "Herbie" after his uncle.
"Herbie" and the setting make it hum.****** The Love Bug (12/24/68) Robert Stevenson ~ Dean Jones, Michele Lee, Buddy Hackett, David Tomlinson.
I guess that overall, "The Love Bug" is an innocuous way to pass time, but I believe that I speak for most people when I assert that "Christine" is a better movie about a car with a mind of its own.
I don't know about any other movie starring Dean Jones, but I can say that Buddy Hackett was better in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", and that Michele Lee was better in "The Comic".
Dean Jones plays as Jim Douglas, a race driver who hasn't won in a while.
This movie was probably greenlighted by Mr. Walt himself before he passed in 1966, but even if I'm wrong, this is such a great classic, one that I'm sure he would have been proud to have his name on.I love ANY film that takes place in San Francisco simply because it, like the little car in this movie, has a ton of personality to it.
Simply because it takes place on it, the wacky "suicide attempt" scene on the Golden Gate bridge is one of my personal favorites in the picture.Storywise, Dean Jones stars as Jim Douglas, a depressed and washed-up racing driver.
The somewhat arrogant Douglas refuses to believe that Herbie is a living thing, that "it" is only a car, and that "it" can be replaced...especially if it fails to perform to standard.
Disney's 1969 film "The Love Bug" is an excellent one.
So, the car got all fixed up and he raced, winning many races!!!!!I've seen this many times; when I was a little boy, I've always thought of these movies as not interesting.
At that time, that's when the movie became stuck in my head and became an instant favorite."The Love Bug" is a great film.
The Love Bug (1968): Dir: Robert Stevenson / Cast: Dean Jones, Michele Lee, Buddy Hackett, David Tomlinson, Joe Flynn: Family film that crosses the line in terms of improbable silliness with charm.
The Love Bug. I had seen the modern Lindsay Lohan/Michael Keaton remake of the classic collection of films about the living car, Herbie: Fully Loaded, and it was right I should see the first of the old ones, from director Robert Stevenson (Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks).
Basically down on his luck racing car driver Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) and his friend, occasionally drunk mechanic Tennessee Steinmetz (The Little Mermaid's Buddy Hackett), live together in an old run down fire house.
He believes Thorndyke planted the car on purpose, but dealer assistant Carole Bennett (Michele Lee) proves the car is a good purchase, only to discover the car is living as well, and Jim has found a love interest.
After being fixed up Jim, and given the name "Herbie" by Tennessee, the car is more controlled by its driver, and with a high speed they start racing to be champions, against Thorndyke, who wants the car back.
So the two lap gets started, with Thorndyke seeming to cheat his way to the lead, but Jim, Carole and Tennessee in Herbie manage to catch up and eventually win the race.
The car doesn't have as much personality as perhaps the remake version does, Tomlinson makes a reasonably mean villain, like a live version Dick Dastardly, and the jokes are alright, it is something the family will enjoy, an alright comedy.
All these things come together for Disney's wonderful comedy- cars, racing, women, and glory.
The movie doesn't assume he's automatically more interesting than his friends just because he's male, which makes it all the more refreshing that his love interest Carole is smart, skilled as a mechanic, beautiful, and at the same time a great assistant in helping Jim build up his confidence as well as help him win the race by tending just as much to the car's upkeep as both her fellow riders. |
tt0072886 | Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze | Doc Savage (Ron Ely) returns to New York City following a visit to his Arctic hideaway, the Fortess of Solitude. He learns that his father has died under mysterious circumstances while exploring the remote interior of the Central American Republic of Hidalgo. While examining his father's personal papers, Doc finds himself the target of an assassination attempt. Doc Savage chases and corners the sniper on the nearby Eastern Cranmoor Building, but the would-be assassin loses his footing and falls to his death. Examining the body, Doc discovers that his assailant is a Native American with peculiar markings; his fingertips are red, as if dipped in blood, while his chest bears an elaborate tattoo of the ancient Mayan god Kukulkan. Returning to his penthouse headquarters, Doc finds that intruders have destroyed his father's personal papers. Vowing to solve his father's murder, Doc Savage flies to Hidalgo with "The Fabulous Five", his brain trust, at his side.
Waiting for Doc Savage's arrival is the international criminal and smuggler Captain Seas (Paul Wexler) who repeatedly attempts to kill Doc and his friends, culminating in a wild melee onboard his yacht, the Seven Seas. Meanwhile, Doc's investigation uncovers that, years ago, Professor Savage received a vast land grant in the unexplored interior of Hidalgo from the Quetzamal, a Mayan tribe that disappeared 500 years ago. However, Don Rubio Gorro (Bob Corso) of the local government informs Doc that all records to the land transaction are missing. Doc receives unexpected help from Gorro's assistant, Mona Flores (Pamela Hensley), who saw the original papers and offers to lead Doc and his friends to the land claim.
Following clues left by his father, Doc and his friends locate the hidden entrance into a valley where the lost Quetzamal tribe lives. Doc separates from the group and finds a pool of molten gold. Doc also learns that Captain Seas is using the Quetzamal natives as slave labor to extract the gold for himself. Meanwhile, Seas' men capture Mona and The Fabulous Five, and Seas unleashes the Green Death, the same airborne plague that killed Doc's father and keeps the Quetzamal tribe under his control. Doc overpowers the Captain after a protracted clash of different fighting styles and forces Seas to release his friends, whom Doc then treats with a special antidote. Seeing their leader captured, the Captain's men try to escape with the gold, but exploding dynamite causes the pool of gold to erupt, covering the henchmen, including Don Rubio Gorro, in molten metal. Freed from Captain Seas, Chief Chaac (Victor Millan) offers the gold and land grant to Doc, who replies, "I promise to continue my father's work ... his ideals. With this limitless wealth at my disposal, I shall be able to devote my life to the cause of justice."
Doc Savage returns to the United States and performs acupuncture brain surgery on Captain Seas to cure him of his criminal behavior. Later, during Christmas season, Doc Savage encounters the former supervillain, who is now a bandleader for The Salvation Army, flanked by his former paramours Adriana and Karen. Arriving back at his penthouse headquarters from shopping, Doc hears an urgent message about a new threat that could cost millions of lives. Doc Savage leaps into action and speeds to his next adventure. | murder, violence, good versus evil, absurd, psychedelic, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | I was fourteen years old when Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze opened in the theaters back in 1975, and I couldn't have been more excited about it.
I had been reading the paperback reprints of Kenneth Robeson's 1930's pulp action stories for years by that point, and was anxious to see the fantastic visions they had produced in my young head splashed across the big screen.When my Dad took me to see the movie, I was practically frothing at the mouth like a mad dog.
Ron Ely, as the title character, appeared at the peak of a snow dune, riding a snowmobile bearing the "Doc Savage" logo from the books.
"This is ok so far," I told myself.Then a Gary Owens-ish voice-over boomed from the screen, announcing: "This is Doc Savage: the Man of Bronze." Ron Ely smiled, and his perfectly white, perfectly straight teeth glistened with a goofy, animated glint just like the effeminate pretty-boy Tony Curtis had played in The Great Race.
The apelike Monk, natty attorney Ham, and the rest of Doc Savage's adventurous crew had been perfectly brought to life by a superb cast of character actors.But after that first sequence, involving Doc and his crew chasing after a mysterious Indian assassin (taken almost verbatim from the original novel), the whole movie took a huge nosedive into painful TV-quality mediocrity.
At one point, one of Doc's foes, an evil assassin, is shown sleeping in a gigantic rocking baby's crib and sucking his thumb.Since the 1930s pulp adventure "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was such a huge hit only five years after "Savage" was released, it's popular to for film buffs to say that "The Man of Bronze" was simply ahead of its time.
As a result, Pal and Anderson cranked out a half-assed, mixed up piece of junk that couldn't decide whether it was trying to be a revival the adventure serials of the 30s, or of the "Batman" TV series of the 60s.Still, as bad as it is, the film does hold a bizarre kind of fascination for me now as an adult.
When people ask me why I love bad movies so much, I explain the phenomenon this way: you can only watch a train chug by without incident so many times before you get bored, no matter how powerful the locomotive pulling it is or how cool the cars look.
At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious.
Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are.
Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute.
One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai.
Amazingly, Ron Ely nearly makes the film work, despite the wrongheaded direction.It's similar to how filmmakers, trying to cash in on James Bond, didn't understand that the magic of Bond movies was, they took themselves seriously.
George Pal knew that to make an adventure of this sort with a hero like Doc Savage that you had to somehow acknowledge the absurdity of it all.
The single worst thing in this film is the soundtrack, a creative but ultimately dreadful batch of John Phillip Sousa marches, including a custom Doc Savage lyric, which is especially loathsome.
Negatives aside, this film will be mildly enjoyable to fans of pulp magazines, old comics, radio and serial heroes, etc.
Overall, the cast is pretty good, and Ron Ely looks exactly like the vision of Doc Savage on the covers of the original pulps.
In 1978 came 'Superman, the Movie.' Two years after that came the 1st Indiana Jones flick, set smack dab in the 1930's, just like Doc Savage.
But since 'Doc Savage,' more1930's throwback films have flopped than succeeded, at least commercially: 'The Legend of the Lone Ranger,' 'The Phantom,' 'The Rocketeer,' 'The Shadow,' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.' All of these were big budget affairs.
I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism.
It was done on the cheap, the script is bad, the dialogue is horrid, the action non-existant, the acting a travesty, and the music was completely out of place.The film is loosely based around the first Doc Savage adventure, but makes a mess out of every element.
A nice John Williams score, ala Indiana Jones would have been far better.Doc Savage was one of the best of the pulp adventure heroes.
I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are.
This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers.
For those who have not read Doc Savage books, where this movie went wrong.
There is quite a bit in the movie that works, and it is fun at points, and I think Ely is well cast, but too often it violates the essential spirit of Dent's books by refusing to give the audience the option of taking the characters or the adventure seriously.
"Worked" at least well enough to let Doc Savage fans feel like they had seen the heroes they knew on the screen, and well enough to let the rest of the viewers feel they had seen an honest attempt at a retro-action serial.
As for casting, Ron Ely's okay but Clint Walker would have been my choice (certainly when I started reading the books anyway) as for the 'Monk' in this movie, casting is appalling, the fellow is fat, Monk was like ' a good looking gorilla' and therefore an Ernest Borgnine, Bob Hoskins look-a-like would have been more suitable.
I am also still upset that they never made a sequel.Now it's time for a new Doc Savage film!
MOST IMPORTANT: Do not -- I repeat, do NOT hire a muscle bound, pump freak like the Rock, as some people have suggested, to play Doc. A few years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger was up or the part of Doc Savage and thank God they dropped the project!
DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)Dreadful, dreadful movie...
Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie.
Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with.
(I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation.
Along with the Amazing Five, he sets out for the Caribbean where they must confront the evil plot of Captain Seas and the threat of the mysterious `Green Death'.I can vaguely remember seeing this film years ago and thought I'd better be fair to it and see it again before reviewing it.
The film immediately hits you with a style that I can only hope was tongue in cheek; the Amazing Five are not the usual geniuses you'd expect and Savage himself is so wooden and all-American that he can only be a send up of that type of comic book character.
Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles.
I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories.
I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5.
After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic.
The movie is based on Doc's first adventure, The Man of Bronze, with elements from several other stories.
From Doc's Fabulous Five (Monk, Ham, Renny, Long Tom and Little Johnny), which would go on to inspire superhero teams and the Hong Kong Cavaliers, to his Fortress of Solitude (which inspired Superman's), Mink's pet pig, Doc's gadgets and more, there is so much taken from the original pulp stories.The hard part of the film comes from how campy it gets, from patriotic theme songs dedicated to Doc with lyrics telling us how great he is to him having an animated twinkle in his eye.
Witness 1979's Legends of the Superheroes TV movies.The movie opens at Doc Savage's (Ron Ely, Tarzan) Fortress of Solitude, where our hero learns his father died under a cloud of mystery.
He rushes out for his next adventure, which was to be titled Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil.Oh yeah — Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes) shows up here as a coroner!As helmed by Michael Anderson (Logan's Run, Orca, Around the World in 80 Days), this is a big, bombastic film.
He loves the characters so much that he doesn't hesitate to poke fun at them occasionally, but at the same time he maintains the audience's interest in the goings on.The plot deals with Doc Savage (Ron Ely) and his Fabulous Five, comprised of Monk, a chemist, Ham, a lawyer, Rennie, an engineer, Johnny, an archelogist, and Long Tom, an electrican, journeying to South America to investigate the death of Doc's father, Professor Savage, who supposedly died of a rare tropical disease.
The script occasionally pokes fun at Doc's arsenal of gadgets and the greedy secondary villain (who sleeps in a giant cradle) but like the original Star Trek show, a little self-deprecating humor is needed to remind us that the fantastic goings-on are all in fun.In conclusion, this is a really nifty movie, and a fitting finale to George Pal's career (it was his last picture).
Great good fun in the reasonable adaptation of the first (of close to 200) Doc Savage stories.
Ron Ely makes a fine Doc Savage; only Monk Mayfair seems to belong in a comic book rather than a pulp adventure.
Another thing is Doc Savage (played by Ron Ely - Tarzan from the 60s) is supposed to be a big hero and he really isn't that impressive.
It's spirited, lively stuff, played to perfection by the talented actors and crew.Ron Ely, star of the 1966-68 'Tarzan' TV series, makes for an appealing hero as Doc Savage, a jack of all trades who goes on various globe trotting adventures with his team The Fabulous Five: Paul Gleason as Long Tom, William Lucking as Renny, Michael Miller as Monk, Eldon Quick as Johnny, and Darrell Zwerling as Ham. Each man has his own area of expertise, and they're always ready to help out their friend Doc. Doc receives word that his father has died and left a precious natural resource to him, but also comes to believe that the old man may have been murdered.
I liked it, but if you've never read any of the books you've probably got a fight worthy of Doc Savage on your hands in watching any of this with equanimity!Doc and his band of intrepid followers "the Fabulous Five" are up against the mad Captain Seas in investigating the mysterious death of Doc's father in Hidalgo in South America and uncovering a secret of incredible wealth.
