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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt2401225 | Uu Kodathara Ulikki Padathara | The story of the film revolves around a palace known as ‘Gandharva Mahal’ which belongs to Rayudu (Prabhu), the present head of a royal family that has lost its former splendor. Rayudu lives with his wife (Meena Kumari) and two daughters Visalakshi (Madhumitha) and Jagadha (Deeksha Seth) in a small house beside the Mahal. Rayudu rents out the palace to make ends meet. He is shown as a soft and generous man. Some of the tenants take this generosity for granted and harass Rayudu, without paying the rent.
Into this scenario comes Manoj (Manoj Manchu), as someone seeking a place to rent. He slowly gets rid of the problematic elements in the palace and restores control to Rayudu. Manoj falls in love with Jagadha. A happy Rayudu decides to get Visalakshi married and decides to give away the Gandharva Mahal as dowry. One night, Manoj comes to Rayudu with a bloodied nose and claims that he saw a ghost which tried to kill him and warned him about selling the Mahal. Rayudu reveals that the ghost might be his dead father, Rudramaneni Narsimha Rayudu (Nandamuri Balakrishna) and explains the history of Gandharva Mahal to Manoj.
Gandhrva Mahal has been with the Rudramaneni family for centuries and was passed on to Narasimha Rayudu (Nandamuri Balakrishna), a Zamindar who is well respected in the village. He lives with his wife (Panchi Bora) and sister Jagadamba (Simer Motiani). He marries his sister Jagadamba to Phanindra Bhoopati (Sonu Sood). Few days after the marriage, Bhoopati insults Narsimha Rayudu and asks him to give their share in the family property. Deeply hurt by the incident, Narsimha Rayudu gives half of everything he owns including the Gandharva Mahal to his sister and walks out of the house. He also gives hundred acres of land to Seshayya (Bhanu Chander), his trusted employee and friend. It is later revealed that Bhoopati married Jagadamba only for the money and wants to marry his sweetheart Amrutha Valli (Lakshmi Manchu). Amrutha doesn't want to marry Bhoopathi since he already has a wife. Consequently, Bhoopathi kills Jagadamba and makes it look like a suicide.
On hearing the news, Narasimha Rayudu is devastated. Only a week after Jagadamba's death, Bhoopathi tries to marry Amrutha in the Gandhrva Mahal. Narasimha Rayudu, angered by Bhoopathi's actions, confronts him. Bhoopathi gets into a fight with Narasimha Rayudu and stabs him with a sword. He also reveals to Amrutha and the dying Narasimha Rayudu that he was the one who murdered Jagadamba. In anger, Narasimha Rayudu kills Bhoopathi and dies in the Mahal. Amrutha, saddened by the events, blames herself for the whole incident and eventually turns into a beggar.
In the present, Gandharva Mahal is readied for the marriage of Visalakshi. The bridegroom Rishi (Richard Rishi) and his family arrive for the wedding. It is revealed that Rishi's uncle Bujji (Sai Kumar) wants to take the palace and convert it into a hotel. Later that night, Bujji sees Narasimha Rayudu's ghost and gets scared. Bujji seeks the help of a Mantrik (Ajay) who reveals that the house is indeed haunted by the souls of Bhoopati and Narasimha Rayudu. He captures the violent soul of Bhoopathi and traps it in a bottle. It is also revealed that Manoj is Seshayya's grandson and was sent by his mother Suguna (Suhasini Maniratnam), Seshayya's daughter to help Rayudu and his family. Manoj reveals to Jagadha that he was never attacked by a ghost and tells her it was part of his plan to avoid giving the Mahal as dowry. He also reveals that it was not a ghost but him that scared Bujji. Bujji overhears the conversation and is angered. Believing that the Mantrik too was a fraud, in anger he breaks the bottle in which the Mantrik captured Bhoopati's soul. Now freed, Bhoopathi's soul enters Rishi's body and tries to kill the family. Narasimha Rayudu's soul enters Manoj's body and tries to stop Bhoopathi. Mantrik brings Amrutha Valli to stop Bhoopathi. Amrutha Valli lies to Bhoopathi that she got married and kills herself to stop him. In the end, Visalakshi marries Rishi and Manoj gets married to Jagadha. Manoj also sees the ghost of Narsimha Rayudu sitting on a chair and smoking a cigar, indicating that he would forever protect the Mahal. | romantic, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Nothing else except Balakrishna. The title Uu kodathara ulikki padathara doesn't match the movie at least in a single scene.This title raises the expectations on the movie which leads to disappointment after watching it.The story of the movie is convincing but the debut director failed to mould it into a masterpiece.Though the lead star cast is the plus point for the movie,screenplay made it to minus point.Balakrishna is only highlight of the movie.Manchu Manoj is good,but not at his best.He struggled a lot for the movie,but the result doesn't suits itr.Deeksha seth is wasted in the movie.The love track between them is too boring.the comedy scenes doen't made you laugh but irritates many times.Manchu Lakshmi Prasanna was good in cameo role.Her acting was excellent at the climax.Nandamuri Balakrishna is only the saving grace for the movie.His performance was simply superb.His dialogue delivery was awesome asusual.The scenes of Balakrishna was very well shot,mainly his introduction.Only Balakrishna can do justice for the role and he did it.Last 25 minutes of the movie was better than the remaining movie.Better comedy and faster narration would have made a large difference to the movie.Director Shekar raja was completely failed in screenplay but made the Balakrishna's episodes highlight of the movie.Music by Bobo Sashi was complete let down.The picturisation of first two songs,mainly the second song was worst.Remaining were better.BGM by Chinna was very good.Production values are rich.FINAL WORD:Go for the movie,if you are fan of Balakrishna.Except this there is nothing else to watch in this movie.Overall, the production team of UKUP can be applauded for this type of attempt, but it could have easily been so much better. 5/10. waste of time. ukup is the most awaited movie of 2012,but it failed utterly to reach the expectations.major pros and cons of the film were balakrishna presence and shekharraja direction respectively.The movie doesn't deserve the title ,the screenplay is boring and nothing interesting except a very few scenes.when coming to individual performances balakrishna suits aptly to the role,manoj is just OK,deeksha seth has nothing to do with,and other..... don't worth a mention.while coming to songs except "anuragame" and "idhi ani" songs no other we can remember after coming out of the hall,especially the first song can be awarded as the worstly picturised song in the world ever,it really disturbs the plot and makes no sense at all.apart from this graphics were good.except balakrishna's performance there is nothing to watch in this movie. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm boring. The same old ghost stories we saw 100 years back tried to make a ghost film by copying some of the scened from Hollywood and tollywood movies produces and director of this film thinks that the Telugu audiences are dumb fellows and they tried very hard to show some silly old fashioned cg work which we have seen ages back i really don't know y Lakshmi is dying to act when herself knows that this haven't got any acting material in her. Really spend most frustrating and boring 2.30 hrs after the recent Hindi film cocktail.My sincere advice is to avoid don't, waste ur valuable time watch it whenever available in DVD i think it will be out soon as the producer need to cover some of there losses... Review: Uu Kodathara Ulikki Padathara -by bharath(arya). story: Narasimha Rayudu is the heir of Gandharva Mahal. He marries his sister to his relative Bhoopathi (Sonu Sood). And after the marriage, he gifts half of his wealth and the Mahal to his sister. Bhoopathi is already in love with Amruthavalli (Lakshmi Prasanna) the daughter of a prostitute, He kills his wife and gets ready to marry Amruthavalli. Narasimha Rayudu tries to stop it and in the process kills Bhoopathi and gets killed. Prabhu is the son of Narasimha Rayudu. He tries to marry her daughter to a young lad and gives the Mahal to the groom as dowry. Bhoopathi's soul lives in the Mahal and tries to stop the marriage. His evil intent is not to allow any marriage in the Mahala except his. Finally, Narasimha Rayudu's soul enters the body of Manchu Manoj, the son of his loyal servant and save his Mahal and family. Performances: Manchu Manoj had delivered a good performance through out the movie. The different getup's shown in the movie are misleading. All of them come in a song. He matured himself as an actor. His facial expressions are good and diction is improved. Nandamuri Balakrishna is the show stealer in the entire movie. He virtually lived in the role. His histrionics are composed and dialogs delivery is at its best. No present day actor can do justice for the role. His make up and styling is too good. Take bow Balayya!. But sadly, he is underused. Manchu Lakshmi has a brief role in the movie. Her make up in the Brig role is not up to the mark. Her performance in the climax is brilliant. Sonu Sood is good in his little role Deekshaseth and Prachi Bora have no screen space. Prabhu, Bhanu Chander, Sai Kumar and others are okay. Technical Performances: Director Shekar Raja is the culprit in the entire fiasco. He got a decent subject in hand but failed to narrate it perfectly. The movie is a kind of story which needs a gripping narration which is totally absent. He is lucky enough to get his debut with a big star like Balayya and in big banner like Manchu Entertainments but he failed to en-cash the opportunities. Songs by Bobo Sasi is a let down except Anuragame Harathulayya, no song is well pictured. The first song of the movie should be removed immediately or else families and ladies will walk out midway. Back ground score by Chinna is good. MR Varma editing is not up to the mark. Rajashekar's cinematography is good. Lakshmi Bhupal's duologue's are total let down. Balayya who is a king in dialogs delivery did not get any good dialogs. Final Say: The first half of the movie is okay and second half is good in parts. Performances by the lead roles especially Balakrishna are awesome. But the movie did not have a proper narration to bind the audience to their seats. All in all, good effort but not so good output. Watch it to kill the time in the weekend.Rating- 2/5 |
tt0344777 | Six: The Mark Unleashed | The film is set in the end-times,or The Great Tribulation, after the rapture, when the earth has been taken over, and the mark of the Beast - an implant in the right hand or forehead - is being imposed on everyone worldwide. Those who take the mark become part of 'The Community',; those who refuse are imprisoned and after three weeks are beheaded.
Two non-Christian renegades (Kevin Downes and David A. R. White) steal a car for a friend who has also refused the mark. When they arrive at his place they find that he changed his mind and took the mark and "feels so much happier". The two are then captured by police and taken to prison.
Smuggler Tom Newman (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is also captured by a police unit led by his Jessica Newman (Amy Moon), his ex-wife who took the mark. He is tortured until he agrees to infiltrate a Christian group in the prison in order to kill Elijah Cohen, a Christian leader who remains at large. His wife warns him if he tries to escape, he will captured and turned over to Preston Scott (Brad Heller), to be tortured.
All three of them meet in prison and decide to try and escape, to a place called Prodigal City a safe haven. Brody and Tom, do not like this city and try to leave. Preston Scott meets up with them, and the two men are tortured. Tom refuses the mark and is beheaded, but Brody accepts, and claims, "It was the wrong choice." Note: This movie is produced by TriStar Pictures. | brainwashing, christian film | train | wikipedia | With such recognizable stars as Stephen Baldwin and Eric Roberts in it, Six, The Mark Unleashed has quite a bit more production values in it than you normally get from a Christian film.
Note the producer is Paul Crouch, Jr. of the Crouch family of Trinity Broadcasting Network so it's not like they're short of funds.The creative end of this film is Kevin Downes and David A.R. White who are the Ben Affleck and Matt Damon of the Christian film world.
That's an automatic death sentence.In prison they're tossed in with Jeffrey Dean Morgan who neither buys into the thought control of the world 'Leader' who's come to power or with the Christian apocalyptic theology.
Usually these films immediately go to the Christian television circuit with a limited if any kind of run on the big screen.If you're a believer this film is better than average, if you're not the story will be silly and trite.
Kind of like a Star Trek movie in that way..
Most Christian movies have a well-earned reputation of being terrible on just about every level from acting to directing to writing to production.
They look like your average church youth group with a dv camera ran out and shot a movie.
As such I was braced for more of the same but Six (not sure why it is named that) actually is a cut above normal Christian films.
Six has some of the best acting that I have seen in a Christian film, notably on the part of Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Tom Newman.
This is the best Christian Movie I have seen..
Its seems that most of the heavy critics of this movie have a problem with Christianity anyway and what in the world does the Bush Administration have to do with it?
Basically one should realize that if its a "end time" Christian movie--expect bible quotes, prayer and good natured characters.
You know, the ones in which a mean, cynical atheist makes fun of a poor, oppressed Christian using a pompous, verbose argument which sounds impressive because it contains big words, but doesn't actually make any sense, and gets his come-uppance when his "argument" is "refuted" by some emotive sound-bytes from the Christian.There is in fact a scene exactly like this somewhere in the first half of the movie, which is all that I could endure before flipping to the end of the DVD to see if anything exciting happened.
How did the evil implanted stormtroopers manage to massacre huge numbers of people in armed attacks if they appear to value personal self-preservation above everything else, including *defending the very survival of their society*?The evil society is simply not believable, because it is a caricature of everything that modern fundamentalist Christians disapprove of blended with symbolism from the Book of Revelations.
So so sad.Talking about the artistic part this is probably the worst film ever made.We find very bad acting, a car who seems to appear through the entire movie (with different owners).
I want the 10 minutes of my life which were wasted fast forwarding through the movie back.As you can tell by the extreme contrast between voters comments, fundamentalist Christians will LOVE this movie.
I had no expectations from this one, I simply sat to watch a (preferably) good movie.
I have been watching Christian films for many years and as they go, this one is not too bad.It is hard to have a blockbuster without blockbuster money or names but then again, many good movies never went on to be blockbusters.The writer is presents his version of the end times and while a little confusing, I was not sure if this was pre- or post rapture, is simple and too the point.Although liberties are taken with traditional Christian theology, it presents the story of those who are left behind and the choices that they must make.I enjoyed the film because the actors are natural and attempt to portray their characters as real people with all their faults in a difficult situation.
Sure, "future" society harbors the "anti-Christ" because people are not monogamous.The movie has no sci-fi elements at all.
And I'm including all the "skischool movies, include the "best" scene in giggli and all the local norwegian movies( witch is not any good)Please do NOT watch this movie.!!!I'm NOT religious, but this made me HATE Christianity.
This movie has NO meaning , no context, no action and extremely bad acting.
See I was laying in bed, and flipping through the channels and I came across the "Christian" channel, if you will, and there was a movie playing that looked interesting, so I kept on watching it, but I never found out what it was.
And to tell the truth, before this movie I wasn't a Christian, but after I watched it, I became one.
This movie takes place sometime in the future after a single world leader takes power and forces conformity through control tactics and the use of an implanted chip.
Great photography, well done casting, very interesting and suspenseful.You will probably like this movie if you like to watch science fiction/action movies like terminator, total recall or doomsday type of movies.This movie has a somewhat religious theme but it does not interfere with the plot, action, or interest level of the movie, in fact the movie wouldn't even work without it.I just happened to pick this movie up at my local Block Buster Store based on the intriguing name and plot line.
Of course some people think this movie was stupid...to me..I loved it."The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14The movie had much more to offer than most of the other movies out there.
I've also seen Eric Roberts in other movies with Christian content..
First of all, I wanted to say that I love movies in general but I especially love Christian/end times thrillers.
I bought this movie at a Christian book store and couldn't wait to watch it.
I will not give away any of the plot, but this movie contains great acting,an interesting story, and a good gospel message.
I cried 2 or 3 times during the film, and that has only happened to me with 2 other movies my entire life.
If you are a Christian like I am, you will appreciate the message of the story.
and that it talks things which are actually true.I understand that these days it's become such an obligation for people (whether on IMDb or "Rotten Tomatoes") to give low ratings to films that are in any terms spiritual, talking about God, the Bible, Christ, and so on.
All fine performances from each of the actors - a good film worth enough for any decent, honorable family to own and watch.
R. White mostly for his performance in "God's Not Dead" and his powerful film he directed "The Encounter".Stephen Baldwin is bold for standing up for his Christian faith amongst the darkness in Hollywood.Jeffrey Dean Morgan....
who could forget him as the excellent John Winchester in the "Supernatural" TV series, that's I guess somewhat inspired quite a bit by the biblical sort of elements.Happy 10 anniversaryPS: In fact, there is actually a very important person I think you should now about who's been imprisoned for his faith, and also for being very effective!
If you're not a total believer of Christianity don't watch this movie.
When I rented it I thought that a movie with Stephen Baldwin should contain just a little bit of action!
Okay, so here I was thinking this movie would be something along the lines of "the early lion gets the Christian", but I was mistaken.
The story starts off quite okay, but unfortunately it does not develop any further and degrades into blunt propaganda.We are introduced to a totalitarian system, lead by -eh- The Leader, where all subjects are wearing some sort of mind-control device, that makes them all easy-going, in essence, committing sins by biblical standards, especially when it comes to 'fruitless attempts of procreation', if you catch my boat.
This Baldwin brother should be legally forbidden to play movies, I tell ya.Still, it could have been a good flick.
I'd rather have such chip and enjoy a life of stupor, but without noticing it, rather than to watch another movie like this.
Christian Movie of Faith.
The low marks attributed to the film are most likely Christian bashing hate mongers who have taken time off from their bigoted forums where they hate blacks, gays, illegals and Jews.
The movie lacks heavy-handed Christian proselytizing, even though it gets close at time.
So if you are a Christian, enjoy the movie.
But considering what Hollywood is putting out there, I can tell you that this film is, for the most part, better than a lot of the stuff that's being put out.And by the way: If you're going to downgrade a film's rating because you're obviously anti-Christian film, that's being dishonest (and a poor reviewer).
What I like most about the film are the manner in which they display Christian characters as normative, and relational, with the backdrop of a supernatural God Who is moving in their midst.
The film is set in the future when the timeline of human history is wrapping up.I loved the performances of Stephen Baldwin, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and of special note, Troy Winbush as Lewis who brings a rare honesty and drama to his role as a lost man who finds Christ while in prison.
I find it hard to believe that they were able to make this as good as it was, given the low budget, and yes, in certain scenes it is glaringly obvious!Even so, as a born-again Christian, I found this particularly inspiring.
I know there are a multitude of "end times" movies out there, and many of you probably rolled your eyes when another one came out.
And there's no denying that there have been a plethora of low budget Christian end times movies made.
Whether you accept biblical truth or not, it is an entertaining film, full of action, special effects, character development, and well written dialog.For the non-believers out there, just sit back and enjoy it as an apocalyptic film, the action and story line are more than strong enough to keep you entertained.
David White and Jeffrey Morgan keep the action and the friction going, making the movie one to watch till the end, just to know how they fare.
For the Christians, this is a film full of biblical truths, trying to stand true to the prophecies of Revelations and Daniel while entertaining you at the same time.
Unlike recent movies in the vein of "Omega Code II", this one takes the Bible and builds the stories of the characters around its words, not the other way around.
And though the violence is extreme for a Christian movie, it is in no way gratuitous, nor graphic.
Anyone who has studied Revelations at all can't deny that the end times will not be pleasant, so why sugarcoat the truth.Give it a chance without being unduly critical of the message, and I think you'll find it an enjoyable movie, with a little something for everyone..
Stephen Baldwin's character really gave this movie needed depth.Christians usually have a hard time portraying evil characters (understandably)but most of those in this movie were okay.
apart from the little expression "burn in hell" which i personally think it's not exactly accurate,since hell is much worse than burning, I actually felt moved in the real way,an emotion that did not go away as it happens with most movies.i think this movie reached his goal.It really got me thinking about what this "end" is going to be like.
i think having a clear view of the events presented in this movie makes all the difference.if someone has any comments regarding the subject and considers them to be of any help,i would be truly interested to learn more.
This movie was so horrible unless you want to turn sissy I'd not waste my rental fee or time on this earth watching this horrible stale piece of cheese.
This film actually made my Christian friend feel really stupid so thats one good plus.
Without going into the movie all I can say is that I recommend a watch, don't take everything to be so clear cut in terms of what true prophecy foretells but this was a good attempt whether intentional or not.
Those goody two shoes Christians as you so call them weren't given a whole lot of time to open up into their character, but I would consider someone like Luke to be closer representative in how a Christian should be than what the majority "think" they are.
I don't believe this movie portrays Christians negatively or positively.
People who enjoy intrigue or some type of conspiracy are better off viewing "Enemy of the State" or any of the Star War movies which have greater depth and quality.
With special hate to Stephen Baldwin, ¡I'll never forget your participation in this sh*t!If the movie had the Christian propaganda as its goal, it has absolutely FAILED, it would cause the contrary effect in people with brains..
And in its genre it is quite good, better than most others I've seen.It doesn't "halt" the movie to do preaching, the preachy bits are rather well integrated in the whole, and contribute to the overall story.The characters are varying - as in most movies - but most come off as reasonably believable.Most of the movie is of course the non-preachy parts, and this is an action film that works quite well.
SIX: THE MARK UNLEASHED is nothing more than a heavy-handed Christian propaganda movie in which the teachings of Christ are portrayed as a way forward to a peaceful and tolerant society while everybody else is going to Hell.To be fair, the film does start out as a fairly ordinary sci-fi thriller, set in a dystopian world with the usual governmental oppression.
The writers here definitely haven't heard of subtlety, making this a movie that will be completely off-putting to all but Christian audiences.There are a few familiar faces propping up this propaganda flick, not least Baldwin himself in an extensive cameo (and always on autopilot).
I really hate it when a Christian movie masquerades as a thriller, sci-fi or horror.
In all likely hood this is done in order to sucker people into watching their propaganda pieces.
Phrases like "left behind" and "end of days" along with terms like "revelation" and "repent" are dead giveaways.This movie managed to avoid all such clues while hiding behind a sci-fi genre classification rather than "faith and spirituality" or "Christian".
However, this movie's use of subterfuge and the constant preaching, cost it all but one star.If you like Christian movies, I can't tell you if this is the right movie for you.
I felt it was done well and probably one of the better end times movies.
I gave the rating I did, not because it is a Christian movie.
I found a story that gripped me quickly and moved me more than I would like to admit.It's a movie I enjoyed, and could even recommend, regardless of the fact that it's Christian.
I've met maybe five people like that in my whole life; whereas churches are filled with phonies who, given the choice of The Mark Or The Axe, would sell out in a heartbeat.The basic idea of the story: Sometime in the future (calendar years are never mentioned), the Antichrist (aka the Leader) has come to power.
A very decent movie, not just for the Christian ones...
I have to say, that after I learned that this was a Christian movie I was a little surprise, because the writing is very intelligent and the acting is very good.The movie has several lower points, the initial presentation is rather weak and there are a lot of scenes that don't make much sense, but the script is good, the inner struggle from the inmates, at one point the movie was almost ruined and almost renamed "Hackers 3" when one of the characters tries to destroy the cult shutting down the satellite network, hey, if they are already changed, what it will happen, they will simply wake up like if they were hypnotized??
I expected a "not-to-distant-in-the-future-sci-fi-thriller" - because that's what the label said - and with "big" names like Eric Roberts and Stephen Baldwin I thought it couldn't be half bad - even though my gut feeling told me to leave the DVD in the shelves.We've all made mistakes like this in the 80's, right?
I would recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in the end-times.
I hope that anyone who has a chance to see this movie will realize that some of the things in this film are happening as we speak or are going to happen in the near future.
One of these Christians is named "Luke" (Stephen Baldwin) who has an uncanny ability to see into the future.
Anyway, for those who like Christian movies dealing with this particular subject matter, I believe that they are in for a real treat.
On the other hand, there were a couple of things I did not like about this movie.
I watched this movie basically because Stephen Baldwin was in it as presumably the main character on the front and all.
but No,,, in the actual movie he ain't got nothing but a small bi-role Crap...crap...Waste of time.:::.
Hmm, B-movie look, but fairly interesting.Until the first 10 minutes not a single word about Jesus, psalms or propagandistic sense of Christian mission!
I had no idea it was a Christian movie so I watched until the end because when it has something post apocalyptic, I buy it.
Problem with Christian movies. |
tt0119283 | Hercules and Xena - The Animated Movie: The Battle for Mount Olympus | Long after Zeus stole the Cronus Stone from the monsters called the Titans whom he also imprisoned in Tartarus, he and Alcmene gave birth to a son named Hercules, who defeated two serpents (sent by a jealous Hera) at a young age and became a hero. After Hercules battles a sea serpent, the villagers thank him, and Iolaus climbs out of a restchair and joins him. Hercules and Iolaus head to Thebes to see Alcmene but Iolaus is a little upset because Hercules takes the credit. Meanwhile, Xena and Gabrielle reclaim the gold stolen by satyrs from a group of travelers in Corinth. Ares tells Xena to stop Hercules from going to Thebes because there is a trap set for him there, but Xena doesn't believe him and leaves with Gabrielle.
While tending to the crops, Hercules and Iolaus encounter Zeus, who takes Alcmene to Mount Olympus, much to Hercules' anger. After a brief argument, Iolaus and Hercules decide to rescue her from Mount Olympus. Back at Olympus, Hera hears about Alcmene's presence and confronts Zeus before stealing the Cronus Stone, the stone that keeps the Titans in the Underworld lava pits. She releases the Titans out while Zeus checks on Alcmene, who has been shrunk and placed in a small Arabian doll house castle for safety from Hera. Meanwhile, Aphrodite surfs down a mountain to warn Hercules of Hera's wrath if she sees him. Ignoring Aphrodite's warning, Hercules decides to continue on to Mount Olympus and Iolaus stays behind with Aphrodite. However, an earthquake begins (probably due to Hera messing up with the power of the Cronus Stone), and a small boy nearly falls into the lava pits, forcing Hercules to hold the faults while Iolaus goes to rescue the boy. Xena and Gabrielle, in a nearby town, gets into a fight with three thugs during the aftermath of the earthquake. After the boy is rescued, Hercules and Iolaus meet the Earth Titan Porphyrion as he emerges from the faults. Hercules tells Porphyrion that he can go free because he is not defending the gods, but warns Porphyrion that he should keep his fight against the gods away from the mortal world. Giving his word, Porphyrion heads over to Mount Olympus, signaling the other Titans to awaken. The Water Titan Tethys arises from the water as the Fire Titan Mnemosyne emerges from the volcano and the fat Wind Titan Crius materializes from a tornado right in front of Xena and Gabrielle after they defeated the thugs. The Titans then gather to begin their revenge on the gods.
Zeus calls Artemis, Aphrodite, and Ares together to fight the Titans and they hope Hercules will help them, unaware that Hercules has let one of them go out of hate against the gods. Xena and Gabrielle are helping wounded people and Artemis decides to get Xena's help and transforms Gabrielle into a Roc. Xena flies on Gabrielle to the gods' home while Hercules climbs up. When Xena accuses Ares for what happened to Gabrielle, Artemis confessed the truth about her own actions, offering to turn Gabrielle back if Xena helps the gods fight the Titans.
Hercules shows up and rescues Alcmene and leaves everyone to fight the Titans. Hera transforms Ares, Aphrodite, Artemis and Zeus into a goat, a cow, a rabbit and a mouse, respectively. They are angry that Hercules did not help them to fight against the Titans, but he didn't care, considering the fact that he hated them because of the hardtimes they given for humanity. When Xena and Ioalus arrive, the former blames Hercules and his family for Gabrielle's fate and she confronts Artemis and learns that she can not turn Gabrielle or herself back due to the loss of her powers. Hercules finds out that Alcmene was sick and Zeus offered to make up for hardtimes by giving her immortality and taking her to live with him on Mount Olympus. Alcmene also confessed that she couldn't bear to tell Hercules about it because of his hatred of Zeus. Realizing his mistake, Hercules decides that it's for the best, as long as Alcmene is happy. Even Zeus starts to feel guilty for not being a little frank with Hercules, holding himself partially responsible for causing Hercules to hate the gods and deny his help back in Mount Olympus in the first place.
Hera scolds the Titans for wrecking Mount Olympus when they celebrate their victory against the gods. On Earth, Xena and Hercules reconcile and agree to help the gods get their home and the Cronus Stone back. Upon learning of the heroes' return (due to hearing Xena's battle cry), Hera uses the Cronus Stone to give the Titan more powerful forms and tries to force the Titans to do her bidding. However, Porphyrion strips the stone away from Hera (with the help from Crius) and deprive her of her powers by shrinking her into the dollhouse, declaring himself and the Titans as the new rulers. The heroes ride Gabrielle to the mountain and fight the Titans. Hercules gets the Cronus Stone and almost tears it apart which causes the Underworld caverns to open, allowing Xena to flip Crius into the pits and Iolaus to get Tethys and Mnemosyne to collide and dissolve into the fiery pits. However, Porphyrion, having inherited much of the power from the Stone before being separated from it, uses it to restrain Hercules, but is pulled into the air by Gabrielle, who then drops the Titan into the cavern. Gabrielle then drops Hercules off on the gods' mountain in time for him to close the stone, locking the Titans in the Underworld. The gods are then returned to their original forms while Hera remains trapped in the dollhouse as punishment, and Artemis turns Gabriele back to her original form as promised.
Back at Thebes, Alcmene is preparing to leave and return to Mount Olympus, and Zeus assures Hercules that he is welcome to meet them again anytime he wants. As Zeus and Alcmene leave for Mount Olympus, Hercules heads off with Xena, Iolaus, and Gabrielle to Corinth to return a bag of gold and seek another adventure. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0329374 | Mickey's House of Villains | It is Halloween night at the House of Mouse, and a lot of villains are showing up. Jafar has a trick in store for the usual heroes of the House, but the villains have to wait until midnight for him to unleash it. After a series of cartoons, Jafar, along with his new henchmen Captain James Hook, Cruella de Vil, Ursula the Sea Witch and Hades, takes over the house with a musical number "It's Our House Now!" All the other villains soon join Jafar's plan. The heroes, princesses and other Disney characters are trapped in the kitchen while Mickey and several others are thrown out into the street. They witness the House's name being changed to the House of Villains.
Mickey, Donald, Goofy and Minnie try to take their House back, but Chernabog stops them from entering the building. After another two cartoons, Mickey dresses in his sorcerer outfit from Fantasia (and Fantasia 2000) and challenges Jafar to a magical duel using fireballs. Just when Mickey's sorcerer hat is knocked off, Aladdin escapes from the kitchen, flying on the magic carpet and gives Daisy Duck the magical lamp. Daisy hands it to Mickey who uses the lamp to suck Jafar into it. The rest of the villains run away and the House of Mouse is once again restored. | good versus evil, psychedelic, horror | train | wikipedia | One Great Classic Get-to-gether.
WARNING: Telling SecretsThis is a greatly put together piece of work, from Lonesome Ghosts to other Halloween classic tales told and starred by the Disney gang.
My favorite part was the Trick or Treat with Donald and his three nephews, and Hazel the witch, when she zaps Donald a few times.
This is one video a Disney fan can not be without.
It should be in every Disney library..
It's Our House Now!.
What a great song!!
Anyway, this House of Mouse movie was much better than the Christmas one.
The concept and plot of the villians was very interesting.
Many of the segments were hysterical.
Especially "How to be Ghost" (or something like that).
You could tell that "How to be a Ghost" was animated very well.
The classic segments were a great addition!
Also, the music and animation matched perfectly for the "Dance of the Goofys" and the "Hansel-mickey and Gretel-minnie".Great movie and the DVD's game was also very well done.10/10.
Good, Fun Disney Moments.
If there's anything I learned by watching both House of Villains and Snowed in at the House of Mouse, it is that the House of Mouse format just doesn't seem to fit as a full-fledged movie.
I definitely enjoy the House of Mouse series, but both these movies just seem to drag on a little too long.This is not to say that I didn't like any of the HOM movies.
I thought all the cartoons showed on the Christmas special were great, and I thought most of the ones on Villains were great too.
However, Villains has the upper hand when it comes to the in-between segments.
The story for Villains was much better and interesting as the Villains tried to take over the House of Mouse.However, that is really just a small part of this movie.
I still think the greatest draw is the animated shorts.
Villains has more of a Halloween theme as they showcase Disney classics like Donald Duck & the Gorilla and Lonesome Ghosts and even new spooky shorts like the hilarious How to Haunt a House.
This cartoon resurrects the classic Goofy How-to cartoons and gives it a paranormal twist.
A narrator instructs Goofy and the viewers on how to properly act like a ghost.
These are the type of cartoons that Goofy is best at as he bumbles and stumbles along trying to scare Donald, who definitely added even more humor to this cartoon.
Even Mickey has a funny cameo.So overall, Mickey's House of Villains has its entertaining moments, but it's nothing too extraordinary.
My suggestion is to check out the whole thing once, and from then on, watch the cartoons and segments you enjoy the most.
There are some good ones in there!My IMDb Rating: 7/10.
Entertaining, if nothing extraordinary.
As a huge Disney fan, I enjoyed this movie.
It was fun and entertaining, while being nothing groundbreaking.
Just for the record, I love the show House of Mouse, it is one of those shows with a great concept and makes me feel all nostalgic.
Mickey's House of Villains had a really interesting idea and made the most of it.Mickey's House of Villains does have its problems though.
The film is too short at only an hour and a quarter or so, and as much as the shorts were so wonderful to watch too much time was spent until the main focus of the story was even introduced.
And I also felt they could have done much more with the ending which felt rushed.Flaws aside, the animation is great I feel and sticks to the style of the show.
I especially liked Jafar's entrance from The Cave of Wonders, talk about a stylish entrance.
The music is a delight as well, the incidental music is really good, but the song It's Our House Now was not only catchy and entertaining it was the highlight of the film.
The dialogue is good, humorous often, and Mickey, Minnie, Goofy and Donald are great to watch.
Other than It's Our House Now, two assets stood out.
One was seeing those shorts, How to Haunt a House was hilarious, Donald and the Gorilla was delightful for a first time viewer and Lonesome Ghosts is a Halloween classic as is Trick or Treat.
Dance of the Goofys was quite cute and funny, and I enjoyed Mickey and Minnie's take on Hansel and Gretel especially for the use of Danse Macabre.
The second asset was seeing all those villains, Jafar steals the show, but Ursula, Chernabog, Cruella DeVil, Captain Hook and Hades are also delightful to watch.
It was nice to see Maleficent and the Wicked Queen as well, but they should have been given more to say.Overall, while nothing groundbreaking it is a very entertaining film.
7/10 Bethany Cox. classic Disney fun!.
though of coarse not as good as the actual movie but a nice addition to the straight to video bunch I was looking through my home video collection and for some reason I got caught with the Disney bug.
I just had to watch one.
but I could not decide until I saw this, and I was ecstatic to watch.
I really could not remember most of it since I haven't it since 2002 when I was 9, but even at age 14 that old Walt Disney charm still has the same effect on me, the same way it did when I was younger.8/10 see it if you love those Disney villains!!!GO Disney!.
Not that good.
2001's Snowed in at the House of Mouse was better put together.
It made more sense.
To many short cartoons in the House of Villains, to little club scenes.
Jafar says that he's taking over at the start of the film, good opening by the way.
Then the shorts, couple more snipplets of the House but nothing gets the story moving.
Then at the end Jafar and the villains take over, kick the Fav Five and Co out of the club only to be taken back after another cartoon or two.The collections of shorts in a HoM shell have the potential to be good if Disney decides to cut down with the cartoons and put more story in the House itself.
Next year...
Valentines Day, 2004...
Eastern.
There enough potential themes for future movies..
Die Hard Disney Fans Might Be Dissatisfied.
All in all, this wasn't that bad.
It had a good premise, and a good collection of cartoons.
As a die hard Disney fan I had just a couple of complaints.
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERSFirst, the House of Villains segment, kind of the wraparound part is short and ends rather abruptly.
Its as if the animators got tired of drawing and looked for a quick way to end this.
They included a lot of cartoons in between, some new and some classic.
Why didn't they just release A Disney Halloween (AKA Halloween Treat) on DVD.
My second complaint is the types of villains that got the most attention.
Very few classic ones did.
Malificent from Sleeping Beauty had only one line while the Wicked Queen from Snow White had only one.
Not a bad movie, but I expected more.
Word of advice: Rent it first before buying it!.
Cheesy and cute, but sometimes irrelevant!!!.
Mickey's House of Villains is a fun, collaborative Disney film that allows the audience to get ready for the Halloween season.
Whether you are two years old or ninety years old, I think that you will enjoy at least part of this movie.
Disney pulls in all sorts of characters: from Piglet to Ursula, you will likely see at least one familiar Disney character in this film.
The music kept the movie going, which made the movie so much better.
The music in the film and the character involvement is nicely put together, but there are several things that I think could be better in the film.
The movie starts off by showing the viewer that it is Halloween night at the House of Mouse.
Coincidentally, a lot of the villains from many Disney movies made an appearance.
After this introduction, multiple cartoons are shown to the audience.
From Donald Duck tricking his nephews, to Mickey's Night Before Halloween, to Goofy's Ghost adventures, to many other cartoons that put the audience in a spooky mood.
In between some of the cartoons, the movie focused on the audience watching the cartoons.
Whether it was a transition to the next cartoon or insight on the villains' next move, the movie took a break from the ghostly, but cute cartoons.
As the movie went on, the villains eventually took over the show and kicked Mickey and his gang out.
"The House of Mouse" turned into "The House of Villains"...
clever right??
After some speculation, Mickey put his wizard hat on and saved the show.
The first thing that would make the movie better is that it could have been way shorter.
I felt that the movie dragged on.
Yes, each cartoon was clever and spooky in its own way; however, the movie could have been faster paced if they cut out some unnecessary cartoons.
For example, I think that the cartoon that had the "Lonesome Ghosts" in it could have been cut.
The characters in this cartoon were irrelevant and not in another movie.
I was confused on what they were supposed to be; they did not even look like ghosts!
At one point, I thought they were imitations of the Marshmallow Man. All the ghosts that I have seen have never had noses, and these had red/pinkish noses which made me really confused.
Anyways, this was not the only scene I felt was pointless; some of the other scenes could have been cut to make the movie more enjoyable and shorter.
I really enjoyed the movie when the camera showed the audience.
I was able to see many familiar Disney characters.
However, I felt like these moments did not happen as often as they should have.
Since I really enjoyed these heartfelt moments, I wanted to see many more of them.
Whether this be the villains acting in mischief or Mickey trying to crack a joke, I think the movie would be more complete if it consisted of more audience participation.
Lastly, some scenes needed music to spice it up a little bit.
As the viewer sees and hears in the cartoon mirroring Hansel and Gretel, as well as "Dance of the Goofy's", the music makes these cartoons so much more entertaining!
If some of the other cartoons had music to underlay what is shown, the movie would be much more captivating.
Overall, I would give this movie a 6 out of 10.
I think the Christmas version is better, but this is still a film that children would enjoy.
The parents might be bored half way through, but if the children enjoy it, that is what matters.
I would like to see an updated version of this film, maybe involving Pixar characters!!.
A lousy excuse to get more viewers.
Wow, where do I begin with this mess of a "movie" First off let me start out by saying i never really watched House of Mouse that often, maybe once a month if that, however I do understand the premise.
Mickey runs a club where they play old and new Disney cartoons staring Mickey Donald and Goofy.
I never really liked it because they use really cheep versions of their usually beautifully rendered and animated characters.
This "movie" however was just a lousy hyped up excuse to get people to tune in.
It starts off Jafar actually saying that everyone has to wait till "midnight" for his trick to take place, so that's a good 40 minuets into the movie.
We sit through some classic Mickey Mouse cartoons and a new one I never saw before.
Note that this is the only reason I gave the movie 3 stars instead of none at all.
When Jafar finally decides to kick mickey out, we are treated to an almost catchy song, it's not a bad song, its just not a good one ether.
The villains take over and whats the first thing they do?
Start playing some new cartoons again.
Mickey tries in between cartoons to get his club back and finally succeeds in what may be the dumbest ending I had ever witnessed.
Stock footage of Aladdin gives Mickey the Genie's golden lamp, Mickey rubs the lamp while all the villains except for Jafar run away and he gets sucked into the lamp.
I challenge you to find a more rushed ending..
Recycling saves the planet; not my memories of classic characters.
Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion?
Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off.
House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all.
Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films.
Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk.
I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young.
All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality..
The villains all too briefly take over.
I liked 'The House of Mouse' cartoons when I was a kid, so this longer (not that long though) film was of interest to me.As other reviewers have said, the plot involving the villains only makes up half of the rather thin running time, with the rest being filled by old Disney shorts to make up the rest.
Don't get me wrong, these are entertaining, but it's not what this film was billed as being.I liked the fact that though they didn't exactly have much to do, Disney did at least make an effort to get the original voice actors back to play the villains.
You would automatically know if James Woods wasn't doing the voice of Hades, and these little bits of attention to detail elevate an otherwise average film. |
tt0034420 | 'Neath Brooklyn Bridge | This time around, the East Side Kids, a gang of well-meaning young rough-necks in New York, get pulled into a murder mystery. They manage to rescue a young girl by the name of Sylvia from her violent stepfather Morley's abuse. Soon after this the stepfather is killed by a gangster called McGaffey for interfering with his racketeering operation by stealing his money.
Sylvia has taken refuge in the gang's hideout. One of the Kids, Danny, returns to her stepfather's apartment to get some clothes for her. He is arrested by the police, suspected of the murder.
When McGaffey hears about the arrest he makes the gang a proposition. In exchange for the actual chair leg used by Mugs, president of the Kids, to hit Morley when the gang saved Sylvia, with Mugs' fingerprints, he wants them to break into a warehouse for him.
Danny fails to explain to his policeman brother how the killing of Morley went down. A former member of the Kids, Rusty, who is a sailor, comes to visit the boys in their hour of need. It turns out Sylvia's paralyzed grandfather has been in the apartment and seen the murder when it happened. He can still communicate with the world through blinking. Rusty discovers that the grandfather blinks morse code, and interprets it, revealing McGaffey's the killer.
Mugs comes forward, telling the rest of th gang about McGaffey's proposition. They decide to go to the warehouse, ad Rusty takes Sylvia to the police station to tell them who the killer is and get Danny out of jail. The Kids break into the warehouse by driving a truck through the doors, and a brawl ensues. The police arrive at the scene and McGaffey and the rest of the gangster are arrested. | murder | train | wikipedia | Typical East Side Kids adventure.
This time Muggs, Glimpy and the gang take on a real hard case: gangster Marc Lawrence, a cold-blooded baddie who entraps sweet young thing Ann Gillis (whose most recent film credit remains 2001: A Space Odyssey) in a murder case.
Lawrence elevates this Poverty Row billfiller above its station; as always, he brings absolute conviction to his role.
There's also a fun subplot involving a wheelchair-bound paraplegic played by Ed Wood regular Bud Osborne.
The fact that these films were all shot on a shoestring oddly benefits the East Side Kids movies: the threadbare sets, minimal costuming, and muffed lines add a patina of Bowery believability to these endearing little films..
East Side Trouble.
They help move furniture and admire the architecture of The Brooklyn Bridge.
But more importantly, "The Eastside Kids" Leo Gorcey (as Muggs McGinnis), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Lyons), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), Stanley Clements (as Stash) and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) save beautifully-shaped Anne Gillis (as Sylvia) from her wicked step-father.
Unfortunately, this leads to Mr. Jordan being arrested for murder
which leads to Mr. Gorcey being blackmailed into heavy-duty crime...This average Bowery entry is made engaging by the regular, semi-regular, and guest characterizations.
Former "Dead End" kid turned "cheap crook" Gabriel Dell (as Skid) works for accomplished hood Marc Lawrence (as McGuffey).
Returning "charter member" of the kid gang Noah Berry Jr.
(as Butch) makes his first appearance and gets to romance Ms. Gillis, who hides out with the guys disguised as a boy.
Making his last appearance on the Bowery is officer Dave O'Brien, always genuine as Jordan's big brother.***** 'Neath Brooklyn Bridge (11/20/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Marc Lawrence, Dave O'Brien.
Muggs has to clear himself of murder in one of he better films in the long running East Side Kid series.
This is one of the best in the long running East Side Kids series.Here Muggs is tricked into thinking that he killed someone and the only way out of it is to help a criminal with his crooked plans.What can I say this is a fun romp that sports the regular band of "kids" as well as a young Noah Beery Jr as one of their friends.
Of course we know that Muggs didn't do it, and he knows he didn't do it, so the fun is watching to see how he manages to work out who actually did the deed and makes sure they get blamed.
The way Muggs finds out is unique and only adds to the enjoyment.Worth a look for anyone fan or no, who wants a good movie for a moldy oldie movie night..
Jordan In A Jackpot.
Neath Brooklyn Bridge finds the East Side Kids helping a young girl played by Ann Gillis who is being beaten on by her stepfather Bud Osborne.
Leo Gorcey uses the leg of a table to knock him out.
Later on Osborne turns up dead and Bobby Jordan who came back for a change of clothes gets himself in a jackpot being found with the dead Osborne.It's up to the kids on the East Side to help their pal out.
The only witness to the crime is J.
Arthur Young who is Gillis's grandfather and he's paralyzed and unable to speak and is in a wheelchair.It's the Navy in the form of former gang member Noah Beery, Jr. who comes to the rescue of all concerned.
The fact that Young is also a former sailor helps a great deal in cracking the case and bringing justice to all concerned.Also in the cast is perennial movie heavy Marc Lawrence and henchman Gabriel Dell.
Lawrence is a pretty crafty villain and his downfall comes from leaving a loose end at the scene of the homicide, namely a witness he thinks can't say anything.This East Side Kids film runs at a nice pace without a let up in any of the action.
One of their better films for Monogram..
Standard East Side Boys Fare!.
For a film that has survived 60 years, I wonder why I haven't enjoyed the East Side Boys before.
Anyway, I got a DVD with four of their adventures.
In this episode, the boys are moving furniture near the tenements by Manhattan's area near the Brooklyn Bridge.
They get into a bit of trouble when they spot a beautiful but distracted young woman named Sylvia.
Her stepfather wants her and him to leave their tenement apartment but she won't leave her paralyzed grandfather behind.
Her stepfather is in some shady dealings.
The East Side Boys sure can be tempted into joining the crime scene but choose to make an honest living in tough times.
The film was on the end of the Great Depression and Second World War. Despite the predictability, the cast especially Leo Gorcy do a terrific job in making it entertaining..
Pretty typical of the Bowery Boys films..
Although in many of the Bowery Boys films the gang seemed like a bunch of hoodlums, they were never really THAT larcenous in their films.
They just acted tough and the police were forever dogging them.
But, as usual, they are the good guys in "'Neath Brooklyn Bridge"....and once again the police suspect one of them.
This is because someone was horribly beaten to death and Danny (Bobby Jordan) was arrested because his weapons were on the murder weapon, a bat.
Little does anyone know that a mute man who can only speak with his eyes was a witness.
As for the gang, they spend a lot of the film taking care of a young lady who is in trouble and eventually they are instrumental in finding the real culprits.
On hand as one of the supposed ex-members of the gang (he was a bit old for this...Noah Beery, Jr.).Overall, this film is pretty typical of a Bowery Boys film--- modestly entertaining and nothing more.
Worth seeing if you are a fan but not among their best..
"Anyone can build a bridge over water, I'd like to see some guy build one under.".
Danny (Bobby Jordan) accidentally gets a murder rap pinned on him in this East Side Kids outing, and the rest of the gang are out to find the real killer.
It's a fairly standard adventure for the boys with a few surprises thrown in.
Noah Beery Jr. makes an appearance as a former 'charter member' of the gang, which is a little unusual since this is the only film of the series he appeared in.
It's convenient though as he turns up to become the romantic interest for Sylvia (Ann Gillis), the stepdaughter of the murder victim.Marc Lawrence appears as the villain of the piece, a hood named McGaffey who tries to enlist Muggs (Leo Gorcey) in a warehouse heist in exchange for the murder weapon and a chance to clear Danny.
If you really think about it, there wasn't much to his plan at any step of the way; he could have been easily outed, and was, by the time the film ended.
Such was Lawrence's fate in most films, with over two hundred movie credits, he almost always appeared as a heavy, be it Westerns, mysteries, sci-fi, or the occasional Charlie Chan flick.As in many of the East Side films, Danny's big brother is portrayed by Dave O'Brien.
Here they have an extended one on one scene that goes a bit heavy on the melodrama as Phil tries to get Danny to tell what he knows.
Loyalty is a gang member's best trait, so he's not saying anything, but then again, he was basically in the wrong place at the wrong time.I always enjoy Sunshine Sammy Morrison as Scruno.
He doesn't have a lot to do in this one, but the good thing is he doesn't wind up on the end of any stereotyped racial references.
Glimpy (Huntz Hall) fires off a few nifty one liners like the one in my summary.
He even has one brief shining moment when Muggs promotes him to Vice President of Miscellaneous Stuff.
It lasts less than a screen minute, but hey, it was a moment in the sun.I see this flick rated relatively high for an East Side Kids film, but don't see it as a cut above most.
I always felt they did their best work when supporting a name actor, be it Cagney, Bogart or Garfield in vehicles from larger studios.
Still if you're a fan, it won't hurt to take this one in.
They even manage to focus in on the Brooklyn Bridge a couple of times, just to make sure there's some connection to the title..
'Neath Brooklyn Bridge was another enjoyable East Side Kids movie.
In this East Side Kids flick, the gang encounter a stepfather abusing his stepdaughter as she runs from him.
They chase him back and fight him, knocking him out.
He ends up dead but it was at the hands of a gangster who arrived later after the kids and the girl left.
There's more than that but I'll just now say that I liked the story presented here which had a nice mix of drama and some comedy which is usually provided by Huntz Hall and aided by Leo Gorcey whenever he and Hall bantered.
Huntz also had a nice dance sequence with Ernie "Sunshine Sammy" Morrison in a demonstration of their expert footwork.
Also on hand is Noah Beery Jr. as a former member now a sailor.
Ann Gillis plays the girl Sylvia.
Anyway, 'Neath Brooklyn Bridge was another enjoyable entry in the series..
Really good.
Another Kids movie.
Most of them are pretty good, especially considering the simplistic plots and basic acting that is involved.
In this one Mugs and the gang are more good than bad.
They come to the rescue of a girl whose step father is beating on her.
She only sticks around to take of her paralyzed grandfather.
Her step dad gets knocked out by Mugs using a chair leg.
The gang leaves to chase the girl when she runs.
Now the step father has robbed a local crime boss and the boss climbs through a window, gets his loot back and smashes a gun butt over the guys head.
This kills the robber and the boss takes the club Mugs used to hold over his head as evidence.
By now the gang has caught up with the girl and take her to their "clubhouse" to hide.
Learning that grandpa can communicate with the girl the gang goes and gets him, bringing back to the lair.
A former member, now in the Navy, has returned and recognizes that the grandpa is using Morse code.
Meanwhile the crime boss has used the non-murder weapon to force Mugs to case a silk warehouse and help rob it.
The Navy man takes the girl to the cops with the story grandpa Morsed out.
Meanwhile Mugs has the gang stashed in the warehouse and when he lets the crooks in they fight it out and the cops show up.
So the baddies get busted, the gang gets a pat on the back and the murder is placed on the right man. |
tt0433390 | Hitman: Blood Money | The game begins with a flashback to an abandoned Baltimore amusement park, where many people were killed in an accident caused by negligent maintenance of a Ferris wheel. The father of one of the victims contacts the Agency and orders a hit on the park owner, Joseph Clarence. Agent 47 carries out the hit, and following that assignment, he receives a string of contracts from American clients eager to retain his services.
The bulk of the game takes place as flashback sequences that occur concordant to the present day, in which a journalist and the former FBI Director, "Jack" Alexander Leland Cayne, discuss 47's hits over the past year and a half (2004–2005) and his involvement in them. The reporter, Rick Henderson, arranged to interview Cayne concerning a recent attack on the White House, but it quickly becomes clear that Cayne's real intent is to discuss 47. Cayne lies about many details, such as stating that 47 stole cloning data from Ort-Meyer to sell to the highest bidder, or that 47 was working with a group of assassins known as the Franchise to kill the Secretary of the Interior (though it was really the exact opposite). As the story progresses, it is implied that the Agency's employees are being gradually assassinated by the Franchise. The situation degrades to the point where 47's handler, Diana Burnwood, informs him that they are the only ones left. Eventually, Diana shuts down the Agency and divides the remaining funds between them. After completing his final assignment, 47 is approached by an old acquaintance, CIA agent Carlton Smith, who 47 had rescued earlier in the game. He offers 47 a high-profile mission, paid for using several million dollars worth of diamonds, to prevent an assassination attempt on the president of the United States, Tom Stewart. The assassins are Franchise operative Mark Parchezzi III and Vice-President Daniel Morris, both of whom are working for Alpha Zerox, a shadowy political organization that seeks to monopolize the cloning technology used to create 47. As the President intends to legalize cloning, ruining their plans, the company hopes to replace him with the much more controllable Morris.
47 successfully eliminates Morris and Parchezzi in the White House, exposing the Franchise to the public. Hunted by the police, 47 flees to his hideout. Without warning, he is visited by Diana, immediately arousing his suspicion. Diana proposes a plan to 47 to help them both escape. As 47 mulls over the briefing she hands him, expressing his misgivings as to the likelihood of its success, Diana injects him with what seems to be a fatal poison. 47's body is surrounded by SWAT officers, and Diana, announcing that killing 47 was "surprisingly pleasant", is formally inducted into the Franchise by Cayne, its founder.
The story then shifts to the present day; 47 is scheduled for cremation so his bone marrow cannot be harnessed by cloning rivals, forever destroying anyone else's chance of producing a non-defective clone. Diana drapes 47's custom pistols over his chest during his hasty funeral, kisses him after applying fresh lipstick, and leaves the funeral grounds. It becomes apparent that the "poison" she injected was actually a fake-death serum 47 had used in an earlier mission, with her lipstick containing the antidote. The funeral begins and the story then concludes in one of two different ways. In the first, it is presumed the antidote fails to work, and 47 is sent to the crematorium. In the second, canonical ending, the antidote is successful and 47 awakens (by tapping the movement keys/using the left analog stick), slaughtering everyone in the church. With both Cayne and Henderson dead, 47's identity is kept secret.
Sometime after the funeral bloodbath, Diana uses the Franchise's assets to reopen the Agency in a building overlooking the Copenhagen harbor. She receives a call from a client she refers to as "Your Majesty". The voice cannot be heard, but Diana replies that the Agency has lost track of 47. Meanwhile, 47 is seen at an unknown establishment engaging in conversation with a traditionally-dressed Asian man. They discuss a service that can be found 'in the back'. The story ends with the curtain literally closing on the two. | violence | train | wikipedia | Some things might take some getting used to for some fan boys but in the long run they make the game more fun.
Fans of the old series and new players will find the game-play very immersing and at some points challenging.
With there being about five ways to perfectly complete one level the player gets a sense of freedom and control of Agent 47.
Hit-man: Blood Money (played on the PS2) creeped me out right from the start.
Not in a manner quite like Contracts, the 2004 installment of the awesome series, but in a different way.
This is just one of the many ways that Blood Money twists with your mind and makes you question your morality and sanity.
This is, no doubt, one of the best games of the year so far, and aside from a few glaring flaws, is the best installment yet in the Hit-man franchise.The major flaw in Blood Money is the way it begins.
The beginning is dark, melodramatic, and moody, taking place at an abandoned amusement park, but the structure isn't as smooth as levels in the other Hit-man titles, and the game leads you by the nose for the entire level, effectively removing the open-ended nature of the series.
But when you are past this training level, it's Blood Money to the Big Leagues time, with 47 taking no prisoners in a dark, violent tale of conspiracy and intrigue.
It's a very compelling story, combining the international appeal of Silent Assassin with the brutish, disturbing nature of Contracts.One of the best additions to the game is the Accident system.
This will change the way you play Hit-man.
These 'accidents' (ranging from pushing people from balconies to fake suicide, to forcing chandeliers to fall large heights before hitting anything remotely resembling a target) play perfectly into the Notoriety system, which tracks your mission stats and compiles them into a faux newspaper clipping.
These stats, including your hit ratio, number of times seen, and the amount of people killed, factor into how well the enemy will recognise you in the next mission.
It's a great concept, but don't worry about this one in the lower two difficulty levels; Notoriety is barely recognizable on the Normal setting, and doesn't even exist on Rookie.Hit-man: Blood Money is a very good game in danger of being overlooked by the average gamer this year.
Hit-man: Blood Money, however, should not be overlooked; it is a near-perfect example of how to do a game right.
Hit-man sets the bar for maturity, and all other games strive to that mark.
Jesper Kyd's orchestral-eletronica soundtrack is also phenomenal (as always), being the best thing to hit my ears this year.If you play any games at all, and care for intelligence in your entertainment, by all means, play Hit-man: Blood Money.Now..
You get such a satisfied feeling when you flawlessly complete your mission and see that "Silent Assassin" rating on the screen.
The reason this is different from other Hit men games is that it has many new things.
All in game saves are wiped when you leave or even restart the level by accident.(although, I usually beat each level and then saved, making it less of a problem to me.) Even though there are many guns in the game, a "silent assassin" will never need them for more than using them to grab a human shield to knock people out.
(One person busts you, and everyone knows.) Games like Metal Gear Solid solved problems like this years before by simply giving guards radios.
Good: Very satisfying when done right, lots of problems from first games fixed.
The first one maybe a bit better in some ways than the second one, but that's irrelevant and everyone can decide by themselves.Anyway, I think that "Hitman: Blood Money" is a nice upgrade to the series.
One of the newer things is killing the targets by making a fake accident.
That's great, but basically it could make you feel a bit that "it's the only real" or "right way" to go with the mission.
That might limit the freedom a little, but of course you can still kill your targets in the old fashioned way.
That's still absolutely only your choice, and the accident is only one more way to eliminate your personal VIP.One interesting thing is also the newspaper that appears to the screen right after the mission.
That's one thing I noticed to be a bit annoying, since even if you don't kill anyone and make the murder look like an accident, they still magically know that it was a murder.However, in the end, "Hitman: Blood Money" is a great game.
I'd recommend this to everyone who wants to be a virtual hit-man for a while, as well as to everyone who likes previous "Hitman" games..
Hit-man: Blood Money.
I've had it for years and usually play it on my laptop when I just want to relax.CONTROLS 10/10 The controls in the game are very easy to understand and using them for me is not a problem.
Controls are customisable.FUN FACTOR 9/10 Most of the levels in this game have no time limit, and this means you can take your time to do what you need to do.
The missions have a very good story line, and not once in the game do you feel like you are playing a slight repeat of a different mission.
I have played every mission countless times and each time I will try something different each time.GRAPHICS 7/10 This game was released in 2006.
Another thing that caught my attention was that nearly every man in the game looked extremely strong.
Every time you re-play a mission, you are very likely to do something different.SOUND 8/10 The game has an exclusive soundtrack by Geoff Zanelli.
The music is orchestral and suits the game perfectly.Although, I have heard snippets of certain scores in Hit-man: Contracts.
How about the possibility of making your hit look like an accident?
Hit-man: Contracts came in at the tail end of the standard definition era of video gaming.
The killing and gameplay is still very similar and the game doesn't offer anything new in that regard.
I think it is time that Hit-man starts introducing gorier deaths that obliterate victims or feature noticeable damage instead of the ragdoll effects after a sudden burst of red.I liked this game, but for Agent 47's first jaunt into HD I would have preferred new methods of killing that would benefit from the better resolution.
I love this game so much and the music is amazing and the missions are so fun and you can do whatever you want..
There isn't enough missions and that will result in you actually finding all the ways to kill your target, I was sadden to play the last mission because it showed that that was all you can see until the next game comes out.
Now we gamers have to play the same missions and kill the same boring people over and over again until we bang our heads on the Monitor/TV until it breaks.
Hit-man Blood Money is great.
This game is possibly the best of the series, of course Hit-man 2 is still better in my opinion and Hit-man Contracts being the worst.
You of course have to kill every witness, and the game ends.
I really wanted to play Hit-man Blood Money and when I had completed it I loved it!
Most certainly the best game I've played in my entire life.
The chandelier's chain will blow up and it will fall down and crush the target making it look like an accident.
It is so violent it makes Grand Theft Auto look like a game for a 3 year-old.
I recently played Hit-man Absolution and despite the either loved it or hated it reactions, I actually thought it was pretty good with open-ended game-play and a good story to boot and get me interested for the time.
Well, I know I'm going to get a lot of hate but I actually prefer 5.Before people start jumping all over me let me explain all the elements of game-play that is better than Hit-man Absolution (because there is a lot): The disguise system isn't like in 5 where every single guard seemingly has a photographic memory of every single person.
The open-ended game-play is even more open-ended here but unlike in 5 where everything is presented clearly, you have to do constant replays of the same mission to get everything right (Although when you do get everything right, the payoff is brilliant!) and the upgrading and weapons of choice is something I can EASILY see why Hit-man fans were angry at when Hit-man 5 didn't include it.The problem for me is the storyline.
Told in Flashback by another Agency of equal "Cloak and Dagger" techniques as the one 47's working for tells the reporter everything about his final assassinations leading to his, and the agency's demise.I have a big problem with how it's told, There's a subplot about how The Franchise is taking out agents until it's completely gone and I wouldn't mind it if they focused a couple of levels on doing your best to take them out too.
It's like "Here's your target 47, by the way, we're all that's left" in later levels.
The Franchise also has no weight as bad guys because aside from the final boss (which I took out in 5 seconds with an SMG) all their actions take place off screen and when the post credits stuff comes round, that's the only time they're a threat to you and that's basically by means of there's 3 dozen of them and one of you with only one weapon.But aside from that it actually is a fun game.
The open-ended nature is fantastic for exploration, the newspapers may seem like a nice touch but the problem is that after a while you'll notice that every single one of them basically says the most obvious things except for how many shots you fired and how many hit, which you can learn through the screen beforehand.
But with that nitpicking aside I challenge you to tell me the name of a video game where you assassinate people by means of placing a bomb in a box of doughnuts.So I really think the story did drag this down, but unlike Absolution the game-play really works here to being probably the best I've seen in a stealth game once you get used to it (because while I do think Absolution had a worse combat system, it is much more user-friendly).
The creative level design, AI, manipulating the environment, tools and balanced all these things together to form a great game that you can easily immerse yourself inYou are thrust upon a small sandbox to experiment with.
your mission; use your tools, knowledge and things you discover to assassinate a target.
accompanied by its own cutsceneI was standing outside a villa thinking there's a drain pipe..leading to a window but surely it's just graphic decoration and 2006 games are restrictive maybe I shouldn't even try...and omg it let me climb it!In the opera level someone is performing Tosca(i think).there's a scene where a fake gun is fired at the target.
The anticipation before taking the risk of executing the final part of the plan (that might not be in the mechanics of the game-but surprisingly is) and the thrill when it goes to plan is what makes this game unique even to other hit-man gamesAnd you don't have a silly radar- you have to physically look at who's around you.
Things go a bit dodgy when other goons start muscling in on you due to the events surrounding your hit-man's incarnation.
Sure it's violent, but it's called a hit-man, as said, some goon killing people, it's bound to be, that's why it's got an 18 certificate.
If you want carefree murderous fun, and to control an avatar with a barcode on the back of his head, then Hit-man's Agent 47 will not disappoint.
You'll see when you attack gun-wielding pigs with nothing but a shovel).Furthermore the notoriety feature is also something to care about, if you leave mayhem and a gaggle of witnesses you're going to be suspected on the next assignment, unless you bribe people, which you may not have the money for.
If you want a way around this, I suggest killing everyone if you think you've screwed the mission up, no one alive, no witnesses.
And it seemed that if I did too much of this I would find the game crash as I tried to hit someone, after which many people had been killed.
The numerous ways of completing a silent hit, and the four different difficulty levels mean you can attempt it in various modes, and in various ways.
Making the 'serious' game play rewarding, mature and something that won't become boring very quickly.
Hit-man Blood Money immerses you once again into the world of Agent 47, a sneaky assassin without morals.
You need to do anything to kill your targets and get out of the area, most of the time without being seen.
A new system introduced to the game is the notoriety system, if someone sees you murder another person, they become a witness.
The game also offers the player with different ways to kill their prey.
You are able to go ballistic on the entire mission area or just keep yourself stealthy, just as long as you kill your target.
if you take a difficulty level with the notoriety system activated, a composite sketch of 47 will be in a newspaper article at the end of each level also including a small article about the targets killed, and your mission stats.
47 and the ICA would bugger him and superiors over and over every time." But enough comparisons there, ironically in Blood Money, the ICA, the agency that employs 47 is getting taken down left and right by a mysterious organization called the Franchise, and this time around 47 will have to face other assassins.It's worth pointing out that a tie-in occurs here that connects the third mission,"Curtains Down" with the events seen in between missions and the last mission of Hit-man:Contracts,"Hunter and Hunted".
A new engine with better graphics, upgradable weapons, a notoriety system that assesses how easily you may be spotted in later missions,the ability to conceal bodies in containers or throw them over the rail into the river etc.
A splendid addition is the ability to grab people as human shields before knocking them out, thereby saving you on anesthetics.The game also plays on the mind, because as the you complete more missions, the game's menu screen changes.
Ultimately as you approach the last missions, we see that it is 47's funeral that is shown in the background.Plotwise, Blood Money has all the aspects of the earlier games.
The targets in the missions all have their own background info, so you aren't just killing some random person without knowing why someone wanted him/her dead.
The game follows a somewhat similar path to Contracts, with the missions told as flashbacks during an interview between a reporter and a scared and wheelchair bound man.
Ultimately it becomes repetitive and you can see a pattern in the manner of the reporting that can be boring later on.Another aspect that disappointed me about the Blood Money is that it mostly takes place in the US.
In Blood Money, there's only two missions that don't take place in the US.
While playing Blood Money, I felt like I was watching lots of Hollywood movies due to the varying American accents.
And it goes further here with the ability to make hits look like accidents.
Too bad even if the target gets killed in an accident, the post-mission newspaper reports still report it as a hit.All in all, a good game with some minor flaws.
This is a great game, to say the least.Shortly summarized, you play a cloned human working as a hit-man.
"Blood money" is the latest part of the Hit-man series, taking place mostly in the US, with a few missions abroad.The sneaking around part may be "easier" than, say Splinter Cell, but it offers a lot more in its own way.
Each mission offers a lot of different ways to complete them, at 4 different difficulty levels, meaning that you don't get bored with this one after a few days.
Always a lot of new things to discover.A rival Hit-man bureau is trying to take agent 47 (you) down throughout the game, and you follow the storyline from their point of view as well as they sum up your recent hits, trying to catch and kill you.
It doesn't end the way you think it does the first time you play through it; notice the mission "flatline", and you get the picture.
If you don't get it, check out a walk-through on the internet, they're readily available.The game: keeping a low profile, staying silent and unknown are the secrets to making the most money and having the most fun here.
The key is to minimize fuzz and public attention.You can kill your targets in a wide variety of ways, and the more it looks like an accident, the less witnesses, no evidence no nothing, the better your ranking, the better your pay.
Having the ability to upgrade your weapons allows you to carry out missions quicker, cleaner and more effective.This game got a rating of 18 years and above in Norway, something like and R in the US.
Make no mistake, if you play it that way, this game can be extremely violent, very graphic, and definitely NOT intended for kids.
Lots of well created details, monologues, great choices of personnel by Eidos for the voice over.So if you fantasize about being a hit-man, aren't bugged by blood and gore, and are above 18 years of age, I highly recommend it ! |
tt0067333 | Lawman | The film starts with a scene common to many Westerns, cowboys in a drunken state shooting up a town and wreaking havoc. The rowdies are from the town of Sabbath and are visiting the town of Bannock for a little recreation that gets out of hand.
The town's marshal, Jared Maddox, rides into Sabbath and is not alone. He brings along the body of Marc Corman, one of the unruly cowhands from the recent drunken spree in Bannock, carrying it on the back of a horse. Corman and five others were involved in the accidental killing of an old man and Maddox has warrants for them. The remaining five are Vernon Adams, Choctaw Lee, Jack Dekker, Harvey Stenbaugh and Hurd Price, all hired hands at wealthy Vincent Bronson's ranch.
Maddox follows protocol and calls on Sabbath's sheriff, Cotton Ryan. He demands that the five surrender to him within 24 hours. Ryan is a lawman whose career had seen better days. He urges Maddox to avoid a confrontation with Bronson. Maddox won't back down, although he believes the suspects are likely to get light sentences due to the accidental nature of their crime and the fact that the justice system of Bannock can easily be influenced by bribes. Ryan goes to Bronson's ranch to inform him of Maddox's demands.
Bronson, unaware of the killing in Bannock up to this point, tries to negotiate by offering compensation to the victim's family and even to Maddox. Ryan explains that Maddox will not agree to anything other than an unconditional surrender of all five men. One of the suspects, Stenbaugh, who is Bronson's foreman, tries to persuade Bronson to have Maddox killed. Despite his violent past, Bronson is tired of death and violence and refuses Stenbaugh's suggestion, insisting on further negotiations.
Laura Shelby, a romantic interest from Maddox's past, tries to negotiate on behalf of Price, one of the suspects, who is now her common-law husband. Maddox is unmoved by Laura's pleas for mercy. Bronson gives up hope of reasoning with Maddox and asks his men if they wish to surrender. Adams refuses, claiming that he would go bankrupt if in jail. Retired gunfighter Choctaw volunteers to join forces with Stenbaugh in killing Maddox.
Bronson offers to compensate his men for any financial losses while at the same time trying to persuade Maddox that some compromise must exist short of total surrender. Stenbaugh and young Crowe Wheelwright come to town. Despite being told by Bronson to avoid confrontation, Stenbaugh draws out Maddox for a showdown and is killed. Crowe (who is not wanted by the law) backs down from Maddox after a brief discussion.
Back at the ranch, Bronson grieves upon hearing of his close friend Stenbaugh's death. He is comforted by son Jason. Maddox's breakfast is interrupted by local businessman Harris, leading a delegation of armed citizens concerned that the lawman is creating a lot of problems for them. Not a man to be intimidated, Maddox stands up to the townspeople and they flee the hotel.
Maddox goes to find sheriff Ryan but is confronted again by Crowe. A shot is fired by a hidden gunman, Dekker. A disgusted Ryan does place Dekker under arrest, calling him a "back-shooter," but advises Maddox to leave town as the violence seems to be spiraling out of control. Maddox reiterates his position that a lawman never compromises.
Price tries to leave town. Crowe meets with Maddox to swear that he did not set him up for Dekker's ambush. Maddox reveals his disillusionment with his job and admits that lawmen are little more than professional killers. Price, while fleeing, joins Adams on the ride to Bronson's ranch. On the way they spot Maddox. In the ensuing gunfight, Adams' horse is shot while Price escapes. The marshal captures Adams and takes him to Laura's home, where they tend to his gunshot wound.
During a romantic interlude, Maddox rekindles old feelings for Laura. He asks her to leave with him once his mission is done. She agrees under the condition that he resign as marshal.
Maddox turns over Adams to sheriff Ryan and announces his intent to leave town and start a new life. Bronson and his remaining men come looking for Maddox without realizing he is a changed man. They don't act immediately. When businessman Harris, who was waiting on the sidelines, opens fire at Maddox, the others follow suit. Choctaw draws on Maddox but is killed. Maddox insists that he seeks no further trouble. Bronson's son, Jason, is not satisfied and seeks revenge. He too, is killed by the marshal. Price panics. As he runs toward Laura, Maddox shoots him in the back, despite his code of never drawing first on a man. Seeing his son dead, a grief-stricken Bronson kills himself in the street. Maddox can do nothing more but ride by himself out of town. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | An eerily quiet early showdown scene with Burt Lancaster, Albert Salmi, and Richard Jordan (with Robert Ryan in the background) is probably the most creative and effective such scene I've ever witnessed, Leone notwithstanding.Then there's the acting.
Director Michael Winner is a controversial figure, at least in his native Britain, partly because of his political opinions, but chiefly on account of the `Death Wish' movies, which were widely seen as advocating wild-west style vigilante justice in a modern urban setting.
I was therefore interested to learn that, before making these films, Winner was also responsible for `Lawman', a traditional Western that takes a more subtle, nuanced view of law and order.Burt Lancaster plays Jered Maddox, the Sheriff of the small Western town of Bannock.
Lee J Cobb gives a poignant performance as Bronson; cattle bosses are usually shown as villainous figures in Westerns (Bruce Cabot's character in `Dodge City' being a classic example), but Bronson is a decent man, regarded as a generous benefactor by the people of Sabbath.
Robert Ryan is also good as Sheriff Ryan, a once-brave lawman whose character has been corrupted by years of compromise, as are Sheree North as Maddox's love interest and Richard Jordan as a young gunfighter out to make a name for himself.
This underrated 1971 western is not your standard issue good guys/bad guys John Wayne-type film; that style went out thanks to men like Peckinpah and Leone.
LAWMAN stars Burt Lancatser as a hard-bitten lawman who rides from Bannock to Sabbath to bring in a group of ranchers who, in a drunken spree, had shot up his town and killed an old man.
He states his goal to Sabbath's local marshal (Robert Ryan) as plain as day: "I'm gonna take these men back with me, or kill 'em where they stand."The problem is, however, that the "good people" of Sabbath are beholden to these same group of ranchers and their leader (Lee J.
The result is a somewhat violent but always compelling psychological western along the lines of HIGH NOON, well directed by future DEATH WISH director Michael Winner, perhaps his best film as a director.Lancaster is, as always, extremely good in his role as the stoic and unbending lawman, but so too is the often-underrated Ryan as Sabbath's aging and pragmatic marshal who, when he sees Lancaster being openly threatened, stops being a "kick dog" and starts being the kind of marshal the West still needs.
The cast is rounded out by such top-notch performers as Robert Duvall, Richard Jordan, Albert Salmi, J.D. Cannon, Lou Frizzell, and Joseph Wiseman.Except for an over-reliance on zooms, the cinematography by British cameraman Robert Paynter really captures the bleak scenery of the arid Southewest; the film was shot on location in and around Durango, Mexico during the summer of 1970.
Here is another great American Western that slipped under my radar.Where to start, Dircted by Michael Winner, starring Burt Lancaster in whats got to be the best Western I've seen him in so far, with Robert Ryan, Lee J.
All the whores are real looking women not caricatured or dressed overly flashy.The landscape & town sets were all shot in Durango, Mexico and some of the buttes featured were just beautiful, don't remember seeing these locations before but the rock in the outcrops look similar to those seen in the Magnificent Seven.The story basically revolves around Bannock Marshall Jared Maddox (Lancaster) a "mankiller" he has the nickname "The Widowmaker".
The drovers work for big time cattleman Vincent Bronson (Cobb) near the town of Sabbath, New Mexico.Maddox has a reputation for being quick on the draw, and always getting his man, we first see him riding into Sabbath with a corpse.
Bronson's men decide to tough it out and face Maddox.This film even has a love interest thats handled the just the way it should be in that it doesn't detract from or slow down the narrative one iota.The score is nothing that sticks in head and pretty forgettable, its not an Spaghetti Western , no picaresque characters or humor, but it does have some SW influenced action as do a lot of the post Leone & Peckinpah films of the 70's.The ending is worth the price of the DVD which I just ordered.
Michael Winner's "The Lawman" reveals that a sheriff - traditional officer responsible for law and order, symbol of virtue and right - is 'not' always morally excellent and virtuous or that his prey thoroughly bad...Burt Lancaster is cast as a merciless avenger, unmoved by love or pity, determined to one end: Exterminate the opposition...The criminals here are, in fact, some law breakers, drunken cowboys - who by bad luck - have killed an old man during a rough enthusiastic drinking bout...Lancaster - blind to his faults, unwilling to judge or to be less severe, and with no intention to arrest - hunts his prey down, one by one, until the last man...There is no poetic eloquence here, no tension as the two protagonists walk slowly towards their duel, no feeling that right is victorious, no good has conquered evil, no decisive clash to capture the audience's imagination...
When You Uphold the Law. Towards the end of Lawman, Burt Lancaster says that the towns are getting fewer and fewer who need his kind of services.
Music is by Jerry Fielding and cinematography by Robert Paynter.The Lawman of the title is Jared Maddox (Lancaster), who arrives in the town of Sabbath to serve warrants on the group of rowdies responsible for the death of an old man.
Can't change what you are, and if you try, something always calls you back.Traditional Western that deals in the conflict between law and justice, Lawman, like the leading man, broods significantly.
The excellent cast turn in equally great performances, the Durango locales are beautifully utilised by Winner and Paynter, and the production design is grade "A" quality.It's an anti-backlash movie of some substance, where spicy and thoughtful dialogue comes forth from the mouths of deftly shaded characters.
The notion that the community is best served by a rigid, inflexible determination to enforce the letter of the law under all circumstances is indeed the view espoused by the film's main character (played with consummate skill by Burt Lancaster) but the message of the film is surely to point out the limitations of such a view.Towards the end of the film the Marshall is offered another vision - of a life that contain more than the vendetta, the manhunt, and the inevitable killing that follows.
Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan vie for the acting honours in this gritty and violent story of a lawman who will let nothing stand in his way as he tries to bring to justice the killers of an innocent bystander in "his" town.
Solid and adult Michael Winner Western has Burt Lancaster as an implacable sheriff to bring back wanted men.
A hardened marshal called Bannock : Lancaster arrives in a wild and whooly town named Sabbath to look for some outlaws , but these work for the powerful owner Bronson: Lee J Cobb, then things go wrong .
As his unexperienced son : John Beck and his band of gunfighters : Robert Duvall, JD Cannon , Richard Jordan , William Watson set out in pursuit Bannock .Later on , Bannock seeking the help of a timid sheriff : Robert Ryan , but he rejects him .Thought-provoking and suspenseful Western about a two-fisted as well as stoic marshal who comes into unfamiliar little town .
The acting honors go to Robert Ryan as a shy , reluctant but honorable sheriff .Others costarring providing enjoyable interpretations are the followings : Robert Duvall , JD Cannon , Sheree North , Albert Salmi , John McGiver , Joseph Wiseman , Richard Jordan , Ralph Waite , John Beck ,Richard Bull, and John Hillerman .And veteran Lee J Cobb delivers one of his finest performances as a tough land baron who seeks vengeance .Thrilling and pulsating musical score by Jerry Fielding , Sam Peckinpah's regular .
And atmospheric and evocative cinematography by Robert Paynter , Winner's usual .This intriguing motion picture was compellingly directed by Michael Winner , though it has an unsatisfactory conclusion undermining otherwise splendid story .Winner was a prolific craftsman who made all kinds of genres as Terror : The nightcomers , Scream for help , The sentinel ; Costumers : The wicked lady ; Western : Chato the Apache with Charles Bronson ; Film Noir : The big sleep , but specially thrillers such as : Appointment with death , The Mechanic ,Firepower , The stone killer , being his greatest success the Death Wish series I , II , III starred by his fetish actor , Charles Bronson.
Eventually, he comes to grips with this notion, tries to ride out, but his mission catches up with him in the dusty street of Sabbath.The cast is a fairly good list of name players; Robert Ryan gives a good account as the marshal of Sabbath who wishes Lancaster to ease back, Lee J.
Richard Jordan appears as a hired hand of Cobb's ranch torn between his loyalty to his friends and what is right.A tough film that makes very little effort to compromise western law..
Robert Ryan, Lee J Cobb, Richard Jordon, Riobert Wiseman, Sheree North and Albert Salmi are all superb in supporting roles.When Lancaster was good a tough guy as he was here, he was better than Wayne or Douglas or many other Stars of his generation.
Burt Lancaster plays a sheriff named Maddox, who comes from his town of Brannock to the town of Sabbath in order to arrest some cattlemen responsible for the death of an old man, after their excessive celebration and shooting led to his death.
"Lawman" is a surprisingly bloody western with Lancaster well cast as a determined, hard-nosed sheriff who enforces the law without fear nor favour.
Lancaster negotiates with Cobb to bring those responsible to justice, but the clan's dismissive and arrogant treatment of authority soon leads to more bloodshed, and escalates into a campaign of retributions from which there are few survivors.Michael Winner brings his bleak, primitive characters into the western stage, performed by a cast shimmering with stars (Lancaster, Cobb and Ryan are standouts) and a diverse supporting cast (Jordan, Salmi and Beck are notable).
Although my father told me he had not liked it when it came out, I had been curious about a Western that boasted one of the greatest casts ever, especially in terms of supporting actors: Robert Ryan, Lee J.
However, subsequent viewings have added significantly to what I see as the film's merits in terms of construction, script, cinematography and further confirmed my initial perception that acting was of the highest order by everyone, even in very minor parts.Still, I have to agree with my father that the character played by Lancaster is both inflexible and contradictory, and his killing of the very man his love interest had asked him not to kill, with a shot in the back to boot, was unnecessarily mean.
Maddox (Lancaster) and Ryan (Ryan) know what killing is about: you may not be fastest on the draw, but your readiness to kill makes the difference.Although the point about Maddox's contradictions remains valid, I have come to view LAWMAN as a well crafted study of the law implemented to excess, however much the implementer supposedly sticks to the letter of that law.Michael Winner's direction is firm and succint.
Burt Lancaster plays a no nonsense lawman that is to bring to justice a group of cattle rustlers who by accident killed an old man on their drunken night where they shot up a town.
The town of Sabbath is where this plays out and Burt Lancaster gives a very tough and cold performance as lawman and killer Maddox.
Lee J Cobb is Bronson, a respected figure in the town of Sabbath and boss of the cowboys that Maddox is to bring to justice.(As well as the name of actor that director Michael Winner would work with a lot after this picture, Bronson...Charles Bronson) Robert Duvall gives a great early showing as well.
This movie reminds me a lot of movies such as 3:10 TO YUMA as well as LAST TRAIN FROM GUN HILL, in that the film concerns a lone lawman trying to battle the forces of a rich cattle baron to bring some men to justice.
Just like Glenn Ford and Kirk Douglas before him, Burt Lancaster is willing to stand up against all the forces trying to get him to give up and go home.In this case, Burt is a sheriff from another town where a group of men on a cattle drive shot up the town and accidentally killed an old insignificant man.
Burt Lancaster is terrific as stoic lawman Maddox from Bannock; arriving in the town of Sabbath in order to arrest seven local cowboys who accidentally killed an elderly villager during a drunken celebration.
Fact remains that Winner, at the relatively tender age of 35, competently directed a substantial western with a cast of highly respectable veteran actors including Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, Lee Cobb, Robert Emhardt and Robert Duvall.
There is a great cast and the tableaux of the time is excellent.A must see for fans of the genre and is an overlooked and under-appreciated film that is both an icon of the modern Western while also being a throwback to the psychological, multi- layered style of post-modern 1950's movies like High Noon, The Searchers, The Tall T, and The Naked Spur, to name a few..
If you like Westerns, this is one of the best, only because of the great actors, especially, Burt Lancaster.
When drunken cowboys kill an old man while shooting up a town, unbending lawman Burt Lancaster follows the cattle drive to it's end, in order to round up the men responsible.
Cobb wants to buy him off, like he did town sheriff Robert Ryan, while Cobb's men and the rest of the crooked town have more direct ideas.Shot around the same time as director Michael Winner's Chato's Land (probably back-to-back) and Lancaster's Valdez Is Coming, this is cut from the same grim, hate-filled, violent cloth.
Like Winner's later (and more famous) Death Wish, it has a bit to say about the blurring of the line between justice and vengeance, law-and-order and chaos, getting away with it and punishment, with a bit of privilege versus principles thrown in for good measure.Lancaster is intense, but a bit one-note (like his character).
Although Lawman is, in many ways, a bland bloodbath, and there's more than enough plug-nickel psychology to go around, you can't help but begin to like what you're seeing.Burt Lancaster, one of the most overrated stars in the heavens, is the "lawman" who comes to Bent Armpit or Pig Wallow or whatever the name was for the town that's harboring a bunch of idiot cowhands who accidentally killed an old guy in Lancaster's burg some time before.
Tough Burt Lancaster (Marshal Maddox) goes behind a family who committed some disturbs in a neighbouring town and unintentionally killed an old man.
Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan head up an extraordinary cast in this solid western from screenwriter Gerald Wilson and producer-director Michael Winner.
LAWMAN is just another B western despite having a cast that includes Lancaster , Ryan and Duvall.
Lee J Cobb and Robert Ryan play characters who understand that the old way of doing things have passed by.
As Maddox started riding out of town, it was the town shopkeeper who was about to shoot him in the back, saved by friend Lucas (Joseph Wiseman) who had some history with the fabled lawman.The film offers intriguing performances by veterans Robert Ryan and Lee J.
Bannock Marshal Jared Maddox (Burt Lancaster) rides into the town of Sabbath with one of the men who participated in the shooting.
The cowboys have no knowledge of the accidental shooting until months later the marshal of bannock Jared Maddox excellently played by Burt Lancaster arrives in the town of Sabbath to arrest them.
Snakes and such and sometimes they can get pretty good with it, with enough practice, but a Lawman is a trained killer of men.This is explained in a scene between Burt Lancaster and in his first movie role Richard Jordon, a fine actor who left us too soon.
Several months later Jared Maddox(BURT LANCASTER),the marshal for Bannock, arrives in the town of Sabbath, which is owned and controlled by Bronson, intent on arresting Bronson and the men responsible for the incident.
The film is worth watching for the cast alone, a huge group of old-timers backed up by the fresh faces of Robert Duvall and Richard Jordan.Burt Lancaster is the ageing hero, tracking down a group of men who were responsible for the shooting of a townsman after a celebration that got out of hand.
The much anticipated ending came with an unexpected twist, leaving the audience to figure out the punchline of the movie.The aging cast of Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, Lee J.
The focal point is that of Lancaster's lawman character (who somewhat develops into the bad guy role), where he begins to doubt his unflinching methods ("No man needs killing")
but it's hard to break away from what he knows best and in the film's terrific climatic standoff; his true nature comes through as he knew of no other way of getting the job done.
It's the bad guys (Michael Winner, Robert Paynter and Jerry Fielding) vs the good guys (Burt Lancaster, Lee J.
Another Burt Lancaster Western where he puts in a good performance in a movie that largely misses the mark.Here's what I liked:Very nice use of ambiguity about who are really the good guys and the bad guys.
In 1971, this qualifies the movie as a "Vietnam" Western, although this is very oblique reference.Great performance by Lancaster at his minimalist best.Very good supporting cast with Robert Ryan, Robert Duval, Lee J.
Great actors: Burt is solid as man on a mission, Robert Ryan is always good. |
tt0016473 | The Unholy Three | Three performers leave a sideshow after Tweedledee (Harry Earles), the midget, assaults a young heckler and sparks a melee. The three join together in an "unholy" plan to become wealthy. Prof. Echo, the ventriloquist, assumes the role of Mrs. O'Grady, a kindly old grandmother, who runs a pet shop, while Tweedledee plays her grandchild. Hercules (Victor McLaglen), the strongman, works in the shop along with the unsuspecting Hector McDonald (Matt Moore). Echo's girlfriend, pickpocket Rosie O'Grady (Mae Busch), pretends to be his granddaughter.
Using what they learn from delivering pets, the trio later commit burglaries, with their wealthy buyers as victims. On Christmas Eve, John Arlington (an uncredited Charles Wellesley) telephones to complain that the "talking" parrot (aided by Echo's ventriloquism) he bought will not speak. When "Granny" O'Grady visits him to coax the bird into performing, "she" takes along grandson "Little Willie". While there, they learn that a valuable ruby necklace is in the house. They decide to steal it that night. As Echo is too busy, the other two grow impatient and decide to go ahead without him.
The next day, Echo is furious to read in the newspaper that Arlington was killed and his three-year-old daughter badly injured in the robbery. Hercules shows no remorse whatsoever, relating how Arlington pleaded for his life. When a police investigator shows up at the shop, the trio become fearful and decide to frame Hector, hiding the jewelry in his room.
Meanwhile, Hector proposes to Rosie. She turns him down, but he overhears her crying after he leaves. To his joy, she confesses she loves him, but was ashamed of her shady past. When the police take him away, Rosie tells the trio that she will exonerate him, forcing them to abduct her and flee to a mountain cabin. Echo takes along his large pet ape (who terrifies Hercules).
In the spring, Hector is brought to trial. Rosie pleads with Echo to save Hector, promising to stay with him if he does. After Echo leaves for the city, Tweedledee overhears Hercules asking Rosie to run away with him (and the loot). The midget releases the ape. Hercules kills the midget before the ape gets him.
At the trial, Echo agonizes over what to do, but finally rushes forward and confesses all. Both he and Hector are set free. When Rosie goes to Echo to keep her promise, he lies and says he was only kidding. He tells her to go to Hector. Echo returns to the sideshow, giving his spiel to the customers: "That's all there is to life, friends, ... a little laughter ... a little tear." | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Vowing revenge on the world of normal' people, a sideshow ventriloquist, strong man & dwarf band together as THE UNHOLY THREE.Following Lon Chaney's great film successes at Universal Studios, Irving Thalberg managed to entice the actor to come to MGM.
A crime caper rather than a horror film, the chills are saved for right near the end with the rampages of a ferocious ape (actually a chimpanzee, photographed out of proportion) which no one seems surprised to find in a bird store.While ventriloquism may seem an odd pastime to depict in a silent movie, Chaney made it all seem so sensible.
So well was he received in this role that it was chosen to be remade five years later as Chaney's talking debut.Muscular Victor McLaglen (a British Army champion athlete) and tiny Harry Earles (one of the few adult actors who could disguise himself as a baby) give very solid support as Chaney's wicked cronies; much of the favorable outcome of the film is due to them.Pensive Mae Busch scores as the waifish pickpocket allied with Chaney; this very talented actress would get to shine a few years later in a series of appearances with Laurel & Hardy.
Lon Chaney heads a group of three thieves/carnival performers as they masquerade as an old woman, a man, and a baby in a pet shop where they sell birds that talk only by ventriloquism.
Throw in a great job by Mae Busch and little Harry Earles as a cigar-smoking midget disguised as a baby.
The synopsis has been outlined elsewhere, but briefly it involves a trio of crooks from the sideshow world: Professor Echo the ventriloquist (Chaney) who disguises himself as an old lady, a strong man (Victor MacLaglen), and a midget (Harry Earles) who masquerades as a baby.
"The Unholy Three" (MGM, 1925), directed by Tod Browning, is the kind of movie only Lon Chaney could do best, playing a tough guy with a good heart, donning a disguise or two, and coming out with one of the film's famous lines, "That's all there is to life, folks, just a little laugh, just a little tear." In reality, it's a change of pace for Chaney from his previous efforts, playing a tough but sympathetic character in a crime drama.The story features three museum freaks, Hercules, the strong man (Victor McLaglen), Tweeledee, the dwarf (Harry Earles), and Professor Echo, the ventriloquist (Lon Chaney), performing in a sideshow while Echo's girl, Rosie O'Grady (Mae Busch) goes through the crowd picking pockets.
Also working in the shop is Hector McDonald (Matt Moore), who becomes interested in Rosie but is unaware of the operation.Watching Lon Chaney disguised as a sweet little old lady is priceless, almost reminiscent to Tod Browning's latter melodrama of the sound era, "The Devil Doll" (MGM, 1936) in which Lionel Barrymore appeared as an escaped convict dressed as an elderly woman to elude the law, a role Chaney would have done, I'm sure, had he lived.
Along with Chaney, midget Harry Earles also repeats his Tweeledee performance.When "The Unholy Three" was presented on public television's 13-week series tribute to MGM, "Movies, Great Movies" in 1973, its host, Richard Schickel mentioned that this 1925 version was Lon Chaney's personal favorite of all his movies and one of MGM's biggest hits of that year.
(Watch the 1930 talkie and find out).Also interesting is seeing a young Victor McLaglen, the future Best Actor winner of 1935's "The Informer," still rugged but a little thinner; Mae Busch (famous for her variety of roles in several Laurel and Hardy comedy shorts and features for Hal Roach in the 1930s), usually playing a tough gal, here playing against type as a co-starring love interest; and Matthew Betz as Inspector Regan.
Tod Browning's direction should not go unnoticed, with one interesting scene having Chaney discussing his future plans in forming THE UNHOLY THREE to his supporters, as presented on screen in silhouettes, looking something like a "film noir" crook drama of the 1940s.The 1925 version of THE UNHOLY THREE, clocked at 86 minutes, currently includes the same orchestral scoring on Turner Classic Movies that was composed and originally chosen for the October 12, 1973, public television presentation of "Movies, Great Movies" a 13-week series tribute to MGM's 50th anniversary of its silent movies from the 1920s, as hosted by Richard Schickel.
In an effort to make more money than they do as traveling carnival show attractions, velvet-voiced ventriloquist Lon Chaney (as Echo), baby-impersonating dwarf Harry Earles (as Tweedledee), and strongman Victor McLaglen (as Hercules) team up to form a gang of jewel thieves who call themselves "The Unholy Three".
The crooked trio begins operating out of a bird shop run by Mr. Chaney, posing as sweet "Granny O'Grady", mother of pickpocket and gang moll Mae Busch (as Rosie).
Also remarkable is Mr. Earle, who hadn't mastered English for the re-make, but seemed fine by "Freaks" (1932); his wicked, cigar-smoking baby is classic."The Unholy Three" (1925) was honored as one of its year's best pictures at "Film Daily" (#2), Motion Picture Magazine (#3), and The New York Times (#3) - after winners "The Gold Rush", "The Big Parade", and "The Last Laugh".
The film is perversely appealing - which was then, and is now, a Chaney/Browning hallmark.******** The Unholy Three (8/16/25) Tod Browning ~ Lon Chaney, Mae Busch, Harry Earles, Matt Moore.
I had an afternoon free so I decided to watch the two versions of this Lon Chaney classic back to back, beginning with this one -- Tod Browning's silent original.
It's the story of a crooked carnival ventriloquist (Lon Chaney) who teams up with the midget (Harry Earles) and strong man (Victor McLaglen ) for a series of robberies.
In many ways this was a precursor to the popular Little Rascals/Our Gang short subject FREE EATS, where a couple of gangsters act as parents to a couple of little people dressed as infants, mistakenly referred to as "fidgets".Whether it's the silent version or sound remake, I thought this was a wildly entertaining story either way, though it's difficult to fairly judge one film or the other when they're viewed together so closely like this.
Lon Chaney certainly wasn't one for making conventional movies - as his frequent director Tod Browning was the same in his work."The Unholy Three" is one such film.
Tod Browning's direction is very good as he sets the tone of the film from the beginning.As the leader of the gang, Lon Chaney is terrific but he is brilliantly supported by Harry Earles and Victor MacLagen.
This Lon Chaney vehicle, directed by the great Tod Browning, is the story of three circus performers who begin to thieve jewels.
Chaney, a ventriloquist, dresses up as an old woman, one of his cohorts a man posing as the old woman's son, and the third, a midget, as his infant son (one of the major reasons to see this flick is that the same midget, here named Tweedledeedee, also plays Hans, the midget who marries the acrobat Cleopatra in Browning's later masterpiece, Freaks; in this film he actually is seen smoking a giant cigar, which, in Freaks, his fiancee suggested that he shouldn't smoke).
Only a great actor like Lon Chaney could do justice to the dual role of Echo the ventriloquist/Gramdma O'Grady.
But then this film was the product of the equally inimitable Tod Browning, the man who subsequently created the notorious movie "Freaks, which also featured the unique talents of Harry Earles.
The story involves three side show performers; Echo the Ventriloquist (Lon Chaney), Hercules the Strong Man (future Academy Award Winner Victor Mclaglen) and Tweedledee the Midget (Harry Earles).
Also assisting them is "Sweet Rosie O'Grady" (Mae Busch), a pickpocket who had formerly been in business with Echo when they were both working in the carnival.Although Lon Chaney was known for his spectacular horror films, in his day he made a lot of crime films as well, and "The Unholy Three" falls under that heading.
Apart from the scenes in which he is disguised as the "sweet Little old lady", in which he is very convincing, in this film Chaney appears as a regular person, which was a relatively rare thing in his career.Presented by a superior cast of actors, "The Unholy Three" is certainly among the most unique crime dramas ever filmed.
And--as many astute film fans can tell you-- the limits of the bizarre and fantastic would really get stretched in 1931 by the release of 2 films titled "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" respectively.Getting back to "Unholy", we have Lon Chaney as the ringleader of a crooked trio consisting of the circus strongman, Hercules and--dare I say--a "midget" played by Harry Earles.
Another advantage of this silent feature is the viewer doesn't have to spend much time trying to decipher the words coming out of Harry's mouth--although I will say, there were times when I missed the dialogue from Harry; i.e., the scene where the little guy threatens to put some lilies under Rosie's chin if she squealed.Overall, of all the Browning/Chaney collaborations I have seen, "Unholy" would rank at the top of my list.8.5 stars.
The Unholy Three is an unusual film because he's quite an ordinary man here, but he effects the disguise of an old woman for criminal purposes.Due to some light fingered activity at a carnival he was employed at Chaney, strong man Victor McLaglen, and midget Harry Earles find themselves unemployed.
Personally I think he was way too big to be a toddler, but that's a little dramatic license that director Todd Browning was taking.Chaney also buys a pet shop and Mae Busch who was a carnival waif goes and lives with them.
A film with several of director Tod Browning's favorite things - actor Lon Chaney, human oddities in a carnival sideshow, unusual disguises, and a killer animal.
The first half of the film is interesting, starting with the establishing shots in the carnival, where we see the usual sorts of things, a sword swallower and a pair of conjoined twins, as well as some surprises, a burlesque dancer shaking her bosoms with the promise of more inside, and a little person (Harry Earles) kicking a child in the audience in the face out of anger.A ventriloquist (Chaney) has the idea of forming a gang of thieves with the little person and a strongman (Victor McLaglen) to make up an "unholy three", and we soon see them in disguise, Chaney dressed as an old woman and Earles as a baby, in order to operate out of a bird shop.
The sound bubbles appearing over the parrots when Chaney throws his voice to make them seem like they're talking is also pretty cute.The love triangle subplot (with the shop owner played by Matt Moore and girlfriend played by Mae Busch) is less interesting, and unfortunately the film lags in the second half, particularly during a trial scene.
Ventriloquist Echo (Chaney) will assume the disguise of Granny O'Grady, a nice old lady who runs a pet store specialising in parrots.
When the unhappy purchaser later calls the store to complain, Granny O'Grady will snoop out the place, paving the way for horseshoe- bending strongman Hercules (Victor McLaglen) and short-tempered midget Tweedledee (Harry Earles) to sneak in and steal any spied valuables.
But when Echo's girlfriend Rosie (Mae Busch) falls for Hector, the plan quickly starts to fall apart.There are a lot of things about The Unholy Three that are utterly ridiculous, such as Echo's needlessly convoluted plan, and the idea that anyone would buy the cigar-chomping Earles as a baby in a cart.
Chaney really was the man of a thousand faces; effortlessly convincing as both a harmless old lady and a sympathetic anti-hero, and Earles - who would later appear in Freaks - is great fun, delivering what is undoubtedly the film's greatest line ("If you tip that boob off to who we are, I'll lay some lilies under your chin!").
At the same time, there are so many implausible elements thrown into the mix that you must suspend disbelief in order to sit back and enjoy the excellent performances.While LON CHANEY is undoubtedly at his best as the old Granny who runs a bird shop for talking parrots, the attention is compulsively drawn to the evil dwarf (HARRY EARLES).
Later on, he served as one of the Munchkins for THE WIZARD OF OZ, but here he's a grown man able to pose convincingly as a baby--a very conniving infant who instigates the robbery and murder of a wealthy store patron.Since Echo (LON CHANEY's ventriloquist name), throws his voice whenever the parrots talk, the ventriloquism device is used for effect in the climactic courtroom scene where Chaney decides to help an innocent man wrongly accused of the murder.
Even though the device of throwing his voice at a trial is completely beyond belief, he manages to convince the viewer that such a thing was entirely possible.Chaney is very effective as the smiling Granny, Earles is scary as the psychopathic dwarf posing as a baby between puffs on a cigar, and MAE BUSCH is effective as the woman Chaney loves.Although slowly paced, it's well worth watching, drawing the viewer from the start with its strange and incredible story, an entertaining triumph for all concerned.
Unholy Three, The (1925) ** 1/2 (out of 4)A Tod Browning film about a ventriloquist (Lon Chaney), a strongman (Victor McLaglen) and a midget (Harry Earles of Freaks fame) who join forces after leaving the sideshow to become "The Unholy Three".
(Special Request for the Cinema- Gods: More midget characters like this in movies, please.) But far and away the Best is still Lon Chaney, as Professor Echo, the Ventriloquist.
With direction by Todd Browning and based on a novel by Tod Robbins (his story "Spurs" was turned into the film "Freaks"), "The Unholy Three" was an evocative and macabre thriller.Professor Echo (Lon Chaney) is a circus ventriloquist, who is in league with strongman Hercules (Victor McLaglen) and an evil midget Tweedledee(a sensational Harry Earles).
Co-produced and directed by Tod Browning, this above average silent crime drama was later remade as a sound picture with two members of the original cast, Lon Chaney and Harry Earles.
Based on the novel by Tod Robbins, with scenario by Waldemar Young, Chaney plays Professor Echo, a ventriloquist, who teams with dwarf Earles, dubbed Tweedledee, and strongman Victor McLaglen, who's called Hercules, to scam unawares customers into buying parrots from their pet shop.Initially, all three were in a sideshow during which Echo used Rosie O'Grady (Mae Busch) to pickpocket its customers.
After a police raid, Echo convinces Tweedledee and Hercules to join him, forming "The Unholy Three", who along with O'Grady and an innocent, unsuspecting employee Hector MacDonald (Matt Moore) set up shop.Echo uses his gift to make the parrots appear to talk to him, dressed as an old woman and pretending to be O'Grady's 'Granny', in order to fool their customers into paying high prices for the otherwise ordinary birds.
"The Unholy Three" is not a Lon Chaney horror film but rather an interesting crime caper drama.We meet the main characters in a seedy side show.
First is Echo the ventriloquist (Chaney) his "girl friend" and pick pocket artist Rosie O'Grady (Mae Busch), strongman Hercules (Victor McLaglan) and baby faced midget Tweedledee (Harry Earles).
They hire wimpish Hector McDonald (Matt Moore) who is unaware of the goings on, to run the store.The cover if you will, is a bird shop (really?) where Echo uses his ventriloquist skills to convince rich customers to buy what they think is a talking parrot.
Directed by Tod Browning in his first collaboration with MGM, the film is somewhat of a precursor to his 1932 film 'Freaks', which has more fantastic characters on display in an even more bizarre tale.Browning sets up the action with a quick view of circus performers to whet the viewer's appetite for strangeness; there's an immense fat lady, a tattooed woman, a sword swallower and Siamese twins, all to get us ready for Professor Echo (Lon Chaney), an otherwise normal looking ventriloquist, Hercules the strongman (Victor McLaglen), and midget performer Tweedledee (Harry Earles).
Not only does the Professor fall for pretty Rosie O'Grady (Mae Busch), so does shop employee Hector McDonald (Matt Moore).Though there are some suspenseful scenes throughout the story, others will leave you rather perplexed and scratching your head.
He concocts a scheme, gaining the partnership of a strongman(John Ford veteran Victor McLaglen)and his pint-sized dwarf friend Tweedledee(Harry Earles, most know him from Browning's controversial film "Freaks"), to thieve the rich by pretending to be a family operating a store.
Meanwhile, Hercules, the strongman, and Tweedledee decide to rob a client who recently purchased a parrot..in the film Echo is so good at voices, he can persuade possible shoppers to purchase parrots he provided the dialogue to..under the disguise of an elderly lady, Mrs. Granny O'Grady as Tweedledee pretends to be a little child..and kill the millionaire putting a damper on the future plans of The Unholy Three.
It's mainly of interest for the actors, who give great performances even though they can't use their voices.Lon Chaney, the man of a thousand faces, is wonderful as Echo, the criminal mastermind who convinces as a friendly elderly woman; Victor McLaglen provides muscle as a hulking strongman; and, best of all, the diminutive Harry Earles – who returned in a central role in FREAKS – is great as the murderous criminal who disguises himself as a baby!
"Between 1919 to 1929, Tod Browning and Lon Chaney produced ten films.
The leader, Professor Echo, the ventriloquist (Chaney), masquerades as 'Granny O'Grady' (That is one ugly old lady!), the owner of a bird shop.
When Hercules and Tweedledee pull a job on their own and commit murder, Echo is outraged and spends the rest of the story repairing their damage.Echo is another example of the character Chaney most often played in Browning's films, a sympathetic man who shows his evil side, only to find some degree of redemption in the end. |
tt0275773 | Versus | Unknown to the world, there are 666 portals on Earth that connect this world to the other side which are concealed from human beings. However, there are some who are aware of their existence and are willing to locate and open the gates of the portals to obtain the power of darkness for their own pleasure. Somewhere in Japan, there exists the 444th portal known as The Forest of Resurrection.
In 10th century Japan, a lone samurai fends off a horde of zombie-like samurai creatures. Though successfully vanquishing the zombies, the samurai is confronted by a mysterious priest and his league of warriors. In an attempt to take out the mysterious priest, the lone samurai charges full scale but is easily killed and defeated. However, before dying, the lone samurai spots an ally behind him, arriving too late to save him.
In present-day Japan, two prisoners escape through a forest and meet up with a gang of Yakuzas. When Prisoner KSC2-303 (Tak Sakaguchi) sees a girl (Chieko Misaka) that the gang kidnapped, he immediately becomes suspicious of what they plan to do with her. After a heated argument, Prisoner KSC2-303 kills one of the Yakuza members who immediately comes back to life as a zombie. The zombies are killed and Prisoner KSC2-303 escapes back into the forest with The Girl. The Yakuza decide to disobey their orders to wait for their leader and pursue Prisoner KSC2-303 and The Girl.
Prisoner KSC2-303 and The Girl come across a man crucified upon a tree. Prisoner KSC2-303 steals the dead man's clothes and is confronted by one of the Yakuza. They engage in hand-to-hand combat while the other Yakuza begin facing problems of their own. The corpses of all the men they have killed and buried in the forest come back to life and attack them. Prisoner KSC2-303 and the other Yakuza abandon their fight to battle the zombies.
With the horde of zombies growing, the Yakuza call upon three assassins to aid them in their mission. The Yakuza leader, The Man (Hideo Sakaki), finally arrives and confronts them, angry that they lost Prisoner KSC2-303 and The Girl. The Yakuza and Assassins take the upper hand and kill him first. But The Man easily jumps back to his feet and turns the Assassins and Yakuza into his own minions. Two of the Assassins escape and find Prisoner KSC2-303. One is defeated by The Girl with a log, and the other is confronted by The Man and killed.
Prisoner KSC2-303 attempts to force The Girl to tell him what is going on, believing that she has been hiding secrets from him the whole time. Before explaining thoroughly, The Man finds Prisoner KSC2-303 and The Girl. The Man begins explaining to Prisoner KSC2-303 that they are reincarnations of past lives. The Man plans to use The Girl as a sacrifice to open the portal hidden in The Forest of Resurrection and obtain the power of darkness. Unable to accept his explanations, Prisoner KSC2-303 attempts to kill The Man but is killed himself instead.
The Girl manages to reach Prisoner KSC2-303's body and feeds him a part of her blood before being taken by The Man's minions. During his unconscious state, Prisoner KSC2-303 experiences a flashback of his past life in the 10th century; he is the ally that was too late to save the lone samurai in the opening scene of the movie. He and The Girl (who is revealed to be a princess) are confronted by the mysterious priest (who turns out to be The Man) and his gang. Outnumbered and facing long odds, Pre-Prisoner KSC2-303 reluctantly kills The Girl to stop The Man from obtaining the power of darkness. Enraged, The Man viciously kills Pre-Prisoner KSC2-303. Prisoner KSC2-303 is awakened in the present with the truth fully revealed to him.
The following morning, Prisoner KSC2-303 confronts The Man and his minions for a final showdown. Prisoner KSC2-303 takes on the minions first and wins, leaving only The Man left. Prisoner KSC2-303 decapitates The Man and rescues The Girl, and both make their escape from The Forest of Resurrection.
99 years later, Earth lies in ruin. The reincarnation of The Man travels through the remains of a city, and eventually confronts Prisoner KSC2-303 and the reincarnated versions of The Man's gang (who now work for KSC2-303). The Girl, held against her will, tells the The Man that she should have been on his side 99 years earlier. With nothing left to destroy in this world, Prisoner KSC2-303 asks The Man to take him to the Other Side. The Man and Prisoner KSC2-303 charge at each other and engage in battle one more time. | comedy, avant garde, suspenseful, murder, paranormal, cult, violence, flashback, good versus evil, insanity, absurd, psychedelic, action, romantic, melodrama, revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0119665 | Metroland | In 1977, Chris (Christian Bale) and Marion (Emily Watson) are leading a quiet married life with their child in Eastwood in the London suburbs known as Metroland, the staid commuter region at the end of the London Underground's Metropolitan Line. Their predictable life is disrupted by an early morning phone call from Chris's boyhood friend Toni (Lee Ross), who has returned to England after several years of wandering through Africa, Europe, and the United States as a bohemian poet. Years before, the two shared a dream of fleeing slow suburban death to live in avant-garde splendor in Paris. Toni's return sparks memories in Chris about their wild days in Paris in the late 1960s.
Disillusioned about the lifestyle he's chosen—having abandoned his youthful passion for photography for a steady job as a London banker—Chris takes long walks at night, making lists in his head of things for which he should feel grateful. Feeling that something is missing in his life, Chris sees in Toni the person he could have become—a free spirit living a vagabond's existence without ties or responsibilities. Toni openly looks down on Chris for his acceptance of middle class complacency, a mortgage, and a nine-to-five job. One night, Chris goes to a punk rock club with Toni who gets him stoned on cannabis. Idealising his friend's lifestyle, Chris begs Toni to reveal his secret for happiness, and Toni responds that it's doing what you want, not what others want.
With his dreary and serene marriage, Chris increasingly dwells on the past. He rediscovers naked pictures of his former French girlfriend, Annick (Elsa Zylberstein), and in the coming days he thinks back to 1968 when they were in Paris together. He remembers taking on the personna of a French beatnik with a contempt for all things English. His French fantasy was interrupted when he met Marion, who was holidaying in Paris with some friends. Taken aback by this mature and intelligent Englishwoman, Chris began spending time with her, telling her about Annick and his ambivalent feelings towards England. Unimpressed with his unrealistic dreams, Marion informed him that eventually he would get married because he was "not original enough" to avoid marriage and a conventional future. When Annick learned about his friendship with the Englishwoman, she broke off their relationship.
Back in the present, Chris is unable to get over the feeling that he has surrendered his youth and ideals to a life he once swore he would never lead. One night he attends a party at Toni's girlfriend's house, arriving without his wife. There he hears Toni casually mentioning that his girlfriend just had an abortion, and then sees him flirting with another woman at the party—doing what he wants to do. Later, Chris meets a beautiful woman, Joanna (Amanda Ryan), who invites him to sleep with her. After learning that Toni in fact asked her to sleep with his friend as a way of undermining his marriage, Chris rejects the offer and returns home to Marion.
The next day, Chris comes home from work and finds Toni in the house with Marion. Toni hints that he and Marion had sex, and the two friends get into a fight in the garden. Later, Marion tells him that Toni made a pass at her, but that she rejected him. She tells him that despite all of his talk, Toni is really only jealous of Chris and the life he's chosen. The next day, Toni shows up at Chris' house to say goodbye before headed to Malibu, where he intends to do some screenwriting. He tries to tempt Chris into leaving his life behind and come with him, but Chris refuses, admitting, "I like my life; I'm content." That night, while Chris is on one of his walks, Marion approaches and asks what he would put on the list for "happy". Chris responds, "Happy—if not now, never." | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0052603 | Baton Bunny | Bugs is about to conduct "The Warner Bros. Symphony Orchestra" (supposedly in concert at the Hollywood Bowl) fancily. When he finishes his elaborate preparation, he starts to conduct, but is interrupted by someone in the audience coughing loudly. Bugs then holds out a sign saying "Throw the bum out!", which the audience does. Other problems plague Bugs' conducting, notably a bothersome fly and some awkward cuffs that keep falling off. In the middle of the performance, Bugs acts an indigenous person being chased by American troops (to the music that is happening at the present time). The fly then returns at the end of the act, landing in Bugs' nose. Bugs then loses his sanity and attempts to kill the fly, crashing into the orchestra and the instruments as he does so. As the music comes to a stop, Bugs bows for the crowd and instead of applause,he hears only silence and crickets chirping. Bugs looks around and then sees that the seats are empty and the crowd has gone, though he does hear some faint clapping - coming from the fly. He bows to the fly, and the cartoon ends. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Unique, But Not That Funny.
Bugs is the guest conductor of the Warner Brothers Symphony Orchestra, playing "Morning, Noon and Night in Vienna by Franz Von Suppe."The whole cartoon is a spoof of overly-dramatic conductors.
Bugs exaggerates most of his moves with the orchestra delivering what he's doing.
Some of it is funny, some too far- fetched, but that was the idea.
Also, the music cleverly also was in sync with little things happening to Bugs' apparel as it fell off here and there, giving him problems.
In all, this short is more clever than it is funny.
It's definitely a unique one for Bugs Money and I give them an "A" for originality but a "D" for laughs.
Since most of us watch these animations for laughs, clever-or-not this was not up to par..
Underrated.
I vaguely read the IMDb reviews for this cartoon before I watched it and there seemed to be quite a few negative comments, so I was not sure what I would think of it.
However, I love it and it is one of my new favourites.
The humour is nice and slow, very well done and you can still see quite a lot of Bugs Bunny's personality even though he does not say a single word, neither does anyone else.
Usually I do not like the fact that certain Looney Tunes cartoons do not have enough speaking jokes, but in this episode it would have not been so good if there had been some.
It is just funny the whole way through and the music is good.
:-) The only negative thing I have to say about this gem is that the animation of Bugs was a bit scratchy, I prefer his smoother, more rounded style.
Saying that - his collar was hilarious!
:-) I recommend this episode to people who like classical music, Bugs Bunny and for people who do not mind flies too much.
Enjoy "Baton Bunny"!
My first Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Before I start this review, I'd like to say that I saw this when I was 2 on WKBHK TV-44 San Francisco.
It came after SESAME STREET (read my SPRINKLE ME PINK comment).
I found it funny not only to see Bugs Bunny as a conductor but also seeing him clown around.
Usually Bugs gets chased around, or runs into trouble, but here trouble comes to him in a for a a small fly.
The ending is a funny gag, I cannot spoil any information for you.
You have to see it (perhaps on YouTube) to believe it.I highly recommend it!
That and the DUCK RABBIT DUCK cartoons where it is Bugs vs.
Daffy vs.
Elmer Fudd..
The unique premise is what makes this short hilarious..
This is an interesting and unique Bugs Bunny short, with nothing but visual gags throughout.
However, despite my Looney Tunes bias, I shall admit that Cat Concerto, a Tom and Jerry cartoon, used a similar premise about thirteen years prior.
You could be wondering whether Bugs could be funny without words, but this proves all the sceptics wrong!
The hilarious methods that Bugs uses to convey the notes to his musicians (who obviously and miraculously know how to interpret the antics of this mad rabbit, since the musical score is very good) never get old.
The cartoon illustrates a surreal Western story when Bugs conducts in a flurry, and the fly that annoys him is fantastic!
Bugs finally cracks in the end, and you see he can be just as hot-headed as Daffy Duck.
This sets the standard for how a conductor/musician cartoon should be.
Good to see on VHS and DVD.
Highly Recommended..
A new plot for Bugs.
The main reason I like this cartoon so much is that this is one of the most unique Bugs Bunny cartoons I've seen in quite some time.
It finally takes a step away from the classic "Bugs gets chased" or also popular "Bugs in Hollywood" frames for this new idea, in which Bugs conducts a symphony at the Hollywood Bowl.
Bugs gives a hilarious performance in the first place (the cuffs falling off his jacket has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen), but add to it a fly that keeps bugging him, and you get comedy in its finest.Also, and this may not make much sense, but one of my favorite parts is when we see Bugs conducting and his coat-tails and ears start doing the work for him.
I don't know why, but I just love seeing his ears do that, it makes me smile and giggle all the time.
The music is great, and the animation truly follows it, proving once again that a cartoon is only as good as the music that supports it..
Not quite as good as I remembered, but definitely worth watching.
As a big fan of classical music, I was eager to re watch Baton Bunny.
You see this was one of my first Bugs Bunny cartoons and I was interested to see how well it held up.
I loved it when I first saw it and the several other times I saw it after, but after a long time while still very good it isn't quite as good as I remembered.
I do agree it is more unique and clever more than it is funny.
Don't get me wrong, there are some nice visual gags especially the ones involving Bugs' collar and ears but there are some that don't quite work as well as they should such as the one with the fly which I'm afraid came across as rather predictable and tiresome.
The gags are not the best thing about Baton Bunny- that's the music which is outstanding, no surprise really as it was composed by Suppe, who always makes me smile regardless what piece of his is playing, it is so charming and rousing that it is hard not to get engrossed in it.
The animation is very good too, with a lot of colour and vibrancy.
In fact the only disappointment animation-wise is the character design of Bugs which is a little too scratchy for my liking.
Baton Bunny is also well paced, has a unique concept, and while it isn't as clever or as funny as cartoons such as What's Opera Doc, Rabbit of Seville and Long-Haired Hare, it is worth watching for the music.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Lesser Bugs.
Baton Bunny (1959) ** (out of 4) This here has always been one of my least favorite Bugs Bunny cartoons but you can't expect anyone to bat a thousand.
This time out Bugs is the guest conductor of the Warner Brothers Symphony Orchestra where he will be doing "Morning, Noon and Night in Vienna by Franz Von Suppe".
There's not a single line of dialogue spoken in the film, which really wouldn't have been a problem had the action been better than it is.
In all reality this is just a short for the ears as most of the visual gags are rather tiresome and none of them get any laughs.
The bit with the fly doesn't work and this here seems to be the biggest attempt at humor.
The music itself isn't too bad but in the end this is an interesting idea that just doesn't work..
WHAT'S UP DOC.
I Don't have to say anything it "speaks" for it's self..
One of my least-favorite Bugs shorts.
Bugs is a symphony conductor who is bothered by one nuisance after another.
Not one of my favorite Bugs Bunny cartoons.
It's pretty tired and feels like they were trying to repeat what worked before in Rhapsody Rabbit.
It just doesn't work as well this time.
It's just a bunch of sight gags set to classical music.
The music is fine and the animation is okay for the period, although this is that somewhat scratchy style that I don't care for.
It only got worse as they entered the 1960s, sadly.
I suppose if you're a big classical music buff you might enjoy this more.
While I don't mind those types of shorts (some are among the best of the medium), I prefer my Looney Tunes to be funny.
This just isn't..
Baton Bunny is another wonderful mix of classical music and animation.
Like Mickey Mouse, Andy Panda, and Tom and Jerry before him, Bugs Bunny plays a symphony conductor in Baton Bunny.
Even without his voice, Bugs is hilarious whether inadvertently putting his glasses upside down making the pages look that way, having cuff links move around him, or being annoyed by a fly while he's conducting.
Oh, and watch him play lots of instruments!
Once again, Chuck Jones with Abe Levitow as co-director, mixed classical music with quality animated comedy in a heavenly inspiration of styles.
Highly essential for fans of both genres I just mentioned.
This is on disc 3 of The Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Vol. 1..
I know many folks who love this sort of stuff....I don't..
During the 1940s and 50s, Warner and MGM made quite a few cartoons that featured their characters conducting or performing in a concert hall.
It was all very highbrow and often the critical response was very good-- however, I am pretty sure a lot of kids and even adults thought these cartoons were duds!!
In the case of "Baton Bunny", a later Bugs Bunny cartoon, the usually fun and mischievous rabbit is conducting an orchestra.
There are lots of funny expressions but Bugs does little other than lead an orchestra.
If you think seeing him make faces, chase away bugs crawling on his face, losing his cuffs and the like is great stuff, you'll like the film.
As for me, I just felt it wasn't appealing to the core who loved the character--folks who wanted to see more action, violence and silliness..
What's Opera, Doc is boring....
Man, some might disagree with me, but in my opinion, compare this CJ's masterpiece with the so protected by fans "What's opera, Doc" is as possible as compare the sun with the moon.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
I don't care all other Bugs fans who love and lay on the floor venerating that overproduced, overmusical and underviolent cartoon, to me that ARToon is very, very, very annoying.
In other hand, this one set my mind on fire every single time I watch it.
Maestro Bugs Bunny tries to conduct an orchestra, but he's disturbed all the time by a persistent,annoying fly who tries at any cost give to Bugs his last waltz.
The best parts of the toon is when Bugs puts his glasses( does he need one?) upside down and reads the overtures in upside down too, and that hilarious act of cavalry-and-Indian he does while he conducts the band(when he blows the trombone as a cannon and kills himself is priceless!).
All of this without forget the manic ending, when he destroys all the instruments od the orchestra trying to squash the fly.
This one can make a headbanger love classic music!
WATCH IT!!!.
Unattractive and largely lifeless one-bunny show.
'Baton Bunny' is an unusual cartoon co-directed by Chuck Jones and Abe Levitow.
It open with the caption "The Warner Bros.
Symphony Orchestra Playing "Morning, Noon and Night in Vienna" by Franz Von Suppe".
The conductor, it turns out, is Bugs Bunny.
'Baton Bunny' is a bold attempt at a largely one character cartoon but it's largely unsuccessful.
While there are some inventive jokes including Bugs' staging of a Cowboy and Indian battle in which he plays both sides, there are also moments when 'Baton Bunny' becomes repetitive and dull.
Matters are not helped by the unattractive look of the cartoon.
It's clear to see that this is an effort from the later years of Warner Bros.
The animation is not as smooth as you'd expect from classic Warner material and the drawings look less realistic and slightly more stylised than usual, a problem that would only get worse as the studio headed into the 60s.
It's also telling that 'Baton Bunny' is a full minute shorter than most Warner cartoons, betraying the dearth of material writer Michael Maltese managed to come up with for this tricky premise.
The introduction of a troublesome fly is a promising plot line but not much is made of it.
All in all, it's not hard to see why 'Baton Bunny' is rarely cited alongside the classic music-based Warner cartoons.
It's an unattractive and frequently lifeless six minutes..
not all classical music comes out the same in cartoons.
After the Termite Terrace crowd had used classical music to great effect in "A Corny Concerto", "Rhapsody Rabbit", "Back Alley Oproar", "Long-Haired Hare", "Rabbit of Seville" and "What's Opera, Doc?", it came out a little flat in "Baton Bunny".
This short has Bugs Bunny conducting an orchestra while his suit keeps going awry and a fly keeps getting in his way.
The cartoon's not terrible, but it seems like they should have had accomplished more; then again, maybe they'd done everything that they could with classical music by this point.
OK in a pinch.
Available on Disc 3 of the Golden Collection, where it's placed among far better cartoons.So who exactly is this Suppe guy?.
Lacking.
Bugs Bunny is conducting an orchastra while contending with a pesky fly.
That's the whole plot right there.
And compared to other music-based Looney Tunes cartoons, this one can't help to come up quite a bit short.Pardon the pun, of course.
But as I said in ealier review even mediocre Looney Tunes is still great compared to the slop we get in the present days.
And as such I did still enjoy it, just not as much as usual.
Hey, I just call them like I see them.
Would you really want me any other way?
I think not.This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" It also has a music-only trackMy Grade: C-.
Mediocre Bugs.
Not every Bugs Bunny cartoon can be a classic, and this one isn't.
Not bad, but a mediocre effort.
The video (probably out of print as I write this) called "Overtures to Disaster" uses "Baton Bugs" as a framing device for 2 Bugs classics, "Rabbit of Seville" and "What's Opera, Doc", plus a few other good sequences, which highlights the difference in quality levels better than I could possibly describe in words..
"Guest Conductor: Mr. Bugs Bunny".
"Baton Bunny" is an elegant musical Bugs Bunny cartoon directed by Chuck Jones and Abe Levitow.
How inconceivable it is to imagine Bugs standing on the podium in front of the Warner Bros.
Symphony Orchestra!
But that's exactly what he does as he takes the helm of this noble musical ensemble.
And what an unorthodox conductor he turns out to be!My favorite moments from "Baton Bunny" include the following.
Before the piece begins, Bugs has to hold up a sign that reads "Throw the bum out!" when a man in the audience coughs loudly; the succeeding sound effects confirm the man's ejection.
Bugs merely lifts a finger or toe from underneath the podium in order to cue a few "pianissimo" two-note motifs.
When the piece finishes, Bugs hears the ever-present cricket sounds to indicate an empty house, when suddenly a minuscule little fly is polite enough to give him a round of applause, to which he takes his bows."Baton Bunny" is genuine proof that Bugs Bunny always feels the need to throw humor into something very serious & elegant: in this case, orchestral conducting.
Even something as subtle as a wry facial expression on Bugs can be quite funny, and subtlety is one of the essential elements that make director Chuck Jones one of the most outstanding in the animated cartoon industry..
A good one.
I just recently saw this Bugs Bunny cartoon, and it was one I actually had not seen before.
This was part of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD, and it is one of my favorite cartoons in the collection so far.Bugs is the conductor for a concert, and while trying to lead the orchestra, he deals with a plethora of distractions.
There are some excellent sight gags throughout the cartoon's duration.
For example, Bugs's ears are used to conduct the orchestra, among other things.
What's more, there are no voice characterizations in this cartoon.
Bugs is completely silent, so there are no one-liners from him.
However, the sight gags provide a lot of laughs.
This is a good cartoon.
Catch it..
A malfunctioning wardrobe is the least .
. of Bugs Bunny's problems as he conducts a symphony orchestra playing Franz Von Suppe's "Morning, Noon, and Night in Vienna." Bugs' venue is an outdoor amphitheater.
Bugs chooses his conducting baton with greater care (and from a bigger selection) than a wand-shopping Harry Potter.
Remembering to chalk its tip, Bugs waves his baton.
The concert seems to get off on the right note (though two minutes of BATON BUNNY have passed by this point).
However, between having his dress shirt self-destruct and being buzzed multiple times by a pesky fly, Bugs' conducting is so erratic that ALL of the concert goers have exited by the final chord.
Only the fly is left to applaud.
I once attended a Major League Baseball Game that suffered such a plague of flying insects that the stands were nearly as empty as Bugs' concert bowl by the end of the Seventh Inning Stretch.
But baseball is best enjoyed outdoors (unless you're talking about the Tampa Bay Rays, in which case it cannot be enjoyed at all).
On the other hand, concerts should be an indoor activity, as BATON BUNNY more than proves. |
tt0078749 | Alien 2 - Sulla Terra | The commercial spacecraft Nostromo is on a return trip to Earth with a seven-member crew in stasis: Captain Dallas (Skerritt), Executive Officer Kane (Hurt), Warrant Officer Ripley (Weaver), Navigator Lambert (Cartwright), Science Officer Ash (Holm), two Engineers, Parker (Kotto) and Brett (Stanton) and also a cat named Jones. Detecting a mysterious transmission from the nearby planetoid LV-426, the ship's computer, Mother, awakens the crew. Company policy requires crews to investigate such transmissions so they land on the planetoid, sustaining damage from its atmosphere and rocky landscape. Parker and Brett repair the ship while Dallas, Kane and Lambert head out to investigate. They discover the signal comes from a derelict alien spacecraft and head inside it, losing communication with Ash. Exploring the spacecraft, they find the remains of a large alien creature whose rib cage appears to have exploded from the inside.
On Nostromo, Ripley determines that the transmission may be a warning, not a distress call. In the alien ship, Kane discovers a chamber containing hundreds of large egg-like objects. As he inspects one, a creature springs out and attaches to his face. Dallas and Lambert carry the unconscious Kane back to the Nostromo. As acting senior officer, Ripley refuses to let them aboard, citing quarantine regulations, but Ash ignores Ripley and lets them in. The crew unsuccessfully attempt to remove the creature from Kane's face, discovering that its blood is an extremely corrosive acid. It later detaches on its own and dies.
With the ship partly repaired, the crew lifts off. Kane awakens, dazed but otherwise unharmed. During a final crew meal before stasis, he chokes and convulses in pain. He dies as a small alien creature bursts from his chest and escapes out into the ship. Wary of its corrosive blood, the crew attempts to locate and capture it with motion trackers, nets, electric prods and flamethrowers.
While looking for the alien signals with motion trackers, Jones, the crew's Cat, was accidentally detected and emerges scared from a hole. To prevent further confusion, Brett tries to catch the cat and follows it into an engine room, where the now fully-grown alien (Badejo) attacks him and disappears with his body into an air shaft. After heated discussion, the crew decide the creature must be in the air ducts. They plan to herd it into an airlock to jettison from the ship. Dallas enters and searches the Nostromo's ventilation ducts but it ambushes him. Lambert implores the others to abandon ship and escape in its small shuttle. Now in command, Ripley explains that the shuttle will not support four people and pushes to continue with Dallas' plan of flushing the alien out.
Now with access to Mother, Ripley discovers that Ash has been secretly ordered to return the alien to the company, with the crew expendable. Ripley confronts Ash and he tries to choke her to death. Parker intervenes and clubs Ash, knocking off his head to reveal him to be an android. Parker reanimates Ash's head and they learn he was assigned to the Nostromo to ensure the creature was returned for analysis at any expense, including the crew's lives. Ash taunts them about their chances against the "perfect organism". Ripley disconnects Ash and Parker burns his smashed remains with a flamethrower.
Ripley, Lambert, and Parker agree to set the Nostromo to self-destruct and escape in the shuttle. However, Parker and Lambert are killed by the alien while gathering life-support supplies. Ripley initiates the self-destruct sequence and heads for the shuttle with Jones but finds the alien in her path. She retreats and attempts unsuccessfully to abort the self-destruct, so she tries again for the shuttle. The alien has gone and she narrowly escapes in the shuttle with Jones as the Nostromo explodes.
As she prepares for stasis, Ripley finds the alien aboard the shuttle. She dons a spacesuit and opens the shuttle's airlock, causing explosive decompression which forces the alien into the airlock doorway. She propels it into space by shooting it with a grappling hook, but the gun catches in the closing airlock, tethering the alien to the shuttle. It attempts to crawl into one of the engines but Ripley fires them to blast the alien into space. After recording the ship's final log entry, she places herself and Jones into stasis for the voyage home to Earth. | violence | train | wikipedia | They've got some nerve calling this film Alien 2: although certain elements have clearly been inspired by Ridley Scott's 1979 sci-fi horror classic, the film as a whole couldn't be more different
Want tense, claustrophobic, space-bound, futuristic action?
Unfortunately, this means we get endless tedious footage of the characters wandering around the cave, the director so preoccupied by the wonderful rock formations that he forgets all about telling a coherent story, throwing in such random nonsense as a telepathic speleologist just for the hell of it.Looking forward to seeing a cool alien creature?
This film's extraterrestrial starts off as a blue rock, turns into a red hand puppet in a moment that rips off Alien's chest-burster (although I admit that the face-burster scene is pretty cool), and finally becomes a mass of indistinguishable and very unconvincing tentacle thingies.Expecting ground-breaking special effects?
This is a low-budget Italian production, so all we get is some grainy stock footage for scenes involving a space mission returning to Earth, and some cheap gore.
Thankfully, the latter is pretty juicy: the aforementioned face-burster sees the victim's eyeball pushed from its socket before the creature erupts; one of the cavers has his head chewed off, the severed noggin (complete with assorted giblets) falling onto the rocks below with a satisfying 'thud'; and another guy's head explodes to reveal thrashing tentacles.What about a thrilling finalé?
After a couple of encounters with the creature, the last pair of survivors emerge from the cave to discover that the planet is totally deserted, with the exception of the alien, which chases them around for a while, director Ciro Ippolito employing dreadful alien POV shots.
It's a lousy way to wrap up a fairly dismal film which is barely worth enduring for the gore (and a bit of gratuitous topless nudity from star Belinda Mayne)..
1980 was a banner year for Italians doing ripoffs as the film world received ZOMBI 2 (aka ZOMBIE) and this "sequel" to ALIEN.
Of course, the Italians wisely set it on earth, something the ALIEN series has been trying to do for almost 30 years now.Three astronauts return to earth in a space capsule, but are all mysteriously missing when the device is recovered at sea.
Along the way to the caves, Burt (Michele Soavi) picks up a curious looking rock which is actually an alien lifeform that spread over the desert upon the astronauts' re-entry.
The group heads into the caves and, before you can scream THE DESCENT, find themselves getting bloodied up by our rock monster.The last half hour or so is decent when the space monster finally attacks.
For some reason, Ippolito is intent on trying to make a bowling alley the scariest place on earth in the finale.
The film does end on a grim note and the scenes of the lead actress running around a deserted San Diego, CA are pretty effective.
This massively incoherent, dumb, cheesy and amateurish Italian early-eighties "movie-thing" rewards itself with the title "Alien 2" but there's very little, even no relation with Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi masterpiece that single-handedly altered the status of the genre.
That's right, even in the gigantic world of Italian rip-off cinema he's an absolute nobody, and then still "Alien 2" appears to be his best work.
Poor guy
Anyway, this definitely isn't the most blatant& shameless Alien imitation we've ever seen, as Ippolito actually just stole the claustrophobic setting aspect as well as the idea that the extraterrestrial perpetrator initially requires a host-body to grow in size and appetite.
Naturally, it isn't just a stone but an alien's egg, and when the critter emerges from it, it goes straight for attacking the face.
Okay, the cave-setting admittedly was a nifty idea and it's much more original than other Alien wannabes like, say, "Inseminoid" and "Forbidden World".
The ending is fairly atmospheric and tense, even though it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense like so many other parts of the film.
"Alien 2" is a truly bad film, but there still are far worse ways to kill 80 minutes of your precious time..
I watched it years ago and just could remember the falling head attacked by an alien.
I have seen worser but don't expect a follow up of the original Alien, the budget is way to low for that.
I'd heard bad things about this, like it was too slow, confusing, had too much potholing in it, but after finally watching this I feel the bad dubbing and general stupidity of the script (not to mention the great soundtrack by Oliver Onions) carried everything through.
Sure, the ending was a bit of a let down, but still, where else do you have a guy explaining his wife's meltdown on live television as "It's okay- she's just telepathic".A spaceship is due to land in the sea and while waiting for that, a TV show interviews a potholer on live television for some reason.
You know your watching an Italian film when a small kid is graphically mauled by an alien creature.
Also, you know your watching an Italian film when Michele Soavi finds a similar blue rock on the ground while he's having a pee up against a building.And now it's time for potholing!
You get that here as our alien makes an appearance, bursts out the girls face, and attacks the other guy causing his head to fall off onto the rest of our idiots.From then on out it's alien (or aliens, it's quite confusing) versus potholers as they get lost in the dark, split up (again), and run around trying to find a way out – There's some gore, exploding heads, aliens bursting from bodies, people being killed and a bit of a psychic battle that's not even remotely explained.
Needless to say a couple of people escape back to the world, which is strangely empty (save for one shot where there's people walking down the street and traffic and what not).While strangely focusing on things ignored in other films (cars driving down the street for ages, bowling alleys, potholing) and kind of fizzling out towards the end there (although I loved the POV shot through the alien's mouth!), Alien 2 (which I'm sure is an official sequel) has enough extreme gore, bad dubbing and stupid characters to entertain a jaded Italian splatter fan.
It opens with stock astronaut splash down film footage, moves on to a bowling alley, then a beach, and finally the cave.
Blue rocks that somehow turn into sock puppets are the "Aliens" that attack the group of spelunkers.
But the good news is - this one's not bad.After a brief intro about the return to earth of a spaceship where all the astronauts were dead and/or hideously mutilated (or something), the main action of the film gets going with a group of people exploring an underground cave.
Among them are people involved with the investigation of the spaceship, including a (slightly) psychic woman who senses the presence of...something.The reason the film entertains is because of the well made scenes set in the cave.
We follow the cavers through lots of perilous exploration, which starts off with the usual terrors of ropes snapping, long falls, dead end tunnels, etc, but soon starts to move into "Alien"-type territory as an unseen menace starts chomping on the cast!
My only disappointment was that the extreme darkness of some scenes obscure a lot of what is going on, but generally the darkness works in the film's favour.Bizarrely, the film does eventually leave the confines of the caves, but in a baffling change of location, the climactic scenes are filmed in...a bowling alley (?)!
I can only assume that it is very likely that the bowling alley was known to the film makers and they got a very good deal for filming there - apart from that there is no possible logic behind the choice - it's really not a scary place at all!
The ending - which is as unexpected as it is unexplained, and finally the monsters: it's a case of less is more here, so don't expect to see any big rubbery creations.Made on the cheap I presume, but a lot of the low budget is covered up by keeping the project quite modest.
When I watched this film I knew almost nothing about the original Alien series.
You can understand only from the last scene how silly this movie was (I decided to watch it all because I should pay for it).
The heroine found out that she was alone in the city and then a title came out saying: YOU COULD BE THE NEXT!(No other comments for that) I can't advice you to watch it because I'm not sure if your local video store would have it (it is a very popular movie, you see) but I would recommend this movie to anyone loves gore (Too gory with very silly special effects)Here's the main plot: The heroine (I can't remember her name) discovers caves and has terrible headaches because of the alien's arrival on earth.
Anyway, they (there were some others too) decide to go to a cave to find out that they were carrying an alien rock with them witch turns them to disgusting monsters/aliens which are after the rest of them (or something like that).
A Slower Pace, But I Actually Liked It. A space module lands back to Earth after a failed mission, but the astronauts have been replaced by hideous creatures that can penetrate into people's bodies and make them explode.
A group of speleologists are attacked by the monsters inside an underground cave.For fans of Italian horror cinema, the most notable name attached to this movie is probably Michele Soavi, who plays Burt.
The film at the beginning talks about this space pod returning to earth, we have an interview with the star female of the piece where we learn she is apparently psychic.
Finally, after more cavorting in the cave the alien attacks and general mayhem ensues.
You can see the problem, I am afraid the makers of this film were so enthralled with the cave that they forgot multiple times that they were supposed to be making an alien horror movie.
There is some potential in this one, as there is a great kill involving a guy losing his head, also a nice attack on a couple as the cave seems to be alive.
The makers of this film really did not seem to have a vision on what they wanted their monster to look like.
As with all the Italian-made films, the acting is not very good, and the camera is sometimes amateurish, but it compensates with plenty of gore, good cavern sets and a good score, not to mention the tag line, which is either going to make you frown or laugh..
A couple of astronauts are missing from a shuttle after its re-entry to earth, and mysterious blue "rocks" appear at the same time.
A Cheap Italian Alien film.
The acting of course is bad (It's ITALIAN after all) and the movie pretty much all takes place in a cavern-like place.
Horrid film that follows eight cave explorers on an expedition that gets ruined by a blood-thirsty alien rock.
A fair few bloody deaths, (face sucks, heads falling off; stuff like that) but mainly very hard to watch or understand..
ALIEN 2: ON EARTH is one of those hilariously inept, no-budget Italian rip-offs of popular movies of the time.
The Italians particularly liked reworking American sci-fi movies, beginning with STAR WARS, but come 1980 they'd moved on to ALIEN, delivering the double whammy of this and CONTAMINATION.
There's no doubt that CONTAMINATION is the better film - it has a real story, after all - and that ALIEN 2 is a piece of trash, but nonetheless it has undeniable charm.It's clear that the brains behind this movie saw the famous John Hurt chestbursting scene in ALIEN and decided to base their movie around that single moment, revisiting it over and over again as a group of spelunkers are assaulted and killed by some hostile aliens who've hitched a ride to Earth on a returning spaceship.Production values are near nil but it doesn't matter, because ALIEN 2 is all about the gruesome spectacle.
In some ways I was reminded of the recent British horror film, THE DESCENT, although of course this was made on a much lower budget.The acting is poor, the dubbing is poor, and the narrative falls apart towards the end, leading to an incredibly obvious so-called 'twist' ending, but still, but still...from early on, and THAT scene with the little girl on the beach, I was hooked and made yucky by this nasty little outing..
The following 20 minutes tell the story of a group of spelunkers who encounter a killer blue wad of play-dough, attempt to escape from it's deadly grasp, and die graphic, bloody deaths that are out of proportion to the decided lack of actual activity.
Finally, the closing 20 minutes finds the two survivors returning to the bowling alley, finding an alien covering the lens of the camera, running around shouting at nothing, and the suggestion that YOU COULD BE NEXT.Yes. That IS chilling.
You too could end up engaging in odd, meaningless hobbies like bowling and spelunking to fill your idle hours between major meals.
Even the instant low budget 'alien world' look of the underground caverns, moments of nudity, gore, and interesting electronic music score (which I believe we hear in CONTANIMATION as well) cannot save this film.
I have to admit, have really soft spot for this Alien rip off/sequel..The aliens are definitely not friendly...Its starts with stock footage of a failed mission that crashes in the sea, in the meantime the films heroine and her crew set off for a expedition into some underground caves deep below the surface, it seems the aliens (which we saw briefly on a beach) have made there way there too and who knows where else?
after some grisly deaths and faces bursting open, done with some neat special effects, the film ends with the heroine (played by the gorgeous Belinda Mayne) and her bearded ugly geeky boyfriend (can you tell I'm jealous) get back to the surface, drive to the city...Not life left on Earth, the aliens have wiped everything out...the film finishes with @you could be next"..Good atmosphere, good effects and a pretty good film that if it was not slightly boring at time would be top marks..I think this film, unlike half of the doomed cave explorers in the movie, seems to have re-surfaced and getting a bit of a following again..Very well worth watching and its recent blu-ray release from the original negatives is a must have in a collector of cult film cinema..
A couple named Thelma (Belinda Mayne) and Roy (Mark Bodin) are keen potholers and along with six of their friends, Bert (Michele Soavi) Maureen (Judy Perrin, this is where the credit information on the IMDb stops and the film doesn't list the characters on the credits), Jill, Bill, Cliff and Rod are planning a weekend exploring some caves somewhere in the Californian wilderness.
The potholers stop at a roadside café and Bert (the idiot of the group) takes a slash against a wall and notices a strange blue football sized rock, he picks it up and gives it to Thelma, oh and by the way Thelma is a psychic and she has a 'bad' feeling.
Once deep inside the cave they all have a good time until Jill and Thelma goes off on their own.
Once Jill is up top her face splits open and a snake like alien thing emerges.
They must use all their experience and know how to find a way out and survive the Alien Terror!Written, produced and directed by Ciro Ippolito under the pseudonym Sam Cromwell, rumour has it Umberto Lenzi might have been involved too.
The script drags a little in places and some of the dialogue is as absurd as we've come to expect from these 80's Italian produced low-budget horror films, but that's half their charm and entertainment.
There is some pretty good gore sequences in this too, Rods head oozing off and some of his insides following it down out of his neck stump is a definite highlight as is Jills face splitting open just prior, the special make-up effects are decent enough too.
I don't really know why but this is one of those films that should be absolutely awful, and probably is to most people, but for some unexplainable reason I liked it.
I went to the movies that day thinking it to be an official sequel to Ridley Scott´s Alien, and I was only 9 years old.
I saw the first Alien when I was seven, my mom had to bribe the theater´s clerk in order to let me in, because, in my country, at that time, those type of horror films were restricted for people over 16.
So, I went on and decided to see Alien 2 as well, a few years later, unaware that it was only an italian flick, with no connection whatsoever to the first one.
If the first Alien happened to be an experience in terror, due to the masterful editing and camera work(you never see the monster, but you feel its menacing presence), this one was a major experience in gore, because the monster itself, that comes off some rocks that fell from space, looks like a blood jelly of some kind, that penetrates human body and melts its victims, producing more blood jelly.
Among them, a little girl has her face "eaten" by the monster, some of the cave explorers literally explode in contact with the monster, including one of them who melts to the point of losing his head.
A fun'n'funky piece of early 80's Italian sci-fi/horror splatter cheese. |
tt0273435 | Ararat | In Toronto, an Armenian Canadian family is headed by Ani, a widow whose husband attempted to assassinate a Turkish ambassador. Her adult son Raffi is involved in a sexual affair with Celia, who has accused Ani of pushing her father off of a cliff, while Ani insists he slipped and fell. Ani gives art history presentations on Armenian American painter Arshile Gorky, with Celia constantly attending and publicly heckling Ani about concealing the truth.
An Armenian film director, Edward Saroyan, arrives to Toronto with a goal to make a film about the Armenian Genocide and Gorky. Ani is hired as a historical consultant, with Raffi working on the project with his mother. A Turkish Canadian aspiring actor named Ali receives his big break when cast as Ottoman governor Jevdet Bey. Ali reads on the history of the genocide, which he had never heard much of before, and offends Raffi when he tells Saroyan that he believes the Ottomans felt the genocide was defensive, in light of World War I. Raffi attempts to explain to Ali that the Armenians were citizens of the Ottoman Empire and that the Turks were not at war with them. Ali shrugs the encounter off, saying they were both born in Canada and the incident is forgotten.
After Raffi returns to Canada from a flight to Turkey, he is interrogated at airport security by a retiring customs official named David, who has reason to believe Raffi is involved in a plot to smuggle drugs. Rather than employ drug-sniffing dogs, David speaks to Raffi at length, with Raffi claiming he had taken it upon himself to shoot extra footage in Turkey. In fact, the film is premiering that night. Inspired by his own son, David chooses to believe Raffi is innocent, without checking the film canisters which may contain the drugs. | violence, historical, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0105659 | The Turn of the Screw | An unnamed narrator listens to Douglas, a friend, read a manuscript written by a former governess whom Douglas claims to have known and who is now dead. The manuscript tells the story of how the young governess is hired by a man who has become responsible for his young nephew and niece after the deaths of their parents. He lives mainly in London and is uninterested in raising the children.
The boy, Miles, is attending a boarding school, while his younger sister, Flora, is living at a summer country house in Essex. She is currently being cared for by Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper. Miles and Flora's uncle, the governess' new employer, gives her full charge of the children and explicitly states that she is not to bother him with communications of any sort. The governess travels to her new employer's country house, Bly, and begins her duties.
Miles soon returns from school for the summer just after a letter arrives from the headmaster stating that he has been expelled. Miles never speaks of the matter, and the governess is hesitant to raise the issue. She fears there is some horrible secret behind the expulsion but is too charmed by the adorable young boy to want to press the issue. Soon thereafter, around the grounds of the estate, the governess begins to see the figures of a man and woman whom she does not recognize. These figures come and go at will without ever being seen or challenged by other members of the household, and they seem to the governess to be supernatural. She learns from Mrs. Grose that her predecessor, Miss Jessel, and another employee, Peter Quint, had a sexual relationship. Before their deaths, Jessel and Quint spent much of their time with Flora and Miles, and this fact has grim significance for the governess when she becomes convinced that the two children are secretly aware of the ghosts' presence.
Later, without permission, Flora leaves the house while Miles is playing music for the governess. The governess notices Flora's absence and goes with Mrs. Grose in search of her. They find her in a clearing in the wood, and the governess is convinced that Flora has been talking to the ghost of Miss Jessel. When the governess finally confronts Flora, the girl denies seeing Miss Jessel and demands never to see the governess again. At the governess' suggestion, Mrs. Grose takes Flora away to her uncle, leaving the governess with Miles, who that night at last talks to her about his expulsion; the ghost of Quint appears to the governess at the window. The governess shields Miles, who attempts to see the ghost. The governess tells Miles he is no longer controlled by the ghost and then finds that Miles has died in her arms, and the ghost has gone. | insanity, haunting | train | wikipedia | A peculiar if intriguing attempt at adapting Henry James' Novella.
This 1992 adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" is a strange experience indeed.
Taking the Henry James Psychological ghost story masterpiece as a starting point, writer/director Rusty Lemorande makes a film that is ultimately a failure, but a very intriguing failure nonetheless.
The director takes the central premise of the well known story about a governess coming to doubt the innocence of the children under her care and realizing slowly that they may be haunted by the ghosts of her malevolent and sick predecessors, and produces a film that is much more modern (and by modern I mean graphic) which turns the story into a much more perverted psycho-sexual story about child abuse, the occult and of course repression (all themes that were addressed in Henry James' novella but in a much more subdued manner).
But despite achieving moments of true dread and an overall ominous and doom-laden atmosphere (aided tremendously by the beautifully Gothic locations and the occasionally brilliant cinematography), the director errs by making the story lose all the subtlety that was imbued in the original novella and instead relying too much on graphic sex scenes and overt violence (although these only appear in dream sequences which are somewhat brief) and ultimately as many filmmakers do when adapting a classic story, reading too much into the story in terms of sexual repression and perversion.
Although James' novella mainly dealt with issues of sanity, perspective and depravity, the main strength of the story was the ambiguity that James imbued the story with, something which made the story much more frightening and disturbing even a century after it was published.
But director Lemorande throws all subtlety out the window by using ear-shattering musical cues, gratuitous blood and sex and by portraying the apparitions as some sort of demonic beings, which are all things that do not correspond with the original tone or intention of the original story.
But in the end the film has its merits as Lemorands succeeds in creating some moments of visual ingenuity as well as the aforementioned atmosphere which is truly haunting and unnerving, things which many other adaptations of the same story failed to achieve..
I have never had the pleasure of reading the story or seeing the previous film adaptions from which this movie is based on which probably explains why I liked this film so much.
Anyway, the story is about a nanny (Patsy Kensit) who takes charge of a household for a strange man (Julian Sands- in a brief cameo appearance) and his even stranger children who seem troubled by some unknown terror.
This is a frightening film with a slow pace that actually works in favor of the film.
As a result of the slow pace the terror is allowed to slowly build up to a terrifying climax.
Kensit does a respectable job in the lead role.Rated R; Nudity & Sexual Situations..
Gothic erotic masterwork.
It is difficult to describe the visual beauty of Rusty Lemorande's version of the Henry James novel, 'Turn of the Screw'.
Here is a film for people who can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Gothic cinema.
The lovely Patsy Kensit is Jenny, a sexually repressed young woman, who travels to Blye House to care for two very strange, sinister young children.
The setting is gorgeous, with almost fetishistic attention being paid to every tiny detail.
The clothes, the furnishings, the cars, even the beautiful antique toys are constantly on display here, in a dizzying display of hypnotic beauty.
Jenny is tormented by the spirits of the dead, the children's former Nanny, and her mysterious lover.
It seems like the children, especially the boy, Miles, have been somehow corrupted by these two.
And this version of the story makes it obvious that the 'corruption' is of a sexual nature.
Whenever children are sexualized, it adds a truly disturbing level to the goings on.
Here we have an utterly bizarre, Gothic/erotic film that has been underrated by critics.
Perhaps the subject matter makes some uncomfortable, but true horror should make one feel a bit uneasy.
Filled with heavy handed sexual imagery, this is the only film version I know of where the child actors they used were the correct age.
And the kids who played little Flora and Miles are superbly pale and haunted looking.
Patsy Kensit is fine as the deeply religious Nanny battling her own inner demons as well as the demons of Blye House.
Her delicate beauty makes her more of a sympathetic character.
Even the music works for this one, haunting music box melodies to compliment the surreal and sometimes breathtaking imagery.
The film possesses an undeniable elegance, moving along at a leisurely pace, drawing the viewer in with hypnotic visuals and a classic ghost story.
While watching 'Turn of the Screw' I was repeatedly reminded of Mario Bava's masterpiece, "Lisa and the Devil".
There is also a bit of "Suspiria" here, but it's similarities to "Lisa" are extreme.
The setting; the beautiful house filled with erotic perversion and doomed, illicit romance, the camera angles, the gorgeous attention to detail.
I highly recommend 'Turn of the Screw' to fans of Argento and Bava, and other prolific Italian horror directors of the 1970's.
I hope someday that this bizarre masterpiece will find it's audience, and get the recognition it deserves..
To me "The Turn of the Screw" is a very good movie.
Patsy Kensit played the role of "Jenny" marvelously.
The story is very entertaining and leaves you hungry for more.
The ending was very unexpectedly, but that makes it very fascinating.
The setting is very beautiful and right for the kind of story it tells.
It may have gotten bad reviews but to me this is one of the best movies I've ever seen!.
Beautiful nightmare..
I was very pleasantly surprised with this adaptation of Henry James novel.It reminds me a little bit Dario Argento's "Suspiria"(1977).Why?
Because it's full of wonderful visuals and creepy atmosphere.Some scenes are really chilling without relaying on gore.The acting is pretty good,and Patsy Kensit is really keen on eyes.She is such a beautiful woman!Kudos go also to Rusty Lemonrade-great directing job Rusty,I'm your fan!So if you're in the mood for creepy ghost story don't hesitate to watch it.Recommended!.
Not too bad....
...but not too good.
The story starts with a weak narration in present times, telling a story...
Then we flash back to the 1960s and some crazy scenery.
The acting in this film is not the best; in fact, the best performances are by the children, who are the most believable characters in the film.This certainly isn't the best adaptation of the novel, but also not the worst..
Atmospheric Tragedy.
Some people who have read James' novella might be off-put by the changes made here: the change of setting, the change of narrator.
However, I find that this adaptation is the most faithful to the source of any I have seen.
It conveys the mood, the nature of the spectres, and the bewilderment of the novella extremely well.
If you want a grey, word-perfect recitation of the story, you can find it elsewhere, but this captures the nature of the torment better than any other.I do not recommend it for everyone, however, since you have to leave your expectations at the door..
Beware this shame.
If you know Henry James' novel and if you know Jack Clayton's first-rate adaptation of this subtle psychological subject, beware this poor adaptation from Rusty Lemorande.
No tension at all and Patsy Kensit really is no Deborah Kerr..
poor adaptation.
If you are thinking of seeing this movie because you liked the story by Henry James, don't bother.
The film-makers took every iota of subtlety out of the story and ended up with an overly obvious portrayal of a sexually repressed naive catholic governess' descent into madness.
The spirit of the short novel has been abandoned and only a general adherence to the plot is left.
Follow the link to external reviews for a more detailed analysis..
Excellent.
Excellent.
I think the movie is really awesome!!
The setting is wicked and Pasty Kensit can really act.
At first I didn't like her 'cos she's married to Liam Gallagher (WHAT A HOTTIE!!) I think she's a really good actress.
The story was very interesting.
It was very entertaining.
It got some really bad reviews, but I really liked it 'cos the whole concept of the movie was very Sherlock Holmes/Alfred Hitchkock like.
Also my fav movies are Horrors and Thrillers.
I also like comedy.
But I really enjoyed this movie..
Dull as dishwater supernatural drama..
The Turn of the Screw is set in 60's London where a young woman named Jenny Gooding (Patsy Kensit) has an interview with Mr. Cooper (Julian Sands) about becoming a Governess for two young children in a big house.
Mr. Cooper is their legal guardian as both their parents were killed & he needs someone to look after them, Jenny accepts the position.
Once there Jenny discovers a huge stately house isolated in the middle of the English countryside where she meets Mrs. Grose (Stephane Audran) the housekeeper & Flora (Claire Szekeres) the young girl she is meant to be looking after.
Jenny receives a letter in the post informing her that the second child Miles (Joseph England) has been expelled from his school & coming back.
Things go well at first but Miles & Flora are a couple of creepy kids, especially Miles.
Jenny also learns that the previous Governess mysteriously died, Jenny's stay starts to become a nightmare as she suffers bad dreams, visions of supposedly dead people & there is definitely something very wrong with Flora & Miles...This British French co-production was written & directed by Rusty Lemorande & is a film that I found far too pedestrian & dull for my liking.
The script by Lemorande takes itself 100% seriously, is somewhat sedately paced & was based on the short story by Henry James & I think that the word 'short' is crucial here as this filmed adaptation feels very drawn out & in my opinion has very little substance.
I have never read the novel so I cannot compare the two but the fact that the film is narrated feels like it was added to increase the duration & as a whole very little actually happens.
Jenny is the only central character with the two children & housekeeper the only other character's with any sort of significant screen time.
The film didn't flow properly & the narrative didn't work for me, why does Jenny become so afraid of Miles?
Did I miss something, she almost convinces herself without him actually doing anything that I can remember apart from being a bit naughty.
Jenny ends up having a breakdown which just didn't seem plausible or convincing in context at all.
The ending puzzled me as well, why did the kid die?
What were those ghost's at the window doing?
What happened to them?
Was it Jenny's imagination?
The things a mess & ends up being very frustrating as I felt there was a good film trying to break out, if only a bit more time had been spent on the pacing as it's very slow & the story which is loose to say the least.
As a whole it's not very engaging or interesting & I found it became quite dull well before the end credits started to roll.Director Lemorande does a terrific job & The Turn of the Screw has a wonderful visual style to it, the locations, the interesting props & set dressing, the creepy toys, the colour schemes, there's some really cool angles & camera shots & I think a lot of time & effort was put into the look of the film.
If only as much time had been spent on the script as on the visuals, a shame.
Forget about any gore as there isn't any, there is also a distinct lack of scares.Technically the film is great & I have no complaints here, it was shot in Surrey, England.
I have to say Patsy Kensit is hot in this, she's very cute.
Julian Sands fans will be very disappointed to learn despite his top billing in the credits he has nothing more than a cameo that amounts to about three minutes of screen time.The Turn of the Screw (isn't that a great title for a film?) is a bit of a bore, there's nothing particularly exciting or memorable about it & it doesn't seem to know what sort of film it wants to be.
I can't say I'd recommend it unless you like slow, dull pointless films. |
tt0069278 | Skyjacked | During a routine flight to Minneapolis, a passenger (Susan Dey) aboard Global Airways Flight 502, a Boeing 707, discovers a bomb threat written on the mirror of one of the first-class bathrooms. A second threat is soon found left on a napkin in a galley. Captain Hank O'Hara (Charlton Heston) takes the cryptic threats seriously and follows the instructions -- "Bomb on plane divert to Anchorage Alaska. No Joke, No Tricks. Death"—by changing course for Alaska. To avoid an explosive decompression if a bomb goes off, he flies at lower altitude, increasing fuel consumption.
The weather at Anchorage is so poor, a United States Air Force ground-controlled approach specialist (Claude Akins) is called in. His radar shows a small aircraft with radio failure that is approaching the same runway, but Flight 502 has too little fuel to go around. O'Hara sees the other aircraft at the last moment and manages to avoid a collision and land safely.
On the ground, O'Hara learns the hijacker is one of his passengers, Sgt. Jerome K. Weber (James Brolin), a Vietnam veteran driven insane by war trauma. Whether he has a bomb or not, Weber is certainly armed with guns and grenades. He threatens to detonate a grenade in his hand if anyone attempts to interfere with his plans.
After a majority of economy-class passengers successfully escape by an emergency slide, the remaining passengers and the three economy-class stewardesses are allowed to leave. Weber keeps the remaining crew as hostages, including a stewardess (Yvette Mimieux) with whom O'Hara had been in a relationship, and all of the first-class passengers, including a U.S. Senator (Walter Pidgeon) and a woman (Mariette Hartley) who has gone into labor due to the crisis. A federal agent tries to slip on board, but is caught by Weber and becomes another hostage. Weber demands to be flown to Moscow, where he intends to defect to the Soviet Union.
Although the Soviets deny clearance into their airspace, Weber insists on being flown straight ahead to Moscow, becoming increasingly agitated. Soviet fighters intercept the airliner, but are eventually convinced it is civilian once O'Hara lowers the landing gear and flaps to a full landing configuration. The Soviets then allow the hijacked airliner to land at Moscow, ordering it to stop short of the terminal as armed soldiers surround the plane.
All passengers and the remaining crew are finally released, leaving O'Hara and Weber as the last ones on board. Weber, who had nursed fantasies of becoming a hero to the Soviets, is jubilant to have seemingly achieved his dream. He gloats to O'Hara that no bomb was in his possession. But then he realizes the Soviet forces surrounding the aircraft are preparing to attack him, not welcome him.
Weber prepares to open fire on the Soviets, and when O'Hara tries to intervene, Weber shoots him. Both men stagger down the airstair to the landing strip, where Weber is shot and killed by Soviet forces. O'Hara survives, and looks up to the sky, with a smile of relief, spotting another aircraft that has just taken off. | suspenseful | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0389121 | The Mystery of Natalie Wood | === Part 1 ===
The film begins on November 28, 1981 on Catalina Island, California, where 43-year-old Natalie Wood (Justine Waddell) falls off her yacht, Splendour, and drowns. Flashing back to 1943, five-year-old, then named Natasha (Grace Fulton), grows up in a violent household in Santa Rosa, California. Her overbearing mother, Maria Gurdin (Alice Krige), is obsessed with making her daughter a film star. When a film is shooting in town, Maria arranges a role for Natasha. She kills a butterfly in order to get Natasha to cry on cue. Her performance impresses the director, Irving Pichel (John Noble), and a year later she reluctantly moves to Hollywood to start her career. Her mother dictates every career move, and gives her a new name: Natalie Wood. In 1946, Natalie is working on three films at a time, and is not allowed to enjoy spare time with her friends. Three years later, teenaged Natalie (Elizabeth Rice) is unable to prevent her neglected older sister, Olga (Leanne Simic), from leaving home. While working on the set of The Green Promise, Natalie breaks her wrist. Fearing that her daughter will lose roles if she has it treated, Maria rejects medical help. Natalie's wrist does not heal properly as a result.
While in high school, 15-year-old Natalie falls in love with classmate Jimmy Williams (Jason Smith), and starts to rebel against her mother. Afraid that Natalie will get pregnant, Maria manipulates Natalie into breaking up with Jimmy. Jimmy shoots himself in an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Heartbroken, Natalie severs all ties with her mother. By the mid-1950s, she (Waddell) and her friend Margaret O'Brien (Sophie Mentis) decide that Natalie should play the female lead in Rebel Without a Cause opposite James Dean (Nick Carpenter). In order to get the role, she allows herself to be seduced by director Nicholas Ray (Robert Taylor). Ray does not cast her initially, but her involvement in a car accident caused by Dennis Hopper (Jarrod Dean), changes his mind. Simultaneously, she auditions for director Roy Tremaine (Andy Rodoreda) to please her mother; he rapes her. Fearful for her career, she does not report the crime. She focuses on Rebel, which is a great success. Natalie achieves stardom and becomes romantically involved with many Hollywood men. Worried about her many boyfriends, Maria arranges a date with Robert Wagner (Michael Weatherly), an actor whom Natalie has adored since she was a child.
Shortly before they are married, Natalie promises her mother that she will not have children with Robert, even though she wants to do so. By 1959, she distances herself from Robert and regularly meets with a therapist to discuss her troubled childhood and her frustrated desire for motherhood. Meanwhile, she works on Splendor in the Grass in New York City with Elia Kazan (Christopher Pate). The film requires nudity, and she becomes upset when her malformed wrist is exposed for the first time. Another scene requires her to swim, forcing her to confront a traumatizing fear of drowning instilled in her by her mother. She eventually overcomes her fear and celebrates with her co-star Warren Beatty (Matthew Settle). Wagner becomes jealous of her interaction with other men. While filming West Side Story, Robert announces that he wants a divorce because he never sees Natalie anymore; he is also jealous of her rise to stardom.
=== Part 2 ===
The film continues to reflect on her marriage with Robert Wagner, as well as her relationship with Warren Beatty. Natalie's nightmare of drowning comes true, when in 1981 she falls off a boat and drowns in the freezing water. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0122143 | The Last Broadcast | The film deals with a documentary film-maker named David Leigh, and his investigation of the Fact or Fiction murders, where a pair of public-access television cable TV hosts were murdered in mysterious circumstances. Leigh sets out to find the truth behind these killings while making his documentary.