Well if you were a 7 year old boy in 1982 this was just about the best thing ever we used to have doc savage parties every time it came on TV and prayed there would be a sequel .
It might not be your father's Doc Savage, but this oft-reviled film debut of pulp fiction's pre-eminent adventurer is not entirely without merit.
When l saw this movie l'was around twenty years or so, as Ron Ely made part of my childhood as Tarzan's series, l'd stay tuned on this camp picture, further one my favorite director George Pal who made "Time Machine" wrote a robust screenplay, and it increased my interest on it, an older Ron Ely always overact in their roles, here he plays some kind hero without powers, his mates called "fabulous five" a sort of weird crazy guys are really funny, this second class production was poor and predicable, the sets are crap, fake jungle, fake cave, everything is really bad, but somehow had a fine plot and there some many fine special effects, as a green death and the deeply valley on the edge of the world, some years ago l've wondering if someday this trash picture could come out on DVD, for my surprise it happens soon l can expected!!!Resume:First watch: 1987 How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6.5.
The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero.
It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers.
The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE..
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" mined similar source material, but abandoned the knowing light hearted camp and took the film to a new level of high adventure, but "Doc Savage" wanted to be that family friendly film that was knowingly comic book-like.
Still, I was really entertained by the movie and loved the vivid photography, the fun George Pal special effects, and was also tickled at seeing how similar Doc and his team were to Buckaroo Banzai and his team (which made me like "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" even more).
The quest leads to the criminal Captain Seas and a long lost Mayan tribe.Doc Savage is a pulp magazine adventurer starting from the 30s.
I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do.
Having read many Doc Savage adventures before first seeing the film, I found the film a disappointment.
The basic story is akin to the original adventure, but George Pal decided to camp up the film.
I read where he was disappointed by the reaction of Doc Savage fans, who indicated that they didn't like its treatment.That aside, Ron Ely was an excellent choice for Doc. He had a credible look for The Man of Bronze, and didn't overplay the role.IMHO, the choice of Sousa marches detracted from the film.
However, it is the only film ever done on Doc Savage. |
tt0089283 | The Holcroft Covenant | The novel concerns Noel Holcroft, New York City architect—and secretly the son of Heinrich Clausen, chief economic adviser to the Third Reich. At some point in the 1970s, Holcroft is contacted by the Grande Banque de Geneve, concerning his father's will and testament. The testament says that in the last half of the war, Clausen found out about the Holocaust. Horrified and desperate to make amends, he and his two friends stole vast amounts of money from thousands of individual sources throughout the Reich and funneled them into a secure account in Zurich, Switzerland. Now, if Holcroft will contact the children of the two friends, they can form a group to distribute the funds and alleviate some of the pain of the Holocaust.
Ranged against him in this noble endeavor is the last trace of the Third Reich: the children of Projekt Sonnenkinder. In the dying days of the war, a vast search went out throughout Germany. The children of Germany's finest, those without physical and psychological frailties, were sent to isolated hamlets and right-wing communities all over the world by airplane and U-boat. They were raised, provided for, and indoctrinated. Those who showed promise were inducted into the conspiracy by their elders; those that weren't were "removed." They have waited thirty years for the funds so as to finally take over the world. Their leader, the Tinamou, is the world's deadliest assassin.
As Holcroft attempts to carry out what he believes to be the noble, secret mission of his biological father, he is continuously blindsided as good guys turn out to be bad guys, bad guys turn out to be good guys, and Holcroft, who has no training whatsoever in intelligence, is forced to learn on the job. | revenge, intrigue, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | I've read a couple of his novels and they can be, if one is in the right sort of mood, exciting.The thing one has to remember is that Ludlum's novels is about conspiracies and complicated plots and not about characters.
Even the star of the movie Michael Caine, a seasoned heavyweight in the espionage genre, seems out of sync in this one.If you don't expect too much , you'll be moderately entertained.
But knowing that the film is made by veteran craftsmen like John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod, one tends to be a bit disappointed.All in all I gave The Holcroft Covenant 6 out 10
A low point in the career of Frankenheimer and Caine, and one of the worst spy films from its era too..
Michael Caine plays one of the inheritors, Noel Holcroft (hence the title), and he sets out to ensure that it is used for good causes, but he finds that various others will kill to keep him from getting his hands on his rightful share.The film is a terrible mess, and it's only too apparent that those involved were in it for the money.
Frankenheimer once made great movies like The Manchurian Cnadidate and The French Connection 2, but here he is guilty of directing a listless hodge-podge that bears no trace of originality or flair.
Average as well as confusing thriller by John Frankenheimer , based upon the complex Robert Ludlum novel.
The movie's opening title card read "Berlin 1945" , these opening scenes, set during the end of World War II, were shot in black-and-white, unlike the rest of the movie which was filmed in color ; the black-and-white opener reflected newsreels of the era .
The picture is set approximately exactly forty years after the end of the Second World War. It's second after the film's opener read "New York 1985".
There , the son named Noel Holcroft (Michael Caine replaced James Caan ; Caan walked off the production the day before filming started) of a German General becomes part of a mysterious conspiracy to gain hidden Nazi funds .
As the movie's MacGuffin was a World War II era large heavy metal case, embossed with Nazi insignia, and containing the The Holcroft Covenant .
The picture was the second of three 1980s features based on Ludlum novels, the decade ended with a tele-movie titled The Bourne Identity .
The cast is frankly excellent such as Michael Caine as Holcroft , and other heirs as Anthony Andrews playing Jonathan Tennyson and Victoria Tennant as his sister Helden Tennyson .
Furthermore , second and final of two movies that actor Richard Münch made with director John Frankenheimer , as the first film had been The Train (1964) .
And first of three movies that actor Michael Lonsdale made with director John Frankenheimer , the later films were Ronin (1998) and Riviera (1987).
He took another opportunity to change to the big screen , collaborating with Burt Lancaster in The Young Savages (1961) and Birdman of Alcatraz (62) ending up becoming a successful director well-known by his skills with actors and expressing on movies his views on important social deeds and philosophical events and film-making some classics as ¨The Manchurian candidate¨, ¨Seven days of May¨ and ¨The Train¨ and , in addition , ¨Grand Prix¨ including great car races .
As an avowed life-long fan of Mr. Caine, and a true fanatic for The Manchurian Candidate, I was willing to give this whole miserable mess a bit of slack, until I got about twenty minutes into another scene w/ Mr. Caine as Mr. Holcroft loudly reminding us of his character's seemingly endless stupidity.
Not even Michael Caine is that good of an actor.) The idea that life in a Nazi thriller unfolds like a Pink Panther sequel without punchlines is too difficult to swallow.
I think the whole awful eighties cocaine craze was rampant on this movie set, and that no-one could tell a terrible script from a silver spoon by the time the whole thing got into production.
This muddled movie offers another insight into what happens when rather good film makers overstay their talents.The well known director, writers, and actors, all disappoint in a film that's terrible from start to finish.
For a film from the mid eighties, it has the look of something made a decade earlier.Michael Cain playing Michael Cain, at times looks as if he's not sure if he is working on the right set (or understands the script).
The only notable performance comes from the always reliable Lilli Palmer, who's simply wasted in her role as Cains mother.
Based on Robert Ludlum's novel, this film features Michael Caine as Noel Holcroft, an architect living in New York who is contacted by a Swiss banker and told that his late father(who had been a financial adviser to Hitler, but diverted funds to a Swiss Bank) has made him the executor of a vast trust worth over 4 billion dollars to be used to make reparations to Holocaust survivors.
Noel accepts the position, but then finds himself the target of assassins who want that fortune for a different purpose altogether...a fourth Reich, and return of Nazi power.Intriguing and compelling thriller may be far-fetched at times, but is well acted by all, and features good direction by John Frankenheimer, who creates a whirlwind feel to this international conspiracy tale..
I find director John Frankenheimer to be a very capable action director, but here he's lost in a sea of murky conspiracies (involving a fourth Reich) and idle performances (Victoria Tennant and Anthony Andrews are unconvincing) in this very lukewarm, but drearily complicated political thriller.
For most part it's about globe trotting (some striking international scenery), Michael Caine looking like a fish out of water, meeting up with important figures, those involved reminding each other how much danger they are in and shady scheming being set in motion for this 4.5 billion dollar Nazi fund.
An outstanding director, John Frankenheimer, An excellent source author, Robert Ludlum and a great leading man for thrillers, Michael Caine.
There were plenty of the usual Ludlum plot twists and misdirections, but somehow the feel of this film was not up to the usual standards of Frankenheimer or Caine.
I always enjoy the acting of Michael Caine who played (Noel Holcroft),"Surrender",'87, who is an American working in NY on skycrapers and very successful and is drawn into the past horrors of Nazi rule in Europe.
They both run through the "RED LIGHT" district in Europe through a carnival of FREAKS, which keeps the audience wondering just where this film is going to lead us and will Noel eventually obtain the BILLIONS of Dollars he is responsible to handle?
This whole project is so desperately flawed that even Lilli Palmer cannot save it, though her performance as Caine's mother is the best in the film.
Later in life, Caine finally picked up the skills along the way, and dozens of movies were his RADA, so he ended up a good actor in the end.
The story follows Noel Holcroft (Michael Caine) - A New York real estate business man who has just found out he is going to inherit a huge amount of money that his Nazi father had stolen from Nazi Germany at the end of WW2 just before he died.
The story is full of twists and surprises and leading actor Michael Caine is great here.
This movie intrigued me right from the beginning, with unusual twists and turns with a surprise ending.Very well directed and written, and the music carries it well too.Being a big fan of Michael Cain, he did not disappoint and fit the role perfectly.
Picture this: Michael Caine in a spy movie involving a decades-old secret Nazi organization—and he doesn't even know how to shoot a gun!
Usually, in his Harry Palmer films, or other similar spy movies, he's a former or current British agent and expertly handles the bad guys.
In this one, he's caught unawares by everything and everyone; it's quite endearing.In The Holcroft Covenant, Michael has inherited $4.5 billion from his late father, a secret Nazi.
Along the way to receiving his inheritance and trying to do good with the money, he's advised by Victoria Tennant, Anthony Andrews, Lilli Palmer, and Mario Adorft, but who can he really trust?
The film is chalk full of exciting action sequences, and, as is sometimes unusual for action movies, there's some pretty good acting in it as well.
Michael Caine doesn't just run around and shoot people; he puts himself in the moment of the character and lets the audience know he's scared, hurt, nervous, or plotting.My favorite scene is when he's held at gunpoint in a room full of villains.
Everyone's silent for a while, looking at him expectantly, until finally one woman asks, "What do you want us to do?" "The usual stuff," he replies, showing that even though he's holding a gun, he's really not a bad guy at heart.DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not your friend.
Michael Caine always could anchor a spy flick, and The Holcroft Covenant is no exception.
While the plot is a trifle flat, and a couple of the supporting actors (Victoria Tennent) stretch their abilities, the cinematographic techniques and direction by John Frankenheimer are superb, and Caine and Lilli Palmer are absolutely wonderful.
The elements of film, particularly outdoor angles from crowded streets and icy violin sound effects echo back to the great spy movies of the Cold War era and lend an almost Hitchcockesque eeriness.
Michael Caine wants to use the funds for victims of the Nazis but it is not clear whether anyone else wants this.
Good old Michael Caine.
It's to see Michael Caine, and in this case Victoria Tennant, and even Anthony Andrews.
What her character does in the movie,Lilli Palmer did it in real life:she fleed from nazi Germany in 1940;so Frankenheimer did a good choice by casting her as Caine's mother.But Caine himself was a questionable one:he's neither German nor American and I think that Klaus Maria Brandauer would have been more credible.Is it possible ,for instance ,that Caine never utters a German word whereas his mother probably talked to him in that language when he was a child?This is minor quibble:for once ,and for the first time in almost twenty years ,Frankenheimer had a very good start.Some kind of revenge beyond the grave,which gives the movie an eeerie flavor ,this fantasy touch which produced great works such as " Mandchurian candidate" and "seconds" in the sixties (I pass over in silence the horrible "prophecy").Good idea indeed ,but mediocre screenplay ,which the writers almost completely ruin.Plot holes by the dozen,hackneyed tricks (the dog!I have not mentioned the dog!),and a last scene which is only a pale copy of that of "the Mandchurian candidate"..
Some schmuck, Noel Holcroft (Michael Caine) is doing what any good 'ol American is doing-- working and enjoying life.
His weird acceptance of what folks tell him is mighty strange and is a shortcoming in the plot though late in the film he FINALLY starts to think.
So it sounds like I didn't love the film...and that certainly is the case.
I clearly see this as one of the great director John Frankenheimer's biggest disappointments and could say the same for Robert Ludlum since it's his story.
Also while I love Michael Caine, he was wrong for this film.
...because if I do, it will go way beyond spoilers."The Holcroft Covenant" is based on a Robert Ludlum book which went some 600 pages.
This was doomed to failure, although it is a John Frankenheimer film.The plot, for starters, is far-fetched even for those of us who don't mind suspending some reality.
Michael Caine stars as Noel Holcroft, an architect living in New York who is contacted by a Swiss banker.
One is Jonathan Tennyson (Anthony Andrews), whose sister Helden (Victoria Tennant) is also involved in bringing the covenant to fruition, and Erich Kessler, a conductor who changed his name from Jurgen Mass.Noel's mother (Lili Palmer) is against his involvement and begs him not to sign or even look into the matter.
The audience certainly doesn't know, which should keep the action exciting - instead, it's muddled and confusing.And why the officers made this covenant to accumulate for 40 years is beyond me - seems kind of a long time to wait for those reparations.
When you look at the fact that Anthony Andrews' film career did not take off, nor did Victoria Tennant's -it's a little sad for all of them, most especially the marvelous John Frankenheimer..
What to do with that kind of bread?That's what Michael Caine is wondering, he is one of the three sons of a German general.
What a lottery prize that even if we have to share it.Share it he does with Anthony Andrews, German born and British raised with his sister Victoria Tennant and Mario Adorf who is a famous symphony conductor.Someone's trying to kill Caine, but who and why?