Fact or Fiction is a show dealing with unsolved mysteries and the paranormal. Its two hosts are Steven "Johnny" Avkast and Locus Wheeler. Initially a success, we find out through Leigh's investigations that the show is failing and is threatened with imminent cancellation. It is at this point that Avkast comes up with the idea of a live Internet Relay Chat section of the show.
It is during one such chat that a caller gives Avkast the idea of searching for the Jersey Devil in the Pine Barrens (the film only mentions the Jersey Devil, however, and gives absolutely no background details of the legend). Leaping on this idea, Avkast and Wheeler recruit Rein Clackin, a sound-man who allegedly can record the paranormal, and Jim Suerd, a psychic; Leigh later claims that Suerd is emotionally disturbed. The plan is for the four of them to enter the Pine Barrens, where Suerd will lead them to the location of the Jersey Devil. During the hunt, they will broadcast a live show simultaneously via television, Internet, and amateur radio.
They enter the Barrens, but only Suerd emerges alive; the others are horribly murdered. Avkast's body is never found, though it is made clear during Suerd's murder trial that he could not have survived considering the amount of blood lost at the crime scene. Leigh then summarizes the trial. Suerd, the only survivor, is also the only suspect. To aid the prosecution case they employ a video engineer (nicknamed "The Killer Cutter") to compile a portrait of the group's trip using the surviving film footage found at the crime scene. Suerd is found guilty and imprisoned, though there is doubt over his guilt as his clothes were not drenched in blood and there is evidence he was engaged in an IRC room at the times of the murders.
Before anything can be proven, Suerd dies in prison of unknown causes, and the case is considered closed by the authorities. However, Leigh has a box sent to him containing a damaged videotape reel, which Leigh assumes is tape from the Fact or Fiction team thought not to exist. A data retrieval expert named Shelly Monarch is called in to reconstruct the images on the tape. She finds that not only have Wheeler and Clacklin's deaths been caught on tape, but that Suerd could not have committed the murders. What is also caught is a blurred image of the real killer. As Leigh videotapes her, Monarch uses an image editor to re-construct the image of the killer's face. She completes the reconstructing of the image before Leigh's next visit, but she is shocked to discover that the killer is Leigh himself.
The camera then 'shifts' to a third person perspective, whereas all previous footage had been shot by Leigh. From this perspective we observe Leigh attack Monarch and suffocating her to death with a piece of plastic sheeting. He loads Monarch's corpse into his car and drives it out to the woods, where he dumps it in a clearing and then begins awkwardly videotaping himself narrating the next segment of his documentary. | dark, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Both films rest on a similar gimmick of claiming to be partially a composed "documentary" and partially a collection of videotaped images by a group of young adults who are about to get killed in the woods, and we're watching them as "evidence" of what happened to them.
There are finer-grained similarities as well, but I mainly bring it up to give you an idea of what The Last Broadcast is like if you haven't seen it but you've seen The Blair Witch Project.The first problem with The Last Broadcast is that it doesn't play like a documentary.
Again, it looks more like an amateur filmmaker who has never seen cable access programming imagining what it would be like based on a description only.Like The Blair Witch Project, another big problem with The Last Broadcast is that for some strange reason directors Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler decided to use purposefully bad camera-work for much of the material, especially any footage shot by the Fact or Fiction guys, and footage by the documentary host, David Beard.
It is another aspect that does not help sell the film as a documentary.Finally, the attempt at becoming more philosophical about media's influence on reality perception is very sophomoric, and the big "twist" at the end was fairly inexplicable to me.
The movie has some similarities to the Blair Witch Project, but doesn't even come close.
Years later a documentary maker receives video tape not included in the trial and sets out to find what really happened.I don't care which film was made first and I don't care if `last broadcast' and `Blair witch' are similar or not.
When I watched this alone, my reaction was: 'is that it?' When I watched it a second time with my mates, after it ended, their reaction was: 'hey, where were the scary moments?'Forget this and go for the Blair Witch Project.
I had a wonderful time watching The Last Broadcast and wish more people would check out the movie that The Blair Witch Project ripped off.
"Star Wars" had "Battlestar Galactica"."The Abyss" had "Leviathan" and "Deep Star Six"."Babylon 5" had "Deep Space Nine.""Last Broadcast" has "Blair Witch."All the above were films or TV shows with original ideas that were used and/or usurped by other studios.
Some of the spin-off ripoffs were better, some were not."Blair Witch" fans defend their film, made and released nearly a full year after "Broadcast", by saying that their film is only identical on a surface level...teens travel into the woods to make a documentary and are killed.
"Blair Witch" is more frightening, more eerie, where "Broadcast" doesn't get really creepy until the end, where you realize where the story has taken you.
Eventually the product developed from that idea was an independent, documentary-style horror film with plenty of home-video shots of camp-sites, and people running around the woods at night.
It had a one week run at the International House in Philadelphia when it was first released, right before it went to Belgium and the Cannes Film Festival among other places.In terms of whether or not the makers of The Blair Witch Project stole their idea, it is known that those directors did see The Last Broadcast in Florida over a year ago.
Avalos and Weller, whom I had the chance to speak with when I saw the movie during its special run in Doylestown recently, said they have gotten many calls from lawyers encouraging them to sue but "are working on current projects and in general have better things to do." They were very down-to-earth, and even showed my friend and me the projection room where the small digital projector, which resembled your typical CPU and contained the movie on its hard drive, stood next to the giant movie reels used to show regular films.The basic plot of The Last Broadcast involves four men (two of whom are Avalos and Weller), from a cable access television show called Fact or Fiction, going into the Pine Barrens of New Jersey hoping to catch a glimpse of the infamous Jersey Devil on camera.
Throughout the movie, the familiar Pine Barrens provide a grim backdrop.As opposed to the very simplistic Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast is a very complex jigsaw puzzle with finely drawn characters, an excellent and wholly believable mystery, and an equally shocking, if not more satisfying, conclusion.
Broadcast is also provocative in that it serves as a mind-opening commentary on the news media's manipulation of the facts (usually to create an agreed upon truth for the public to accept) as well as the ludicrousness of the tabloid media.Destined for cult status with its nine hundred dollar budget, The Last Broadcast is excellent, and certainly one of the most original and well structured films I've seen.
THE LAST BROADCAST is a fake documentary executed in a similar style to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, a very famous movie that it is often compared to whether in a positive or negative context.The plot of the documentary is actually very interesting.
And as already mentioned, the narration is monotone.The only positive comment I can make about this excuse for a movie is the twist ending where there is actually a scene that is interesting to watch.
Unfortunately it is not worth sitting through the remaining 80+ minutes to reach.If you want to see a truly great fake documentary, I highly recommend GHOSTWATCH - an excellent piece of work that is carefully scripted, genuinely puts you on the edge of your seat, contains great scares and still makes you question what you've seen even when you know it's a phony.If you want to see a great horror movie done in the style of a camcorder home video, I highly recommend REC, a fast-paced thrill ride from beginning to end that is genuinely scary and tense.Finally, I advise everyone to avoid THE LAST BROADCAST like the plague!.
And it showed.Compare this video against truly creative independent works such as "Corn Dog Man" and you gain a quick perspective on the differences between new wave home-video and traditional independent film.On the positive side, I think the sound work for "The Last Broadcast" was excellent and most effective.
It gave me goosebumps for a few hours, and the only thing i regretted was that i didn't record it for repeated viewing.Luckily a few years later i got my hands on a copy of the DVD (because i saw it at a mates and he didn't like it, so he gave it to me for free) and i watched it a few times, over and over and the film is still as good as it was the first time i saw it.
(this is coming from friends that enjoyed 'The Grudge' and 'Chainsaw Massacre' remake and the rest of the crappy Hollywood horror movies made) One of the best horror / mystery films i've ever seen, i saw it in a local DVD store for less than £3 so its a better buy than most stuff thats 5 times dearer - 10 out of 10.
Just a bunch of random video clips and interviews.I must admit, Blair Witch Project is hell of a LOT better this P.O.S.Okay, so why does this movie suck?
I rented this movie after hearing all the comparisons with "Blair Witch Project." The idea was interesting, but that's about it.
Not only is it ineffective, it destroys everything the film has set up and leaves so many unanswered questions.My advice: skip this movie and watch "Blair Witch" instead..
Obviously, this sounds a lot like "The Blair Witch Project," but really the only thing the two films have in common is the basic premise: local legends and disappearances in the woods.
The makers of BWP may have taken the concept of this movie to create their effectively scary psychological horror film.
I had heard so much about this film, particularly when all the discussions about the Blair Witch Project came out, that when the opportunity came to watch it I seized the day and sat down.Two producers of a failing cable show Fact Or Fiction go on a hike into the woods with a soundman and a local boy to search for the famed Jersey Devil.
Shot on a budget usually reserved for lunch money, and using video as opposed to film, "Broadcast" seems more like a reality-based TV show than a movie, and that works to it's advantage.
While you're ignoring the lack of budget, the movie sneaks up on you with it's real story.Presented as a documentary, it's easy to forget that the film is actually a dramatic presentation - a "whodunnit" as told from the point of view of a documentary filmmaker with a "unique" perspective of the chilling murders of three public-access show crew members in the lonely Pine Barrens of New Jersey.Shot nearly entirely on video, with the exception of a short piece at the end shot on film, "Broadcast" is gritty and darkly entertaining.
Just watched it...a Blair Witch Project ripoff...How could anyone believe that modern video equipment would produce such poor quality...like shoving a guy and the video goes bananas...carrying a monitor around the woods, what a joke, these guys could not carry a monitor across the room...ATF investigating, not a chance in the real world.
People don't seem to understand this, and it is why THE LAST BROADCAST gets so much negative feedback.In order to understand the sheer genius of the movie, you need to watch it multiple times and catch the many, MANY clues about the events that occur at the ending.
As opposed to it's spin-off, Blair Witch, The Last Broadcast never lets down the image of being a real life documentary.
Also, rather than having the "documentary" look like a real movie put together after the fact, The Last Broadcast uses interviews, and directors commentary to give the real feeling of an actual occurrence.
'The Last Broadcast' has a few things in common with 'The Blair Witch Project' but the most important similarity is this: Both films had incredible potential and neither one paid off very well.
I think 'The Last Broadcast' has a WAY better, more original plot than the 'The Blair Witch Project', but it looks/feels more amateur than 'Blair'.
This movie did like feel like a found footage movie at all, it felt like was watching a real documentary.I did not like this movie at all, most of the time people were just talking about case after the murders, the person who got set down, did he it do or not.There are only number of scenes that were in the woods, which was really disappointing.I don't why but thought it be a lot more similar too The Blair Witch Project but it was far from it.
I think those who like twisted dark endings with a sense of explanation will like this better than The Blair Witch Project (ie...you won't be left feeling like "What the hell was that?????") You will actually get to see the Jersey Devil in action (cleverly done I might add).
To me "The Blair Witch" was kind of weak on horror but I DID find it really entertaining to watch 3 people lose it in the woods; especially seeing that incredibly annoying "Heather" finally bite it in the end.
Preceding the thematically and stylistically similar The Blair Witch Project by a year, the film proves even more tedious than its more famous (and highly over-rated) counterpart, with numerous dry interviews with people associated with the case, and lots of grainy, wobbly video footage, none of which I found the slightest bit scary.If The Last Broadcast had shed just a little bit of light on the legend of The Jersey Devil itself (a horrifying creature that is supposed to live in the Pine Barrens), then it might have been more interesting, but the monster is merely a McGuffin, rarely mentioned and certainly never seen.After lots of admittedly convincing interrogation and analysis, the film completely drops the ball by abandoning the documentary format for a more traditional approach in which the identity of the killer is finally revealed.
This abrupt change in style totally ruins the authenticity of the movie and smacks of a film-maker who couldn't think of any other way to wrap things up..
Although I liked the plot of this movie, I was really disappointed in the makers of it wanting the viewers to believe that all a 1995 high tech film lab uses to edit videos were a pair of scissors and some glue.
If the people at Haxan watched The Last Broadcast before making the Blair Witch flick, then they did it to see what NOT to do when making their film.In fact, these boys ought to get on their knees and thank Haxan for giving their stupid little film some out-of-festival legs.Not that the Blair Witch was a great movie, it annoyed me too with its stupid, whiney characters, but at least it spooked me a little with a sense of impending dread.
After reading some the of the reviews, I am definitely going to revisit this film, as I first saw this when it was released to VHS in 1999 (?)Obviously there are a lot of comparisons to this and Blair witch - due to the similarities to the supernatural, the hand-held footage, and being a mockumentary, but I would ask people who have yet to see this to remove the 2 completely.Unlike Blair witch, this comes across more as a documentary and has more eerie moments rather than a lot of shock and scare scenes of other similar horror/thrillers.
Like the Blair Witch Project, the Last Broadcast is marketed as a horror movie.
The difference between this film and The Blair Witch Project is simply, this one gives us the 'horror of what happened to the filmmakers' from a different perspective.
I only just saw the last broadcast.A friend suggested it to me knowing how much I like INDY suspense movies.I noticed that it came out before the blair witch project but had striking similarities to it.
I would imagine the last broadcast "inspired" the makers of blair witch.I was on the edge of my chair the whole time and the suffocation scene scared the hell out of me because it looked VERY realistic.I must say I kind of wished I would actually see a "jersey devil" but I suppose that would have been a very hard view to provide.I have seen many "fear" type shows about the devil and no one has ever actually showed it so why I was expecting it here I wouldn't know.I think the last broadcast is more realistic that the blair witch project and I have to admit if I had just run across this movie on some random channel, I would have truly believed I was watching a documentary.This movie is a "must see" for all INDY fans and suspense lovers everywhere..
I knew about this movie (precursor to the Blair Witch Project, etc.), but I didn't know what to expect from it.
In fact-if you watch the last stages closely or a few times you can quite clearly work-out what's happened & what's going to - which makes it all the more disturbing+horrific in my book.A Good film 7.5/8 out of 10 - much better than another one I can think of right now...
A lot of people have compared this movie to "The Blair Witch Project," but in many ways it is much better.
There isn't a single scary or exciting moment in the whole thing, and you are left thinking this: Imagine if 'The Curse of the Blair Witch', Sci-Fi Channel documentary that accompanied the first film, had been all BWP's producers made.
Well, we will come to that on a minute!Firstly the rumour that the makers of the BLAIR WITCH may have seen this at the Sundance festival, and then proceeded to make their version of a "mockumentary" style horror movie, is all too believable.
With all of the hype over the Blair Witch Project being 'the most original piece of film ever created' it's a wonder that so few people remembered the Last Broadcast.
If you want to see a good movie, rent the Blair Witch Project..
It was finished by the time "Last Broadcast" was out, which also looks like a very good film which I would love to see.
For those of you who can't see past THE BLAIR WITCH BLANKET, its time to burn the mattress and see the film that started it all, THE LAST BROADCAST.
If you have a chance to show it to others without knowledge that this is a movie (not a documentary filmed in real time), I would HIGHLY recommend you do so.
unique film, worth a look..certainly not like Blair Witch.
yes, Blair Witch and Broadcast have the same overall theme(teens go into the woods)but if you look passed that you will know each film had a different approach to it.
However If you are looking for something like Blair Witch, i wouldn't automatically assume this is the film for you..
However, a quick internet search should result in many purchasing opportunities.Many people believe this film influenced "The Blair Witch Project." Whether or not this is true, "The Last Broadcast" is certainly the better of two movies.
At the start of this film the first thing we see is caption that says " None of the people seen are actors" and although this statement does make you think that The Last Broadcast is maybe a real documentary ,in the end you feel let down because this statement is a blatant lie only said for affect.
"The Last Broadcast" is superior to "The Blair Witch Project" in most ways--not the least of which is that its makers originated the "documentarians die in the woods while making a documentary about a legendary monster" concept a year before "BWP" existed.But there are some major differences.
Basically, put "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Last Broadcast" together, and you've got one rocking movie. |
tt0114682 | To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar | After tying for the win in New York City's "Drag Queen of the Year" contest, Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes) and Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze) win a trip to Hollywood to take part in the even bigger "Miss Drag Queen of America Pageant." Before they depart, Vida persuades Noxeema to take along the inexperienced "drag princess" Chi-Chi Rodriguez (John Leguizamo) as their protégé (they initially refer to him simply as a "boy in a dress" rather than as a fully-fledged drag queen). To do this, they trade in their airplane tickets for cash and buy a stylish but old Cadillac convertible with money given to them by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (Robin Williams). They set off for Los Angeles in it, carrying with them an iconic autographed photo of Julie Newmar (signed, "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar") that Vida purloined from a restaurant wall.
While on the road they are pulled over by the racist, homophobic, and sexist Sheriff Dollard (Chris Penn), who tries to rape Vida. He discovers Vida is not a woman and, in the commotion, he falls backwards and is knocked unconscious. They think he is dead, hurry off, and leave him behind. As they recover from the incident at a rest stop, their car breaks down. A young man, Bobby Ray (Jason London) from the nearby small town of Snydersville, happens to pass by and gives them a ride, where they take refuge in a bed and breakfast inn owned by Carol Ann (Stockard Channing) and her abusive car repairman husband, Virgil (Arliss Howard).
They become stranded in the town for the weekend as they wait for the replacement part for their car to arrive. Chi-Chi is harassed by a group of roughnecks, but is saved by Bobby Ray. While volunteering to help with the town's Strawberry Social, they decide its small band of women need a day with them, which consists of the following steps: get your hair done, pick out a new outfit, and then just sit in a cafe and talk. While searching for the new outfits, they are ecstatic to find vintage fashions from the 1960s in the town's clothing store and give the female residents (and themselves) a make-over.
Following their makeover, they are abused by the same roughnecks that attempted to attack Chi-Chi. Fed up, Noxeema handles the situation in a typically New York City manner and teaches their ringleader a lesson in manners. Vida, Noxeema, and Chi-Chi do what they can to be positive, and they set out to improve the lives of the townspeople, including offering assistance in organizing the Strawberry Social.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Dollard is ridiculed by his colleagues, who believe he was beat up by a girl. He goes off in search of the drag queens.
Vida, in the meantime, becomes acutely aware of Carol Ann's abuse at the hands of Virgil and, shortly thereafter, they overhear him giving her another beating. Vida decides to intervene and beats him up before throwing him out of the house.
Carol Ann is able to repair their car, but they remain for the Strawberry Social. Carol Ann reveals to Vida that she knew she was a drag queen all along due to her Adam's apple, which is less prominent in women.
Not too far away, Virgil runs into Sheriff Dollard at a bar and they realize that the newcomers are the same people Dollard has been searching for. They head back to Snydersville, and Dollard demands that the townspeople turn them over. The other townspeople, who now realize that their new friends are not women, begin to protect them. One by one they step up and confront Dollard, each one claiming to be a drag queen (in similar fashion as in Spartacus). He is humiliated and flees. The Strawberry Social commences with everyone dressed in vibrant red outfits for it. The townfolk then say goodbye to their new friends as Noxeema, Vida and Chi-Chi prepare to leave. In honor of their friendship, Vida gives Carol Ann the autographed photo of Julie Newmar that has accompanied them on their trip.
They eventually make it to Los Angeles where Chi-Chi, after having received many tips from Vida and Noxeema during their ordeal, wins the title of Drag Queen of the Year. Fittingly, the crown is presented by Julie Newmar herself. | cute, queer, melodrama | train | wikipedia | The premise of having three macho actors take on the roles of drag queens to put together a very funny and insightful comedy of the sexes must have appeared as an impossible task.
This movie about three drag queens, two of whom win a trip to Hollywood, is kind of the ultimate road picture.
I've seen it a couple of times, and never fail to wonder at the transformation of Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo into...well, drag queens.
I wish *I* looked that good.I suppose there was a kind of freedom in making this movie, for them, because they were not playing a character that looks like them in *real life*.
I started out watching because if the novelty, ended up being invested in the characters and liking the movie.And Blythe Danner is always good, in anything she does..
Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo played believable drag queens, and they all did great jobs trying not to trip in their stiletto heels.
So surprising to see such macho actors turn into attractive women---although, to me, in a lot of scenes with that short haired bob wig, Patrick looked like Jack Lemmon's character in Some Like it Hot. The plot of this film is very unrealistic and the town that they land in is something more out of the 1700's than the 20th century, but it is a funny film and also teaches us about tolerance and acceptance for and to others.
But John Leguizamo, as the drag princess, steals the show, no small feat considering the supporting cast includes Robin Williams, Stockard Channing, Blythe Danner, Melinda Dillon, Arliss Howard, and, of course, the statuesque Julie Newmar.Much has been made of the similarity between this film and Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, but each stands on its own for many reasons.
And that women are not the sum of their feminine mannerisms, but whole people who are still too often subgugated by men.The drag queens are so much more "female" than any genuine woman they meet.
I also remember that it was a "nice" story the wouldn't offend anyone.I watched To Wong Foo....again and once again I watched while Patrick Swayze turned himself into Ms. Vida Boheme and then throughout the rest of the movie I kept studying this character in all of the different outfits - complete with matching hats, shoes and gloves - that she wore and kept asking myself, "How can that possibly be Patrick Swayze?" The three stars; Swayze, Wesley Snipes (Ms. Noxeema Jackson) and John Leguizamo (Chi-Chi Rodriquez) we just terrific as drag queens who head out for Hollywood and end up in a small town when their car breaks down.
Stockard Channing has an excellent role and Robin Williams has a cameo that was great.Noxeema Jackson and Chi-Chi are really typical "RuPaul" drag queens in this movie but Swayze's character is such a "lady" that is difficult for me to even relate other movie images of Patrick Swayze (Dirty Dancing (Johnny), City of Joy (Max), Father Hood (Jack) and others) to this character.
Perhaps if a Wesley Snipes fan or a John Leguizamo fan watched this movie they would have the same reaction to these actors' characters as I have had to Patrick Swayze's character - amazement and discomfort..
This movie was funny in spots, had a nice, happy ending, and starred some of my favorite people, including Michael Vartan, John Leguizamo, Beth Grant, Blythe Danner, etc.
It says something about the wide variety of people in the USA that some people think this movie is "wild and crazy." These three "champion" drag queens aren't portrayed as having even a hint of sexuality.
He was having some gender identity issues at the time (he is straight but was having a recurring series of dreams about becoming a woman) so we went to see this movie as a way of seeing how drag queens/crossdressers/etc.
I LOVED this movie.We were at best buy,I saw it,and bought it on this simple premise-Patrick Swayze in drag.And it looked like a good movie.
So I went home,popped it in,and literally laughed out loud.There's something in this drag queen movies,that makes it almost not offensive.I was afraid it would be bad,(We're Christian)but honestly,I wasn;t offended.The movie was so good,so sweet,so down right hysterical at times,I almost forgot Patrick swayze was a man.He could have easily blended into our church.The film starts out With PS and WS getting ready.That scene in itself is hysterical,because we see these rugged,masculine men-Putting on heels and stockings and makeup.WS,at one point,kicks his legs and squeals with delight.They go to the Drag queen of the year award,WS and PS tie,and ge to go to Hollywood.But when the little"Latin boy in drag is crying"they decide to string him along,and they get stuck in podunk town.There's a Cameo from Robin Williams thats excellent,And the townswomen are so sweet.and Noxeema(snipes)Befriends a little 4'9,80 pound elderly women.Cant get any beter than that.
Besides Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes great acting of John Leguizamo as junior-Queen "Chi Chi".
Especially the last part of the movie gives a lot of laughs when the Queens celebrate summertime with a strawberry show in the middle of the town..
I vividly remember the advance publicity surrounding this movie and thinking "Gee, these guys must really be comfortable in their own space not to even worry about any repercussions!." I love this movie more so because it was during this advance publicity that my own drag queen brother died; he was so thoroughly looking forward to seeing this movie.
Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguazamo were great in this movie they all showed how easy it is to play a woman.
First time I saw Snipes was in Demolition Man. After seeing those movies, I never would have expected them to be able to pull this off, but they were amazing.
I know a lot of people have said this movie only caused damage to Swayze and Snipes careers, but I totally disagree.
And, frankly, a bit stupid- no drag queen I know would set off on a road trip in full drag through parts unknown without fearing for her safety.On the flip side, the movie insults anyone who lives in a small town.
I don't know what else to say other than the fact that because of Patrick's handsomeness and excellent posture, he has managed to make Vida the most beautiful drag queen in the whole film!
A great story, with amazing actors.I have watched countless times and Would love if there was a number 2 movie done out of it, if you need cast I don't mind at all playing Vida Boheme or even Chichi Rodriguez.Would would think Wesley Snipes could be so camp?
Let's face it,Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes are built like footballers, andputting a dress on them, no matter how well tailored, no matterhow fabulously colour coordinated, does nothing to disguisethis simple fact.
I did not think this was a great film nor even a good film, however, as a crossdresser myself (I dislike the terms 'drag queen' or 'transvestite'), it was refreshing to see the likes of Swayze, Snipes & Leguizamo play the parts of men with gender identity issues.
It's funny and to see Patrick Swaze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo all dressed as women, and talking and acting like them.
There were a number of funny lines.This is a film that is good the first time you see it, but on a second look - once the shock of seeing three manly guys act like wannabe-women wears off - the agenda comes through and the film is not so funny.
From the irritating and skin-deep caricatures of drag queens to the weak and unbelievable plot, this movie attempts nothing new and achieves nothing worthwhile.If you like the premise, then watch it done properly - get Priscilla instead..
Even drag queen movies know how to look at small towns without being mean..
I will say that of the three cast members, Patrick Swayze looks the most like he can play a drag queen - but don't get me wrong, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo also do a great job.Anyway, this just might be the perfect kind of movie dealing with this topic.
Many people have likened "To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar" to "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", but I wish to assert that "TWFTFEJN" was actually better in that it showed how they help the people in this small town.
I had seen it when it came out back in 95', and I have to say it was still a thrill watching three of the malest, manliest men in Hollywood play Drag Queens.
Just to see Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes in drag is enough to see this once..
Unlike the rest of my friends, I never thought of To Wong Foo as a Priscilla knock-off.The plot of three men traveling across country while learning more about themselves is about all that the two films have in common.
Wow, thats pretty good that is!I've watched this movie something like 5 times in two weeks and i still think that its kewl 0=] I usually get tired of movies after a while, but this i haven't!
It does help to be queer to watch this movie, but the girls will love it and the guys will think "whats the point?" But for me, the point is that its a kewl movie about acceptance and also the "four rules to becoming a drag queen" LOLCheck it out, if u like this stuff then u won't be disappointed!.
Sincerily I think this is one of the best "drag queen movie" they have ever made!
Yes, I admit it could be considered VERY VERY similar to the most famous Australian movie "Priscilla The Queen of the desert" but it surely cut a good figure!!!
The original, "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" an Australian movie about three drag queens who drive an old bus halfway across the Australian desert to perform at a casino in the middle of nowhere is perfect and hilarious and wonderful, so why on Earth the producers of "To Wong Foo..." decided to make this half thought through calamity is beyond my comprehension.
Dreadful "comedy" about three drag queens (Wesley Snipes, Patrick Swayze and John Leguizamo) whose car breaks down in the middle of a tiny little town in the Bible Belt.
For starters NONE of the guys (with the possible esception of Swayze) look good in drag--Snipes in particular is frightening--yet they have the ENTIRE town convinced they're real woman!
Do we want to see Wesley Snipes and Patrick Swayze in drag when we can see Terence Stamp and Guy Pearce?
not cool, not cool at all, don't even bother watching this movie, if you want to see a funny drag-queen film, see the above mentioned Priscilla, it's well worth it, whereas this is not..
Admittedly I'm not that hard to please but my taste in film does pretty much run the gamut and this is still one of my favorite movies; not only because Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo turn in such convincing performances as drag queens but because their characters are so lovable and quirky.
Miss Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze) and Miss Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes) are the proud winners of a New York Drag Queen contest.
It shows that anyone, no matter how they chose to dress or who they chose to sleep with, can do good and bring people together.Patrick Swayze is relatively funny and surprisingly quite good in drag.
But getting thru all the wife beating, dumb country people pilferage, the movie reveals life as a drag queen to a "T".
"To Wong Foo--Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar" could best be described as "Rocky" for drag queens.
Patrick Swayze turns in the best performance, and John Leguizamo was born to wear a dress (at least, some of the time)..
Not only will this movie make you laugh until you spit Pepsi out of your nose, but it will also make you cry...and think about how wonderful the world really is.Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo perform well as the main characters of the film.
Swayze gives a surprising performance as a drag queen..
It was really a fun movie and the three stars did an excellent job of portraying the drag queens.
From the outrageous movie poster to the outrageous motto, "Attitude is everything", comes an outrageous story line about two drag queens in New York who win a trip to Hollywood.
Drag queens live by this movie.
This is one of the best movies about drag queens ever made!
This is one of the best movies about drag queens ever made!
I recommend this movie to any young person who is faced with the adversity of being gay and/or a drag queen..
It's worth to see this movie just to see Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo in drag!
This movie was a laugh riot from start to finish as the aforementioned actors try to make it to a "drag queen competition" and get stuck in a small town and one impossible situation after another.
It is a comedy about three New York drag queens who embark on a road trip but, due to technical reasons, are forced to stay in a township - where most of the movie takes place.
Although the plot is uneven and many promising scenes are not entirely carried out, the trio - Wesley Snipes as Noxeema Jackson, Patrick Swayze as Vida Boheme, John Leguizamo as Chi-Chi Rodriguez - gives so wonderful and realistic performances that you easily forget that most of their fame derives from action and sci-fi movies.
"Priscilla" and "Wong Foo" were being filmed at more or less the same time, and the fact that both are about three drag queens taking a road trip is pure COINCIDENCE.
When the producers of "Wong Foo" found out about "Priscilla", they delayed its release so both movies wouldn't be out at the same time.Yes, the characters in "Priscilla" have more depth and are less cartoonish than those in "Wong Foo", but "Wong Foo" is surprisingly good considering it's Hollywood, and Patrick Swayze makes a *fabulous* drag queen!
John Leguizamo had done drag before, so his good job was less of a surprise than Patrick's.
We've seen this so many times before--a truly entertaining foreign film will gain some attention in this country, and then Hollywood will decide to adapt it and make a movie that isn't anywhere near as good.A rip-off of "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", "Wong Foo" just doesn't measure up.
And it's always nice to see a drag queen beat a wife-beating, bigoted redneck to within an inch of his alleged life.If you've got a lot of people and nothing to do on a rainy night, by all means, rent "Wong Foo".
Step 1) Put on makeup and wig step 2) Sit back with a bunch of friends step 3) Put movie in and press play step 4) EnjoyI think you truly have to get dressed up to enjoy this movie, it puts you in the mood to be someone you aren't, or maybe be someone you want to be.I give it: PLOT - 5/10 (I doubt that would happen to anyone)Costumes - 10/10 (all I can say is FABULOUS)ACTING - 8/10 (Vita was bitchy, Chi Chi was stereotypical, and Noxema was perfect)DIRECTION - 6/10 (The movie jumped around, not enough detail to the other characters like carol ann, and bobby lee)CASTING - 10/10 (Stockard Channing was true perfection, getting the 3 most masculine men in hollywood to be drag queens was awesome, and the small town cast were true to life.)OVERALL - 8/10 (Dont miss seeing it at least once, with alot of friends..
What's worse than a movie starring Patrick Swayze?
If you want to see a nice little comedy about gay people watch "Le placard" starring Daniel Auteuil and Gérard Depardieu.P.S.: Okay, "Some Like It Hot" would be an exception as it is a funny movie with men dressing up as women, but that's the ONLY exception I'll make..
I really enjoyed the whole "I am a strong man in a very tight dress wanting to be a DRAG QUEEN" thing going on in the picture.
Swayze is good and makes quite a good drag queen.
To Wong Foo is a great movie.
However you can not take the movie too seriously as it does not portray what a Drag Queen is properly.
In To Wong Foo they stay dressed up in Drag the whole movie.
After the unexpected success of the Australian film "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert," someone decided what movie audiences really needed was a much blander and more sanitized American version of the same thing, and "To Wong Foo," etc.
is the result.Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo are the less talented actors playing gentlemen in drag this time around, the story is much less involving, and the whole thing is pretty much less of everything that made "Priscilla" good.
So if you want to see Wesley Snipes and Patrick Swayze in a dress GO 4 IT!.
This movie is to gay culture what Gone with the Wind was for black culture.Watch Priscilla Queen of the Desert if you want to see drag queens through gay eyes.
To Wong Foo is drag for scared straight people and on top of that, it's a stupid movie..
The first time I watched this movie, I laughed like hell!
All the actors in this movie gave phenomenal performances, but the biggest kudos need to go to the 3 men who played the drag queens.
And let's not forget that this movie was made during a time when men dressing and behaving as women was not as widely accepted as it is today. |
tt1231277 | S. Darko | In 1995, Samantha Darko (Chase) follows her best friend Corey (Evigan) on a road trip from Virginia to California, in an attempt to become professional dancers. Their dreams are cut short when their car breaks down in a tiny Utah town. They are saved by the town bad boy, Randy (Westwick), who takes them to the local motel where they meet the conspiracy-loving owner. He tells them of Billy Moorcroft, a boy who went missing.
Samantha starts sleepwalking. A future version of her meets Justin (James Lafferty) at the windmill and tells him that the world will end; however, Justin knows this already. The next morning Samantha wakes up on a bus stop bench, where a policeman finds her and warns her about a pervert. He offers to drive her back to the motel but the two end up stopping at the site where a meteorite crashed. Samantha tells Corey that she doesn't remember what happened the night before.
While at a cafe, a science-loving geek, Jeremy (Jackson Rathbone), tries to talk about the meteorite with Samantha. Randy invites the two girls to a party, where he tells her of his brother who went missing and how hard it has been on his family. Future Samantha stands in the middle of a road and is nearly hit by a car; Justin sees her and is entranced. Her ghost takes him to the local nondenominational church and commands him to burn it down.
The next day they find Justin's dog tags in the ashes of the church. Samantha runs into Jeremy, who is beginning to show signs of radiation exposure. Subsequently, Justin has begun working on forging a bunny-skull mask out of metal, saying he needs to help "his princess." Samantha wanders the town and soon encounters Randy and Corey. Samantha tells Corey how she wants to get out of town but the two get into a fight. Samantha runs away, and Randy's car is unexpectedly run into by another car, pushing his car into Samantha and killing her.
Corey is full of anguish about her best friend's death. She finds a book about time travel as well as a story Samantha wrote as a child, entitled The Last Unicorn, about a princess and a boy named Justin. A boy appears, and commands Corey to come with him in order to save Samantha. She follows him to a cave where she goes through a portal that takes her back in time. Everything moves backwards to when Samantha is walking down the road. Corey and Randy drive up to Samantha again and when they stop, Corey is nicer to her. As Randy drives off, the other car still runs into him, and this time Corey is killed instead.
Samantha is devastated by Corey's death. After another sleepwalking incident, she sees a dress in the window of the vintage shop Jeremy's parents own. It is the same dress she wears as Future Samantha. Jeremy sees her admiring it and begins talking more about the meteorite he bought. Samantha notices tissue damage on Jeremy's arm and when told about it, he quickly covers it up and calls it a rash.
The next morning Samantha wakes up on the hill where Justin is. He takes the book about time travel from her and explains that it was written by his grandmother. He asks her to "show him how to do it" but she doesn't understand. He tells her that he made his mask from a drawing by Donnie, Samantha's deceased brother, that she showed him. She asks how he knew her brother's name and he responds by saying she told him "when she was dead". Samantha walks away and finds the bodies of two dead boys, Randy's little brother and the boy that appeared to Corey, Billy Moorcroft.
After telling the police about what she saw, everyone assumes that Justin is responsible. He soon asks Samantha to "show him how" again. The police then take him into custody. That night, Samantha returns to her motel where she finds the dress she saw at the shop, a gift from Jeremy. He asks her to wear it to see the fireworks with him. They go to a remote location and Jeremy sees what he calls tesseracts falling from the sky. He becomes manic and Samantha notes that his rash has gotten much worse. He tries to kiss Samantha but she resists and he eventually pushes her back roughly, killing her.
Future Samantha, now identical to regular Samantha, visits Justin in jail. Randy tries to find her as fiery tesseracts fall from the sky and eventually finds her where Jeremy left her. Justin approaches and sees his mask, putting it on. Justin then goes back in time. He climbs the windmill that was destroyed at the beginning. Justin believes that his death will prevent the series of events that will lead to the end of the world so he stays on the windmill this time and is killed by the meteorite.
It is now the morning after the meteorite landing again. Samantha and Corey visit the site and find the locals are saddened as they take away Justin's body. Samantha, never having experienced the events after the meteorite crash, decides to go back home while Corey stays with Randy. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0279830 | Garfield in Disguise | Garfield is awakened early in the morning by the obnoxious Binky the Clown Show and learns that it is Halloween, thrilled at the prospect of obtaining a mass of candy via trick-or-treating. He hatches the idea of deceiving Odie into thinking dogs are required to trick-or-treat with cats and give almost all of their candy to them, save one piece of candy for the dog. Odie is tempted by the minimal reward, and the two head for the attic to find costumes in an old trunk. After considering a number of options, Garfield decides on pirate costumes.
Jon Arbuckle gives them sacks and tells them to have a good time and not to be out too late. They head out trick-or-treating amongst children in the neighborhood. When Odie expresses fear, Garfield assures him the scary characters they see are only children in costumes, only to lift some of the costumes and discover the characters are actually supernatural. At the end of the evening, they arrive on a dock and Garfield decides to cross the river on a row boat to visit more houses. When Garfield tells Odie to put out the oars, Odie misunderstands the command and throws the oars overboard, leaving the boat adrift as the current takes it down the river.
Soon the boat arrives at an abandoned dock near a run-down mansion. They venture inside the home, thinking it is deserted, but are startled to find an old man sitting in an armchair. The man relates a story that exactly 100 years ago, pirates, pursued by government troops, buried their treasure in the floor of the mansion and signed a blood oath to return for the treasure at midnight 100 years later, even if it meant rising from the grave. The old man says he was the pirates' 10-year-old cabin boy. Garfield and Odie start to leave and Garfield asks the man if he wants to come too, but the old man has disappeared. The man steals their boat and leaves the two pets behind.
The longcase clock chimes midnight and Garfield and Odie watch as a ghostly ship materializes on the river and pirate ghosts emerge from the water. Garfield and Odie hide in an empty cupboard as the ghosts reclaim their buried treasure from the floorboards of the house. As the cat and dog stay where they are, Odie sneezes and it alerts the ghosts to their whereabouts. Making a run for it, Garfield and Odie jump into the river to escape, where Odie has to save Garfield as he cannot swim. Garfield and Odie wash ashore and find their boat with the candy still inside and untouched. They go home happy and Garfield rewards Odie's rescue by reluctantly giving him his rightful share of the candy. | horror | train | wikipedia | And candy he certainly gets in this wonderful Halloween Special.
It all starts on one cozy Halloween morn with Garfield waking to the sound of the TV.
Normally he'd be irate at waking so early but when he learns what day it is he cannot wait to go trickortreating and get his paws on some candycandycandycandy!He and Odie dress as pirates and go off on an adventure that happens to involve the ghosts of REAL pirates and real buried treasure.
In the course of these brilliant 25 minutes we get the typical assortment of great Garfield humor and wonderful songs.If only the movie were this good..
Garfield and Odie, set off trick-or treating, but Garfield's greed for candy leaves them on a haunted island with an old pirate house.
It's a well written, well animated, excellently voiced Halloween special.
This and Spongebob's Halloween where he dresses up like the Flying Dutchman and Patrick tries to make him scary are classics.Im not sure if it might scare very young children, it is just good fun.
In that case you might want to seek out the book, Garfield's Halloween Adventure (Formerly Titled Garfield in Disguise) and read it to them first.This is one case where the movie is better then the book..
One of the best Halloween specials available..
This is one of the best children's Halloween specials you could hope to watch.
The dead leaves and dark night set the autumn mood while Garfield and Odie go out candy collecting but get into a spooky adventure along the way.
I won't spoil the show but it involves a haunted house, classic Halloween fare all around.There are a few memorable songs, good animation, classic Garfield humor, and a nice spooky Halloween setting.
This is another Halloween TV Special I love and it's my favorite Garfield holiday special.
This is another Halloween TV Special I love and it's my favorite Garfield holiday special.
Garfield's Halloween is also the first Garfield holiday special too.
Well the story starts with Garfield and Odie, dressed as pirates on Halloween night, and went off tricking-or-treating.
But the row-boat took Garfield and Odie down the river, and landed them on an island with an old house on it.
Inside the house, they meet a spooky old man who tells them that the house is haunted by pirate ghosts who buried a treasure under the house 100 years ago, vowing to come back for it that very night.So anyway I love this Halloween special and I loved how Lou Rawls sang the "trick or treat" song, he's got an awesome singing voice; the other songs are catchy too..
For a Halloween special, "Garfield in Disguise" (or "Garfield's Halloween Adventure") practically has it all: comedy, adventure, peril, and a scary-looking old man who tells of pirate ghosts that return every Halloween.
As a Garfield holiday special, it does very well in conveying the spirit of the holiday--better, I think, than either "Garfield's Thanksgiving" or "A Garfield Christmas," which are also good.
For Halloween, this means spooky stories and "candy, candy, candy." This special captures the best of the comic strip's humor and combines it with a frightening Halloween experience for Garfield and Odie, who put themselves in jeopardy while they are out trick-or-treating.
In my opinion, this is the quintessential Garfield special, and one of the best ever Halloween specials..
This was the best Garfield special..
I am a Garfield fan and this is my favorite special with him in it.
Garfield and Odie go Trick-Or-Treating and end up on an adventure.
Garfield learns that today was Halloween, one of the few Holidays that he gives a care about.
And he was getting into the Pirate gig a lot.But things become wiry when they got on a boat to a distant island when things become slightly creepy.This is one of the few Garfield Holiday specials ever made.
And it keeps itself entertaining for a good half an hour.It has the same running gags and open minded jokes from Garfield like in the other TV specials.
I wouldn't row to the other side of the lake for candy, but Garfield and Odie would.
Maybe that is why I loved this special so much; It brings back find memories of trick-or-treating.
PS, I still break out in a cold sweat every time I think about that old man rowing away in the boat and the ghosts coming.
There have been things loved as a child watched much later, and the question "what made me like this when younger?" crops up in my mind.
Will always like Garfield, he is a very funny and lovable character.Of the specials, 'Garfield in Disguise', one of the quintessential Halloween specials, is one of my two favourites.
Other than it being so entertaining, inventively spooky and charming, part of 'Garfield in Disguise's' appeal is that Halloween is alongside Christmas one of my favourite times of the year.So many great merits with 'Garfield in Disguise' and actually cannot think of anything to criticise it for.
Also always have loved the rousing action and the inventive and sometimes spooky (but never too scary) Halloween touches embedded throughout.
At the same time, the charm and heart is also here while not being sentimental.Garfield is as hilarious and lovable as ever and can never get enough of Odie, who is so cute while the supporting characters are great fun.
Voice acting is on point, nobody portrayed Garfield better than Lorenzo Music and the others were not even close.In conclusion, when it comes to Halloween specials 'Garfield in Disguise' is one of the best and a great showcase of what Garfield is all about.
This is Garfield at his prime time best with music and songs, plot, jokes and general good natured sarcasm.
I also has some spookiness to it which every Halloween special should have , even if for kids.
The voice actors do very well in their parts from Garfield and the gang to Binky and the old man (ooh shudder).
This has to be one of my favorite TV specials of all time.And no wonder.
It has Garfield, the world's greatest cat, in a story about Halloween-- the best and most fascinating holiday the world has to offer.
In this story, he and Odie go trick-or-treating at the wrong door...
It's not Halloween if you haven't watched "Garfield in Disguise," also 'disguised' as "Garfield's Halloween Adventure." A seasonal must and a classic for all time..
It is a terrific Halloween show and the first time I saw it many years ago I was very surprised about what happened in the old house and it is actually scary!Lorenzo Music was very good as the fat cat Garfield and he is just hilarious in this one!
If you love the season of Halloween and autumn time then this is the perfect animated feature to watch!.
"Garfield's Halloween Adventure" is a great show for young children to watch any time of the year.
The story at the start shows Garfield's lack of morals through his desire for Halloween candy, but as the story progresses, so does he.Since this is a somewhat old children's show (this show was made in 1985), one or two random parts may be viewed as too scary, but it's all part of the fun.
Overall, this is a great show and I recommend it to everyone who loves Garfield, Halloween or candy..
Garfield the Cat (Voiced by Lorenzo Music) is preparing to go out on Halloween night including his buddy/rival Odie, they have a night of fun until they stumble into an old man's cabin where they will be invaded by pirate ghosts that will turn the night into a living horror.One of the best animated Halloween specials, i saw this at age 4 when it aired on CBS and it was quite spooky for a young boy.
I still admire this great Halloween special featuring everyone's favorite comic strip feline.The animation here is very good even for it's time and it's one of the better Garfield specials with "His 9 Lives", "Thanksgiving" and "Christmas".
This one is an adorable and hilarious special that i heartily recommend to everyone who loves Halloween..
In addition to 'It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown', watching 'Garfield in Disguise', a.k.a.
'Garfield's Halloween Adventure', remains a tradition.
The story has our favourite orange cat rudely awakened by the incredibly annoying Binky the Clown one morning who soon gets Garfield's attention by calling attention to Halloween night.
In their attempt to maximize their candy collection, he and Odie take a boat to an island where a creepy old man spins them a tale of long dead treasure seeking pirates - who inevitably make an appearance.
There's a lot of fun packed into these 24 minutes, including the catchy songs sung by the late, great Lorenzo Music, provider of Garfield's voice for so many years, and Lou Rawls.
Another hilarious sight gag arises when the odds and ends Garfield tosses about land on Odie and the cat gets a look at him.
The scenes with the sinister old tale spinner and the ghosts, which could frighten the younger viewers, are fittingly spooky.
'Garfield in Disguise' is the Halloween special for Garfield fans.
Like all Garfield films, there were plenty of funny scenes and comical dialog from Garfield.
The two pets (Garfield and Odie) end up trick-or-treating and getting more than they bargained for in a haunted house.
Why don';t they show these specials anymore during Halloween?.
However, some good news does come out of that cacophonous clown as mentions trick or treating, which instantly gets Garfield excited about the bag full of candy he'll no doubt acquire that night.
After a song and dance of what he should be, Garfield comes across the perfect costumes for he and his canine companion: pirates.
So Garfield and Odie get quite a haul, but the greedy cat decides he wants more.
They investigate and find a fire in the fireplace, so they go inside to warm themselves when suddenly, they come across a scary looking old man who warns them of an inherent danger that would befall them all.
It seems 100 years ago that night a group of real pirates were forced to bury their treasure on that very island, and they swore that they would return in 100 years to reclaim it, even if it meant coming back from the dead, at the stroke of midnight.
Feeling they've heard quite enough, Garfield and Odie attempt to leave, when suddenly they find the old man had gone.
Now they were stuck with no boat, no candy, dead pirates on the way...unless...
Garfield and Odie are discovered and the ghosts give chase.
Thankfully Odie managed to drag him all the way back to shore where, as luck would have it, the row boat with their bags of candy stood waiting.
They return home in triumph, glad the night of chaos was finally over, and to show his appreciation, Garfield reluctantly allows Odie to keep his bag of candy.
Then he relaxes by the TV, but when he finds out the only thing on are pirate flicks, he decides to hit the hay.If you're a fan of classic Garfield cartoons, this is definitely one to see.
Perfect to watch around the Halloween season.
The animation is standard, and pretty good for it's time, especially the look of the old man, whose voice really fit him.
Jim Davis counted getting Garfield on TV as a highlight of his career; surely he must also have been pleased when the fat cat became part of Halloween tradition.
Garfield in Disguise (or Garfield's Halloween Adventure) was a TV special that could be watched every year.In it, Garfield brings Odie along for trick-or-treating, collecting large amounts of beloved candy while dressed as pirates.
Then they stumble upon an old house, where an old man warns them real pirate ghosts are coming.Occasionally the jokes and songs are cheesy- for example, the song over the opening credits.
Still, this special has some pretty good moments.
When they're out trick-or-treating they discover real monsters and a ghost are out with them, which is fun and foreshadows the supernatural plot twist to come.
The old man is creepy and the pirate ghosts are fun.
Note that the book version of this special has an added ghost scene at the end, which unfortunately doesn't appear here.
Still, Garfield in Disguise is a Halloween treat..
The main reason I watched this episode recently was because I remembered the main song Garfield sang as a pirate.
This is a really entertaining episode, that can amaze a child, and can transport people who used to watch Garfield in time and remember the magic there used to be in old cartoons (opposed to actual anime and other poor cartoons which have no magic at all).It is also surprising how the story develops, the original horror story the old man tells Garfield and Odi and the adventures they encounter.
Warning don't read unless seen film.Another one of the things I love about Halloween are the TV episodes and specials.
This is also a childhood relic of mine, this special is what helped me get into the comic strip series "Garfield" which I didn't know about at the time; though it was also the franchises very first foray into the visual medium they didn't have the series until 4 years later.The animation is great true to the original comic strip which is fine with me I don't want it any other way.
The music I think is solid, the songs I wouldn't say are the most memorable in my book, but I enjoyed them their fun songs and fit the nature of the special.
One I thought was funny was the "Scaredy Cat" song where Garfield is singing and once he uncovers a person in a costume we then see it's an actual monster, then Garfield and Odie run a circle around him and run off, that I always found as a kid funny and maybe a little scary at the time since I honestly didn't expect it.
Though as an adult now it always cracks me up, just the fact that monsters are also going trick or treating, I guess even their hungry for candy.There really isn't much to the story as it's just a simple adventure of Garfield and Odie questing for candy.
And like in any Garfield comic strip the humor is clever and funny as usual, there are plenty of memorable line and humorous moments.
The first half is simply made of scenes from some usual banter between both Jon and Garfield, one funny scene is seeing Garfield put on the pirate persona and actually pillage a piece or two of Jon's lasagna, poor Jon can never seem to finish a meal hopefully he has more lasagna for himself somewhere.It then comes down to the trick or treating which leads to the last half when the whole special once again takes a rather unexpected turn.
Garfield gets just a bit greedy and decides to go to one last house on an island.
I know Garfield's made bad judgement calls before, but this probably takes the cake or should I say the candy, when they venture into a house that looks like Norman Bates pad.
And of course, we have that creepy old man that looks like someone from the "Creepy" horror comic series and he is telling a story of ghost pirates coming to reclaim their lost treasure.
The pirate ghosts I still find creepy, the way their animated, color, and how they move is just well done, I remember as a kid this sequence scarred me I kind covered my eyes with the pillow.
Yeah, this sequence of the film was scary but kind of fun at the same time as there is relief in the end, which is the common feeling we all have after trick or treating or going to a Halloween Party it was a fun ride but were glad it's over.Garfield's Halloween Adventure is a real treat.Rating: 4 stars.
This was probably my favorite Halloween flick when I was a kid.
This was probably my favorite Halloween flick when I was a kid.
Anyhow, Binky screams out that it is Halloween and that every kid loves candy.Garfield decides that he is going to go trick or treating, and that if he takes Odie he can get twice as much candy.
Then the camera pans over to Odie and he is wearing all of the stuff and has one of the greatest expressions on his face I have ever seen.As they go out in search of candy Garfield realizes they can get a bigger haul if they take a boat across the river since no one goes trick or treating over there.
When they get there they only see one house and when they go in all they find is a crazy old man.
To make matters worse the pirate's ghosts were going to return that very night.Garfield and Odie have the crap scared out of them and the old man steals their boat stranding them there.
Garfield and Odie as pirates.
"Garfield in Disguise" is a 24-minute television short movie from 30 years ago and is also known as "Farfield's Halloween Adventure".
The 1980s are not particularly known for great cartoons or short films, so these Garfield movies may be among the best there is.
Garfield and Odie decide to go out trick-or-treating and basically meet ghosts and spooky creatures during the entire movie.
Still, the last scene shows that Garfield has enough of being a pirate for a while.
I think Lorenzo Music is really great as usual and his voice was perfect for Garfield.
Still, I must say that I cannot like this little movie as much as I love the comics.
Nonetheless, this was a good, occasionally spooky, watch and I recommend it with Halloween 2015 coming up. |
tt1945062 | About Cherry | Angelina (Hinshaw) is an 18-year-old girl not far from graduating from high school. Her boyfriend Bobby (Weston) suggests that she take naked pictures of herself and sell them. She is initially hesitant, but eventually does the photo shoot and uses the money to run away to San Francisco with her best friend Andrew (Patel). At a strip club party in the city, Angelina meets a wealthy lawyer by the name of Francis (Franco), who offers to introduce her to a glamorous world of expensive dresses and lavish parties. Angelina also meets Margaret (Graham), a former porn star turned adult film director. Margaret offers Angelina, now using the porn name Cherry, direction in her entry into the San Francisco porn industry. Angelina makes several soft pornography films before deciding to do a hardcore film. After Angelina shoots the film, an angry Francis chastises her before getting them in a car accident. Angelina returns home to find Andrew watching one of her films. After an argument, she decides to leave and meets Margaret at a bar. They make out before returning to Margaret's apartment to have sex. The final scene is of Angelina some time afterwards, having moved in with Margaret and taken on a new job as a porn director. | romantic | train | wikipedia | "About Cherry" does try hard to deliver, but it just doesn't punch hard enough to make a lasting mark.The movie trots ahead at a fairly slow, but steady, pace, which makes the movie seem to go on for a very long time.
Especially where there aren't any particular peak moments in the movie."About Cherry" is about a young girl who leaves her dysfunctional family behind and moves to San Francisco with her friend.
With her family ties and friendships on the line, Cherry balances a fine line which could easily tip her over.The story is average, although it is quite painted out in stereotypical aspects, and it is to the point where it starts to become a daytime soap show; alcoholism, pornographic business, drug abuse, family problems, and so forth.The problem with "About Cherry" is the characters in the story, as they are unfathomably one-dimensional and just doesn't really show much personality or give you enough of them to make you care.
Personally, I didn't care much for it, because it was done to the point where it was too much, bordering on being softcore pornography at times.Personally, I did find that most people in the movie did fair enough jobs with their given roles, but only a couple of them managed to stand out in the movie, and those were Dev Patel (playing Andrew), Heather Graham (playing Margaret) and Lili Taylor (playing Phyllis).I am sure if you are fans of anyone in the movie, then you might find some greater enjoyment in this movie, or if you have some kind of fascination with the way the pornographic business works, then this might be something for you.
It's like me writing a review about a movie that has a medical theme and saying that it's not accurate because of the experiences I have had with doctors...There is every type of woman and man in this industry.
I read quite a few of these reviews and I am aware that as soon as a film comes out to show a woman in the sex industry to be strong and come out on top, it gets trashed.
A lot of star power -- Heather Graham, James Franco, Dev Patel -- is wasted in cardboard roles.
Ashley Hinshaw, playing Cherry, is a beautiful actress, and looks a lot like a younger Heather Graham (no coincidence, I'm sure, in terms of their characters).
Being familiar with the website the movie's based on, I was pleased to stumble across the DVD.Whilst I'm sure that porn insiders believe they have a unique tale to tell (including our writer), the reality is that most entrants to pornography come from similar troubled backgrounds.
It's difficult to comprehend how much time passes between each stage of Angelina's process.Hinshaw's Angelina has to deal with a boyfriend and a best friend, both male, both with wildly different expectations, but similar opinions of her work.
Any film such as this will hope to use the lead character's personal relationships as a crutch, as it's the only way to bring this type of movie to life.Having recently watched this season's Hollywood Reporter Roundtable for 2013's Best Actress projected nominees, the one constant theme they agreed on was a dearth of quality material to go around.
The premise of the movie does indeed let it sound like a heavy drama, in which an innocent young girl gets stuck into the world of drugs and porn but the problem with the movie is that none of the drama feels desperate in anyway.
The movie is never really clear on it and lets stuff just happen, without letting it have an emotional impact neither.So maybe her life starts spiraling down once she gets into porn?
The movie just ends, without making it feel like everything is done with as well.
The movie does indeed leave more questions than answers but on the other hand, you won't care enough about this movie or any of the characters to truly want to see all of the questions getting answered.A mostly failed independent drama, that you real easily could do without.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
A movie about a hot young woman getting into the porn industry, staring James Franco and Dev Patel?
Wrong!What I liked: I liked the fact that without watching porn, I got to see an amazingly beautiful Ashley Hinshaw tease the camera, have sex multiple times, show her breasts, and play with herself.
Cherry is left and called a disgusting whore by a man (James Franco) she was falling in love with, called a huge disappointment by her mother, and loses her best friend because of how she has chosen to make money.
A woman exercising control over her own body scares the living poop out of 95% of us men, but Cherry doesn't care too much about what people think.What I didn't like: I have seen James Franco in a lot of movies (and, of course, Freaks and Geeks) and have enjoyed each and every one.
The award for worst, most unbelievable scene goes to the part of the movie where Cherry and Patel first arrive in San Francisco.
There is not one moment of this film that feels real, and not one character that is remotely interesting or believable.
18 year old Angelina (Ashley Grace) sells naked pictures of herself to raise money to run away to San Francisco with her best friend Andrew (Dev Patel).
Lesbian former porn actress Margaret (Heather Graham) recruits her to be in her film.Ashley Hinshaw is a fashion model, and she has the acting skills to prove it.
The eighteen year-old Angeline (Ashley Hinshaw) raises money with a session of naked pictures and leaves her alcoholic and dysfunctional parents fleeing to San Francisco with her friend Andrew (Dev Patel).
Soon Angeline has a love affair with the drug-addicted lawyer Frances (James Franco) and joins the adult industry making porn.
Meanwhile the lesbian director Margaret (Heather Graham) becomes obsessed on her."About Cherry" is a movie with a pointless story of a shallow teenager without moral principles that leaves her alcoholic parents to become a porn-star.
About Cherry takes a dark journey into the adult film industry.
About Cherry follows a troubled girl who moves to San Francisco and gets involved in the porn industry and a cocaine-addicted lawyer.
This slow decent of this young woman is an interesting concept for the film to work from, but the lack of emotion throughout just left it a bit stale.
Kudos go out to the cast and crew for taking the chance to deliver an proactive movie and going towards that extra mile to deliver, but there was just numerous missed chances here.Even with the addition of great actors Heather Graham, James Franco, and Dev Patel this movie just can't handle delivering what it set out to do.
If it evokes some sort of response whether good or bad, then in the end it was an effective film.http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-dallas/bobby-blakey.
Watching this movie is like a porno trying to have a story except with hardly much nudity if that makes any sense.
The movie tries to show the spiraling down of a innocent girl who ends up joining the porno industry.
You feel very aware that it's just a checklist of story beats to get you to the end.I will say there were a couple of moments where I saw a what a good movie about this subject could be.
It's just a goofy movie about a girl who wants to be in porn for no particular reason..
This film tells the story of a young woman who enters the pornographic industry to make ends meet.The lead actress, Ashley Hinshaw, is very beautiful and sweet.
To me, "About Cherry" looks more like glamourised porn rather than a film about a young woman's tough journey..
The end is absolutely rubbish.It's a good movie if you are so bored and wanna kill some time but don't have high expectations.I would rate it 2 out of 10 but I gave 4 because acting wasn't that bad..
I don't have any experience or know anyone in the adult film industry, but I can see things like that happening (or at least similar to those depicted in the movie).
From Franco's drug addled boyfriend character turning to denigrate Cherry, to the total lack of consequence surrounding Margaret's relationship ending and her just simply replacing her former long-term live in girlfriend with Cherry.
The story of how a normal, average woman ends up in the porn industry had a lot going for it.
About Cherry — A sweet little movie about a sweet little girl and porn.
Movie's main objective is to show that circle of porn continues and people out of the circle feel disgusted from what the main character does, etc....so nothing new overall, just usual saucy scenes every now and then..
Other than that, the acting was pretty good and it was an interesting story, not just another porn-like movie..
But with her beautiful body she needs the money and knows that it earns the green colour easily so she moves to San Fran and before she can say a thing she moves from a girl online to a porn set.
What this flick had to show is that once you are into the porn industry you can't leave it that easy.I came across this flick due James Franco being in it but he isn't in it that long and his character doesn't work at all.
Be advised that this flick has a lot of nudity and especially from Ashley Hinshaw who plays Angelina or once a porn star Cherry.
For me the decay that should be seen from Cherry isn't there, she's doing it all with a big smile, leaving friends and family behind, going for the money and having a lesbian relation with her boss...Gore 0/5 Nudity 3/5 Effects 0/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5.
I was intrigued by the title and in tandem expected an untold story.But, what About Cherry delivers has already been read, filmed, published, sung or even enacted a hundred times.
The porn aura made it look gaudy but yes, now I completely know how they make an actual porn movie & how girls fall prey into the multi-billion dollar worth industry.Performances are good enough with Ashley & Heather doing good.
NOMessage: Where there is money, may always not be the right path.Profanity: Mediocre | Porn: Critical | Sex: Critical | Nudity: Very Critical | Smoking: Mediocre | Alcohol: Mediocre | Drugs: Mild | Vulgarity: Mild | Violence: Very Mild | Gore: No. Well done, very subtle film gives one look at modern state of adult film industry.
Or the brief scene when Angelina (the character who becomes "Cherry" when entering the adult industry) is asleep with her younger sister on some couch-bed (maybe the family is too poor for the entire family to have bedrooms?) and feels the menacing presence of her step-father that leaves the attentive viewer a thick taste of some muddied history of abuse.
I like how the movie shows a porn actress actually turning down cocaine.
I also like the lesbianism in the movie because it's absolutely true that female adult actresses often grow more romantically fulfilled with women after years of essentially being used and dominated by testosterone.As a resident of Northern California, in close proximity to San Francisco, and having spent time recently at The Armory (home to the real adult film studios that much of About Cherry was shot at), I especially like how the film gave an honest picture of the current evolution that the industry is witnessing.
Instead of simply feeling pressure from the expectation to be just an object, the adult film industry of Northern California is creating a culture of permission-based, fantasy oriented, sex-positive healthy exploration and weaving that into film production.
There is an attempt to even integrate more artistic and enlightened practices to the adult film productions as well.Although details of the adult industry, the character's thoughts, and the dark background of the story may have been left out of About Cherry, I consider both the content and presentation of this movie to be exceptional.
The main character was strong, independent, and the film described a journey, a coming of age.Many corners were turned, by several of the cast.I felt the story had great heart.
I do think it's relatively easy to find a room for rent in a big city if you are not picky.I also think that many people in the adult film industry like sex and money, and have no guilty complex about what they do.
Great cast which includes Heather Graham and Dev Patel who are not even in leading roles but overall this movie lacks the edge it needs to really grab your attention.
I believe we have watched them 'making-of-porn films' before: 'Boogie Nights, 1997'; '8mm, 1999'; 'Wonderland, 2003'; 'The Girlfriend Experience, 2009' and so it goes.
I disliked the lead character, played brilliantly by Ashley Hinshaw who is mostly holding back her emotions throughout the film, well at least more than her clothes.
Getting laid every damn day and getting paid for it and also enjoying it (to hell with the tears, we've seen them done better) – as the movie suggests makes me not like anyone but Dev Patel's character.
Someday a movie is going to be made that will take us inside the adult film industry to show us the reality of what goes on there, and what happens to the people who operate within it.
Here is a movie that promises sex but plays like a dull soap opera with a little nudity thrown in here and there.
It doesn't have any characters for us to care about nor any of the "good parts" that a lot of moviegoers will be hoping for.The movie stars Ashley Hinsaw as Angelina, a twenty-something who lives at home with her alcoholic mother (Lili Taylor) and her mom's abusive boyfriend.
Angelina gets involved in the adult film industry and starts making money.
Their breakup scene, in which they have angry sex, is silly and awkward and disturbingly voyeuristic."About Cherry" comes from first-time director Stephen Elliott who co-wrote the screenplay with real-life porn star Lorelei Lee. Their script is a mess.
I clocked this film on Sky Movies On Demand and decided to watch it based on its plot summary.
The plot summary really over-sells this film and made me believe that it actually might be a good film (I didn't look at its IMDb rating prior to watching it).The problem with this film is that it just seems to lack any sort of depth; this extends to both the plot and its characters.
Cherry then has a bust up with her friend Andrew when she catches him watching porn.
I think the worst part of this film is that it felt like it had no message and nothing to say; I mean Cherry is arguably happier at the end than she was at the start?
Whilst I think that saying this glamorises the industry is perhaps going a bit too far, I did feel that it didn't explore the downsides very well and for me that's sending out a fairly dangerous message (particularly to younger viewers).Personally, I found this film to be shallow and somewhat pointless.
And obviously it's perfectly safe for an 18 year old white trash girl to get into porn, because obviously nothing bad is going to happen to her and obviously all the nice people that work in the porn industry are going to look after her best interests.
There was so much material that could and should have been developed into two projects.Things like: (1.) The evolution of Andrew's relationship with Angelica as a Porn star.
After the line, I assumed the 'writer' had a meteor fall from outer space and squash Cherry, not just the character but the whole movie to little stupid bits of space pigeon poop.
I get that this film aims to challenge our perception of working girls, by showing us not all female sex workers are manipulated or forced into the porn industry against their will.
disgust me." James Franco, as "cokehead" trial lawyer Francis, 18-year-old title porn starlet "Cherry's" (nee Angelina) short-term sugar daddy, seems out-of-character in his kiss-off remarks to her, and certainly not very WWCD (that is, What Would Charlie Sheen Do).
This is a slightly interesting film that moves very deliberately and not much happens.It is primarily the story of an 18-yr-old L.A. area girl that takes off to San Francisco to make her path in life.
This one found her way into the porn industry, starting with girl-on-girl and eventually to girl-guy stuff, and eventually to the producer who screens new talent.Ashley Hinshaw, who was probably 22, is Angelina, and when she gets into the adult film roles calls herself 'Cherry.' She travels there with her good friend, Dev Patel as Andrew, who views her as his ideal girl, but that romance was never to be.
He is played by James Franco as Frances.I had put this movie on my list a couple of years ago when I noted that Heather Graham is in it, but here she just plays one of the porn producers who is in an 8-year lesbian relationship.
Several of the actresses are actually in the porn film business.And interesting movie, it probably portrays that industry fairly accurately, and how pretty young girls with no particular direction in life get into the business.
But it is just interesting and its rating is about right.SPOILERS: In the end when her guy friends don't pan out she becomes the new partner of Heather Graham's character.
Maybe this is the idea of the film; in that men can be viewed as superfluous and shallow, her doting male friend is used by Cherry but his devotion is never reciprocated nor is his hidden longing for a more personal relationship. |
tt0113321 | Home for the Holidays | Claudia Larson, a single mom who has just been fired from her job as an art restorer due to budget cuts, flies from Chicago to spend Thanksgiving at the Baltimore home of her parents, Adele and Henry Larson, while her only child Kitt decides to stay home and spend the holiday with her boyfriend. As she is dropping her mother off at the airport, Kitt informs Claudia that she intends to have sex with her boyfriend for the first time while she’s gone. While on the plane, Claudia makes a phone call to Tommy, her younger brother and confidant who she believes won’t be attending the Thanksgiving dinner, telling him that she lost her job, made out with her boss, and knows that her daughter is going to sleep with her boyfriend.
When Claudia arrives at the airport, she is greeted by her parents, who drive her to their home and help her unpack. Claudia remarks that she’s thinking of looking into new careers, and her mother concludes that Claudia lost her job, which she initially denies. That night, Tommy arrives with his new friend Leo Fish, who Claudia believes to be his boyfriend. Claudia is glad to see her brother, but fears that he and Jack, his boyfriend, broke up.
The next day, more family members arrive, including their eccentric Aunt Glady (Adele’s sister), who brings more than two hundred plants with her. While returning home after picking up groceries, Claudia runs into a girl she used to go to school with. As Claudia doesn’t want to mention her divorce, Leo poses as Claudia’s husband. The next family member to arrive is Claudia's resentful, conservative sister, Joanne Larson Wedman, accompanied by her stuffy banker brother-in-law Walter and their two spoiled children.
On Thanksgiving Day, a series of mishaps occur. Aunt Glady professes her love for Henry, and Tommy accidentally spills the turkey all over Joanne. Joanne, in turn, reveals to everyone that Tommy married his boyfriend Jack in a beach wedding several months before. Their parents are hurt that they weren’t told, and Adele retreats to a hidden room by the kitchen, where Claudia attempts to console her.
After the meal, Tommy, Leo, Walter, and the children play football while Henry washes the Wedmans’ car. When the football hits the car, however, Henry shoves Tommy onto the ground and threatens him. Henry sprays them with water, and the Wedmans jump into the car and leave, soapsuds and all.
The family returns inside, where they talk for a while. Kitt calls Claudia to say that she’s fine and she’s decided not to sleep with her boyfriend. The phone rings a second time, and Henry answers; it turns out to be Jack calling. Before handing the phone over to Tommy, Henry says that he’s happy for both of them.
Adele insists that Claudia and Leo drive Aunt Glady home, then deliver leftovers to Joanne’s family. Claudia goes down to the Wedmans’ basement, where Joanne is exercising, to talk to her. Joanne says, “If we were strangers, and you gave me your phone number, I’d throw it away.” Claudia responds that they don’t have to like each other, because they’re related.
On the drive home, Leo tells Claudia that Tommy showed him a picture of her, and he came to Thanksgiving to meet her. The two talk for a while in the living room at her parents’ house; but Tommy, who is sleeping on the floor, wakes up and reminds Leo that they have to get an early start in the morning. Claudia retreats upstairs to her room; Leo follows her, but is unable to persuade her to let him in.
Early the next morning, Claudia wakes up and sees Tommy and Leo driving away. She goes downstairs and reminisces with her father for a while, before being taken to the airport and getting on her plane. Before the plane takes off, Leo gets in the seat next to her, and they fly back to Chicago together. | boring, home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0045109 | Ruby Gentry | Ruby Corey (Jennifer Jones), a poor backwoods girl living in the small North Carolina town of Braddock, is still in love with Boake Tackman (Charlton Heston). During high school, Ruby had rebuffed his aggressive advances, and was taken in for a couple of years by a kind wealthy businessman and his wife, who protected her and taught her the skills a lady would need. She moved back home when her father needed her help. Boake's family used to be wealthy, but after generations of profligacy all he has left is the land he has had drained and farmed. He starts a relationship with her but plans to marry a local woman with a rich family. When she hears the news, Ruby marries her former benefactor, Mr. Jim Gentry (Karl Malden), whose invalid wife had recently died, despite not loving him.
Her background keeps her from being accepted by most of Jim's peers, most of whom decline to attend their after-wedding party. While at another party, Jim gets into a fistfight with Boake after witnessing him dancing with Ruby. Jim calls Ruby a tramp who looks like a lady but doesn't behave like one. She leaves in tears, and later that night, he apologizes. The next day Jim and Ruby go sailing, where he tells her he "doesn't mind being second best" and she admits she really does love him. A loose rope results in Jim being knocked overboard by the boom, leaving Ruby widowed and distraught.
The local paper writes that she is a gold-digger who murdered Jim for his fortune and mentions the fistfight between Jim and Boake. Jim's friends renounce her and she receives accusatory phone calls and harassment from the townspeople. Ruby uses Jim's money to begin a campaign against everyone who slighted her, calling in debts to close down people's businesses as well as the newspaper that slandered her. Her brother comes to beg her for leniency, but she throws him out, warning she is just getting started. When Boake visits, she gives him the promissary-note he had signed and which was acquired by Gentry, and offers to run off with him but he rejects her, saying that for all her money she can't buy her way out of the swamp and she can't buy him.
Ruby has Boake's land flooded, ruining the crops. After seeing her fury, he goes back to her. Boake and Ruby go to her father's annual duck-hunting party where she goes back to her country roots and Boake drinks away his resentment before visiting her room late at night.
While hunting the next day, Boake turns on Ruby in retaliation for her actions but she apologizes. Just then, her estranged brother Jewel Corey (James Anderson) begins to shoot at the couple while quoting Bible verses about the wickedness of women and sinners who must be struck down. They try to hide in the swamp but Jewel shoots Boake in the abdomen, killing him; Ruby goes after Jewel and guns him down. Cradling Boake in her arms, Ruby laments her decisions.
Ruby later becomes the skipper of a fishing boat, forever looked down upon by the townspeople. | melodrama, revenge, murder, storytelling, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2524674 | Feuchtgebiete | 18-year-old Helen uses vegetables for masturbation and believes that body hygiene is overrated in our society. She provokes others by saying and doing things most people would not even dare to imagine.
Helen's parents are divorced and she desperately wishes that they get back together. But her mother is depressive, hygiene-obsessed and mentally unstable, and her father is insensitive and seems not to take notice of what people around him think. She also has a quiet, younger brother whom she teases by taking his stuffed bear.
Helen feels alone and unloved in the world. Only her best friend Corinna makes her feel comfortable. Together they break many of society's taboos.
By shaving her anal hair too fast, she cuts herself badly and needs to go to hospital. There she plans to get her parents back together and charms her handsome nurse Robin, who is still suffering from a relationship with another nurse from two years before. That nurse does not get along with Helen and is still infatuated with Robin. She makes Helen's life in the hospital more difficult, but Helen and Robin fall in love during her hospital stay.
Helen's behaviour is revealed to be related to a traumatic experience she had when she was eight years old. At the end of the movie, she reflects on this trauma by saying that she finally talked to her little brother and that this was the hardest talk she ever had: still being a child, she found her mother trying to kill herself and Helen's little brother, using the gas from the oven. In the end Helen gives up on idea of bringing her parents back together and decides to go and stay with Robin. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | It gives us a lot to zero-in on with every scene, from unadulterated narration, vibrantly-colored visuals, and explicitly-detailed fetishes carried out in a manner that make the film equal parts stomach turning (for some) and irresistible for others (like myself).
If you're one of the people who thought that tampon-sharing and anal fissures were underexplored topics in contemporary cinema, or cinema in general, here's a film that gives you a nod and a thumbs up.The film stars Carla Juri in a fearless role, especially for an actress so young and so inexperienced.
She plays eighteen-year-old Helen Memel, a young woman obsessed with filth and depravity, so much so that she actively exposes her vagina to some of the most unclean places in society, like public bathrooms.
Helen's mom (Meret Becker) is a hygiene-obsessed, religious soul, constantly changing her religions and working to protect her daughter from a filthy society, and her father (Axel Milberg) is a cold, unfeeling soul who spends little time associating with her on a level that could be considered very loving.
Helen is often left to look towards Corinna (Marlen Kruse), her best friend who engages in the same kind of depravity that she adores so much.One thing Helen detests with all her heart is shaving, so naturally, she tries to conduct the act in the fastest manner possible.
In the hospital, Helen recounts a lot of her parents' marriage to us, and establishes relationships with the nurses and such, making for a film that is equal parts devoted in showing the pasts of these characters as well as the present.
With that, we also see the relationship between Helen and Corinna go beyond innocuous discussions of sex between one another to the point of the actual practice of sex and masturbation.Writer/director David Wnendt and co-writer Claus Falkenberg do their best to balance Wetlands, making it equal parts a story filled with shock and gross-out gags but also an intense, unusual character study in the most rewarding sense.
Juri plays a character so in love with the idea of being unclean and unabashedly disgusting that she owns her role, and is fiercely watchable throughout the entire film.Make no mistake, however, as Wetlands is a filthy film, arguably the filthiest released last year.
Punk-rock in its attempt to destroy our social norms and trashy in the best sense, its desire to depict a variety of perversions, fetishes, and disregard for personal hygiene in explicit detail makes it one of the most daring and awe-inspiring pieces of work in quite sometime.
I'm hesitant to bill it as satire, being that it seems to fully embrace this kind of deviant counterculture, however, I employ the rule of them I use in detecting and recommending satire with this film, and that is to see it because by fearing or condemning it without seeing it, you're only proving it correct.Starring: Carla Juri, Marlen Kruse, Meret Becker, and Axel Milberg.
If you are the type of person that will be able to look past the nudity you may be able to relate, in ways, to the main character in the movie.
BUT, if you can be truthful to yourself while watching the movie, you may find that at points during the film you are able to relate and commiserate with the main character (sometimes embarrassingly), as she narrates her sexual fetishes seamlessly alongside her narration of the state of her broken family.
As society and norms have made people question their sanity, and the "normal-ness" of what they choose to do behind closed doors, it is refreshing, exciting, and comedic to watch a film where the main character is unforgiving, open, and truthful about her sexuality and views toward life and the world..
During the recuperation, she starts a flirtatious relationship with a cute male nurse (Christoph Letkowski) and attempts to use her hospital stay to reunite her divorced parents (Meret Becker and Axel Milberg).
I was a bit disappointed that the film was directed by a man, given that it has a refreshing female point of view, but the original novel was written by a woman (Charlotte Roche), and at least one of the screenwriters was female, as well..
I found myself having a good laugh a large number of times.The main actress by the way is truly awesome, beautiful and appealing, and totally fit for the part.There is enough of a storyline to make the movie interesting besides the focus on sex and filthy things.I really totally recommend seeing this movie..
If thinking of a oozing zit makes you gag, if you get queasy at the sight of blood, if you suffer from nosocomephobia, or tomophobia, or if any mention of bodily fluids instantly offends your sensitivity, i'm sorry to say you'll never get to enjoy this beautiful little movie.If, on the other hand, you're one of those people who, like me, see Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings as a bittersweet shift from a brilliant career in gore (Braindead, Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles); if you share a morbid fascination for human anatomy (in all its scatological glory), or simply find the cultural taboos surrounding it ridiculously irrational; you'll absolutely love this movie.Trying to describe Wetlands, to me, instantly evokes Jeunet's Amélie (as weird as that may sound).
And, in that regard, Carla Juni's prodigious embodiment of her character perfectly rivals Audrey Tatou's equally spectacular performance.If you can only find the same charm in Helen's quirkiness as you did in Amélie's, and get past all the visceral lewdness, you'll find Wetlands doesn't really aim to offend or disgust, as some critics would claim.
Before I decided to see this movie I was familiar with the phenomena of the novel I even read it but only half way through, because I thought it was not leading anywhere.Most people around me say that it is pointless and everything the main character does, all her little hygiene experiments, make no sense.
It's a coming of age movie about a girl who is somewhat discovering herself and dealing with the divorce of her parents.The general package is good.
Wetlands follows the sexual and unhygienic adventures of Helen Memel, a girl who is hellbent on making her life as unhygienic as possible and labeling it as her 'experiments'.
Helen played charmingly by Carla Juri, is on an experiment with her own genitals and whatnot as she initially states in the movie.
While light at heart, the seemingly damaged 18 year old as Helen may seem it also brings out how bad she needed to be loved.Beneath the layers of her weird habits and unimaginable sexual fantasies, lies the conflict with herself and an intense yearning for her parents' reconciliation.
Right from the CG titles, her narration reminded me sorely of David Fincher's Fight Club.I for one consider myself hardened, watching movies like A Serbian Film, The Human Centipede, Martyrs, Inside, Hostel or even Salo but there were scenes in Wetlands that truly deserved to be called cringe worthy.
This is an honest film.This struck me as an acid trip from the start, but I had a couple glasses of wine (5) and stuck with it on NetflixxI ended up with this revelation--this is an honest film about the ridiculousness of life and the consistent gnawing ache of gaining a sex drive when you begin to grow.It's brilliant in its simplicity to just tell the truth exactly how it is without worrying what we will think about it.I was reminded of that awkward feeling I would get as a much younger child listening to teens talk about getting their periods and having sex.
Wetlands is the kind of movie where things like jizz-covered pizzas, anal tearings, vegetable-based masturbation, purposeful vaginal dirtying, and other taboos are thrown into our face and someone, most likely David Wnendt, wants us to accept the graphic vulgarity like we accepted There's Something About Mary or one of those eye-roll inducing Hangover films.
Wetlands dares to call itself a romantic comedy, a coming-of-age story, a family drama, and a gross-out assembly line, and if it were written by someone like Seth Rogen then maybe, just maybe, it would have turned into a sh*t covered disaster.
But Wetlands can be so appallingly gross that any form of realness seem to be covered in some STDs you caught from a smelly hippie down the street.At the center of the filth is Helen Memel (Carla Juri), a sexually rambunctious 18-year-old who spends her free time exploring her body in the most disgusting ways imaginable.
But a blossoming romance with a male nurse (Christoph Letkowski) promises better things to come in a world where sexual experimentation is the only source of feeling.Wetlands is kinda sorta scatterbrained; who knew a movie could transform from a gross-out comedy into a melancholic drama?
The best parts of the film, which are (1) the last thirty-minutes and (2) the melancholic drama components, are really, really good; finally, the gags end and deal with Helen as a human instead of an icky caricature.
I guess it's meant to shock, but the film is far too well-made to merely act as an exploitation movie.
With my last impression of Wetlands being that of the earlier mentioned "melancholic drama", though, it must have done something right, despite being one of the most disgusting films I've ever seen.
While the Film is quit open and explicit with it's depiction of Sex, Body hygiene and social taboos like hemorrhoids, i never felt it to be repulsive or shocking.
I'm very interested to see where her career will take her in the years to come.While certainly not for everybody i am convinced, that many people will have a good time watching this movie.
Women especially should be able to identify with the lead character and will recognise many of the problems and challenges she faces throughout the Film.Definitely one of the better Movies that have come out of Germany for quit some time!.
I instantly knew that this film was written and directed by men, because the female characters, including Helen, the main character, lack any credibility to me, as a woman.
If the purpose of the movie is to cause people to cut their wrists then I think it is a run away success.The story is about a girl who was raised by a cold hearted psychopathic and (as it turns out downright evil) mother and an imbecilic father.
But had some debate over saying it was an erotic related topic.Whatever, I don't know the book, because I'm kind of a movie guy, so saw it and liked it.