The book by Robert Ludlum, on which this movie is supposed to be based is a brilliant book with lots of twists and turns that keep you guessing.In the book the intrigue is guessing what has gone on, in this movie you find yourself guessing what on earth IS going on but for all the wrong reasons.The characters are nothing like they appear in the book and in one notable instance, 2 women characters get merged into one.
Michael Caine is, as usual Michael Caine, (one of the most over rated actors of all time, he is always the same character in every film he has ever been in since Alfie) but no actor could have saved this movie with it's awful script and bad direction.I do hope that one day they make a decent movie of 'The Holcroft Covenant'.
Today repetitive spy movies, like James Bond, have easy and most of the time boring plots with a bad guy who wants to rule the world.
A must see for people who like real spy movies.
Got this movie as part of a job lot of Michael Caine 'freebies', from the Daily Mail.
By the time John Frankenhimer made "The Holcroft Covenant" his star had already waned.
It's another Nazi conspiracy thriller adapted from a Robert Ludlum novel by three of the best writers in the business, (George Axelrod, Edward Anhalt and John Hopkins), so what went wrong?
Michael Caine, (dreadful), is the lead and Anthony Andrews, Victoria Tennant, Michael Lonsdale and Lilli Palmer are among the others who are wasted in this rubbish.
I never read the book but it can't have been as bad or boring as this film makes it out to be.
I don't mind watching Michael Caine (and Anthony Andrews) stuck in stupid situations.
I can't stop laughing each time Michael Caine yells in his cockney accent that he's an American citizen.
Caine plays a foreign-born American (something that is repeated throughout in order to explain his accent!) architect who discovers that he has been placed in charge of a couple of billion dollars, set aside by his late Nazi father and two other officers, as a way of making latter day reparations to the Jewish family decimated by the Holocaust.
The Holcroft covenant is from a time when Robert Ludlum still wrote very readable thrillers.
THE HOLCROFT COVENANT is lesser-known Robert Ludlum adaptation that sees Michael Caine playing the unsuspecting heir of a Nazi fortune who finds himself mired in conspiracy and murder.
The film itself is rather episodic and has hardly any action and thus not much in the way of life, but the saving grace is the presence of director John Frankenheimer who directors with his customary skill and professionalism.
It's nice to see Caine playing a more ordinary hero than most while the supporting cast includes Anthony Andrews, who is very good playing against type, alongside Euro stalwarts like Mario Adorf and Michael Lonsdale.
Michael Caine's character travels all over the world.
I am sure that everyone involved in this movie would like to have their name removed from the credits, unfortunately, it's to late..
After reading all the previous reviews, I've come to the conclusion that "The Holcroft Covenant" is a movie that you either love or hate.Personally, I loved it, but I can understand that many people would argue that the film runs too long to sustain interest in what I will admit was a somewhat over-complicated and over populated plot.Frankly though, when it comes to detective heroes, I think it's surely hard to beat Michael Caine, who finds himself enmeshed here in The Holcroft Covenant (1985) – which is now available on another superior M-G-M DVD.
Combined with John Frankenheimer's driving direction, plus some superior support thesping from Lilli Palmer (always a woman to watch!), Anthony Andrews and Victoria Tennant, this thrilling which- side-are-you-playing-on thriller scripted by George Axelrod, Edward Anhalt and John Hopkins has been superbly produced on a really extravagant budget.
Not only is there stand-out location photography from Gerry Fisher – surely Britain's number one cameraman of the 1980s - and crisp direction, but the movie has been filmed on an admirably high budget.I know some people would argue that "The Holcroft Covenant" runs too long, but that doesn't worry me, so long as I find what is on the screen to be exciting, intriguing and suspenseful..
The script's blatant disregard for logic must have made him fall in love with it immediately.The other three Nazi kids had known about the covenant since their childhood, and yet Caine somehow didn't have a clue.
If for no other reason than to warn him about it, giving him sufficient time to prepare for ensuing hoopla – and of course to increase his chances of survival.Are we to believe that Palmer was part of the conspiracy to kill her own son, a plan that had been abandoned by the anti-Nazi organization "Wolfsschanze" after the first attempt at Caine's life at the dock? |
tt0045513 | Appointment in London | Wing Commander Tim Mason (Dirk Bogarde) is nearing the end of his third tour of operations, meaning that he has flown nearly 90 missions over Germany. Having twice volunteered to continue operational flying, Mason is keen to make it a round 90 "ops", but just as he is nearing the end of his tour he receives orders banning him from further flying. Meanwhile, losses are mounting and several raids are being seen as failures, so that some of the members of his crews, Brown (Bill Kerr) and "The Brat" Greeno (Bryan Forbes) among them, are thinking that there must be a "jinx" at work. Soon afterwards, "The Brat" is caught sending unauthorised telegrams off the station. These turn out to be written to his wife, Pam (Anne Leon), rather than anything more sinister; however, Mason reprimands Greeno for the lapse in security. A few days later, Greeno's aircraft fails to return from a raid and Mason agrees to meet Pam, who has asked to see him.
With only one more flight to go, he accepts that the decision to ground him was for his own good, and he visits Brown's aircraft as Brown and his crew prepare to take off on a mission. As the crew board the Lancaster the large 4,000 lb "cookie" bomb that is part of the bomber's load, slips from the bomb shackles and injures one of the crew. With no time to obtain a replacement crew member, US observer Mac Baker (William Sylvester) takes his place. Mason decides to go as well, to reassure the crew's worries about the jinx, and the bomber takes off.
During the attack on the target, the Pathfinder plane directing the raid is shot down, causing the remaining bombers to begin bombing inaccurately. Hearing and seeing this, Mason takes the Pathfinder's place on the radio, broadcasting corrections and accurate instructions, and the bombing becomes accurate again. Listening-in to the Pathfinder's broadcast back in Britain, Mason's commanding officer, Group Captain Logan (Ian Hunter) hears Mason's voice and realises that he's disobeyed orders and flown on the operation. However, Mason's intervention turns the raid from a probable a failure to a success, so on Mason's return Logan greets him at his aircraft.
At the end of the mission, Mason, along with Eve Canyon, Brown and Greeno's wife Pam, take a taxi to Buckingham Palace to receive an award from King George VI. | romantic | train | wikipedia | ***SPOILERS*** Somewhat talky but very good WWII movie set on an English airfield of RAF Lancaster Bombers in the late summer of 1943.
Grounded Wing-Commander Tim Mason, Dirk Bogarde, who has flown 89 bombing missions over German occupied Europe seems to have developed a dislike of his airmen under his command who have anything to do with their loved one's back home.
Mason feels that their, the bomber pilots, emotions will get in the way of their ability in flying their dangerous bombing missions over Europe.
One of those airmen pilot Pete Greeno,Bryan Forbes,who was just recommended for the DFC, Distinguish flying Cross, for bravery is called into his office and is chewed out by Mason for calling his girl, really his wife, after every mission to tell her in code that he was all right.
Greeno who had an appointment in London to receive his DFC at Buckingham Palace never made it there, on his next mission his plane was lost over the English Channel after a bomb run over the skies of Germany.
Mason was also a bit hypocritical since he was itching to go on a bombing mission and has a girlfriend himself back in England Eve Canyon, Dinah Sheridan, a officer in Naval intelligence and also a war widow of a navy man who was lost at Dunkirk.Troubled and almost suicidal on what he did to the Greeno's Mason takes his 90th mission , against orders, on a night-time raid over German controlled Holland and guides his Lancaster Squadron over the target where they dropped their bomb payload successfully and then returned to the safety of the British Isles due to Mason's courage under fire.
Receiving an award for bravery instead of a court-martial Mason together with bomber pilot and friend of the late Pete Greeno Bill Brown,Bill Kerr, and the widowed Pam Greeno are seen at the end off the movie on a taxi going to Buckingham Palace for their appointment in London.
Even more important, to Mason, the late Pet Greeno's wife Pam has changed her mind about him and due to his brave actions in the air over Holland knows that he was very mournful and sorry for what he did to her husband by browbeating him about her and, what seems like to me, forgave Wing-Commander Mason for it.The movie "Appointment in London" not only shows the courage under fire of the brave men and women of the RAF in WWII but also the dedication and courage of their friends families and loved ones that they left behind who may have never seen them come back..
This is probably the most realistic drama filmed about Bomber Command late in WWII.
if you don't believe me watch "Target for Tonight" which covered a Wellington Bomber mission early in the war and used real RAF crews .There are no over the top heroics, but the mood is just right, with a constant tension even in moments of relaxation...
"Appointment in London" is an unusually-atmospheric, stylish and very-consistently-interesting late British WWII film.
The subject is the pilots of British Bomber Command and the stresses they encounter in battles as the fly Lancasters in night missions over the European mainland.
Specifically, the film features as its central character a dedicated pilot, played elegantly by Dirk Bogarde.
he is angry and frustrated, but during his time on the ground, he reconnects to life and wins lovely Dinah Sheridan, who acts very strongly as the widow of a naval intelligence type, winning her from breezy Willaim Sylvester, a U.S. pilot.
The added tension in the film comes from Bogarde's desire to complete his third tour with one final mission, and the fact that everything about it sets up to be a "jinxed" mission from the start.
I will not give away the breath-taking and vivid climax, but apart from some leisurely spots here and there, I will claim that director Philip Leacock has produced one of the best of all war films in "Appointment in London" The script was credited to Robert Westerby and John Woolridge, with cinematography by Stephen Dade and art direction by Donald M.
Bogarde and Sheridan are extraordinarily touching and intelligent; I cannot recommend this film too highly as drama, as a war movie or as a cinematic "sleeper", one which in lesser hands would not have been as absorbing as it was made to be..
This is one of my favourite WW2 films and yet I only discovered it in the last few years.The script is well written, the acting particularly by Dirk Bogarde and Dinah Sheriden is excellent and believable.
The footage of night bombing raids and the master bomber techniques it shows is by far the best of any film covering this subject.The film accurately portrays the life of a bomber squadron on "maximum effort".
The Wing Commander's sheer bloodymindedness and a sense of having to finish the tour is set against the knowledge of those around him that statistically his number should have come up several times already.This is truly excellent film.
This film depicts, at length, the method of target marking the flight path using coloured airburst flares, eliminating 'creepback' by approaching the target along different vectors, air and ground marking the target and using a 'Master Bomber' to control the incoming streams and give bomb aimers feedback on accuracy.No medal was struck for Bomber Command and many of the crew themselves felt their contribution was best forgotten, so this film is one of the few accurate testaments to their courage..
I agree that it's not in the same class as "12 o'clock High"...For me the film Gregory Peck should have won his Oscar for..it truly is a "maxium effort"..but it's an elegant and high quality cinematic testament to the heroism of Bomber-Command.
We Aussies were there in high numbers like so many Commonwealth aircrew who included my Pilot-Officer Uncle Arthur(Nash)shot down with the loss of all in a Wellington bomber on a night raid over Dusseldorf..
A quiet, realistic drama about a bomber squadron during the War. This film was also released as APPOINTMENT IN London.
Dirk Bogarde is the stalwart star of this wartime drama centered around the lives of the men of a bomber squadron based at Lincoln.
A great deal of original aerial footage is edited into the film throughout, culminating in a huge bombing raid over Germany in the latter part of the film, which shows a genuine squadron flying in formation at night, and features the most astonishing real footage of the roaring inferno produced by such a bombing raid.
Bogarde plays Wing Commander Mason, who at the beginning of the film has flown 87 sorties over Germany and is being urged on all sides to call it quits, but he is determined to go on until he completes 90 missions, because 'I have set my mind on it'.
This film is probably about as realistic as you can get, as a portrait of Bomber Command in operation during the War. But it never sacrifices fiction for fact, and maintains strong story lines and dramatic narrative throughout, with all the accuracy serving to make it more moving and authentic..
Leacock and his lead man, the splendidly regal Dirk Bogarde, produce a war film of undoubted human depth.
There's no sledge hammer tactics to try and curry favour with the critics and film goers alike, no clichés bogging the narrative down, this is an honest to goodness telling of the emotional trials, strains, fears and peeves of a Bomber Command Squadron in England preparing for a mission during WWII 1943.
Some of the action sequences show their age, but that's fine in the context of old time cinema, while the likes of Twelve O'Clock High (which came four years before this was released) set the bar too high for Leacock's film to be unfairly compared with.
Appointment in London: It is 1943, and a Wing Commander of Bomber Command is fighting his personal demons whilst edging towards his 90th (and final) operation over Germany, flying Avro Lancaster bombers.To put this film into context it was made in 1952, from a story written by a WWII veteran who had himself survived over 100 operations.
Most of the film's outdoor sequences were shot at RAF Upwood (http://www.rafupwood.co.uk/) which was at that time home to a squadron of soon-to-be obsolete Avro Lincoln bombers.
It should not be forgotten that for several years they were the sole means of striking back at the enemy, and that they arguably waged what remains the most costly air war ever fought; whilst the US Eighth Air Force suffered appalling aircrew losses (~26000 casualties), Bomber Command lost over twice as many, but from a smaller complement.
Their losses averaged over 44%, and their daily losses were on occasion almost inconceivable, in some instances exceeding (say) the total losses of Fighter Command during the whole Battle of Britain.The effect of this air campaign will be debated for decades to come, but in round numbers -even without allowing for the bombing damage itself- it is estimated that at any one time it cost the Germans the use of about 1000 operational fighter aircraft, several hundred thousand men, about 10000 of the lethal 88mm gun (which was also one of the most devastating anti-tank weapons of WWII), millions of shells, and all the manufacturing facilities and infrastructure to support them.However Albert Speer (Germany's armaments minister during WWII) was in no doubt about the significance of the air war against Germany.
No one has yet seen that this was the greatest lost battle on the German side".This is one of the few films that makes any real attempt to show what the bulk of Bomber Command's operations would have been like in 1943; night ops over Germany, with a high loss rate.
The final operation in the film is portrayed as a mission against a secret weapon facility in Germany; this is quite realistic, echoing the real 'Operation Hydra' of August 1943, in which the V2 development facility at Peenemunde was bombed, causing significant delays to the missile programme.It is all played in a rather understated fashion in this film, and it perhaps lacks the drama of some other WWII films.