But still disturbs us her adaptation of the theory of everything.There are many movies where children are affected like Helen, but this film was absolutely a unique in the illustration of the sensitive topic.
Disgusting is a disgusting, if there is no problem accepting a change and variety in a movie that you usually watch and appreciate the effort, then this film could be a better entertainer.
Her hospitalization gives her an idea to reunite her parents and then she falls for nurse Robin.This German film pushes the sexual envelop with some aggressive subject matters.
Life is good in Germany, you can tell by movies like this.
When I first heard about this movie being described as shocking, perverse, disgusting even it honestly perked my curiosity because I have seen many films like that and not all to my liking.I came expecting something gross or even out of the top, there was I point I didn't know what to expect.
What I found instead was a very well made comedy about a teenager with unusual hygiene habits and dysfunctional divorced parents, an interesting well paced story with emotional and realistic characters, great performances and a great story that was well directed.What the criticism tells me is what we know so well, this film could have never in a million years be made in America.
One part is about gross phantasies with similar appeal like splatter movies, but the other part is an interesting portrait of a divorce-child with dysfunctional parents.
No real person is as stupid and gullible as the characters in this film are almost every day of their lives.It's not funny or arousing or entertaining watching an ignorant and promiscuous female go through an entire film doing extremely disgusting and hazardous things (that was clearly scripted and/or directed to shock viewers that aren't into these types of fetishes).I wasn't surprised by anything in the film because I've personally witnessed many women and men (especially German men) online that enjoy disgusting body fluids oozing out of the body whether it was their own or someone else.
She enjoyed the smell and taste of whatever was inside of her vagina.Based on how careless and nasty she was throughout the film, like walking barefoot into a flooded public restroom, rubbing her ass and vagina over a very dirty toilet; I thought she would have been hospitalized for more than just an infected hemorrhoid.Just when you think she will finally begin to grow up and act like a normal person after having surgery; she continues her obnoxious behavior in the hospital; she also flirts with a cute male nurse, constantly putting his job at risk but he didn't care because he was fascinated by her "boyish" charm of being a care free, flirtatious and slutty spirit that he wished all girls could be.The CRINGE worthy moments pollutes (in a distracting manner) this seemingly interesting Artsy foreign film, so much so that I had to force myself to watch it through to the end..
It's an epic film of sexual perversion in the best way, but is told in a very sweet and loving fashion..
Filled with orgasms, the erotic use of vegetables, sexual adventures, sharing used tampons, and even anal operations from the eyes of a female, Wnendt's artistic and stylish movie, which stars an incredible Carla Juri is not only one of the most risqué films I've ever seen, but it's handled with such care that it's end result is a beautiful and sweet film.
I just wish this movie would have a wider release here in America, but I'm sure once word- of-mouth hits the streets on this, 'Wetlands' will become an instant cult classic, and might even push the novel of the same name to the top of the charts again.We see the world through an idiosyncratic young woman named Helen (Juri), who in the opening scene, walks through a deplorable and flooded public bathroom and rubs her bare privates over the disgusting and used toilet seat, as she tells us she likes to use her vagina as a science experiment.
Helen is a free spirit who is obsessed with everything sexual.When she is not testing different kinds of fruit and vegetable to see which one makes her climax the fastest, she and her best friend Corrina (Marlen Kruse) skateboard around town, finding new ways and new people to experience intimate moments with.
And as to do a science experiment on us the audience to see if we can handle the movie, Wnendt shows us a scene between Corrina and her heavy metal drummer boyfriend that might gross out some people, but it's handled in such an innocent and humorous way that it almost becomes silly and child-like.Despite whatever sex act is thrown are way, including a scene where you'll never look at a pizza the same way again, Helen pulls off this one-of-a-kind charm and wit that exposes us to our innocent side as she tells us story after story of debauchery.
When a shaving accident puts Helen in the hospital for anal surgery, she begins to think back to her troubled childhood where we clearly see some sort of abuse going on that has turned her into the unique woman she is today – good and bad.
She takes an interest in a good looking male nurse (Christophe Letkowski) as she tells him of her past experiences, while she secretly hopes she can bring back her divorced parents together, something that every child with a broken home wants.Juri is one of the most talented actresses I've seen in the last ten years and she plays Helen perfectly.
And Wnendt's camera picks up every squish, drip, and erotic moment perfectly as he takes his cues from David Fincher's 'Fight Club' and Danny Boyle's 'Trainspotting'.It's an epic film of sexual perversion in the best way, but is told in a very sweet and loving fashion.
And in the face of all of this, the film tries to be actually relevant as it occasionally refers to the main character's wish for her parents to reunite again.
Anyway, that parents story line is, in my opinion, just a distraction from all the repulsive parts to make this movie somehow seem to have an appropriate plot that touches people.To mention more details, there is a scene involving tampons that you really do not want to see and something involving pizza as well near the end.
This movie could have been a heart-wrenching dramedy but it feels like the director did not know exactly how he wanted to put all his thoughts together.
While it felt like there was too many heavy scenes, I still left the film feeling that I hadn't gotten that deep into Helen's psyche, other than gaining the knowledge that her strange behavior stemmed from rebellion against her mother due to her parents' divorce.A good example of dramedy done well (in my humble opinion) is the television series Girls in Love, which contrasted Ellie's dreamy pursuit of boys with her melancholic memories of her mother in hospital.
I don't usually fall for foreign films, but this one takes the cake!Helen is an angsty girl who has absolutely disgusting habits she flaunts very openly.
By the time the lead character ripped herself open again, I guess for love, I wondered, "Why was this movie made?" I would like to see a movie with a similar theme without the female insanity. |
tt1716747 | Hellraiser: Revelations | Steven Craven and Nico Bradley run away from home and travel to Mexico. They film themselves engaging in several days' worth of drunken partying. The boys later disappear. The Mexican authorities return their belongings to their parents, including a videotape made by Steven that documents their final moments.
A year later, the families of the two missing boys gather for dinner. Tensions rise when Emma, Steven's sister and Nico's girlfriend, expresses frustration with their lack of closure. She demands that her mother reveal the contents of Steven's videotape, which she has been obsessively watching in private. Later, Emma sneaks a look at the tape, which documents Steven and Nico picking up a girl in a bar. A flashback reveals that Nico murdered the girl while having sex in the bar's restroom, and later threatened to implicate Steven in the killing to force him to continue their "vacation" together.
A final flashback reveals that Nico solved the puzzle box, opening a portal to the realm of the Cenobites: extra-dimensional sadomasochists led by Pinhead who offer the ultimate sensual experience. Steven flees, but Nico is taken to the Cenobites' realm to be subjected to extreme torture and mutilation. The box is nearby, allowing Nico to communicate with Steven. Steven later kills several prostitutes so their blood can regenerate Nico, but Nico kills Steven when he refuses to continue.
The "Steven" holding the families hostage is really Nico in Stevens' skin, who taunts his victims with a shotgun. He demands that Emma solve the puzzle box for him, intending for the Cenobites to take her in his place thus assuring his freedom.
Emma opens the portal and the Cenobites—including Steven—appear. Nico's mother ignores Pinhead's command to remain silent, exclaiming that Nico forced Emma to solve the box, and is killed.
Nico says he brought them so they would take Emma in his place, only for Pinhead to ensnare him with hooks. Pinhead recognizes in Emma a dark sexual desire and taunts her with innuendo.
When Emma's father shoots Nico, the Cenobites vanish with Emma's mother instead, saying they were owed a victim since Nico was dead. Her father apologizes, then dies in Emma's arms. The film ends with Emma reaching for the puzzle box. | revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | At the time I am writing this review, the series has spanned nine films (with rumors of a TV-show possibly in the works), and countless spin-off media including a popular line of graphic novels and comics."Hellraiser" is a staple in horror, which is what makes this latest film so infuriating and heart-wrenching."Hellraiser: Revelations" is the latest in the series (beginning with the fifth film, all releases have skipped theaters and been plagued with lower budgets and even lower-grade actors and crews).
Steven brings Nico back from hell via sacrifices, and later shows up to a house where he and Nico's family are having dinner.At the house, Emma, Steven's sister, finds the box, and eventually the families begin to experiences strange and bizarre things over the film's anemic 75-minute running time, before a series of lame-brained twists that I won't spoil ends the film in an abrupt and very anti-climactic climax.First the acting.
Hell's still just a mass of swinging chains and pillars, which worked in the original film due to some excellent shots by Barker and the fact we hadn't seen anything like it before, but looks silly and cheap nowadays.And onto the biggest complaint most people have...
Now, Pinhead sounds kinda like Don LaFontaine (the man known for providing voice-over work as the narrator of just about every movie trailer before his untimely death) trying to whisper with a bad Eurpoeon accent while suffering a sore-throat.
But I was wrong.So I sat down to watch this movie, and I must admit that I was appalled to see that Doug Bradley wasn't in the role as Pinhead.
I am not saying that he is a bad actor, as I am not familiar with his work outside this one movie, but he didn't have that diabolic charm and wit that Bradley brought to the Pinhead character.
I don't know, but for us who have followed the growth and decline of the franchise, it was a rude slap on the face.The movie leaves little room for the characters to develop and grow, despite the actors/actresses doing their best with their given parts.
The effects and gore are nothing more than copies of scenes from the other movies with nothing new added to make it any more interesting.I love the original Pinhead character, played by Doug Bradley in all of the other films.
After watching this, I looked up the interviews with Doug Bradley to find out why he didn't get onboard with the project, after all, he's been involved with every Hellraiser film so far.
The acting is average, sometimes bad, and the direction simply gets the job done.The reason that this movie is worst than the rest, is the fact that Doug Bradley refused the part of Pinhead, so it went to someone it shouldn't have.
The result, dubbed Revelations, was such cinematic cancer that Barker took to Twitter page to distance himself from the tripe.Steven (Nick Eversman) and Nico (Jay Gillespie) are two young horndogs who escape their middle-class family for the seediness of Mexico, where they hope to guzzle tequila, f**k prostitutes, and generally act like annoying a**eholes.
We flash back and forth in time between Steven being forced to lure victims for his friend in order to regenerate his body and skin, and the family's utter shock at Steven's sudden re-appearance and increasingly bizarre behaviour.Series regular and all-round horror icon Doug Bradley turned the movie down.
But soon they discover that it is not Steven's soul that is inside his body."Hellraiser: Revelations" is a very bad sequel, actually the ninth movie of this franchise.
Actually I think I would have had more of an emotional connection to cardboard than the cast.The storyline and I use the term in the loosest possible sense was so jumbled it was nigh on impossible to keep track of what was happening and when it was happening.I am so glad Doug Bradley refused to appear in the film as he would have shone so brightly among the others the screen would have just been a white light.So Revelations.
In this ninth installment of the Hellraiser franchise, two friends discover a puzzle box in Mexico, which opens a gateway to Hell.I hardly even want to write a review about this crock of rubbish, because others already have and have done a better job.Dread Central wrote, "Not only does this entry make all the other sequels seem great in comparison, you could easily confuse this for some Hellraiser mockbuster from the folks at The Asylum." This is spot-on, as they have stolen everything good from the first two films -- Pinhead, the mattress rebirth, the homeless man -- and made them into pale comparisons.No one has been harsher than Scott Weinberg, who called the film a "contractually-mandated piece of intentional garbage that exists for no other reason than pure, simple greed...
And if your one of these people who reads all the reviews and thinks 'i'd like to make up my own mind', this is one of those times you should listen to your conscience, No good will come of it, the world will be a better place for you not watching it, trust me, please!.
Usually the latter; in the case of Hellraiser: Revelations, the former.Without saying too much on the plot-- the word count won't permit me-- this is the first Hellraiser since the fourth to be intended as a Hellraiser film (and not a hasty rewrite of an unrelated horror script) and the first since "Hellbound" to treat the Cenobites and their backstory the way Barker wrote them.
Make no mistake-- the Pinhead here is a far inferior version of the previous entries', and Doug Bradley's presence is sorely missed; he brought a certain charisma to the character this is difficult to articulate, let alone replicate, and his absence from the movie is in fact its most glaring flaw.
Missing from many of the sequels was the idea that the box-- and by extension, the Cenobites-- sought prey for a reason, and that the fates that befell them were simply amplifications of what would have become of them in everyday life.This all said, the movie is not completely devoid of flaws beyond Bradley's absence.
Before the DVDs were even pressed, "Revelations" was doomed not because of its inherent value but because fans had decided already that this was going to be the worst Hellraiser ever (a difficult undertaking, considering that the last four entries were unrelated horror stories hastily doctored to include Pinhead, and three of which-- Hellseeker, Deader, and Hellworld-- were abysmal).
And thus the prophecy was fulfilled; I've yet to read a review of the film that takes it seriously as anything other than a Hellraiser movie without Doug Bradley.
'HELLRAISER: REVELATIONS': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five) This ninth chapter in the popular horror franchise was made on a budget of just $300,000, filmed in just three weeks and rushed into and out of production in order to save the studio, The Weinstein Company, from losing it's rights to the material.
Due to the hastiness of the production long time star Doug Bradley decided not to return as 'Pinhead' and the resulting film is undoubtedly the weakest and most disappointing of the series.
Like with pizza though, even a bad 'Pinhead' film is good horror.
Like with pizza though, even a bad 'Pinhead' film is good horror.
Hellraiser: Revelations (2011) * 1/2 (out of 4) The ninth installment in the never ending series has two teens heading to Mexico where they drink, party and wind up finding the puzzle box, which of course they open and release Pinhead (Fred Tatasciore).
I think a decent movie could have been made out of the subject matter but while watching the film it just seemed like it wasn't complete.
Tatasciore isn't too bad as Pinhead but after eight movies with Doug Bradley it was a little strange not seeing him in the part.
HELLRAISER: REVELATIONS is a cheap movie that was clearly rushed through production, which pretty much tells you what the studio thinks of the fans.
While its certainly not on par with the early Hellraiser movies I feel it is far better than any of the more recent efforts, as they do for the most part attempt to stay close the roots of the original films.Obviously the first thing you will notice is the lack of Doug Bradley as Pinhead.
I know he has a chubbier face and deep down we all hate to see someone else as Pinhead but heres some advice for if you watch it...You will get more out of this movie if you stop yourself from comparing the new actor to Doug Bradley.
I was glad this wasn't another run of the mill detective story with Pinhead thrown in at the last minute like some of the previous ones have been (Inferno, Hellseeker.) Its not going to be your new favorite Hellraiser but if you give it a chance you might be surprised..
But there was a lot of Blood and gore that was a plus, yet the gore and all of that was not the best i have seen it was a 6/10 the acting was all right the screams were real (sorta) and it was a okay movie not recommended if you are going to watch a Hellraiser watch an older one PLEASE, The length of the movie was normal length for a movie like that, it bored me throughout the movie because of how it was shot all Indie style and it was weird to watch...
(Even though for most horror fans, actor/stuntman Kane Hodder is still Jason Voorhees.) But back to the ninth (!!) Hellraiser, in the making as a remake, that explains why the story is very familiar to the original movie.
But this rushed nature allowed one thing to happen that hadn't occurred since the largely underrated Bloodlines in 1996: an original Hellraiser movie was written.See, with Hellraiser 5-8 the studio merely took existing scripts they owned and reworked them to fit in Pinhead, much to the degradation of the series as a whole.
when the first hellraiser film came out, it was a British production that gave us a unique icon, interesting characters and pretty good story.
I am actually glad it wasn't, even though that would have been more interesting than the rehash of Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II which this one ended up being.My two major problems with this film.1 - Acting (it's so bad I nearly stopped watching it twice, it is on a par with a lot of the scy-fy films that have been released over the last few years, if not worse)2 - No Doug Bradley (He is Pinhead.
Not only was the script already so bad that we now have Pinhead played by Stephen Smith Collins beacuse original actor Doug Bradley turned the role down but this movie is also a shining example of those movies you can watch with a bunch of friends, get drunk and then start playing "find the only good actor".
Not a single dialogue even tried to make this movie enjoyable or make you like any of the characters and the only moments this film becomes watchable is when the dark scenes come up, depicting the world the cenobites live in.
As a VERY big fan of the Hellraiser series I had very small hopes for this movie as I learned that Doug Bradley had nothing to do with this film.
I found this film to be good entertainment even though it didn't have all the features you would wish for.You as a Hellraiser fan might like it too if you can look beyond all the cheesiness.
Coming off the heels of past direct-to-video disappointments like "Deader" and "Deadworld" -- movies which are assuredly every bit as stupid as their titles suggest -- one would think the "Hellraiser" franchise could not sink any lower.One would be wrong.Enter "Hellraiser: Revelations," the ninth installment in the "Hellraiser" series and first in over half a decade.
It's a well-known fact that Doug Bradley, who stuck with the character of Pinhead throughout the thick and thin of eight films, was re-cast for the film, partially due to time/budget constraints, but more likely due to the actor having a spine and deciding that enough is enough.
I doubt that even if it had Been Doug Bradley playing the part that the film would have been any better since his presence didn't save Hellworld or Hell on Earth.If you have never seen a Hellraiser film this is not a good introduction to the series.
It didn't bother me much knowing that Doug Bradley had been replaced, the Hellraiser films at their heart aren't even about Pinhead anyway, don't get me wrong Doug is great in the role, irreplaceable, but let's be honest he is no Robert Englund and Pinhead has very rarely been the focal point of a Hellraiser movie.In summary Revelations follows two family's at a dinner party who's son's have each gone missing while on a trip to Mexico, suddenly one of the boys shows up and he has a plan to save his soul from the Cenobites who are in hot pursuit.I'll start off with what's good in this movie.
The acting was atrocious all around, there wasn't a single likeable or relatable character in the film, the story line was full of plot holes, like when everyone's cars just disappear, and their phones suddenly stop working, these are the kind of things that I take issue with because the Cenobites have never done anything of that manner.
I'm not going to complain about the Pinhead replacement, I didn't think he sucked that bad, what sucked was his makeup and the fact that he just doesn't look the part, which comes down to poor casting, not poor acting.From top to bottom there are almost zero likeable things about this movie, the gore is good, but not good enough to save it from being the worst in the franchise by far.
I'm not gonna get into the second rate acting, the lack of special effects, or the difficulty posed by making a Hellraiser movie without Doug Bradley.
'Inferno' was the least bad of the post-'Bloodline' films where the 'Hellraiser' franchise jumped the shark in quality, having little of what made the original so good and not feeling like 'Hellraiser' films, where Pinhead and the Cenobites increasingly became underused and pointless.The general consensus is that 'Hellraiser: Revelations' is the worst of the series.
The Cenobites on top of looking awful have completely lost their mystery and creepiness that made them memorable in the original, while Pinhead is here an amateurish-looking villain more suitable to a 'Hellraiser' mock-buster, it was said very well on a website that the whole film feels like a franchise mock-buster and that is a perfect summation.
But, as a fan of Clive Barker's world, I got everything I wanted: an expansion of the suspenseful Pinhead, and a formulaic honesty to the original two films before "Hellraiser III" transitioned the lively horror-drama into a pop franchise.
Eventually all hell breaks loose and we find out exactly what happened in Mexico.If you read in the trivia section how this movie came about, how production was rushed and took only a few weeks; how it was written by a guy who does make-up, and directed by someone with little experience, the surprise is that Hellraiser: Revelations isn't even worse.
This film was boring, low budget looking and a disgrace to an already silly movie genre.I mean the first few Hellraisers are scary in the sense of what they are.
When I saw the first movie back in the 80s I became a faithful fan of the whole mythology that it created.If had somebody asked me back then how would I like to see this mythology evolved in order to become a franchise, I would have told him that introducing the box to many different characters in many sequels (with each of them having his own personality and facing different situations) would be a great idea.Hellbound gave us the opportunity to explore hell, the world of the Cenobites and its presentation was a novel one.Hell on earth was one of the worst sequels in my opinion, because he overused pinnhead turning him into a Freddy/Jason icon which didn 't work for me, but at least was faithful to the whole mythology.
I found that film terribly bad and I cannot accept it as a part of the franchise.Inferno had a good approach in the way that treated the franchise, because instead of adding more extra clues on the mythos and overuse pinhead like the previous 2 installments did, it took the right decision in exploring the "man-discovers-the-box idea" and presenting us an another aspect of hell that me personally I gladly bought it.Hellseeker was a disaster, because it wanted to turn the franchise to a pinhead-Kirsty case.
The later sequels took a different turn where the scripts were written and Pinhead was added in later sometimes not making it feel like a Hellraiser film at all.
With a very lousy budget and short time to make the film, Hellraiser makes Ed Wood look like Steven Spielberg.
I understood the storyline a little bit, but what made me mad the most about the movie was Pinhead wasn't the same actor who acted in the previous eight films.
The actual Hellraiser creatures didn't appear like until the last two minutes!!).With these things in mind, I still thought I might watch this film with a very open mind.
Even with Doug Bradley no longer playing Pinhead, it wasn't a bad film.
Well, the good thing I will say about this film is that it's not someone else's horror idea where they shoehorned in Pinhead and had Doug Bradley phone it in, which was really the case with all the "Hellraiser" direct to video crap after the fourth one.And that's kind of about it.
Some of the film looks OK.Sound: 4/10 Not very effective.Acting: 0/10 Stephan Smith Collins is a terrible replacement for Doug Bradley as Pinhead. |
tt2040608 | I Am... Gabriel | An unforgiving sun, a parched earth, and a failed economy have left a small Texas town desolate. For ten years Promise, Texas has known nothing but one curse after another. It's barren, broken, and dying, leaving a town full of despair. When a couple finds a boy walking along a dusty road, alone in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but a mat tucked under his arm, they pick him up in hopes of helping him. What they don't realize is that he has come to help them and the residents of Promise. No one knows who he is or where he came from. Some think he's an answer to prayer. Others think he's a runaway or a false prophet. And the only thing this boy will say about himself is that he's here to help. The town's sheriff, Brody, is determined to uncover the truth. But Brody has his own problems trying to hold a dying town together. Miracle after miracle takes place and the residents of Promise embrace the boy. But when the beloved town doctor dies, it is time for the truth to be revealed. The boy pleads with Brody in front of the whole town to believe that he's come to help, not to hurt anyone. Finally, with his back against the wall the boy reveals his true identity. | christian film | train | wikipedia | I Am Gabriel is inspirational film and all-around very uplifting.
After seeing this film it touched my soul as it did for many children and families.
Wonderful directing by Mike Norris as well he did a great job on this.Fantastic acting by the amazing Gavin Casalegno.
Great job Gavin.The story-line itself was very well created and it enlightened and shared a great message.
This movie is a #1 recommendation on my end and you will be inspired by it and the message that Gavin's character shares will not only touch your soul, but will change your life but overall the movie will change your life and you will watch this again.
This was a great film and you will love it.Give it watch and you'll be moved..
I read some reviews before i watched the movie, it did affect my initial idea.
I agree that you must'not compare the movie to 'The Passion' or another similar movie, it is predictable and the acting could be better.
I am not into any religion, but respect and admire some people who know how to experience it without trying to push their believes to others.I loved that more then one religion is being interpreted and displayed.
And perhaps things are all too obvious and most certainly predictable, but i think it's all about hope in any way, or better the loss of it and how to regain it.Despite the bad acting there were several moments, that the shivers went down my spine.
First of all, the title alone gives the whole movie away if you've ever learned anything about Christianity.
This movie is well-intentioned, sweet, and yet watching it feels like you've already seen it.
For some reason though, I watched it until the end, even though I rolled my eyes upon seeing exactly what I expected to be the climax of the film.For those out there who'll lament that its a Christian film and speaks of God...well just don't watch it and don't b*$#@h about it!
I'm always amazed how people can be OK accepting concepts in Star Wars like "The Force", and "Use The Force," yet be totally not OK with the parallel concept of God and Prayer.
If you do like heartwarming Christian themes, this movie has them--it just has a far too predictable storyline to make it a really good movie.
Watch it with the kiddies, the ultimate message is good whether you believe in the delivery or not..
Of course its a B movie most people don't react well to Blockbuster movies about Christianity.
This like Joshua 2002, Left Behind, people scoffed and then they stopped making the LB movies, when HOPE and FAITH are what we need most in these trying times.
I truly appreciate movies that inspire us to be better than we are to trust and hold to what true.
Sometimes the tech no blockbuster stuff takes away from the message so we need something simple and straightforward like I am Gabriel so that we can see more clearly---BELIEVER IN Christ.
I have been a believer for quite some time and this movie has touched my heart and regenerated that love I have for my Savior, Jesus Christ.
The film certainly projects the message of this very thing.
And the actor who portrays The Messenger, Gabriel, deserves more roles like this..
Sorry for the frequent use of the same word, but I am sure IMDb has a swearing/expletive policy, and I do not wish to fall foul of it.Second, from the story line I was expecting a proper film and not a thinly-veiled Christian evangelical propaganda film.
It is so bad, I would advise watching it with a few beers on board.Calling this a 'family film' and making children watch it would expose one to charges of child cruelty.You only get one life, do not waste a second of it on this.
I like a good Christian movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed many that were panned as marginal like "The Encounter." When I checked the reviews on this one and saw they were so bad I was still quite hopeful that it was just the usual anti-Christian bias and that the movie would be enjoyable even though the rating on IMDb was under four.Boy was I wrong.
The movie was just as bad as the other reviewers said.
The acting and story were painfully bad.
Likewise, the husband (Carey Scott) was particular over his head.The script also was too predictable and painful.I hate doing anything that discourages Christian independent film makers.
But a good Christian movie needs to also be a good movie..
Subjectively I enjoyed pretty much everything about this movie and was very surprised to see how low the rating was.
Objectively, sure there are some moments where the acting might have been a little off, or where the shot could have been done better, but this isn't a multi-million dollar film we're talking about either.
I am Gabriel is a nice, heartwarming, family movie that leaves you feeling good.
Once that is achieved, a movie can be said to make sense.
On this ground I highly recommend this movie, 'I am Gabriel'.
A community was facing lots of challenges, got so used to her condition, some fled in search of greener pastures, others waited, but none did the right thing until God Himself comes to their aid.
All we need is faith and hope in God. It is a biblical fact that the right thing we are able to do, the grace to do those things come from God Himself.
It is one theme that Christian movie makers seldom think of.
I praise God for the lives of the writers and the producers of this movie.
a movie about faith, miracles, hope and new beginning.
I'm trying to find a movie on youtube,which I wanted to set up (Gabriel from 2007).
Because of the similar title, the second one appears to me, I see a blue-eyed boy who says, "I'm Gabriel" and I'm starting to watch a movie.
I saw a very bad movie, the scenario is so naive and predictable, but what's happening?
During the entire film I cried because he succeeded in his little and ordinary intent that he had ,to cause feelings, and wake up something in me.
Whether it was because of the rain that was falling, because of some sensitivity brought to me by this day or is this simple message given by the film, was a trigger that found the right way to my heart.
The film is completely pathetic, just like this note, but whether the quality of this film is that it managed to send this little message, that we always need someone when it is difficult time for us to comfort us and that he is always there ?
With his child's naivety, with his defense of what we don't see, and which we either perceive or reject in the moments of despair, a good motive from the New Testament is inserted into the film, which is reduced to one, either believing or not believing.24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
"The Gospel of John (John 24-29).And that's it.If you need a good motivation, honest and pure emotion-then this is a movie for you, if not, don't believe in my review today..
A good and inspiring movie.
I really liked this movie.
I liked the fact that there was no profanity, nudity, or other things that so many movie producers feel they need to make a movie sell.
I thought the movie was believable and for that reason I gave it an 8 star rating..
I like Christian movies as much as anyone, and I wish more of them could be made.
The acting was so horrible and the movie overall was so predictable.
I wish and pray for revival in our world (North America especially) but this movie was just so disappointing.
Most of the time I ignore ratings and reviews (especially for Christian movies because of the bias against genuine Christian entertainment) until I have a chance to judge something for myself.
But in this case, I wish I had paid attention to the reviews instead of waste an hour and a half of my time..
I am ...Gabriel has all the virtues and all the errors of an Evangelical Christian film.
first, it is a film about Christian values.
the acting is far to be great but this could not be a real surprise.
because the good point in this case remains the presence of John Schneider and Dean Cain in symbolical roles.
the atmosphere, the symbols, the change of things, the new birth of community are the pillars of a film who reminds teachings and duties.
only a Christian film.
only a Christian film.
23 October 2016In additional to my original comments that I wrote earlier about this film; "I am Gabriel", it is worth watching.
Some of the best Christian movies are made by a film production company named "Pure Flix".
Check out a great action drama titled "Courageous" that was out in theaters about three years ago.However the only thing more I would have like to have seen is a more MultiRacial cast with one or two African Americans, Hispanic Americans and perhaps an Asian American too.
After all, there are people in All races that are Christians and believe in God and Jesus Christ / Yeshua too and all races and nationalities should be depicted in every film in this decade..
I enjoyed it even though it is Not on the level of such films as "God is Not Dead" or "Heaven is Real" but over all, I liked the story line.
The young actor, Gavin who played angel Gabriel did the best he could and he should be applauded for the work he did.I would much rather see this type of film than a movie with a lot unnecessary profanity/cursing and abuse on women in every scene.For those who did Not like the movie and have nothing but negative things to say, I offer the negative critic two comments.1.
Wonderful Movie.
I just saw this movie yesterday for the first time, I think the cast was classically done..
The Angel Gabriel is just adorable, very calm and well out spoken but I think some things should have been further explained, like the part the girl died in the church and was reawakened.
I would like to see this film in Italian, because it glorifies God, not man.
This film highlights the abysmal difference that exists between the messenger and the one who sends it; also it teaches us to pray and to get changed into joy the most desperate situations.
This film teaches us to love.
Johon: 16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
A good feel-good film, if you're not particular..
Seriously, this is neither more nor less than a vaguely religious feel- good film.
I watched it online and I would say if you're into that sort of thing, it's worth an hour and a half of your time, but it's not worth money.
The other characters are reasonably well-developed considering the number of different stories the movie tries to tell.
Note, it's not "Christian." It's "religious." General talk about God and Jesus, but nothing profound..
Great family film.
I assure you they never even watched the film.
They try to make themselves feel like somebody by running around trashing Christian films.
Better yet, just go see the movie.
Has the same "feeling" as the good old days of The Waltons, Touched by an Angel and other solid family fare.It's like spending some time with good friends.The ending may or may not surprise you.
I won't give it away.Good story, good acting, and a good feeling after you watch it.
Great Movie.
It was well done and except for a couple of minor insignificant issues - like the glowing around "Gabriel" on the porch and the feathers around "Doc" not being believable, it was well done.
I think all of the actors did a great job overall, even the younger people.
I would love to see more movies just like this.
I love the action/drama movies and would go to the theater much more often if there were less skin, sex, and language in them.
I always screen all of my movies on IMDb before I go.
Wonderful uplifting movie.
I absolutely loved this movie!
I love how everything in the movie points to God as the ultimate Source of everything.
I love the way the movie stresses prayer especially impressing upon the viewer that when we pray, sincerely, God is pleased.
This is a movie about faith and hope, and yes, this is a Christian movie.
If you want to watch a movie that will touch your soul, this will do it..
i loved it.A good family movie.Dear friend if you are on the verge of loosing hope or if you no longer believe in the presence of God please i sincerely request you to watch 'i am Gabriel'.The reason i recommend this movie to you is because it was Hope that kept me alive on a starless night.Hope is one important element of life,without hope life ceases.It is in pain we realize the importance of God and his Grace and the movie does justice in establishing that view.
Although the movie plot is predictable, give it a try.It will not disappoint you.It will help rekindle that lost hope in your heart.The movie ended with tears flowing down my cheeks.i will always be glad that my first review was for a movie named 'i am Gabriel'.I hope the reviews and the rating will get better too..
Just terrible First off, not to down on Christian movies just for the sake of it, but almost every Christian movie I watch has terrible acting, with the exception of a few.
This one is not in that "exception" category.On top of which the writers of this movie basically give you the entire plot in 15mins, thus ruining the entire film.Where's the suspense?
I think I chose the wrong movie..
A few hours before land fall of hurricane Isaac, I was hoping to view a well filmed movie that would keep me 'film satisfied' over the next few days while having no power.
From the description of the film, I was expecting a poor rural town set in a back country with open farm land and all the issues that come along with destitution.
Overall, the movie isn't that great use of your film watching time.
Be kind to other people, share the love, help your neighbor, and an angel boy by the name of GABRIEL will show up and bless everyone.
Choose a different film.
The film was guided down the path of Christianity versus a plot with true beauty and value.
I'm really not sure what I was to gather from the film...
Will I not be able to see GABRIEL the winged boy if I don't try to high five HIM?
Nice tears Dean, looked like you really had something there.
UUUUURRRRGGGGHHH, A (TV) film about a failing dust bowl community of about 25, somewhere in the God old....oops I meant good old US of A where a young boy, who, appears to have the power of good (yawn) and the acting skills of of the horned one, arrives to put everything to rights.
Then the little boy tells everyone how good they are and does some cheesy miracles and the film probably ends on a high note.
But I felt so ill watching this pathetic attempt at human salvation that I was hoping someone would actually call social services and get the vomit inducing little man adopted to a family who believe that children should be seen and not heard.The blonde bloke from "dukes of Hazard" is in it and Dean Cain from Superman is in it.
Why doesn't the kid ever smile?I'm all for Christian movies, but there is no doubt as many have said that this is a B movie.
Scripture tells us that there are far more people who will reject the message of God's love through Jesus than accept it, so a whole town that turns to him is at best - not normal.The story is well-intentioned, the acting is almost adequate though it often appears as if 'lines are being read'.
There is no significant tension, no surprise twists, or unexpected responses from people the way real life would present.
There is praise always given to God, and that is right and good.
I like the aspect of the boy being God's messenger, so there are a number of things that are good about it, but the presentation fails I'm afraid.And what's the deal with the kid NEVER smiling.
Definitely a good movie.
I just read the reviews after seeing the movie.
I kind of understand the negative comments on the acting, yet thats exactly what I like about such actors.
They are not the overacting type we have in every "good" movie.
They looked like real folks experiencing something unusual.
Thou the there is an early kind of revelation in the movie, it still wants to make you wait for the rest in the end.
But hey, who cares, I think we can find something in every movie which could do better.The movie has a message and succeeded in delivering it.
Definitely a feelgood family movie.
What a terrible film - all syrupy, naive and completely shallow Christian propaganda, awful acting, terrible plot but passable camera work.
This film is a total waste of time.
And since when do Christians use praying mats, anyway?
Don't bother watching it, you'd be better off reading a bad book instead. |
tt0031713 | Naughty Neighbors | In this Romeo and Juliet meets the Hatfields and McCoys short, the film is set in the "quiet hills of old Kaintucky" (Kentucky), where according to the introduction "the hill folk live in peace and harmony". This description is immediately contradicted by a brief view of a chaotic battle. The short properly opens by featuring the front page of a newspaper, the "Ozark bazooka", which reports that the leaders of the two rival clans have signed a non-aggression pact. The geographic references to Kentucky and the Ozarks are mutually contradictory. The following scene introduces the two leads, who start singing an idealistic song about how "the fighting ends" and about their new friendship. Or as Porky puts it: "Now we're pally-wallies". The clan members seem to belong to multiple species, many of their members being including chickens, ducks, and geese. Curiously Porky and Petunia are apparently the only pigs of either family.
As the song continues, side-scenes reveal that the two leaders are being overly optimistic. Their fondness for each other is genuine, but this is far from true for the other clan members. A black duck from the McCoy clan calmly observes to a white duck from the Martin clan, that it is unbelievable that after all these years of shooting at each other, their clans would end up friends. They both scream their conclusion that "It'll never work". Elsewhere, two ducks from the rival clans are dancing a graceful minuet, but interrupt their dance to physically fight each other. Progressively, people pretending to be friends are seen attempting to kill each other.
Before long, covert aggression between the two clans gives way to renewed hostilities. The entire countryside area is mobilized for war. Porky reacts by utilizing his secret weapon, a "Feud Pacifier". The device resembles hand grenade but is decorated with heart symbols pierced by arrows. He throws this "Pacifier" into the battlefield, and somehow several of the combatants change to maypole dancers. Others are playing marbles or are embracing each other. The finale scenes resemble a pastoral romance. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Light on plot but very cute. For as long as I can remember I have loved Looney Tunes. Naughty Neighbors is not one of my favourites but part of me does still like it, though I can see why some may not. It is light on plot, and isn't what we come to expect from Looney Tunes in terms of expectations. Instead of the crisp pacing and razor-sharp wit that we see a lot, it is slower moving and apart from a few deft touches like the two ducks fighting then humming and dancing is not as witty. Much of the dialogue is in song as well. I don't see these as real problems though, I'm just saying that people may see that they are. The animation is wonderful, gorgeously coloured and with luscious pastoral-like backgrounds. The music fits this just as well, this is a more whimsical approach to the energetic one usually heard, but it is very fitting. The title song is very catchy and is something that you can't get out of your head. Decide for yourself whether that is a good thing or not. Porky and Petunia are very likable characters and are adorable together. Mel Blanc does a superb job in one of his earliest endeavours with providing the voices of so many memorable characters. If it is Bernice Hanson voicing Petunia(Youtube had a dispute on whether it was her indeed or not), she is equally effective. In conclusion, very cute if somewhat different to what you'd expect. 8/10 Bethany Cox. The Ancient Persians and/or Romans . . .. . . . used to have Witch Doctors which would murder innocent "scapegoats" and scoop out their "entrails" (or guts) in a ludicrous attempt to decipher future outcomes of importance to them (their inhuman leaders--NOT the goats!), such as the outcome of an anticipated battle. I've been noticing lately that more and more "User Reviews" here are sort of doing the same thing with film studio offerings from the Yesteryears beginning with "19," so I'll open another line of crimson feeling in this vein by taking a whack at NAUGHTY NEIGHBORS. At the end of this brief Warner Bros. Looney Tune, Porky Pig uses an over-sized hand grenade from a box labeled "Feud Pacifier" to end the long-running tiff between the "Martins" (whatever happened to the Hatfields?) and McCoys. If NAUGHTY NEIGHBORS is predicting ANYTHING happening in Today's World, surely this is a forecast for Leader Trump to use MOAB (aka, the "Mother Of All Bombs") against America's foes, as he did recently once already. I think the maypole that immediately pops up after Porky deploys MOAB probably references the sort of Mushroom Cloud one sees after nukes are dropped, indicating that NAUGHTY NEIGHBORS may portend that America's aging nuclear arsenal will soon be raining down upon North Korea (as well as China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, and Canada for good measure) enabling Leader Trump to use all the savings from the on-going elimination of ObamaCare, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, Medicare, Social Security, Environmental Protection, the State Department and the United Nations to restock America's Safety Net with a newer, bigger, better generation of nukes. |
tt0240912 | Sound and Fury | === Part 1: April 7, 1928 ===
The first section of the novel is narrated by Benjamin "Benjy" Compson, a source of shame to the family due to his diminished mental capacity; the only characters who show a genuine care for him are Caddy, his older sister; and Dilsey, a matriarchal servant. His narrative voice is characterized predominantly by its nonlinearity: spanning the period 1898–1928, Benjy's narrative is a series of non-chronological events presented in a stream of consciousness. The presence of italics in Benjy's section is meant to indicate significant shifts in the narrative. Originally Faulkner meant to use different colored inks to signify chronological breaks. This nonlinearity makes the style of this section particularly challenging, but Benjy's style develops a cadence that, while not chronologically coherent, provides unbiased insight into many characters' true motivations. Moreover, Benjy's caretaker changes to indicate the time period: Luster in the present, T.P. in Benjy's teenage years, and Versh during Benjy's infancy and childhood.
In this section we see Benjy's three passions: fire, the golf course on land that used to belong to the Compson family, and his sister Caddy. But by 1928 Caddy has been banished from the Compson home after her husband divorced her because her child was not his, and the family has sold his favorite pasture to a local golf club in order to finance Quentin's Harvard education. In the opening scene, Benjy, accompanied by Luster, a servant boy, watches golfers on the nearby golf course as he waits to hear them call "caddie"—the name of his favorite sibling. When one of them calls for his golf caddie, Benjy's mind embarks on a whirlwind course of memories of his sister, Caddy, focusing on one critical scene. In 1898 when their grandmother died, the four Compson children were forced to play outside during the funeral. In order to see what was going on inside, Caddy climbed a tree in the yard, and while looking inside, her brothers—Quentin, Jason and Benjy—looked up and noticed that her underwear was muddy. This is Benjy's first memory, and he associates Caddy with trees throughout the rest of his arc, often saying that she smells like trees. Other crucial memories in this section are Benjy's change of name (from Maury, after his uncle) in 1900 upon the discovery of his disability; the marriage and divorce of Caddy (1910), and Benjy's castration, resulting from an attack on a girl that is alluded to briefly within this chapter when a gate is left unlatched and Benjy is out unsupervised.
Readers often report trouble understanding this portion of the novel due to its impressionistic language necessitated by Benjamin's mental abilities, as well as its frequent shifts in time and setting.
=== Part 2: June 2, 1910 ===
Quentin, the most intelligent of the Compson children, gives the novel's best example of Faulkner's narrative technique. We see him as a freshman at Harvard, wandering the streets of Cambridge, contemplating death, and remembering his family's estrangement from his sister Caddy. Like the first section, its narrative is not strictly linear, though the two interweaving threads, of Quentin at Harvard on the one hand, and of his memories on the other, are clearly discernible.
Quentin's main obsession is Caddy's virginity and purity. He is obsessed with Southern ideals of chivalry and is strongly protective of women, especially his sister. When Caddy engages in sexual promiscuity, Quentin is horrified. He turns to his father for help and counsel, but the pragmatic Mr. Compson tells him that virginity is invented by men and should not be taken seriously. He also tells Quentin that time will heal all. Quentin spends much of his time trying to prove his father wrong, but is unable to do so. Shortly before Quentin leaves for Harvard in the fall of 1909, Caddy becomes pregnant by a lover she is unable to identify, perhaps Dalton Ames, whom Quentin confronts. The two fight, with Quentin losing disgracefully and Caddy vowing, for Quentin's sake, never to speak to Dalton again. Quentin tells his father that they have committed incest, but his father knows that he is lying: "and he did you try to make her do it and i i was afraid to i was afraid she might and then it wouldn't do any good" (112). Quentin's idea of incest is shaped by the idea that, if they "could just have done something so dreadful that they would have fled hell except us" (51), he could protect his sister by joining her in whatever punishment she might have to endure. In his mind, he feels a need to take responsibility for Caddy's sin.
Pregnant and alone, Caddy then marries Herbert Head, whom Quentin finds repulsive, but Caddy is resolute: she must marry before the birth of her child. Herbert finds out that the child is not his and sends mother and daughter away in shame. Quentin's wanderings through Harvard, as he cuts classes, follow the pattern of his heartbreak over losing Caddy. For instance, he meets a small Italian immigrant girl who speaks no English. Significantly, he calls her "sister" and spends much of the day trying to communicate with her, and to care for her by finding her home, to no avail. He thinks sadly of the downfall and squalor of the South after the American Civil War. Tormented by his conflicting thoughts and emotions, Quentin commits suicide by drowning.
While many first-time readers report Benjy's section as being difficult to understand, these same readers often find Quentin's section to be near impossible. Not only do chronological events mesh together regularly, but often (especially at the end) Faulkner completely disregards any semblance of grammar, spelling, or punctuation, instead writing in a rambling series of words, phrases, and sentences that have no separation to indicate where one thought ends and another begins. This confusion is due to Quentin's severe depression and deteriorating state of mind, and Quentin is therefore arguably an even more unreliable narrator than his brother Benjy. Because of the staggering complexity of this section, it is often the one most extensively studied by scholars of the novel.
=== Part 3: April 6, 1928 ===
The third section is narrated by Jason, the third child and his mother Caroline's favorite. It takes place the day before Benjy's section, on Good Friday. Of the three brothers' sections, Jason's is the most straightforward, reflecting his single-minded desire for material wealth. By 1928, Jason is the economic foundation of the family after his father's death. He supports his mother, Benjy, and Miss Quentin (Caddy's daughter), as well as the family's servants. His role makes him bitter and cynical, with little of the passionate sensitivity that marks his older brother and sister. He goes so far as to blackmail Caddy into making him Miss Quentin's sole guardian, then uses that role to steal the support payments that Caddy sends for her daughter.
This is the first section that is narrated in a linear fashion. It follows the course of Good Friday, a day in which Jason decides to leave work to search for Miss Quentin (Caddy's daughter), who has run away again, seemingly in pursuit of mischief. Here we see most immediately the conflict between the two predominant traits of the Compson family, which Caroline attributes to the difference between her blood and her husband's: on the one hand, Miss Quentin's recklessness and passion, inherited from her grandfather and, ultimately, the Compson side; on the other, Jason's ruthless cynicism, drawn from his mother's side. This section also gives us the clearest image of domestic life in the Compson household, which for Jason and the servants means the care of the hypochondriac Caroline and of Benjy.
=== Part 4: April 8, 1928 ===
April 8, 1928, is Easter Sunday. This section, the only one without a single first-person narrator, focuses on Dilsey, the powerful matriarch of the black family servants. She, in contrast to the declining Compsons, draws a great deal of strength from her faith, standing as a proud figure amid a dying family.
On this Easter Sunday, Dilsey takes her family and Benjy to the 'colored' church. Through her we sense the consequences of the decadence and depravity in which the Compsons have lived for decades. Dilsey is mistreated and abused, but nevertheless remains loyal. She, with the help of her grandson Luster, cares for Benjy, as she takes him to church and tries to bring him to salvation. The preacher's sermon inspires her to weep for the Compson family, reminding her that she's seen the family through its destruction, which she is now witnessing.
Meanwhile, the tension between Jason and Miss Quentin reaches its inevitable conclusion. The family discovers that Miss Quentin has run away in the middle of the night with a carnival worker, having found the hidden collection of cash in Jason's closet and taken both her money (the support from Caddy, which Jason had stolen) and her money-obsessed uncle's life savings. Jason calls the police and tells them that his money has been stolen, but since it would mean admitting embezzling Quentin's money he doesn't press the issue. He therefore sets off once again to find her on his own, but loses her trail in nearby Mottson, and gives her up as gone for good.
After church, Dilsey allows her grandson Luster to drive Benjy in the family's decrepit horse and carriage to the graveyard. Luster, disregarding Benjy's set routine, drives the wrong way around a monument. Benjy's hysterical sobbing and violent outburst can only be quieted by Jason, who understands how best to placate his brother. Jason slaps Luster, turns the carriage around, and, in an attempt to quiet Benjy, hits Benjy, breaking his flower stalk, while screaming "Shut up!" After Jason gets off the carriage and Luster heads home, Benjy suddenly becomes silent. Luster turns around to look at Benjy and sees Benjy holding his drooping flower. Benjy's eyes are "empty and blue and serene again."
=== Appendix: Compson: 1699–1945 ===
In 1945, Faulkner wrote an appendix to the novel to be published in the then-forthcoming anthology The Portable Faulkner. At Faulkner's behest, however, subsequent printings of The Sound and the Fury frequently contain the appendix at the end of the book; it is sometimes referred to as the fifth part. Having been written sixteen years after The Sound and the Fury, the appendix presents some textual differences from the novel, but serves to clarify the novel's opaque story.
The appendix is presented as a complete history of the Compson family lineage, beginning with the arrival of their ancestor Quentin Maclachlan in America in 1779 and continuing through 1945, including events that transpired after the novel (which takes place in 1928). In particular, the appendix reveals that Caroline Compson died in 1933, upon which Jason had Benjy committed to the state asylum, fired the black servants, sold the last of the Compson land, and moved into an apartment above his farming supply store. It is also revealed that Jason had himself declared Benjy's legal guardian many years ago, without their mother's knowledge, and used this status to have Benjy castrated.
The appendix also reveals the fate of Caddy, last seen in the novel when her daughter Quentin is still a baby. After marrying and divorcing a second time, Caddy moved to Paris, where she lived at the time of the German occupation. In 1943, the librarian of Yoknapatawpha County discovered a magazine photograph of Caddy in the company of a German staff general and attempted separately to recruit both Jason and Dilsey to save her; Jason, at first acknowledging that the photo was of his sister, denied that it was she after realizing the librarian wanted his help, while Dilsey pretended to be unable to see the picture at all. The librarian later realizes that while Jason remains cold and unsympathetic towards Caddy, Dilsey simply understands that Caddy neither wants nor needs to be saved from the Germans, because nothing else remains for her.
The appendix concludes with an accounting for the black family who worked as servants to the Compsons. Unlike the entries for the Compsons themselves, which are lengthy, detailed, and told with an omniscient narrative perspective, the servants' entries are simple and succinct. Dilsey's entry, the final in the appendix, consists of two words: "They endured." | home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2593410 | Bridge and Tunnel | The film begins on New Year's Day as six Long Island natives: Sal, his wife Meghan, Terry, Nate, Eric, and his girlfriend Lina discuss the pro's and con's of going into Manhattan on New Year's Eve. The group spent the holiday in Nassau County going to bars, and Terry makes the decision to drive home while intoxicated, resulting in a DWI arrest.
The first part of the film takes place from New Year's Day 2012 to the beginning of Spring and the main tension revolves around the characters struggling to cope with the transition to adulthood. Terry still lives at home with his mother and now has no vehicle due to his DWI. Sal and Meghan are debating whether or not they want to start a family, Nate is unemployed, and Eric and Lina's relationship is tested as Eric struggles to pay off his student loans while Lina desperately wants to leave the "change at Jamaica crowd" for the glitz and glamor of New York City.
The film then transitions into the spring and summer where the characters attempt to situate their love lives. Sal and Meghan decide that they're going to try to have a child, but are struggling to conceive. Nate tries to solve his relationship woes through online dating, while Eric finds a new love in Christine, a hair salon owner. Meanwhile, Terry begins courting Kelly, a classmate of his from a drunk drivers education course, while Lina moves into the Manhattan and begins working at an art gallery.
As the Summer transitions to Autumn, the male characters develop problems of their own amongst one another in the wake of the loss of a loved one. These differences are tested when Hurricane Sandy destroys Sal and Meghan's Long Beach apartment and brings everyone into the same room for the film's climax.
A year passes from the film's opening scene when on December 31, 2012, Terry, Lina, Nate, Eric, Sal, and Meghan make plans to go into Manhattan to visit Kelly at her new apartment for a New Year's party. | romantic | train | wikipedia | A year in the life of Long Island twenty-somethings. This is a movie about life in suburbia, specifically, Long Island, New York. Jason Brescia has written a solid script, with a keen ear for dialog. Told through slice of life vignettes, Bridge and Tunnel unfolds at an easy and enjoyable pace. The film follows six high school friends through 2012 with all the ordinariness, drama, comedy, and weather events that any year will contain. This sweet little movie will touch you whether you are part of the twenty-something generation, a parent of this generation, or a teenager wondering where you and your friends will be in the next 10 years. Thanks to a very talented cast, these well-drawn, likable characters will stay with you long after the credits roll. I would recommend this film to anyone. Well done! |
tt0101476 | Blood River | Clark and Summer, a young married couple, are on their way to see Summer's parents. Their car has a blowout and, as they do not have a spare tire, the couple decides to walk onwards and find help. Upon arriving at a small collection of buildings, they realise that the town is abandoned. It isn't long before a drifter in a cowboy hat comes along. The stranger introduces himself as Joseph, and immediately overshadows Clark with his personality and style. That evening, around a campfire, the three talk: Summer shows Joseph a photo of her older son, Ben, who is Clark's stepson, while Joseph talks about how unlike Clark - who is a slave to society — he is himself, being beholden to no one but God. God is great god is good
The next morning, Joseph suggests that he and Clark walk back to the couple's car and siphon off the gas, then continue on to Joseph's truck and leave the area. Summer wants to accompany them, but Joseph and Clark both say that in her delicate condition, she should remain. Joseph pulls out a revolver and teaches Summer how to use it, touching her in an intimate way. Clark is obviously furious, but he and Joseph still set off together. On the way, Joseph continually mocks Clark for his weaknesses, claiming to know everything about him. Clark is convinced that Joseph is a fanatical, religious hippie. When they arrive, Joseph tells Clark that everything he is about to go through is his own fault, because of his sins, then disappears. Clark opens the trunk of his car to find Ben's rotting body, buzzing with flies. He is horrified, then realises that he has left Summer alone and rushes back.
Meanwhile, Summer has found a room in one of the abandoned buildings with photographs on the wall, including her photo of Ben, with a cross scratched over his face. She turns to find that Joseph is in the room with her. She attempts to shoot him, but the gun he gave her is unloaded. Joseph subdues her and uses a razor to carve a cross into her forehead, saying that she will have the mark forever and will remember what happened there. She begs to know why he is doing this and he claims that it is God's will. At that moment, Clark arrives and attacks Joseph, beating him to the ground.
When Joseph regains consciousness, he is tied to a chair. Clark demands to know how they can escape the town, but Joseph won't say. Clark takes a pair of pliers and cuts off one of Joseph's fingers in order to make him talk. Finally Joseph admits that he is an avenging angel, sent to punish the wicked for their sins. He suggests that Clark tell Summer what was in the trunk of their car but Clark says it was nothing. Joseph then agrees to help them as long as he can first show them something down by the river. Just past the water tower, there is a field of rough, wooden crosses, marking graves. Summer asks if Joseph killed all those people but he claims that he never killed anyone; all did it to themselves and every one of them deserved it.
Further into the makeshift graveyard, there are three empty graves. Joseph again exhorts Clark to tell Summer what his sin is. When Clark refuses, Joseph loads the gun and hands it to Summer, reiterating that she need only cock it and squeeze the trigger. Receiving no response to Joseph's repeated question, Summer assumes it has something to do with Ben and finally shoots Clark. When she asks what she has done to deserve this pain, Joseph tells her that her sin is apathy: she knew something was wrong but did nothing about it.
Joseph raises his hand to the sky and murmurs a prayer, and his finger reappears. His face is no longer wounded and bloody. Leaving Summer at the graveyard with the gun, he walks off. Summer attempts to shoot herself, but there had been only one bullet in the chamber. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2312702 | Dood van een Schaduw | The shadow of Nathan Rijckx, a Belgian soldier who died in World War I, is captured by a collector. He is offered the chance to live again if he captures the shadows of 10,000 other people instead. He thinks nothing of his job at first. Simply find the name, pick the death, and capture the shadow when they die. Between his job, he touches the nails in his own shadow to remember what it was like right when he died. He remembers the woman Sarah Winters, who helped him right before his death, and how he was in love with her, and his mission is given new purpose.
When he is called to capture the shadow of Thomas Belcourt, he sees that Sarah is in love with another soldier by the name of Daniel Hainaut. He grows furious with jealousy and sees that he only has to capture one more shadow before he can finally be relieved. As part of his job, Nathan can pick who he wants to capture the shadow of. He goes through every Daniel Hainaut until he finds the right one, who was shot to death by a firing squad in 1917. Nathan does his job and is allowed to live again. He can pick any time period he wants after his death, but after the first hour of life the doors to the collection will be forever closed to him.
Nathan goes to the time right after Daniel's death and feels as if he is going to spend the rest of his new life with Sarah again. She sees his uniform and assumes that it is Daniel. When Nathan turns around, she doesn't recognize him and becomes distraught. Her maid apologizes to Nathan, explaining the situation and saying that dead soldiers don't come back to life.
Just before the doors to the shadow collection close, Nathan slips back in and pulls the nails out of Daniel's shadow to allow him to live again. The rule is one shadow for another, and so Nathan is killed in Daniel's place. When Sarah finally dies of old age, her shadow is put next to Nathan's. | romantic, murder, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0118414 | The Odyssey | === Exposition ===
The Odyssey begins ten years after the end of the ten-year Trojan War (the subject of the Iliad), and Odysseus has still not returned home from the war. Odysseus' son Telemachus is about 20 years old and is sharing his absent father's house on the island of Ithaca with his mother Penelope and a crowd of 108 boisterous young men, "the Suitors", whose aim is to persuade Penelope to marry one of them, all the while reveling in Odysseus' palace and eating up his wealth.
Odysseus' protectress, the goddess Athena, requests to Zeus, king of the gods, to finally allow Odysseus to return home when Odysseus' enemy, the god of the sea Poseidon, is absent from Mount Olympus. Then, disguised as a Taphian chieftain named Mentes, she visits Telemachus to urge him to search for news of his father. He offers her hospitality; they observe the suitors dining rowdily while the bard Phemius performs a narrative poem for them. Penelope objects to Phemius' theme, the "Return from Troy", because it reminds her of her missing husband, but Telemachus rebuts her objections, asserting his role as head of the household.
That night Athena, disguised as Telemachus, finds a ship and crew for the true prince. The next morning, Telemachus calls an assembly of citizens of Ithaca to discuss what should be done with the suitors. Accompanied by Athena (now disguised as Mentor), he departs for the Greek mainland and the household of Nestor, most venerable of the Greek warriors at Troy, now at home in Pylos.
From there, Telemachus rides overland, accompanied by Nestor's son Peisistratus, to Sparta, where he finds Menelaus and Helen, who have somewhat reconciled. While Helen laments the fit of lust brought on by Aphrodite that sent her to Troy with Paris, Menelaus recounts how she betrayed the Greeks by attempting to imitate the voices of the soldiers' wives while they were inside the Trojan Horse. Telemachus also hears from Helen, who is the first to recognize him, that she pities him because Odysseus was not there for him in his childhood because he went to Troy to fight for her and also about his exploit of stealing the Palladium, or the Luck of Troy, where she was the only one to recognize him. Menelaus, meanwhile, also praises Odysseus as an irreproachable comrade and friend, lamenting the fact that they were not only unable to return together from Troy but that Odysseus is yet to return.
Both Helen and Menelaus also say that they returned to Sparta after a long voyage by way of Egypt. There, on the island of Pharos, Menelaus encountered the old sea-god Proteus, who told him that Odysseus was a captive of the nymph Calypso. Incidentally, Telemachus learns the fate of Menelaus' brother Agamemnon, king of Mycenae and leader of the Greeks at Troy: he was murdered on his return home by his wife Clytemnestra and her lover Aegisthus. The story briefly shifts to the suitors, who have only just now realized that Telemachus is gone; angry, they formulate a plan to ambush his ship and kill him as he sails back home. Penelope overhears their plot and worries for her son's safety.
=== Escape to the Phaeacians ===
The second part recounts the story of Odysseus. After he has spent seven years in captivity on Ogygia, the island of Calypso, she falls deeply in love with him, even though he has consistently spurned her advances. She is persuaded to release him by Odysseus' great-grandfather, the messenger god Hermes, who has been sent by Zeus in response to Athena's plea. Odysseus builds a raft and is given clothing, food, and drink by Calypso. When Poseidon learns that Odysseus has escaped, he wrecks the raft, but, helped by a veil given by the sea nymph Ino, Odysseus swims ashore on Scherie, the island of the Phaeacians. Naked and exhausted, he hides in a pile of leaves and falls asleep. The next morning, awakened by the laughter of girls, he sees the young Nausicaa, who has gone to the seashore with her maids to wash clothes after Athena told her in a dream to do so. He appeals to her for help. She encourages him to seek the hospitality of her parents, Arete and Alcinous (or Alkinous). Odysseus is welcomed and is not at first asked for his name. He remains for several days, takes part in a pentathlon, and hears the blind singer Demodocus perform two narrative poems. The first is an otherwise obscure incident of the Trojan War, the "Quarrel of Odysseus and Achilles"; the second is the amusing tale of a love affair between two Olympian gods, Ares and Aphrodite. Finally, Odysseus asks Demodocus to return to the Trojan War theme and tell of the Trojan Horse, a stratagem in which Odysseus had played a leading role. Unable to hide his emotion as he relives this episode, Odysseus at last reveals his identity. He then begins to tell the story of his return from Troy.
=== Odysseus' account of his adventures ===
After a failed piratical raid on Ismaros in the land of the Cicones, Odysseus and his twelve ships were driven off course by storms. Odysseus visited the lethargic Lotus-Eaters who gave his men their fruit that would have caused them to forget their homecoming had Odysseus not dragged them back to the ship by force. Then, they entered the cave of the Cyclops Polyphemus on the underbellies of sheep, escaping by blinding him with a wooden stake. While they were escaping, however, Odysseus foolishly told Polyphemus his identity, and Polyphemus told his father, Poseidon, that Odysseus had blinded him. Poseidon then cursed Odysseus to wander the sea for ten years, during which he would lose all his crew and return home through the aid of others. After the escape, Odysseus and his crew stayed with Aeolus, a king endowed by the gods with the winds. He gave Odysseus a leather bag containing all the winds, except the west wind, a gift that should have ensured a safe return home. Just as Ithaca came into sight, the greedy sailors naively opened the bag while Odysseus slept, thinking it contained gold. All of the winds flew out and the resulting storm drove the ships back the way they had come.
After unsuccessfully pleading with Aeolus to help them again, they re-embarked and encountered the cannibalistic Laestrygonians. All of Odysseus' ships except his own entered the harbor of the Laestrygonians' Island and were immediately destroyed. He sailed on and visited the witch-goddess Circe. She turned half of his men into swine after feeding them cheese and wine. Hermes warned Odysseus about Circe and gave Odysseus a drug called moly which gave him resistance to Circe's magic. Odysseus forced the now-powerless Circe to change his men back to their human form. They remained with her on the island for one year, while they feasted and drank. Finally, guided by Circe's instructions, Odysseus and his crew crossed the ocean and reached a harbor at the western edge of the world, where Odysseus sacrificed to the dead. He first encountered the spirit of Elpenor, a crewman who had gotten drunk and fallen from a roof to his death, which had gone unnoticed by others, before Odysseus and the rest of his crew had left Circe. Elpenor's ghost told Odysseus to bury his body, which Odysseus promised to do. Odysseus then summoned the spirit of the prophet Tiresias for advice on how to appease Poseidon upon his return home. Next Odysseus met the spirit of his own mother, who had died of grief during his long absence. From her, he got his first news of his own household, threatened by the greed of the Suitors. Finally, he met the spirits of famous men and women. Notably, he encountered the spirit of Agamemnon, of whose murder he now learned, and Achilles, who told him about the woes of the land of the dead (for Odysseus' encounter with the dead, see also Nekuia).
Returning to Circe's island, they were advised by her on the remaining stages of the journey. They skirted the land of the Sirens, who sang an enchanting song that normally caused passing sailors to steer toward the rocks, only to hit them and sink. All of the sailors had their ears plugged up with beeswax, except for Odysseus, who was tied to the mast as he wanted to hear the song. He told his sailors not to untie him as it would only make him want to drown himself. They then passed between the six-headed monster Scylla and the whirlpool Charybdis, narrowly avoiding death, even though Scylla snatched up six men. Next, they landed on the island of Thrinacia. Zeus caused a storm which prevented them leaving. While Odysseus was away praying, his men ignored the warnings of Tiresias and Circe and hunted the sacred cattle of the sun god Helios as their food had run short. The Sun God insisted that Zeus punish the men for this sacrilege. They suffered a shipwreck as they were driven towards Charybdis. All but Odysseus were drowned; he clung to a fig tree above Charybdis. Washed ashore on the island of Ogygia, he was compelled to remain there as Calypso's lover, bored, homesick and trapped on her small island, until she was ordered by Zeus, via Hermes, to release Odysseus. Odysseus did not realise how long it would take to get home to his family.
=== Return to Ithaca ===
Having listened with rapt attention to his story, the Phaeacians, who are skilled mariners, agree to help Odysseus get home. They deliver him at night, while he is fast asleep, to a hidden harbour on Ithaca. He finds his way to the hut of one of his own slaves, the swineherd Eumaeus. Athena disguises Odysseus as a wandering beggar so he can see how things stand in his household. After dinner, he tells the farm laborers a fictitious tale of himself: He was born in Crete, had led a party of Cretans to fight alongside other Greeks in the Trojan War, and had then spent seven years at the court of the king of Egypt; finally he had been shipwrecked in Thesprotia and crossed from there to Ithaca.
Meanwhile, Telemachus sails home from Sparta, evading an ambush set by the Suitors. He disembarks on the coast of Ithaca and makes for Eumaeus's hut. Father and son meet; Odysseus identifies himself to Telemachus (but still not to Eumaeus), and they decide that the Suitors must be killed. Telemachus goes home first. Accompanied by Eumaeus, Odysseus returns to his own house, still pretending to be a beggar. When Odysseus' dog (who was a puppy before he left) saw him, he becomes so excited that he dies. He is ridiculed by the Suitors in his own home, especially by one extremely impertinent man named Antinous. Odysseus meets Penelope and tests her intentions by saying he once met Odysseus in Crete. Closely questioned, he adds that he had recently been in Thesprotia and had learned something there of Odysseus's recent wanderings.
Odysseus's identity is discovered by the housekeeper, Eurycleia, when she recognizes an old scar as she is washing his feet. Eurycleia tries to tell Penelope about the beggar's true identity, but Athena makes sure that Penelope cannot hear her. Odysseus then swears Eurycleia to secrecy.
=== Slaying of the Suitors ===
The next day, at Athena's prompting, Penelope maneuvers the Suitors into competing for her hand with an archery competition using Odysseus' bow. The man who can string the bow and shoot it through a dozen axe heads would win. Odysseus takes part in the competition himself: he alone is strong enough to string the bow and shoot it through the dozen axe heads, making him the winner. He then throws off his rags and kills Antinous with his next arrow. Then, with the help of Athena, Odysseus, Telemachus, Eumaeus, and Philoetius the cowherd kill the rest of the Suitors, first using the rest of the arrows and then by swords and spears once both sides have armed themselves. Once the battle is won, Odysseus and Telemachus also hang twelve of their household maids whom Eurycleia identifies as guilty of betraying Penelope, having sex with the Suitors, or both; they mutilate and kill the goatherd Melanthius, who had mocked and abused Odysseus and also brought weapons and armor to the suitors. Now, at last, Odysseus identifies himself to Penelope. She is hesitant but recognizes him when he mentions that he made their bed from an olive tree still rooted to the ground. Many modern and ancient scholars take this to be the original ending of the Odyssey, and the rest to be an interpolation.
The next day he and Telemachus visit the country farm of his old father Laertes, who likewise accepts his identity only when Odysseus correctly describes the orchard that Laertes had previously given him.
The citizens of Ithaca have followed Odysseus on the road, planning to avenge the killing of the Suitors, their sons. Their leader points out that Odysseus has now caused the deaths of two generations of the men of Ithaca: his sailors, not one of whom survived; and the Suitors, whom he has now executed (albeit rightly). Athena intervenes as a "dea" ex machina, as it were, and persuades both sides to give up the vendetta. After this, Ithaca is at peace once more, concluding the Odyssey. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0099740 | Hardware | A nomad scavenger treks through an irradiated wasteland and discovers a buried robot. He collects the pieces and takes them to junk dealer Alvy, who is talking with 'Hard Mo' Baxter, a former soldier, and Mo's friend Shades. When Alvy steps away, Mo buys the robot parts from the nomad and sells all but the head to Alvy. Intrigued by the technology, Alvy begins to research its background. Mo and Shades visit Jill, Mo's reclusive girlfriend, and, after an initially distant welcome where Jill checks them with a Geiger counter, Mo presents the robot head as a Christmas gift. Jill, a metal sculptor, eagerly accepts the head. After Shades leaves, Mo and Jill argue about a government sterilization plan and the morality of having children. Later, they have sex, while being unknowingly watched by their foul-mouthed, perverted, voyeuristic neighbor Lincoln Weinberg via telescope.
Jill works the robot head into a sculpture, and Mo says that he likes the work, but he does not understand what it represents. Frustrated, Jill says it represents nothing and resents Mo's suggestion that she make more commercial art to sell. They are interrupted by Alvy, who urges Mo to return to the shop, as he has important news about the robot, which he says is a M.A.R.K. 13. Before he leaves, Mo checks his Bible, where he finds the phrase "No flesh shall be spared" under Mark 13:20, and he becomes suspicious that the robot is part of a government plot for human genocide. Mo finds Alvy dead of a cytotoxin and evidence that the robot is an experimental combat model capable of self-repair; Alvy's notes also indicate a defect, a weakness to humidity. Worried, Mo contacts Shades and asks him to check on Jill, but Shades is in the middle of a drug trip and barely coherent.
Back at the apartment, the robot has reassembled itself using pieces of Jill's metal sculptures and recharged by draining her apartment's power network. It attempts to kill Jill, but she traps it in a room after the apartment's doors lock. Lincoln sees the robot close the blinds while trying to peep on Jill, and, after he briefly manages to open the apartment door and sexually harasses her, offers to override the emergency lock that traps them in her apartment. Lincoln dismisses her warnings of a killer robot, and, when he attempts to open Jill's blinds so that he can more easily peep on her, the M.A.R.K. 13 brutally kills him. Jill flees into her kitchen, where she reasons that her refrigerator will hide her from the robot's infrared vision. She damages the robot before Mo, Shades, and the apartment's security team arrive and open fire on it, apparently destroying it.
As Jill and Mo embrace, the M.A.R.K. 13 drags her out a window, and she crashes into her neighbor's apartment. Jill races back upstairs to help Mo, who is alone with the M.A.R.K. 13. Overconfident, Mo engages the robot in battle, and it injects him with the same toxin that killed Alvy. Mo experiences euphoria and a series of hallucinations as he dies. After Jill reenters her apartment, the M.A.R.K. 13 sets her apartment doors to rapidly open and close; the security team die when they attempt to enter, and Shades is trapped outside. Jill hacks into the M.A.R.K. 13's CPU and unsuccessfully attempts to communicate with it; however, she discovers the robot's weakness and lures the M.A.R.K. 13 into the bathroom. Shades, who has managed to quickly jump through the doors, gives her time to turn on the shower. The M.A.R.K. 13 short circuits and is finally deactivated. The next morning, a radio broadcast announces that the M.A.R.K. 13 has been approved by the government, and it will be mass manufactured. | comedy, murder, cult, violence, psychedelic, revenge, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0458367 | Right at Your Door | The film opens with Brad (Rory Cochrane), an out-of-work musician, making coffee for his wife, Lexi (Mary McCormack), who is still in bed. She leaves for work and Brad is left home alone. Over the radio, he hears that several suspected dirty bombs have been detonated across Los Angeles. He exits his house and sees large amounts of smoke rising from the city. Brad gets into his car and drives to the city to find Lexi. Brad tries to contact her through her cell phone, but only receives a busy signal. He soon finds that all roads now have police blockades.
An ash-covered car is stopped by the police. One officer notices Brad watching from inside his car and goes over to him to tell him to go back home. The police officers aim their weapons at the driver as he gets out and demand that he get back into his car. He ignores their warning and is shot down by the police. Brad decides to leave and go back home when he encounters a small boy called Timmy (Scotty Noyd, Jr.), who is watching the rising smoke from the city. Brad tells him to run home, and continues to his house.
Once home, Brad sees Alvaro (Tony Perez), in the house. Alvaro asks Brad if he can stay with him as there is no one at the neighbor's house where he was working. Over the radio, they hear that survivors of the blasts are being quarantined due to the bombs' deadly toxins, and that the authorities advise people to seal up their homes before the toxins reach them. Brad and Alvaro then proceed to seal up the house with duct tape and plastic. As it becomes increasingly more obvious that Lexi might not come home, he takes some of Lexi's clothes and leaves them outside the back door with some food and water. Radio newscasts claim that the bombs contained several toxins and an unknown viral strain.
Lexi has been involved in a car crash but is still alive. She walks home, still covered in the dust. Brad, who sees her, realizes she could infect both himself and Alvaro so he does not let her in. Lexi becomes desperate after being locked out. She loses her temper and throws her cell phone at one of the door panes, breaking it. Brad and Alvaro both rush to cover up the breakage and seal it off. Together, they manage to calm Lexi down.
Brad then seals off the main bedroom from the rest of the house so that Lexi can get into it. Lexi receives a call from her mother, who realizes that she was near the explosion and is probably infected. Her pleas for Lexi to go to a hospital fall on deaf ears as Lexi tells her that the rest of the country is seeing news that doesn't all reflect the truth of the situation. A car alarm goes off nearby, and Timmy is seen next to it. Lexi calls him over and Brad seals off another part of the house in order for Lexi and Timmy to clean off the ash in the bathroom. Alvaro decides to leave the house, saying he needs to be with his wife. Brad tries to convince him to stay, but Alvaro leaves anyway and is seen slowly walking away through a downpour of toxic ash.
Lexi hears a noise from the back and alerts Brad. A masked man appears, who introduces himself as Rick (Jon Huertas). He tells Lexi that there is a ship on the coast that has medical supplies and is helping people. Lexi, Rick, and Timmy leave for help and Brad hears newscasts on the radio that elaborate on the unknown viral straining, saying it is hybrid and attacks the respiratory system. That same night Brad is visited by a Corporal Marshall (Max Kasch) and his men. He asks Brad several questions, such as how well his house has been sealed, who else is currently or recently been there, and if there has been any contact between him and anyone on the outside. Brad mentions the phone that Lexi threw the door window and the Corporal demands a sample of the dust off the phone. He tells Brad that he will soon be back with the results and that his wife under no circumstances should be let into the house. As he leaves, he is heard reciting the home's address, and then saying, "red tag."
Lexi returns home the next day without Timmy or Rick and sees the red tag placed outside the house. Lexi tells Brad that Timmy was treated with other children and that she saw police assault and arrest five people. Lexi calls her brother, Jason, (Will McCormack) so that she can have someone to talk due to her mother being frantic with worry.
The next couple of hours are spent with Brad and Lexi on their respective sides of the door, who talk about what they will do assuming they survive. Brad imagines that after this they will both probably end up on one of those morning talk shows where everyone goes to reveal their woes. Suddenly, soldiers appear and grab Lexi, and prevent Brad from coming outside. One soldier manages to calm Brad down and explains to him that because he did such a good job sealing up the house, there is no new air to circulate through, but also explains that, unfortunately, when Lexi broke the door window, the virus was brought inside and has now multiplied to lethal levels, making the air inside extremely dangerous. Brad doesn't understand what the soldier is saying and insists that they bring his wife back. A large heavy piece of plywood is put over the back door, completely covering it. A hole is drilled through the wood and a pipe appears through which a gas starts to be pumped in. More boards seal the windows and doors but Brad manages to break down the plywood covering his front door, only to discover that a fumigation tent has been erected over the whole house. He tries to tear through the tent and is knocked unconscious by a soldier, as Lexi screams Brad's name. The camera cuts to Brad as he takes his last few breaths.
Lexi is later seen sitting in an ambulance, being attended to by a nurse. The film ends with Lexi in too much shock to say anything, her cell phone ringing. | mystery | train | wikipedia | She wakes up in the morning and heads in her convertible to the highway to work downtown.Brad listens to the news that dirty bombs have just blown up in Los Angeles in a terrorist attack and the authorities warning people seal off doors, windows and any opening and stay home.
It's a very real possibility LA could be hit with a dirty bomb, and the repercussions would probably be similar to what's in the film.It does suffer from some holes and stretches in logic and performance, but most thrillers do, so that's not necessarily a slam.I can't say I liked the ending, but I was gripped by the story and the way it was shot.A solid thriller..
Right At Your Door taps into the current climate of fear caused by international terrorism, with a tale of a 'dirty' bomb attack on downtown Los Angeles that results in a cloud of toxic dust engulfing nearby residential areas.Focusing on a married couple caught up in the disaster, the film seeks to wring tension from a rather inspired and decidedly awkward situation which sees husband Brad (Rory Cochrane) safely sealed inside his house (as instructed by the authorities), when his contaminated (and now potentially deadly) wife Lexi (Mary McCormack) turns up outside, demanding to be let in.Such an intense situation requires class-A dialogue, top notch acting, and flawless plotting from start to finish in order to succeed, and, at first, it seems as though Right At Your Door might have what it takes: the promising opening, in which Brad gradually realises what is happening and then desperately attempts to locate his wife in all of the confusion, is well realised.Unfortunately, as the film progresses and the action becomes concentrated on the dilemma faced by the terrified Brad and Lexi, too many mundane scenes of chit-chat, the inclusion of a couple of pointless characters, and some very ill-considered moments that really take some swallowing, ultimately mean that the movie fails to maintain its tension.Towards the end, obviously sensing that his script desperately needs a boot up the rear, writer/director Chris Gorak tacks on a last minute 'shock' twist ending, but it is so far fetched that it is unable to save the film from being yet another example of a good idea let down by a poorly constructed script..
The film opens with an unemployed musician, played by Rory Cochrane who was great in A Scanner Darkly but can't seem to flesh out his hero here past a certain point, showing a tender servile nature by making a cup of latté for his wife Lexi, played by Mary McCormack, who is still in bed.
His instantaneous judgment is for his wife and her wellbeing so he drives in the direction of the city center to find her.While it is a small-budgeted dramatic film more than anything it may seem to have pretensions about being, Right at Your Door shows several real matters Homeland Security planners are under immense pressure to handle like the interference with telecommunication because of so many calls, or the worried well who assemble to hospitals and emergency shelters and overpower emergency services, a great deal about the threat of contaminated people coming into hospitals and the necessity for facilities in which to work on decontamination.
Even though this paranoid thriller maintains as a vital element to the story that a virus can develop and become more lethal just by being confined, a virus needs the infection of a living thing to reproduce.Right At Your Door taps into the present feeling of apprehension brought about by worldwide terrorism, with a fable of an attack on downtown LA that causes a haze of toxic dust overcoming adjacent suburbs, where many people generally feel the safest.
Concentrating on a married couple mired in the catastrophe, Chris Gorak's script aims to squeeze frantic drama from a somewhat clever and unquestionably thorny circumstance which perceives Cochrane securely sealed inside his house as instructed by people in charge, when his infected and now possibly lethal wife McCormack arrives insisting to be allowed to enter.
Such a strong dramatic conflict needs dialogue, acting, and plotting that are just as strong all the time to make it.Alas, as the exactly ninety-minute-long film advances and the conflict grows determined upon the catch-22 challenging the fate of the two petrified leads, an excess of humdrum scenes of inert dialogue and some especially half-baked moments that put a strain on suspension of disbelief in the end lead the movie to fail to sustain its tautness..
This is where Right At Your Doors comes in, which acclaim on the festival and been critically received by people like Empire Magazine and Mark Kermode.Opening on an seemingly ordinary day, Brad (Rory Cochrane) and Lexi (Mary McCormack) a normal couple in Los Andreas prepare for another day.
The couple are scared, with the US government talking extreme action because of toxic atmosphere.Chris Goark makes a good film about on of America's biggest fears, and brings it to a ground level, and how it affects real people.
With only the radio for information, Brad waits for any news while, at the same time, an exposed Lexi tries to get back home.This was a reasonably topical film at the time, perhaps not "hot on the heels" of 9th September 2001, but the fear of terrorist attacks on the West had not subsided five years later – and indeed it is still a button that can be pushed as we saw even as recently as 2008's US election.
Many parallels can obviously be made to the September 11th attacks as well as Gorak's not-so-subtle criticism of government rescue operations ala Katrina, but everything seems exploited in just the right way as to make the fear actually feel viable as we watch from the safety of our chairs.The third act does wind things down possibly a little too slowly compared to the full-throttle assault that was the first thirty minutes, although despite lapses in logic now and then I felt the movie represented an honest scenario the best it could up until a poetic, but underdeveloped and gimmicky ending..
"Right At Your Door" shows what could happen should such an attack occur in Los Angeles.The film focused on an married couple named Lexi (Mary McCormack) and Brad (Rory Cochrane).
Shortly after sealing the last door, Lexi shows up, obviously contaminated by the chemical attack, putting Brad in the heartbreaking situation of not letting her in out of fear of bringing radiation in the house.
Brad and Lexi wait in the hopes that someone with medicine would arrive, but help seems not to be on its way."Right At Your Door" graphically demonstrates one likely reaction and result of a dirty bomb attack and the limits government can do in aiding masses of people sick or dying in the event of such an attack.
The story also tests the love between the couple and leaves questions as to whether anything you hear from your radio or your government can even be trusted in a time of crisis.After the film, Writer/Director Chris Gorak took questions from the audience and even Mary McCormack herself made a surprise appearance!
What I am commenting on however is how Gorak seems to drag out the film to make the conclusion all the more effective, and instead of causing surprise as a twist should all the ending does is leave the viewer thinking, 'Is that it?' With bombs being so recently detonated in London and other cities around the world I can see why this film has been made; in order in investigate whether people are ready for such an event, or whether mass panic is an eventuality that cannot be avoided.
Minutes later, a series of dirty bombs bearing a mysterious "molecular toxin" goes off across Los Angeles.Writer-director Chris Gorak, an accomplished art director who worked on "Fight Club" and "Minority Report," does a lot with very little here, using Cochrane's terror, radio reports and the briefest glances at ash clouds and emergency vehicles to create a real sense of panic, while keeping the worst destruction off camera.But then, as soon as Cochrane seals himself into his house and we're forced to settle in with a handful of survivors, the movie slowly but surely loses its hard-earned claustrophobia.
because I believe the twist is so over hyped and that I pretty much figured it out 30 mins into the film ..b. I didn't really believe the acting in the film, I'm not saying it was poor, just that me personally don't think that it was realistic decisions made by the main characters throughout the film given the situation.c. The film is only 90 minutes but I honestly felt like I was in there forever, If it wasn't for the fact I had my girlfriend with me I would of walked out I was so bored.But that's my ten pence worth, I could of been more in-depth however I really don't think this film deserves such attention..
The woman goes out to work leaving the man alone in the house, when suddenly, SHOCK HORROR!!, a series of so-called "dirty" bombs explode and release a miasma of noxious toxins and lethal micro-organisms unto the unsuspecting and unprepared citizenry of downtown L.A.For me to go any further would likely result in me being blacklisted for revealing a spoiler, but really, this film is so predictable, that such a term seems to become somewhat redundant.
Seriously, I was expecting the LAPD or something, but these guys looked and acted more like an ill-equipped SWAT team that were completely indifferent as to the lives of the inhabitants of L.A, which was at first quite intriguing, but eventually got boring and began to suffer from "I know what you're going to do at the end" syndrome.The acting was dire, as was the script, as was the direction.
RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR, though owes a certain debt to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, where characters are isolated and have to protect themselves from the mass panic and threat that is outside of there home, and its this simple isolation set up that is effective for this film.
The best part of the film is the end credits.I would highly recommend this movie to insomniacs, as it will bore you to sleep.Please save your time and money!
Not too many horror films manage to scare me, but this one taps into a modern horror that genuinely terrifies me...being trapped inside your own home while being given no information about the dangers of the outside world.You can really feel the hopelessness and frustration of the main character as he tries to determine the best plan of action with what little facts he has to go by.
You would like to think you know yourself and what type of people we share our lives, our homes, neighborhoods and beds with....when it all comes down to it I don't think any of us can tell 100% what we would actually do in this situation unless we were dealing with it head on ourselves....this movie also makes it extremely clear that we don't always need all of the big budget explosions to be able to have an amazing movie...If it were up to me this movie would find it's way into every English class available!.
Brad seals himself in his house for his own survival, however, he becomes torn between letting his wife back in to their home or leaving her outside to die.Chris Gorak direction and camera work gives a sense of realism and he gives the viewer a cleverly written ending.
However, Right at Your Door appears to run out of steam midway through, not knowing what to do with the characters.Carriers (2009) appears to have borrowed a lot from Gorak's offering, but like Carriers it's not a film you'd want to sit thought again.Overall, an emotional great idea that's well made but becomes monotonous..
Right at Your Door is an excellent movie for various reasons.First of all,its premise is fascinating and truly original.Also,that premise is perfectly developed.The characters are also a strong point from this movie because their behaviour is completely natural and credible and they act as normal people would on that situation.Chris Gorak made an excellent work as a director because he could extract perfect performances from the small cast and he could create a perfect atmosphere which automatically makes the spectator to "enter" in the movie.This film deserves admiration because,in spite of its minimum resources,it produces a big impact on the spectator; not to mention,this is a movie which was made with passion and with talent.The only complaint I have against Right at Your Door is that some elements from the screenplay feel a little bit forced.But that fail is not too important.Right at Your Door is an excellent movie which deserves a very enthusiastic recommendation..
The two have just moved into a modest bungalow in suburban Los Angeles, leaving Brad with the task of unpacking their things while Lexi is off at work.Thus begins the banality of everyday life that is the backdrop for director/screenwriter Chris Gorak's thriller "Right at Your Door".
His masterstroke comes from the decision to leave the audience as much in the dark as Brad, as he struggles to glean more info from his radio and whatever phone calls he can make as the networks become overloaded.His panic and subsequent survival decisions are motivated as much by self preservation as they are for concern about his wife, about whose welfare he knows nothing.As the city descends into the grip of martial law, Brad faces the task of sealing himself inside the house with duct tape and plastic, only to find himself confronted by the dilemma of what to do about his wife when she manages to make her way home, gravely ill, though the toxic wasteland that LA has become.The first half of Right at Your Door is as gripping as any movie you're likely to see, however Gorak's screenplay becomes bogged down in chatter between Brad and Lexi that allows the tension to evaporate and only serves to slow the film to a crawl.
By the time the story arrives at its climax, it's almost a relief from the stagnation and boredom that nearly kills this initially promising film.In the end, the movie relies on a twist to bring about its conclusion, and does manage to leave the viewer pondering several "what ifs", which, I suppose, was Gorak's intention.
Brad manages to seal up the house against the clouds of toxic dust: Lexi manages to struggle home through the chaos and Brad, following instructions, won't let her in.This small scale movie is quietly horrifying on both personal and impersonal levels as Brad and Lexi start to come to terms with what has happened and its likely consequences.
The basic plot line of this film is the main character (Brad), who sends his wife off to work as normal, but the whole situation is rocked by the fact that multiple Dirty Bombs were detonated in Los Angeles.
And then, we're back to the fact that his wife is STILL alive, coughing and stuff after being exposed to the clouds for 3 days.Then, the army guys come back at the end of the film, take the wife away, and seals the house down with Brad still inside it.
The men return and take Lexi away from the house...By this point i couldn't give a damn what happened to the characters, as the acting, story and general presentation of the film has failed to keep me interested or feel for the characters.The twist.
It also shows that you do not need big budget explosions and gore to make people want to leave a room or cry.They do not hit on religious or terrorist actions at all, they do not bore you with government speeches, terrorist group names, they literally stick to the main three characters and their drive for survival.This film has without the use of special CG effects and high budget car chases, given me drive again, to value my family and friends and also it has renewed my thinking, made me believe in what I stand for...I stand for the everyday person on the street, the innocent effected by terrorism, extremism and governmental decisions.
There was one moment throughout the whole movie when it evoked some emotion other then boredom and disgust, and that was when Lexi put her had through the back door and dropped the phone and contaminated ash in the house, i felt anger that she would do that to her husband who she supposedly loved (allthough i got no sense of any connection between her and her husband) i feel bad for the actors it was not there fault they got the parts, in fact i admire that they made the appalling script come to life, its not there fault it was badly written.
A film that probably could have been 15 minutes long.I was expecting an action/disaster movie, instead I got an overlong and often boring human drama played out between a husband and wife.
Right at Your Door has quite a neat central idea but is hampered by a storyline that is too thin for its running time, meaning that the tension created in the first third dissipates over the course of the second half-hour although the ending is enlivened by an ironic twist out of nowhere.The film focuses mostly on Brad, an unemployed musician, and his response to the devastating news that dirty bombs have fallen on Los Angeles, the workplace of his wife.
When I finished watching this I was actually surprised on how good it was, although it's a movie not everyone would know about.Right At Your Door starts off with a man name Brad in a house, seeing his wife Lexi leave the house for work. |
tt0406759 | The Eye | Sydney Wells is a successful classical violinist from Los Angeles who has been blind since she was five years old, caused by an accident with firecrackers. Fifteen years later, after celebrating conductor and pianist Simon McCullough's birthday during rehearsal, Sydney undergoes a cornea transplant, which causes her eyesight to return, a bit blurry at first. As time goes on, Sydney's vision begins to clear; however, she also begins experiencing terrifying visions, mostly of fire and of people dying. She also sees people that are already dead, on one occasion when a girl passes right through her. Sydney attempts to unravel the mystery of the visions, and also to convince others, primarily her visual therapist and fellow violinist, Paul Faulkner, who helps her in her quest. She knows that she is not going insane.
Accompanied by Paul, Sydney travels to Mexico, where the cornea donor Ana Cristina Martinez was originally from. She discovers from Ana's mother that the images of fire and death are the result of an industrial accident that Ana foretold. Ana hanged herself because she was unable to stop the accident. Sydney forgives Ana's spirit, who leaves in peace. As Sydney and Paul begin their journey home, they are caught in a traffic congestion caused by a police chase on the other side of the border. Sydney sees the little girl from her vision in the car next to her. She then realizes that this is what her vision has been all along, to save the people that are about to die from an accident.
Still able to see the death silhouettes, Sydney begins to get everyone off the highway, starting with a bus filled with people. She and Paul convince everyone to leave the bus and the cars by telling them that there is a bomb inside the bus. However, a driver leading the police chase rushes through the border barriers and collides into a tank truck, igniting leaking gasoline in the process. Sydney sees the little girl trapped in the car, her mother laying on the ground in front of it, already being hit by a passenger and losing consciousness. Paul breaks open the window and gets the girl out. Paul and Sydney carry the girl and her mother to safety just before the tank truck causes a chain explosion. Sydney is blinded by flying glass fragments in the process.
After recovering at a hospital, she returns to Los Angeles to continue performing as a blind violinist, though with a more optimistic view of her condition. | horror | train | wikipedia | I still get a little skeeved when I see a closeup of eyes, come to think of it.Jessica Alba plays Sydney, a blind concert violinist who has a double corneal transplant, and of course things go wrong.
The Eye does use special effects, but it uses them - pardon me - to great effect; you're not overwhelmed with attention-grabbing CGI.The biggest debit in the movie is the love interest, Sydney's doctor, Paul (Alessandro Nivola), who seems dull and unimportant, although his believing in and trusting Sydney is a linchpin for moving the plot.
(Think of a younger Dylan McDermott.) On the other hand, a good counterbalance to Nivola is Parker Posey as Sydney's concerned sister, who, although she doesn't immediately buy into Sydney's rantings, does empathize and attempt to understand a bit better than the hunky doctor.Overall, The Eye is a tense, shudder-filled movie that manages to dress up a recycled plot with dead-on performances and evocative cinematography..
With virtually every successful Asian horror movie of the last few years having already been remade by Hollywood, it was only a matter of time before Gin gwai (AKA The Eye) got the treatment, despite the original not really being all that great (I found it fairly entertaining, but unexceptionalmy rating: 6/10).Jessica Alba plays Sydney Wells, a blind violinist who receives a cornea transplant only to discover that her new set of peepers allow her to see much more than she had originally bargained for: Sydney can see dead people!!
Aided by her doctor, she attempts to unravel the terrible secret behind her scary supernatural power.Directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud, The Eye is a totally unnecessary and dreary remake that copies parts of original verbatim, alters scenes that should have been left well alone (the creepy cafe meat-licking scene has gone, and the downbeat ending has been swapped for a typical Hollywood crowd pleaser), and totally botches what should be the scariest bit of the whole film (the lift scene is VERY disappointing).Take my advice: If you've already seen Gin gwai, then stay away from The Eye..
While more films like The Eye would be welcome, I think it better to forfeit the Asian remakes all together, then to wait for the monkey's second draft.Read all my reviews at: http://www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com.
The Eye (2002) is an excellent horror film.That movie had a great atmosphere,an excellent performance from the main actress,some creepy moments which produced me some jumps and a disturbing but perfect ending.And the remake of The Eye lacks of all that important elements.If I have to summarize this movie in a few words,I would say:another crappy remake.This remakes MUST be stopped.This film does not have a good atmosphere,Jessica Alba does not show any of credibility on her role and the ''scary'' moments produced on me unintentional laughs.But,the worst element from this movie is that they changed the brilliant ending from the original film for a pathetic one.Alessandro Nivola is the only one of the cast who shows some enthusiasm and he added some points to this poor movie.Maybe,the people who did not see the original movie will appreciate the film more.But,for me,The Eye (2008) is a crappy movie with cheap thrills.Like I said before,these remakes MUST be stopped..
A Nutshell Review: The Eye. So I haven't watched the original Eye movie by the Pang Brothers, but I guess with remakes these days, it doesn't really matter, since most of the time, the Hollywood remade version pales in comparison with the original, despite having a bigger budget, bigger stars and of course, better visual effects.
And what almost always seem woeful, is the attempt to try and recreate the atmospherics for a spook fest that Asian horror had perfected, and I'm inclined to suggest that they should adapt the storyline (since there's a creative dearth of ideas), but leave the mimicking of mood at the door.This is probably the first movie that Jessica Alba marquees, and comparisons would be abound for those who've watched the original to compare her to Angelica Lee's performance.
As blind violinist Sydney, Alba escapes the need to act blind given the cop out of using shades, coupled with the fact that her transplanted eyes allow for the camera to be out of focus for the most parts.Things start to get interesting when she begins to see shadowy figures borrowed straight out of Pulse (yet another Asian horror remake), and these all get conveniently debunked by her doctor Paul (Alessandro Nivola who stars as the hopeless, formless Gavin Harris in the Goal movies), because if you're blind for so many years, your brain needs some major time out to absorb all the new sights you're constantly bombarded with.
I do like Japanese horror and seeing as The Eye was a remake of a Chinese film I hoped to enjoy it (if that makes any sense).
If you're looking for blood & guts & body parts, don't even waste a minute of your time."The Eye" isn't so much a horror flick as it is a supernatural drama.This film is a remake of the 2002 Chinese "The Eye" which I haven't seen, so I can't (and probably shouldn't) compare the two.
And while that may bore the audience members who are expecting some screams, it ultimately results in a film with a little bit more to say than your average screamer.Jessica Alba ("Sydney") does a great job of playing a woman who has been blind since age 5, a loner, someone who doesn't seem to have many connections with people and she likes it that way.
Jessica Alba's complete lack of acting skills is pretty obvious to everyone, except apparently movie producers.Maybe it's because they're blinded by the countless photographs she takes in various conditions of undress.Regardless, here again she gives yet another frightfully bad performance.
Jessica Alba plays a woman who undergoes cornea transplants in a remake of a Chinese film of the same name.The moment she opens her eyes she starts to see things that aren't there.
The acting was below par for most of the cast, with characters coming off as two dimensional for the sake of moving the plot along- and Jessica Alba needs to realize she gets film jobs for her looks not her talent.Anyway, if you're thinking of watching this, don't.
The film makers bank on a high profile name for box office dollar signs, which invariably turns out to be a actor that wouldn't be convincing in the horror genre if you slipped a snake into their sleeping bag.The movie victim this time is Gin Gwai (from Hong Kong), which boasted clever writing to advance the intrigue of the main character's plight, and effected the terror in a logical and eerie way.
In "The Eye," a remake of a Chinese movie from 2002, Jessica Alba plays a blind woman who gets her sight back thanks to a successful cornea transplant.
I just watched this movie yesterday.I though that this movie was gonna be good and scary.But i was wrong,terribly wrong.The movie was boring,there were some scenes that made me jumped.And the rest of the just kept more boring,thanks to Jessica Alba.She called herself an actress,she can't even act!I'd like to see some talented actresses as Sydney Wells, like Sarah Michelle Gellar,Naomi Watts,Kate Hudson....Jessica was a bad choice for the female lead role.I would find and watch the original "Gin Wai" to see the different between an awful remake and an awesome original.
The girl that plays the donor and looks like Jessica Alba's sister Fernanda Romero does a very good job, although her parts are in Spanish I liked how you get to understand her through her emotions.I think though that they could have extended the donors story a bit more so we could understand the story better.
Even that can excuse the reasoning of why you would chooses to see this over the original.Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) has been given the gift of sight, but it comes with a horrifying price in the English-language remake of Danny and Oxide Pang's The Eye. The double corneal transplant was to open up a new world for Sydney, a concert violinist whose blindness has plagued her since childhood.
Jumping from ridiculous plot twist to another and whilst the frights are solid and the acting is commendable it's just not enough to excuse such a shabby script and cheerful ending (that doesn't actually occur in the Japanese original)The best thing you could do would be to go rent Gin gwai to see how a real horror film should be done as it still remains one of my favorite J-Horrors just behind "Ringu" for now though this is a half decent placebo..
in some parts i can feel her pain.there were some scary parts but all of them are effective.this movie is not really a horror film like many expected.
And while there are faults with this remake, I have to admit it's not bad.Jessica Alba as Sydney gives, I think anyway, her best performance in a movie so far.
The script, written by Sebastian Gutierrez is okay, and from what I remember of the original it's a good adaption.It's not a movie that will be remembered as a great horror tale, but despite my reservations about it being YET another remake I did enjoy it for it's running time..
The ghost in the Chinese version comes towards Wong Kar a bit slower, but her appearance makes her creepier--that was scary...the loud track in it adds the kick to chill my spine every time I watch that scene.Moreover, the death of Ying Ying was saddening for Wong Kar since she had a good friendship with the little girl, and it made the drama great, plus it helped in convincing Dr. Lo to believe his nephew's claim that Wong Kar could see ghosts.
All I could do to this point was just roll my eyes and almost shout curses at the movie screen with disappointment; but I wanted to see how the ending sequence was executed in the remake.Of course, Sydney and her new boyfriend/doctor saved everybody from the exploding truck--as far as the story went...everybody lived--and cost Sydney her new sight.
However i don't really know myself how to make these "Fright Scenes" more scary.The ending was rather decent as well although in my thoughts was slightly predicted after seeing to many movies with ghosts or what ever you want to call them.Overall i think this movie was pretty good and doesn't deserve all the criticism I have read in other reviews, but like i said i haven't seen the original so i cant compare.
I don't know why this movie gets such Luke-warm ratings on here, its probably because Jessica Alba gets a bad rap and some people are very snobby on here whenever someone does a remake of a supposedly classic film.
Alba was very good as the blind violinist thinking she's losing her mind when she starts seeing unusual things with her new-found sight, the director kept the suspense building nicely and the pivotal mirror scene was both shocking and powerful.
I've always been into horror films, but when I was 12 years old I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street, since then no horror has ever lived up to standard, and horror's in general always, always disappoint, so far as they barely make me jump at all and in the case of teen horror's, are just plain boring.When I was convinced to watch The Eye I was very sceptical, Japanese remakes often are the biggest let downs of all, usually trying to cover up how bad they are with huge special effects.
The story is very clever, engaging and intriguing throughout, though if you're looking for a horror with lots of action then look elsewhere.Jessica Alba's performance does help to carry the film when it might have fallen down, the effects aren't trying to dominate the story and there is some brilliant tension, in fact so much so, at times I wanted something to happen so I could burst, the scene in the lift is a particularly good example of serious tension, partly because of the mystery of what might happen, but also the tension of what might happen to the character, who you do develop a connection to, you don't want her to die, a trick Hollywood horrors often miss in my opinion.Verdict: Not perfect, no where near in fact, but so much better than the usual rubbish Hollywood knocks out and well worth a watch, word of warning though, if you're looking for action and all out violence, don't bother..
"cellular memory", there are clearly a number of adherents and it's worth popping the keywords into a search engine -- like Alba did in the movie -- to better understand the underpinnings of the film.Overall I thought The Eye was well acted by both leads, as well as the supporting cast.
This movie is not meant to scare you outta your wits its a thriller its NOT a horror.This movie is worth Seeing if you have good taste in movies, and understand stories well and it was written and directed PerfectlyThere is nothing to change about this Jessica Alba is a wonderful actress and deserves an award of some sort for this.A movie this well done does not deserve to be shot down like that really shows you know the hard work that goes into writing and directing.
Normally most of the American remakes of Japanese horror films are, but The Eye does deliver some good scares, until the ending.
I did like some of the new scenes that added into the mix, which I think was decent and The acting was really really good as well.As for the second remake of Gin gwai, This is worth one Time watch at least!
It should have been much much better then it was.Jessica alba was smokin hot as usually and played the part very well The movie really went all over the place and really took a long time to get to the point then ends.
The Eye, a remake of the 2003 Hong Kong film Gin Gwai, is about a young blind woman named Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) who, after receiving a cornea transplant from an anonymous donor to get her eyesight back, begins to see (and even hear) terrifying visions of ghostly beings and dark images of death that no one else can see.
Probably it's biggest flaw is that it tries to include all the incidents from the original film but neglects to adequately explain some of them.For all the criticism Jessica Alba received for her lead role of Sydney, the blind violinist who starts seeing terrifying visions after receiving corneal transplants, I can't say her performance registered as being particularly poor.
Jessica Alba in this movie plays a blind woman who get's an eye transplant and soon after the operation begins to see strange things.
If you like Mysterymovies and Jessica Alba you probably wanna see this, if not, well it's still a well made movie, maybe a little slow at times but nice to watch nonetheless.
You know a movie isn't bad, when it is at the very least thrilling and at times exciting.All in all, The Eye is good, because the original story is a good one, but some credit must still be given to the director for executing his own imprint into a remake.
Surprisingly, there is some character development here, something you don't usually see in your horror remakes.Unfortunately, you can't help but think this film borrows a lot from previous films, most notably "Final Destination" and "Ghost" and even "White Noise 2." The performance by Jessica Alba is decent, although nothing special.Overall, this is a decent remake with some effective chills and an explosive ending that would leave you well, interested, since nothing else in the movie is a surprise.
If I have not seen the Asian one maybe I would have liked it more.Anyhowe its an OK time-waster,a solid movie with good special-effects and overall good acting(not any Oscar performance) and as I said surprisingly Jessica Alba is good as the lead actress.First movie in America for the French Directors David Moreau&Xavier Palud with an OK result.Slightly recommended,I give the remake of The Eye 5/10.
This movie was not good; I thought the performance of Jessica Alba was adequate at best.
And the original was chilling, built up suspense and had very good acting.Jessica Alba - if this is the reason you went to see this movie, well then you're not going to get much because everything else in this film waters down the scares so much it is laughable.
this film is a remake of an Asian film,which seems to be all the rage these days,and has been for quite some time.who knows how long this trend will last.anyway,i haven't seen the original,so i can't compare the two.as for this remake,i liked it for the most part.it has some pretty freaky moments alright.it's not really scary Per Se,but it is definitely unsettling.Jessica Alba is not too bad in this movie.in fact she does a better job than i thought she would.aside from being a remake,the premise of this movie has been done before in probably two movies,the names of which escape me.there are a few slow moments in the movie.but mostly it's good.i really liked the ending.i though it elevated the movie a bit.i wasn't expecting it to end the way it did.for me,The Eye is i a 6.5/10.
but not all remakes are total flops.Jessica Alba was alright acting her role in this movie and i was impressed by her performance.
The Eye. We all know it is a remake of the Chinese horror movie.
I did not really feel the suspense.The story: Jessica Alba acts as Sydney Wells, she received eye transplant and she can see a bit but soon as the plot unfolds, she starts seeing ghosts and spirits. |
tt0113965 | Never Talk to Strangers | Psychologist Dr. Sarah Taylor (Rebecca De Mornay) is a guarded, aloof criminal psychologist who interviews a client who is a rapist, and is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. It is later revealed that she was the subject of daily rapes as a child by her estranged father, who is now shown to be very ill. Sarah meets Tony Ramirez (Antonio Banderas) in a shopping mall, and she gives him her number. She begins a relationship with Tony, despite the creepy advances of her neighbor, Cliff (Dennis Miller), with whom she once had a one-night stand.
Days into this new relationship, Sarah begins to get death threats and strange gifts, such as dead flowers. As she gets more romantic with Tony, the gifts get more extreme. Her lifelong cat is dismembered, at which point Sarah goes to the police. Sarah then hires a detective and has Tony followed, and breaks into his apartment only to discover that he has a file on her, including information about her mother's death in a car accident, twenty years before. Tony is actually investigating her, trying to learn the whereabouts of a former boyfriend of hers who had disappeared suddenly.
Ultimately, it is revealed that Sarah suffers from multiple personality disorder, brought about from her abuse as a child, and from her father brainwashing her to cover up the murder of her mother. Her alternate personality is responsible for all of the strange gifts, and for murdering her ex-boyfriend. When Tony goes to her father's house, Sarah (under the control of her alternate personality) follows him, shoots and kills him there, and then kills her father when he tries to intervene. When Sarah reverts to her normal personality, not remembering what has happened, she presumes that Tony was crazy and killed her father, and that she killed Tony in self-defense. In the end, she is seen entering into a relationship with Cliff. | romantic, boring, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | This thriller is a bit rough-edged, but a lot of people like that sort of thing.
Rebecca DeMornay was the at the top of her game around this time (early to mid '90s).GOOD NEWS - Overall, an interesting and involving story, especially in the second half.
There are a few steamy scenes, too.BAD NEWS - No likable characters, too much profanity; a few minor holes in the story; an obvious feminist bias and DeMornay's foul mouth and morals are pretty rotten for a psychologist, the character she plays.
The guys - Dennis Miller and Antonio Bandaras - play pretty sleazy characters, too.OVERALL - Interesting movie but too sleazy a feel to it..
Rebecca De Mornay stars as Dr Sarah Taylor, a psychologist in an unnamed city who has a difficult personal life.
She meets the charming Tony Ramirez (Antonio Banderas) in a supermarket and- despite her many fears- is soon drawn into a passionate relationship with him.
Soon after meeting Tony, Sarah acquires a stalker who sends her dead flowers and dismembers her pet cat.
The audience is provided with a decent list of possible suspects including Tony, Sarah's missing ex-boyfriend Benny, or possibly her slightly sleazy upstairs neighbor (a surprisingly good Dennis Miller).
Other possibilities include her alcoholic father, and associates of serial killer Max Cheski (the wonderful Harry Dean Stanton) on whom she is performing a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.As the plot unfolds, it appears as if De Mornay's character has nowhere to hide and nobody she can really trust.
This Thriller was received poorly on it's release, this is unfortunate as I found much to like here.Firstly I liked the main musical score running throughout the film and the Director was quite clearly going for a Hitchcockian feel, which only partially succeeds though.
The love scenes although a bit lengthy were stylishly made and did not detract from the film, the ending although a bit of a stretch was at least surprising and acted fairly convincingly (although I am no shrink).So although being far from a classic I certainly thought it was far from being the worst thriller.
I like this sort of picture, the kind of mystery in which you can't pick out the murderer until the end of the movie.
As a result, there is a considerable dead spot in the middle of the film, which may have influenced some reviewers ratings.As I mentioned, the ending is quite clever and the picture keeps you guessing, since there are few suspects to choose from and the ending was unexpected.
Rebecca De Mornay was good as the heroine and Antonio Banderas was even better as the romantic stranger.
Banderas is often better than the material and does not seem to take himself seriously, as witnessed by the number of crummy movies he has appeared in."Never Talk To Strangers" is an absorbing, if uneven, murder mystery which has been given short shrift by reviewers on the IMDb website.
I like mystery / crime movies where you try to figure out what is going on.
If you like that kind of movies, with twists and turns, then this one is definitely worth a watch..
So yes, if you don't know already, as a thriller it stinks.But as a sex movie, it's not bad.
the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas.
The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder.
This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life.
Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right..
Yet when you view something like Peter Hall's Never Talk to Strangers it rams home just how welcome it is to have Hitch like thrillers at least done well!Rebecca De Mornay is a troubled shrink who whilst dealing with the mind games of a serial killing loony (Harry Dean Stanton), meets sexually charged Latino guy (Antonio Banderas) and indulges in passions unbound.
Then she starts to get very unwelcome presents in the post...The erotic thriller has been well trodden, and will continue to be so for sure, so it feels a little churlish to decry Hall's movie for coming off as a weak willed imitator of previous purveyors of the sub-genre, but this blend of Silence of the Lambs meets Sea of Love - cum - Dressed to Kill - cum Fatal Attraction etc etc just comes across as a cheat.
And that's because it is!The makers know this and try to hide their ridiculous folly behind eroticism as the two lovely looking headlining stars get sweaty and wet, indulging in sexual play that's as powerful as the surroundings (Banderas lives in a loft apartment resplendent with metal cage and wrought iron doors).
The mystery element is weak, the suspense equally so, while the back story of De Mornay's father (a key character) is hopelessly under developed.Then there is H.D. Stanton, stealing every scene is he is in, quid pro quo indeed, yet he's hardly in the film, which ultimately proves to be a tragedy as the plot hurtles towards its implausible and risible revelations.
Red herrings come and go as quickly as Becca and Tony's underwear (the continuity editor should have been sacked along with the writers because of one scene BTW), and even though Pino Donaggio scores the music with customary swirling qualities, this just comes off as a piggyback tactic...This is a poor thriller in spite of two very committed and visually attractive perfs from the leads - and of course Stanton's knowingly sleazy turn.
Yes, some of the acting wasn't great.But, I didn't think it was that bad, and (forgive my ignorance in psychiatric matters if this is wrong) that implausible either.I think, in acting terms, it was a general disappointment in the two main star actors who have done much better work than this.
I really liked the plot and directing and acting in this movie.
Ms. De Mornay is underrated and all the nude scenes I've seen of her are classy and in good taste.While it has holes, character-wise, such as; why wouldn't Sarah know her ex-fiancée's sister or his cousin already?
Rebecca De Mornay,(Dr. Sarah Taylor),"Wedding Crashers",'05, played a shrink who was dealing with a mental case in a prison and also had a husband who was a doctor in the same hospital.
As the story progresses, Sarah meets up with Antonio Banderas,(Tony Ramirez),"The Legend of Zorro",'05, who manages to hit on Sarah and gets a date and plenty more interesting torrid events.
There are many twists and turns to this mystery tale and the ending of this film may greatly deceive you..
This film is a pretty standard thriller with Banderas being a typical bad guy who does the main things in a psycho-thriller to the victim).
I've been trying to think of a word to describe the main characters in this movie, and the best one is incongruity.
A macho-looking Puerto Rican named Tony (Antonio Banderas) dressed in a leather jacket with big silver rings on most of his fingers turns out to be a wine expert and an ex-cop with a great sense of fun and takes his sex either kinky or romantic.
An up-scale psychiatrist named Sarah (Rebecca DeMoray) is evaluating a murderer, Max Cheski (Harry Dean Stanton) for Multiple Personality Disorder while she goes through extreme moods shifts.
She falls for Tony, who doesn't seem to be her type, yet ends up being the perfect guy to help her with her sexual repression and problems with trust.This movie doesn't quite work as a thriller.
I was surprised a couple of things, so I didn't guess the entire ending beforehand.I found DeMoray's acting go from passable to over the top at times.
The only one who actually makes this movie watchable is Banderas, who manages to do some good things with the poor material he's given.
Sometimes, DeMoray either seems to lag behind him or goes over the top in an effort to match him.In spite of it's flaws as a thriller, once you know what's really going on and watch it again, it makes for a decent drama (as long as you ignore the annoying overdone "shocking moments.") Second time through lets you actually understand the whys about things.
Unfortunately, most people aren't going to want to watch this thing a second time..
DeMornay looks great for the guys and Banderas looks great for the ladies and they fit together nicely in this supposed thriller about a police psychologist who may or may not be the victim of a stalker and who may or may not have been abused as a child.
This movie is like one of those long, drawn-out jokes that takes 5 minutes to tell, only to set up a unfunny punchline.
The only thing this movie could've used was Banana Face instead of Dennis Miller.
And he didn't even get his ass bitten in this movie like Antonio did.
Antonio got some AB action in this movie if you know what I mean.
horrible, predictable and boring, this movie is obviously for horny demornay fans or just older/middle aged divorced women looking to lust after banderas, they're acting was pretty poor considering what they've done in the past was actully good, in this movie it felt like each of them were just found right from a casting call in hollywood with no experience....
The idea alone that a successful shrink like the character demornay plays just falls for low life bum (who ends up later in the movie claiming he was a cop), who some how had enough money to get a nice new motorcycle, straight off the boat from puerto rico is hilarious cause god knows most female shrinks have such an ego and are soooo snobby that she would have smacked that bottle of wine over his head in the store to begin with had this been an accurate film but then we would never have had a movie(UNFORTUNATELY WE DID), OVERALL THE BEST ACTING IN THIS PILE OF AUDIO AND VISUAL HORSE droppings (i'd much rather use bad words to describe this but i'm going to be civil with my disgust towards thig movie) WAS FROM THE DEAD PUSSY cat.
the movie would've just been better if the porn angle between demornay and banderas went from softcore to hardcore , lets face it that would have won a great award right there...
i'd comment on the whole load of bs of wheter or not Demornay was abused somehow as a child, that angle was just put there to add time to the movie not the plot.....please take everything i've said seriously, don't rent it or buy it on dvd if it's offered to you say no thank you i'll wath Se7en, if someone puts a gun to your head and says the only way i'll let you live is if you watch this movie entirely i'd take the bullet!!!.
Indeed the opening half an hour is one of the slowest you will ever see in a film with aspirations of capturing the attention of even the less demanding viewer.The acting by the leads is passable at best with Antonio Banderas particularly poor as the ubiquitous "tall and dark stranger/suspect".It seems as if all elements required to make a decent 90's thriller have been thrown together hastily and what is left is a desperately disappointing letdown..
With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly "Mortal Kombat" and "Seven"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending.
What idiot wrote this?" But, "What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay." Time passes....THE END."NOT CREDIBLE.
I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay.
My analysis *spoilers* Don't read this unless you've seen the movie (this contains little in the way of an actual review).
First of all, you have to understand that Sarah suffered from multi-personality disorder from a long time before the movie started; most likely since she was a child.
However, although her other personality usually hates men, it falls in love with Tony, as well as Sarah herself.
This is obvious in the scene where Sarah appears in Tony's home, slaps him, and has sex with him.
Sarah, who doesn't know that it's her other personality, and isn't good at trusting men, especially men who are close to her, blames Tony, because she doesn't feel safe when he's around.
Sarah is herself again; thereby, she doesn't know what happened, but guess/thinks that Tony killed her father(which would seem logical to her, as she was certain that Tony was insane) and she shot him in self-defense.
It felt like it could have been the work of the late Hitchcock himself(save for the sex scene, which I'm not quite sure was so much necessary as an easy device to attract those on the look-out for such a thing).
but hey, it's got Rebecca De Mornay, does anyone actually see her name on the cast list of anything and think "oh, quality cinema lies ahead!"?), particularly those who like them with a "twist".
Harry Dean Stanton is marvelous, as usual, as the serial killer against whom De Mornay has to testify, and Len Cariou does a nice turn as her estranged father trying to make final peace with her.
Banderas and DeMornay are nice to see, in this mediocre movie..
Rebecca plays a psychiatrist, and we see several scenes where she is evaluating an accused murdered for competency, he claims to have multiple personalities, but we suspect he is just trying to get off easy.
***SPOILERS*** We first get to see pretty blond psychologist Dr. Sarah Taylor, Rebecca De Mornay, interviewing her favorite mental patient convicted serial murder and sex fiend Max Cheski, Harry Dean Stanton.
It's much later in the film that we begin to realize how right Max was in that he's suffers from a multiple personality complex himself!Sarah later gets involved with ex-cop Tony Ramirez, Antonio Banderas,whom she met in the wine department of her local supermarket.
The affair between Sarah and Tony gets under the skin of Sarah's boyfriend Cliff Raddison, Dennis Miller, who in how he handles himself may be in need of psychiatric treatment, like Sarah's patients, himself.The movie gets even more confusing when Sarah's father Henry Taylor, Len Cariou, unexpectedly shows up wanting to crash her place, because he doesn't have money for a hotel room, for the Christmas Holiday's.
Sarah also finds out by breaking into, at his loft, Tony's personal belongings that he's been keeping a secret file on her, with newspaper clippings and police reports, that go back to he time when her mothers died some 20 years ago!
****SPOILER ALERT**** What Sarah didn't realize is that her troubles are a lot closer to home then she could ever have imagined!Nothing special in this Alfred Hitchcock-like thriller with the exception of the typical icy blond, Sarah Taylor, really heating up the screen in her almost X-rated acrobatics with Tony Rameiriz.
But is her stalker Tony Ramirez (Antonio Banderas), the Puerto Rican charmer she's just fallen in love with?
The story keeps you wondering until revealing the truth, which turns out to be pretty decent for a twist ending.Clocking in at under 90 minutes, Never Talk to Strangers is like a well made wading pool.
There's not a lot of chemistry between De Mornay and Antonio Banderas.
De Mornay, Banderas and the rest of the cast do reasonably good acting jobs and the film is adequately written and directed.
For less than 90 minutes, though, it's a pleasant diversion.The only thing that separates Never Talk To Strangers from the typical woman-in-peril movie you'd see on the Lifetime channel are a few F-words, Banderas' bare butt and De Mornay's naked breasts.
But whatever the reason for them, the 30something boomlet is probably the one thing that keeps a lot of actresses plugging away in movies long after they should have found other employment.
Rebecca De Mornay is ideal for portraying repressed fire, Antonio Banderas can easily switch from likable to potentially dangerous, Dennis Miller and Harry Dean Stanton provide lively support (Miller gets the best line in the film: "I am Sisyphus with a hard-on!").
The De Mornay - Banderas erotic scenes are quite steamy.
And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her.
The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. |
tt0462470 | Pajama Sam: No Need to Hide When It's Dark Outside | Sam (voiced by Pamela Segall Adlon) can't sleep due to a fear of the dark that fills his room. He is inspired by an issue of his favorite superhero comic, Pajama Man, to take matters into his own hands. Journeying into his closet with his purple Pajama Sam mask (Signature-Edition), All-Metal Pajama Man Lunch Box (Portable Bad Guy Containment Unit) and his Illuminator Mark 5 Jr. Flashlight, Sam tumbles down into the Land of Darkness and is soon stopped by a group of trees acting as customs. After freeing himself, Sam goes on an adventure to reclaim his lost equipment. He befriends a boat named Otto and a mine cart named King, who help Sam throughout his exciting search. After a quest spanning a river, a lava-filled mine, and Darkness's house, Sam goes to confront Darkness. Sam is still afraid at first, but then he finds Darkness is friendly. Darkness tells him that he is just lonely and wants a playmate. After the two of them play together by playing the game "Cheese and Crackers", Sam leaves the closet and finds himself back in his own room. No longer afraid of the dark, Sam quickly falls asleep. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0342272 | Dear Wendy | The teenage members of a group of self-proclaimed pacifists decide to carry guns. They call themselves The Dandies. Their club is assembled from the young misfits in a fictional small American mining town, Electric Park. It is started after the main character, Dick (Jamie Bell), buys what he thinks is a toy gun. His co-worker tells him the gun is real, and the two start shooting and studying guns in their spare time. They later recruit other outcasts, young men and one young woman who do not, or cannot, work in the mine, including one boy in leg braces and his younger brother Freddie.
The film is framed by Dick's voiceover, resembling a love letter to his gun Wendy. He is the chosen leader of the group and tells them that their group is a "social experiment" and will reveal their true nature.
The script shares characteristics with earlier von Trier scripts, depicting violence and race relations in the United States in a highly stylized, exaggerated manner and mixing realistic and fantastic elements.
Though more substantial than the bare sound stage of Dogville, Electric Park is reminiscent of a western set on the back lot of a movie studio. The Dandies spend most of their time on this one block or in an abandoned mining shaft that they decorate and call the Temple.
The Dandies have several quirks and idiosyncratic rules. A Dandy may never brandish his weapon in public, but instead gains self-confidence simply knowing he is carrying a concealed weapon. As a badge of membership, they cultivate a 'Brideshead Stutter' (a reference to the character Anthony Blanche in Brideshead Revisited, who also adopts a deliberate stammer). They refuse to say the word 'killing' and instead refer to it as 'loving.' They live up to their name, Dandies, by dressing in colorful, outdated clothing, including vests, long jackets and hats. Though they regularly shoot targets (bull's eyes are oddly common), they spend just as much time playing gun-related games, watching instructional videos and studying diagrams. They use their own personal guns, all antiques with names and back stories, more as props than weapons. Even when they do load and shoot their weapons, they favor style over function (for example, Dick decides to shoot from the hip, Susan uses two guns and works on indirect hits using ricocheted bullets).
Most of the characters in the film are white, save for two: Clarabelle, Dick's loving childhood nanny, and her grandson Sebastian. Sebastian shows up at Dick's house one day with the town sheriff (Bill Pullman). He has been put on probation for a weapons-related crime (he says he "blew a guy away") and has to regularly check in with Dick, whom the sheriff judges to be a good role model. The irony being that Dick and the Dandies spend all of their time using guns. Dick allows Sebastian to break probation and asks him to join the Dandies (Dick sees it as a bit of a Pygmalion), but only if he does everything on their terms.
One day, Sebastian gives them a suspicious box full of guns, and soon breaks a club rule by firing another member's gun. Dick complains that Sebastian is "ruining it for everyone." The group's sole female member, Susan (Alison Pill), takes a shine to Sebastian and this threatens Dick. Freddie suggests that she likes "big schlongs". Like Dick, she lost a parent early on in the film though it doesn't seem to disturb her. Most of the film plays out like a child's game of cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians, and most of the non-Dandies portrayed are police officers and faceless miners.
Sebastian's natural manner is in stark contrast to the affectations of the Dandies, especially the awkward poetry of Dick's voiceover. He speaks like a regular teenager and seems out of place in the one-block world of Electric Park. He points out their oddities, including their strange clothing. He is an outsider among outsiders, but still enlisted in the group.
Sebastian tells Dick that he and his friends carry guns because they're scared, that everyone is scared. He tells them that his grandmother, Dick's former nanny, is too scared of "the gangs" to even leave her home (these vague, mysterious "gangs" had already been mentioned by Dick's boss at Salomon's grocery store, who was terrified of them to the point of a nervous breakdown). Like a good Boy Scout, Dick devises a sort of war plan for assisting Clarabelle on her yearly visit to her cousin's. He believes it is the "decent American" thing to do.
The Dandies accompany Clarabelle on her walk, but she becomes panicked when they encounter a deputy sheriff. There is a scuffle, he tries to help out and the old lady ends up shooting the deputy.
The sheriff asks the Dandies to hand over Clarabelle, even telling them they can keep their guns if they do so. He tells the boys that they are what the country is made of. The Dandies notice his automatic gun, which Dick calls "treacherous," and sense that they are being set up just as several other police officers appear. The Dandies flee to the Temple to hide.
Now outlaws, the Dandies decide to take Clarabelle to her cousin's once and for all. Their decision is based more on principle than practicality, and it is clear that they are willing to martyr themselves. They treat it as a suicide mission, cutting themselves ceremonially and donning their fanciest clothes. Sebastian discovers Dick's now-finished letter to Wendy, which ends with the coded threat: "And now, it's the time of the season for loving" ("loving" is Dandy code for killing).
They head outside one by one, armed, to face the team of shotgun-toting police officers assembled by a legion of squad cars. The first to go, Huey (Chris Owen), tells them "We're not interested in shooting anybody, so don't make us." The Marshall arrives and tells Huey to "Drop the pathetic gun right this minute." He is promptly shot by Huey, who smiles and announces "Officer d-d-down I'm afraid!" before hobbling into gunfire. Huey discovers that he can walk fine without his crutches just as he's gunned down. Meanwhile, a bullet ricochets and hits Clarabelle in the leg as the Dandies continue attempting to escort her to her cousin's house (like all the film's location, it is located within a one-block radius).
Dick realizes that there is a sniper in their midst and sets on shooting the offender down. Susan is the next to shoot, using both of her guns and her carefully honed ricochet method. All the while, white lines and numbers on the screen graphically depicting the trajectories of the Dandies' shots. Susan is shot in the head. Stevie and his gun Badsteel come to her defense and he is shot in the heart.
Sebastian asks Dick "What happened?" and a series of morgue photographs flash across the screen. Only Sebastian, Dick and Freddie remain. The three attempt to drag Clarabelle to safety. Freddie is the next to go. He has tied a cord around his testicles, a tactic with roots in Native American history that he championed earlier on, and grabs his crotch before getting up and firing. He is quickly shot down, rises, then is shot several more times.
Clarabelle stirs and Dick is hit as he comes to her aid, though he manages to get her all the way to her cousin's house. While he is inside, police officers are scanning the windows and lining him up in their guns' sights.
Sebastian remains outside, unharmed and hidden by the door of a police car. He sees Dick's gun, the one he called Wendy, lying in the street and recalls a line of Dick's letter: "Dear Wendy, I always dreamed that if someone were to make that final exit wound in me, it should be you. My saviour." He grabs the gun and then runs inside the home of his grandmother's cousin. He goes upstairs and shoots Dick in the back, mouthing "Dick, [unknown]?"
Dick resembles a pilgrim as he turns around in his buckle hat. His life, at least that which was contained by the film, flashes before his eyes. He examines the exit wound and whispers "Wendy". The police on the roof across the street shoot up the windows and, mostly likely, Sebastian.
All the while, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" plays in the background.
The film features many tracks by the 1960s pop-rock band The Zombies, including "She's Not There", "Time of the Season". Dick's final words to Wendy in his letter, "it's the time of the season for loving" is a quote from the latter song. | comedy, boring, murder, allegory, violence, flashback, satire, romantic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | "Dear Wendy" comes from the talents that brought us "Festen" and "It's All About Love" (both written and directed by Thomas Vinteberg), "Dogville," "Dancer in the Dark" and "Breaking the Waves" (written and directed by Lars Von Trier).
A film about child misfits and their guns could easily follow thematic red herrings all over the place in pursuit of social commentary, but "Dear Wendy" is utterly restrained - in spite of the "loaded" subject matter.
On the cutting room floor are social commentary, cliché, and many of the cinematic crutches which Trier and Vinterberg rejected in their Dogme 95 days.Any film lover who cares to see a film utterly committed to its premise, a film made with economy and efficiency, a film full of sweet irony, a film of deceptive simplicity, would do well to check out "Dear Wendy.".
In some sense it bears resemblance to the village set on Brechtian stage in "Dogville" (compare for example the "stageness" of main street) by Lars von Trier, whose touch can be seen in "Dear Wendy", too.It can be also seen as an anti-gun lecture - but that is just one perspective to it and in my opinion also possible to ignore.The only turnoff is the somewhat annoying narration by the main character, that explains too much and leaves less for the viewer to ponder.
You want a good film about violence and the gun culture in America?
And it should come as no surprise that some intelligent foreigner who reads deeply about America might be capable of writing a credible screenplay about our national foibles."Dear Wendy" is set in an unnamed mining town sometime before the present day, probably the 1960s, judging from the musical soundtrack.
Stevie, as it happens, has an obsessive passion for guns, gun history and the workings of guns.These two hit upon a plan: why not start a little club, a cult of losers and outcast young people, the town's stray kids, and bring a little honor, pride and some decent principles of conduct into their lives.
Without getting into further particulars, I will say that the final shootout between The Dandies and Pullman's legion is conducted with an awesome display of police firepower that absolutely resembles the massive use of high tech weaponry that we are accustomed to witnessing when America goes to war, whether abroad or in quelling domestic uprisings (think of Fallujah and Waco).All the actors I have named deliver good turns.
The sound track features several songs by the 60s British pop/rock band, The Zombies, including their great hits, "She's Not There" and "Time of the Season." More than anything, to me this film feels a lot like a couple of Gus Van Sant's movies.
The Dandies adopt period costumes as well as arcane, stylized manners like the street people in "My Own Private Idaho," and the notion of outcast young people bearing weapons, of course, permeates "Elephant," in a similarly lyrical manner.I think "Dear Wendy" is a powerful film, brimming with poetic truth about us.
He falls pretty much in love with this gun, names it Wendy, and forms a type of gang; The Dandies, who are pacifists although they do love their weapons.Obviously, things do not work out well.The whole style of the film is strange.
Thomas Vinterberg has finally reemerged from the disaster that was "It's all about love", and with help from compatriot Lars Von Trier he has delivered a hugely original and entertaining film.
I think this story could have been told with other means too...that the subject used, guns, was maybe just a way to get the point a bit dramatized, but also the possibility to show the severe consequence off not being true to what made one strong, loosing the integrity so to speak.
And there are more subtle references: a chart from one of the bullets reads Full Metal Jacket, etc.Although directed by his friend Vinterberg the story is written by von Trier and bears all the marks of a von Trier-movie, but this time it is deeply drawn up in irony.
A typical Von Trier-story always watches like literature: idealist gains strength from his beliefs but is confronted by the real world (in this case an ex-con), his beliefs are shaken and self-imposed rules are broken.
The "perversion" of the group's innocence by Sebastian's reality-tempered attitudes are all too typically applied to a young black man, and the only one in the county, and hence, the plot goes crashing to the ground as yet another inescapable fall from paradise.Whatever Kubrick-reaching attempts of psychedelic grandeur that the director tries to conjure up never manage to hit home through the potentially interesting lens of the group's fascination with guns, nor do they provide an experience that has not been seen 100 times before, because of the focus on trippy nouveau montages instead of the characters' individual depth.Ultimately, the attraction of the gun to Dick is that he feels more powerful, more self-assured carrying it.
It's casual and distant, barely affecting you or showing an interest, a bit like the teenage characters it is portraying, who, by the way, have set up a 'pacifist gun club' where the guns have names and are carried in public but never brandished.
"Dear Wendy" is about a group of young losers, who develop strength and backbone from carrying and firing guns.
Written by USA critic Lars Von Trier, the movie conveys a negative opinion of American gun laws.
The voice-over is reasonably justified; still the best scenes in the movie are the few that are allowed to stand on their own.The splendid pale pictures are done by Anthony Dod Mantle, who worked on both Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier's latest movies ("It's All About Love" and "Dogville").
I'm not sure that that makes the film any better but it's more interesting than the over-worn gun violence idea...
Rules are simple in the club each member has a gun they name but don't use and they dress up like Adam ant's prince charming and dance around the town all confident in their ability to hide behind the weapons.
A very poor film from writer Lars Von trier and director Thomas Vinterberg, with these two's back catalogue I would have expected more.
Dear Wendy is a movie about a group of young people building a secret club named "The Dandies".
Working in English writer Lars von Trier and director Thomas Vinterberg tackle American gun culture in a highly original and deeply disturbing fashion; it's the kind of satire I can't imagine an American film-maker making.
It's about a group of young misfits in an American mining town who form a 'pacifist' gun club.
When they allow a young gun-loving criminal into the group you might think things are going to go badly and they do, but not quite in the way you might expect.Young British actor Jamie Bell is excellent as the boy who founds the club and Danso Gordon is outstanding as the young criminal who, at first, challenges his authority but who turns out to be perhaps the most sensible member of this strange gang.
however, this movie has so many high points that i completely glad i did not break down because otherwise i wouldn't have seen its amazing conclusion i loved its self contained setting, its amazing soundtrack (provided by The Zombies), and most of all its amazing philosophy.
Case in point, here we have the Von Trier-written "Dear Wendy" directed by his Dogma 95 partner, Thomas Vinterburg.
I know a lot of people will read this and automatically respond " well he just didn't get it"...no, I got it perfectly fine, but that doesn't change it into a good movie, in fact it just underlines how bad this movie is, that with so many ideals, points and views about guns and kids this movie just fails to deliver them in any type of way that makes it worth watching..
The option was to go to the next town and see The worlds fastest Indian, which I have seen already and think is very beautiful and moving film, and really wanted to see it as I was down and needed a comforting experience but we would have had to bus it and had not enough time.
The movie is about a young man somewhere in America who lives an unremarkable life punctuated by the occasional tragedy who goes out and does the unheard of and starts a gun club.
I must warn you that there is a 50-50 chance of you hating the movie, going out buying a gun and committing some anti social act but on the other hand if you love it you will really love it.
This is a story about a kid in a mining town that falls in love with a gun and starts writing it love letters in a diary that then becomes the never-ending voice over for this movie.
So i know from experience that anything that involves Lars is definitely something not to miss...He is someone who challenges film, its ideas and the audience.As you may know one of the main character is Richard (dick), Jamie Bell who is more famously known as Billy Elliot.
The rest of the teenage outcast join forces to form their club...the performances of these character are a top standard and we can see the development of each of them.Don't worry this movie is not about all guns blazing...
This is great story telling and challenges the concept of guns in America...both on the streets and the cops...Its not you typical Hollywood movie...its something more then that Just watch it and you'll see how much better film festival and non Hollywood movies are.
The next time I see the name of Lars von Trier on a movie I'll turn away and do something else.
What comments I have so far read about Dear Wendy seem to be a case of the emperor's new clothes, or the writers were watching a different movie.
Lars von Trier(who, like another reviewer points out, has never set foot in the US) is very critical of America, and his views and opinions on the country as expressed in this film are skewed and quite in contrast with reality.
I'm going to be honest and say that I don't know exactly what writer Lars Von Trier and director Thomas Vinterberg were trying to say with this offbeat drama about a group of misfit pacifist youths who form a gun club—that a gun will inevitably be used to kill, perhaps?—but I still found it reasonably enjoyable, especially the final act, in which the gang sacrifice themselves to deliver a packet of coffee.Everything leading up to that point has a certain quirky charm about it, as the small-town losers (played by Jamie Bell, Michael Angarano, Chris Owen, Alison Pill, Mark Webber and Danso Gordon) discover friendship and confidence, but what follows is so bonkers that I couldn't help be entertained.
The latest movie by Danish director Thomas Vinterberg (of the over-rated The Celebration) - written by talentless hack Lars von Trier - is a steaming pile of a turgid mess about a boy who is in love with his gun!
I liked Festen and Lars von Triers Dogville so the talents of the two directors combined should be able to lead to a very interesting movie.
As it had been directed by Thomas Vinterberg & written by Lars Von Trier & they're mostly known for their Dogma-movement, I feared an inaccessible arty farty movie!
Little later he falls in love with a revolver which he names Wendy, starts a club called The Dandies, who are 'pacifists with guns', write poetry & listen to the sixties band The Zombies.
In Vinterberg's new film, Dear Wendy, the Zombies' lyrics are turned on their heads with great effect.
Dear Wendy is a reasonably subtle cult movie that bears strong links to the work of von Trier (who wrote it) and all sorts of interpretations about gun culture..
Centrally the characters dress and sense of honour as well as there insistence on using old fashioned guns is an interesting study in today's youths obsession with "retro" and also the contradiction of guns and pacifism is reminiscent of modern teenagers left wing crusades conflicting with their obsessive consumerism.The supporting performances are solid, if a little too mannered, but Jamie Bell's protagonist is difficult to place - quite spiteful and too disaffected to consider the fatal consequences of his actions.All in all this is an enjoyable film, with a none to0 subtle nor fresh, but always relevant message at the end that lacks the cold, bleak reality of some of Von Trier's and Vinterberg's earlier work.
Just like they are doing with a lot of other films.The talent is to make a good movie, with a message underneath that works.
And we all know that is possible, but hey, we all know the directors who can.To finish I can conclude:Dear Wendy is a movie who tries to forces something out, it is really sluggish and doesn't give a lot of entertaining value, nor makes it people think.
Dear Wendy, you're the second Lars von Trier film I saw.
He gets a job at a store, buys a toy-gun, and falls into an obsessive world and recruits others to form a group called the Dandies.This movie continue to take us into a fantasy world where reason starts to drift away.
Thomas Vinterberg surprised a lot of people(included me)with his second movie called Festen.But,after Festen,he went from making an excellent movie to making a pathetic movie like It's all about love.I had a lot of expectations with Dear Wendy,Vinterberg's most recent film.The plot sounded really good.But Dear Wendy was a very big deception for me.This movie is very pretentious and boring.Lamentably,the movie had good potential because the weapon's theme is very interesting to develop,but on this movie it is developed really bad.Only Bill Pullman's performance on this movie is good,because the other performances are really mediocre.In summary,don't waste your time nor your money on this film..
Coming after Lars Von Trier's (for me) disappointing "Dogville" (which i found redundant and poorly-executed), "Dear Wendy" is another step down for the once-interesting auteur.
I get the feeling that Von Trier just gave this throw-away script to his friend Vinterberg so that he could try to make a "break through" film for American teenage audiences.
"Dear Wendy" is a pretentious film about some outcasts who form a secret group that tries to praise gun ownership and pacifism at the same time.
The film probably also tries to pick up the controversial theme of gun ownership in America particularly.I liked the premise of "Dear Wendy".
When preparing a (ridiculous) plan to do something good for someone else and simultaneously regain the harmony within the group we finally come to the point where something had to go wrong but the way this happens in neither dramatic nor believable.The film has a rather comical approach and stylized look to it.
I think too much of entertainment doesn't serve the themes at all here and the film goes way over the top and makes the characters feel hardly authentic but more like comic figures.
that guns don't make you happy or whatever ...Well, I think I have said enough and I think this film is silly.I can't recommend "Dear Wendy" on any basis..
I found this film like a year ago or so and mostly I wanted to watch it just because Lars von Trier wrote it.
Pacifists in love with guns, well that's what this film shows, a bunch of young and intelligent persons that became even brilliant in what they were doing, these persons were living in their own little world with their own rules and rituals and since they were pacifists everything seems to be just a game and seems that these kids knew what they were doing.
Sure in their world they had their own believes and sure they were pacifist but everything was turned around the guns so is the time of the season for loving...A very strange photography and great performances; I hated Billy Eliot but here Bell is great as the main role as that lonely kid that began having even an obsession, a madness that after all ended in the only possible way he would like to and that resume everything, what a gun could made in him, in his mind.
They swear never to use or show their weapons outside the abandoned mine they are using as a shooting range, but of course, it all goes wrong in the end.Persiflaging American gun culture, small towns and westerns, the movie contains several themes.
I went to see Dear Wendy thinking that it was some kind of statement about guns.
I was pretty disappointed with Lars von Trier (the writer of this movie) after having seen "Dogville".
So when I went to see "Dear Wendy", it was like I already knew that the emperor had no clothes on.The movie is kind of confusing for the audience but toward the end it dawned on me that it is in fact a very dark comedy (more than anything it was the testicle thing that gave it away).
There has been so much talk about the serious "message" (anti-gun/anti-American) of the movie that it makes me wonder.I've read several times that the original script by Lars von Trier was about a bunch of thirty-somethings.
If they had stuck to that concept, it would have been a lot like Trier's earlier movie "The Idiots" only with guns.
Considered to be a fan of both Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier, I was very disappointed about this film. |
tt0113986 | Nine Months | Child psychologist Samuel Faulkner has an ideal romance with ballet teacher Rebecca Taylor. Rebecca is thinking about marriage and children. Samuel is against the idea of marriage as he is happy with how things are between them. This all changes when Rebecca declares she is pregnant and when questioned by Samuel about her birth control she replies birth control is only 97% of the time effective. Samuel's fears mount due to his encounters with overbearing couple Marty and Gail Dwyer and their unruly children, as well as the confusing advice he gets from Sean, his perpetually single artist friend. They meet Doctor Kosevich who happens to be Russian. Samuel is confused and unsure about what to do. Feeling neglected, Rebecca leaves him and moves in with Marty and Gail. Samuel tries to contact her but she does not respond. When a girl makes a move on Samuel, he declines, saying he's not ready to move on yet. When he sees an ultrasound of his soon-to-be-born son, he decides that it is time to take responsibility before it is too late. He sells his Porsche 911, buys a family van, and gets back together with Rebecca. They then marry and have their baby together. | comedy, romantic, humor, entertaining | train | wikipedia | Robin Williams's character seems forced.While things are a little light and slow in the beginning, it's in the last half hour that the writer puts a little too many comedy, most of it falling flat on its 'face'.
The dialog is from the day dreams of a fourteen year old.The fact that a film uses actor Hugh Grant does not make it sensitive, uplifting or funny.
It was immature and lowbrow, and relied way too much on slapstick (Tom Arnold and Hugh Grant fighting in a toy store; Julianne Moore's wheelchair plowing into a wall; etc.)Why can't there ever be a movie where someone who doesn't want children at the beginning STILL doesn't want them at the end?
A child psychiatrist's (Hugh Grant) life is turned upside down when his girlfriend (Julianne Moore) becomes pregnant.
Also along for the ride are Russian doctor Robin Williams, struggling artist Jeff Goldblum and an odd married couple (Tom Arnold and Joan Cusack).
Grant, who was in the midst of being caught in Hollywood with a prostitute just before this film was released, ended up having the last laugh as the movie ended up being a mild box office success.
Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore are a great duo in this comedy.
Yes, it is a little silly at times, but if you enjoy slapstick, this is the movie for you.Hugh Grant plays Samuel.
His on-screen presence is pretty much consists of witty lines, snappy articulation and boyish / non-threatening charm - and some element of nerves.He's got that same appeal in this movie - and with the over-the-top acting of Tom Arnold, the film has great comedic performances.
A big step down for kid flick director Chris Columbus, this tumble from messy to sappy to corny to slapsticky wouldn't be worth the time if it weren't for the comic contributions of Arnold, Williams, Cusack, and Goldblum.
'Nine Months' is a romantic comedy film starring Hugh Grant as a boyfriend to a girl who has learned that she has just become pregnant.
Hugh Grant's character must now learn how to be a grown up and how to be a good father, and he does not like this one bit.
In addition, whenever Sam (Hugh Grant) and Rebecca (Julianne Moore) had a fight, I felt really bad.
Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent comedy that will make you laugh and feel good to any Hugh Grant or Julianne Moore fan who hasn't seen it.
They are both very believable as 'mom' and 'dad', with their characters seeming a bit more innocent than their previous roles(this is Chris Columbus, after all.) There is plenty of character development for Grant's char., though the best part of the movie is its humor.
Julianne Moore, Joan Cusack and Jeff Goldblum also star, but I think that everyone can agree that they've done much better than this, as has director Chris Columbus.Still, that scene with the dinosaur was pretty funny.
If you're really bored one evening, not looking for a comedy, but a dull drama about a silly man getting a baby though he doesn't want to - I guess it is possible to watch it.
Hugh Grant does his usual high class, bumbling gentleman thing, Tom Arnold does his annoying best-friend neighbour routine, Jeff Goldblum as the decidedly cynical artist with a skeptical view of everything, Joan Cusack as the kooky ditz, Robin Williams as the inept foreign doctor and Julianne Moore plays it straight.
I love both Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore and watch all their movies, but somehow on the screen they do not fit.
Hugh can act great with a number of actresses from Julia Roberts to Martin McCutcheon and Julianne passes to a superb partner to Pierce Brosnan - but I'd have never thought to put them together on one screen.The movie is about a middle aged couple, Samuel and Rebecca, who live together and have the usual no commitment-no worries lifestyle.
The end of the movie was a big disappointment for me; I expected something more serious and intimate.Hugh Grant plays quite well these romantic comedy roles, but after the tenth comedy from him, it is getting boring.
There are a million movies around like this and I happen to be a fan of predictable romantic comedies(if their good) but I found the characters and humor very weak and even though the movie's not DECADES old or anything it looks dated now, especially the hairstyles.
Sucked the big one.I don't mind Hugh Grant; he can be very good ("Notting Hill", "An Awfully Big Adventure" - a really great film, "Bridget Jones' Diary").
As if we didn't get enough torture watching Hugh Grant (and others) belittle us with down right "dribble" with Four Weddings and a Funeral, we now have to deal with Grant (and a new batch of conspirators) in this one.I saw the previews, and I thought I would being seening an enjoyable commedy (especially with Robin Williams, the King of Comedy, in it).
The film focused mainly on Hugh Grant, its greatest mistake, and we are forced to watch him once again prove to us that he can not act!
Nine Months...it almost felt like it was that long.Only redeeming quality of this film was Robin Williams who, once again, proved that he is the King of Comedy.
A star looking for a break in America signs up to do a sure-thing (a soapy romantic comedy) with lots of big names around to protect him in his first big US movie.
It's hard to know where to start.From the nonchalant acting of Hugh Grant [clearly not INTO the part]to the pathetic, dumpy, frumpy Julianne Moore - missing through half the performance, although she was the carrier...Then there's the storyline - a plea for NOT having babies !
Tom Arnold was great, and Jeff Goldblum, Joan Cusack, and Robin Williams were all perfect.
Although, the family portrayed by Tom Arnold and Joan Cusack was a bit extreme.In conclusion, I will probably watch this film again!!.
Hugh Grant is a very good actor and doesn't deserve to play in such a bad movie.
Hugh Grant plays Samuel and Julianne Moore is Rebecca.
As well as Jeff Goldblum in a role that couldn't be more different from his Jurrasic Park character.Chris Columbus has made a light, enjoyable comedy, though you get the feeling that with each one of his passing films you can clearly see that it would have been handled better in the hands of basically any other director.
They lack complex story lines, interesting problems and elements that make a film great.The main problem in this film is that Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore have no chemistry!
Child psychologist Samuel Faulkner (Hugh Grant) is in a perfect happy relationship with Rebecca Taylor (Julianne Moore).
Hugh Grant's first Hollywood feature film was made a year after Four Weddings & A Funeral, and he co starred with Julianne Moore, who had been around awhile, appearing in small but significant roles in movies like 'Benny & Joon' and 'The Fugitive'.
Tom Arnold, Joan Cusack and Jeff Goldblum are all here giving good support, but it's Robin Williams who steals the movie as a nervous Russain doctor.
Are so jaded by the negative and nasty comedies shown over the last decade that they can't appreciate humor that is tactful and positive No, this is not a film that deserved an Oscar, but it has an excellent message and a string of hilarious scenes that are laugh-out-loud funny.Just give it a try and keep an open mind - and heart.
While I think in another ten years this film will be hard to watch, it was good to see it one last time before it died.
While it didn't quite carry the same punch as it did when I watched it in 1995, it did make want to revisit some of Robin Williams' older films and laugh like I did when I was young.
Plus, I love Hugh Grant in all of his movies I have watched.
Hugh Grant's character, Samuel, has a very strange, unique, male nervous-wise, and silly sense of humor, which constantly makes you laugh throughout the whole movie!
But the beginning was really funny and I'm glad I watched the whole movie, as it has many laughs and feelings.
Tom Arnold & Joan Cusack were the memorable characters and performers, while Hugh Grant & Julianne Moore managed as the lead performers.
This movie was so unbelievably funny I was actually crying.When Tom Arnold's character was at the front door not letting Hugh Grant in to see Julianne Moore, Joan Cusack (sorry if it's misspelled) asks "Who is it?" Arnold goes "It's my mother" "But your mothers dead" "I know its really weird" Hahaha, so funny.and Robin Williams making all the word errors is hysterical."I need a clitoris" "You need a thesaurus, thats what you need" Great movie.P.S. Hugh Grant is a lot better looking now.
I loved it as a comedy (its so funny, it really can make me give a good laugh), as a story about the evolution and the growing of a person (it's not just in the film, I know so many men that are just like Samuel) and I loved it for its actors: I'm a huge fan of Julianne Moore and Robin Williams was just the cherry on the top!
Child Pyschologist Sam (Hugh Grant) has it all, an beautiful girlfriend (Julianne Moore), an great red Porsche and he's living the good life.
This comedy manages to have some touching moments and some big laughs, especially the scene where it involves Grant and Arnold in a department kids stone.
This film was just soo funny, it made me laugh so much, its one of my all time favourite movies because i can watch it over and never get bored of it.
A little like a loony toons cartoon...(No, characters are NOT falling from cliffs and getting squashed)The cast is wonderful and the jokes and slapstick are hilarious, especially the ride-to-the-hospital climax.Watching this movie is a very nice and light way to pass an evening at home..
But, events that happened outside the movie makes some of the dialog in the movie even more funny; though not intentionally.The film has plenty of supporting characters (Julianne Moore, Tom Arnold,Joan Cusack,Jeff Goldblum, Robin Williams) to make it funny without the humor of Grant, but he is the star of this funny movie.
Hugh Grant, Julianne Moore, Robin Williams, Tom Arnold make this a very funny film..
But Grant eventually figures it out, and they get back together.There are lots of funny moments, but I laughed loudest during the penultimate scene, during delivery by the two friends, Moore and Joan Cusack.
Granted everyone may not like this movie for whatever the reason, it still is quite funny.
It's supposed to be a comedy except that it really isn't very funny, there are some issues involved with the casting and the characters, and while it's a comedy that isn't all that funny (or, for that matter, a romance that isn't all that romantic) there are parts of it that actually work reasonably well.Hugh Grant (who plays Samuel) is not someone I consider to be an "A" list actor.
Williams puts on a pretty typical, slapstick Robin Williams performance in the role - but this character was way too over the top and added very little to the movie except a real feeling of total unbelievability.And yet, watching Samuel grow in his level of comfort with pending fatherhood is satisfying.
You expect that a degree of comedy might come from the idea that Samuel is a child psychologist who doesn't want children, but that really isn't central to the movie (and, all things considered, I can actually see why a child psychologist might not want children - after all, he's going to see all the problems!) It's just watching him grow from a guy who's part selfish and part frightened to a guy increasingly comfortable and then even enthusiastic about fatherhood.
But as the pregnancy progresses his indifference becomes clear to Rebecca as he misses or turns up late for scans, protests when he is told by the doctor that his cat will have to be re-homed and that his beloved Porsche will have to be traded in for a family friendly alternative.Throw in his friend (played by Jeff Goldblum), his friend's sister, husband and three errant kids who are nothing but a harsh omen of what the future holds and both external chaos and inner turmoil ensue.Hugh Grant is a master at portraying the suppressed British buffoon and this movie is by no means an exception.
The script is weak and predictable, so it's not surprising that someone wrote in the usual Robin Williams character and set up a San Francisco reckless-driving scene, but it's the acting squad that makes this one worth watching.One odd thing is that the scriptwriter seemed to feel called upon to explain who has money and who doesn't have money, then tripped over the issue anyway.
It has its emotional moments, but it has some slapstick too, and in my opinion does a good job at not going too overboard with either, while maintaining a story.Hugh Grant plays a psychologist who's life seems to be going very well and financially secure, until he gets the news that his wife is pregnant.
''Nine Months'' is one of the coolest comedies I already watched in my life and even not being the best of them all, I think that ''5.2'' is a very low rate for it.
Take director Chris Columbus (Harry Potter) stars Hugh Grant (Four Weddings, Notting Hill, Love Actually), Julianne Moore (Oscar winner) and sprinkle with a little Robin Williams and you can't fail - right?
By watching NINE MONTHS, each of us insensitive men can at last feel such pain.Based on a film written and directed by Patrick Braoudé, NEUF MOIS, Chris Columbus writes and directs NINE MONTHS like a brainless farce rooted in wrong: the wrong way to raise kids, the wrong way to behave during pregnancy, the wrong way to assess morality and the wrong way to medically process a birth (Robin Williams makes an embarrassing cameo as a Russian obstetrician who seems to have his accent confused with his asshole).Marty's (Arnold's) kids are such horrible snots that this movie shoots itself in the womb as it is trying to send the message that kids are precious.Jeff Goldblum is Sean, Samuel's best friend and sworn bachelor.
In the last reel Mr Grant gets round to seeing that "fatherhood",even if accidental, is a "Good Thing" and flies to Miss Moore's side to be present at what must be the most protracted and noisiest birth scene in the movies.Mr Williams dispenses with acting altogether,simply bouncing off various bits of scenery(the very few left unchewed)like a demented pinball.
The only exception could be Robin Williams.Can't really give this movie a good rating.
A good cast and 2 scenes which I liked can't make it up for the fact that the rest of the movie was very bad..
Its antics unlike anything else out there and easily one of my favourite scenes in a film.Hugh Grant had a great career for a long time.
Tom Arnold and Joan Cusack are the stereotypical "best friend" roles although Arnold and Grant have this fun rivalry that really is a great part of the movie.
And I say all that as a person who generally likes Hugh Grant in films.The other thing that just doesn't seem to work here is Robin Williams' stint as a Russian obstetrician.
Being an apparent remake of a French film (in which I have not seen, nor heard of, so I cannot compare it to this), this film is directed by Chris Columbus and stars Hugh Grant as Samuel Faulkner, a child psychologist who is in a romantic relationship with Rebecca Taylor (played by Julianne Moore), a kind-hearted ballet teacher.
Second, this is the first movie I have seen both Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore in (and I don't recall ever seeing Joan Cusack in anything prior to this either).
Basically child psychiatrist Samuel Faulkner (Hugh Grant) and ballet teacher Rebecca Taylor (Julianne Moore) have been boyfriend and girlfriend for five years, and never thought to commit to each other, i.e. marriage and kids.
Moore is reliable as Grant's pregnant other half, Arnold is a little annoying, Cusack is alright, Goldblum has his moments, and Williams makes the most as the manic obstetrician.
Samuel (Hugh Grant)is a child psychiatrist whose beautiful longtime girlfriend Rebecca (Julianne Moore)announces her pregnancy.
Problem is, his command of the English language (coupled with the fact that he never delivered a human baby) makes things even more crazy.Despite some predictability, "Nine Months," which is the American version of "Neuf Mois," the popular French film, is actually sweet and at some times touching (The scene when Samuel watches the tape of the ultrasound of his unborn child can bring a slight moisture to the eyes).Director Chris Columbus did a good job, though.
Hugh Grant, Juliane Moore could be a knocking couple for this movie, but the lines and the action makes it an average film, which respects the typical comedy story.
And it definitely should not be too optimistic because life is not.I don't recommend this movie, not even if you want to laugh and have a good time.
If that is what you expect from a movie than you'd better watch American Pie or other like that one, which you know from the start they don't have any hidden theme or idea to think about..
Basically Sam(Hugh Grant) and Rebecca(Julianne Moore) are living together and seem to have this perfect life.
Robin Williams only has one scene in this film, but it has become my favourite scene in the whole movie.
Hugh Grant is great as is Julianne Moore.
And Hugh Grant cause me a great good impression in this movie. |
tt0113939 | The Nature of the Beast | The story is set in Southern California in July 1993.
Jack Powell is a businessman with a wife and kids who live in San Diego. He's on his way home, when he pulls over to the side of the road to check out a crime scene. The sheriff tells him a cut-up body has been found stuffed into the trunk of a Chrysler, and advises him not to stop, nor "make any new friends." A policemen slams the trunk, revealing a name has been etched across the top: "Hatchet Man."
Further down the road, Jack comes upon a hitchhiker, but keeps on going.
Jack stops at a diner, and runs into the same man, who introduces himself as Adrian. Jack apologizes for not stopping earlier, and offers to buy Adrian lunch. Adrian soon nicknames their waitress, Patsy, "Jingle Bells", because of the silver bracelets she wears on one wrist.
Patsy talks excitedly about a briefcase full of $1.25 million in mob money which was stolen from a Las Vegas casino the previous day. Jack looks around nervously and slides his briefcase underneath the table. Adrian tells Jack he's very intuitive about people he meets, and can usually tell all he needs to know about someone within a couple of minutes of meeting them.
For example, is the person a loser, or was he a football star, or, perhaps class president. Jack doesn't seem convinced before Adrian asks him what he's got in his briefcase.
When Adrian gets up to make a move on Patsy in the kitchen, Jack ditches him and makes his escape.
As Jack drives down the highway, he listens to a radio newscaster recount the story of the stolen briefcase and discusses a string of murders in which all the victims have been dismembered. Jack is forced to turn back because a roadblock has been set up to cordon off a chemical spill.
Jack checks into a motel. In the middle of the night, Jack awakes, and walks outside his room to investigate another crime scene, this one located behind the diner where he and Adrian had lunch that day. He sees a severed arm with a silver bracelets placed into a bag and Adrian hiding in the shadows.
Adrian joins Jack in his motel room and shoots up in the bathroom. When it seems Adrian is unconscious, Jack tries to leave him again, but despite repeated and increasingly frantic attempts his car won't start.
Adrian stumbles out of the motel and reveals he's removed the plugs from Jack's car, and tells Jack in no uncertain terms not to leave again, or "I'll tell on you, Jack. I'll call the police".
The next morning, Jack and Adrian take to the road together. At a gas station, they meet a young hippie couple named Gerald and Dahlia, who are traveling cross-country in a Dodge van. Adrian wants to hang out with the hippies, but Jack insists they keep going. They stop at a service station so Jack can have a busted water hose on his car replaced. As Jack deals with the attendant, Adrian browses a pet store called the Creepy Crawly Zoo. The owner, Harliss, shows Adrian a Gila Monster, which uses its viselike bite to inject a neurotoxin into the bloodstream. Back in the car, with Jack behind the wheel, Adrian uses the Gila Monster to reassert his power over Jack by throwing the monster onto Jacks lap while he drives. Jack struggles to maintain his composure, and appears frozen by fear and anxiety. To compound matters, Adrian then slams his foot onto the accelerator and the car almost loses control at speed and eventually shudders to a grinding halt before Adrian lets the Gila monster go, and warns Jack on his previous disobedience, and tells Jack he is "one crazy motherfucker"
Jack and Adrian spend that night at a campsite, where they once again run into Gerald and Dahlia. Adrian gets high with the young couple while Jack broods outside the van. Adrian accuses Jack of trying to scare the hippies off.
Later, Jack finds Adrian having sex with Dahlia in the back of the van while Gerald watches. Jack gets drunk and retires. Adrian shows up later and goads him. After Jack and Adrian drive away in the morning, a shot of the van shows blood smeared down the license plate and the name "Hatchet Man" etched across the back doors.
The following night, Jack and Adrian stay at a secluded cabin Jack inherited. For the first time, we see the money was stolen from the Vegas casino, as Jack and Adrian use it to play poker.
Adrian prepares to shoot up again, as Jack lectures him about his drug "problem." Adrian slaps Jack around, and accuses him of being an alcoholic and a hypocrite. Adrian releases Jack from his grip and returns to his drugs whilst advising Jack to do the same with his drink. Jack reacts by beating Adrian from behind with his briefcase, taping him to a chair and injecting him with a deadly mixture of alcohol and drugs. Adrian convulses and appears to expire, and Jack buries him in a shallow grave.
Sheriff Gordon and his deputy, Little David show up to check on Jack, and over their shoulders Jack can see Adrian rising from the grave. The policemen are called away on a domestic disturbance and leave without noticing Adrian. Jack attempts to gun him down. After he's unloaded his shotgun, Adrian emerges from the shadows. When Adrian pleads with Jack as to why he cuts up the bodies into tiny little pieces, Jack removes a hatchet from his briefcase, and now in a far more confident baritone than he has displayed at any point in the film announces, "For the fuck of it", and as the screen fades to black we are left only with the sounds of a violent struggle and left to conclude Jack has killed Adrian once and for all.
Jack returns home to San Diego and kisses his wife, Carol. The paperboy greets him and he replies cheerfully, "Say, hey, Billy." As the film fades to black, a quote from the Book of Jeremiah appears on the screen: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" This echoes an earlier statement made by Adrian, who said that human beings are essentially unknowable. | murder | train | wikipedia | This movie seemed to be made for people who appreciate second banana actors, and it was done pretty well in my opinion.
Lance is one of my favorite actors, and this was one of those movies that stand out in my mind when I think of his work.
I think if this movie went mainstream with bigger named actors...like..I dont know, Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, this would have been a hit.
I like movies in which I don't know what's happening until the end.
Story is good and it's about Jack who's driving through Nevada and soon he picks Adrian, a mysterious man who don't want to go away from him even when Jack is trying to lose him.
Only two important characters are Jack and Adrian and they are played by Lance Henriksen and Eric Roberts.
I would like to congratulate Mr.Roberts on this role because this is one of his greatest performances.Good plot and excellent actors are here, so all you need to do is watch this movie.
Movies which manage to create tension through solid dialogs and great performances are real gems these days.
The story looks simple: Jack tries to avoid Adrian, a hitcher, after being warned by the police about a serial killer running loose.
The entire movie is based on the performances of Lance Henriksen and Eric Roberts, which prove once again that they are underrated for no reason.
Although underrated, "The Nature of The Beast" is a very good thriller.
Its tense and bleak atmosphere keeps you in a nail-biting state throughout the film, with its best part being its end, when a brilliant plot twist really brings everything upside down.The story begins with Jack (Henriksen), a typical, middle-class executive on a business travel, who bumps onto a murder scene; the policemen in charge advise him to be careful on his way, as there is a serial killer in the area hitch-hiking for his next victim.
The guy loses no time to introduce himself as Andrian (Roberts), and he soon becomes a thorn on Jack's side, who in turn realizes that it will be very difficult to get away from this menace...Featuring two great performances, the movie is virtually a two-man show: Both Roberts and Henriksen are really great in their roles, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that the film's value is based on them.
One a paper goods salesman from Las Vegas Jack Powell, Lance Henriksen, and one a drifter Adrian, Eric Roberts, from God's only knows where and you sense right away that one is the murderer but which one is he?
The scene towards the end of the movie between Jack Powell and Sheriff Gordon, Brion James and his deputy Little David Brewer, Tom Tarntini, outside Powell's cabin is so electrifying charged and nail biting that it had me want to turn off the VCR because my nerves just about had it from the almost unbearable tension watching it.
Solid performances by the two top stars Lance Henriksen & Eric Roberts who despite the very capable supporting cast carry the movie all by themselves..
Lance Henriksen and Eric Roberts cannot be any more effective than they are in this extremely perverse little movie, which must be seen by anyone who enjoys a serious cinematic mind-f#@k now and again.
When Lance Henriksen and especially Eric Roberts were in the lead I felt the title and the combination of these two character actors must be quite good.
His Adrian is by far one of his best performances.Lance Henriksen has much in common with Roberts.
He also has his own acting way and all who have seen him in the great show "Millennium" knows what I'm talking about.Both Roberts and Henriksen should be bigger stars in Hollywood.The great story with its oddities and chilling atmosphere have made me seen it about four-five times already.
Perhaps because the two leads Eric Roberts ('Runaway Train', 'The Immortals') and Lance Henriksen ('Near Dark', 'The Quick And The Dead'), both great favourites of mine, have made way too many stupid action direct-to-video movies and people just think this one is more of the same.
Roberts and Henriksen both excel in this tense and unpredictable road movie.
Director Victor Salva went on to make 'Jeepers Creepers', a movie I haven't seen at the time of writing this.
Hopefully the success of that movie will create some interest in his previous efforts, especially this one.Oh, and if you're a Brion James ('Blade Runner', 'Crimewave') fan like myself, be warned, he doesn't appear until towards the end, and only for one scene.
'Nature of the Beast', written and directed by Victor Salva, is a hidden gem for fans of thrillers with surprise twist endings.
You may or may not predict the plot twist that makes you rethink the entire movie, but you will enjoy the performances by Lance Henriksen and Eric Roberts.
But if like a good thriller with suspense, intrigue, an underlying truth hidden from the viewer, and good acting and directing, then I recommend you see 'Nature of the Beast.'.
Nature of the Beast is a movie based completely around its main characters, Lance Henrickson and Eric Roberts.
Henrickson plays the part of Jack who seems to be a mild mannered person until he meets Adrian (Roberts) who is a very dark and disturbed man.
They meet out in the desert in a café and right away you know there is something wrong with both characters as there is a murderer killing people in the area calling himself the Hatchet Man and there was a robbery at a local casino.
Both men seem suspicious and it seems that Jack can't get away from Adrian.The whole movie is virtually Henrickson and Roberts on the screen.
It's strange how these great actors got such bad acting gigs after this movie.The storyline is truly a well thought out plot and director Victor Salva proves that he can be a good director.