It is also a highly detailed treatment that illuminates the RAF's night-time area bombing tactics far beyond else ever dramatized.
Some of the best war films have been movies about the Allied bombing campaign of WWII.
"Command Decision", "12 O'Clock High" and "Raiders in the Sky" are all excellent films--though the latter is set at a British bomber base whereas the first two are about American bases.
While I wouldn't quite put this film in the same level as the other two in quality, it is awfully close and well worth your time.The film centers around Wing Commander Mason (Dirk Bogarde).
The film is a nice portrait of Lancaster pilots and crew and because it was made not too long after the war, the filmmakers were able to use three airworthy bombers--which added to the realism.So why do I think this one isn't quite up to the level of the American films?
this is one of them films that really shows what the Bomber command boys were really at.
we all get taught about the Battle of Britain and stuffy dowding, we rarely hear about how hard it was for those working for Bomber Harris, aircrews flying long jobs, the Squadron & wing commanders being pushed to the brink of destruction and beyond.
but we also see the human side, WC mason is near the end of his tour of 90 jobs and is trying to keep his boys focused on the job both on the ground crews and in the air crews ,keeping their minds on the flying & Maintenance and not the women, which he thinks after one fatality and meeting the widow makes him realise he may be wrong, still he completes his tour and keeps his appointment.
we always remember the few of fighter command, this films makes sure we remember the Many....and is a testament to flyers like Guy Gibson and his many many comrades who died for us..today...WATCH THIS MOVIE.
Lots of tense ground scenes with the full story of a bombing raid over Germany saved until the end.
And, like Gregory Peck, Dirk Bogarde is a pilot who has "done his share of flying" and is now a ground officer, enforcing discipline on the men.
When the Master Bomber, who acts as a kind of coach during the raid, is shot down, Bogarde takes over and saves the day.
Bogarde is aboard one of the planes and the dramatic structure could go either way.I suspect that there may be more movies about the Americans' daylight precision bombing than about the British night-time area bombing partly because more combat footage is available from daylight missions.
Wing Commander Mason (Mr D.Bogarde)has flown 87 missions,the equivalent of spitting in The Grim Reaper's face several times.He is determined to complete his third tour despite opposition from his Commanding Officer and the M.O."Appointment in London" tells the story of his fight to survive against all the odds.
Superficially resembling the mighty "Twelve o' clock high",closer study reveals more differences than might be immediately apparent.Gregory Peck's character was imposed on a failing squadron whose popular C.O. suffered a breakdown,Mason has been on base for a long time and is well - liked and respected,Peck a martinet where Bogarde tolerates his pilots' horseplay,for instance.There is no doubt "Twelve o' clock high" is the superior movie,but that doesn't make "Appointment in London" a poor one.
Much of the pleasure is in the supporting cast,Mr A.Shaw as "Smithy",the adjutant,a much older man,outwardly stuffy,a veteran of the Great War and a man who has seen too many airmen die to allow himself to become affected.Mr C.Victor as the village publican and confidant to aircrew,paternal and compassionate,a splendid bit of acting.Mr C.Singer in a customary senior NCO role as the Flight Sergeant in charge of the groundcrew who lend the planes to the fliers and hope they take good care of them and,last but not least Mr S.Kydd as the mechanic who finds his pilot's lucky charm and is confronted late at night by an angry Mr Bogarde.This is a key scene in the movie as Bogarde's anger(mainly against himself) manifests itself in an exchange that graduallly moves from aggression to awkwardness to genuine respect.It is beautifully played by these two fine actors.
My only personal caveat with the film is the complete lack of anything resembling affection between Mr Bogarde and Miss D.Sheridan as the naval officer he falls in love with.I'm sorry I just didn't believe in them as a couple.No spark,no chemistry,no nothing.Maybe it's me.
All round though,"Appointment in London" is a well - made,interesting and enjoyable film with lots of well - loved faces.I recommend that you watch it..
'The Lancaster bombing raid which climaxes the film is just about the best treatment of this subject I have seen.' Daily Mail 1953Not only does this film contain good solid performances and evidence the director's solid capabilities, but more importantly captures the tension and high risks of serving in Bomber Command in the Second World War. The audience acquires a better feel for the sheer exhaustion and pain at the loss of comrades those serving in these squadrons experienced.
Moreover, the links with that famous bombing raid are further bolstered by the fact that Dirk Bogarde based his interpretation of Wing Commander Tim Mason on Gibson, while the Lancasters used in this production would two years later be captured to magnificent effect as cinematic tribute to the 'Dambusters' in the much more revered film detailing their exploits.
Bogarde is nothing short of excellent in portraying a committed commanding officer who has flown too many sorties, and whose determination to fly one more mission, despite his mental exhaustion, leads him to be grounded by his superiors.
Though well- respected by his men, a combination of recent losses and near-misses gradually lead to the feeling that both their commander and the squadron are jinxed.
This sequence of events leads to one of the most memorable scenes of the movie when the lost pilot's wife reveals that her deceased partner had hidden their marriage, conscious of his commanding officer's demands that nothing should interfere with their focus on the mission at hand.
By contrast, the film achieves great dramatic effect with its depiction of the final mission over occupied Holland.
In the final scene of the film we accompany Mason, and a fellow pilot, as they head towards their own medals for gallantry, together with the widow of this lost colleague.
Dirk Bogarde once again places the introspective lead character, a bomber pilot jaded by the pressures of the war and the endless toll of men and planes lost on a daily basis.
Dirk Bogarde was no Gregory Peck and though he gives the battle fatigue resulting from leading 80 + missions his best shot he doesn't quite cut it.
Of course, if you haven't seen Twelve O'Clock High (released a couple of years earlier) chances are you'll enjoy this take on life on a bomber station in World War Two. All the usual suspects are wheeled out from Brian Forbes to Sam Kydd and there's even William Sylvester and Bill Kerr to ensure a balance of nationalities. |
tt0061787 | Hour of the Gun | Outnumbered but determined, Wyatt Earp (James Garner), his brothers Virgil (Frank Converse) and Morgan (Sam Melville) and ally Doc Holliday (Jason Robards) confront and clearly get the best of the Ike Clanton gang in a violent shootout at the O.K. Corral in the Arizona town of Tombstone.
Ike (Robert Ryan), a rustler, conspires to have the Earps charged with murder and tried in a court of law. When they are cleared, Virgil runs for Tombstone City Sheriff, but is ambushed and maimed by some of Clanton's hired guns. Morgan elects to take the job in his brother's place, but, unlike his brother, he is killed.
Doc Holliday, a gambler who has been on the wrong side of the law himself more than once, is terminally ill with tuberculosis and is admitted into a Colorado sanitarium. Earp intends to clear out of Tombstone with what's left of his family and move to California, but changes his mind upon being appointed a federal marshal for the territory.
Guns blazing, Earp and his posse ruthlessly hunt and kill various members of Clanton's gang. He rides to Mexico for a final showdown with Ike, shooting him dead. He makes one last trip to Holliday's death bed to say goodbye to his unlikely friend, then hangs up his badge and guns for good. | good versus evil, revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0072053 | Que la fête commence... | In France in 1719, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is the regent for the young Louis XV. He is sophisticated, gentle, a liberal and a libertine. He endeavours to keep his subjects cultured and happy—mainly to stop the peasants from rising up—but he knows he has no real royal authority. To assist him, Philippe enlists the aid of an atheistic and venal priest named Guillaume Dubois, another libertine who does not care for anyone except himself. The film begins with the gruesome autopsy of Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans, Duchess of Berry, elder daughter of the Regent who died on 21 July 1719, her health fatally ruined by her debauched life and a series of clandestine pregnancies. Notoriously promiscuous, Joufflotte ("chubby")—as she was nicknamed because of her generous proportions—was rumoured to have committed incest with her father. The autopsy reveals that the Rubenesque princess was again pregnant. Philippe is very much affected by her death. Meanwhile, a rebellion led by a Breton squire named Pontcallec occurs. Philippe's natural idealism is further shaken when he is forced to execute Pontcallec's band of revolutionaries. Dubois, however, tries to take advantage of the revolt and subsequent famine to become archbishop. It becomes apparent that true joy will only be found when the peasants successfully overthrow the aristocrats who have held them down for so long.
The film provides a description of 18th century life at court, and features the music of the real Philippe d'Orléans. | romantic, intrigue, cruelty, murder, satire | train | wikipedia | Very accurate historical movie.
It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution.
The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation.
The mentality of the Noble of France is well described.
There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!.
All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again..
One of the greatest historical movie..
This is one of my all time favorite movie and probably the best historical movie ever.
One of the few movies featuring 3 of the best french actors (in leading roles): Philippe Noiret, Jean Richefort and Jean-Pierre Marielle.
This movie is about how cynical France was ruled after the death of Louis XIV and while the new (Louis XV) was just a child.
Don't expect a spectacular movie with great action and bloody violence (like Gladiator or Brave Heart).
The pleasure with this movie is somewhere else: dialogs (brilliant), description of cynicism of the nobility and the actors performances (Jean Rochefort, playing L'Abbé Dubois, stoled the show)..
amazing historical and psychological drama.
This is a film that has haunted me for thirty years.
I just re-viewed it on DVD and it was every bit as good as I remembered.
I don't know why it doesn't show up in festivals and best-of-all-times list; it is on mine.
It is satisfyingly densely textured and the acting is flawless.
It is rich in every way-- historically fascinating as it shows the tugging at the fibers of France that would eventually (but not quite yet) culminate in revolution, the many nuances of class resentment from the top down -- tension between royalty and nobility, generals and (would-be) clergy, and provincial gentry and their peasantry.
Luxurious scenes and costumes and cinematography.
Psychologically rich, terrific dialog, in the closely twined relationship between jaded nobility and ambitious bourgeois that plays out in a tug-of-war over the fate of Bretons.
Philippe Noiret as the jaded regent is the ambiguous moral center, stoic yet decadent, embodying la patrie yet carving a private erotic niche apart from a world where his decision can tip the balance of European powers..
Correct historical account.
This majestic movie reveals everything of that contrasting period after the reign of the "Roi Soleil".
France was empty-blooded by the wars and de best thing the Régent of that moment could was to make peace with England.
A Breton upraising supported by Spain was the worst case scenario.
L'abbé Dubois is eager to become archbishop and everything he does, even the national politics is supported by his dream.
We see the speculations about Missisipi and the first bank notes by the state.
The Régent, Philippe Noiret, is a person who enjoys life and tries to avoid all problems.
Against this, l'abbé Dubois and the nephew of the Régent seem to be the human beasts fueled by their ambition.
The church is all powerful and the High Nobility without scruples.
The state tries to populate la Louisiane by embarking prostitutes.
The Régent seem to be the only good person of his time.
This movie is a joy to watch again because of the sharp dialogue and the historical details..
On the way to the Revolution.
This banquet, unlike one of foodstuffs, can be savored again and again to discover its parts.
A political tale, a moral tale, an aesthetic breadth that rewards repeated viewing.
The casual brutality of the palace: children playing darts against a painting; nobles and servants tossing around a dead rat; and, of course, the walking latrine!
As above, so below: brutish soldiers, "shanghai-ers" for the colonies, provincial nobles who live in squalid houses barely above hovels.
Noiret, Rochefort, Marielle so perfectly embody their characters; wise yet inconstant Orleans, conscienceless striver Dubois, impetuous, foolish yet gentlemanly Pontcallac.
It would be rewarding to view this en suite with Etore Scola's brilliant "La Nuit de Varennes" to bracket the themes..
great story, bad direction.
This movie tackles heads-on a very interesting period in French history, when the nephew of Louis XIV , Philippe d'Orleans, was made regent for 10 years while Louis XV, a 5-year old child, waited for his majority.
Its strength: the angle chosen by the scriptwriters, who encapsulate in 90 mn a sharp evaluation of the character of the Regent in the context of the era he lived in.
The director makes the choice to shows us a man eager and able to do good for the country, while jaded in every other part of his life.
The story is cynical and bawdy, but there is great wit in the dialogs, and very sharp moments of political observations relevant to the period (as well as to our modern period, frankly).
We see the Powerful, the Entitled, the greedy, the ambitious and the scruple-free, and we occasionally glimpse at the rest: the Poor, brutalized and hopeless.
I liked how the figure of Philippe d'Orleans, a libertine and miscreant who notoriously managed to govern France wisely against all odds, is humanized here by his keen intelligence of the facts around him, and how he grabs the viewers' empathy thanks to his self-awareness -and inherent compassion-while steeped in widespread decay.
Whether, as a ruler, he deepened that general decay with his own turpitudes, or whether despair in front of its extent prevented him from fighting it is the question the film poses.Unfortunately, this sharp attention to the character of Philippe is not given to the rest of the production.
There is a feel of 'made for TV" movie about both the production and the casting.
The main parts (Rochefort, Marielle and Noiret, Vlady) are wonderfully acted and utterly believable; but the rest of the cast feels like a bunch of extras hired on the run, thrown a costume and told to look and act "peasant", "soldier", "nun", "nude prostitute", "blind musician".
I noted for instance that all the "starving" peasants look in fact well fed, and that the château's staff is forever statically sweeping the floor or pouring liquids in glasses.
It seems no one cared to give them real directions, and that flaw distracted my attention too often.
As a historical or political pamphlet, Let Joy Reign Supreme is truly a compelling movie to watch.
But as a work of art, it left me wanting..
ironic perspective.
a page from French modern history.
impressive cast.
bitter story about power, desire and sins, good intentions and the reality behind appearances.
a bitter show , using in wise manner the clichés about the period, the large sort of humor and the splendid atmosphere of a France reduced at the life of elite, în which the ordinary people is reduced at status of silhouettes.
short, an ironic perspective about a time who, în too many aspects, seems more than familiar..
only mildly interesting.
Considering that there have been very few films made about the regency period of the rule of Louis XV, this is an important film.
However, as nothing of any particular significance takes place, the film itself seems to have very little to say.
Yes, it makes clear that the Regent was a sexually obsessed guy and the courtiers were all pretty worthless.
As a result, there is a lot of nudity in the film.
It's rare to see a historical drama with so many small-breasted nymphs running about the sets.