Such films as "Clownhouse" or "Jeepers Creepers 1 and 2" are well directed but are just not anywhere on par with this psychological thriller.I do recommend this movie to fans of great suspense and mystery.
What I have to say is merely a repetition of what the other users said before:the two leads literally save the movie from absolute mediocrity.They are so good,their performances are so intense that they are to be commended for transcending the limitations they are working under .The script writers ,in order to make sure the audience understands they have been watching a "deep" "meaningful" work call Jeremiah (and the Bible) to the rescue,but it's too little too late.This is the well known mix road movie/"there's a killer on the road" (as Jim Morrison used to sing),and even a child could guess who he is.But the film deserves a look ,weren't it only for the way two first-class actors can redeem abysmal scripts..
It has great performances from Lance Henriksen and a young Eric Roberts.
The ending is so well written!I can't believe that this movie so incredibly underrated and no one talks or reviews it.
Maybe it's because I've seen so many thrillers, but it didn't take me very long into the movie to guess what was going to happen in the ending.
What really gets your attention are the performances by Roberts and Henriksen, two seriously underrated actors.
"Nature of the beast" is one of those "Never-ever-pick-up-a-hitchhiker"-thriller/horror-movies and it's probably a good example of this genre.
The cast is terrific (you just can't go wrong with Henriksen and Roberts, even Brion James is in this for two minutes) and the movie is pretty exciting and fun to watch...
"Eric Roberts and Lance Henriksen star in this intense psychological thriller about a businessman drawn into a bloody game of cat and mouse by a mysterious drifter.
Devilishly charismatic Mr. Roberts (as Adrian) was born to play this role, and a psychologically bent Mr. Henriksen (as Jack) matches him at most every turn.
And, Henriksen's girth was unnecessary.******* The Nature of the Beast (10/24/95) Victor Salva ~ Lance Henriksen, Eric Roberts, Brion James, Sasha Jenson.
I've always felt that Lance Henriksen is one of our best character actors, and that Eric Roberts is underrated (though the fact that he seems to take any part, any time, may contribute to that).
What I didn't expect was two absolutely amazing performances, and the incredible nuance of character that each actor brings to this movie.Henriksen (playing against type) shows great vulnerability as the lonely sales rep on the road, and Roberts keeps you guessing the whole movie as his charming personality belies his apparent menace.
Lance Henriksen and Eric Roberts star as two criminals who take a road trip together, one is a thief and the other is a serial killer, both take a trip that will leave many dead in this surprisingly effective thriller which features chilling performances from both Henriksen and Roberts.
Well worth watching due to it's gripping suspense and good ending..
Lance Henriksen & Eric Roberts star in a quasi-road trip movie where one is left to wonder whenever one of them is the serial killer on the loose dubbed "The Hatchet Man" and whenever one of them is the person responsible for ripping off a casino for a cool million dollars.The only reason I took in a viewing of "Nature Of The Beast" is because of Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite screen actors and after some consideration, it's probably the only reason I rented this.
The two lead actors make it work, the atmosphere is decent and the ending pretty good, but I'd only recommend this to Lance Henriksen fans.
An Above Average, Little Seen, DTV Movie that has for Your Viewing Pleasure Two Actors that can be as Intense and Scary as They Like.
it is a Treat to Watch these two Ham it Up and Fully Embrace the Characters in this Film.Both are On the Edge, Eric Roberts because He is the Prime Suspect in a Series of Hatchet Killings that Always Occur in His Proximity, and Lance Henriksen because He is Clutching a Steel Briefcase.
A movie surprise you keep comparing to The Hitcher, throughout, this is a flawless, solid psychological thriller, where you couldn't ask for more finer actors in the roles.
Roberts is so much fun to watch and really funny at times, and it's quite an interesting journey, where we meet some interesting characters, some who become the killer's next victims.
Still, I kept watching so I was interested enough to see what happens and the actors were a big part of that.I agree with the guy above me in that the ending was a bit on the disappointing side.
Its one of those movies where they just sorta end and you like "What!"So as I said, worth watching, but because of a little forced direction could have been better..
The setup for "Nature of the Beast" is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack.
Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of "Jeepers Creepers" and "Powder" fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place.
In my opinion, this move has all what good movie must have: thrill packed, atmosphere,background sound, photography is well done, actor's performances is almost excellent.
As they travel the relationship between the men changes as they know who each other is.This is similar in concept to the hitcher and many other movies where an driver picks up a killer and gets involved with the action of the others life.
Pay close attention, and it will be clear that the "surprise ending" is impossible, especially when you consider how bloody an ax murder must be (clean clothes which they're short of, time to clean up, witnesses, etc.).Confusingly, this movie is also known as "The Hatchet Man", "The Nature Of The Beast" and "Bad Company", not to be confused with the Laurence Fishburne, Ellen Barkin potboiler, or any number of movies (at least 8) called "Bad Company"..
The whole truth of crimes of the past haunts each of them in their summit of criminal minds.Adrian enjoys making Jack feel uncomfortable and finds it pretty easy to do given that Jack is nobody's fool and appears to suspect him of being a particularly gruesome serial killer from the Most Wanted List who is loose in the area murdering people in cold blood.
Of course the hard truth IS a great deal more at play and each moment they spend together brings the audience closer to the rude awakening that things are kind of what they seem to be but also kind of NOT what they seem to be.A grave confrontation awaits as, left without options, there is only one way out to reconciling the deep terror of their differences at the end of their voyage.Eric Roberts never ceased being an electrifying performer from the beginning of his cinematic career in the 1970s.
The quirkiness of his characterizations show a complete lack of fear when improvising.Lance Henriksen remains the intriguing character actor who consistently steals scenes in supporting roles and can often play the lead.
The Nature of the Beast looked liked a decent time filler however after 30 minutes I found myself wondering when the movie would end as I just could not find this to be an interesting movie at all.
I forget how the movie ended as this was overall just poor.Basically the movie is about Adrian (Eric Roberts) meeting Jack (Lance Hendrikson) and Adrian is trying to lose Jack after finding him to be a very unhinged person.
At the same man, there are murders being committed by a killer known as Hatchet Man.Eric Roberts and Lance Hendrikson were both suited to this movie however it is a shame I found this to be uninteresting.Certainly not a movie for everyone due to its dark, grisly themes.1/10..
It is like a noir thriller where the quiet character (Henricksen as "Jack") is unexpectedly caught up in a mess because he can never seem to leave town.
The small, desolate town just seems to suck him in, and the only way to escape in these kinds of stories is by death of one or both of our primary characters.Jack is just a guy who's been driving around a desert.
Jack picked a bad time to roll through town, as police cars and forensic units move from one small squat to another cleaning up homicides from a serial killer who leaves his calling card--The Hatchetman.
That's when Jack meets the self-indulgent, sob story with an eerie knack for getting on Jack's nerves, Adrian (Eric Roberts).
Albeit a strange thriller, particularly due to the nature of Robert's character, a relentless junkie with homoerotic undertones who may be the elusive "Hatchetman." Jack's character is pretty weird, too.
Antsy, dumpy, high-strung, secretive and deeply repressed traveling salesman Jack (Lance Henrikson) runs afoul of mean, scuzzy, foul-mouthed, overbearing and antagonistic ex-con junkie drifter Adrian (Eric Roberts) while trekking across the dusty, lonely, remote and forbidding California desert.
Late, great villainous character actor Brion James has a welcome change-of-pace good guy role as a gregarious sheriff.
An exploitation Oscar and Felix casts Eric Roberts as Adrian, a dirty piece of human driftwood hitchhiking the lonesome desert highway where, in random stopovers, people are being massacred by a phantom calling himself THE HATCHET MAN.
Also, a local bank was robbed of a million bucks and uptight traveling salesman Jack, played by a subdued Lance Henriksen, reluctantly gives Adrian rides throughout the scorched purgatory.
The one part that really didn't make sense in retrospect, was when Jack was getting all irate trying to keep Adrian away from this couple, clearly leading the viewer to believe Adrian was the killer, which wasn't the way it turned out in the end.
You should think about releasing the film on Blu Ray. Eric Roberts and Lance Henriksen must be two of the most underrated and underused actors in American cinema.
Eric Robert's speech about how everyone is pretending and that there is nothing but emptiness at the center and that we are all beasts at the end of the day was very effective.
...provides a tolerable waste of time, particularly to fans of Lance Henricksen and/or Eric Roberts.
Even the ubiquitous Lin Shaye gets in on the action, along with a cameo appearance from Brion James, who is most distressingly looking every bit of his age.There are a few "Oh, c'mons!" in the script, and Henricksen's "fat roll" is a little too obviously fake, but by and large this little drama unfolds in a reasonably satisfying (if not overly believable) manner, much like its obviously inspirational predecessors, "Prey," and "The Hitcher." There are no great surprises in store, including the twist ending, but the production values are high, especially the cinematography by Levie "Malcolm in the Middle" Isaacks, and some moody scoring by Bennett "Jeepers Creepers" Salvay."You can't kill the Devil, Jack," but it's always fun when someone tries..
Good 90's B-movie suspense thriller with a solid cast.
An obscure serial killer flick starring the great Lance Henrickson and Eric Roberts as his nemesis with veteran B-movie actor Brion James as an unbeknown sheriff.
All you have to know is that Lance Henrickson (at his best) is a traveling salesman with a secret, Eric Roberts is the lone drifter that he picks up, and lots of people are getting hacked up by a serial killer called "Hatchet Man" everywhere they seem to go.
"Nature of the Beast" is a well-crafted thriller, with excellent chemistry between Eric Roberts and Lance Henriksen (two actors who have often wasted their time on worthless direct-to-video movies). |
tt3741700 | Godzilla: King of the Monsters | American reporter, Steve Martin (Raymond Burr), is brought to a hospital with dozens of maimed and wounded citizens. In flashback, Martin recalls stopping over in Tokyo, where a series of ship disasters catches his attention. When a survivor finally washes up on Odo Island, Martin flies there for the story with Tomo Iwanaga (Frank Iwanaga), a representative of the Japanese security forces and learns of the island inhabitants' belief in a sea monster god known to them as "Godzilla", which they believe is causing the disasters.
Martin returns to the island with Dr. Yamane (Takashi Shimura), who leads an investigation crew to Odo Island, where radioactive footprints and a Trilobite are discovered. An alarm rings and Martin, the villagers, and Dr. Yamane's crew head to a hill for safety, only to come across Godzilla. Dr. Yamane returns to Tokyo to present his findings and concludes that Godzilla was resurrected by repeated nuclear tests. Martin contacts his old friend, Dr. Daisuke Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata), for dinner but refuses due to planned commitments.
Emiko (Momoko Kochi), Dr. Yamane's daughter, goes over to Serizawa's to break off her arranged engagement to him, due to her love for Hideo Ogata (Akira Takarada), a salvage ship captain. However, Dr. Serizawa gives her a demonstration of his recent project which horrifies her and is sworn to secrecy while unable to break off the engagement. Godzilla surfaces from Tokyo Bay and attacks the city. The next morning, the JSDF arranges a modification of tall electrical towers along the coast of Tokyo to use against Godzilla.
Godzilla resurfaces that night and breaks through the electrical fences. Martin documents Godzilla's rampage via tape recorder and is nearly killed during the attack. The flashback ends and Martin wakes up back in the hospital with Emiko and Ogata. Horrified by the destruction, Emiko reveals Dr. Serizawa's Oxygen Destroyer to Martin and Ogata, which disintegrates oxygen atoms and the organisms die of a rotting asphyxiation. Emiko and Ogata go to Dr. Serizawa to convince him to use the Oxygen Destroyer but initially refuses. After watching a program displaying the nation's current tragedy, Dr. Serizawa finally gives in to Emiko and Ogata's pleas.
A navy ship takes Ogata and Dr. Serizawa to plant the device in Tokyo Bay. After finding Godzilla, Dr. Serizawa unloads the device and cuts off his air support, taking the secrets of the Oxygen Destroyer to his death. The mission proves to be a success but many mourn at the unexpected loss of Dr. Serizawa. Martin ends the film by saying, "The menace was gone, so was a great man. But the whole world could wake up and live again". | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0265343 | Monsoon Wedding | The film's central story deals with the organisation of an enormous, chaotic, and expensive wedding that is due to take place in a modern Indian family. Lalit Verma (Naseeruddin Shah) and his wife Pimmi (Lillete Dubey) have arranged a marriage for their daughter Aditi (Vasundhara Das) to Hemant Rai (Parvin Dabas). Hemant is the son of a family friend who lives in Texas, and Aditi has only known him for a few weeks. As so often happens in Indian culture, such a wedding means that, for one of the few times in each generation, the extended family comes together from all corners of the globe, bringing its emotional baggage along.
Lalit and Pimmi are helped with the main planning by Pimmi's sister Shashi and her husband C.L (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), who have arrived earlier from Oman. A few days before the engagement, Tej Puri (Rajat Kapoor), Lalit's extremely wealthy brother-in-law, arrives from the U.S.. Tej is married to Lalit's sister and has helped the Verma family regain their financial footing after the Partition of India left them penniless many years ago. Tej offers to pay for Aditi's cousin, Ria Verma (Shefali Shah) to attend university in the U.S., after the family consults him for advice. Ria and her mother live with the Verma family, who took them in after the death of Ria's father. Despite his generous offer, Ria stays away from Tej and is not comfortable in his presence.
Lalit begins experiencing difficulty in paying for the final, smaller aspects of the wedding and is embarrassed when he has to borrow money from friends and colleagues. Meanwhile, P.K. Dubey (Vijay Raaz), the eccentric wedding planner, falls in love with Alice, the Vermas' maid. Ria grows concerned after she witnesses what appears to be Tej flirting with a younger relative, ten-year-old Aliya. Aditi's younger brother Varun (Ishan Nair) plans an elaborate dance for the pre-wedding party with another cousin, Ayesha (Neha Dubey), but Lalit worries that his son is becoming too effeminate and plans to send him to boarding school. Dubey's workers see Alice trying on Aditi's wedding jewellery, and the men accuse her of stealing. The incident causes her to become withdrawn from Dubey and he grows depressed.
A few days before the wedding, Aditi sleeps with an old lover, her married boss Vikram; and confesses this to Hemant. The incident only serves as a reminder to Aditi as to why she stopped seeing Vikram. Though he is initially angry, Hemant is glad for her honesty and is confident that they can put it behind them and be happy together. The workers apologize to Alice and she reconciles with Dubey. The night before the ceremony, Varun refuses to dance due to the comments made by his father, and Ayesha performs with the help of Rahul (Randeep Hooda), Pimmi's nephew from Australia. Aditi and Hemant grow closer and they share a few intimate moments, which re-affirms their faith in the marriage. After a night of jokes, drama and dances, Ria catches Tej trying to take Aliya for a drive alone. Ria stops them from driving off and takes Aliya away from him, revealing to Lalit and others that Tej had molested her as a child. Lalit's sister does not believe her, attributing her accusations to her character and unmarried status. Emotionally distraught, Ria leaves.
The next day, Lalit pleads with Ria to return to the wedding, admitting that he can't possibly imagine what she has gone through but also saying that he can't disown Tej, since they are family. Ria is not pleased but agrees to return for the sake of Aditi. Hours before the wedding, however, Lalit changes his mind and tells his sister and Tej to leave the wedding and the family home. Tej's wife insists that Ria's accusation was a small matter but Lalit stands his ground.
The Monsoon rains begin as Aditi and Hemant are married in an elaborate wedding, while Dubey and Alice simultaneously wed in a simple ceremony, and later celebrate with the Verma's. Ria moves on from her past life, and is finally able to freely enjoy the festivities. | humor | train | wikipedia | Unlike many others I was not familiar with Mira Nair's work at all, but after having seen how she delicately handles child-abuse, pre-arranged-marital-infidelity, growing old and trying to be different as an upper middle class Indian boy, being a flirtatious, bored but basically settled non-resident Indian housewife, or being a too well-doing for your own class "wedding-parties producer" desperately seeking for love - I have surrendered!This is a Great Film by a Great Director and you might not want to miss it....
Yeah, we've seen ethnic weddings/family gatherings before ("Lovers and Other Strangers," "Wedding Banquet," "The Godfather," "Avalon," "What's Cooking," "Tortilla Soup," among others), but this is still an original.Not just because it takes place in India, not just because the characters come in from the Indian diaspora of IT jobs in the U.S., Australia, and the Middle East to the old homestead, and switch between Hindi and English mid-sentence, and switch comfortably between tradition and modernity.
Yeah I was confused sometimes about who's related to whom, but from the rebellious teen-age boy dreaming of being a chef, to the bride with a secret lover, to the Houston engineer come home for an arranged marriage, to the complicated intra-family obligations and past positive and negative interactions, to cousins, aunts and uncles who genuinely love each other -- all are fully realized and completely believable, being both very individual and very universal.
A bonus is the wonderful use of Indian music -- I have zero idea if it's folk or Bollywood music they're singing but the soundtrack is exotic and exuberant as the characters use it to liberate thoughts and feelings within the structure of wedding rituals, with dancing as well.
Without hand-held camera pretensions, Monsoon Wedding nonetheless feels more like meeting a family at a big affair than watching a movie.
It is also worthwile to mention two more exceptionally powerful performances by Vijay Raaz (who was a struggling actor before this movie) as Dubey (Alice's love interest) and Shefali Shetty, as Ria (who has a dark secret that can ruin the binds of family) These three performances were outstanding, but the entire cast was incredible.
I didn't hate it, but it doesn't begin to touch Monsoon Wedding's issues: family, trust, abuse, love, grief, joy, tradition and oh so much more.
Lalit has to make difficult choices but in the end like a cleansing monsoon down pour his decisions heal past hurts and make the wedding celebration in the rain more joyous.The movie is anchored by exceptionally strong performances from Naseer Shah, Lillette Dubey, Vijay Raaz, Tilotama and Shefali Shetty.
My favorite scenes are Naseer constantly calling the Aussie cousin idiot, the dance number at the post engagement party when the whole crowd joins in (I wanted to dance in the aisles too), the dynamics between Mr. Dubey and Alice, the song Aaaja Saanwariya Tohe Garwa Laga loon as Mr. Dubey goes to his Old Delhi home...This is a fine film that celebrates family and is a great one for repeat watching.
Indian Punjabi weddings are like that, loud and colorful, people coming in from practically everywhere, weird uncles and aunties who just don't know how to mind their own business, cousins coming in from abroad who have no clue whatsoever, IITian settled abroad.
I loved Naseer's character, he was like just another father cribbing over money spent on he marriage at the same time, being the happiest man on earth and going to every extent to ensure a great wedding.
Every character in the movie was well sketched in terms of having their own unique characters, Dubeyji being this harassed wedding planner in love with the house maid, that aunty from Australia who has her own story to tell, the brother being a little anti social and a bit feminine according to the father (which was really cute, the relationship), the mother who smokes in the loo, the young cousin trying to impress the boy, loud uncle.
Mira Nair has outdone herself in this film by giving us such a glorious look at India's upper classes during a pre-arranged wedding.
After all, this is how I speak ;-).As a non-resident Indian living in the US for three decades, the film reflects the reactions of my family and friends back in India every time I return for a visit.The story revolves authentically around the way rich, cosmopolitan Indians live.
It is not surprising that this is the only Indian movie that has been seen by more people outside India, than in India-to the tune of thirty million-that is testament to the talent of Film maker, in the caliber of Mira Nair..
The film is crowded with characters, the members of a family gathering together for the marriage of a young woman in New Delhi: we trace their stories, retrieve facts and feelings about their lives, get to know them, even when drama is behind the corner and the past seems to mix with the present.
The problem is that the film goes for a collection of characters and story lines all around the one wedding and not all of them work as well as one another.
It was still pretty interesting and become more cohesive towards the end but I was not as drawn in and impressed as I had expected to be to be honest Die Hard was on the other channel and it was a real effort to ignore the luring calls of that great movie and stick with this.However what the film does manage to do pretty well is deliver a very vibrant film which, for the majority of its running time, gives a lively and busy impression of this part of India and is enjoyable mainly because its energy and pace.
'Monsoon Wedding' directed by Mira Nair, is the story of Aditi, a young woman who is in love with a married man, yet has acquiesced to an arranged marriage in India.
During this time, there are several subplots revealed, involving fledgling love, the institution of family in India, and buried family scandal.Nair provides a very beautiful setting for the film, the most prominent feature within this setting being the incredible bright colors of the wedding decorations and wardrobe.
As a Delhi family prepares to celebrate its daughter's wedding to an expatriate Indian living in Canada, the secret tensions, desires and histories of its members are gradually revealed as either endearing or dysfunctional - but always credible.It would be foolish to pigeonhole Nair as an 'ethnic' director - her films are about families, relationships and culture, and they are universal.'Monsoon Wedding' brings all these themes together, across sexes, generations, classes and continents.
Tradition vs Modern ways - it's the underlying element knitting the sub-plots together.Mira Nair's romantic dramedy 'Monsoon Wedding' has genuine likability value, filled with colour and energy.
The unsure bride-to-be who still hasn't gotten over her past relationship, the completely occupied father-of-the-bride dealing with debts and responsibilities, the bored but committed mother trying to find meaning, the usually bad-tongued wedding planner trying to find love, the unmarried cousin still in pain from her childhood molestation trauma - all these and many such characters just fill the story with brimming honesty.
Nevertheless, I am more than glad I finally watched this one.Mira Nair's film presents a voyeuristic view of an ordinary next door type North Indian wedding.
The story revolves around not one but many well developed characters brought in together for a wedding on a rainy day invigorating hues of different emotions in the viewer.The film honestly tries to bring out the true dimensions of human relationships in a society where the imperfect things in life are swept under the carpet as if they cease to exist.
Mira Nair captivated on the essence of Indian wedding , which is soooo beautiful,this lady has got the mettle and already she has proved it many times.another thing what i liked in the movie is it simplicity none of the scenes were exaggerated and they bring out the best human emotions on screen ,what a delight to watch.The movie represents the contemporary India,just like any other family in the movie too they have their internal problemsIt was not a yash chopra genre movie where everything is perfecthuge sets n all and thats where Monsoon wedding sets itself apart.In the past few years after HAHK bollywood witnessed many marriage oriented movies but Monsoon Wedding is of a diff league A class cinema.
Monsoon Wedding is full of life interesting characters, bright swirling colours, fabulous Indian music and like one of Nair's previous efforts, the Oscar nominated Salaam Bombay, seems poised to break through the cultural marketplace and become a mainstream North American hit.
Mira Nair does an excellent job of taking an overly used theme, weddings, and giving it a personal touch that reflects the ideology of Indians both young and old.
By having many things going on during the lives of the many different characters we are able to get an interesting perspective on India and how marriages effect and are played out in such a family oriented society..
Monsoon Wedding directed by Mira Nair is a film about an India family marriage.
You see family parties, drama, lot's of music and dancing and a new romance for Dubey the wedding planner and the household maid, Alice.The great filmmaking and the use of hand held captures camera scenes is an important setting in the movie.
In the movie Dubey starts putting up a white tent to display a more American traditional wedding but to the Indian dad white is meant for a funeral and he demands a color tent consisting of reds and oranges.With combinations of warmth and laughter, music and dance, romance and serious problems, Director Mira Nair has made this movie a family entertainment..
Mira Nair's simple love letter to large families is terrific, filled with wonderful characters and funny situations, the antithesis of Robert Altman, whose `A Wedding' and `Dr. T & The Women' mined similar territory but in a dysfunctional, exploitive way.
Her huge cast (there are dozens and dozens of speaking parts) is warm, confident and--though it takes place in an exotic locale--familiar; but it's Vijay Raaz as the snitty wedding planner humbled by the discovery of true love who steals the show, a heartbreakingly real performance that grows increasingly more powerful as the film progresses.
'Monsoon Wedding' is indeed about a wedding, an arranged marriage for Aditi, the daughter of the middle-class Vedha family of New Delhi, and what happens to them and all the many other people involved in the festivities.
The woman in the audience with me who giggled repeatedly through Monsoon Wedding, along with the five or six Aussie/Indian little kids who chatted away delightedly during the film, added to the charm of a very good time at the cinema.Monsoon Wedding, directed by Mira Nair (Salaam Bombay!, Mississippi Masala) along with writer Sabrina Dhawan have concocted a delicious wedding punch of colour, vivacity, romance and drama.
The editing of this film is superb.Of course we're treated to some exuberant singing and dancing numbers, coloured by those peaking Indian melodies and with flashes of eyes and midriffs.There's a ridiculously romantic scene concocted with marigolds and candles and a wonderful dance routine in what looks like some sort of empty swimming pool.There must be twenty major characters, a moment of extreme pathos, and at least twenty moments that will encourage you to smile.
I first saw this film in Mumbai, where though I missed the sub-titles that made my appreciation of its humour clearer, I was surrounded by the atmosphere of a large Indian crowd, the plaintive cinema advertising (Please do not spit or urinate in the street!)and the positive expectation created by friends who had already seen it back home and enjoyed it.The characters are wonderful and the film is well scripted to make maximum money by appealing to an international audience, making it easy for Americans, Australians, Dubai residents and more to identify with people in the movie.The focus is on the family coping with each other and each member of the family facing him/herself as the wedding draws near.
Maybe it's my problem, but I can never understand the professional knockers, the ones who can't enjoy a fun movie because in some ways it fails to live up to their superior artistic sensitivities.I thoroughly enjoyed Monsoon Wedding, and as it wound towards its conclusion felt it had managed to give some profound insights into the dilemmas created when east meets west and the old traditions become suddenly challenged by new social norms.
We've seen it all before, of course: big wedding, family crises, old scores being settled, secrets being revealed, people falling in love, etc.
Actually, no-one minds getting wet, for it seems a wet bride is a happy one.Watching the movie with a partly Indian audience gave a different perspective to it all there was great hilarity when one character says `now speak English; it shows you are a refined person', and when the event organiser Dubey ( a gem of a performance from Vijay Raaz), his suggestion of white for the marquee rebuffed by the bride's father, tells his men, `OK, put up the old colours' (which turn out to be brilliant orange and red).
Here love blooms despite all the social constraints.The noise, number of characters and Mira Nair's Altman-style direction make this is a somewhat confusing movie to watch, and even at the end I hadn't worked out exactly who was related to who.
The music, singing and dancing is well integrated into the story and although there's a lot of noise, it's generally easy to listen and watch for the 115 minutes it takes Mira Nair to paint her cross-cultural picture of a universal happy event..
Although entertaining in some sense; Wedding offers nothing new and confirms that Ms. Nair still lacks in her films the following: narrative flow, subtlety and basic crafts of filmmaking which differentiates a good movie from an average or a bad one.
Walking out of the theater one feels good about the vibrant colors of India, it's free spirit that is omnipresent, the music (albeit not original) but cannot deny the fact that a lot of people with a handheld camera, lacking illusions about cinema verite and a sudden urge to make a film in 30 days or less can churn out better stuff than Monsoon Wedding.
May be the sad truth is filmmaking in a lot of people's mind does not equate to good storytelling and a thoughtful representation of the subject matter in hand.Did the jurors at Venice Film Festival actually see the movie or they were happy to note that Wedding is not your everyday Bollywood production?
One (Westerner) would assume that the typical Indian family would be quite different from theirs because of all the talk of arranged marriages and other traditions that are seen throughout India.
I consider this her best work because in Monsoon Wedding she is able to tackle these issues within the framework of an overall feel-good movie.
Monsoon Wedding- 2001 Director: Mira NairMonsoon Wedding directed by Mira Nair is a film about an India family marriage.
The great film-making and the use of hand held captures camera scenes is an important setting in the movie.With combinations of warmth and laughter, music and dance, romance and serious problems, Director Mira Nair has made this movie a family entertainment.
That's because although I had seen it before, it had no significance, it was just an intimate and authentic look at a loving family with quirky characters having an arranged wedding in India with side dramas.
It's set during and around an arranged wedding and the movie follows multiple different members of the family and others involved.
If I try to go into details I can say that the movie is about a bride who is about to get married but is still in love with a married man, or it's about a father who wants to make a beautiful wedding for his daughter but eventually will find himself torn between the feeling of great debt to one of the members of his family and the fact of revealed child abuse.
Whether it is a stressed father, a confused daughter forcing herself into a marriage, a woman having to see her disturbing childhood again but thru the eyes of another or even a crazy event planner's realization to settle down.Now if you have not seen the movie, you probably think, "What does this have to do anything with a festive Indian wedding?" Well, nothing.
fun, light-hearted feel-good wedding movie.
I think this is Mira Nair's best work thus far.The movie revolves around the wedding of the only daughter Aditi of an Indian family living in New Delhi.
The story is profound, and the wedding is NOT the main event - merely a forum for more important events to unfold in the lives of people who surround the bride and groom.And if you love Indian music, see this.
If you have never been exposed to Indian music, you may fall in love with it by the time the closing credits roll.I highly recommend this sublime work of movie art..
Like all of Mira Nair's films set in India, much of what goes on will be baffling to non-Indian viewers; you just have to "go with it" and be rewarded.
Monsoon Wedding, Mira Nairs film, details the days leading up to an Indian woman's wedding.
Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding reflects the marriage of Indian tradition with modernization and globalization, which is represented in the film through the language, scenery, clothing, and music.
A delightful "happening", "Monsoon Wedding" will score best with viewers into foreign films or with a specific interest in East Indian culture.
I confess to hold a prejudice against Indian films, and it will take a few more like 'Monsoon Wedding' to erase it.
But "Monsoon Wedding" makes it clear that one does not have to leave India to find clashes of values within the Indian family. |
tt1373156 | Karthik Calling Karthik | Karthik (Farhan Akhtar) is an introvert who lacks confidence and feels trapped in his average job at a construction company. He is continuously troubled by an incident from his childhood: His older brother, Kumar, used to torture him, but whenever he complained to his parents, they did not believe him. One day, Kumar took Karthik to a well and tried to throw him in it, but Karthik escaped. Kumar accidentally fell inside the well and died. Karthik has thought himself responsible for his brother's death ever since.
Shonali Mukherjee (Deepika Padukone) is a co-worker at Karthik's company, whom Karthik secretly loved though she remains unaware of his existence, much less his feelings. After being derided by his boss Mr Kamath (Ram Kapoor) yet again; Karthik figures his life can’t get any worse and decides to commit suicide. Just as he is about to, a stranger with the same, exact voice as his, calls and says that he is also Karthik, convincing him that he has the ability to change his life. These phone calls become Karthik's life guide. His chats take place every morning at 5:00 a.m. and the caller provides advice on Karthik's problems, guiding him to become a successful man, win Shonali's heart, and bring color to his otherwise dreary life.
However, when Karthik tells Shonali and his psychiatrist about the phone calls, despite being warned not to, the mysterious caller gets angry and tells Karthik that if he could bring him up, he could also throw him down. As per his word, things start going downhill. Karthik's boss throws him out and Shonali leaves him. Karthik decides that if he goes somewhere he does not know, then the caller wouldn't know where he is either and stop calling him. Karthik travels to an unknown place, takes shelter in a small hotel, and asks the receptionist to remove the telephone and room number plate.
After a few months, Karthik is comfortably living in Cochin with a decent job. His life is back to normal except for the fact that he refuses to have a phone line. Upon his boss's request, he is forced to purchase a landline. He goes to great lengths to ensure that he himself is unaware of the phone number. However, one day at exactly 5 a.m, he receives a call from the mysterious caller, who threatens to kill him. Meanwhile, Shonali is contacted by Dr. Kapadia, who reveals the twist: Karthik actually suffers from Schizophrenia. He has an alter-ego that is more assertive and advises him on how to live life. However it was revealed that the strange caller was Karthik himself. He has been dealing with this condition from a young age, when he created a fake brother named Kumar with his imagination. Karthik's phone has the capacity to record messages and act as a playback feature at a certain time. Karthik would wake up in the middle of the night, leave himself messages as his alter ego, and return to sleep, where he would awake once again at 5 AM to take his own calls.
Eventually, Karthik Narayan becomes so disturbed that he attempts to commit suicide again. Shonali, realizing the truth, arrives at the right time to save him. They reconcile and she stands by him, helping him with his condition. After a few months, Karthik is in the process of dealing with his disorder and lives a happy and rehabilitated life with Shonali by his side. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Farhan Akhtar stars as Karthik, a young square man who blames himself for his elder brother's death at childhood and who lives a very unsocial life, working at a big company where he has to bear his boss' daily humiliations, while Shonali, the girl he is interested in does not even know of his existence.
Nightly calls from this very person consist of constant positive advices of how to run his life and different encouragements, and consequently Karthik turns into an altogether different person, much more secure, happy and easy-going.
Things seem perfect, but the story takes an unexpected twist.That's Vijay Lalwani's directorial debut, Karthik Calling Karthik, which is for the most part a successful psychological thriller.
Somehow, I could correlate to KARTHIK from the word go and loved it, I was so into the movie that I watched into full one stretch and didn't even move a single inch here and there, come what may.
So forget critics, watch this superb movie and be proud that in this totally blurred and commercial age of bollywood in which actors like SRK and AKSHAY don't know nothing except to be making films for own motive, we have actors like FARHAN which r sincere and want to work from their heart, not because they want to earn money, but because they want to act..
The telephone has left its indelible mark as a horror film element, thanks to many Japanese films and Hollywood remakes which dwell on mankind's fear of pervasive technology, and it is easy to mistake this Bollywood film, written and directed by débutant Vijay Lalwani as one of the run of the mill horror films which the protagonist get antagonized by strange phone calls made to him in the middle of the night.
Thankfully though it steered clear of that formula, although it did become quite the stretch in its home run revelation, to achieve what's relatively short for an Indian film that clocks in just slightly over two hours.Farhan Akktar impresses and carries the film on his shoulders from start to end.
Famous for being a prolific producer and director himself, he has no lack of acting chops and takes on the role as the mysterious Karthik Narayan, a meek man who is agonized by his childhood secret of having been involved in his brother's death.
Run, girl!The only other film I watched Farhan star in, is the ensemble piece Luck By Chance, which gave a contemporary look at the Bollywood film industry.
It's a confidence booster that Karthik's own psychiatrist (Shefali Shetty) seem unable to dispense, and with the prep talk every dawn at 5am, Karthik becomes the confident man as he struts around the office, succeeding in every aspect thanks to those calls, and eventually wooing the girl of his dreams.The first half focused on the romance for the most parts after Karthik's professional life gets sorted, and here the usual musical montages form the backdrop of the courtship between Karthik and the outgoing Shonali.
Karthik Calling Karthik again doesn't allow her to break new ground, other than being the clotheshorse in the film..For a first timer, Vijay Lalwani doesn't become like Karthik in being the bundle of nerves, but pulls this film through with a story that discusses about how technology develops itself despite detrimental effects to health, and mental issues of guilt and intricate complexities of the mind.
The cards get kept close to his chest with a satisfying revelation at the end of course, but somehow the second half, in which Karthik would be set to challenge the caller after a series of downfalls because of the breaking of promises (and if pushing it, the inevitable trusting of a woman!), seem to be dragging things out for a tad too long, and convenient to boot as well.No cheap gimmicks were used, and by steering clear of the expected, Karthik versus Karthik manages ring through (pardon the bad pun) as an above average thriller..
It seldom happens after watching a Bollywood movie that you walk out assured that this has to be a Hollywood remake, going by the quality of the script and the execution, and then are surprised that it isn't.
The soundtrack is well embedded into the movie and the camera-work has a youthful feel to it.We didn't have big expectations from the movie, being our first Farhan Akhtar enacted movie, and we only know him more as a director.
Definitely have to appreciate the director and team for a good movie far from typical bollywood crap item songs, crap scenes, etc.If u really enjoy movies that would thrill you, it is indeed a must watch.
though by all Indian website reviews it was not regarded a good film so i prepared myself that this film was a flop so would not be good but as movie reach to its hour the film itself changed my mind and gave birth to feeling within myself that i am not watching a bollywood film but a film of Hollywood....farhan akhter and vijay(director,screenplay writer) really deserve some recognition for his work...
It's nice to see lot of bollywood movies coming up with tight script and engaging direction.
Even most traditional film director/actor is coming with as bold movie as "My name is Khan"!!
Let's hope this trend will continue.As movie is suspense thriller, it's not worth to discuss story.
Hope he will not let his inside director vanish completely.All in all KCK is one more movie from bollywood this year that is worth watching.
Inspite of it being borrowed, this film is a good one time watch n it is heavily saved by Farhan Akhtar.
This is Farhan Akhtar's third film as an actor and it must be said that he takes giant strides when it comes to acting..
Not many movies in bollywood have been made under the genre of psychological thriller and that is main highlight of the film..
She definitely needs someone to train her!The main aim of a suspense movie is to keep the audience guessing what will happen next and Karthik Calling Karthik succeeds in doing that!To conclude:Positives: The suspense is maintained well, Superb acting by Farhan and excellent music!Negatives: The ending of the movie may NOT be appreciated by some!My Rating : 7/10Thanks and Regards.
The film at every level speaks to the audience like a friend who teases constantly.If the scripting is powerful, then obviously the film will conclude appropriately, hence Karthik Calling Karthik is the best example on how to write a good script which keeps the audience gripped in the cinema right till the end.This film is not for the lovers of Bollywood Love Drama's, but for people who enjoy into thinking deeply and then finally relaxing with a relief after the suspense is revealed.Characterization is well placed, and surely the auditioning was well handled.
1st half is average but watchable and in 2nd half movie picks up real pace....its a perfect thriller.....u keep guessing till the last moment......what more u want.....
So I will not be boring you with the story but only what I thought of it.Karthik Calling Karthik is an exceptionally well made film from the beginning to the end (promise I wasn't paid for this).
The penultimate question would be will I be recommending this movie to my family and friends over My Name Is Khan or 3 idiots (exceptional good films in their own right) my answer would be definitely yes (but you should absolutely watch those two films, they are great)..
And gone are the days where the girl used to bin the cigarette, its boy turn to take vengeance.Ø Ram Kapoor was well suited to don the Indian Boss.Ø Yatin Karyekar had a short but effective role.Ø Shefali Shetty was an unwarranted character in the movie.
Very good performances from foxy Farhan & the delectably dimpled Deepika and some excellent humour gets almost completely wiped out by an end that makes you feel limp as you walk out of the hall.Karthik (Farhan) is a loser.
Both manage to keep a straight face consistently so it adds to the fun.Farhan & Riteish's (the producers) movies always have good music and excellent contemporary styling and this one is no exception, a v nice background score being hummable and enjoyable while the transformed Farhan gets this really cool pad and cool office.I wish they'd thought of another, less predictable, more innovative ending (my wife actually came up with one that wasn't too bad).
Movie starts smoothly, with brilliant acting skills shown by Farhan Akhtar.
Karthik Calling Karthik exactly falls in the same category where the idea is good and the presentation is fine but there are certain facts mentioned below which completely go against the movie and disappoint.1.
The script writers have prolonged several sequences in the film in order to make it a full length movie and in the end the double identity secret turns out to be a complete spoiler.4.
The writers certainly should have thought of a different mystery in the end, which could have enhanced the overall impact of an otherwise watchable movie with some good performances.In short, KCK is a worth-watching flick before the interval and simply pathetic in its second half.
The soft romance between Farhan & Deepika in the first hour is beautifully conceived by the director and is the only worth mentioning merit of the movie.
In fact Farhan's act in KCK can easily be rated much better than his other two movies as an actor.
Farhan & Deepika form a pleasant pair on screen but you are sure going to miss the witty dialogues between the couple, prominently showcased in the promotional campaign of the movie.
The movie which was very much based on the suspense factor of the second Karthik, loses its track post intermission and fails to impress with an underwritten revelation of the secret.
But the movie is still watchable for the dazzling act of Farhan and his breezy romance with Deepika..
Farhan Akhtar gives a very good performance as Karthik.
Farhan Akhtar starring as Karthik is our self blaming office boy who is regularly abused verbally and emotionally by his landlord, boss and co- workers and every time he takes it all in on the pretext that he led to his brother's death and this is his penance.
I bought this because I am a huge fan of Deepika Padukone and ended up loving it for the work that Farhan Akhtar brings to it.
As you watch the movie the plot becomes believable and you start to feel for Karthik.
I only say these were stretching roles for Farhan and Deepika, good roles, roles they did well.I can't claim to have seen too many movies about mental illness in my years.
When suicide seemed to be his only option, things change for good when a mysterious morning caller claiming to be Karthik advices him on repairing his life.
Without resorting to overdone machismo, Farhan's portrayal of guarded optimism makes the Karthik believable.An hour into the movie, things are going is good.
Ram Kapoor who has taken time off from playing 'brother' on Swayamvars has done well too.To his credit, Farhan Akhtar's twice as much effort to justify two Karthiks in the movie's name is commendable.
This one does not have a ensemble star cast as ' Luck By Chance ' or trendy touch like ' Rock On ', instead the movie is bit darker and seems to loose it touch in the second half, At some points you feel that the movie is dragged little too much, this could have been made as a 30 minutes episode on some thriller TV series.
Any way this is not an entertainer you get bored after watching 1 hr of it.The movie was all about Farhan and he has done a good job being Karthik "He will definitely make it to the best actor category in all the major Indian Awards" he has a completely different look and manages to surprise audience with his performance, deepika looks glamorous but does not have much role to play compared to the male lead.
Deepika was excellent in Love Aaj Kal and Farhan Akhtar was good in Luck By Chance.
As much as I love Farhan Akhtar (I placed two of his films in Bollywood decade top 10), I think his acting is good without being close to great.
His performance is very weak and he is unable to carry on the whole film on himself.The movie has a really bad ending which was the worst part.
As time progresses he becomes a winner in all aspects of life but becomes heavily dependent on the early morning calls from the other karthik.When his new found girlfriend Shonali(Deepika) insists that he keep no secrets, he is forced to reveal about the other Karthik.
Too often Hollywood directors have to cut good material to fit the movie into a time frame.Anyway this year might become a turning point for Bollywood thanks to films like this.
Karthik calling Karthik is a good movie with decent suspense and nice romance and comedy in between....although i had figured out a certain part of the suspense it still did succeed to surprise me a couple of times or so...so for those wouldn't know the suspense in the beginning it would be even better...a real revelation....the movie doesn't progress at a very fast pace-and that's not a negative aspect of the film-but it does progress steadily...the basic concept though was inspired but the story and screenplay were original and impressive...the dialogs are witty,funny and real not filmy....the first time director Vijay Lalwani is good...did not expect him to be as much good...there were some slick scenes shot in black and white-really liked their timing and the style-and some impressive camera work...his direction is better than what i expected because i didn't expect much....the director gives no unnecessary build ups and wastes no time in bringing in the main theme of the movie to the forefront...farhan akhtar is just amazing in his role and without doubt its no easy role to play..he impresses as the loser Karthik..the suave Karthik..and as the Karthik's voice over the phone...Deepika Padukone is good too...she's damn spontaneous and that's one quality i like in actors...but not every actor has it....the supporting cast is good too...the music is amazing..Shankar Ehsaan Loy's music is cool..background music complements well....
all in all its a nice entertainer with intelligent script and not the usual 'bollywood' crap...go check it out because when its farhan akhtar's movies he never fails to deliver..
Well you have to go and watch yourself what it takes for a movie to be totally astonishing..It is a 120 minutes movie but seems like 120 secs..The debutant director Lalwani has done a great job..He has not let the 'suspense' element spill out till the last minute..You start wondering where the movie is heading , but at last you can easily arrange the puzzle's pieces..He needs a applaud for doing the job..Farhan is excellent in looks and acting..He is a simple guy who is satisfied with his life..He doesn't have a mobile phone in this 21st century..He has to be contacted only through land line..This is the soul of the movie..Works for a real estate agency in Mumbai..He likes a gorgeous girl in his office , but is unable to express his love to her..So he just types a email daily and saves it to draft..Every one in the office utilize his 'modesty' to extract a lot of work from him in which he is perfect..But no one respects him..It eats his confidence bit by bit ..Finally one day he breaks..He comes home and throws the land line in despair and it is shattered..So he purchases a new land line set..This changes his life forever..Watch the movie for the suspense element..Enough of spoilers for now..Deepika Padukone is as charming as ever..She fits in the role to the maximum..Her 'attire' needs a special mention..Music through out the movie is superb..You will be completely indulged in it..Cinematography is excellent..So is the art direction..The apartments and the interiors of the residence are mind blowing..If you want to watch a Bollywood flick with a classic taste then this is the one for you...
After 'Luck by chance' Farhan Akhtar is back on the big screen in 'Karthik calling Karthik'.
Deepika Padukone who seemed perfect for the role manages to give good support to Farhan.
A perfect thriller is the one where whatever you are guessing keeps on turning out to be wrong and that's what happens in the movie..
The acting was satisfactory but nothing exciting, In an attempt to give movie feel of REALITY, the the plot looses itself many times in movie, many scenes were unnecessary and concept is not worth making a movie about....Farhan akhtar who is more then capable director with movies like 'DIL CHAHTA HAI' under his belt is expected to make better movies....and the last scene of movie makes sure that its a typical Hindi movie where hero always survives, the movie would have left greater impact, if karthik would have died...(and the phone would have rung again......at 5AM ;) ).
Though the theme seems to be good, the story drags the romantic relationship between Farhan and Deepika.
Really did not expect something as stupid as that in the end.One can watch the movie when s/he has nothing else to do...
The best aspects about his films is that they are far from the usual masala fare,make a whole lot of sense, and are very relatable.So, the movie starts with poor Karthik being bullied by all sorts of people.
I loved the positive ending, the fact that Shonali was so sensitive to Karthik, and that the film did complete justice to a person representing the mentally disturbed.
I had to rate this 1 out of 10 but it does not even deserve a 0.5.I wish I could take back the 2 and a half hours of my life.Do not watch this movie even if its for Free. |
tt0056891 | Bye Bye Birdie | === Act one ===
Agent and songwriter Albert Peterson finds himself in trouble when hip-thrusting rock and roll superstar Conrad Birdie is drafted into the Army. Albert's secretary and sweetheart, Rose "Rosie" Alvarez, comes up with a last-ditch publicity stunt to have Conrad Birdie record and perform a song before he is sent overseas. She makes Albert promise to give up the music business and to start teaching English at schools ("An English Teacher"). They plan to have Birdie sing Albert's new song "One Last Kiss" and give one lucky girl from his fan club a real "last kiss" on The Ed Sullivan Show before going into the Army.
The lucky girl chosen randomly from Conrad's fan club is fifteen-year-old Kim MacAfee from Sweet Apple, Ohio. All the teenagers in Sweet Apple are catching up on the latest gossip about Kim MacAfee and Hugo Peabody going steady ("The Telephone Hour"). Kim, excited to have a boyfriend, reflects on how happy she is with her maturity ("How Lovely to Be a Woman"). She quits the Conrad Birdie fan club over the phone because of the new milestone happening in her life, and as she tells the news, her best friend Ursula is shocked. Meanwhile, Conrad, Albert, and Rose set off to Sweet Apple to prepare for the event. Before they depart by train from New York City, local teenage girls are ecstatic to meet Conrad, although one young girl is sad because she thinks that by the time Conrad gets out of the army, she'll be too old for him. Albert advises her to be optimistic ("Put on a Happy Face"). Soon, reporters arrive with questions for Conrad, but Rosie, Albert, and the girls answer for him, pushing away tabloids ("Normal, American Boy"). Conrad receives a hero's welcome in Sweet Apple, and Hugo worries that Kim likes Conrad more than she likes him, but Kim assures Hugo that he's the only one she loves ("One Boy"). Conrad shocks the town's parents and drives the teenage girls crazy with his performance of "Honestly Sincere", which causes all of the girls (and the Mayor's wife) to faint.
Conrad becomes a guest in the MacAfee house and irritates Kim's father, Harry MacAfee, by being a rude and selfish guest. Mr. MacAfee does not want Kim to kiss Conrad until Albert tells him their whole family will be on The Ed Sullivan Show. Mr. and Mrs. MacAfee, Kim, and her younger brother Randolph sing Sullivan's praises ("Hymn For a Sunday Evening").
Hugo senses Kim's attraction to Conrad and becomes very jealous. Albert's overbearing, interfering mother, Mae Peterson, comes to break up her son's relationship with Rosie. She introduces Albert to Gloria Rasputin, a curvy blonde she met on the bus who could replace Rosie as his secretary. Gloria hopes that if she helps Albert with papers, he can get Gloria into show business, as she is a tap dancer. Mae sings "Swanee River" as Gloria tap dances (usually depicted as her making a fool of herself) and ends doing a split. Unfortunately, she needs a little help getting up from her stance. Albert gives her a job to type up some revenues and Rosie is furious but hides it from Albert.
Rosie, jealous and angry, dreams of violent ways to murder Albert ("One Hundred Ways Ballet"). Rosie and Hugo plot to ruin the broadcast. Conrad sings on The Ed Sullivan Show ("One Last Kiss") and as he leans in to kiss Kim, Hugo runs onstage and punches him in the face. On live television, Conrad faints, Rosie breaks up with Albert, and Albert, trying to cover for the mishaps of the evening, leads a chorus of "Normal American Boy".
=== Act two ===
Despite plans to re-film the broadcast, Rosie and Kim resolve to leave Albert and Hugo, lamenting their own stupidity for having fallen in love with the boys ("What Did I Ever See in Him?"). Rosie leaves the MacAfee house and Kim plans to go with her, but her father doesn't let her. Kim sneaks out of the house and joins the Sweet Apple teens. Conrad decides he wants to go out and have a good time on his last night as a civilian and encourages the teens to party ("A Lot of Livin' to Do"). Conrad, Kim, and all the teenagers except Hugo head for the Ice House to party without adult supervision. The Ice House is where people go when they want to be alone. Hugo goes to Maude's Roadside Retreat, hoping to get drunk, but proprietor Charles F. Maude can tell that he's under age and refuses to serve him.
When Mr. MacAfee finds out Kim has run away, he and Mrs. MacAfee lament how disobedient kids are today ("Kids"). Rosie ends up at Maude's Roadside Retreat and starts hitting on other men, but Albert calls her on the telephone and begs her to return to him ("Baby, Talk to Me"). Rosie, hoping to forget Albert, interrupts a Shriners meeting being held in Maude's private dining room. She flirts with all the Shriners, and they begin a wild dance. Hugo and Albert rescue Rosie from the crazed Shriners, and Albert finally stands up to his mother, telling her to go home. Mae becomes so upset that she leaves, but not before heavily dramatizing the sacrifices she made for him. ("A Mother Doesn't Matter Anymore.") Hugo tells the MacAfees and the other parents that the teenagers have gone to the Ice House, and they all declare that they don't know what's wrong with their kids ("Kids Reprise"). Randolph joins in, stating that his older sister and the other teens are "so ridiculous and so immature".
The adults and the police arrive at the Ice House and arrest Conrad, although he doesn't appear to have done anything illegal. Kim claims she was intimidated by Conrad and gladly returns to Hugo. After a reconciliation with Albert, Rosie tells Albert's mother, Mae, that she will marry Albert despite Mae's racist objections, and to irritate her, declares she's Spanish ("Spanish Rose") with deliberate comic exaggeration. Albert bails Conrad out of jail and arranges for him to sneak out of town dressed as a middle-aged woman — presumably so he can report for Army induction as scheduled. Albert gets his mother to leave Sweet Apple bound for home on the same train, getting Conrad and his mother out of his life for good. Albert tells Rosie they're not going back to New York; they're going to Pumpkin Falls, Iowa, a small town in need of a (married) English teacher. Albert professes that everything is rosy with Rosie ("Rosie"), and they go off together happily engaged as Rosie had always dreamed. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1242457 | Taras Bulba | === 1842 revised edition ===
Taras Bulba's two sons, Ostap and Andriy, return home from an Orthodox seminary in Kiev. Ostap is the more adventurous, whereas Andriy has deeply romantic feelings of an introvert. While in Kiev, he fell in love with a young Polish noble girl, the daughter of the Governor of Kowno, but after a couple of meetings (edging into her house and in church), he stopped seeing her when her family returned home. Taras Bulba gives his sons the opportunity to go to war. They reach the Cossack camp at the Zaporozhian Sich, where there is much merrymaking. Taras attempts to rouse the Cossacks to go into battle. He rallies them to replace the existing Hetman when the Hetman is reluctant to break the peace treaty.
They soon have the opportunity to fight the Poles, who rule all Ukraine west of the Dnieper River. The Poles, led by their ultra-Catholic king, are accused of atrocities against Orthodox Christians, in which they are aided by Jews. After killing many of the Jewish merchants at the Sich, the Cossacks set off on a campaign against the Poles. They besiege Dubno Castle where, surrounded by the Cossacks and short of supplies, the inhabitants begin to starve. One night a Tatar woman comes to Andriy and rouses him. He finds her face familiar and then recalls she is the servant of the Polish girl he was in love with. She advises him that all are starving inside the walls. He accompanies her through a secret passage starting in the marsh that goes into the monastery inside the city walls. Andriy brings loaves of bread with him for the starving girl and her mother. He is horrified by what he sees and in a fury of love, forsakes his heritage for the Polish girl.
Meanwhile, several companies of Polish soldiers march into Dubno to relieve the siege, and destroy a regiment of Cossacks. A number of battles ensue. Taras learns of his son's betrayal from Yankel the Jew, whom he saved earlier in the story. During one of the final battles, he sees Andriy riding in Polish garb from the castle and has his men draw him to the woods, where he takes him off his horse. Taras bitterly scolds his son, telling him "I gave you life, I will take it", and shoots him dead.
Taras and Ostap continue fighting the Poles. Ostap is captured while his father is knocked out. When Taras regains consciousness he learns that his son was taken prisoner by the Poles. Yankel agrees to take Taras to Warsaw, where Ostap is held captive, hiding Taras in a cartload of bricks. Once in Warsaw, a group of Jews help Yankel dress Taras as a German count. They go into the prison to see Ostap, but Taras unwittingly reveals himself as a Cossack, and only escapes by use of a great bribe. Instead, they attend the execution the following day. During the execution, Ostap does not make a single sound, even while being broken on the wheel, but, disheartened as he nears death, he calls aloud on his father, unaware of his presence. Taras answers him from the crowd, thus giving himself away, but manages to escape.
Taras returns home to find all of his old Cossack friends dead and younger Cossacks in their place. He goes to war again. The new Hetman wishes to make peace with the Poles, which Taras is strongly against, warning that the Poles are treacherous and will not honor their words. Failing to convince the Hetman, Taras takes his regiment away to continue the assault independently. As Taras predicted, once the new Hetman agrees to a truce, the Poles betray him and kill a number of Cossacks. Taras and his men continue to fight and are finally caught in a ruined fortress, where they battle until the last man is defeated.
Taras is nailed and tied to a tree and set aflame. Even in this state, he calls out to his men to continue the fight, claiming that a new Tsar is coming who will rule the earth. The story ends with Cossacks on the Dniester River recalling the great feats of Taras and his unwavering Cossack spirit.
=== Differences from 1835 edition ===
The original 1835 edition reflects the Ukrainian context of the story. In response to critics who called his The Government Inspector "anti-Russian", and under pressure from the Russian government that considered Taras Bulba too Ukrainian, Gogol decided to revise the book. The 1842 edition was expanded by three chapters and rewritten to include Russian nationalist themes in keeping with the official tsarist ideology at the time, as well as the author's changing political and aesthetic views (later manifested in Dead Souls and Selected Passages from Correspondence with his Friends). The changes included three new chapters and a new ending (in the 1835 edition, the protagonist is not burned at the stake by the Poles). The little-known original edition was only translated into Ukrainian and made available to the Ukrainian audience in 2005. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Bortko set out to make an apparent epic here, but sadly, missed an opportunity to tell a great story.
What Gogol did NOT include was the Russian polemic which slaps you in the face at every turn in this film.I agree with some of the other reviewers that casting and costuming were great!
Bogdan Stupka is always a pleasure to watch, and for a better version of these times, watch Hoffman's 1999 Polish epic "Ogniem i mieczem", in which Stupka plays Bogdan Khmelnitski.The patriotic speeches, both in the sich and during the battle death scenes, slowed the movie to a dead crawl (no pun intended!) and greatly detracted from the film's impact.
Endless speeches (particularly with a slit stomach) about the sacred Russian soil really have no place in a story about Polish/Ukrainian struggles, and only serve to underscore that the film's budget was heavily subsidized by the Russian government.
More endless repetition of the musical theme was the one negative in an otherwise flawless ensemble of actors and a compelling story.In summary, this film was watchable but mostly boring.
A mock on a great drama, as if it was in directors intentions to spit in Gogol's and viewers' faces.When the third dying person begins another tirade on how much he loves his country (which has no relation to what Gogol wrote and even never was true since cossacks have always been the free people) you start to expect American flag to wave on the background.I can't believe that this piece of dogsh..
It is quite often that this very question is attributed to contemporary Russian movie makers meaning whether they are still able to create genuine works of art.
I enjoyed how actors played though sure Bogdan Stupka makes an absolutely outstanding performance, but the whole actors' ensemble is very well doing.
And sure Bortko deserves praise for his solid work which reminded me about those soviet times when such masters as Gerasimov or Romm created their epics.This movie is about tremendously difficult choice between different values, between devotion to motherland (fatherland) and love for a woman, between traditional values of Russian people and values of west though in this movie we see how allegedly enlightened polish gentry (regarding itself as beings of higher order than cossacks ) executes cossacks in the most cruel way.Though I have to honestly admit that I don't know how fully this movie renders Nicolai Gogol' story.
The 2009 Russian-made adaptation of "Taras Bulba" yet again highlights the directing genius of Vladimir Bortko.
The film is beautifully crafted with spectacular costumes, truly epic battle scenes and a melodic score.The cast is hand-picked to suit the roles perfectly, with Vladimir Vdovichenkov (Brigada, Bumer) playing the patriotic Ostap.
However, the real show-stealer is Bogdan Stupka (Est - Ouest, Ogniem i Mieczem), who portrays the brave Cossack Colonel Taras Bulba.
A noteworthy mention also goes to the Russian cinema veteran Mikhail Boyarsky (D'Artanyan i tri Mushketyora, Gardemariny, Vperyod!), seen as Moisei Shilo, a well-respected Cossack and a seasoned warrior.The film remains true to Gogol's 1842 edition of the novel and to history.
The Cossack's repeated words of praise for the Russian Land and Orthodox Christianity can be found in the manuscript.
The Zaporizhian Cossacks were frequently involved in violent clashes with the Poles, which lasted well into the XVII century, until Ukraine requested Russian military assistance to finally defeat Poland and force it towards diplomacy.
Interestingly, the Cossacks considered themselves independent from any nation, be it Russia or Ukraine, and they did not recognise the sovereignty of either ruler.
Instead, they elected their own leaders and fought for their lands - the lands of the old Kievan Rus' that were united by Orthodoxy, and called Rus' for short.With the budget of 516 million Russian rubles, Bortko is able to re- create the feeling of the time, aided with mass numbers of actors to ensure the realism of battle.
Zaporizhian Sich was built as an accurate depiction of a Cossack settlement and the costumes used are reflective of the dress sense of the various factions.Surely the picture could be improved on a number of fronts.
This is a common problem to all film adaptations of previously written materials.Overall, Vladimir Bortko's "Taras Bulba" is a solid historical feature and a worthy adaptation of Nikolai Gogol's masterpiece.
In this specific case it has to show Russian crowd that Poland is Enemy and that Ukraine belongs to Russia.
But it's made so rudely and primitive that polish characters even win our sympathy against "kassaks".Second - budget of this film is enormous while independent cinema doesn't have ANY state support and has no small chance to develop.Third - Vladimir Bortko, director of "Taras Bulba" is one of that previously talented soviet artists who mutated under the new power and lost everything what they had for what we loved them (Bortko made "Heart of a Dog" in 1988 by Bulgakov's story).
Another brightest example of such a mutant - Nikita Mikhalkov, the main monster of "new Russian cinema".Fourth and last - work of every member of film crew is absolutely weak.
Awful editing, feeble script, fast-food directing, horrific two-melodies soundtrack made by extinct pop-star Igor Kornelyuk, hysterical special effects with blood made by Photoshop or Paint redactor, endless and cheerless battle scenes (under the rain with clear sky) and so on...This is not just a disappointment, this is a real condition of Russian cinematograph.
Taras Bulba the movie had very great deep meaning to it, very good actors, one of my favorite movies now.
But the fighting scenes were bad, guess they ran out money when they bought too many expensive actors and actually filmed the movie in Zaporozhia, Ukraine, unlike many Hollywood movies where they are filmed in a studio the whole time.My father called this movie Bumer 3, if you haven't watch those movies watch them, he called them this because they have very great meanings but are ruined because not enough money or modern use of directing is used in these movies.Overall this movie is great and I hope you see it..
The director did not know my opinion that on a genre will be better and has drowned all in blood.The big minus that if a trick master has been expelled from movie by director.
I was really looking forward to watch this movie but when I actually got to see it, I couldn't stand more than 15 min of this amateur level time waster- silly and unbelievable speeches, video, sound effects...
I fast forwarded to the battle scenes and it was just as bad- a bunch of people in pretty dresses running around, gunshot sounds taken straight out of old western movies, Polish hussars charges looked like a slow walk in a park..
the whole thing looked like a parody.If this movie was a college cinematography project, I would give it 7/10, but it wasn't, so I give 2/10 for nice dresses..
The director, in past maker of spectacular pages of lost history, is in this sad case only organiser of a Russian propaganda show.
I translated the movie into French and English subtitles to add on divx (they will be available soon on OS) and I got quickly bored by the seeming repetitiveness of several speeches.
Beingmarried to a Ukrainian lady, I'm also very much aware that Bortko had to kinda "steal" the true story and replace it by Russian propaganda.
My feeling is that this movie was sponsored by Russian public funds for the "nashy" and their followers..
Partly, this looks like a poor script as the lines follow just too closely the original text of Gogol.
Overall, this version of Taras Bulba seems just too much of an agitprop forthe new Cossack village creed of militant Russian patriotism and pride in martial traditions of the legendary steppe marauders which finds its natural outlet in heavy drinking and voting loyalty to Yedinaya Rossija..
this is a good and hard movie for humans who know Russian history.5.5 is the IQ of the stupid who don't know noting.you must read to know something .if this movie is made by Americans his note will be 10,but is not,is made by Russian.i read the novel and all Russian history and this movie is an great example for the MAN who don't know nothing.the main character is the example of old school hero and patriot not some pussy whit a gun,a father and men .the Russian history is made whit blood and steal not oil wars.my apologize if i was to rude but not all the great movies are made by Americans.i am from Romania and we to make great movie like:MICHAEL THE BRAVE,VLAD THE IMPAILER,MIRCEA,OSANDA.
This propaganda movie is a weapon in Russia's informational war against Ukraine and Ukraine's history...
Peter the First had stolen Kievan Rus' name (by renaming Moscovia to Russia in 1721) and now Putin is trying to steal Ukraine's history...1) Cossacks where UKRAINIANS.2) They spoke UKRAINIAN language.3) They did NOT fight for "Russia".4) They fought against occupants (including Moscow's occupants).In first edition of Mykola Gogol's "Taras Bulba" (1835) there where NO "Russia"-words, but everywhere where "Ukraine" instead.
"May they all know what brotherhood means on Russian soil." The true account of Taras Bulba (Stupka), a Ukraine Cossack who helped to defend his homeland from the Poles in the 16th century.
The movie opens with a "Braveheart" like speech, then we flash back to what got him in that position.
Love story, fighting, father/son tension, and the quest for freedom.
Much like as in "Saving Private Ryan" the movie is bookended by very intense fighting scenes.
There is so much in this movie and I could go on and on about the aspects of why I liked it, but it's best to just watch it and see for yourself.
Overall, a fantastic foreign movie that has some of the most intense battle scenes I have seen in a long time.
The film "Taras Bulba" distorts historical events, falsifies and discredits the Ukrainian national idea, and in general, is blatantly anti-Ukrainian, casts doubt on the very existence of the Ukrainian people.
I started watching the film and decided to know a bit more about it - so I looked up more information/history on subject.
I fast-forwarded to the end - watching some of the battles (which looked fine to me).
This laughably propagandistic movie from Russia is based upon one of the wars between the Poles and the Cossacks.
Along with the incredibly irritating Russian tendency to vocally translate other languages instead of using subtitles, this movie features bad melodramatic music and excessive dialogue, not to mention stock sound effects.
the entire story becomes an aggressive political speech.
and the delicate problem is to transform Ukraine in a part of Russia, to use special effects for ignore the senses of book, to destroy a noble idea for a not real decent result.
Seriously weak attempt to produce another Russian patriotic epic out of one of the most prominent pieces of Ukrainian literature.
Bogdan Stupka ('Taras Bulba') performance.
The movie can be a good reference for re-enactors of Zaporizka Sich and Rzech Pospolita of XVI century.Bad points: 1.
Patriotic speeches comprise over 50% of the total movie time.
Every single cossack having at least one line in the movie, had to proclaim a speech about the never-ending glory of orthodox faith and Russian land before dying.
Around the third speech/death sequence it gets really boring and you think 'will you please just shut up and die?' The word 'Russian' appears in every other sentence of the movie.
I mean, I know those are Russians who make the movie with the aid from the government.
Yet, reference to Ukraine is carefully avoided and quickly mentioned only twice in the entire movie.2.
Coupled with unimpressive execution of one-on-one duels and poorly organized mass scenes (you get the full screen of cossacks and Poles walking (not running!) chaotically without any apparent purpose or sense of direction, it creates seriously sad impression.3.
Younger son, Andriy (Petrenko) is not nearly as passionate as his father, Taras, (Bogdan Stupka).
Good equipment and story along with some characters, terrible special effects.
Book I remember vaguely, read it a long time ago, but I did like this movie, especially because of the excellent play by the main actor and the story about the Cossack lifestyle.
Novel is written in the high romantic era during the boom of nationalist feelings and its well represented on the screen (although I am not so sure was there so much Tsarists love with the Cossack when many of them were escaped surfs).
Cossack lifestyle is hard, based on war, plunder and raiding like Mongols or Vikings of ages past and this movie shows that life and consequences of living it - hatred by more "civilized" Poles and Turks or struggle with other nomadic raiders like Tatars.
Cossacks because of that fight against everyone, are suspicious to everyone (like Jews) and are only shown to trust those of their own Orthodox faith.
Actors that portrayed Cossacks are mostly good, especially Taras Bulba.
Final scene when Polish colonel when he spares his daughters son is also strong, you then see the glimpse of Taras Bulba if he was on the other side.
They are so weak that look like they were done for some small budget student movie, not a blockbuster financed by the Russian government.
It is clearly seen that this is a Russian propaganda movie, but a very weak one, the only time I was really moved was with the ominous Taras Bulba's last words when they were burning him alive, the rest of the Cossacks haven't managed to give that same feel.
Overall, good movie, but the ridiculous failure of the special effects reduces rating greatly..
Actually every character repeats the bloody sentence just before dying "So good to be dying for Russia and orthodox church"...
It actually reminds me soviet cinema where deadly wounded characters were giving speeches about the advantages of living in Soviet Union or something close to it in abstractness...Forgive me please being as chaotic and poor as "Taras Bulba" - it's my first time....
Riding in packs with disregard for life and limb, they were the Christian counterpart to the mounted Tartar hordes they often sparred with, like two Medieval motorcycle gangs.Unfortunately the film ultimately degenerates into an appalling propaganda piece with a slew of nobly dying Cossacks declaring their love for Mother Russia and angry heartfelt wishes that Russia and its brand of Orthodox Christianity will someday conquer the world.
If this was a Muslim film expressing the same type of sentiments people would be screaming for drones to take action on the filmmakers.Even creepier, several of the dying declarations and other venomous speeches target Poland - and although the Poles are the enemies of the Cossack horde in the film, the message is clearly intended to transcend the time period, with expressed wishes that "the Polacks" will be sorry someday.
In today's political climate, the film is undoubtedly a cry to arms for Putin's burgeoning reactionary groupies, who publicly dream of restoring Russia's Soviet era empire.The film spends way too much time on these propaganda points and far too little on story development.
The love story so critical to the storyline is choppy and unconvincing, with the Cossack traitor allowed to enter the Polish princess's boudoir and have his way with her while her family and retainers blithely ignore his entrance.
(The relationship in the Tony Curtis version of this story was much more ably developed.)If the movie ended about three-quarters of the way in, the bits of propaganda scattered throughout might pass for authentic dialog - as would the "hero" Taras' scorn for the Jewish merchant, portrayed as a groveling money grubber.
But just when you're sure the movie is over, the battle is extended and the litany of cornball dying words is unleashed...
to go on and on and on...With the recent events in the Ukraine over disputed territory, one can only wonder whose side the old independent Cossacks would take today.
I've seen three other films by Vladimir Bortko -- adaptations on "Heart of a Dog" and "The Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov and "The Idiot" by Dostoevsky.
Here he seems to have been given a much bigger budget, possibly a set of orders from the Russian government, and the short novel "Taras Bulba" by Gogol -- a piece of literature that didn't resonate with me nearly as much as the three aforementioned ones.
While I loved some of Gogol's other stories, "Taras Bulba" struck me as mostly overblown, thoughtless nationalism, which didn't sit well with me.
I didn't much care for this film either, so to be perfectly fair that could be because Bortko faithfully reproduced a book that I didn't love in the first place.
Maybe we will be and maybe we won't, but using that as an assumption to make the film work means it's rooted in pure nationalism and nothing more.
Even if we take it as given, there are few too many scenes of dying people who use their last breath to give a heartfelt speech about how the Cossack soul will never be vanquished.
The events of the plot seem entirely constructed to allow for more speeches about Cossack national spirit to be worked in, and as such are spread pretty thin.
The up side is that there are some very good performances, especially from Bogdan Stupka and Igor Petrenko.
I'm not an expert in the era of history on which Gogol based the source novel for this film, so I can't really address what has been brought up many times here -- the potential incongruity of the Cossacks mentioning Russia in their speeches and speaking Russian (as opposed to other characters, who speak Ukrainian with voice overs).
That might make it a good watch for if you're about to go and kill some Polish people with your trusty sword today and need inspiration, but it doesn't make it a good film. |
tt3663490 | The Librarians | The series follows four people, Eve Baird (Rebecca Romijn), who is chosen by the Library to be the new Guardian, as well as Ezekiel, Cassandra and Jacob, who were asked to apply to the Library to become The Librarian, but for some reason didn't show up to the "auditions". In their place, the current Librarian Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle) is searching for the Library (which is lost in time and space during the pilot). The four become a new team of Librarians in order to solve impossible mysteries, recover powerful artifacts, and fight against supernatural threats, especially the forces of the Serpent Brotherhood, led by the mysterious immortal Dulaque (Matt Frewer).
The second season offered up a pair of new villains, both from fiction: Prospero (Richard Cox), from Shakespeare's The Tempest, and Moriarty (David S. Lee), Sherlock Holmes' chief nemesis. The former is positioned as the greater evil, attempting to use magic to destroy the world in order to remake it more to his liking. Moriarty is more of a gray villain--generally aligned with Prospero but willing to side with the Librarians when it suits his own interests.
The third season introduces a new villain, Apep, the Egyptian God of Chaos. After being defeated by the first Librarian, Judson and his Guardian, Charlene, he is mysteriously resurrected while possessing numerous people as he embarks on his mission to release pure evil into the world. While trying to stop Apep, the Librarians' actions are being closely investigated by General Cynthia Rockwell (Vanessa Williams) from a new secret government agency, called D.O.S.A. (Department of Statistical Anomalies). | cult | train | wikipedia | Maybe if TNT doesn't come to their senses and renew the show you can try Netflix, Hulu or Amazon if nothing else try WGN to continue the show, so don't stop writing and filming because I bet their is a network that will be smart enough to know a good investment when they see it and we will be there to watch it.
Having watched both of the opening episodes, and the original movies this show spun off from, I can say that this show will be a perfect alternative for families looking to escape reality TV.Each episode has a unique twist on the stories we all know.
I loved the Librarian movies and really thought the show would not be as good without Noah Wiley in each episode, and I have to admit when the "Library" Bob Newhart and Jane Curtain disappeared in the first episode I did not give the series very much hope,but it really turned out to be a good show with some great special effects.
that I wish Christian Kane had not cut his hair - I really miss seeing him with his long beautiful "locks", but other than that - great show and hope it comes back this summer because only 10 episodes was not really a full season -- and everyone knows we need quality TV during the summer!.
From time to time it seems like a TV show like this has been done before, regardless of a previous movie, people may even start thinking warehouse 13 when they watch this show, aside from the similarity's, this show is fresh and easy to watch and is packed with entertainment.The downside is the, in my opinion, the casting of "Rebecca Romijn" as eve, she comes off as just too unrealistic for an agent and seems miss informed of her role as Guardian, now you would think guardian would mean, protector/bodyguard for the new librarians, but no, she spends every episode barking orders like she has just been selected to be the new general of the library, as far as i'm concerned the role should be strait forward, they chase up magical artifacts and such and she follows and protects as an equal and not the boss of which the writers seem intent on portraying her, i personally feel her acting style has no place in this show and should be limited to low low budget, but that's just me.regardless, the librarians is held together by the remaining cast members and i thus very enjoyable addition to your new list of shows..
The Librarians has laid a foundation to be pretty good if it can explain its story lines a little clearer, and show more human side to these characters than just the adventure side.
This is the next generation of a family-oriented adventure franchise that started in 2004 and called "The Librarian".The Librarian is a series of made-for-TV original movies from TNT, starring Noah Wyle as a librarian who protects a secret collection of magical artifacts.A full decade later Noah Wyle's character is still "The" Librarian but the "library", who got him the job in the first place, "feels" that he needs help to his duties.
So despite the objections of "The librarian", "the library" (yes I know too many ...quotes) hires 4 more persons (3 "geniuses" and a "federal" agent played by Rebecca Romijn) for his assistance.Noah Wyle has a certain presence in his role, but unfortunately he isn't the main protagonist in this.
That might be a deal breaker for some of the oldest fans of the librarian franchise but maybe you have to wait and see.The feel of the series (based on the pilot) is over-the-top adventurous and although there are some heavy themes (stabbing by a sword, deaths, brain cancer etc.) the whole atmosphere feels kind of light, maybe even naive.If you are an adult who is looking for an Indiana Jones-like premise you will be disappointed.
The acting is deliberately exaggerated, the dialogs somehow ridiculous and the music more fancy than it should be, but that's common in a series probably made for kids.Overall: I'm not sure that I will check the next episodes but someone else might find it entertaining..
OK this is a show that I love to watch the humor is fun and playful the action is very fast moving and full force and oh the history lessons you learn here my favorite has to be sweet Sandra she's spunky and funny very positive attitude I love that the action is good but the show its self is very family friendly is a perfect watch for the family to enjoy together with plenty of the adventure and romance that keeps your interest a good lesson in team work watching the group work together and have fun doing it though the team doesn't always work well together they come to the conclusion of the problems by the end of the show as long as your kids are old enough to understand the difference between real life and fantasy the show should be a good choice for everyone.
This is a spin-off centering around a supernatural theme from the original "The Librarian" , as Library has chosen a new bunch who must encounter ancient scepters , chalices , holy cups , facing off fairy tale's personages and other marvelous adventures , they are the followings : Jake Stone (Christian Kane) , Cassandra Cillian (Lindy Booth) , Ezekiel Jones (John Harlan Kim) and led by former agent Eve Baird (Rebecca Romijn) , being advised by the veteran Jenkins (John Larroquette) , this role , is in fact "Galahad" , one of the Knights of the Round Table .
In Library they meet our intimate friend Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle) who delivers them instructions about their new jobs , especially holding artifacts by magic and technology from around the world & throughout time .
The incredible adventures led them to wonderful worlds , and dealing with Santa Claus (Bruce Campbell) , Pope , Dragons in the Roman Vatican and taking on nasty enemies as Dulaque (Matt Frewer) and his hoodlum as Lamia (Lesley-Ann Brandt) .This is the TV sequel to ¨Librarian trilogy ¨ with the likable Noah Wyle , this series dealt with the sympathetic adventures of the mild-mannered as well as botcher Flynn Carsen who starred three popular episodes titled ¨The Librarian¨ franchise 1ª: Quest of the spear -2004- directed by Peter Winther and 2ª: Return to King Salomon's mines -2006- by Jonathan Frakes and third ¨The Curse of the Judas chalice¨ -2008- again by Jonathan Frakes .
And that's from the perspective of someone who watches shows like Doctor Who. But, for the most part, the show worked.And, even when it was at it's worst, it was still great due to the characters and the bonds that they shared.So, my final verdict?
There are moments of humour and Acton to keep you interested, the plots are simple and fun but don't stand up to any logical critique.All in all if taken at face value it is good fun entertainment, buy don't expect major plot twists or a complicated drama.The acting is good and characters are likable, the stories are self contained episodes that don't require you to have watched those prior to them.
I wasn't sure at first, but the main characters are great with Rebecca Romijn, Christian Kane, Lindy Booth and John Kim and with Season 2 & 3 you can see they've grown as a team.
This is a good thing as it could be the difference between a second season and cancellation.But here is hoping that the new teem (Librarians in training, LIT's) can save the day and protect the world from dangerous magical artifacts getting into the wrong hands and especially out of the hands of the Serpent Brotherhood.
I know it sounds a bit like the now ended series Warehouse 13, but it is different enough to keep the audience happy and I loved the first pilot double episode.
first off, I love the movies, so of course I knew this show would either continue the story in a great way or totally ruin the idea of the librarian, and I'm happy to say it was the first one.
The acting was good, the plot was strong, the action well done, the chemistry between the characters was spot on, all in all I had just as much fun with this as I did with the movies.
If this sounds up your alley then I definitely recommend you watch it.When I first started watching the show I realised that Noah Wyle's character who is the main librarian in the movie series was not featured in the lead cast which worried me a little.
i just randomly decided to check out this series and instantly i was hooked on the main character flynn, there were also a few actors who had very poor acting but by mid season i grew to love all characters very much but my favourites are flynn and jenkins to competition.
Keep it up with great story and this show will be even better.It has very interesting stories in every episode so far and I like the way that now in show are few people who will probably become one day feature The Librarian.
I like adventure TV-Shows and movies a lot that's why I love this show..
Noah's character supposedly isn't in many of this series' episodes and that can only be a good thing.
I see a lot of putrid reviews here, in spite of the fact that the TV ratings made The Librarians the most watched cable show debut in 2014, & the hundreds of votes that give it an IMDb rating of 8.6, so I'm guessing the posters who's reviews denigrate the premiere were expecting something else than what we got: An introduction to the world of The Library and those who will care for it...and humanity at large.As a huge fan of Leverage, which was created by the same team at Dean Devlin's Electric Entertainment, including John Rogers and their dynamic crew, the two-part premiere gave me just what I wanted - and expected.The birth of any show requires a lot of "pipe" (exposition) as all the characters have to be introduced, the basic storyline(s) laid out, and the world the characters live in has to be defined.I found the new characters to be very interesting, and my four teenagers have already fallen in love with Lindy's Cassandra, mostly because they are fascinated at how a synesthete can survive real life.
TNT's The Librarians is a new series based on the made-for-TV movies starring Noah Wyle as a librarian protecting the world from magic artifacts.
Heck, it's not even Warehouse 13.If bad acting, poor writing and limp direction is your thing then, by all means, watch The Librarians.
Until that time comes I think that this stinker will be cancelled before they make it to season 3.The overall premise of this show is that there is a secret library containing all or most knowledge of the magic in the world.
I haven't watched the movies so I don't know the back story if there is one, judging by the first episode I would hazard a guess there were only weak story lines.This show is full of the worst acting I've seen in a long time, and I know the actors can do better because I've seen some of them do better, much better but this a steaming pile of rabid whale dump.I really wanted to like it and I get there is some tongue in cheek humour there but seriously it doesn't work there is no chemistry between any of the actors and I was left thinking wow I don't often switch a program off before it's finished but this one might not make it.I am not a person who judges to harshly the majority of the time I really can enjoy most things but I couldn't enjoy this.(P.S. that how we spell humour in europe).
My whole family enjoyed watching the first season together, filled with adventure, interesting characters, cool facts, but deep in my heart I felt like I was a little let down after the movies.
Noah Wyle seems to be in a parody of SNL, the once beautiful Rebecca Romijn looks fat and distracted (she moves like a 80 y/o woman) and the rest is totally forgettable.I really hope thing gets better in the next episodes, but I don't believe in miracles; so I must say that "The Librarians" is a strong candidate to be canceled before the end of its first season..
This series would be good for families and science fiction fans alike.The Librarians toes the perfect line between campy comedy and serious story, much like The Mummy and Indiana Jones.
watched it with my entire family of all various ages..all of them hated it.*Replace Rebecca Romijn- she is just down right not made for the part.*Keep the three side kicks and perhaps make Christian Kane as the leader*Love John Kim in it but his character has proved pointless so far*The writers are trying to cram (not sure if that's a good word) into each episode and by doing that they have to eliminate details to speed up the plot to finish in one episode.
Why not be unique and have an episode go for 3 days so you can get all the details in to which it would then become a good show...don't do it like most shows and spend a whole season on one big major plot..just do 3 weeks (or 2 weeks) of one story-line and then a new one starts..so you get maybe 6 or 7 different stories but well written ones with details.*Why is it even called "The Librarians"..hear me out...nothing so far has shown that it couldn't be called "The Artists" or "The Museum Guardians." There has been 0 use of the library or reason of how a hall of books relates to what they do.
Its a mobile library that helps them port from place to place..so what...I mean open up a book and let an adventure start because of the book was opened..or have them chase down certain books...so far all it does is have people "defend magic," has nothing to do with a library or librarians.***too bad as I had hopes of this being a good show, but watch..just this show will continue to be bad but some how will survive like that other horrible show called "two broke girls"..