And, it implies that the young Louis is a depraved little kid--but it never follows through with this most interesting aspect of the film.
I really think they should have either tried to make the movie MORE significant and involving or just thrown in the towel, so to speak, and made it a porno film.
I half expected to see Sylvia Kristel as one of the extras.
As it was, the movie just didn't seem to have much of an audience..
like teacher like student.
well, the film directed by auteur Bertrand Tavernier did win 3 awards at cesar, Tavernier who a former assistant to french crime master Jean Pierre Melville who died 2 years before the cesar award came out(1975)(so obviously unable to make his name into the cesar history) now could be touched in his grave since his prestigious student did it for him or in his namewell, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them.
after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this timecould have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student.
Let's Party.
Tavernier hit one out of the park with this, his second At-Bat. With the not inconsiderable help of Jean Aurenche, his co-writer, he offers one of the most accurate and dazzling evocations of French History ever put on film.
The trio of heavy-hitters, Philippe Noiret, Jean-Paul Marielle and Jean Rochefort are outstanding as Regent, Rebel and Abbe respectively and it's interesting to find Thierry Lhermitte making an early appearance as a Nobleman which is more or less casting against type.
The Sun King is dead but the intrigues with which his Court was riddled lives on and it is the nuances which delight rather than any set-pieces.
This is definitely one to savour and will surely stand up to repeat viewings..
the French revolution didn't come out of the blue.
History movie with considerable bite and edge, situated in an era a few generations before the French revolution.
The least one can say is that the rot has already set in : the future king is but a minor child, raised and supervised by his great-uncle the Regent, who is a sensualist and voluptuary surrounded by a constellation of prostitutes, opportunists, golddiggers and nitwits.
(Look up "decadent" in the dictionary and you will find a portrait of this man.) At the same time one of the minor nobles tries to drum up local support for an attempt at some kind of separatist revolt or seccession.
None of this is particularly helpful to a France crippled by debt and overflowing with poor and disgruntled citizens.
The movie, which boasts a prize cast, contains a number of sharp, vivid, memorable scenes, quite a lot of which (as you may have guessed by now) involve debauchery, both of the merry and the tedious kind.
There are also some memorable lines, although the quality of the dialogue is very uneven : witty gems alternate with nonsense so bizarre or tone-deaf that it seems to spoof itself.
Sadly the movie, seen as a whole, does not impress.
The various incidents and episodes may be intriguing, witty or macabre, but they do not become a harmonious whole.
It all has an anecdotal, meandering quality.
Still, the movie is not to be dismissed lightly, because it can teach a number of lessons.
One of these lessons concerns religion : the movie tells you exactly what to expect if faith allies itself closely with politics and power and then continues this alliance for several centuries.
It pretty much kills the religion : everything related to love for God or man evaporates, until you are left with nothing else than empty formalism, weaponised sectarianism, senile tradition or self-mocking cynicism.
It's a message to ponder. |
tt2381931 | Compulsion | Compulsion tells the story of Anjika Indrani, a wealthy young Cambridge graduate who is in a secret relationship with fellow graduate, Alex.
Anjika’s father, Satvick, forces her into an arranged marriage with a business associate’s son, Hardick. Satvick’s chauffeur, Don Flowers, realises Anjika is not happy with her father’s plans and says he will help her out, on the condition she spends the night with him. Anjika hates him, so she refuses at first, but reluctantly agrees eventually. Hardick collapses on a date with Anjika, and Flowers seizes the opportunity and takes him back to his flat, scattering illegal drugs everywhere, making Hardick look like a dealer.
Anjika’s parents call off the marriage, but Flowers reminds her she needs to keep up her end of the deal. Reluctant, she visits the hotel room Flowers booked and allows him to flirt with her, touch her and smell her, before the pair have sex. Anjika wakes up the next morning and quickly leaves; Flowers awakes and thanks her.
Things are not simple from then on. Anjika makes up the excuse that if Flowers stops providing her brother with drugs, she will bed him again. Flowers realizes Anjika has feelings for him, and makes her beg to take her to bed.
The pair continue in their affair, obviously strongly loving each other. Things complicate, however, when Alex and Anjika reveal their relationship and her parents strongly approve, even arranging a marriage for the two. Anjika becomes stressed, realizing her heart belongs with Flowers despite the age difference, yet she’s in denial and insists she still loves Alex.
Hardick returns and blames his messed up life on Alex, however realises Anjika is to blame. Anjika and Flowers have just had sex when Hardick arrives. He grabs Anjika but a messy Flowers appears, warning Hardick away. Hardick realizes the two had sex, but before he can speak Flowers strangles and kills him.
Anjika’s life continues to go downhill. Her affair with Flowers continues. Flowers presents her with a bracelet, however she says she can’t wear it. Anjika and her friend are collected from a nightclub and Anjika writes a flirtatious text; when asked by her friend she says it’s for Alex, however she is caught sending it to Flowers. Alex discovers this and confronts Anjika, she denies anything with Flowers.
Realizing the affair has gone way out of hand, Anjika prepares a knife for her latest date with Flowers. The two have sex but Anjika remains hesitant, saying she could get Flowers done for rape. Flowers is shocked but admits he loves Anjika and insists that she loves him too, which she does. Flowers then continues to have sex with her, although this time, Anjika pleads him not to. Flowers devastated and in love, puts the knife in her hand and begins stabbing himself in the stomach and then, caught in the moment, Anjika begins stabbing furiously into his side. She phones the police and says she’s killed a rapist.
The next shot is of Anjika and Alex emerging from their wedding. Anjika seems less than thrilled but puts on a brave smile. As she hugs her mother, she is seen to be wearing Flowers’ bracelet. She gets into the car and stares as the new chauffeur gets in the front seat. She looks out of the window sadly, implying she truly was in love with Flowers. | psychological, revenge, flashback, psychedelic, romantic, plot twist | train | wikipedia | Heather Grahm was beautiful in the movie and really made me feel for her characters.
I was dreading that the movie was going to turn into a predictable girl gone crazy movie because I really like the characters of Amy. Luckily this film had more depth.
One of the most disturbing things about the film is the cards that Amy is dealt in her life.
I may be a bit biased because I'm a huge foodie like the characters so I really enjoyed that aspect of it as well..
Hardcore horror fans may not appreciate the slow paced drama but at the same time drama lovers may not appreciate the macabre aspect of the film.
I won't say much more but if you like simple yet disturbing movies is recommend this one.
It was almost like a characterture of what the real movie would have been.
The quality edit, colour correction, lighting correction and so on was done well.A lot of people worked hard to make this film, so I applaud them for it.
'Compulsion' focuses on Heather Graham's character 'Amy', a woman obsessed with cooking, who gets by seducing wealthy men with her looks and her food.
It could sound like a typical Heather Graham role, but it's not.
The plot is simple: a detective is investigating the disappearance of Amy's next door neighbor 'Saffron' played by Carrie-Anne Moss a reclusive former child star, and we see the relationship of Amy and Saffron develop in retrospect.It is not a fast paced film, but like a fine meal the performances are there to be savored, in small bites, taken in slowly to relish each nuance..
When the psychotic of the two, Amy, develops a fascination with her reclusive neighbour, Saffron, she shows it through trying to push her love of food on to her.
Combine this with the plot and characters going in the strangest of directions and the sceptical comments of a particular other character and the film raises the question of how much of it is in Amy's head and how much of it is simply events going in such a unique way.Admittedly, this film is probably a bit of an acquired taste(ha, get it).
If you like analysing the mindsets of flawed characters, this film is for you.
Worth re-watching if you want to look at things from a different angle..
Not fantastic, but hand in hand with the good acting, fitting soundtrack and beautiful cinematography; it's a very enjoyable film.IF you're the target audience.If you're looking for something that dares be different from the rest of the lot, this movie is for you!
If you're a Criminal Minds fan you could watch it just to get a kick out of thinking of it as a crossover between this film and CM..
I was exhausted from work and felt like watching a predictable horror movie.
It is actually an interesting buddy film between two damaged women who crave what they can't have--love.
Amy (Heather Graham, whom I thought was fantastic)and her TV dreams are reminiscent of Nicole Kidman and TO DIE FOR; the bright colors of her dress against the sterile white fake TV set contrast with dark, dreary tones of her idol and then friend Saffron (Moss).
I really enjoyed the lush, gorgeous meals Amy created, at first trying to woo Saffron as a friend and then, sensing Saffron's despondency and loneliness much like her own, attempting to sustain her through food and create some kind of sensuous joy for her.
And the 88 minutes that the movie ran for seemed much, much longer.The story told in "Compulsion" had its moments, but it was overall weighed down by things taking too long.
There were so many scenes that just dragged on for way too long, where the movie would have benefited from a trim and a notch up in pace."Compulsion" is about Amy (played by Heather Graham) who is obsessed about gourmet cooking and dreaming about getting her own cooking show on TV.
However, her compulsive obsession drives him away, and instead she starts to cook for her reclusive neighbor Saffron (played by Carrie-Anne Moss).It should be said that the people in the movie were doing good jobs in acting, however, the characters were really odd.
But thumbs up to the actors and actresses, because they did good jobs.This slow paced thriller might not be suitable for just anyone, and I was tempted to get up and find something else to watch a couple of times throughout the 88 (long) minutes.
But that was not to be...I am rating "Compulsion" a mere 3 out of 10 stars, simply because the actors and actresses held the movie afloat, the rest of the movie - especially the storyline itself - was just downright boring and tedious..
Don't waste your time on this disgusting movie.
It was presented as being a drama/thriller with lesbianism--just my cuppa tea, or so I thought.We only get to the lesbian sex in the last 15 minutes of this exceedingly repetitive and draggy film.
They could have told the entire story in 30 minutes WITH commercials, BUT that's not what turned me so totally against this film.The Amy character is completely OBSESSED with cooking and food, the Saffron character just wants to no longer exist.
Put two & two together and you can easily come with four regarding where this disgusting, sick storyline is headed.Watch it you have a strong stomach and like sick, twisted, disgusting stories!1 star - only because I couldn't vote any lower..
If you think overdone parody could be fun, then you might enjoy this movie - if you don't, then maybe you won't.
Hopefully that will be enough to set the scene as Compulsion is not really a film, its a theater production put on to film.Compulsion is two stories that unravel and then combine to become one as you really only get the second story after being fully immersed in the fervor and passion of Amy (Heather Graham).
Heather Graham appears to have added more a little Nigella Lawson (Youtube her) to her depiction of a voluptuous gastronome desperately seeking acknowledgement and love.So too does the other leading character Saffron bring a fine set of hang ups and issues played by Carrie Anne Moss.Both lead actresses set the movie apart from ennui with excellent portrayals of their characters and through their selling of the story.
They also looks fantastic (which can't be bad!).If you take the movie for the play that it is, rather than the blockbuster you might be hoping for, then you should get on fine..
Nope.Dull, dreary, overacted, pointless drivel.Stars Heather Graham and her cleavage.
Also stars Carrie-Anne Moss and her misery.Co-stars Kevin Dillon doing hammy Kevin Dillon stuff and Joe Mantegna looking uncomfortable.Some other people are in it.Red corridor, lots of cooking.
Fails on all counts.A little over halfway through its 88 minute running time I realised that, actually, I DO have the will to live, and left.It promised Compulsion, I'd have accepted revulsion.
actor and actress exaggerating every single line and facial expression the plot is so predictable and majority of the scenes are so 'UN-NATURAL' High-School Play would be better than this.
Heather Graham is surprisingly good in this movie.
But she has more range than I originally gave her credit for as the somewhat unbalanced Amy. Carrie-Anne Moss is brilliant as the tortured Saffron.
Compulsion is a production of art like a perfectly pulled home-brewed espresso where the barista has spent many years learning their craft not the expected mainstream swill of Folgers which was brewed, and burned in a Bunn machine.
This is really two movies which have been hacked apart and sewn back together--like Frankenstein's monster, but with vital parts left out.
It could have been a pretty funny black comedy if it had simply played out the character of Amy (Heather Graham).
Or it could have been a darkly tragic story of a ruined life with Saffron (Carrie-Anne Moss).
I particularly enjoyed Heather Graham when her character was indulging in her flights of fancy.
Carrie-Anne Moss gives everything, but really ought to be in a better movie than this.
I give as many as 5 stars because the actors try hard, Heater Graham is a feast for the eyes, and there is some yummy food preparation..
OK, enough is enough, I decided to watch this movie, even with its low rating, because someone said it was still worth the rental, I mean come on!
the movie has a rating below avg, and if I gave it a shot was because of HG, but it's a total fail, the movie its based on a lame obsession and stupid drama, we stay there for an hour waiting for something to happened and we get nothing, nothing at all, just more lame drama and don't get me wrong the acting and everything except the story its fine, very disappointing.
and this isn't even a "R" movie, its more like "PG-13" yeah!
This is a movie for people who like cinematography and of course Heather Graham.
Personally I really enjoy movies with beautiful woman in them.
Then to watch the whole movie with all its fabulous colors is a real joy.
If you treasure beauty, this is definitely a movie to watch..
In fact, this is the kind of movie that makes you think "wow...
how can such a good actress suck so much?" (I'm looking at you Carrie-Ann)The movie starts off pretty decent and just gets worse and worse with disembodied flashbacks and the worst portrayal of an eating disorder I have ever seen.On another note, if you want to look at Heather's glorious tits for 88 minutes GO WATCH THIS NOW!.
Something you should think Heather Graham would be able to do.
And I'm talking acting wise not her character and what happens (or not) in the story.
And even Ms. Matrix herself can not save this entirely (though she has the better role and makes more of it, than the lead we are given).The story itself is pretty decent with some nice twists and turns.
I have to question whether this person even looked up from his tub of popcorn long enough to catch the actual movie?!
The movie "Compulsion" succeeds in making the plot very complex, but in its world saturated with fantasy and fixation, it also comes across as confusing in terms of tones and behaviour patterns.
The colour palettes and food obsessions are quite exquisite to look at may surely make your mouth water, but everywhere else going for this movie results in one muddled mess.
If you're an aficionado of over-the-top obsessive antics and psychological drama may get a kick out of "Compulsion" and director Egidio Coccimiglio serves up a fine dish of that, the study of domestic decadence mixed with exotic culinary delights really good enough to eat.Carrie-Anne Moss stars as Saffron; a one-time child movie star who was abused off-camera has now become a frightened journalist for a sex magazine has now gone missing in action.
Reynolds' searching has led to the apartment home of her neighbour Amy (Heather Graham).
The home and she seem very clean and the character herself has a total fixation for cooking new, exciting and curiously delicious foods.
It's like comfort zone to Amy to please the people around her which also includes her womanizing husband Fred (Kevin Dillon).
Amy's dream job is to one day be like Rachel Ray and host her own cooking show and to exhibit her foods and ideas in front of a world-wide audience.
Saffron feeling bad for Amy decides to take up her gale force company and allows her service to prevail.The movie is a reboot of the 1995 Korean film "301/302" which focuses on the macabre tale of obsessive traits in an eccentric friendship brews in which Amy finds ways to keep her unhealthily clean home in tact with her sexual fixture of food to keep her husband wrapped around her finger in spite Fred's lust for other women.
Coccimiglio utilizes vibrant lighting to get a good grip on Amy's solitude while at the same time, which plays off to her loyal fans.
It's a great movie to study upon, that rich and spontaneous and the costuming by Melissa Stewart has that Hollywood feeling going for it that Amy wears in her tight-lair of her apartment.
The cinematic feel towards the human psyche adding to the nourish touches towards the Saffron character as the perpetually uncomfortable star who's psychological scars are the results from the upper echelons of the film industry and her controlling mother.
It may at first appear that this movie is very easy to watch, even though the shock value doesn't quite materialize here.Casting is rather hit-or-miss.
Graham plays her role as Amy quite flawlessly as a woman whose dangerous food obsession makes her imprisoned by her own craft with no one to share her food and her knowledge.
It makes the whole concept very puzzling as more bonding was in store for Amy and Saffron which nudges them in more of their acts of dedication.
It has so much potential for a psychological thriller, but in the end it feels like we have been cheated..
Going by the name I initially thought that 'Compulsion' was a Roman Polanski film.
Unfortunately not much unravels in terms of plot to assist the viewer to discover the character motives.Graham plays a woman who enjoys cooking.
Meanwhile there is a detective played by Joe Mantegna who is questioning Graham regarding Moss's disappearance.
Initial time is spent showing the interactions between Heather Graham and Carrie Ann Moss.
Slow development of characters take up much time in the early stage of the film.
She makes the movie watch able.
"Compulsion" falls under the just plain bad category.It's an empty film and what I mean by that is there's nothing much going on and the little bit there is, the viewer could just not care less.
I've always liked Heather Graham, but after "Boogie Nights", she's been in many so-so films.
With a title like "Compulsion", you would expect an involving thriller.
After watching this, I would have been happy with any type of movie as long as it's involving.
Ms. Graham wears many different outfits all of which show off her best attributes but I do need more from my films.
compulsion is one of the little complicated movies that I have seen.
Also, Carrie Ann Moss performance were acceptable, but she did well in the movie.For conclusion, I think that it will be nice to watch the movie, but for the people who don't like too much drama I won't recommend them to watch it..
Saw the original (a Korean movie called "301/302") years ago as part of my research in preparation for working with patients with eating disorders at a psych unit.Didn't know that "Compulsion" was a remake of it until I started watching it.
A unique and original story of two people with different obsessions around food (one loves it to death, the other hates it to death - literally).But a thriller?
Loved Heather Graham in this - so vivid and charismatic.
Moss was great, too.All in all, a great flick for drama-lovers, particularly those interested in mental disorders (Amy = OCD; Saffron = OCD and bulimia).
Amy and Saffron live near one another.
As the picture starts, Detective Reynolds is looking into Saffron's disappearance.Through flashbacks, Reynolds learns that Amy and Saffron knew each other somewhat well.
Amy is an aspiring TV cook, while Saffron is an actress and a commentator for women's magazines.
Amy loves Saffron's old movies, as does Amy's mother.
So, that opportunity was another dead end.Amy and Saffron get to know each other after that; how well does that turn out?
------Scores-------Cinematography: 10/10 Simply gorgeous.Sound: 10/10Acting: 8/10 The two leads were fine, as were Joe Montegna and Kevin Dillon.Screenplay: 5/10 The content misses the mark in a lot of ways.
Amy's cooking obsession is over-abundantly clear, and loses some focus because of that.
Amy (Heather Graham) lives in a delusional world where she has her own TV cooking show which openly equates food with sex.
Her boyfriend Fred (Kevin Dillon) doesn't share in her compulsion and makes the mistake of openly loving his rare African parrot more than her food.
The police (Joe Mantegna) is investigating the disappearance of the neighbor Saffron (Carrie-Anne Moss).
Saffron is an actress who has fallen on hard times.
Amy cooks for her not realizing Saffron is a closet bulimic, well not actually a bulimic in that she doesn't binge eat.The film has great scenes of Heather's cleavage, cooking food and relating it to sex, eat your heart out Rachel Ray. Outside of that, the plot displayed weakness.
The film is classified as a drama/thriller but is more like a hit or miss dark comedy.Worth a rental for quirky indie style film lovers.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex.
Honestly when you have to watch 128 minutes of heather graham parading her pushed up and out breasts, without her getting naked is a total waste of film space...if she had sexual relations with other than food it could have fooled me...her execution of the parrot was morbid and unnecessary...if i had a woman at home that looked like her, she wouldn't have time to cook or daydream, let alone watch old films...the chef that actually prepared the meals did a decent job but plating food is far more over rated than it should be....
Yes Amy is obsessed with cooking and foodR Rating?
The character Amy is delusional and wears although stunning dresses, she wears these everyday while cooking and staying at home all day with her hair and make up.
Looking like a 50s housewife but in a modern unrealistically empty and plain apartment.The ending?
It is always nice to see a blonde in high heels and in a dress with lots of cleavage but after a short time it gets old fast in this movie.
There's nothing to Heather Graham's character but annoyance. |
tt0041495 | The Woman on Pier 13 | Brad Collins (Ryan), a San Francisco shipping executive (real name Frank Johnson) who recently married Nan Lowry Collins (Laraine Day) after a brief courtship, was once involved with Communism in New York, while a stevedore during the Depression. Shortly after returning home following their honeymoon, the couple meet Christine Norman (Janis Carter), an old flame of Collins. Nan immediately dislikes her.
Collins becomes the target of a Communist cell and its leader, Vanning (Thomas Gomez), who orders an alleged FBI informer drowned after a brief interrogation. After threatening to reveal Collins' responsibility for a murder as well as his communist past, Vanning orders the executive to sabotage the shipping industry in the San Francisco Bay by resisting union demands in a labor dispute. He claims it is impossible to leave the Communist Party. Meanwhile Norman, bitter over Collins's earlier rejection, is ordered to become closer to his brother-in-law Don Lowry (Agar) by indoctrinating him with their Communist world view. Norman, though, genuinely falls in love with Lowry, with Vanning claiming that she is not meant to be so emotional.
A friend of Collins and former boyfriend of Nan, union leader Jim Travers (Richard Rober) cannot understand why Collins has become unreasonable to deal with. Travers is concerned about the possibility of the small number of communists in the union being able to take it over, and suspects Norman of being a communist, or at least a fellow traveler. He discusses this with Lowry, who is a new colleague. Lowry denies Norman's politics, apparently still free of communist ideology, or an awareness of where his, by now, future wife's friends are coming from politically. She confesses when confronted, but after Lowry rejects her she shows him a photograph of herself with Collins/Johnson and reveals his communist past. Vanning interrupts them. Angry with Christine for breaking orders, she was supposed to be in Seattle for another two days on her day job as a photographer, he tries to lean on Lowry because he is now able to expose the influence the party has regained over Collins.
Lowry travels to the Collins' residence to inform them of what he has learned, but is run over by a car driven by the communist hit man J.T. Arnold (Paul E. Burns) who had observed the earlier killing with Collins. Nan, previously informed by Norman that her brother is in danger, tries to convince her husband that Lowry's killing was not an accident. He pretends to be unconvinced. Confronting Christine, Nan is told of her husband's past, and Christine (falsely, though he was with Arnold) informs her that Bailey (William Talman) was probably responsible for Lowry's death. Preparing a suicide note, Christine is interrupted by Vanning, who thinks this is a good solution, but wishes to keep politics out of it, and destroys her confession of communist involvement. It is unclear if she does commit suicide, or whether she is thrown out of the high window.
Intent on revenge, Nan befriends Bailey at the fairground where he has legitimate employment, and goes off with him. The hit man is saved when she is identified, and Nan is kidnapped and taken to the hidden local communist headquarters in Arnold's warehouse. Collins tracks his wife down to this location, and by threatening Arnold with a gun, is able to gain admittance. In a shootout, Bailey and Vanning are killed, and Collins fatally injured. In his last moments Nan says she still loves him. | murder | train | wikipedia | Robert Ryan and Laraine Day star in "The Woman on Pier 13," along with Thomas Gomez, John Agar, Janis Carter, and William Talman.
Meanwhile, Brad is blackmailed into stalling union negotiations on the waterfront.This is an okay film, with Robert Ryan looking great and doing his usual fine acting job.
The performances of the stars (Robert Ryan and Laraine Day) are solid and the supporting cast is great (especially Janis Carter and William Talman, who is wearing the craziest suit jacket I've every seen!!).
It's not the worst way to blow 70 plus minutes of your day and just for the historical (not hysterical) panorama, it is worth a look.It has just recently been showing on Turner Classic Movies as "Woman on Pier 13"...that title is much better.
To boot, the great Robert Ryan, whose character can no more divorce himself from the Party as from the Mob, somehow lends, by his association alone, even more draw to these American Reds.
THE WOMAN ON PIER 13 is probably the most anti-Communist film that came out of Hollywood.
That it nevertheless turns out to be an atmospheric little film noir all by itself is a testament to the director, who lifts laughable source material out of the gutter.The film's setting is familiar from ON THE WATERFRONT, except this time the threat doesn't come from gangsters but rather secret Communists who use murder and extortion to achieve their aims.
Robert Ryan is typically dependable as the conflicted hero, but it's the heavies who work really well here: a debuting William Talman, a larger-than-life Thomas Gomez.
The real star, though, is director Robert Stevenson (of Orson Welles's JANE EYRE), who brings the murky waterways to life and makes the film look as good as it can get..
It stars Robert Ryan, Laraine Day, John Agar, Thomas Gomez, Janis Carter, Richard Rober and William Talman.
Music is by Leigh Harline and cinematography by Nicholas Musuraca.Brad Collins (Ryan) was a one time member of the communist party.
Now married and thriving in business, his world is turned upside down when the CPUSA come to seek him out for influential favours.It wasn't easy for director Stevenson, what with RKO mogul Howard Hughes interfering as he forced home his anti-communist slant, so much so the whole pic comes off as an almost there type of piece.
Casting aside that it's all a bit daft these days, with its red hysteria leanings (though it serves as a most interesting social document of the era), there's a number of tight scenes and enough moody atmospherics to keep this out of basement hell.Characterisations are rich in noir traditions, a protag whose past is back to bite him, a slinky femme fatale, a dutiful wife in the dark, and villains of substance.
The violence hits hard, with shocking deaths, and in good dark noir style the finale holds court for the right reasons.Add in a cast who don't let anyone down and the great Musuraca showing his photographic skills (though not as much as we would like), then it's a more than decent viewing experience.
Caution: there is a sickening amount of propaganda in this film.Another caution: this a below-average time filler.However, if you love film noir like I do, then this film is a must-see.There is some good lighting in the exterior shots and no matter how average a film is (this is about a 6 on a 1-10 scale); if Robert Ryan and Laraine Day are in it, it's going to scream "noir".
The Red scare theme dates the story to the point that it is almost embarrassing........but it is still worth seeing.Robert Ryan, who was such a powerful actor, stars as a successful man who once was a Communist, lured by his then-mistress, played by Janis Carter.
Robert Ryan plays a communist spy set on the destruction of America.
So, when this occurs, Ryan is ordered to murder her--setting up an excellent conclusion.This movie came out during the "Red Scare" of the late 1940s-50s.
This is a powerful and highly tense drama with the towering Robert Ryan playing a man who was, and still is (because you can never quit) a card-carrying Communist Party member in the USA who has tried to go straight.
And in this film she brings all the temptation and the allure, as Ryan's wife played by Laraine Day is rather a tepid good gal who does not raise anybody's temperature or heart rate.
The movie in question was 1950's "I Married a Communist," which was later given the more meaningless title "The Woman on Pier 13." In the film, Ryan stars as a successful San Francisco shipping executive who has just been married to Laraine Day. As a youth, he had briefly belonged to the Communist Party, and now, the thugs and goons from the party have returned to blackmail him and coerce him to do their bidding.
Thomas Gomez and William Talman add effortless slimy support as the Commie cell leader and hit-man, respectively, and director Robert Stevenson keeps things moving crisply.
Despite the slightly hysterical anti-Communist tone, this is a well-made and very well-acted thriller with excellent performances from most of the cast, especially Janis Carter and super-villains Thomas Gomez and William Tallman.
John Agar and Larraine Day are also excellent in leading roles; the surprise weak link is Robert Ryan, who fails to bring his usual intensity to his part as a blackmailed ex-Red who can't leave the party.
I MARRIED A COMMUNIST (aka THE WOMAN ON PIER 13) is a thoroughly reprehensible noir, wherein the "Communist menace" is depicted as a well-organized cabal of murderous agitators on the San Francisco waterfront, headed up by Thomas Gomez.
The always-solid Robert Ryan stoops just as low as Gomez does by playing a "reformed" Commie who gets sucked back into the Party in order to do dirty deeds at the docks.One has to wonder just how much power Howard Hughes, who reputedly would "test" RKO contract players' loyalty by trying to get them to make this film, really held over his charges.
After all, Ryan surely cringed his way through the production considering he was running roughshod over his own strong political views, and Gomez had only a year earlier brilliantly portrayed a small-time mobster with a conscience in Polonsky's FORCE OF EVIL.But the film holds sway over the viewer in large part due to the brilliant Nicholas Musaraca cinematography, filled with inky black shadows and harsh angles, and a crackling pace which almost makes you forget what tripe you are listening to.