I know that both Rebecca Romijn and Rachel Nichols can do better, so I am not blaming them.This whole bit about having to round up "magical artifacts" has been done much better, both on the the Friday the 13th TV series (now renamed Friday's Curse), and Warehouse 13.Of the episodes of Season 4, I did like 'And the Silver Screen'.
It had something that was lacking on many of the other episodes, a good plot and suspense, even if some of the elements had been done before (see the above two TV series).If there is a Season 5 somewhere, I may still watch it, but I hope it gets better than Season 4..
It is supposed to go with her weird personality but I find myself too caught up in the kookiness of her wardrobe.But, the acting is great, some old favorites like Noah Wylie to some new faces that are quite good.I didn't LOVE the first episode, but got caught up in it by the third, so if it doesn't grab you right away, give it a second look, you may find it grows on you...quickly!.
Had I not already watched every episode of Warehouse 13, I probably would have enjoyed this series a whole lot more.
Some pretty bad acting from the main character played by Rebecca Romijn and then there's lindy Booth with her annoying scattered character and others but those two stand out more than others, Then there is the writing which is terrible and the pretty awful story lines executed badly it tries to be amusing and also fails in this in my opinion too unless your 12 as its on at 8PM guessing its not aimed for 12 years old's but it certain seems that way.
I loved The Librarian movies and was so looking forward to the series.
I'll continue watching The Librarians because I like some of the characters as well as the entertainment factor, however, I do hope that should it be picked up for a second season, there will be a slight cast change.
So entertaining and each episode feels like you are watching a movie.Adventure........
I'm a bit too old for these (over the top) type of adventures, but to be honest i can still enjoy the original movies because they are true adventure movies with a cast that actually looks like they would discover more then i would in the same situation.The actors in this series are the reason why this isn't as interesting as the movies.
The idea seemed great-make the librarian movies into series.BUT here is where the thing that made this series unwatchable.Could not even go to half of episode 1 of season 1...Rebecca Romjin.....WTF????!!!!
I get there's a lot of negative reviews to this show either by people considering it inferior to the movies, in the first season Noah Wyle is "just" a star guest (due to his other show is still being shot) but he is the producer and he promises to have a bigger participation if there is a season two; others claim is just a rip off of several other shows; others don't like the actors.
A new TNT series based on the previous cable TV movies "The Librarian" which starred Noah Wyle.
The series, just like the movies, are fun to watch when you're not thinking to much.
I loved the librarian movies mainly because of the three main characters. |
tt0049107 | Crime in the Streets | After a rumble between New York City street gangs, the Hornets and Dukes, a youth is taken captive and threatened with a zip gun by Lenny Daniels, one of the Hornets. The act is witnessed by a neighbor, McAllister, who tells the cops.
Lenny is arrested and sentenced to a year in jail. Hornets leader Frankie Dane decides to get even. Seemingly incorrigible, 18-year-old Frankie resists all efforts to get through to him by social worker Ben Wagner or his worried mother, who was abandoned by Frankie's father when he was eight.
Frankie threatens McAllister, who isn't afraid of Frankie. McAllister even slaps him, then walks away. An angry Frankie then enlists friends Lou Macklin and Angelo "Baby" Gioia to assist in killing McAllister, which frightens Frankie's 10-year-old brother Richie, who overhears the plotting.
Baby's dad slaps Baby and orders, then pleads with him to stop hanging out with the no-good Frankie. An effort is made by Wagner to understand the boys rather than be angry with them, and Richie tells him of Frankie's plans to commit a murder. Wagner talks to Frankie, seemingly to no avail. The three conspirators fake going to bed, (to later use as their alibi) to wait until the agreed upon time to act. McAllister is trapped in an alley at 1:30 in the morning by the three. Richie stops his brother just-in-time, but ends up with a knife held to his throat by angry Frankie, while McAllister and other two run off, as the intended victim yells for help. Wagner appears due to the commotion, and watches as Frankie finally comes to his senses and lets his brother go. He is then accompanied by Wagner to the approaching police. | violence | train | wikipedia | Working on a painfully thin budget from Allied Artists, Don Siegel managed to fashion an urban tale of violence and juvenile delinquency in Crime In The Streets.
And the delinquents aren't romanticized as they are in West Side Story.James Whitmore stars as a local social worker working out of a settlement house who keeps his ear to the ground for any rumblings of a rumble on the mean streets of his urban neighborhood.
They have a charismatic leader in young John Cassavetes who at 27 is way too old to be playing an 18 year old, but so did most of the kids look way too old in Glenn Ford's class in The Blackboard Jungle.
Also repeating are Mark Rydell as one of Cassavetes lieutenants who really isn't wrapped too tight and Will Kulava as Sal Mineo's father.When local citizen Malcolm Atterbury reports one of their peers for having a zip gun, Cassavetes sets in motion a plan to kill him.
One player I failed to mention is Virginia Gregg who may have gotten her career role as the mother of Cassavetes and Peter Votrian.
Cassavetes she feels is a lost cause, she's concerned about Votrian who idolizes his brother and might get into the gang culture.
Gregg is great example of one who was probably a battered wife when she had a husband living in the place and one who is too shell shocked to deal with her rebellious son.Though it's dated Crime In The Streets is still entertaining and it's a good sociological treatise on juvenile delinquency..
"Crime In the Streets" tells the story of growing up in the slums, and what some young people will do to get out, or just to have a few kicks to help them forget their dead-end lives.
"Crime In the Streets" features some wonderful performances, especially Sal Mineo, who doesn't have enough scenes, but when he is on camera, the magic is there.
The actress who plays Frankie Dane's mother also gives an amazing, dramatic performance as the over-worked waitress, abandoned with two sons, all living in a dismal tenement apartment.
John Cassevetes is waaaaay too old to play the 18 year old delinquent, though his performance is fine.
It is depressing to witness how badly people treat each other in this film, and it is particularly disturbing to see Frankie abuse his little brother.
This and other early Sal Mineo films deserve to be re-discovered, but I don't imagine this one being re-issued any time soon.
For revenge and thrills, juvenile delinquent gang leader John Cassavetes (as Frank "Frankie" Dane) plots to kill a man.
Nail-biting Sal Mineo (as Angelo "Baby" Gioia) will lure the man into an alley, open-mouthed Mark Rydell (as Lou Macklin) will hold him down, and Mr. Cassavetes will slice and dice him to death.
Little brother Peter Votrian (as Richie Dane) overhears Cassavetes planning the murder, and tells concerned social worker James Whitmore (as Ben Wagner).
But, try as he might, Mr. Whitmore is unable to reform Cassavetes before the scheduled stabbing.The excellent script for "Crime in the Streets" was written by Reginald Rose, and had previously been seen as a live installment ABC-TV's "The Elgin Hour" (a dramatic anthology series).
The entire production is wonderfully acted; and, while Cassavetes is clearly far too old for the part, at least he gets a chance to repeat his role for film.Mineo gives the "Hornets" some youth appeal, and shows off his ability to react to other actors.
The plot is almost Shakespearian, and with the addition of music, you could imagine a certain "West Side Story" being born...********* Crime in the Streets (6/10/56) Don Siegel, Reginald Rose ~ John Cassavetes, James Whitmore, Sal Mineo, Peter Votrian.
While it is a little preachy at times, the performances by Cassevetes and Mineo are mind-blowing in how touching and nuanced they are at such a young age.From the beginning it is clear that this film was made on a small set in Hollywood, but you quickly forget about this and can easily become wrapped up in the story - an almost reverse Crime and Punishment parable.
Cassevetes and Mineo overcome an of the actors' deficiencies even though most of the other performances such as the mother, Mineo's father, are also superb (the only truly cornball performances come from the preachy social worker, the sappy little brother and a couple of the stereotyped gang members).The director does an amazing job of making this small slum world feel so small (the set is probably half a city block in size on the set) and tense.Film Forum displayed Scorcese's personal copy, which was unfortunately quite damaged.
Cassavetes is pretty good in his second film credit, although he was a bit old at 26 to be playing a teen.
His second film role would not come until 1973 in Robert Altman's "The Long Goodbye," when he played another frightening character.
Mineo plays a character not unlike the one had just played in "Rebel Without a Cause." In his follow-up to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," Siegel creates a gritty atmosphere but stresses the melodramatics..
The movie comes across as a filmed stage play as though the format hasn't changed at all.
I expect TV playwrite Reginald Rose had a lot to do with that approach, while ace action director Don Siegel simply followed out the script in uninvolved fashion.
Mineo's excellent as the reluctant delinquent, Gregg fairly oozes bread-winner exhaustion, and little Votrian can look pathetic on cue.
I don't want to elaborate too much on what's already been said, but 1956's "Crime in the Streets" becomes claustrophobic very quickly because of the shabby, back-lot "New York street" that screams artificial 1930s Hollywood set a la "Dead End" and "Scarface." Since this is an Allied Artists film, I'm guessing it was shot at the old Monogram Studios on Sunset Boulevard in East Hollywood, which was shabby even in the 1930s.
(After all, Siegel had already used the real-life streets of Hollywood and the nearby town of Sierra Madre to great effect a year earlier in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers.") Though no source material is given for "Crime in the Streets" except for the original teleplay, it owes quite a lot to Hal Ellson and other social workers-turned-writers who cranked out top-selling novels in the late '40s and early '50s, such as "Duke" and "The Golden Spike," that explored the tribulations of growing up in poor, urban, ethnic American neighborhoods.
Also unacknowledged is Clyde McPhatter and the Drifters' rhythm and blues hit, "Such a Night," which provided Mark Rydell's character (clearly the movie's most interesting) with the "ba-dooby-dobby-doo" riff that became a jazz motif when the boys were awaiting their big crime in the alley..
Crime in the Streets is directed by Don Siegel and written by Reginald Rose.
It stars John Cassavetes, James Whitmore, Sal Mineo, Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg, Peter J.
Music is scored by Franz Waxman and cinematography by Sam Leavitt.Social worker Ben Wagner (Whitmore) tries to help local slum gang, The Hornets, especially their troubled leader Frankie Dane (Cassavetes).When your body hits that sidewalk nobody will even turn around to look at yah.Decent "juve delinquent" lecture movie, Crime in the Streets boasts some mightily impressive performances and closes on a (expected) piece of dramatic worth, but the screenplay is staid and pic is claustrophobic for all the wrong reasons.
However, Cassavetes' intense firecracker performance is worth the time of any classic era film fan, and with Whitmore doing good and controlled earnest and Gregg (sadly underused) tugging away at the maternal heart strings, it still comes out in credit.
No worries whatsoever, if the basis are not that solid here ,Siegel had what it takes to left his mark and didn't need a super script to come out with an amazing films ,as he proved with the Line up or Private Hell 36.
He was probably charged with the task of making a teenage movie in the vein of the Blackboard Jungle ,same as he was probably assigned to do in Riot in Block cell 11 .In both cases he managed to succeed though working under disadvantageous circumstances: low budget , unoriginal plots with a moralistic tone which allows to see the what would be the end from minute one .
Crime in the streets also had some clichés about juvenile delinquency.But Siegel overcame aany inconveniences to provide a more than decent outcome .
Characters are solid and well constructed, Cassavettes is very convincing as the leader of the gang and action flows smoothly , helped by the sense of realism that the director gives to the film, so overall not bad at all.
Their leader is Frankie (John Cassavetes), a super-angry dude who lives with his whiny mom and little brother in a cheap, squalid apartment overlooking the street.
And an adult social worker and the father of one of the gang members dish out lots of paternalistic advice to Frankie and his buddies.High-contrast B&W lighting is probably the best element of the film.
As Frankie's mom, Virginia Gregg gives an especially nice performance.It's not a bad movie.
If the viewer likes stage plays with some good acting, "Crime In The Streets" is a pretty good 1950s juvenile delinquency film..
Discovering that a disenfranchised local youth is planning a revenge murder, an altruistic social worker desperately tries to prevent the crime without police intervention in this juvenile delinquency drama directed by Don Siegel.
The film is not particularly subtle with its agenda as lead actor James Whitmore bluntly states such truisms as "you can't tell a kid to be good" and as all parents find themselves exasperated by their kids in the most melodramatic manner possible.
The film features a phenomenal early turn by John Cassavetes though as the youth planning the murder with lots of subtle nuances whenever he listens to Whitmore lecture and as he plays on the fears of his friends.
The film also opens with a deathly intense pre-credits scene as good as anything Siegel ever directed.
The dialog has verisimilitude and the Film feels authentic beneath the facade, but as Movie Entertainment it could have opened up a bit, but the limited budget and Studio bound sets were not accommodating.
Don Siegel directed this socially aware drama that stars James Whitmore as a local social worker doing his best to educate and dissuade the youth to not turn to a life of crime, and join a gang.
Sal Mineo and Mark Rydell play followers of his, who get entangled in the revenge plot that Whitmore desperately tries to prevent, before lives are lost or futures ruined.
There were a rash of films about angry, mean teens: Rebel without a Cause, Blackboard Jungle, So Young, So Bad, High School Confidential, Blue Denim, etc., etc.
But JD became a big topic.This film, "Crime in the Streets," from 1956, is a low-budget, black and white movie about a bunch of mean kids in a bad neighborhood.
The film's titular star was James Whitmore as a social worker running a community center.
But "Crime in the Streets" "introduced" a mainly TV actor, John Cassavetes.
The film also features Sal Mineo, future director Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg, and Denise Alexander, who has appeared on General Hospital on and off for the past 38 years.
Here's she's a teenager.The story focuses in on one family, the Danes, which includes Frankie (Cassavetes), his little brother Richie, and their mom (Gregg).
He's incredibly angry and at one point, he plans to kill a neighbor he hates and tries to get his friends to come along with him.This is pretty dreary stuff that looks like an old TV show, done on a sound stage.
CRIME IN THE STREETS is so obviously a message picture that's it's almost painfully didactic in spots, a less-than-classic "Juvenile Delinquent" opus.
The worst element is the social worker (James Whitmore_ who tries so desperately to change a clearly deeply disturbed, would-be psychopath Frankie (Cassavetes) with useless talk.
Cassavetes has his moments too, but his method style is often distracting and he's clearly too old for the typical 1950s "Juvenile Delinquent" part, despite his boyish looks and short stature.
But it's Sal Mineo as Kuluva's son, "Baby" who gives the film's truest and most realized performance.
Don Siegel directed "Crime in the Streets".
John Cassavetes is the lead and James Whitmore and Sal Mineo are in support.
Even Sam Pekinpah gets a screen credit, though under an altered name.Yet everything about this story of a gang of 1950s delinquents seems mediocre -- dated, talky, preachy, and overdone.The director of Rose's "Twelve Angry Men" set the story in a closed jury room and never tried opening it up.
James Whitmore is always reliable, and John Cassavetes gets to bring his method intensity to the part of a half-crazed delinquent.
Now Lenny and his boys were going to do the same thing to the captured Duke street gang member.It was too bad for Lenny that concerned citizen Mr. Mcallister caught him in the act of pulling a zip-gun and reported Lenny to the police.
And this comes to the attention of neighborhood social worker Ben Wagner through Frankie's kid brother Richie who overheard his plan and wants to keep him from carrying it out.
As well as, if he succeeds, prevent his big brother Frankie from ending up being strapped into Sing Sing's electric chair!Following the success of troubled teenage movies like "The Blackboard Jungle" and "Rebel Without a Cause" the previous year it was a given that they'll be followed with a film like "Crime in the Streets" that actually preceded, on TV, both of them.
Even though he was a bit old, at age 27, to play an 18 year old John Cassavetes was very convincing as the misguided and troubled Frankie Dane.
There's also the sensitive and confused Angelo Baby Giola played by 16 year old Sal Mineo.
But when it comes to do in Mr. Macllister the poor kid reaches his breaking point!***SPOILERS*** As for Crazy Louie, played by Mark Rydell, he's by far the craziest of the bunch in having no morals at all in murdering someone which even the not so stable Frankie, who planned Mr. Macllister's murder, later has second thought about!
The real heroes in the movie is Frankie's kid brother Richie, Peter J.
Votrian, and social worker Ben Wagner, James Whitmore, who in the end put Frankie straight in seeing that his hatred for the world at large, in putting him in the mess that he finds himself in, was more of his own making and one one else's!
And, like most of these films, the 'teens' in this film are mostly actors in their twenties and even thirties, though a few (Sal Mineo) were actually teens.John Cassavetes plays the nominal leader of a gang of incredibly clean-cut looking punks.
In the meantime, an incredibly earnest social worker (James Whitmore) comes on VERY strong and tries to point the guys in the right direction before it's too late.
While there are a few qualities similar to noir, a teenage delinquent film with a crusading social worker sounds nothing like noir!
BUT, the film still has something to offer--John Cassavetes strong performance.
He IS the film and helps to make up for the writing deficiencies (particularly Whitmore's character who just comes on a bit too strong at times--though he did have some good scenes--especially towards the end).
There are a few other nice performances in the film as well (such as Will Kuluva, Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg and Atterbury)--and this help the film to rise above the mediocrity of most delinquent teen films.
The sociology of all sociological films is this 1956 excellent view of urban life, filled with social problems and the rise of gangs and ensuing violence.
It's an absolutely wonderful film.John Cassavetes, as Frankie, the boy craving attention, is just fabulous here and Sal Mineo, always good, especially when he is a follower and conflicted, is hesitant in going along with Frankie's plans to rub out an elderly man who blew the whistle on their friend.
He is absolutely demented and actually enjoys what the trio plan to do.James Whitmore is the social worker here who knows that Frankie and the guys are up to no good.There is a wonderful performance by Virginia Gregg as Frankie's exhausted, over-worked waitress mother, who knows that she can't control him but pleads with him.
Ditto for the gentleman who played the Italian father of Mineo.The film, though extremely liberally slanted, provides an excellent view of urban decay and the rise of juvenile delinquency as a result.
From the moment you see street thugs (John Cassavettes, Mark Rydell and Sal Mineo to mention a few), you can feel the anger pouring from the streets and onto the screen.
James Whitmore, as the local social worker determined to help the boys as much as he can, is like a substitute father figure, and even though they won't admit it, the young men respect him.
When it comes apparent that Cassavettes is planning revenge, it's up to Whitmore to step in before it's too late.These kids aren't living the middle class life of the rebels without a cause of that 1955 James Dean/Sal Mineo/Natalie Wood classic.
One key scene has Mineo in a confrontation with his worried father (Will Kuluva) who actually acts more like an overprotective mother in his display of love for his son.
Soap vet Denise Alexander plays Mineo's sister who is tired of the violence and also tries to get through to Cassavettes.This film gives a really mean looking portrayal of the life of these kids.
My only real issue with the film was the sterilized ending which doesn't really complete the story, but takes it into a new direction the audience doesn't get to see..
Cassavetes is all sub-Brando method acting, but Sal Mineo is bit more with-it than usual.Nonetheless, the only really impressive performance is offered by Mark Rydell. |
tt2177827 | The Search | Trains bring homeless children (Displaced Persons or DPs), who are taken by Mrs. Murray (Aline MacMahon) and other United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) workers to a nearby transit camp, where they are fed and cared for. The next morning, the children are interviewed by UNRRA officials to try to identify them and reunite them if possible with their families.
A young boy named Karel (Ivan Jandl) responds "Ich weiß nicht" ("I don't know") to all questions. He grew up in a well-to-do Czech family. The Nazis had deported his sister and doctor father, while the boy and mother were sent to a concentration camp. They eventually became separated. After the war, Karel survived by scavenging for food with other homeless children.
The next day, the children are split up into groups and loaded into trucks and ambulances to be transferred to other camps. The children in Karel's group are at first terrified because the Nazis often used ambulances to gas victims, but are eventually coaxed into the vehicle. During the trip, the smell of exhaust fumes causes the children to panic. Karel's friend Raoul manages to open the back door, and the children scatter in all directions. Karel and Raoul try to swim across a river to escape from two UNRRA men. Raoul drowns, but Karel hides in the reeds.
Later, Karel encounters an American army engineer, Steve (Montgomery Clift), who takes care of him. He starts teaching the boy English. Because Karel cannot recall his name, Steve calls him Jim.
When Jim sees a boy with his mother, he starts to remember his own mother and the last time he saw her, near a fence in the concentration camp. He runs away one evening thinking the fence is nearby. Jim finds a fence at a factory, but cannot find his mother among the workers going home. Steve eventually finds Jim and tells him that his mother is dead (Steve has reason to believe she had been gassed) so he will stop searching for her. He also informs Jim that he is going to try to adopt him and take him to America to start a new life there.
As it turns out, Karel's mother, Mrs. Malik (Jarmila Novotná), is alive. In a parallel story, she has been searching for her son. By chance, she begins working for Mrs. Murray at the same UNRRA camp where her son had been processed. After a while though, she resigns to resume her nearly-hopeless search for Karel.
That same day, Steve takes the boy to the UNRRA camp before leaving for America. He hopes to send for the boy once the paperwork is completed. Mrs. Murray remembers the boy. Suspecting that Jim is Karel, she hurries to the train station to bring Mrs. Malik back, but the train has already left. Then, she sees Mrs. Malik on the train platform; she had changed her mind and decided to stay.
Mrs. Murray takes her back to the UNRRA camp and has her greet the newest group of children. Steve tells Jim to join the new arrivals. Mrs. Malik begins to organize the children and bids them to follow her. Jim walks past without recognizing her. Mrs. Malik almost makes the same mistake, but then turns and calls, "Karel!", and the boy and his mother are reunited. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | The movie about the forgotten people.
I'm Chechen and I've seen the war in my country.
This story is only a simple story from a hundred of thousands other stories of Russian- Chechen wars.As someone that have seen the war, it was very difficult for me to watch this movie, I'm a man and I was watching it with the tears in my eyes, it has reminded me all the horrible dark nights in my country.I'm honestly thankful to Mr. Michel Hazanavicius.
It's very obvious that he did not make this movie for money and success but because he thought that someone has to tell the truth.
You will see many people saying that this movie has a political goals, anti-Russia propaganda etc and etc, however truth is truth neither you like it or not.
at least 35% of Chechens were killed in last two wars, about 40.000 of them were children.
They burned people alive, just simple example, google "Samashki massacre" and thats from the war in 1994.
The Search is about the second war 1999 which was much worst than the previous war.
The history of Chechnya and Russia is horrible, there been so many wars in last 400 years, the history is indeed horrible.This movie shows a very little percent of what was really happening in Chechnya, however it tells the truth, It's very disappointing that now days not many people really wants to hear the truth, not much people do really care and that's what movie tells as well.The genocide of Jewish people, the genocide of Chechen and all the other people genocides, those are not only problem of certain people/nation but the problem and the issue of the world and all the people.This is a very honest and based on a true stories movie, this isn't a comedy and action for fun, this is a movie that made with heart for the people that still care.--- Dear Michel Hazanavicius,Thank you very much for this movie from all the Chechen people around the world, one day in Independent Chechen Republic you will be our most welcomed guest.
This is one of the finest films I've ever seen (and there are over 2000 titles on my IMDb list.) It is a gutsy, grim, graphic story with some really horrible characters and some outstandingly good ones.
Most amazing is the performance of young Abdul Khalim Mamutsiev.
There is very little about him in the biography section but if this young boy (he's 9 in the movie) is this great now, he will be another Olivier by the time he's 20!
This film captures the grim reality of the Chechan war, the mindless and corrupt brutality of the Russian army both within and outside its ranks and the bleak, blood soaked reality of the country.
The entire film is shot in stark, cold colours with powerful effects and staging.
I forget some films.
The first: a realistic, near-documentary look at the Russian army and, specifically, one conscript; it's savage, brutal and makes one despair.
The second: a heart-breaking and -warming story of a 9-year old boy and his teenage sister and baby brother who become estranged when their parents are murdered by Russian soldiers.
The point at which these two stories touch is shocking and brilliant..
truthful and brave movie.
This is one of the movies that forced me to think about meaning of life and the cruelty of Russians.
After the movie I immediately logged to internet to search who created this and to express my admiration and gratitude..
I totally disagree with "madamebaterflaj" - although this isn't the "best film ever" (and how could it be, depicting the horror of war), it is not bad at all.
Yes, it is anti-Russian, but don't you remember how the story went?
It's like saying "Schindler's List is black-and-white anti-German propaganda"....
It is an European point of view, of course, so even if there is a sort of happy end, the focus of the story are not the emotions of the characters, not even the characters maybe, but History and how we all are involved.
The boy actor is simply terrific, some times he looks like an old guy, a grown up man, and then again he shows he's just a little boy.
This is a remake of a 1948 movie with the same name, but with a second story along side the updated original.
Like the original movie, this will tug at your heart by displaying the real cost of war.
But unlike the original, this movie not only shows the "victim" side through the use of a homeless little child, it also shows the "victimization" of 18 year old boys, those having to fight.
This movie is a bit gory, but is very respectful and does not show gratuitous gore.
The movie seems to develop slowly, a style many who enjoy European movies have come to expect.
However, unlike many European movies, this one has a nice "twist" at the end that is likely to put a smile on your face, in the midst of the horrors and realities of war.
The two stories are only tied together at the very end and only in a brief, somewhat unsatisfying way.
But if one understands that the movie is reflecting on how awful war is on young lives, it does make sense.
Slow, moving and powerful.
If you want to watch, sit, relax and enjoy..
Such a beautiful film!.
A really beautiful dramatic movie with a really good cast!.
like the kid.
It's 1999, the Second Chechen War. Young Russian Army recruit Kolia is filming the troops.
Their 9 year old son Hadji escapes with his baby brother.
Alone and turning mute, he is taken in by french woman Carole who is writing a report for the EU Human Rights Committee.
Meanwhile, Hadji's sister actually survived the massacre and sets off searching for him.
The movie also follows Kolia as he signs up with his friend.
He faces brutal treatment in the Russian Army and is then sent to the front.This is a French film made in Georgia.
I like the kid and the French woman, no matter how unlikely the situation.
The sister's story has a few compelling moments although the reunion is never in doubt.
By itself, his story has value.
The production and the war torn setting all look fine.
It's just that I don't care that much about him and I kept waiting for the movie to return to the boy.
She could simply film Hadji talking about losing his family and that would be infinitely more riveting than her report.
It seems like an obvious move for the story and for her character.
Overall, I like the kid and his journey.
Russians are bad, Chechens are good.
Manichaeist movie filmed in the time the first "refugees" (or economical migrants) were starting to come to Europe in millions, the producer smelt the profit.
However, you see the trailer, you watched it and saved some tears in the way.About the movie itself...
it's just 2 personal stories without any link or twist.
Slow as hell, all you can expect is when the movie will finish.
The small kid Hadji makes a good performance though.About the director, I'd love to see him and his "chosen people" living in Chechen, surrounded by all these nice guys they are making them flee from such nice cities in the past as Malmö, Rotterdam, Antwerpen or Brussels..
Well done Mr. Michel Hazanavicius, you've made the nice piece of absolutely one-sided turned propaganda.
Don't know did you do it by commission or it was only your point of view, but i clearly understand that you wanna say by this movie - Russians are subhumans.
It's shines through all movie, through all scenes.
I think Europeans like to see such view on Russia and people who live there, but, to be honest, it's disgusting.
Dunno maybe it's because I am Russian and such unfair demonstrations of lies about me and my country make me sad or maybe it's because i understand what's going to be next?
If Russians are so bad ass subhumans - they must pay for their sins?
We already survived one such guy, who thought we subhumans - BTW he was from Europe - you know?
I don't understand are Europeans don't see how people like Hazanavicius growing hatred against an entire nation?
Haven't seen a worse film in ages.
I don't even know where to begin on how awful this film is.
The anti-Russian black and white propaganda aside (no Russian person is depicted in any other way than as a junky, aggressive, delusional, blood-thirsty lunatic), the plot is so full of illogical behaviour of the characters; no deeper development of the characters is done despite the length which is a mere product of poor directing by a person who doesn't know when to say CUT, nor how to instruct the actors to give a little bit more flesh to the bone.
What a waste of the funds and trust gained after the "Artist" (although I must admit, I didn't like it either, but it had at least some substance; it was too long as well, I might add).
What a mistake of a film.
What an obvious and childish propaganda.
Bad propaganda.
What a bad propaganda against Russia!!!
I can't believe how some directors have courage to do such a nasty thing like this.
And now when Eu have problems with migrants, showing they real face how much people of EU like Muslims...
Did directors like this one, search any theme before they make a movie?.
The film was also made in Georgia, and has a Georgian director.
What interest could Georgians possibly have in the war in Chechnya, other than as an excuse to present Russians in a way that makes Attila the Hun look like a Red Cross volunteer?
I don't mind bias in films, and most war films are biased one way or another.
But this film was designed from the start as totally dishonest, shameless attack on Russia, without any artistic or other ambition beyond and above smearing Russia.
I have seen lots of propaganda films in my life, but this is on a level that betrays a kind of mentality that I find absolutely baffling.
Brutal and honest movie.
I will not elaborate movie plot in detail, it is a remake of the award winning movie of the same name from 1948, and of course it is a similar story.
But I must say that it is a important movie about a forgotten conflict in Chechnya.
The reception of the movie was poor in EU and it is clear why.
The Director shows the reality of European and Russian politics, the europeans are indifferent to the problems of small oppressed nations in the former SSSR, and reluctant to do anything against the Russian terror.
I was surprised to see an European movie which clearly takes sides with the victim and does not try to detach from the conflict, something which has always been popular among the political correct movie-makers, quoting both sides are equally guilty".
And we see a surprising accurate depiction of the training in the Russian army, a traditionally brutal thing.
All in all, a must see movie.
All in all, a must see movie.
Incredibly moving anti war film based on the Second Russian - Chechen War. This film is set during the Second Russo Chechen War and deals, essentially, with one families fate.
The film opens with Russian soldiers filming the aftermath of an 'anti-terrorist operation' – which is essentially destroying a Chechen village and executing civilians.
One of the families's affected have two boys and Hadji escapes with his baby brother.
After an arduous journey his path crosses that of Carole (Berenice Bejo) who works for an NGO.Her initial reticence is soon replaced by affection as she tries to care for the young boy who has been so traumatised that he has stopped speaking.
We also get the story of the common Russian soldier as shown through the experiences of Kolia (Maksim Emelyanov) and the dehumanising way they are made to conform.What follows is a tragic, moving and plaintive anti-war film.
The film goes almost black and white in places as if war drains the colour from life – which for many it must surely do.
The performances are amazing and I have to admit I was moved to tears on more than one occasion.
Written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius who also directed 'The Artist' – he has managed to capture the feeling of fear, desperation and hope all at the same time and make a two hour film that seems to slip past in mere minutes.
One of the more praiseworthy films I have seen for a while and indeed worthy of all the plaudits and more..
The performance by the little boy Hadji (played by Abdul Khalim Mamutsiev) is simply outstanding.
The settings – the villages under Russian bombardment, the refugees on the road...
At times this film just hits you in the face.
The Russian army scenes do this literally.
And from what I understand of new Russian army recruits it can be even worse.The story does have a suitable ending.
Annette Bening has a minor role and is eclipsed by Abdul and Berenice Bejo, the human rights worker.
Definitely a very engaging film – but be prepared!.
A Tragically Great Film.
Academy Award winning director, Michel Hazanavicius, directs a beautiful film about four interconnected stories that face the tragedies of the Chechnya War. I honestly was not even aware of what this war entailed until I saw this film.
Hazanavicius previously directed the Oscar winning film The Artist (2011) and thus takes a very dramatic turn with his newest feature.
The Search is not lighthearted at all like his previous films.
The film opens up to a soldier filming a family being slaughtered as a form of entertainment.
The entire mood becomes dark, and that effect is not due to the grayish tint that happens to be present throughout the film.
The darkness is due to the realities of war and the effects it has on everyone from young men thrown into mandatory military service to children left as orphans.
The plot follows Hadji, a young lad who witnesses his family's murder by the soldiers at the beginning of the film.
Hadji flees his home in search of someplace safer and is reluctant to be picked up by refugees and taken to an orphanage.
He does not know however that his teenage sister, Raissa, managed to survive.
She begins to search for Hadji, whom she believes is still alive.
The plot thickens as we now move on to see a young Russian teen, Kolia, recruited for military duty.
This becomes the most disturbing part of the film.
As we see Hadji's life slowly improving after befriending a human rights worker, the film follows the slow deterioration of a young man's morals by the facets of war.
Kolia transforms from a normal teenage boy into a ruthless killing machine that embodies no hope of redemption.
He learns to kill innocence and leave what's left of his childhood behind.
This transition in the film offers an interesting perspective.
The audience goes from watching the horrors caused by war to sympathizing with a Russian soldier who becomes responsible for more destruction in the future.
Kolia never wanted to join the Russian military shown by his suicide attempts and frequent moments of hysteria.
Hadji obviously didn't want his parents murdered.
Therefore, both stories offer two dramatically different sides of war traumas.
While Hadji's future remains hopeful however, Kolia's spirals downhill into a black box of despair.
It's interesting to see that the people responsible for warfare have the most tragic endings.
The point is, no matter which side you're on, war offers no benefits to the players directly involved.
It transforms and configures humanity into a world nobody would want to live in.
Children are forced to mature way beyond their years, and families are torn apart.With the help of the human rights worker, Carole, Hadji's situation goes from horrible to optimistic.
Berenice Bejo plays Carole.
Once again working with Michel Hazanavicius, the Oscar nominated actress delivers another masterful performance.
Carole houses young Hadji after seeing him wandering the streets alone and without any provisions.
The human rights worker establishes a connection with Hadji after several unsuccessful tries due to Hadji's complete silence.
With her persistent attitude in trying to raise support and awareness for the innocent victims of the Chechnya War, she ignites a burning passion to help especially after hearing other victims' stories.
The best scene showing this determination and relentless attitude is when Carole is on the phone with a European Union correspondent.
She has been trying to arrange a meeting to inform people of the issues she witnesses every day.
Her speech, backed with a mixed range of power, frustration, and genuine care, not only gets her a meeting but also leaves the audience wanting to help the situation too.
Although family is destroyed in this film, it offers a positive alternative.
Carole wants to adopt Hadji, but we know that Raissa is still alive and searching for him.
This puts us in a perplexing spot because we want both Carole and Raissa to achieve what they have been searching for all along.
Carole searches for inspiration and meaning to her work and life finding that in Hadji, while Raissa searches for what's left of her family.
The Search offers multiple perspectives at the negative effects of war.
The soldier, innocent child, and maturing teenager face direct effects while the orphanage head, EU correspondent, and human rights worker face indirect effects.
The complexity of each situation is made so easy to watch and understand.
Michel Hazanavicius is a great director, and I will always continue to search for his future films. |
tt1959347 | Sexting in Suburbia | The film opens as school pariah, Dina Van Cleve (Jenn Proske) walks down the hallway of her school. When she opens her locker, a pile of condoms that were put inside as a prank comes falling out. Later, Dina is shown alone in her bedroom recording a video diary. When her mother, Rachel (Liz Vassey) returns home, she finds Dina has hung herself.
The film then flashes back six weeks, showing Dina as a popular and talented field hockey player who was voted Homecoming Queen at her school. However, the night ends on a bad note when she changes her mind about giving her virginity to her boyfriend, Mark (Ryan Kelley), who leaves angry. Dina returns home while Mark goes to an after party and cheats on Dina with her rival, Skylar Reid (Kelli Goss). Dina takes a few pictures of herself naked and sends them to Mark the next morning. But when she arrives at school, she is surprised by applause from the student body and soon realizes that her pictures has been seen around campus. Distraught by a wall of cruel comments written about her in the girls' bathroom already, Dina demands that Mark tell her who he sent them too, but he swears he didn't do it.
Back in the present, Rachel is in Dina's room when someone calls Dina's phone. It turns out to be one of her friends, who was studying abroad. She tells Rachel that the only way she'll find anything about Dina is to look online. Rachel discovers Dina's video diary and tries to question Claire, who won't tell her anything. After going to the school administration to question the social networking profiles that were cyber bullying Dina, Rachel writes an article damning the school administration when they refuse to help her and seem more interested in covering up the entire incident. The article catches the attention of many news networks and causes the administration to endure severe backlash, but it also damages Rachel's cause. No one at Dina's school will talk to her and she loses some of her real estate work because no one will buy a house from her.
Rachel becomes the target of a revenge campaign. Someone stuffs her mailbox full of letters that say "Leave It Alone" with cut-out letters and a picture of a noose. Dina's grave is vandalized with someone spray painting "Dina is a slut" and leaving her torn letter and condoms. After breaking down and begging Mark to tell her what happened, which he doesn't do, Rachel heads home. Upon her return, someone throws a brick through the front window, breaking the glass.
Mark is arrested for distributing child pornography. One of the school administrators visits Rachel's home and tells her the news, but Rachel remains unapologetic due to the school keeping Dina's bullying hidden instead of stopping it.
Driving, Rachel spots Dina's best friend, Claire Stevens (Rachel Delante) and asks her what she knows. Claire reveals that she saw Skylar and Mark hooking up at the after party and witnessed Dina begging Mark to help her stop the circulation of the pictures. However, Skylar walked up and insulted her, causing Dina to leave. Skylar then revealed she sent the pictures from Mark's phone to one other person to prove Dina wasn't the saint she acted like.
Mark comes by to visit Rachel and as the two talk, Mark once again says that he wasn't the one who sent the pictures around. Due to what she heard from Claire, Rachel believes him and learns from him Dina started skipping field hockey after the bullying got worse. Rachel thanks Mark for his help and goes to visit her long-time friend and Skylar's mom, Patricia (Judith Hoag).
In a flashback, Claire asks Skylar to lay off Dina. However, Skylar says that someone should report Dina to the coach so she will get kicked off the team. She later manipulates Claire into doing it since she can't because she lost the position of team captain to Dina and it would look like "sour grapes".
At the Reid house, Rachel tells Patricia that she knows Skylar was the one who sent the pictures out. Despite their daughters' rivalry, Patricia refuses to believe Skylar would do something so terrible. Patricia then asks her daughter in front of Rachel if she sent the pictures and Skylar says no. Rachel asks to see Skylar's phone, but Patricia refuses. − After Rachel breaks down, Patricia offers to make her some tea while she fixes herself up in the bathroom. While inside, Rachel knocks over a pile of magazines and sees the original cut-out words from the letters in her mailbox. After Rachel leaves without revealing what she has found, Skylar tells her mom that she did send the pictures out, but to only one person. Rachel decides to drop the charges against Mark, but wants to change the direction of the investigation to focus on Skylar. However, the police reveal that Claire was the one Skylar sent the pictures too and she proceeded to send it to forty other people.
Rachel goes home and hears one of Dina's video diaries playing. In Dina's room, she finds Claire, who runs away. Rachel watches the video where Dina reveals that she got kicked off the field hockey team because of the pictures and lost her scholarship (which Skylar then gained) because her coach was forced to report it to her college of choice. It turns out this video diary was the last one Dina made before she committed suicide.
In the flashback, Dina is clearing out her locker when Skylar begins gloating. The two get into a nasty fight until Skylar reveals that Claire was the one who told the coach. Feeling completely betrayed, Dina viciously turns on Claire just as she walks in. Clearly upset by the entire situation, Claire says that she just didn't want the whole team to be disqualified if Dina's pictures were discovered.
Pleading her innocence, Claire insists that she didn't send the pictures, but intended to destroy them. However, she forgot her phone in the limo on Homecoming and it ended up back at Skylar's house. Slowly, Rachel realizes that Patricia sent the pictures from Claire's phone just as a furious Skylar confronts her mother after discovering the copies on Patricia's phone. She also realizes that it was her mother who trashed Dina's gravesite and threw the brick through Rachel's window. Patricia pleads with Skylar to understand that she did everything for her because she never would've gotten the field hockey scholarship to Price otherwise.
Disgusted by her mother's actions as well as her lack of remorse and refusal to take any responsibility for driving Dina to suicide, Skylar takes the family car and runs away, but crashes into a tree shortly after while angrily texting Patricia "I will never forgive you" after her mother sent her a message begging forgiveness. Patricia is later arrested for the distribution of child pornography.
Rachel visits Skylar in the hospital, where it is revealed that she may be paralyzed from the waist down permanently. Patricia asks if Rachel came to gloat, but Rachel apologizes that Patricia is going through what she went through, that she found Skylar as much a threat to her own daughter's success and their friendship was never real. She promises to pray for Skylar's recovery, but vows to see Patricia in court and ensure that she is punished for what she did to Dina. Rachel then leaves as Patricia breaks down in tears.
Rachel is shown recording a video diary of her own, wondering if her quest to understand what Dina went through has made any difference. Claire visits her house and asks Rachel to come with her to the school because she has a surprise. Rachel enters the packed auditorium where Claire gives a passionate speech about bullying and the deadly consequences of it. She goes on to say that Dina was bullied to death and that her suicide was the fault of everyone who not only participated in the bullying itself, but those who allowed it to continue instead of stopping it (including herself). Starting with her and Mark, the other students then give up their cell phones for the rest of the semester and vow to prevent further bullying at the school. The movie ends with Rachel watching one of Dina's earlier video diaries with Claire. | flashback | train | wikipedia | 1) Don't take selfies and 2) If you do, don't post on the internet.
I watched the beginning of this movie this morning on LMN and read where it was about bullying.
Then I saw the girl take a selfie of herself to send to her boyfriend.
Not sure but why do I think that any girl who does this deserves whatever happens.
I am so glad and grateful that cell phones weren't around when my two children were in high school, but I'm also convinced that neither of my children would send incriminating selfies over the internet.
I like "instant" digital cameras.
I remember the Samsung I bought several years ago that I bought to take pictures during my annual fishing trip to the Adirondacks.
I remember reading a review that said you could take pictures of yourself and the reviewer said that might be useful at times.
I thought why in the world would that be useful.
I guess he was more aware than me of how the current youth in the U.S. are totally spoiled and into themselves..
Ending of movie ruined the whole movie.
The movie kept my interest and had it not been for the last 5 minutes, I'd have rated it above a five.When a movie deals with a "realistic" topic it should try with its best effort to portray what most likely would have happened in the real world.A girl sends her boyfriend a nude photo which ends up going viral.
Girl is kicked off her sports team and to her life has no meaning.
This is very much like what it feels like in high school when something goes awfully wrong.Girl kills herself and mom is determined to find out why.
The movie did a good job following her investigation and the culprit did take me by surprise.
The movie should have ended with the hospital scene.What the movie did next was incredibly silly.
The school suddenly rallies behind dead girl and students, on the lead of dead girl's ex-boyfriend and good friend, turn their cell phones in for the rest of the school year.Are you kidding me?
What teenager would really do this?
I couldn't believe that the makers of this movie decided to go with this ending.
Poor judgement in my mind and it made me rank this under a five..
Interesting Detective Story; Message Delivery Not So Proper.
While the movie is negatively affected by somewhat odd and untimely flashbacks, the entire structure of storytelling does seem intact and the story turns out to be an interestingly engaging detective-kind of plot.
Here's the deal.
A teenage girl hangs herself to death and her mother begins unraveling the reason behind her death.
It is the same old never-giving-up attitude, despite the fact that it seems reasonable and somewhat believable in the realistic sense.
So like any typical detective movies, the investigator is determined to find the truth, only this time the one carrying out the investigation is a mother of a deceased child who she believes is bullied to death.
As a ordinary detective story goes, more clues are found as the big picture starts to surface.
The story is not bad, but definitely we do not get to see very good editing and organization.
The ending perhaps is the part leading to a lot of discussion and questioning.
Is this part necessary, or is it too cliché for the viewers' taste?
Both are possibilities depending on who you are and what you are expecting.
What we get overall is a good detective story that is extremely personal.
The most disappointing thing has to be the ending, which seems like a weird and constructed for one and one purpose only, for the message delivery.
While I am not judging whether such a way of reinforcing a message is the proper way, it would certainly be much more favorable to spread the message throughout the entire movie, instead of making a scene for achieving that effect, which does not seem like a very smart choice.
A Picture is Worth Much Destruction-****.
Outstanding film dealing with bullying in our schools.
In this one, a mother of a daughter who committed suicide wants answers to what drove her daughter to do this.
The girl had everything.It is during the investigation that the mother encounters a hostile environment.
None of the students would speak to her and she gets resistance along the way from the principal of the school.
After going into the girls' bathroom, the mother had every right to accuse the principal of being incompetent.What makes this movie so good is the ending.One will be absolutely shocked to see who the culprit was.
A picture of the girl in the raw was sent all over.
This picture ruined her life.This is an engrossing, timely movie.
There is tragedy throughout the film..
hits home about how bullying can spiral out of control.
Having just watched this film now, under the title of 'Shattered Silence' which is a better title than the main, I find the film itself compelling and there is a strong underlying story to the overall plot.The cover up and denial are rife when it comes to bullying, the film has good pace and follows through dramatically with flashbacks that are well timed.What did let the film down was the very end sequence, where the children make a decision to hand in their phones as a show of respect and strength against bullying, I find this very weak, it would have been simpler to have a memorial tree planted in the victims name, something that would stand the test of time as a remembrance to the incident contained in the film.These are unfortunate circumstances that as a parent, I find I can relate to, as a film maker, we have a feature documentary titled 'Zero Tolerance' in development now that covers victims committing suicide due to bullying, it is sad when this happens, but you have to ask if this film was inspired by events over the last few years when so many more stories come out about cyber bullying..
Bad, bad, bad movie.
Where do I begin with how bad this movie is.
The writing is sophomoric, the acting wooden and the plot, while plausible, is badly developed.Why do they insist on hiring 25 year old actors to play high school kids.
If they are going to hire 25 year old actors to play high school kids can't they at least find ones who can act?
As to the writing....
they say write what you know.
While the writer may know that high school kids can be mean, he has no idea how they act, what they do and no idea about sports, prosecutors, police and the issues around sexting.Just a bad movie...
take the two hours and do something else in life..
This is a wake up call to all the USA's middle class parents, and their kids..
Don't read this review if you don't want to know the ending of this film.The pressure to want their kids to succeed among the USA's middle class parents has to be of primary importance in the competitive world of the free market.This film fires this home on both barrels.
I felt like punching my TV screen from beginning to end when watching this film.The mother responsible for this girls suicide did not see anything wrong with what she did, "I did it for you", she tells her daughter.I ask, just how many middle class American parents would be prepared to go to these lengths to help their son and/or daughter to succeed ?This mother made me angry, her daughter and her daughters friends made me angry.But the mum comes out on top because she did not seem to care what she had done, until she was found out.Oh, if only we could see the consequences of our actions 24/7. |
tt0034936 | Keeper of the Flame | When national hero Robert Forrest is killed in an riding accident, the entire United States goes into deep mourning. Admirer and renowned journalist Stephen O'Malley (Spencer Tracy) returns from Europe to write a biography of the great man. Among the throngs covering the funeral, he finds his old friends and fellow reporters, Jane Harding (Audrey Christie) and Freddie Ridges (Stephen McNally). They remain after the rest of the press leave.
Forrest's widow, Christine (Katharine Hepburn), refuses to speak to reporters throughout the proceedings. However, O'Malley befriends youngster Jeb (Darryl Hickman), son of the gatekeeper of the Forrest estate, Jason Rickards (Howard Da Silva). The grief-stricken boy shows him a way into the mansion, where he meets Christine. Though she is cordial enough, she refuses any cooperation with his biography. After O'Malley leaves, Forrest's private secretary, Clive Kerndon (Richard Whorf), fearful of how the reporter will react to the brushoff, convinces Christine to offer her help so that they can steer him in the direction they want.
As time goes on, O'Malley gains the widow's trust. Christine is the "keeper of the flame", protecting her husband's memory and reputation. O'Malley's instincts tell him that some secret is being kept from him. He discovers that Forrest's elderly, mentally ill mother (Margaret Wycherly) is living in a separate house on the vast estate. Despite her servants' attempts to keep them apart, he manages to speak with her and obtains more clues from her ramblings.
O'Malley notices "the arsenal," a stone building near the Forrest mansion which served as Robert Forrest's office and library. One afternoon, O'Malley observes smoke rising from the arsenal's chimney. When he asks Kerndon about the building's purpose, Kerndon (who cannot see the smoke) tells him it is only a storehouse. O'Malley slips away to investigate. He discovers Christine burning what she claims are love letters, but he suspects otherwise. Later, Kerndon telephones somebody and assures the unnamed party that he will take care of the situation. As O'Malley learns more, he begins to wonder if Christine and her cousin Geoffrey Midford (Forrest Tucker) are lovers and murderers. However, Geoffrey's announcement of his engagement to Rickard's daughter, and Christine's reaction, discounts that theory.
When O'Malley admits he has fallen in love with her, Christine finally breaks down and reveals the ugly truth. Her husband was corrupted by the power and adulation he received. He became a fascist, plotting to gain control of the United States and use his enormous influence to turn Americans to fascist ideals. She shows O'Malley papers stored in the arsenal which reveal how Forrest (backed by secretive, ultra-wealthy, power-hungry individuals) planned to use racism, anti-union feeling, and antisemitism to divide the country, turning one group against another if it became too powerful to control, in order to create the chaos that would let him seize power. Christine discovered the plot the day before her husband's death. She went riding the next morning and came upon the washed-out bridge. She could have warned her husband, but decided that a "clean death in the rain was the best thing that could happen to Robert Forrest." O'Malley convinces her to help him write a book detailing Forrest's scheme.
Kerndon eavesdrops, then locks the sole arsenal door and sets the building ablaze. Through an opening, he fatally shoots Christine with a pistol. He attempts to kill O'Malley, too, but misses. When an automobile rushes to the scene, Kerndon shoots at the passengers and is struck by the vehicle.
O'Malley ultimately writes a book titled Christine Forrest: Her Life, which exposes the plot. | insanity, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0087003 | Broadway Danny Rose | The story of Danny Rose (Woody Allen) is told in flashback, an anecdote shared amongst a group of comedians over lunch at New York's Carnegie Deli.
Rose's one-man talent agency represents countless unorthodox, unsuccessful entertainers, including washed-up lounge lizard Lou Canova (Nick Apollo Forte), whose career is on the rebound. On those rare occasions any of Danny's acts do succeed, they invariably leave him for better representation.
Lou, who has a wife and three kids, is having an affair with a woman, Tina (Mia Farrow), who had previously dated a gangster. Lou wants her to accompany him to a big gig Danny has landed for him at the Waldorf Astoria, where he will perform in front of Milton Berle, who could potentially hire him for even bigger things.
At the singer's insistence, Danny acts as a "beard," masquerading as Tina's boyfriend to divert attention from the affair. Tina's ex-boyfriend is extremely jealous, and believing Tina's relationship with Danny to be real, he orders a hit on Danny, who finds himself in danger of losing both his client and his life.
Danny and Tina narrowly escape, as Danny at gunpoint says Tina's real boyfriend is one of Danny's clients who Danny believes is on a cruise for a few weeks. Danny and Tina escape and show up at the Waldorf to find Lou drunk and unprepared to perform. Danny sobers Lou with a unique concoction that he has come up with over the years; Lou sobers up, and gives a command performance. With a new prestigious talent manager in attendance at the performance, Lou, in front of Tina (and with her encouragement), fires Danny and hires the new manager. Danny, feeling cheated, goes to the Carnegie Deli where he hears that the client he ratted on to save himself was beaten up by the hit men and is now in the hospital. Danny goes to the hospital to console his client and pays his hospital bills.
Lou, who has left his wife and kids to marry Tina, becomes a success. Tina, feeling guilty for not sticking up for Danny, is depressed and they eventually split up. It is now Thanksgiving and Danny is hosting a party with all of his clients there. Tina shows up to the door and apologizes, asking Danny to remember his uncle Sidney's motto, "acceptance, forgiveness, and love." At first Danny turns Tina away, but later catches up with her and they appear to make up. During this closing shot, the voiceover of the group of comedians talking about the story is heard. They praise Danny, and say that he was eventually awarded Broadway's highest honor: a sandwich at Broadway's best-known deli was named after him. | paranormal, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0048624 | Sissi | Princess Elisabeth, nicknamed "Sissi", is the second oldest daughter of Duke Maximilian Joseph in Bavaria and Princess Ludovika of Bavaria. She is a carefree, impulsive and nature-loving child. She is raised with her seven siblings at the family seat Possenhofen Castle on the shores of Lake Starnberg in Bavaria. She has a happy childhood free of constraints associated with her royal status.
With her mother and her demure older sister Helene (called "Néné"), 16-year-old Sissi travels from Possenhofen to the spa town of Bad Ischl in Upper Austria. Ludovika's sister, Archduchess Sophie, is the mother of the young emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria. Helene is called by Archduchess Sophie to meet the young emperor Franz Joseph in the imperial villa so that the two might be immediately engaged. Sissi is unaware of the real reason for the journey and is forbidden by her aunt to participate in any social events due to her girlishly impetuous ways.
Sissi spends her time fishing in the forest where by chance she meets Franz Josef. The emperor is unaware that the girl is his cousin Sissi. He takes a liking to her and invites her for an afternoon hunting trip in the Alps. They meet as arranged in the mountains where they talk and become acquainted. Sissi falls in love with him but does not reveal her true identity. During their trip, Sissi learns of the planned marriage between Franz Joseph with her sister. The Emperor confesses that he envies the man who will marry Sissi and confesses that he feels no connection to Néné. Upon hearing his indirect declaration of love, Sissi becomes distraught due to her loyalty to Néné. She runs away from Franz Joseph without any explanation.
When Sissi returns to their residence, Néné reveals the reason for the trip to Bad Ischl: to become engaged with Franz Joseph. Unexpectedly, Franz Josef's brother, Carl-Ludwig, arrives and Sissi is invited by the Archduchess to act as his partner at the Emperor's birthday celebration. At his birthday party, Franz Joseph is suddenly confronted by Sissi's appearance there with her mother and sister. He realises who Sissi is and tries to talk to her, openly confessing his love and asking her to marry him. Sissi rejects Franz Joseph in order not to betray her sister. He defies his mother's reservations and Sissi's resistance and announces, to the surprise of his guests, his betrothal to Sissi. Néné is heartbroken and leaves the party crying. Sissi, in a state of shock, is forced to obey the Emperor's wishes.
In Possenhofen, preparations for the wedding have started. Sissi is not excited about her impending marriage, as the hurt Néné has left for an indefinite period. For her sister's sake, Sissi attempts to break her engagement, however, Néné returns with a new suitor, Maximilian Anton, Hereditary Prince of Thurn and Taxis. The sisters reunite and Néné gives her blessing to Sissi for her marriage.
For the wedding ceremony, Sissi travels with her family on the steamboat "Franz Joseph" down the Danube to Vienna. People line the banks, waving flags and cheering their future Empress. As part of a grand procession, Sissi enters the city in a gilded carriage. The wedding takes place in the Augustinian Church on April 24, 1854. | romantic | train | wikipedia | I know these films are considered by some purported high-brows to be of low popular-art form and saccharine emotions.
Above all Romy Schneider and Vilma Degischer as Sissi and Sofia playing the tension between the young empress and her formidable mother-in-law, are great to watch.
Each has their own humanity and, actually, rich human qualities shine through in all of the other characters quite beautifully.Karl-Heinz Boehm is excellent as the young emperor torn between his love for the fresh and lively Sissi and duty to his by-the-book mother.
And Magda Schneider and Gustav Knuth are warm and sympathetic as Sissi's parents.The restoration, recently performed on these films, has left them looking incredibly beautiful (on par with "Gone With the Wind").
"Sissi" is the first part of a trilogy about the Austrian princess/empress Elisabeth in Bavaria, aka Sissi (Romy Schneider).
The teenage princess lives happily in Bavaria with her parents, Duke Max (Gustav Knuth) and Duchess Ludovika (Magda Schneider, Romy's real life mother), and siblings.
When Ludovika is invited by her sister, Archduchess Sophie (Vilma Degischer), to take Helene, Sissi's older sister, to the Austrian court in Ischl, in order to arrange a royal engagement for Helene and the young emperor Franz Joseph (Karlheinz Böhm), Sissi goes along.
Romy Schneider shines as the young princess, she's the heart of the movie.
It's impossible not to fall in love with her gorgeous smile and sweet manners.Released in the same year as another unforgettable romance ("Picnic", with William Holden, Kim Novak and Rosalind Russell), "Sissi" may not be called a masterpiece.
However, I cannot give anything less than a "10" to a movie that makes you feel good and smile even during the hardest times..
Charming story of sweet love with young Romy Schneider in main role.
There was a time, about thirty years ago, when Marischka's SISSI trilogy was considered kitschy by many critics.
Fortunately, these times are gone and again we all can see these beautiful films without being influenced by the critics and their politics.I must admit that Sissi has always been one of my favorite movies.
Romy Schneider, her acting, gestures and her face are almost identical with real Sissi.
However, I heard that this role had such an impact on Romy's life that she was associated with Sissi throughout her career.
As a result, some people consider SISSI films the deepest insight into Romy's life.
Magda Schneider, Romy's mother, gives a fine performance as Ludovika, Karlheinz Bohm (Franz Josef) does an excellent job.
He was not so much attached to family life...Another reason why I like these films is the fact that despite its historical inaccuracies (their love did not look like that), these movies are very gentle, show the value of love between a man and a woman and as a result, they can be watched even by small children without harm done to their psyche.Some say that Sissi is for sentimental girls and old women.
I am a 25 year old man and come back to these films with great pleasure and so do a lot of my friends.
Played by a very young Romy Schneider - a role that stuck to her, much to her chagrin in later years.
The trilogy is about the life of the Austrian Empress and Hungarian Queen Elizabeth (1837-1898) - or "Sissi" - in the first years of her marriage to the Austrian Emperor and 'Apostolic' King of Hungary Franz-Joseph I (1830-1916) - played by Karl-Heinz Böhm.
However, my favourite character in the film is "Sissi's" mother-in-law, archduchess Sophie, played very ably by Vilma Degischer.
I certainly love the Sissi saga :everytime it's broadcast,I find myself watching for the umpteenth time these three films which the highbrows despise so much.I read several biographies of the empress and it's stating the obvious to say it's fictionalized history (the right term would be "fairytaled" history for this first episode strongly recalls Cinderella).Romy Schneider did not think much of her part and she used to approve of Visconti's Elisabeth she played in "Ludwig" (1973)."Sissi" is pure entertainment ;all the characters are endearing :the colonel provides a good comic relief ,Sophie is a perfect villainess,the witch, ,Ludovica the good fairy,Max the bon vivant,the swarm of children a foretaste of the "sound of music" -the Trapp were Austrian,weren't they?-and the lovers ,Franz and Sissi are as close as fairytale prince and princess as they can be.I certainly love the Sissi saga.Down with the highbrows!.
Romy Schneider in her own fairy tale.
Of course everybody loved her - well, she got killed by someone eventually, but that is not in the film and it does not prove anything anyway.
If you know Romy Schneider only from her later (mostly French) films do not even try to imagine how beautiful and charming, well sweet she was.
All three films will be valued as the highest art in the million years to come by anyone who can enjoy a fairy tale..
But this is one of the greatest bavarian classics for all time, and maybe is the sweetest and famous films for all the family of the golden period (forget little women or Gigi.
Even that this movie today is too cursi and all fashion, Romy Schneider beauty and precoz talent still shine (she was 16 when she made SISSI).
She had chemistry with her the emperor.the movie has three sequels, Magda Schenider shines in the third part (with an excellent chemistry with her daughter in film and real life), but in this are the "battle scenes" between Sissi and her mother in Law that are grate to see again Too sweet but a classic.
Austria, 19th centutry: the bavarian princess Elisabeth meets the austrian emperor Franz-Josef and of course they fall in love.
This film is really nice and if you like lovestories you'll love it.
When he meets her second daughter wandering in the woods, however, they fall in love.The charming anti-Cinderella tale of Sissi based on history, sort of, but it is brought to the screen in its fairy-tale glory with shots of Schonbrunn Castle, Bad Ischl, lavish sets and costumes and 15-year-old Romy Schneider.
This story covers love, the obstacles to becoming Empress, the stumbles of the relationship with her mother-in-law and there are also some comedy scenes and funny conversations in all of the movies Sissi 1-3.
Lucky me, I have seen this movie (3 of them) with English subtitles and German language, so for me this presentation is a more valuable experience to see.
The DVD box set of the movie Sissi can be bought online from www.ezydvd.com.au.
The presentation of the movie from that DVD box set includes original German language and English subtitles..
Forget all the mush for a moment (and what a mushy film this is!) and bear in mind that we are in Germany just ten years after the war.
By a happy coincidence the same Haydn melody was used for the Austrian national anthem (played at Sissi's arrival in Austria) before the First World War as was adopted for the German national anthem after the First World War and which was still in use (in Germany) in 1955 and is of course still in use today.While Germany itself was in a state of unresolved guilt combined with intense denial, Austria, as is often pointed out, had neatly evaded all "denazification" after the war.
The Marischka brothers, Hubert and Ernest (who directs these films) were very Vienna and had always been more operetta and waltz music than sturm und drang and blut und boden - the acceptable if frivolous side of Germanic culture.When Werner Krauss, great actor but notorious anti-semite, was unable to work in Germany, he moved to Austria, took Austrian citizenship and continued his career until rehabilitated and restored to his German citizenship in 1951.
He was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz (German "order of merit")just the year before this film came out and, on his death in 1959 the Iffland-Ring (traditionally held by the finest living German actor)passed not as expected to Oskar Werner (a noted anti-Nazi ) but to another Austrian, Josef Meinrad whose comic major in the Sissi films is amongst his most notable film appearances.Magda Schneider, for her part, lived on in Bechtesgarten where she had been Hitler's neighbour, friend and favourite actress.
Unlike her mother, she was Austrian born (Vienna) so was the perfect representative both of a continuity with pre-war Germany and of an innocent new generation, uninvolved in the awkward bit that came in between.The same might be said of Karlheinz Böhm whose father, the conductor Karl Böhm, has publicly welcomed Hitler's annexation of Austria in 1938 and conducted the concert given on the occasion.
He has himself, it should be said, been a notable philanthropist as well as appearing (to is cost) in one of the most remarkable and disturbing films ever made about the father-son relationship - Michael Powell's Pepping Tom.While fifties Germany avoided the spectacular in cinema and specialised in the "heimatfilm", celebrations of all those good, old-fashioned German virtues that could not be mistaken for Nazism, Austria was the perfect place to produce a kind of postwar pan-Germanic epic that is rather like a glorified version of the heimatfilm (hunting and fishing, Bavarian beer and skittles).Historical verity has necessarily to take a back seat so that the portrayal of this part at any rate of the Germanic world can be seen as entirely sympathetic and all the reverse of "you know what".
I am not blaming Germans for wanting to make films like this.
Romy Schneider is "Sissi" in this 1955 film, the first of a trilogy about Empress Elisabeth of Austria.Sissi is not someone we are very familiar with in the United States, but in Europe, she enjoys a popularity similar to Princess Diana's.
She is everywhere - candy boxes, dolls, you name it.This first film tells the story of the 15-year-old Sissi and her meeting with the man who would become her husband, Emperor Franz Josef, who was intended to be her sister Helene's husband; however, Josef fell for Sissi instead.Sissi fortunately lived at a time when there were no tabloids or tell-all books.
We see in the film that she was raised by a father who was very gemutlichkeit, fun-loving, and he encouraged his children to play and enjoy life.
And her cousin was Mad Prince Ludwig.This film covers the time up to her marriage, and Romy Schneider is both beautiful and charming in the role.
The film is so pretty, with gorgeous scenery and costumes, as well as some beautiful classical music.
Schneider went on to play Sissi in the two other films.These movies are shown in Europe at Christmas.Sissi has been the subject of a musical and an operetta (that I know of), several plays, two ballets, countless films, TV mini-series, several books, and is the subject of a song.
This film is like something Disney would produce, very lovely, and more a fairy tale than the real story..
Both Sissi and the emperor are presented as extremely likable, visually appealing characters, interacting in a fairly-like story.
The entire movie plays like a fairy tale and is visually very appealing.
I did not expect to like it as much as I did and would recommend it to all lovers of historical drama and 19th century Austrian history in particular..
Sweet Romy, Sissi was a blessing and a curse for her.
I am German and I grew up with the Sissi Trilogy and it still is on my yearly watch list for Christmas.
Of course I had to order the DVD as they don't show it here on TV.It's not a Christmas movie but it was always aired around Christmas in Germany.The historical facts could't be more inaccurate, but the movie still makes you feel good.
Romy Schneider was in real life almost as tragic as Sissi.
Just watch it for what it is, 90 minutes of beautiful scenery, dresses, music and more from an era long gone.Just sit back, laugh with them, cry with them and have a good time.
The fairytale of a young girl falling in love with a handsome emperor (king, prince, feel free to fill in) seems as timeless as can be, but this first Sissi movie doesn't quite make it...
SISSI is a an attempt at a movie.
The cast of the story is so one dimensional that watching this "movie" for too long (say 5 minutes) will make one sick to his stomach, not to mention that the thing is so boring that one runs the risk of becoming suicidal if run time exceeds 15 minutes.
Written and directed by Ernst Marischka, 1950's Austrian Sissi trilogy is charming fairytale about 19th century Bavarian princess Elisabeth or Sissi (Romy Schneider), who became wife of Empress Franz Joseph I (Karlheinz Böhm).
The films made Schneider a star but type-casted her, too.
(Side-note: Sissi's mother was played by her real-life mother, Magda Schneider, who had been part of Hitler's social circle, and Böhm's career was later destroyed by 1960 British horror flick Peeping Tom.) Denying of crap?
This is one of the most beautiful and sweet films I have seen in my long history of enjoying films .I think every student of film should see this film ,On how to frame a shot and fill every shot with beauty, Romy Schneider is Beautiful and charming, The scenery (is real)and post card perfect, With magnificent costumes, and with lots of comic touches, The women of the film taking up most of the light drama, and the men just wanting to relax and puzzled at and the fuss, Except for the Price who warns the young Princess that if they are to marry there is no guarantee of happiness as the future is uncertain for the Royals, Of course there is nothing to worry about for our couple in this film.
Sissi Movies.
I was born in Germany and grew up with the Sissi movies.
I have been in the States since 1962 and just discovered all 3 movies again.Since then I must have watched them over and over again, most of the time without sound since I know them by heart.
Make a long story short - I love the movies, I adore Romy Schneider and, of course, Karlheinz Boehm (by the way, he passed away on May 29', 2014 age 86).
It's important that you understand that this highly romanticized version of the life of Empress Elisabeth ('Sissi') of Austria is mostly fiction.
Plus, when my wife and I visited Vienna a few years ago, the locals often laughed at these movies and regaled us with tales of the REAL Sissi--who was, in some ways, a thoroughly self-absorbed and seemingly emotionally disturbed lady.
This rather nutty real version of Sissi's life would be very fascinating...but romantic, it is not!
As far as this film goes, I think how much you enjoy it will have a lot to do with whether or not you like fairytale-like stories.
I also think that perhaps it will play a lot better in Austria and throughout Europe--where they are more familiar with the mythical image of Sissi and where they might have a greater appreciation of royalty.
The film is made using the lovely 1950s color--and the DVD print is gorgeous.
It also didn't hurt that much of the film was filmed in the Austrian Alps--with some of the most amazing natural beauty you could ask for in a movie.
In addition, the music worked wonders with the scenery--setting a nice romantic mood for the film.
It also didn't hurt that Romy Schneider was in the film.
At 17, she was among the most beautiful young women in the world--and she played the character with a lot of seemingly natural charm.
In other words, while quite pretty the plot was a bit on the slow side--but it was still quite watchable and entertaining.I was happy to see Karlheinz Böhm in the film playing Emperor Franz Josef.
And, by the way, "Peeping Tom" is a thoroughly amazing and creepy film--well worth your time unless you are very squeamish!
"Sissi" is an Austrian German-language movie that is having its 60th anniversary this year.
And it is not only the defining film in Romy Schneider (too short) career, but often also considered one of the best and most known period pieces that do not come from the United States.
The writer and director is Ernst Marischka, who has already made films for over 40 years when he made "Sissi".
There's 2 more Sissi films by Marischka and this trilogy is certainly his most known legacy.
All 3 films star Romy Schneider, her mother Magda and Karlheinz Böhm as the male lead.I must say Romy Schneider is absolutely stunning and in terms of costumes, sets and basically all kinds of visuals, this is a very decent watch.
The ending of the film obviously indicated that there would be a sequel, but to me another "Sissi" movie was not necessary judging from the first.
And the way you will inevitable feel for Sissi is not enough to make up for everything that's wrong with this movie.
The political aspects are references at times, but never really elaborated on, which makes this movie pointless in terms of history.
I quite liked the movie overall however, even at the time it was produced it had a surprisingly naive and over-engineered feel to it..
"Sissi and Franz" sounds a bit like "Tom and Jerry", except that they love each other and drink a lot of alcohol.
In fact, I know some people who have heard that Sissi and Franz used to go for their holiday-sen in Ibiza and party hard over there.
For the next time, let's get back from this movie meant a lot to me.
when i met my wife, the love of my life, the light of my eyes, i was a Franz to my Sissi. |
tt0078335 | Stunt Rock | Today
The film begins with commentary by passenger Detective Graham Waters (Don Cheadle), who has suffered a car accident with his partner Ria (Jennifer Esposito). He mentions that the citizens of Los Angeles have lost their "sense of touch." Ria and the driver of the other car, Kim Lee, exchange racially charged insults. When Waters exits the car, he arrives at a police investigation crime scene concerning the discovery of a "dead kid".
Yesterday
While purchasing a revolver at a gun store, Farhad (Shaun Toub), a Persian shop owner, and his daughter Dorri (Bahar Soomekh), argue in Farsi over what box of bullets they should buy. The gun store owner grows impatient and degrades the two of them by referring to Farhad as "Osama". Farhad asserts that he is an American citizen, but the store owner continues exchanging racially stereotypical insults at Farhad and has the security guard escort him out of the store. Dorri demands the store owner to give her the gun or give her back the money. After the store owner gives the gun to Dorri, she asks for "the ones in the red box". The store owner asks why, but Dorri does not answer and insists on buying that particular box. In another part of town, two black men, Anthony (Ludacris) and Peter (Larenz Tate), argue over racial stereotyping of African Americans after Jean Cabot (Sandra Bullock), the wife of the local district attorney Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser), walks in another direction while fearfully staring at them.
Anthony and Peter carjack the married couple as they are about to enter their Lincoln Navigator. Later, at the Cabot house, Hispanic locksmith Daniel Ruiz (Michael Peña) is changing their locks when Jean notices his tattoos. She loudly complains to Rick about having been carjacked and now having to endure a Hispanic man changing their locks, feeling he will give copies of the keys to "his gang banger friends". Having overheard this, Daniel leaves the keys on Jean's kitchen counter. Detectives Waters and Ria arrive at the scene of a shooting between two drivers. The surviving shooter is a white male, identified as an undercover police officer. The dead shooter, a black male, is revealed also to be an undercover police officer. There is a large amount of cash found in the black officer's trunk. This is the third time the white officer has shot and killed a black man.
LAPD officer John Ryan (Matt Dillon) calls an HMO on behalf of his father and has an argument with a representative named Shaniqua Johnson (Loretta Devine). He then gets into the squad car with his partner Tom Hansen (Ryan Philippe) and sees a car passenger performing fellatio on the driver of a moving vehicle. They pull over the Navigator similar to the one carjacked earlier, despite discrepancies in the descriptions. They order the couple, television director Cameron Thayer (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton), to exit. Cameron is cooperative, but Christine is argumentative. This annoys Ryan, who manually molests Christine under the pretense of administering a pat-down. Intimidated, Cameron says nothing. The couple is released without a citation. Once home, Christine becomes enraged that Cameron did nothing while she was being violated. Cameron insists that what he did was correct and storms out.
Arriving home from work long after dark, Daniel finds his young daughter, Lara (Ashlyn Sanchez), hiding under her bed after hearing a gunshot outside. To comfort her, Daniel gives her an "invisible impenetrable cloak", which makes her feel safe enough to fall asleep in her bed. In the carjacked SUV, Anthony and Peter, arguing and distracted, hit a Korean man while passing a parked white van. They argue about what to do with him, finally dumping him in front of a hospital and driving away. Due to the blood in the vehicle, they are unable to receive payment for the carjacking. The next day, at the Los Angeles Police Department station, Hansen talks to his superior, Lt. Dixon (Keith David), about switching partners. Dixon, a black man, claims that Hansen's charge of Ryan as a racist could cost both Hansen and Dixon their jobs. Dixon suggests a transfer to a one-man car and mockingly tells Hansen that he should justify it by claiming to have uncontrollable flatulence.
Ryan visits Shaniqua and apologizes for the argument. He explains that his father was previously diagnosed with a bladder infection, but he fears it may be prostate cancer. Shaniqua nearly calls security to escort Ryan out of her office when he proceeds to insult Shaniqua by calling her an affirmative action hire. When Ryan asks for his father to see a different doctor, Shaniqua denies the request and he storms out of her office in anger. Meanwhile, Daniel is seen replacing a lock at Farhad's shop and tries to explain to him that the door frame needs to be replaced. Farhad, whose English is limited, misunderstands and accuses Daniel of cheating him, which causes Daniel to leave.
Today
The next morning, Farhad discovers the store has been wrecked and defaced with graffiti. His insurance company does not cover the damage, calling it a case of negligence due to the defective door. When Farhad is told that his shop will be closing down, he vows revenge on Daniel. Detective Waters visits his mother (Beverly Todd), a hard drug abuser. She asks him to find his missing younger brother. He promises and takes notice that there is almost no food in the apartment as he is leaving. When he tries to present evidence in the shooting between undercover police officers, his superiors tell him not to reveal the cash in the black officer's trunk, saying that their work in crafting a non-racist image for the department will be undone.
Jean comes home and sees dishes in the dishwasher. She accosts her Hispanic maid Maria for not putting them in the cupboards. Ryan comes across a car accident and as he crawls into the overturned vehicle, he finds Christine trapped. Upon recognizing Ryan, Christine becomes hysterical, but gasoline is leaking from the tank and running downhill towards another wreck, which has already caught fire. He calms her down, and with the assistance of his partner and spectators, Ryan pulls Christine out just as her car bursts into flames. Anthony and Peter approach another Navigator which happens to be Cameron's. They only see Cameron driving after they open the door and are shocked to see that the driver is black (after Anthony previously bragged about not carjacking black people). Cameron is tired of being pushed around and resists. Anthony tells Peter to shoot Cameron, but Peter does not.
As police officers arrive, Cameron and Anthony both race for the car and jump in. Cameron drives away, with Anthony continuing to point a gun at him. A car chase ensues. Hansen is one of the police officers who has responded and recognizes Cameron's vehicle. Cameron drives into a dead end, puts Anthony's gun into his pocket, and gets out of the car, all the while yelling insults at the officers. Just before he pulls out the gun, Hansen convinces him to stop aggravating the situation and to go home. Hansen vouches for Cameron, fending off the other officers, and promising to give him a "harsh" warning. Later, Cameron tells Anthony that as a black man he is embarrassed for him and drops Anthony off at a bus stop.
Farhad locates Daniel's house and waits in ambush. Just as Daniel's daughter Lara jumps into his arms, attempting to protect him with the "invisible cloak", Daniel's wife Elizabeth (Karina Arroyave) runs out the front door and watches in horror as Farhad shoots Lara. It takes the grief-stricken parents and Farhad a moment to realize that Lara is miraculously unharmed. The box of ammunition that Dorri had selected contained blanks. Farhad later tells his daughter that he believes the little girl was his guardian angel, preventing him from committing a terrible crime. Jean is complaining to someone she knows over the phone that she wakes up angry every day and does not know why. Immediately afterwards, she slips and falls down a flight of stairs, spraining her ankle. Jean phones Rick, telling him of her accident.
Peter, who is hitchhiking, is picked up by Hansen. Peter sees that Hansen has a small statuette of Saint Christopher like his own. He begins to laugh as he realizes that they have so much in common, but Hansen thinks that he is being laughed at. Hansen pulls over and tells Peter to get out if he wants to be "funny". Peter moves to pull the statuette out of his pocket in explanation, but Hansen believes he is pulling out a gun and mistakenly shoots and kills Peter. Hansen dumps the body in the bush beside a road and then torches his own car. Peter is revealed to be Waters' missing brother. Waters and his mother meet at the morgue, where Dorri is revealed to be a coroner and Waters promises to find who is responsible. Mrs. Waters blames her surviving son for his brother's death, claiming he was always too busy to look for Peter.
Anthony returns to the white van owned by the Korean man whom they had run over the night before. Finding the keys still hanging from the door lock, he drives the van away. The Korean man's wife Kim Lee arrives at the previously mentioned hospital looking for her husband, the man who was run over, named Choi Jin Gui. Conscious and coherent, he tells her to go and immediately cash a check that he has in his wallet. The check is most likely payment for the contents of the van. Anthony has driven the white van to a chop shop he frequents, and as they inspect the van, a number of Cambodian immigrants are discovered locked in the back of the van, revealing that Choi was involved in human trafficking. Anthony is offered $500 for each person in the van but refuses out of disgust. Whilst resting in her bed, Jean hugs Maria, saying she is the only true friend she has ever had and apologizes. Anthony drives to Chinatown and sets the Cambodian people free. As Anthony drives away, he passes a car crash, which turns out to involve Shaniqua. Shaniqua and the other driver get out and begin to exchange racial slurs. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Great music and an enjoyable movie too!.
I liked the music so much after I bought the movie I found the soundtrack and bought that too, and it is even better on CD than in the movie.
I remember the rock band Sorcery, and I'm glad to see they still have a web site and are active.
I remember the buzz in Hollywood/L.A. about this picture about stunt work in the movies.
The filming in part,took place in Hollywood Ca. and at the MGM studio's in Culver City Ca. I enjoyed the insight of the Director,Brian Trenchard Smith, in presenting the contribution stuntmen made in making motion pictures back then.
Keep in mind, no CGI in 78', and most of the stuntmen working then took some pretty incredible risks to get the shot called for by the directors, to make scenes look as real as possible for the films they worked in.
The stuntman,Grant Page, was excellent in the lead roll as he talks about the business of stuntwork in film, and what it took to be a stuntman back then.
Sorcery presented the battle of "good vs.
evil" as Merlin against Satan played out live on stage.
They blended magic and music together like no one had ever done,or seen before.
Smith's, masterstroke bringing these two entities together,for his vision for the film Stuntrock.
Sorcery and Grant Page were perfect for this project.
The movie showed only a small part of SORCERY's live stage show.
I also think Sorcery is responsible for a large amount of the success now seen for the picture some 30 years after being made in 1978, and they are a major contributer to it's present day underground cult status.
I know the musicians from Sorcery played on other movies,did TV music work, records and did Dick Clark specials as well from that period.
Brian's vision to make this film was somewhat limited,with a small budget and short time to complete, however he was smart to put Sorcery and Grant Page together for this unique look at stuntwork and music together.
I will watch this again and again,for it's entertainment value and Sorcery's great music..
The story is about Australian stuntman Grant Page (playing himself) traveling to Hollywood to handle the stunts for the new TV series "Undercover Girl".
Grant hooks up with his cousin, who is a member of a rock band called Sorcery.
Sorcery uses real "magic" on stage with their music and their entire stage show is a rock opera that tells the story about a duel between the King of the Wizards (Paul Haynes) and the Prince of Darkness (Curtis Hyde).
They go see Sorcery rehearse in the studio and then to an actual stage performance, where the band uses fire, and some pretty awesome prog-rock tunes to tell their story about good versus evil.
That's about the entire plot of the film, as Grant performs a series of dangerous stunts (along with footage of other stunt men and women) and Sorcery performs a series of original tunes and magic to an appreciative audience.
Surprisingly, though, this film is a total blast from beginning to end, thanks in no small part to Grant Page's on-screen charisma and devil-may-care stuntwork and Sorcery's kick-ass music and stage show.
Luckily, Trenchard-Smith chose SORCERY, a big-haired prog-rock Los Angeles band (the keyboard player wears a hood over his head and his voice is electronically altered) with a loyal cult following.I must confess that I never heard of them or their music before this film, but their songs and stage show won me over pretty quickly.
They are kind of like Emerson, Lake and Palmer mixed with an Arthurian Legend stage show, complete with a Merlin-like wizard (who at one point is spun on the tip of a sword and then impaled!) that performs many magic tricks.
It's like watching a David Henning magic show with fist-pumping rock music, but without the extreme overbite.
best action/musical I have ever seen!.
This ones a classic, all it has is a man doing these awesome stunts that make me cringe just watching him burn himself up, hanging over cliffs and all kinds of stuff and the band Sorcery reminds me of a cross between KISS and Uriah Heep and I loved it!
"Sorcery"....(Polygram records/Sorcery music 1978) A U.S. band in the late 70's from Hollywood, California.They combined Music and Magic, in a live stage show.
A true one of a kind group with great magicians and world class musicians gave an excellent live show.
I also have enjoyed their movie "STUNTROCK" as well, andthink they were an excellent example of the great Live actsof the 70's and 80's.
Rock on SORCERY....Glad to see there still around..
Watch the movie to see the rock band Sorcery..
Although this movie is somewhat dated, the rock band Sorcery makes it worth watching.
I saw Sorcery live in LA at a concert where non-other than Van Halen opened for them.
The movie showcases their music and their spectacular stage show.
So sums up the female lead of this one of a kind cinematic experience know as STUNT ROCK.
A faux documentary about real life Australian stuntman Grant Paige, STUNT ROCK garnered considerable attention in cult film circles earlier this year when a trailer for it appeared on the TRAILER TRASH vol.
1. And, truth be told, the trailer is merely a glimpse of the insanity that dares to combine the reckless and the rocking.Grant Page (renowned stunt coordinator, probably best know for MAD MAX) packs up his bags and heads to L.A. to visit his "brother," a performer in the heavy metal outfit Sorcery.