Like "pick up on south street" this is an anti-commies movie to the power of ten .This sinister party ,if we are to believe the screenwriters ,is responsible for three murders (plus a failed one) .The gorgeous woman represents fascism with a nice face ,thus a perfect weapon to indoctrinate green horn such as Ryan's brother -in-law (John Agar)Unlike "invasion of the body snatchers" which could also be considered a metaphorical depiction of communism ,"woman on pier 13" has not worn well ;it's impossible to take this story seriously ;a propaganda flick for conducting a witch hunt;a strange part for highly talented Ryan ,known for his liberal ideas ..
No shades of Grey and no concern for Anything or Anyone but the "Party", a term often Repeated in this Screenplay written at the Cusp of the "Mccarthy Era" and the HUAC "Witch Hunt" that would Ironically Indite Hollywood for being "Un-American".This Picture is actually just the Opposite, and uses Film for the most Blatant Anti- Communist Rhetoric found in the "Red Scare" Period coming out of Hollywood.Robert Ryan is Great as a Man trying to Escape His "Depression" and Hide the Fact that He joined the "Party" in His Youth suffering from Broken Dreams and Unemployment.
He now has to Cover-Up the Indiscretion, changed His Name, tore up the Communist Card, and has become a Respected Citizen Haunted by the Past and the "Party".Lorraine Day, who figured in the Film's Original Title, "I Married a Communist", Plays the Wife.
She is pushed to the Background most of the time as Her Husband fights the Blackmailing Thugs who Threaten Exposure, Intimidation, and Murder.The Third Act is a Dark and Shadowy Nightmarish Visual Vista complete with a Downbeat Ending fitting the most Cynical of Film-Noir.
The Woman on Pier 13 is what this movie was really called, the I Married a Communist (1949) title did not set well with all of the black list investigations in the early 1950's.
The Woman On Pier 13 is what I call one of those blacklist proof films which I'm convinced is why Robert Ryan starred in it.
No bigger patriot around than America's number one recluse.This film has Robert Ryan a fast rising union organizer in San Francisco a happily married man to Laraine Day and idol of his brother-in-law John Agar.
Remember this is made during the Korean War and we don't want our fighting men in Korea to get their supplies.When Ryan falls down on the job it all hits the fan and several cast members die.Since this is a Howard Hughes production you know that there has to be some sex tossed in.
So, the levels of panic and anxiety that prevailed in Hollywood at that time were perfectly understandable.One of the results of this was the appearance of a number of anti-Communist films and "The Woman On Pier 13" (originally titled "I Married A Communist"), was one of the most prominent and well-known.
These movies weren't strong on subtlety and as obvious propaganda pieces, weren't generally that well appreciated by the public.Newly-married Brad Collins (Robert Ryan), is a Vice President at the Cornwall Shipping Company in San Francisco and as an ex-dock worker, is regarded as the ideal person to act as a mediator in the Company's dispute with the dock workers' union.
Brad, who's well-respected by both management and the union, is also however, a man with some secrets because, in the past, he'd been a member of the Communist Party, had been known as Frank Johnson and had also had an affair with fellow Communist, Christine Norman (Janis Carter).Brad's past suddenly catches up with him when local Party boss, Vanning (Thomas Gomez), uses some incriminating evidence to blackmail him into paying 40% of his salary into Party funds and sabotaging the negotiations he's involved in, so that all shipping activity will be paralyzed for a period of 60 days.
Christine, who wants revenge on Brad for dumping her for his new wife, Nan (Laraine Day), seduces Nan's impressionable brother Don (John Ager) and does a good job of converting him to her political views so that, in the union meetings that follow, Don (who's employed as a stevedore on the docks) is very vocal in promoting the arguments he's been programmed to make.Union leader Jim Travers (Richard Rober), who's also Nan's ex-boyfriend, is shocked by the subsequent change in Brad's conduct in their negotiations and Nan becomes increasingly concerned about Don's relationship with Christine.
When Christine falls in love with Don and Vanning disapproves, a whole series of violent events follow.What makes this movie more entertaining than it would otherwise be, is the depiction of Vanning as a one-dimensional bad guy who operates exactly like a crime boss and is responsible for three murders, as well as, blackmail and extortion.
Nicholas Musuraca's cinematography is also exceptionally good.The movie's film noir credentials are also strong as its central character, having made a wrong turn in his past, was also the victim of a femme fatale, had more than one identity and can't escape his fate.
The quality of the acting is also generally good with Robert Ryan, Thomas Gomez and William Talman (in his screen debut) all making a strong impression..
John Agar plays a union leader who unknowingly is under the influence of a good-looking blonde (Janis Carter) who just happens to be a communist "plant." Robert Ryan, however, is the star of the film as a man torn between both worlds who inevitably does the "right thing." Along the way, there's plenty of despicable communists to jeer at including Thomas Gomez as a ruthless ringleader and union infiltrator.
On the good side, Laraine Day plays Ryan's loving and understanding wife who's trapped in the convoluted plot.Whatever one's political leanings, there's more than enough propaganda here to nearly sink this movie, but the performances of the talented cast keep it afloat.
On the definite "plus side" for "The Woman on Pier 13" is Laraine Day. She looks better than ever and that should be enough to sustain anyone's interest in this film..
**SPOILERS** An attempted takeover of the San Francisco docks by the local commies has former Communisty Party card carrying member Brad Collins, Robert Ryan, in the cross-hairs of both his former commie comrades and the police.
Collins who was formerly known as Frank Johnson is being blackmailed in him being exposed not only as a former commie but a murderer in the killing of a union shop steward back on the east coast some time ago.After disowning the Communist Party Brad has made it big on the SF docks working his way up from a longshoreman to the vice president of a major west coast shipping company.
Brad at first has no choice but to go along with Vannings plans but when his former girlfriend fanatical Communist, under orders of Vanning, Christine Norman (Janis Carter) gets romantically involved with Brad's weak-minded brother-in-law Dan Lowery, John Agar, is when he finally comes to his senses.Turning Dan into a Crypto-Communist and labor provocateur Christine has the young man, who Brad gave a job as a longshoreman, spew the Communist "Power to the Workers" line to his fellow union members without knowing that he's actually doing it.
Dan thinks that he's fighting for his fellow workers rights but in fact is leading them, like lemmings, down the path of financial disaster in having them lose both their jobs and benefits when his behind the scenes controllers, Vanning & Co, take over the union.As Brad's wife of one month Nan, Laraine Day, starts to get suspicious of just what he's doing in wrecking the labor negotiations it also becomes clear that her younger brother Dan, after he told her, is madly in love with Christine.
It's later when Nan finds out that her husband is being blackmailed by Christian and her boss Vanning that she finally realizes that Dan's life as well as future as a married man is in danger, deadly danger.The film has Brad knowing that his life is ruined, with a murder rap hanging over his head, makes a clean brake with his past as a commie labor leader.
Having nothing to lose and everything to gain Brad goes after Vanning and his boys after they kidnapped Nan and murdered his by then enlightened, to what Christine and Vanning were using him for, brother-in-law Dan. Christine herself had by then also realized the wrongs of her ways, in being a die-in-the-wool commie, and not wanting her victim Dan Lowry, whom she fell in love with, pay for them.
Christine is soon put on ice, in the city morgue, by a angry and vindictive Vanning who has her thrown out of her high-rise apartment window and then made her murder to look like a suicide.It's now up to Brad to make everything right to correct the many wrongs that he did in creating the mess that he now finds himself in which sets everything up for the final showdown at the local Cummnist headquarters an empty warehouse on the San Francisco docks.Despite the usual anti-Communist hysterics that you would expect to find in a movie like "Woman on Pier 13" or "I Married a Communist" the film didn't put former card carrying Communist Brad Collin/ Frank Johnson in a bad light at all.
It's all because a promising businessman (Robert Ryan), once a registered communist under a different name, has been located by an old girlfriend (Janis Carter) and exposed to the big man (Thomas Gomez), even though he wants no part of them.
Carter is now involved with the brother (John Agar) of Ryan's fiancée (Laraine Day) and is trying to convert him, even though he's a staunch democrat even if he is a bit liberal.This is actually pretty enjoyable even if the motivations in making it are extremely obvious.
The commies are actually identifiable as human beings, not cartoonish like other anti-Communist films (in particular "The Red Menace" and "Big Jim McLain") where the message comes at you like a 3-D movie monster.
The interesting thing about it is that it's really a great movie, especially from the time.
It's a story about a man who has moved on from his sordid, gang-related past to move up in the world and become a vice president of wide respect and admiration to a major shipping corporation, marry a woman he loves (though suddenly), and generally be considered an all-around good guy until the gang reenters his life and with blackmail, threats, and distortion, force him into subverting everything that he has done and made well by.
Robert Ryan (entrapped hero), Laraine Day (unsuspecting wife), Janis Carter (title femme fatale), John Agar (youth), Thomas Gomez (ruthless Communist), Richard Rober (Jim), William Talman (Red sadist), Paul J.
Mind you, Howard Hughes saw the film as a "melodrama" exposing members of the Communist Party as mobsters using blackmail and murder to start a West Coast shipping strike.
If you want a good movie about Commie rats in a plot to muck up the workers at the waterfront, be sure to see "Big Jim McLain" and skip this one because it's thoroughly pedestrian.
Robert Ryan has turned in some exceptional performances in, say, "Dangerous Ground" or "Crossfire, but he can't do a THING here, as a former member of the Communist Party blackmailed into sabotaging talks between the union and the ship owners in San Francisco. |
tt0490084 | Because I Said So | The movie focuses on Daphne (Diane Keaton), the loving but over-bearing mother of three girls, in particular Milly (Mandy Moore). Her other daughters Maggie (Lauren Graham) and Mae (Piper Perabo) are happily married, but Milly has recently broken up with her boyfriend, and Daphne is concerned.
Daphne fears that her daughter cannot find a good man on her own, so she secretly places a personal ad for her daughter. She finds a potential candidate, Jason (Tom Everett Scott), and tries to orchestrate a chance meeting of the two. The plan seems flawless until Milly finds her own date, guitarist Johnny (Gabriel Macht), who happens to be a candidate Daphne rejected before. Milly is unaware of her mother's scheming and begins relationships with both Jason and Johnny at the same time, with neither aware of the other.
Inevitably, this double-dating takes its toll and Milly becomes estranged from both Jason and Johnny. In Jason's case, it is because she discovers Daphne's scheming. Meanwhile, Daphne stumbles upon her own perfect match after being alone for many years and begins to challenge her search for the perfect match for Milly. Milly also realizes she has a choice to be the daughter her mother wants her to be, or to be the woman she wants herself to be. Choosing the latter, which comes with a row with her mother, leads her to reconcile with Johnny, a relationship Daphne has realized she should have tried to orchestrate in the first place. | psychedelic, psychological, romantic | train | wikipedia | But it looked cute from the cover and I like Diane Keaton and Mandy Moore, so I wanted to give this movie a chance, but instead it just wasted my time and made me throw up a little in my mouth.
If you can swallow the beautiful and sexy Mandy Moore as an uncoordinated doofus with low self-esteem who can't find a decent guy to go out with her, then you may be able to get into the spirit of "Because I said So." However, you'll also have to put up with Diane Keaton in a truly grating performance as a neurotic control freak of a mother who spends most of her time obsessing over the romantic travails of her youngest daughter, going so far as to post an ad on an internet dating site seeking out prospective husbands for the unsuspecting girl.The actions of this modern-day Yenta the Matchmaker set into motion a whole host of sitcom-level complications and romantic comedy hijinks that are somehow supposed to be funny but wind up being merely irritating.
- thrown in for bad measure.Beyond Keaton and Moore, Gabriel Macht, Tom Everett Scott and Lauren Graham are just some of the other unfortunate actors trapped inside this "chick flick" fiasco..
Other than that, all we get is "Gilmore Girls" Lauren Graham as the wisest of Keaton's three daughters and Piper Perabo as one of the most nondescript characters of all time.
I say, SAVE YOUR MONEY and rent "Terms of Endearment", which may be the best movie ever about a mother and daughter's struggles to show their love for each other.
Diane Keaton is energetic and so much fun - and I promise you that by the end of the movie, she'll have (in some way or another) reminded you of your own mother.
And Mandy Moore is very good as the quirky daughter who is, in reality, very much like her mother.
Or at least because they continue to say so in all the woman's magazines at the grocery store check-out line.This one stars Diane Keaton, who has been in one too many of these over the years, Lauren Graham, who has seen better writing on her series "Gilmore Girls", Piper Perabo, whose career tends to float under the radar, and Mandy Moore, whose range is limited but whose charm seems endless.
The latter three star as sisters with a ridiculously over-involved mother (Keaton), who go through ups and downs, weddings, and such, while mom pokes her nose too deeply into Moore's love life.
I can only point a finger at the writing because as predictable as this movie is, there are some absolute gems of BRILLIANT acting from both Keaton and Moore.
I'm not sure why anyone is in this movie other than Mandy Moore and Diane Keaton because no use is made of them.
Only until a joke is shared between Millie (Moore) and her mother (Keaton) about a man's uncircumcised entity does the audience begin laughing.
Lots of romantic comedies include generous dosages of overbearing parents, predictable twists-and-turns, and decor that looks like it came out of the Ikia catalog.Nonetheless, 'Because I Said So' is, for lack of a better word, cute.
who get roped into seeing it may well enjoy the antics of Keaton's character's dog, who provides slap-sticky yet appreciated comic relief.All in all, it's not something I'd probably buy on DVD, but as a fun and easy way to spend two hours, 'Because I Said So' is worth wading through the clichés..
I say "very little good" because I can find good things to say: Diane Keaton and Mandy Moore, and heck, everyone else in the cast, are stunning to look at.
Which is about 9 more than needed.Characters: poorly written, and acted in the most grating, unlikable and unbelievable manner possible.Relationships: completely unrealistic.Dialogue: horrid.Plot: Well, in one case the mother character gets (unexplained) laryngitis, which is the only time that the other characters get to speak more than two words around her without interruption.
Time.The attempts at humor are from a teenage gross out flick: an unattractive man whines about having snot stuck in his nose; Diane Keaton carries heavy, elaborate cakes while wearing four inch spike heels; Diane Keaton drives on a highway with her head under the dashboard; Diane Keaton simulates arousal while watching an x rated internet site; a dog humps a piece of furniture; Korean women make rude comments while massaging American women; women's underwear are compared.The sets and costumes are from a never-never "romantic comedy" land: a family of young, attractive women and a series of elaborate wedding cakes.The plot is idiotic; if you've seen the trailer, you know the plot.
Diane Keaton, a mother, interferes in her daughter's love life so much that they fix her up with a man.The dialogue is flat and could not be less interesting.Women are incompetent: a young woman, Mandy Moore, wears a bright red, lacy slip under a green dress.
I'm disappointed in Diane Keaton and Tom Everett Scott - and I don't even want to talk about Mandy Moore.
Daphne Wilder (Diane Keaton) has done fine with her older two daughters (Lauren Graham, Piper Perabo) but when it comes to her youngest, the klutzy Milly (Mandy Moore), she feels she has to get more directly involved with finding her a man.
Although she has her sights set on Jason (Tom Everett Scott), a successful architect, Milly herself seems more interested in musician Johnny (Gabriel Macht), who just so happens to have a single father who is interested in Daphne.Because I Said So is an appalling comedy that completely wastes a fine cast with lame material.
The horrible things Daphne did to her daughter just went over the line many times to the point that it wasn't even funny and Mandy Moore was pretty unlikable herself so it was pretty hard to care about these people.When the film wasn't offending my intelligence, it was just boring to watch.
There was no development for some of the supporting characters and Mandy Moore wasn't engaging enough to lead the movie.The acting was shockingly bad although anybody would have problems working with this material.
Mandy Moore and the male leadswere very good, but didn't get enough screen time without competing with Keatons' over the top performance.
Wow. If you want to watch a movie that will make you want to pull out Mandy Moore's vocal cords and strangle Diane Keaton with them, then this is the movie for you.
I would totally recommend this film to mothers and daughters who like cheesy romance flicks.
Hyperactively controlling Daphne (Diane Keaton) decides to fix her youngest daughter Milly (Mandy Moore) by finding her the perfect man via an on-line dating service ad that Milly knows nothing about.
It focuses on the relationship between a mother (Diane Keaton) and a daughter (Mandy Moore) and how the mother influences her daughter to choose between two guys.
How long has Diane Keaton been so desperate for money that she signs up for tripe of the calibre of "Because I Said So." An all-white cast of girlie girls film that glorifies why some women become anorexic just so they can say no to mommy, while others are mindless malleable bimbo's whose mommy complex really needs medical intervention.
The film is more than irritating, it's mindless stupidity.Diane Keaton presents herself as what is described as "meddlesome mother" who is trying to set her youngest daughter portrayed by Mandy Moore, up with an appropriate professional man to marry.
That this movie was ever green-lighted is the biggest wonder about the film.The paper-thin plot has Keaton portray Daphne Wilder, the single mother of three grown daughters.
Mandy Moore is an appealing presence as the clumsy, endearing Milly, although she is overloaded with enough cutesy idiosyncrasies to make Keaton's own Annie Hall look relatively unaffected.As Jason, Tom Everett Scott seems to play the same role over and over, the superficial yuppie who does not fare well upon closer inspection.
I'm sure they had fun and got their money but this movie is a dark spot on their way, and they can't erase it and i'll never forget i sat it through ;-) ...I would have thought a few of the actors had just a little more pride than this but how wrong was i.What a total miserable bummer :-(.
I won't hesitate to say that Ms. Keaton ruined this film with her over-the-top performance.Unless you want to be reminded for an hour and a half about why you could ever possibly hate your mother, or you are an overprotective, controlling mom yourself, the only joy that can be derived from this film comes from Mandy Moore and the rest of the supporting cast.Too bad this film isn't really about Moore's character at all..
I liked the Mandy Moore character and her sisters, (just to look at I suppose - also the fact that their mother exasperated them but they wouldn't hurt her feelings for worlds) but the architect was badly miscast.
Jokes you knew were coming.It had it all...The mother seemed to say the same things over and over, it's not like the script was too short...This bomb seemed to go on for ever.The things the characters did were so faulty, you couldn't imagine anyone being so...think of a few synonyms for stupid.I felt like Id already seen it before, its basically your classic plot, someone (in this the daughter's mother) interferes with her love life with "halarious" results.
Diane Keaton and Mandy Moore worked some real magic in this movie....it's no wonder the crowd I saw it with responded so warmly to it.
Director Michael Lehmann started perfectly with the excellent film Heathers.But,after that promising first work,he made big craps like Hudson Hawk,Airheads and 40 Days and 40 Nights.But,Because I Said So is not only the worst movie of his career but also an enormous crap which bores and is totally unfunny.This "film" is so execrable that I wanted to take my eyes out while I was watching it.Diane Keaton is totally wasted on this film and I think that the only reason she participated here was because she needed some money.Because I Said So is a pathetic and crappy ''comedy'' that I really hate.I want the money I wasted on this crap back!Certainly,the second worst film of 2007(for the moment,the worst one is License to Wed)..
The acting by Diane Keaton makes you wonder if she had been doing drugs and the rest of a reasonably good cast, except for the not so cute kid, is totally wasted by a bad, no horrible, script and really poor directing.
Daphne (Diane Keaton) is the mother of three beautiful daughters, who she largely raised herself.
This is really Keaton's film, in many ways, and she delights the audience with a very comic turn as the overbearing mother who, nevertheless, truly wants the best for her children.
But, for the vast majority of the movie, this is a wonderful look at the strong bond between mothers and their daughters and the irrepressible hope we all have to find love and find it true.
In "Because I Said So" Diane Keaton plays an overprotective mother, Daphne, to Millie (Mandy Moore).
The main problem with this movie is that Keaton plays the overprotective mother very over the top, and it's just not that funny.The sisters all have their own charm, although Perabo is underused.
Halfway through this movie, I was thinking 'I wish Mandy Moore's character would come down with a case of terminal Cancer or catch genital warts or some other STD preferably AIDS from one of the squeaky clean 'Hi There!' guys she's going out with.' Or I was actually hoping somebody's head would just blow up and their brain matter would splat all across the wall in front of Diane Keaton so she could scream even louder.
A good concept for a chick flick mother-daughter movie, I couldn't believe that Diane Keaton, Mandy Moore, Lauren Graham and Piper Perabo were going to be in the same movie.
Hmmm I wonder what will happen to the cake in Diane Keaton's hands with a little boy running around her...hmmm.....Apparently 60-year-old women bumping into porn sites, dogs humping chairs, little kids saying the words "penis" and "vagina", and a balloon stuck to Mandy Moore's rear end is considered "good comedy."I also found "Because I Said So" to be very offensive to all women.
Daphne Wilder (Keaton), a hovering mom, sets up her daughter Millie (Moore) with a blind date in the hopes Millie will marry.I wasn't going to watch this all the way thru.
Given the fact that I like Diane Keaton, don't mind Mandy Moore and I also like lighthearted chick flicks this says a lot.
So her mother Diane Keaton decides to put matter into her own hands and sets up a dating scheme so that she can find eligible bachelors for her daughter to fall in love with.
Diane Keaton wants her daughters to do things "Because I Said So" in this 2007 movie.Keaton is a neurotic mother who is constantly poking her nose into her daughters' lives.
Yeah, that certainly is a way to find a life partner for your daughter - advertise and then screen them for her.One of the problems for me in this movie was Diane Keaton's performance.
Such a fine actress as Diane Keaton should be ashamed of performing is such a puerile film as "Because I Said So".
Diane Keaton plays an over-protective, overly-controlling but loving mother.
Both, Keaton and Moore, do a wonderful job of portraying a mother and daughter who share so many interests and idiosyncrasies that it is very believable.
Perhaps if she had been cast as the central character in this movie she could have been its saving grace, but instead this vibrant and lively young actress was relegated to the background in favor of -- wait, why is Mandy Moore famous in the first place?
Me and my mom went to go see this movie together for a mother-daughter night and we had a great time!
"Because I Said So" really made me think about my relationship with my mom, and that the love a mother feels for her daughter really is incredible.
The little comments or the way Diane Keaton tried to make Mandy Moore's character just like her were so much like most moms (my mom especially) that it was hilarious.
I don't usually watch movies with Diane Keaton, or Mandy Moore - but I work part time at Blockbuster and for some reason this was the only reasonable "prestreet" to take home and watch this week.
Diane Keaton plays well, Mandy Moore plays well, Piper Perabo has a really tiny role, the plot is really easy to follow, even for brain dead people, the emotions are all artificial, the humour is forced, the script is made by a recipe, girls dig it, just a little, men sit through it wishing they were either banging Mandy or dead.It's not that it is a bad film, it's just impossibly average.
It is a cute film about mothers and daughters and growing up and growing apart and love.Yes, Diane Keaton's performance was clearly over the top, but that was kind of the whole point of the film...If you enjoy cute films, that make you laugh out loud and warm your heart, you will enjoy this movie.We had to sit in the front row of the theater because it was so packed..but we could hear everyone from our row to the back laughing..
Even as a guy I found this movie entertaining.(and I'm not just saying that because they show a skin-clad Mandy Moore.) The character "Johnny" was heartfelt, and intricate.
While I love Diane Keaton, her character is so over the top in her daughter's lives that it's cringe worthy.
I definitely would've like to see Mandy Moore take a different approach to her character, as at times her acting can get whiny.
I'm a humongous Diane Keaton, so that's really why I watched this movie late one night on TV, I was hoping it would be a great one like almost all Diane's films.
Diane and Mandy Moore actually had good chemistry, and their acting wasn't bad, but they just had very poor material to work with, it's really not the actor's fault, it's the writers fault.
I love how the movie ends and I think there is value in seeing how the two men differ and who she chooses in the end.The mother has her own issues that get ironed out during the film.
funniest movie I've seen in a long time..its more of a comedy than a romance story or a touching mother-daughter film, but it has it all.
You find yourself cheering for Johnny so badly when it looks like Milly will hook up with Jason just because her mother wants her to.I thought this would be a total chick flick but there were men in the theater while I was there laughing just as loud as the women were.
Diane Keaton was very funny and Mandy Moore's talents are just amazing.
Plus, Diane Keaton is such a great actress and made the movie awesome!I usually don't go for romantic comedies but now I think I change my mind because this was so....well...romantically funny!
For instance, when Daphne (Diane Keaton) loses her voice and is writing messages out to her daughter (Mandy Moore)and asks her what an orgasm feels like.
Diane Keaton, Mandy Moore, Lauren Graham, and Piper Perabo - you cannot get better than that!
All of the ladies of this film are excellent actors and I think Diane Keaton and Mandy Moore really make you believe they are mother and daughter.
Mandy Moore Was Great In This Movie Her Acting Was So Good And I Did Not Know She Was That Good Of A Actor She Proved Me Wrong. |
tt0923600 | Baghead | Four actors, Matt (Ross Partridge), Catherine (Elise Muller), Michelle (Greta Gerwig), and Chad (Steve Zissis) attend an art festival and watch a low-budget movie directed by Jett (Jett Garner). After the showing, Jett explains to them that he kept the budget so low by not telling his actors they were in a movie until the final piece was ready. The group then goes to an after party, however Matt is unable to gain entry into the club after not wanting to appear desperate and ask his old friend Jeff to get him in. The four actors go to a different bar, where they decide to go to Chad's isolated cabin in the woods to write their own movie to star in; fed up of only being cast as extras.
After arriving at the cabin, Michelle gets drunk and decides to go to bed where Chad hits on her, however she rejects his advances and tells him he is like a brother. Later, Michelle rushes outside of the cabin to vomit where she encounters a man with a bag over his head. The next morning Michelle believes this to have been a dream and decides to tell the others in the hopes of creating a horror movie based around the character 'baghead'. At night, the group gathers to brainstorm ideas. Michelle writes several notes to Matt to meet her in her room, before she goes to bed. While in her room, a figure wearing a bag over their head enters. At first, Michelle believes it to be Matt, however she becomes increasingly uncomfortable before the figure eventually leaves. Upset, Michelle confronts Matt who denies it was him, leading the pair to believe it was Catherine trying to scare Michelle because she is jealous of her connection with Matt. Catherine also denies the accusations and angrily leaves the cabin to smoke a cigarette, while Matt convinces Michelle to stay at the cabin.
The following morning, Chad wakes up Matt and Michelle and says he cannot find Catherine. Chad then quickly learns of Michelle's advances on Matt, and upset he too leaves the cabins; only for his screams to be heard minutes later. Matt and Michelle find his ripped t-shirt in the woods but believe it to be a prank and so go back to the cabin. Michelle again advances on Matt, but feeling bad for Chad, Matt goes upstairs where he is attacked by figures wearing bags over their heads, revealed to be Chad and Catherine getting revenge for the romance between Matt and Michelle. Later, as night falls, the group hangs out before Matt and Chad see a figure through the window. The group investigates outside and finds their car has been disabled before encountering baghead. Matt and Chad attempt to attack him, but upon seeing he has a knife the group flees into the cabin and barricades themselves in until morning.
The following day, the group decides to hike the 11 miles to the nearest freeway. After hours of walking, the group becomes lost in the woods before stumbling upon an abandoned car. As Chad is about to break a window to get in, baghead appears and chases the group through the woods. Matt is caught and stabbed to death in front of the others. Catherine and Michelle reach the freeway and attempt to flag down a car, however it continues to drive. Chad emerges from the woods further up the road and is subsequently hit by the car as it swerves to miss the girls. Catherine and Michelle help the unconscious Chad into the truck before Matt emerges from the woods uninjured and baghead is revealed to be Jeff.
Sometime later at the hospital, Chad awakens distraught over Matt's death. Catherine and Michelle explain to him that Matt and Jeff orchestrated the whole thing and had secretly been filming them to create a movie. Chad demands to see Matt and asks him to see the footage. After watching, Chad tells Matt that they should edit it down and take it to a film festival as he believes it will be a success. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.