When his first stunt goes awry in Hollywood, Page attracts the interest of a blonde reporter who is determined to find out what makes this crazy stuntmen tick.
Page is more than happy to show her the expressions of his unique knack, all the while making sure to catch a few Sorcery gigs.
Yup, that is the plot of STUNT ROCK.
Filmed in both Australia and Hollywood, STUNT ROCK is a true oddity of cinema.
The stunt work is pretty daring, featuring some real fist clenching scenes.
A stunt gone wrong from MAD DOG MORGAN is highlighted to show how dedicated Page is to his art (he was severely burned but made it back to the set a few days later).
You've never seen GONE IN 60 SECONDS?" Yes, to solidify the idea of stunts as art, the production even includes several of the amazing (and groundbreaking) car chases from the original GONE IN 60 SECONDS.To counter the outlandish nature of the stunt work, the production features several over the top numbers by the heavy metal outfit Sorcery.
In addition to their music, Sorcery presents an elaborate on stage show featuring theatrics that put 70s rivals KISS to shame.
The narrative of their show is a battle between good and evil, essayed in a number of magic performances featuring Merlin combating the Devil onstage as the band sings.
The two diverse worlds of stunt and rock finally coincide when Page joins the band on stage for a fire stunt and then Sorcery dedicates a song to Page entitled "Stunt Rocker." Exactly who this combination of music and mayhem was aimed at has never been determined.
Director Brian Trenchard-Smith is no stranger to the world of stunts, having previously helmed the similar Page vehicle DEATH CHEATERS (1976) and the stunt laced Jimmy Wang Yu film THE MAN FROM HONG KONG (1975)..
The band "Sorcery" were amazing as well.
Sorcery's stage show was the best presentation of music and magic ever seen!The good vs.
evil theme was never so well played out on any stage before.
"Hard rock music/heavy metal magic" was the way to describe this group.
They were and continue today to be the only magic/music show of it's kind in the history of ROCK!
If you're into hard rock music and/or some of the best magic illusions ever performed live,don't miss this one.
See the movie and the band..
This film will not appeal to all, but what movie ever does.
I have always been into the art of stunt work and this portrays it in a way that wouldn't get passed most TV censorship now, coupled with an epic soundtrack by rock band Sorcery this film makes for an awesome viewing experience.
If you don't like stunt work or rock music you'll hate this movie, but if you do lend an interest to the aforementioned you'll find this an enjoyable and memorable production.....
As I read some reviews, mostly from people with no movie or TV experience but lots of self-promoting opinions take shots at this film let me try to set them straight.
1) The Plot is simple: Stuntman Grant Page goes to Hollywood Cal. to work on TV series "Undercover Girl" where he garners the interest of his co-star "Monique Van De Ven" and, a the reporter,played by "Margret Gerard" who is writing a story about people who get TO caught up in the work.
In this case stuntman like Grant Page.
When Grant arrives in Hollywood, he hooks up with his cousin, played by Curtis Hyde, who plays the devil character in "Sorcery" in the bands stage show.
Their show is a magic based stage show of the battle of good vs.
It features some great hard rock music of that era.The band has some roles in the film and Grant does a good job at what he does,stunts.
The film is from 1978 and the Director,Brian Trenchard Smith is responsible for all we see and hear as the director and editor usually do.
2) Sorcery did a very good job, as I'm sure they followed the directors suggestions and did what was called for at the time.
It's OK if some people don't care for this film,I know how many I don't like,but this is for many a good time movie about Rock,Stunts, and the backstage requirements of stuntmen and the movie business from a inside look from Grants perspective as a stuntman.
And the contribution over time they make to the overall movie.
3) Summary: I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to be entertained!
That's enough stunt work, magic tricks and glamour rock for the next couple of years..
I must have seen bits and pieces of "Stunt Rock" footage in the downright fantastic documentary "Not Quite Hollywood", probably found it instantly cool, promptly added it to my never-ending watchlist, and then subsequently forgot about it for the next ten years or so.
They obviously only showed the awesome stunt parts in "Not Quite Hollywood", and from the documentary I couldn't derive that this really isn't the type of "film" I usually seek for.
"Stunt Rock" isn't a film, in fact, because there aren't any real characters and there isn't a plot.
It's a mixture of impressively performed stunts by Grant Page, integrally sung rock anthems by a band named Sorcery and inventive magical tricks shown by a Merlin lookalike wizard and a sort of devil named Prince of Darkness.
I don't want to talk too negatively about "Stunt Rock", because I have tremendous respect for its director Brian Trenchard-Smith.
I had an epiphany during this movie, for my whole life I naively thought Citizen Kane had no equal, but now I can say with complete confidence that Stunt Rock is unequivocally it.The similarities are subtle but many, there are moving pictures & sound - so far so good, plenty of thoughtful mugging is going on just like what Orson Welles did and lastly while you are watching twelve monkeys don't encroach around you hurling their feces in your general direction.One of the reasons I discovered this movie is I found the soundtrack to Rocktober Blood, which I listened to hundreds of times before finally deciding to watch the actual movie and of course Sorcery (not Sorcery of Chicago) does the music and they Rock!
I feel the movie (Rocktober Blood) is underrated, the plot is more interesting than you may initially think, but then again you get great music as well!I feel many parallels can be drawn between Rocktober Blood and Stunt Rock, which can only bode well for you, the viewer, since you could have a great night with friends, make it a double-bill!.
but really it's all an excuse to get from musical sequence to stunt sequence and back again.
many of the stunt sequences are spliced in from other films the star, Grant Page, has performed stunts in.
he plays himself, as do many of the other actors and musicians here, including the amazingly awful sorcery, whose live performances, as shown here, are filled with an audience who seem to all be wondering who the hell these people are.
PS: a few years ago a friend had a bachelor party in which he and his buddies dressed up as Sorcery and actualy learned and played the entire soundtrack to the film.
Even better was that the director, Brian Trenchard-Smith showed up and videotaped it!.
A stunt that drops like a rock.
This movie can't decide if it is a concert film, a stunt documentary, or a love story.
Ultimately, it winds up being none of the above.Choppy editing, wooden-like-a-tree acting, dreadful, repetitive and puerile songs;dialog that beggars description and magic tricks that are either interminable or transparent or both (i've seen better at a child's birthday party)--this is a perfect storm of a bad film.
This is nothing more than a vanity project for Grant Page, the stuntman who takes up most of the um...plot isn't the word.
Ah, i have it--Grant wastes most of the screen time.
Where else could you combine stunts with the power of ROCK?
"Stunt Rock" is cult filmmaker Brian Trenchard-Smiths' tribute to one of the legends in the stunt department, Aussie icon Grant Page.
There's not much of a "story" in this movie, but its basic set-up has Grant travelling to America to work on a TV series with film star Monique van de Ven (also playing herself).
He also begins work on stage shows for a highly theatrical rock band dubbed "Sorcery", who come complete with a "wizard" style magician (Paul Haynes) and a "Prince of Darkness" (Curtis Hyde).
Meanwhile, a journalist (Margaret Gerard) doing a piece on job dedication becomes fascinated with Grant.It does become apparent early on that "Stunt Rock" is not so much telling a story as it is detailing (documentary style, with use of split screen) the art of stunt coordination, and the "shock rock" genre that had been in style for a number of years.
It's never more interesting than when it follows Grant and his exploits, but at least the music is pretty catchy.
There's one good gag when somebody asks him to take it off.)Grants' death-defying ambitions form a great basis for the movie, and there is some breathtaking action to behold.
For example, we are shown the preparation that went into a stunt that Grant performed for Philippe Moras' 1976 picture "Mad Dog Morgan".
Grant is a charismatic, easygoing guy, and you do enjoy watching him ply his trade and interact with other people.
Some people could argue that TOO much screen time is devoted to the band, but it does ultimately lead into the possible development of entertainment that Gerard dubs "stunt rock".Overall, quite engaging, and relatively brief in run time (96 minutes).
Director Trenchard-Smith clearly has a great respect for people like Grant, and had previously made a documentary in 1973 called "The Stuntmen".Look for Richard Blackburn (director of "Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural" and co-writer of "Eating Raoul") in a supporting role as the agent; comedy legend Phil Hartman is apparently also in here somewhere.Seven out of 10..
Stunts, and rock.
End of story.The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978.
Grant Page is our personal hero.
An Australian stuntman known for his unbelievably dangerous stunt work, here he gets his own movie so he can display his charm to the audience as well.
Director Brian Trenchard-Smith fashioned an innovative cross between a documentary, a fictional film and a concert film, and its ahead-of-its-time (even today) nature ensures pure entertainment that will appeal to any generation.
What's so cool about Stunt Rock, besides the stunts and music, is that the filmmakers were smart enough not to weigh it down with an involved plot.
There's really no time for that, it has to be packed full with stunts and the music of the L.A. rock band Sorcery.What happens is, Grant comes to Los Angeles to work on a new TV show starring Monique van de Ven, called Undercover Girl.
Interestingly, her smarmy agent is played by Richard Blackburn, the director of the great Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural (1973).
Anyway, Grant ends up in a relationship with a magazine reporter (Margaret Gerard, wife of Trenchard-Smith) who is doing an article on stunt men.
Meanwhile, Grant's cousin is in the stage show for Sorcery, who re-enact cosmic battles between good and evil featuring wizards and demons while the band crank out their rockin' tunes.This hugely entertaining film is just too awesome for words.
The great Trenchard-Smith blasted out a tour-de-force of music and action - a majority of the movie is footage of Page's death-defying stunts while Sorcery music blares on the soundtrack.
Page's insane, awe-inspiring work is so eye-popping, Trenchard-Smith puts it on split screens because one screen just isn't enough!
Pure fun, the simplicity of the execution, married with the powerful combination of the music and the action, guarantees Stunt Rock the status of cinematic masterpiece.
Trenchard-Smith described this gem as "a love letter to stuntmen in general and Grant Page in particular", and that love comes through in spades, and the overall upbeat, positive vibe is totally winning.Much of that has to do with the presence, music and magic tricks of Sorcery. |
tt1444331 | The Incubus | In a lake at a rock quarry, a young woman named Mandy and her boyfriend, Ray, are swimming. The two spend the night at the lake camping, but are attacked by an unseen figure; Ray is killed, and Mandy is taken to the hospital with a ruptured uterus and serious trauma. As the attack occurs, teenager Tim Galen experiences a recurring nightmare he has in which a woman is tortured by a monstrous figure; his grandmother, Agatha Galen, tries to dissuade him of his suspicions about the premonitory dream. At the hospital, Mandy is treated by Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes), a surgeon and physician in the small community of Galen.
Sam's teenaged daughter, Jenny, is dating Tim, but he disapproves of their relationship. At the hospital, Sheriff Hank Walden (John Ireland) questions Sam about Mandy's injuries, and a nosy local reporter, Laura Kincaid, arrives to question Walden, who forces her to leave. That night at the local library and museum, a librarian named Carolyn Davies is brutally raped and murdered while closing the building. During her autopsy, Sam finds she suffered similar wounds as Mandy, and finds an inexplicable amount of semen in her vagina.
Attempts to question the comatose Mandy about her attacker are futile. Sam shows Laura pictures of his deceased 2nd wife and their amazing resemblance to each other. The following day, local farmer Ernie Barnes and his two daughters are brutally slain at their farmhouse. Tim again is tormented by his vision, and runs into a local movie theater in an attempt to distract himself. While there, a young woman is raped and murdered in the downstairs bathroom of the theater, and the metal stall door is found nearly bent in half. Sheriff Walden and Sam arrive at the crime scene shortly before Laura, who insists she may be able to help the investigation. She confides in Sam that she discovered historical records detailing Satanism and similar crimes occurring throughout the town's history.
Tim confronts Jenny at her home, hysterical, and says he believes his dreams are responsible for the crimes. Sam gets a sample of Tim's semen to compare against that which was found inside the victims, but they do not match. Tim and Agatha meet with Sam, Jenny, Laura, and Sheriff Walden at the library that night, where Laura reads a passage from a book detailing the shapeshifter known as the incubus, which manifests through dreams and can appear in human form. Agatha reveals that Tim's mother had died before his birth and had been accused of witchcraft due to psychic powers she possessed; Agatha claims that the Galen family has a legacy of witch hunters, and that his dreams are a result of this.
Laura and Tim return with Sam and Jenny to their home. As Laura takes Jenny upstairs to go to bed, Sam attempts to induce Tim's dream to prove its connection to the murders. Tim goes into a seizure-like state and runs upstairs into Jenny's room where he tries to attack Laura with a dagger given to him by Agatha, but Sam intervenes and stabs him to death. Laura then approaches Sam, and her face briefly shifts into that of the monstrous incubus; it is revealed that Laura has in fact been the incubus all along, manifesting in female form. As Laura embraces Sam, he looks over her shoulder to see Jenny's dead body lying on her bed, blood pouring out from between her legs. | romantic, gothic, haunting | train | wikipedia | This is *almost* so bad it's good. If the movie were under ninety minutes, it might be more watchable.The dialog comes across as written by someone who's never actually had a conversation before. The acting has two modes: flat and scenery chewing. The sound design is atrocious. Often actors in the same scene sound like they were recorded in different rooms, one will be muddy, the other echo-y.Honestly, there are some great laugh out load moments, interspersed amid lots of nothing happening. It might be more watchable if you jump ahead five minutes every so often.Not really a spoiler, but I would have been much happier if
Frantisek Mach had electric nipples....but alas, no.. A dark romance flick with a great cast. I went to see this movie The Incubus on the day it came out- Sept. 10, 2010 and it was quite a surprise!!! Produced and directed by Marcie Gorman, directed, written, and acting by Shayne Leighton along with a talented cast of actors. I suggest everyone go see this movie-especially with a date!!! The love and pain of this story is amazing!!! It did not feel like 100 minutes went by when I was watching it-it flows very well!!! I love how the writer made a story that makes me think of the book "Spoon River." My favorite characters include Johnny, James, and Rapheal though I wish I could be Marnie or Bianca!!! Michael C. Nouri's (Johnny) and James Pace's (Walter) performance stood out to me the most. Michael being the total comic relief this movie needed and James being so psycho and suspenseful!!! Michael is an upcoming star who reminds me of an interesting mix: Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, and Al Pacino. Shayne Leighton (Marnie) has a character girls can relate to. She lives life with a crazy guardian (her uncle) and goes to school. Her best friend is Johnny and I have to say these two have great chemistry. I wish I had a best friend like Johnny!!! I fell in love with them sticking up for one another- (like when they're at school). Frank Mach (Raphael) is a girls 'bad guy' dream!!! He's gorgeous and a bad guy that wants to be good!!! That's so hot to me!!! Alexandra Santanna (Bianca) plays the leader of the Incubus- a small girl with mega power!!! Everyone needs to watch out for her!!! The music is amazing too thanks to Anthony Espina who scored the entire film!!!! This movie left me wanting to see and know more!!!!!!!. Great Story, Well Written, and Decent Acting. Really enjoyed this movie. I came across it a couple years ago but never got to finish it, but what I did see stuck with me. I finally found it again on VUDU and I wasn't let down in the slightest. The story is fantastic which doesn't surprise me since Shayne Leighton wrote it. She's also a very skilled actress and loved her in the lead role of Marnie. There was great chemistry amongst the cast and acting for the film was overall pretty good. There were a few actors/scenes that were a bit 'over the top' but not as many as I had expected and was easily overlooked based on the rest of the film and actors. Johnny was probably my favorite character as he reminds me of the best friend that everyone wishes they had - a little crazy but that's why you love him and he's always there for you. Frantisek Mach who played lead opposite Shayne as Raphael, did an excellent job in his portrayal of the tortured Incubus fighting between his true nature and who he wants to be. Perfect blend of angsty bad boy and sensitive lover, I'd enjoy seeing him in more. It's not a major Hollywood blockbuster but it has its charm and sucks you into the story fast. I only knocked it a couple stars because of those couple instances of over the top acting/scenes and a few spots where the sound is out of balance so it goes from being pretty loud (so you turn the volume down) to super soft (which you then have to turn the volume up to hear what's being said). Otherwise, great! I've watched it twice since renting and am totally going to buy it! |
tt1598621 | The House of the Dead: Overkill | === Characters ===
Agent G: Inexperienced but already highly trained and deadly, he graduated top of his class at the AMS academy and is now on his first assignment.
Detective Isaac Washington: A hard-drinking, ladies' man, Washington is also a habitual rule and heart-breaker. He took the assignment to exact revenge for his father's death. He has a habit of dropping F-bombs. Game Informer ranked him among the "Top 10 Heroes of 2009", declaring that "Foul-mouthed, uncompromising, hard drinking, and unceasingly funny, Isaac Washington keeps everything grounded when the world is going crazy all around him. With tongue set firmly in cheek, Washington is a stereotypical career cop who can't finish a sentence without a few expletives thrown in for color. He keeps the action going, and never fails to say what the player is thinking when the zombie outbreak gets out of hand."
Papa Caesar: Deranged crime lord Caesar has forced Varla’s brother Jasper into devising a strange compound with mutagenic effects. With the help of Warden Darling he sets to work transforming the innocent inhabitants of Bayou City into mutants and monsters. He also likes Chinese food. Game Informer ranked him among the "Top 10 Villains of 2009", declaring that "Many villains have unleashed genetic abominations and blown us up, but none did it while wearing a stylish ascot. Papa Caesar makes engineering the zombie apocalypse look good. Analogizing Isaac Washington's death to a sweet and sour Chinese dinner seals his position on the list."
Varla Guns: The hottest stripper on the Bayou City club scene, Varla is also the older sister to crippled scientific genius Jasper Guns. She joins the agents to stop Papa Caesar, and a love triangle develops. In the Lost Reels, she is a downloadable content (DLC) playable character and can be unlocked by purchasing DLC chapter—Naked Terror.
Candi Stryper A young stripper and former lover of Varla Guns' younger brother Jasper. After finding out the death of Jasper, Candi joins Varla to seek revenge against Papa Caesar and together, they fight off the mutants and seek Papa Caesar to avenge the death of Jasper. Candi is exclusive to the PlayStation 3 version. In the Lost Reels, like Varla, she is also a DLC playable character and can be unlocked by purchasing DLC chapter—Naked Terror.
Warden Clement Darling: A strange and unsettling man who oversees a high security prison just outside town, Darling is involved in gruesome scientific experiments to prolong the life of his elderly mother. He is later revealed to be the main antagonist and mastermind of the events.
=== Plot ===
Years ago during the Cold War, the U.S. military made a new superhuman formula called Formula X but the project for its use failed. The bunker for the experiments was shut down and abandoned. In 1991, seven years before The Curien Mansion Incident, AMS Special Agent G is given his first assignment and sent to a small town in Louisiana to investigate a series of disappearances and hunt down a deranged crime boss, Papa Caesar. Due to the presence of mutants, G is forced to team up with police detective Isaac Washington who is out to avenge his father's murder, which Caesar masterminded.
In the first episode "Papa's Palace of Pain", the pair first storm a mansion owned by Caesar out in the woods. Upon entering the basement, they find Caesar has fled, and the disabled scientist Jasper Guns, whom Caesar used, is horrifically mutated from injecting himself with an unknown substance. Upon defeating Jasper, G and Isaac meet Varla Guns, a stripper and Jasper’s older sister who vows revenge on Caesar. In the second episode, "Ballistic Trauma", G and Isaac track Caesar to a hospital that is swarming with mutants. After killing the mutants and a mutant woman called the Screamer, they find a ringing phone hidden inside it. Caesar answers from the other end and hospital is set to explode. G and Isaac escape in the nick of time with Varla on a motorbike. In the third episode, "Carny", they stop at a mutant infested carnival to investigate the mutant situation, in the process defeating former circus entertainers turned horrific creature Nigel & Sebastian. Afterwards, they continue to follow Caesar on an ice cream truck. In the fourth episode, "Scream Train", they and Varla catch Caesar at a train station. But they argue over what to do with him: G wants to arrest him, Issac wants to avenge his father, and Varla wants to avenge her brother. Caesar then escapes on a train with G and Isaac giving chase while Varla is left behind. The pair made their way through the mutant-infested train, defeating a mutated mantis, the Crawler, in the process. An explosion causes the train to crash in a swamp where Caesar takes Varla hostage and drives off before throwing a cassette tape to Isaac. In the fifth episode, "Fetid Waters", G and Isaac make their way to the swamps, finding an alternate way to wherever Caesar and Varla were heading for, and in the process, defeat another boss mutant called the Lobber.
In the sixth, penultimate episode 'Jailhouse Judgment', G and Isaac track Caesar to a high security prison. Before they enter, they run into its strange warden, Clement Darling, who noticed where Caesar and Varla headed but knows nothing about the mutants. As G and Isaac shoot their way through the prison they finally reach the electric chair theater where Varla and Caesar are strapped into the chairs. Clement then appears and, in a plot twist, reveals that he was behind the mutant outbreak and that Caesar was just an accomplice. Clement then executes Caesar, robbing Isaac of his revenge. Clement explains that his experiments were to save his dying mother (following this, it is implied Clement has an incestuous relationship with his mother). Clement then descends on a giant elevator along with Varla, his mother, and Caesar's corpse. Seconds later, Clement tells G and Isaac to look at the stage behind them where two gigantic, physically enhanced, convicts wearing black masks lumber in through the door. Clement reads the two convicts previous crimes which include murder, assault, rape, and even eating a little boy's puppy. One of the convicts, Brutus, suddenly turns around and beats his fellow convict to death before turning his attention to G and Isaac.
After killing Brutus and descending the elevator in pursuit of Clement in the final episode "Overkill", G and Isaac shoot their way through hordes of mutants inside Clement’s underground lab before finally reaching his center of operations. They discover Varla’s brain has been taken out, kept alive in a jar, while Clement’s mother’s brain has been transplanted into Varla's body. At first it seems the experiment was a success, then Varla’s body begins to vomit and she falls into a pit after being gunned down by G and Isaac, mutating her into a giant monster. G and Isaac draw their guns and aim them at the newly mutated Mother. The duos' statements lead gamers to believe that they are about to play a frantic last stand shootout against the giant mutant, but then the screen cuts to a missing reel screen for a few moments. Once the reel resumes G and Isaac are outside claiming victory over Clement and the giant monster, thanking the use of miniguns they found randomly lying around nearby. However, the monster returns and the pair battle her again. After finally killing it, Clement appears and seeks to atone for all the problems he caused by "returning to the womb" and enters the monster's body.
G and Isaac are picked up by a helicopter along with Varla’s (still active) brain in a jar where Isaac releases the detonator to destroy the facility. G tells Varla of his feelings for her, prompting him and Isaac to discuss the moral and political messages in the game's storyline and potential backlash, particularly from feminists. Soon after, the two realize the helicopter is being piloted by a mutant and points their guns at it, ending the game. After the credits roll, Caesar's tape recording from before is played, revealing a message to Isaac that Clement's plans were small-minded but he has powerful friends (possibly future characters Curien, Goldman, and the mysterious man), and that Isaac's father is still alive.
In Extended Cut, there are two new levels featuring Varla Guns and a stripper named Candi Stryper, who was in love with Jasper Guns. It is a side story during the main game (set after the second and fourth levels). It sees the girls traveling through a strip club and a meat packing plant, fighting grotesque mutant strippers Coco and Sindy, as well as Meat Katie, a minotaur-like female butcher. The side story ends with Candi dying of blood loss after the battle with Meat Katie. | violence, comedy | train | wikipedia | "No, *mutants*, I told you, do *not* use the Z-word!". This review is of the version for the Wii, in case this has been released for any other console, or the PC; I haven't heard of it being out for any of them, I'm covering my bases. You have to wonder why it took them three(I haven't tried the new arcade one, can't comment on it) games that were practically the same before they made this. You see, this one fixes everything that one could possibly complain about with the others, and alters the things that had grown stale. This is still short, and thus doesn't overstay its welcome(no matter the quality, a 1st person rail shooter that moves on its own, and where you can merely aim and fire is going to get old if it keeps going), but now you can take the 7 chapters(this has a bad-ass trailer voice narration between them, making each of them feel like one picture, like in those theaters) of Story Mode one at a time, as it will save after each, in its profile system, allowing for 3 separate ones. In that way, each of them can be tougher, with literally tons of zombies(and there's a "more" function, if you don't find the amount to be satisfactory; I'd say they either move slowly, like in the classics, or swiftly, like in the recent movies), and extraordinarily intense(in-game, there are longer breaks between attacks than in the others, and this serves to increase the effect when they rush you again, and there isn't a dull moment in this), as you can rest your hands(...you'll need it) in-between them. Also, for replayability value, there is the feature of purchasing(with the cash you earn by playing, extra for doing well) additions to your arsenal(as well as upgrading it), like an automatic shotgun(!), a SMG, and an assault rifle, for a total of six different weapons, for all your trigger-happy needs. Upon completing the entire thing, you will get the Director's Cut option: The same thing, only with harder enemies and limited continues(normally in this, if you lose all life, you either proceed and lose half of your score or give up and keep it). There are unlockables, such as images and videos. The seldom brief cut-scenes are all in-engine, with no CGI, and with how articulate, free and detailed the animation and graphics(the corpses come apart beautifully, and while the Wii is supposed to be the least powerful of the Next Gen machines in that regard, I think someone forgot to tell that to this game) are, not to mention how excellent the cinematography and editing are, you don't miss it. This has the following mini-games: Money Shot II(a shooting gallery), Stayin' Alive(...self-explanatory, "they just keep coming...!)) and Victim Support(rescue civilians by taking out the walking dead near them), all of them gradually growing in difficulty and you can play Co-Op, like in the rest of this(a first for the franchise; you can even play four at any time). Challenging without being frustrating, this is immensely entertaining and addictive. The boss fights, countless types of cadavers and the levels(a speeding train, a swamp, and a... carnival... uh, yeah, when was the script for this written compared to Zombieland?) are all well-designed, nicely varied and memorable. This takes a stylish approach, and emulates the tone of an exploitation flick(makes sense for this series when you think about it), complete with film grain, an opening similar to the one of Planet Terror and material that would get it an R or an NC-17... at *least*(and before you criticize that, do keep in mind that these were *never* for young audiences). The plot holds twists and is about revenge(of course), starring two mismatched law officials(a detective and an AMS agent) who push each others buttons, a stripper(!) and, what else, a mad doctor. This thing revels in clichés(and there is quite a bit of disgusting stuff in it), and is both an entry in its genre, and an homage to it. The music is fitting and cool, and not being an expert on the subject, all I can for sure say is that there's Country & Western, sombre electric guitar, and what I think is disco, among it. All of the sound is incredible, and the acting is great. The characters are well-written. There are no fortune cookie lines in this one, thankfully. The Danger Cam lets you peek to any of the 4 sides by pointing to it, and you reload by pressing A in this one, instead. Some places you can fend off foes by waving the Wii-mote side to side fast enough; it is not as great of an advantage as the thing in Extreme Mode of III(if less awkwardly implemented, since there, it felt like an afterthought), where you can swipe at any time and in fact use it to fend off(though not always hurt) anything that comes at you if you time it right. I'd say that they decided that was unfair, or figured that they'd already done it. There are hardly any bugs or glitches, and I ran into none that were severe. I would suggest getting the Shoot Active Gun(yeah, I think the effort on that one went into everything except the title) and the official Hand Cannon, made by Big Ben Interactive. The only downside is that the latter can get heavy when you play for extended periods of time, other than that, they are well worth it. There is constant, over the top strong language, gore, disturbing content(trust me, it gets pretty sick) and sexual references, all of them gratuitous, in this. I recommend this warmly to any and all fans of grindhouse cinema(Wiki it if you have no concept of what that is) and this kind of VG. Hilarious, bizarre, fun, and does not have the term "politically correct" anywhere to be found in its vocabulary. I give this a perfect rating, and once my wrists stop hurting, I will raise my thumbs up in its honor. 10/10. Gory Gun Game Gives Grief. House of the Dead: Overkill attempts to continue the tradition of SEGA's gory gun games. Typically, players take on the role of a plainclothes agent in an attempt to stop the mega-lo-maniac intentions of a global corporations CEO. But what makes this title the bastard-child in the series is that unlike every other House' title, there was no arcade machine released to build an audience. A small consolation may be that previously featured on the Wii were the 'classic' House' games numbers 2 and 3. Released on a single disc with various adjustments, this title had already found a natural home and a somewhat successful reception. Could 'Overkill add to the series constructively, or was it an unnecessary addition to the now decade old (or more) canon? With its speckled and dust-scratched appearance and muddy, warbled audio, 'Overkill – in its entirety – is a complete homage to B or even C grade 'Grindhouse' films of the seventies and eighties. This has a refreshing and kitsch flavour, and shows that the developer has put some thought into making the title unique where possible. The choice of stylisation gives the game an identity, and artistically it conveys the dirty, underground world of shock cinema well. Obviously, this feature of the game is purely aesthetic, and it's apparent pretty quickly that although the detail is there, it has absolutely no direct effect on the game play itself. In essence, the 'Grindhouse' flavour is really just a skin to a horror-themed light-gun game.The filmic flavour extends to the presentation of the games levels, as each chapter is presented as a possible movie in itself: "Papa's Palace of Pain" (clever alliteration and the only 'house' level in the game), "Ballistic Trauma" (a goofy mix of mutants, firepower and a hospital. Here, the reference to Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" is more than subtle). The given scenarios range well, and we're given trains, carnivals, prisons and other video game staples, yet unlike every other entry in the House of the Dead series, the range of enemies in the game is stunningly limited. Mutants (not Zombies, as the game itself stresses through its voice-over dialogue) are overwhelming the most common of enemies. These are represented by a handful of character models and are re-used throughout the entire game. Granted, they are fairly well modelled, but I can't help but think how much more interesting things may have been with some more location-specific mutant creatures.Unlike other titles in the House of the Dead series, 'Overkill asks little of the players' dexterity. Enemy after enemy stagger towards the player from the centre of the screen – while this may be more realistic behaviour, it makes little challenge for the player. Ninety percent of enemies are shot at close-to-mid range, and their behaviours vary little. Occasionally, one or two of them get creative and (gasp!) throw a bottle or knife, but these are easily dismissed with a single shot. In other words, the game has a limited variety of action. I find this baffling, as the game is 'on-rails' (no free-movement), and so particular creativity and care is required to hold interest in what could otherwise be classified as a very repetitive game play premise: (aim, shoot, reload ad infinitum). Titles such as Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles and even the House of the Dead release mentioned earlier make efforts to challenge aiming, speed, pattern recognition, timing. 'Overkill only grazes past these concepts, rather going for a higher-body count and bigger calibres together. This approach is fine for the short-term, but modern gamers often require more than this.There's talk of 'Overkill having issues with its frame-rate and responsiveness. I want to confirm that these problems certainly do exist. Again, I find this baffling, and can only chalk it up to lack of experience on part of the development team. Of course, it does not ruin the experience, but it certainly undermines it, especially when much simpler and less ambitious titles have perfected frame rate issues. Hell, even a launch title "Rayman Raving Rabbids" had smooth and responsive on-rails first-person-shooter sections. I'm not sure what could have caused this stuttering effect that the game suffers from, but it certainly harms the experience.Musically, the title is both varied and confusing. A lot of effort has gone into providing a soundtrack to the experience, and for the most part it is suitable. Other times, you find yourself distracted, as if the developers wanted you to feel simultaneously frightened and amused – a near impossibility. Killing mutants in grotesque, half-dark environments could be scary, but doing it to an absurd funk song is confusing. It elevates the experience almost to a parody and seems to land the game somewhere between a nerve-wracking scare-fest and a silly shooting gallery mini-game. Audio effects are good for the most part, with loud shot-gun blasts and mutant screams. Strangely, the voice-overs from the two protagonists are mixed unevenly. Washington (the detective based lazily on characters such as Shaft and Jules Winnfield) spouts his garbage loudly and clearly, whereas Agent G's conversed rational and sensible comments are often mixed under the music, resulting in a poor, mumbled reproduction. On another note, it is never explained why these two are put together, and even more ludicrously, it is never shown or explained which of these two men you play as! I find particularly irritating for some reason.I could go on about the games goofy monetary and reward system, it's depressingly easy level bosses, and it's amazingly shallow mini-game set, but I don't think it's that necessary. For those looking for a major body harvest, this is the game for you. Just be warned that the kills are inversely proportion to the games variety and replay ability. |
tt5180118 | Maria Labo | The film revolves on Maria (Kate Brios) a loving and dutiful life wife to her husband, Ermin, a police officer (Jestoni Alarcon) with whom she has two children named Pablo (Miggs Cuaderno) and Rosalinda (Lenlen Frial). Facing financial problems, Maria was convinced to become an Overseas Filipino Worker after she learned that her high school friend Emily (Sam Pinto) applied to become an overseas worker. Ermin was hesitant with his wife's plans initially but eventually gave his consent. Maria then went to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to work as a domestic worker.
In Dubai, Maria befriends Nanay Leng a fellow Filipino who is also working in the emirate. In one instance in the streets after buying groceries for her employer she was raped on a van and was later found wandering. Maria was brought to a hospital by people who found her loitering around and at the hospital she was recommended to be brought back to the Philippines. While hospitalized, her Filipino friend passes a curse to Maria. The cursed turned to Maria into an aswang.
In the Philippines, she was transferred to her province's provincial hospital, where the medical personnel found something wrong with her. They conclude that she has amnesia and took note of her aggressive behavior. Ermin came to bring her back to their home, but a hospital employee discouraged him due to their findings and said that his spouse might not even recognize him. Ermin eventually convinced the hospital to take her back to their home saying that it might bring her memories back.
Back at the Maria's family residence, Maria seemingly is back to normal. This is until Maria threatened her children with a knife who were running around their house before she pointed the knife. Shortly, Ermin became aware of the incident with Maria claiming that the action was not within her control. Alone, her aswang persona begins to take control over her and one day she killed her children and cooked them. When Ermin found out what she did, Maria was shot repeatedly by her husband but escaped outside their home.
Ermin then buries the remains of her children. Shortly, he witnessed a remorseful Maria crying nearby whose aswang persona then takes over once again. Maria receives a wound on her face after her husband hacked her face with a bolo knife and escapes once again.
Then rumors of an aswang causing terror throughout the town spread. Ermin tried to consult an albularyo who said that there is nothing that can be done to return Maria back to normal. The police then pursues the aswang that is said to have been causing problems to the town. After some encounters, Maria was killed. The film ends with an embalmer who is working on Maria's body. The embalmer then founds out that Maria's supposed corpse was nowhere to be found, only to find her to be still alive. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | awful movie. It's a movie that set back Philippine cinema decades. It's so bad I would rather sit through a root canal. This is a story of an urban myth that an overseas Filipino worker got infected or possessed by a demon, coming back to her home country half person half monster. There are numerous scenes that left me wondering why it was part of the movie (pool scene), and the editing was so bad some of the dialogue was not dubbed properly. The story had potential if only the filmmakers knew what to do.The makeup was bad, the props were bad, the details were all wrong. What is even worse is that the story did not have to literally show a monster, the director could have just shown a change in behavior but then subtleties like that can only be managed by real filmmakers. Why did I watch this? simply because I watch almost all films when I have the time and I just had the misfortune of sitting through this one.. best worst film of 2015. Maria Labo is one the worst film ever made by Filipino. In the vein of Plan 9 From Outerspace and The Room, it deserve a cult following. It's a horror dra movie turned riot comedy. It's based on a true legend of Aswang. The concept is literary scary but the film is hilariously funny at best. The acting is hilariously bad, watch-out for unintentional language, Maria's accent is overrated. There are many scenes full stupidity that it feels like a gag. I laughed throughout the film. The direction is solidly terrible that the director don't know where the story is going. So as the production.Over all it's a film I recommend to watch with your friends.It maybe awful but it's awfulness is satisfying at best!. If there's the most terrible thing in the world, this is it.. VERY VERY TERRIBLE. Sadly, I can't give a negative star. When I first heard of the movie, I thought that it was really great that finally one of my childhood nightmares had a horror movie of its own. I was excited to see it, until I actually saw it. I had to sit through the whole thing as I was forced to watch it with my cousin. I know this is a horror movie, but both my cousin and I had laughed far, far more than when I had watched the best comedy movies because of its absurdity. This could actually pass for one of those movies one makes in high school for a class project. Heck, I've made better movies using Windows Movie Maker. The camera angles weren't at all right; the 'special effects' were specially bull, the story did not make sense – what the hell was with that rape scene, I mean, WTF? – actors don't have an PEASIZE OF IDEA of what acting is. There ISN'T even an OUNCE OF THRILL whatsoever! There is no point to watching this movie. I don't think a single movie could ever outmatch this trash you call a film. People deserve the truth – this is mine. Please don't watch this. |
tt0111579 | Utomlennye solntsem | In the summer of 1936 in the Soviet Union, Comdiv Sergei Petrovich Kotov, his wife Maroussia and their young daughter Nadia are relaxing in a banya when a peasant from the local collective farm frantically tells them the Soviet Army's tanks are about to crush the wheat harvest as part of general maneuvers. Kotov rides out to order the tank officer to halt. Kotov carries authority as a senior Old Bolshevik and legendary hero of the Russian Civil War, and is also very popular with the common people and local villagers.
The happy family returns to their country dacha, where they join Maroussia's relatives, a large and eccentric family of Chekhovian aristocrats. However, Mitya, an ex-nobleman and veteran of the anti-communist White Army then arrives. He was Maroussia's fiance before disappearing in 1923. Joyfully embraced by the family, he is introduced to Nadia as "Uncle Mitya". Maroussia is left feeling deeply conflicted, as she had suffered deeply when he left without explanation.
Despite his personable nature, Mitya appears to have returned with a secret agenda, as he works for the Soviet political police, or NKVD. He has arrived to arrest Kotov for a non-existent conspiracy. It is revenge, as Kotov had conscripted Mitya into the CHEKA, the predecessor of the NKVD. Mitya detests Kotov, whom he blames for causing him to lose Maroussia, his love for Russia, faith, and his profession as a pianist. Kotov remarks on Mitya's activities in Paris, where he fingered eight White Army generals to the NKVD. All were kidnapped, smuggled to the Soviet Union, and shot without trial.
Kotov believes his close relationship with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin will save him. However, a black car carrying NKVD agents arrives to remove Kotov, just as a group of Young Pioneer children arrives at the dacha to pay tribute to him. Kotov is forced to make a false confession to all charges and is shot in August 1936, while Mitya commits suicide. Maroussia is arrested and dies in the Gulag in 1940. Although arrested with her mother, Nadia lives to see all three sentences overturned during the Khrushchev thaw, and works as a teacher in Kazakhstan. | tragedy, revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0110399 | A Low Down Dirty Shame | Former LAPD detective Andre Shame is a private investigator who owns A Low Down Dirty Shame Investigations. He runs it with Peaches, whom he arrested six years before and has romantic feelings for him. Despite the high-risk jobs, Shame is unable to keep the firm afloat, and may be forced to close.
Five years earlier, Shame and a team of detectives went into Mexico to apprehend drug lord Ernesto Mendoza. Though Shame seemingly shot and killed Mendoza in a shoot-out, the other detectives were killed, with Shame and Sonny Rothmiller being the only survivors. This caused Shame to leave the force in disgrace.
In the present day, Rothmiller, who is now working for the DEA, tells him that Mendoza is still alive. He hires Shame to find the only witness who would testify against him...his ex-girlfriend Angela, who was caught in the middle of a love triangle with the two men. Angela escaped from the Witness Protection Program in New York and is in LA. Shame is hesitant at first, but seeing this as a chance to arrest the man who took everything from him, decides to take the case.
Shame gets information on one of Mendoza's lieutenants, Luis, then goes to a restaurant and has Luis warn Mendoza that Shame is coming for him. Upon arriving home, Shame is attacked by Mendoza's henchmen and warned by a very much alive Mendoza to back away.
With the help of Peaches and her roommate Wayman, Shame tracks Angela to a posh hotel, and calls Sonny. Shame explains that he originally went to Mexico for her. She tells Shame that she was going to testify against Mendoza, but Mendoza found her location, forcing her to flee. Shame discovers that Rothmiller is working for Mendoza, and the two barely escape Mendoza's thugs. Shame drops Angela at Peaches.
Shame cleans himself up, then abducts Luis and takes him to an abandoned building. When Luis refuses to give Shame Mendoza's whereabouts, Shame has him stumble into a meeting of white supremacists. With the supremacists chasing him, he gives Shame his boss's location in exchange for a ride. But Shame leaves him at their mercy.
At the club, Shame and Mendoza exchange words, then get into a Mexican standoff with Mendoza using his date as a hostage. When Wayman attempts to get Shame's attention, Mendoza uses the distraction to escape. Shame goes to Peaches to find Angela gone (she and Peaches had gotten into an argument earlier), and Capt. Nunez waiting for him. He has Nunez place Peaches in protective custody, and heads off to find Angela.
Shame meets Angela at a storage locker and discovers the real reason Mendoza wants her dead: she stole $20 million of his money. At a motel, Shame receives a call from Mendoza informing him he has Peaches; and will exchange her for Angela and his money. The two agree to meet at a Mendoza owned-shopping mall. Angela tries to convince Shame to leave with her, but he is in love with Peaches, refuses and heads to the mall.
Before the exchange, Sonny admits he killed the other detectives because they wouldn't take Mendoza's bribe without Shame. He left Shame alive to take the blame. Peaches and Angela are placed on the escalator, and Mendoza discovers that Angela is a mannequin. With a gun hidden on the escalator Peaches begins shooting. Shame kills the mercenaries hired by Sonny, Luis is attacked by the dogs that were supposed trying to kill Shame, and Sonny is killed by Angela.
Mendoza captures Peaches, only to be confronted by Shame. After winning a fistfight, Shame arrests Mendoza, who is then killed by Angela. She attempts to kill Shame, but Peaches beats her in a fistfight. Nunez threatens to arrest Shame, but Shame reminds Nunez that he helped take down a drug lord, find a federal witness and recover $15 million in stolen drug money. Shame keeps $5 million for expenses, with Peaches getting perks of a romantic relationship with Shame. | violence, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | A Low Down Dirty Shame is really no more than all the most familiar Cop movie clichés arranged in an order that makes a barely cohesive story.
It's a bit like The Last Boy Scout from a spoof-blaxploitation angle.Shame (Keenan Ivory Wayans) is a former cop who has been blackballed after a major drugs bust went awry, leaving several DEA agents dead.
His disapproving secretary Peaches (a very funny and very, very small Jada Pinkett) wants him to get his act together but he's too busy wallowing in self-pity.His old pal from the DEA shows up and offers him a side mission to help get back at the Drug Kingpin who ruined his career.
But it does contain a helluva lot of laughs and decent action.The one thing I can complain of is that the production design is kind of dated now.
Action films have evolved so much in the past decade that watching ALDDS 12 years on can be a bit distracting.
Wayans (who also directs as well as writing and starring) too often shoots non-actions scenes like a sitcom and his light-hearted editing may help remind you that this totally AIN'T a serious film but it's a little TV-ish if you know what I mean.If you find ALDDS for cheap somewhere or if it's showing on TV then don't con yourself out of a fun movie.
"A Low Down Dirty Shame" is a hysterically funny and action packed movie that is a must see!
Most movies that try to blend comedy and action usually fail, but not this movie.
I enjoyed this film, and it holds up fairly well with repeated viewings.But more importantly, this film has historical importance.First of all, this film is drawing very heavily on Hong Kong action thrillers at a time when these were just getting attention in the US.Secondly, compare this film very carefully with the Samuel Jackson "remake" of "Shaft", released - with enormous hype - in 2000.I don't know why Wayans didn't sue for plagiarism.
Shame's secretary - and real romantic interest - is a strong black woman - a character type that Hollywood has finally admitted actually exists only very recently, since about 2001.So Samuel Jackson's Shaft gets a x-million dollars promo, and still can't come up with an interesting story (although it was nice to see Richard roundtree on the screen again).Meanwhile, let's talk about entertainment - alright, there are some bits that don't work; but enough do to keep the film moving.
I'm sure this movie wasn't done with "we're gonna win an academy award with this one!" intentions it doesn't take itself too seriously & was done to entertain & it did just that!
Trust me all the negative criticism & unnecessary flack this movie got was totally unwarranted & was done by people who have NO taste for GREAT entertainment!
That being said this movie is one of my favourite comedy/action flicks..it is FUNNNNNNNNNY & the ACTION is steadily paced & EXPLOSIVE there isn't a dull moment in this one guys.Jada Pinkett was too cute not to mention hilarious in this movie & her personality amped this film up nicely.The guy who played Louise was very funny & of course the oldest Wayans brother Keenan (the star)delivered too.Lol the guy who played Wayman was a riot as well.
In my head I'm trying to pick out a favourite moment from this movie & I can't!..the whole movie was a BLAST & if you haven't seen it yet you're wasting time..seriously!
It's one of the best films in the comedy/action genre & fans of both individual genres WON'T be disappointed either..so if you haven't seen it yet do yourself a favour & check it out you won't regret it!
Considering that Keenan Ivory Wayans is a comedian, I was impressed with the way that he handled this action-comedy which he starred in and directed.
A not so far cry away from his comedic success with his "blaxploitation" spoof "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka", Keenan manages to fare well with good action sequences and stick a lot of funny s*** along the way.
Jada Pinkett lives up to comedic expectations as the sexy but tough assistant to Shame as Peaches.
It's a good action-comedy to rent, but put the kids to bed before you watch it.
Peaches (Jada Pinkett) and Shame (Keenen Ivory Wayans) made a good team.
There were so many funny scenes especially when Shame had 3 dogs chasing him and he started singing a song by James Brown and he woke up in bed with a guy in his bed.
I'm hoping that Wayans will consider making a sequel to this movie.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, rent it and you won't be disappointed..
This film is one of it.As I said, you might like it, you might not.The acting a little bit over the top, but I think that's what the producer intended to do.
The jokes may at times be quite crude, but maybe it's exactly the way it was suppose to be.Worth a mention here is Jada Pinkett acting.
Not that it has any bearing of the quality of acting though, just wanted to let you guys know.Over all, the film is nice to watch, if you don't take it seriously..
That's what makes Keenan Ivory Wayans the talent that he is.
I find that I like to watch this movie when I am down in the dumps and in need of a distraction.Jada Pinkett (later Smith) shines in this role.
She made this movie, and I think it launched her for future good acting roles.
The plot is a no brainer, and the jokes were quite funny even if you view this movie excessively.
You WILL catch yourself wandering around saying lines from the movie....a true mark of a decent film.
He must also deal with two women, Angela, a beautiful old flame, and Peaches, his energetic but annoying sidekick.This is easily my favorite Keenan Ivory Wayans directed film.
The cast all play their roles very well, especially Keenan and Jada Pinkett Smith who delivers some of the funniest lines of the movie.
The jokes don't feel forced and help drive the story forwarded unlike a lot of comedies these days who like to repeat the same joke over and over again.
I wish more comedies nowadays were more like this.Overall, A Low Down Dirty Shame is a very underrated action comedy that delivers on the laughs, action, and has s good straight forwarded story That holds its own.
But somehow Shame went under my radar.Straight up, it wasn't as good as I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, which is pure comedy gold.
But it was definitely a perfect movie to watch after coming home from work and just wanting something that doesn't involve a lot of thinking but still fun to watch.Everything about this movie is pretty mediocre: the action lacks explosions, the gun play is a little tame, and the bad guy isn't very "bad." What saves this movie is Keenen's charisma.
I just wish they would have given her more screen time.All in all, cool movie to chill out with..
Multi-talented performer Keenan Ivory Wayans struck gold again after following up with his other hit "I'm Gonna Git Ya Sucker".
He and his co-stars did an outstanding job, not too mention the writing, fight choreography and stunt scenes within the film.
A Low Down Dirty Shame characters make this an enjoyable movie.
Jada Pinkett is perfectly cast as Peaches Shame's (Wayans' character) Assistant.She's funny and likable in this role the action does not come with overly done, loud, explosive, costly Hollywood production.
Pinkett is probably the funniest person in the movie, but the ending is my favorite, Richardson is so hott, and the fight scene is one of the best parts!
Not only does it have action but hilarious comedy too!.
As a huge fan of the genre, I was greatly disappointed with this Keenan Ivory Wayans vehicle.
This movie plays upon every single cliche in the action/comedy genre.
The jokes are lame and miss on almost every attempt, the heroic one-liners are ridiculous (ala Bowfinger's "Gotcha Suckers!"), and the plot is terribly predictable, moreso than the average action/comedy flick.
You know exactly what's going to happen the moment "Shame" appears and even the "extreme" plot twist towards the end is extremely predictable.
Don't see this movie if you don't have to; instead, see something like 'The Last Boy Scout' starring the good Wayans brother, Damon..
It was a shame that this movie couldn't have been 1) funny, and 2) faster paced.
The plot was full of tired detective story cliches, including a plucky assistant who wants to get more involved in the action, a beautiful gun moll, and the cop who's main purpose is to berate the detective.
Waynans, who did such great work on TV's "In Living Color", doesn't bring the same high quality to this movie.
this movie was great filled with action and comedy.
And the comedy is what makes this movie good peaches (Jada Pinkett Smith) was so funny in this one go rent it its worth 3 or 4 bucks!
This could probably have been an OK action-comedy, had it been done right.
Why is it that every single bad guy in 90's action-thrillers have to be a drug-lord?
Have the Wayans' brothers actually made something that was good?
The plot is a simple rehash of hundreds of other action movies.
The action is OK, but nothing you haven't already seen in hundreds of action movies before this one.
I feel sorry for Jada Pinkett, having to play such a stereotypical character; she deserves better.
Keenen Ivory Wayans is pretty successful when he's spoofing the urban crime/action flicks, but when he's playing it more seriously, that's another story.
It's a sorry retread of every other movie of this genre you've seen plus Wayans' humor fails him as well.
In my opinion, 'A Low Down Dirty Shame' is particularly well-named..
I originally watched this film because I had heard that it was a hilarious action-comedy, and I have found Keenan Ivory Wayans quite hilarious in other films, especially "I'm Gonna Get Ya Sucka!".
From the title I knew it was aiming to be a comedy that would homage the idea of Shaft and other such movies I didn't think that it would aim for spoof because it appeared to be more affectionate than that.
The dramatic plot is important to it since it does try to be a thriller of sorts; sadly it doesn't work as it has too little substance and too much in the way of lazy writing and sweeping dramatic clichés.These clichés are also to be found in the characters.
Shame is totally by-the-numbers; Peaches is a typically sassy black woman cliché; there is a tough police sergeant etc etc.
The cast all try but to be honest the material just isn't there dramatically or for the comedy and there is little the cast can do to cover for that however it is hard to defend a performance from Hawkins that verges on being offensive.Overall this is very basic distraction that may just about do you if you are in an undemanding mood for a vaguely amusing but derivative detective movie.
(Keenen Ivory Wayans) isn't remotely funny at all; his comic scenes seemed horrible.
(Keenen Ivory Wayans)'s plot got nothing to be remembered after watching (or during watching !).
And (Keenen Ivory Wayans)'s directing wasn't less low !
Did I forget to tell you that Mr. Wayans starred, wrote, and directed the whole thing ?
True that (Salli Richardson-Whitfield) was kind of sexy, but not preferentially, or for long, or in a way that could compensate for the endless ugly matters which this movie is crowded with !
The black try of making fun of black stereotypes wasn't filthier before !It's one naked movie, which has nothing – and I mean NOTHING – entertaining or else to present.
However (A Low Down Dirty Shame) is a movie that my stomach won't forget.
Works like this invented "The worst 10 movies list" !It is a "dirty shame" only !Written in 20/4/2010===========================================Flood of Filthiness !----------------------This is Dirty Harry meets a dirty rap song.
It goes like this : a black lead between Shaft and Martin Lawrence + logicless plot + the filthiest language ever recorded on film + countless rap songs for more than what any endurance could stand = mean outcome that's too paltry to remember.Man. Did I hate it?
I hated the scene of seeing the great lead preparing to fight, wearing the best of what he has of clothes and weapons; I have seen this moment for at least 1000 times before!!
I hated (Jada Pinkett Smith) as the secretary.
The most detestable cartoon character, the silliest girl ever been in an action, or the ugliest thing I have ever seen !Having no sense of humor was better than having the worst kind; as this movie does.
From totally unfunny scenes for (Wayans), to such a contumely to the 1960s star (James Brown) as if only dogs that listen to his songs now, ending up with the hellish dialog.
Or the awful story of (Jada Pinkett Smith) about her dog that shits a lot.
Things like these, and I'm not sorry to say it, made the movie as a huge pile of excrement itself !But still, to add more vomit, here you are; the lead's sissy sidekick "Wayman".
A fun movie not to be taken seriously and nice to see actors/actresses that are not afraid of trying something different.
I cant compare this movie to any other, its a movie just for pure comedy/action entertainment and not aimed at any particular group, genre, race or religion, or political issues.
Although there are some race/sexual orientated material, i'm sure its strictly just for the story/plot and not meant to degrade, harm or single out any one.I enjoy the odd laugh now and then and this movie has its very funny moments, i like it...
very good.There maybe negative ratings/comments out there which balances out the whole and everyone has the right to there own views, I've watched far worse movies with thinner plots and story lines even poor acting but i'l give them credit for at least trying to play the part..
More a series of sketches and action set pieces than a coherent movie, `A Low Down Dirty Shame' succeeds because it is basically good natured.
That's pretty hard to imagine in a movie full of bloody violence and `trash talk,' but it is the same kind of good naturedness that made Keenan Ivory Wayan's other work so likeable `I'm Gonna Get Ya, Sucka, In Living Color'.
Wayan's the producer, on the other hand, can be quite edgy, and his work milks a lot of humor from negative stereotypes, particularly of his own race.
It should be no secret that Wayans' work has a big following among white southerners, for reasons likely quite different than those of his black audience.The action set pieces in `.
Shame' are as impressive as anything in a Bruce Willis movie.
POSSIBLE SPOILER: The `twist' when Wayans suddenly becomes `supercool' seriously undermines the credibility of the movie.
However, this `twist' convinces me Wayans should have played John Shaft in the remake.
If the primary purpose of movies is to entertain, `A Low Down Dirty Shame' succeeds.
There are three words that describe this movie: FUNNY AS HELL!
Keenan Ivory Wayans was good in the title role, but Jada Pinkett and Charles S.
Dutton were the two best things in the movie.
Well, it's an action-comedy.
Besides, most movies that are in the action category are absurd anyway.
On the other hand, this movie shows off the superb acting skills of Jada Pinkett, which Hollywood has just notice.
Dutton overacts at times, but it adds to comedy part of the movie.
MIGHT BE A SPOILER: This movie has a decent fight scene between the two female leads.
I hired thus movie because I thought a scene on the previews where he sings James Brown to three vicious dogs and pacifies them was cool, but now I wish I didn't.
Basically Low-Down-Dirty Shame is a boring clichéd movie that is just full of black jive.
This is a movie where the cool black dude is not just stereotypical, but everywhere.
Not only is Shame (Keenan Ivory Wayans) a cool black guy, but so is his secretary Peaches.
When I create relationships, there is just something about them that make them seem right (not that they will work, rather just seem realistic).Low Down Dirty Shame is about an ex-cop who has become a private detective but his work is a little slow and he has a habit of losing his pay because he causes too much damage.
The twist is that this drug-lord is supposed to be dead, killed by Shame a few years earlier.
A Low Down Dirty Good Time.
Keenan Ivory Wayans should hold his head up high and be proud for writing and directing and starring in A Low Down Dirty Shame.
I wish Jada would just be like that in real life.
When everyone in the 1970s was introduced to the film "Shaft", it gave a great example of the African-American action hero--a cop or ex-cop who is destined to take out the bad guys.
All of this inspiration from "Shaft" comes in "A Low Down Dirty Shame".
Like "Shaft", "Low Down" has a cop or ex-cop, as well as action-packed sequences, like gunfights and fist fights, and this modernization from the former flick made "A Low Down Dirty Shame" make its positive impact.But there are a few twists.
Keanon Ivory Wayans plays the role of Shame, who is actually an investigator who has ties to the DEA and retired as a cop.
So she killed Sonny so she can get the money.The final fight between Mendoza and Shame was something. |
tt0107180 | I Yabba-Dabba Do! | Pebbles Flintstone, who now works for an ad agency and Bamm Bamm Rubble, who works in a car repair shop, decide to get married after Bamm Bamm proposes with a poem, in the middle of the street (ironically after Pebbles mistakenly thinks he was trying to dump her when Bamm Bamm read her a letter that started "Dear Pebbles"). However, Fred has lost money when he bet his nest egg on his team, the Bedrock Brontos. Fred tries to ask for a raise from Mr. Slate, only to lose his job because of his violent temper.
Fred enlists Barney's help in bringing more money for the wedding, but they fail, losing Barney's money to a real estate con artist. Meanwhile, Wilma's mother Pearl Slaghoople arrives to help with the wedding. Pebbles and Bamm Bamm decide to get married in Rock Vegas because of their parents' arguing and fighting. Wilma and Betty discover the truth about Fred and Wilma's nest egg, and Fred is forced out of the house. Reconciling with Barney, Wilma and Betty, Fred asks Barney to help search for Pebbles and Bamm Bamm.
Fred and Barney travel to Rock Vegas looking for Pebbles and Bamm Bamm. They stop at a casino where Barney wins more money. They are attacked by the Wedding Whackers gang after mistaking them for Pebbles and Bamm Bamm getting married and took a photo of them robbing a newlywed couple. Shortly afterwards they are rescued by Pebbles and Bamm Bamm. During the chase, the photo of the Wedding Whackers is destroyed, so the four are captured as suspects of being the marriage whackers, along with the real marriage whackers.
While in detainment, Fred reveals all the trouble he has gone through to try to help Pebbles with her wedding ceremony which leads the marriage whackers to reveal to their crimes, to the dismay of the Whackers' mother. Fred, Barney, Pebbles and Bamm Bamm finally reunite with Wilma, Betty and the others. Mr. Slate rehires Fred, and Pebbles and Bamm Bamm get married, with Fred, Barney, Dino, Wilma and Betty as the happy ones seeing them getting married. At the end, Pebbles and Bamm Bamm reveal they are moving to Hollyrock with Barney paying their way with his Rock Vegas winnings, at which Fred gets angry with Barney and they start to fight again as Pebbles, Bamm-Bamm, Wilma and Betty try to stop the argument. | alternate history, flashback | train | wikipedia | Perfect title, AMAZING movie, and equally incredible as the iconic live action film.. Ignore the laughably clueless crybaby and his troll-worthy excuse for a "review". This highly enjoyable story is easily the single best iteration of The Flintstones EVER, with the first live action movie starring John Goodman being an extremely close second.Great voice acting, great story, great emotional moments, great laughs. The end.Actual facts for a change, you're welcome ; ). Horrible title, OK movie. (And miles better than the live-action version.). Unlike most cartoon characters, Pebbles Flintstone and Bamm-Bamm Rubble got to age with subsequent appearances; born and adopted respectively during the original series, and stars of their own spinoff (one of several) in the 1970s, the redhead and the hunk have reached adulthood by the time of "I Yabba-Dabba Do!"Just as "The Flintstones" was a standard sitcom in animated form, so this TV movie is a standard comedic example of it; Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm are finally about to get married, but Fred doesn't want this to happen on account of his not being able to pay for it (he lost the Flintstone nest-egg gambling)... cue mildly amusing shenanigans, a subplot about gangsters that combined with a climax in Rock Vegas brings the film dangerously close to "Sister Act" territory, a bit too much gooeyness, and a horrible title song. (Hearing the aging voice of Jean Vanderpyl [the only one of the original core cast still alive at the time of production] as Wilma Flintstone is additionally depressing.) Still, it passes the time easily enough, and it certainly beats those Bedrock Cops cartoons.(Note to "Will & Grace" fans: Megan Mullally supplies the voice of Pebbles. High-pitched even then.) |
tt0951261 | Asian Treasures | === Plot ===
The story is about the hunt for the ten anting-anting (or powerful amulets) that serve as keys to the Asian Treasure. The Asian Treasure referred to is the treasure collected from all over Asia left by the ten Bornean Datus in the island of Panay. The treasures were locked in a cave and can only be opened through the ten anting-anting. The powers of the anting-anting made divisions among the datus; Datu Puti founded the KKK (Kapatirang Kumakalinga sa Kayamanan), while Sultan Makatunaw founded the SUDAMA (Sugo ni Datu Makatunaw). The two groups battled for the possession of all ten anting-anting and ownership the treasure. But as time passed, the amulets were lost and the SUDAMA won the struggle.
It is up for KKK members Gabriela Agoncillo (Angel Locsin) and Elias Pinaglabanan (Robin Padilla) to find the amulets and reclaim them for the KKK. But, challenges met them like Gabriellas discovery that Hector, her ex-boyfriend turned enemy, was her childhood friend Diego. Gabriella also discovered that Ingrid was her childhood archrival. Prof. Wakan (Eddie Garcia) allowed Hector and Ingrid, who were also KKK members, to join Gabriella and Elias in their adventures.
Their quest took them to Thailand and China. They battled the SUDAMA and their leader, Victor (Paolo Contis) for the amulets to be used for their group's aims.
=== The legend of SUDAMA ===
SUDAMA (SUgo ni DAtu MAkatunaw) is the rival group of KKK (Kapatirang Kumakalinga sa Kayamanan) in the quest for the anting-anting and the Asian Treasures.
In an episode of Asian Treasures, Lola Miranda (Caridad Sanchez) told something about the origin of the SUDAMA. It was said that Datu Makatunaw had a child named Kiyahata, who later died in a battle; Kiyahatas soul never rested upon its death. Until his last breath, Makatunaw promised that he will take revenge on the death of his child. Like Kiyahata, Makatunaws soul never rested he still holds his promise of revenge for Kiyahata. He believed that by taking the possession of the amulets, his promise would come true.
=== The ten amulets ===
The ten anting-anting wield powers and were once possessed by one of the ten Bornean Datus. An epic called, Maragtas became the base of the legend without medallions. The amulets are as follows:
Datu Sumakwel – summoning and manipulating dark entities
Datu Libay – healing
Datu Bangkaya – levitation
Datu Balensuela – enhanced speed
Datu Paduhinogan – weather control
Datu Paiburong – animal shapeshifting and manipulation
Datu Dumangsol – invisibility
Datu Dumangsil – enhanced strength
Datu Dumalogdog – pyrokinesis
Datu Puti – powers of all nine anting-anting; this particular anting-anting also has the power to grant wishes through the help of Datu Puti himself, as he will appear like a genie to whoever possesses the amulet.
=== The anting-antings locations ===
The team of the "Kapatiran" (KKK) used Don Julian Agoncillos (Sulaiman)—grandfather of Gabriela and a KKK member—diary to locate the ten amulets. It consists of codes and/or drawings that needs to be deciphered in order to pinpoint its location. Gabriela believed that by finding all the amulets, she would see her grandfather again.
Datu Sumakwel – Nap Rokos skeleton at a mining tunnel in Baguio.
Datu Libay – in a thickly forested area between the Bataan-Corregidor borders, a hidden community of the Bandila (Bayan ng mga Bandila). They are also called the Bandila ng Bayaning Banal (Flags of the Sacred Hero). Most of their men looked like Jose Rizal. Frequently attacked by the SUDAMA.
Datu Bangkaya – hidden in the scepter of the Queen of Southeast Asia.
Datu Balensuela – in the south side of Manila City Halls Clock Tower.
Datu Paduhinogan – in the Muay Thai Institute of Thailand owned by Pio Roman Dalisay (Gomburza), a KKK member.
Datu Paiburong – jewelry auction of the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei .
Datu Dumangsol – in the hands of the SUDAMA
Datu Dumalogdog – in the hands of the SUDAMA.
Datu Dumangsil – Surigao del Norte, rest house of the Elias family, in a hole of a tree.
Datu Puti – a railroad somewhere in the squatters area of Manila when an eagle dropped it at the start of the story and was the location shooting of Elias movie Pancho Pistolero.
=== The real Susi ===
The Susi (The Key) is a KKK member who comes from the bloodline of Datu Puti that can use the power of anting-anting to unlock the Asian Treasures. The SUDAMA believed that the Susi was a girl/lady (Gabriela). Later, it was revealed the true identity of the Susi (Elias).
Elias father came from the bloodline of Datu Puti. But he left to find the Asian Treasures to make sure it is still safe. When Elias's father left, his wife Amalia was pregnant. She managed to escape from the SUDAMA attacks and sought help from the KKK. She gave birth to a baby girl. The SUDAMA came and heard of the baby—that the Susi was a girl. The KKK took the baby away from danger. While the other members of KKK were fighting the SUDAMA, Julian and Ulysses came to help Amalia and were surprised to see that she borne another baby, a baby boy. The KKK managed to save the twin Susi but the baby girl died due to a weak heart while the baby boy stayed alive. Since the SUDAMA didn't know of the other Susi (the baby boy), Julian and Ulysses made the SUDAMA believe that the Susi was really a girl to protect the true identity of the Susi. When Elvira gave birth to a baby girl, that baby was brought to Julian and Ulysses to act as a fake Susi.
The time came to train both children in the school of Gomburza and after the training, they erased their memories. The boy (the real Susi) was placed under the care of Miranda and they named him Elias. Julian and Ulysses took care of the girl and she became the fake Susi, Gabriela.
=== Finale ===
Elias and Gabriela finally find the Asian treasures in Luneta Park. Pogi finds a coin-like item while he is in Luneta with Elias and Gabriela. Pogi gave this coin thing to Elias. Elias found out that it was again a treasure map. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0756729 | Year of the Dog | Shannon stars as Peggy, a forty-something administrative assistant whose social and love life are slim to nil. Her most intimate bond is with her dog, Pencil. One morning Pencil refuses to come in after being let out to do his business, and a half-awake Peggy lets him stay outside overnight. The next morning she finds him in the yard of her neighbor Al (John C. Reilly) whimpering in pain. She takes him to a vet but it is too late; Pencil dies of toxic poisoning.
The people in her life react with sympathy but mostly make her feel guilty for her grief. Best friend Layla (Regina King) tells Peggy her relationship with Pencil had held her back from finding romance. Her emotionally sterile sister-in-law (Laura Dern) and brother Pier (Thomas McCarthy) are too self-absorbed to sense how deeply hurt Peggy is.
Peggy's neighbor, Al, asks Peggy on a date. It starts out well until Al reveals that he lost his own pet dog by accidentally shooting it in a hunting accident. When the two return to his home he shows off his knife collection and hunting trophies. He is oblivious to Peggy's distaste for this. She asks to see his garage, suspicious that something inside poisoned Pencil. Al makes a pass which she rejects in disgust.
Peggy gets a call from Newt (Peter Sarsgaard), a volunteer at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who was present when Pencil died. He tells Peggy he has a new dog she may like to adopt: Valentine, a King Shepherd with behavioral problems. Newt agrees to help train Valentine, and he and Peggy begin to spend a lot of time together.
Through Newt, Peggy is exposed to veganism and to animal rights information. She becomes a vegan and begins helping Newt to adopt out various animals slated for euthanasia. Chastised by her boss Robin (Josh Pais) for her commitment, she retaliates by donating to various animal-related charities from his checkbook.
Peggy and Newt share a kiss, Newt declining to go any further, which she mistakes for chivalry. She confesses she has fallen in love; Newt reveals that he is celibate, implying he is asexual. Peggy reacts badly, shutting out Newt and instead focusing on her new relationship with Valentine. Valentine's sporadically violent behavior worsens without Newt's instruction; he bites Peggy's hand. The dog also continually barks, causing Al to complain. Peggy responds rudely, insinuating that it is her revenge because she thinks something in his garage must have poisoned Pencil.
Peggy's interest in animal rights deepens, particularly the causes to stop animal testing and of farm communities for animals who were previously meant to die. Her new belief system is looked at flippantly by her brother and sister-in-law; when she announces she is a vegan, he responds: "It will be interesting to see how long this lasts."
On New Year's Eve weekend Peggy agrees to babysit her brother's children. She leaves Valentine in the care of Newt. She takes her young niece Lissie (Amy Schlagel, Zoe Schlagel) and nephew Benji to a farm for rescued animals to introduce them to an "adopted" chicken (a charity sponsorship) she got them for Christmas. Intensely moved by the experience, Peggy has a mini-breakdown in the car. She wants to show them a slaughterhouse, but the children freak out.
Peggy gets drunk and discovers a rack of furs in her sister-in-law's closet. She tries them on in a bathroom and ultimately passes out drunk. Furs she left in the bathtub are ruined from the faucet's drip. She goes to Newt's to pick up Valentine and finds Newt weeping. Valentine killed a crippled dog named Buttons, and Newt sent Valentine to be put down because he knew Peggy did not have the fortitude to do so.
She rushes to the dog pound but is too late; Valentine has been dead for two hours. Peggy suffers a mental break and adopts 15 dogs slated to die; she lies, saying she works with the SPCA and intends to find them all homes. Peggy at work is confronted by her boss. He has discovered the fraudulent checks and she is fired.
Peggy's life falls apart. She barely leaves her home, which is practically destroyed by her new pets. Al complains, saying if she does not find a way to control them he will. While she is out, Newt visits, confiscates the dogs and leaves a warning notice from the SPCA. Peggy erroneously blames Al.
She sneaks into Al's house and finds molluscicide with a hole chewed into the corner, confirming her suspicions about Pencil's death. Zombie-like, she drags the bag through the house, leaking poison pellets everywhere. She takes one of Al's hunting knives and hides. When Al and a girlfriend return home, Peggy attacks with the knife. Al wrestles it away from her and calls the police.
Peggy's brother and sister-in-law try to help. They say Peggy's boss has decided if she pays back everything and goes to counselling he will rehire her. They ask why Peggy attacked Al. She says she wanted him to know what it felt like to be hunted.
Peggy returns to work and is greeted warmly. But soon an internet search leads her to information about an upcoming animal rights protest. She sends an email to her coworkers (including Layla), boss, Newt, brother and sister-in-law. She must follow her soul. She abandons her former life and heads off to the protest, content that fighting for animals is her greater reason for living (as opposed to child-rearing, career, or intimate human relationships). | romantic, psychedelic, flashback | train | wikipedia | Moreover, the main character is as easy to laugh at as to cry with.This isn't some silly comedy like most of the other movies with dog in the title which are all in my opinion dogs.
My only real problem with the film is that a lot of the supporting characters are a little too caricature-esquire (notably Shannon's boss, played by Josh Pais), but writer/director White does a good job of redeeming them for the most part.
White's story is more traditional and warm than most of Solondz's work, though, many viewers will likely find "dog" exclusively "too depressing" or just "funny", and probably not "funny" enough.Overall: Really lovely and well crafted little film that is both serious and silly, without being melodramatic or wacky: a triumph considering the subject matter.
It's ultimately a story about how different sorts of people find a way of dealing with the painful events in their lives.The actors are all on top form (particularly Regina King, Molly Shannon, Laura Dern, Josh Pais, and Peter Saarsgard--not to mention all the beautiful animals).One could view this story as an exploration of "Dysfunction in modern America".
It's a plain vanilla existence for her, until a shattering event happens in her dull little world of routine.Peggy's world expands, and she considers many things previously unknown to her.She tries on new ideas, and in her own way finds her own "obsession" that also is less selfish than the paths chosen by others around her.People who are unexcited by a purpose are pretty dull, but if we need to find something to give our lives direction and substance, why not choose an interest that helps others, including animals?
It's a woefully uneven film that seems longer than its 97 minutes, yet Molly Shannon brings her particularly individualistic appeal to the role of Peggy, a diffident, socially awkward secretary whose most meaningful relationship is with her beagle Pencil.
As he showed with his script for 2002's The Good Girl, screenwriter and first-time director Mike White has a unique way of presenting characters' idiosyncrasies on screen that seems both bemused and generous.
There's also a funny turn by Josh Pais as Peggy's Dilbert-inspired boss, and Peter Sarsgaard takes a lighter but still bizarre turn than usual as Newt, the passively manipulative, sexually confused dog trainer who really sets off Peggy's darker side.The 2007 DVD comes with quite a few extras starting with the amusing, off-kilter commentary by White and Shannon.
At the end of the movie, in an incredibly gutsball move by Mike White, the leading character discovers her bliss and realizes that she doesn't have to live and interact with the normal run of people in order to do some good in this world.I understand how the completely unique story arc has left some viewers in the dust.
But for me this is an absolutely great, unmissable, cataclysmic achievement, one which should (and probably won't) garner Oscar nominations for White and Molly Shannon.Peggy isn't even someone I'd ever care to know in the real world.
It is surprising to realize that Mike White has not directed a film till now, because he's such a distinct film presence, but it's also disappointing that 'Year of the Dog' is such a distasteful and ultimately tedious effort, perhaps too much of a good thing.
White is involved in movies of the kind I like to call "Todd Solondz lite." In them strange people get involved in situations that are uncomfortable to watch, but it's never made clear what we're supposed to think; the filmmakers themselves don't seem to be able to make up their minds.
Peggy (comedy actress Molly Shannon, and not a very interesting actress or someone you want to look at through a whole movie) is an office worker who has no life.
That is a routine "Solodnz lite" ending; but while such movies have at times been surprising and thought-provoking, this one is simply odd and irritating and hard to sit through.There are excruciating things in 'Year of the Dog' but also implausible ones.
The only time I felt any emotional attachment to any of the characters is when the retarded dog died, and thats only because the woman who supposedly loved her dog went back to bed and left him outside, oh and I have a beagle too.
As it is, she does a rather admirable job of portraying someone who is finally finding herself.Molly Shannon, as Peggy, finds out about the way animals are treated in the food industry and decides to go vegan.
Sad and pathetic in the middle, and to my mind, sad and pathetic at the end.Molly is lovely and acts well, but VERY few laughs in the movie.And if you think "I love dogs" -- don't see this cuz the dogs don't come out so well.(Also -- No cute guys.) Why do so many great comedy actors (Robin Williams, Jim Carrey) decide to suddenly turn dramatic?
Maybe they should get Al Gore to be in their movie the next time and have him stump it all over the country like "An Inconvenient Truth" The PETA folks will probably like this film, but REALLY, the writers could have done a better job of telling this story.The editor and director must have had a terrible time looking for scenes to put together to pad this thing to 1 3/4 hours.
The trailers made it look like a funny movie that would appeal to dog and animal lovers.
Every time I know about an animal cruelty case, I get an overwhelming feelings like things are crashing in on me.I never though I would find the answers in a film.
Take this, and sprinkle in a little bit of sub-text to do with contemporary suburban America and the oddballs one would seemingly encounter within such an environment, and you have what people like to describe as an "off beat" film trying to cover some serious ground, albeit getting tangled up somewhat in the process.Year of the Dog's lead is Molly Shannon's Peggy, a middle aged American woman living alone in a nice American neighbourhood, on a nice estate, in a decent house and with her pride and joy in the form of her pet dog she names Pencil.
Trips to family members Bret and Pier feel unnecessary; the mutual affiliation she has with Newt (Sarsgaard), a pound working animal specialist, are tied up in there somewhere while a sub-plot to do with co-worker Layla's man having an affair known only to Peggy is dropped in for good measure.On the overly positive side, Shannon does well to carry the film; doing so with that look about her face, that expression which constantly suggests a deeper, more unremitting sense of tragedy and pain beneath an exterior which you could be told is one of a joyous person, and yet still be moved to ask questions.
Things connect and link up with one another uneasily in Year of the Dog, and the electricity is only sporadic in its arriving to the forefront; the idea of the grief and confusion born out of the death of a pet not working quite so well as other ideas did in the aforementioned examples, but making for a film straddling a line between blackly comedic urban drama and a flat-out tragedy asking us to just break down at get seriously upset.
Since I was warned this was a comedy and there was "Dog" in the title, I was expecting something like "Turner & Hooch", but the beginning led me to believe this was really going to be a tear-jerking downer - But, perhaps that is the point - for some people it is funny that people have such strong feelings about pets.Being Vegan could be funny, rescuing dogs could be funny, eating meat could be funny, being single could be funny, but lonely people with a lot of pets is not that funny - it's actually a bit sad.
Anyone who's ever felt an activist instinct -- even a mild one -- should be able to relate to "Year of the Dog." Molly Shannon, in an impressive display of dramatic acting ability, gives a fearlessly unflattering performance as Peggy, a woman whose life unravels when her beloved dog dies.
Reilly is a next-door neighbor whose love of hunting serves as a catalyst for some of Peggy's most anti-social behavior; Peter Saarsgard is a volunteer for an animal rescue shelter whom Peggy would like to like but who doesn't like her back; Regina King is a fellow co-worker who acts as the closest thing to a confidant Peggy has."Year of the Dog" is surprisingly meaty, and it makes a lot of interesting observations about people who believe in causes and the need for those people to be wary of the line between staying committed to their beliefs and trying to force their beliefs on others.
Peggy isn't very likable for much of the movie, but Shannon lets us see that she's a deeply good person who's in the wrong environment.
Circumstances for her get more and more ridiculous as she begins to embrace veganism and animal rights activism, to the detriment of what few relationships she has with people.While it is understandable that we can lose some rooting interest for Peggy as she goes over the deep end, she's still a somewhat sympathetic and relatable character, at least for viewers who've never really "fit in".
When Peggy loses her dog Pencil ( who she loves dearly!), she finds her life spinning totally out of control.
She becomes vegan, becomes an animal rights activist, and rescues more pets then she can handle at the same time ( with disastrous results.) While it is a comedy, Year Of The Dog doesn't rely heavily on the comedy side.
Any person who has ever had a dog for a pet can understand how heartbreaking it is to move on from such a tragedy.From there, the story progresses well as Peggy finds herself going on a date with slovenly next door neighbor Al (John C.
I went to the theater knowing virtually nothing about this movie - besides the fact that Molly Shannon was in it (who I love.) So my friend and I asked the person who gave us our tickets to it what it was about, though we only got a 3-word summary, it was enough.
She also does partake in a lot of things - behavioral aspects and even looking the part - of, basically, an old woman living with too many cats, but for comedic effect (which I also don't think most people got.) This movie isn't actually all comedy, though.
Come to think of it most of Mike White's movies are about office workers or other boring characters that suddenly get entangled in the wildest action plots.
White, writer of indie faves CHUCK AND BUCK and THE GOOD GIRL, makes his directorial debut with the simple tale of one woman, whose tightly wound life of disappointment unravels after the death of her dog, a beautiful beagle named Pencil.
Perhaps the bait and switch marketing approach which found me viewing a vastly different movie.The movie I viewed delivered a very dark story (albeit some funny moments) that chronicles the emotional deconstruction of Peggy in all its depressing fashion, from frame one to film's end, to wit:Peggy's beloved dog Pencil tragically dies of toxic poisoning.
I love animals, but this movie shows how some people can get so unhealthily obsessed with things that it controls their whole life.
And no animal pound in existence would entrust another fifteen dogs to the care of such a person, no matter what credentials they claimed.I suggest that the writer of this awful, awful piece of work has some deep issues with animals - and is completely incapable of understanding that love and empathy are not the sole province of human-to-human relationships, but rightfully - and healthily - should extend to a genuine care for all creatures - great and small.I could list many, many other ways in which this movie's portrayal of people who care about animals was screamingly unrealistic.
After reading the other reviews, I don't agree that this is a movie that PETA would love since it portrays an animal rights activist as an embezzling, slightly deranged loner who mistreats the dogs in her care and has no life, no friends, etc.
By the end of the movie, most viewers will be convinced that Molly Shannon's character is a real fruitcake.
I love dogs, and even I got creeped out by Molly Shannon as Peggy less than halfway through the film.
Instead of loving and appreciating dogs, Peggy instead obsesses about them, transforming dogs and other animals into replacements for family, friends, a job, and eventually her sanity.The worst part of the film, in my estimation, comes when her brother and sister-in-law leave her in charge of their kids for a holiday.
After that, Peggy goes downhill quickly, attempting to murder her next-door neighbor and winds up getting briefly committed to a psych ward, then released into her brother's care.And yet, at the end of this dreary 97 minutes (which feels strangely like 127 minutes), the film celebrates Peggy's transformation as she happily leaves the job she got back in some sort of ridiculous miracle after embezzling funds from her boss, to join an animal-rights activist caravan to protest meat-eating everywhere.
That's the other point of the movie; the way her various friends begin to accept love in their lives (through adopting pets at Peggy's insistence) shows how they are also being redeemed.
Plus a nice knife collection.Peter Sarsgaard is Newt, the slightly off-center animal lover.One problem I have with this movie is all the characters are strange, and not by just a little bit.
Molly Shannon, best known for her comedic talents on SNL, brings a melancholy depth to her sad sack character as she grows out of her skin into a different person despite friends like Regina King and Laura Dern wanting her to stay the same.
YEAR OF THE DOG (2007) ***1/2 Molly Shannon, Laura Dern, Regina King, Thomas McCarthy, Josh Pais, John C.
So I can relate to this movie a lot - when I watched Molly Shannon's performance I think "There but for the grace of God..." This is one of those rewarding films that you can watch and re-watch and get something new from it each time.
Peggy (Molly Shannon) is devastated when her pet dog dies - it's the most important relationship in her life - and while the death of a pet is sad, probably most of the audience won't get her extreme reaction.
Newt introduces Peggy to veganism and animal rights, and although they have similar interests, he isn't capable of responding romantically to her - so Peggy returns to giving all of her love to animals - having noted that human beings have continually disappointed her (perhaps it's telling that Newt bears more than a passing resemblance to Peggy's own brother - and their relationship is certainly more brother and sister than lovers).However, as the film progresses, Peggy's love/obsession for animals starts to lead her to odd places - she traumatises her niece by telling her the harsh truth about the meat industry, she embezzles money from her boss, writing out cheques in his name to animal charities, she blackmails her friend's finance into adopting a dog, she ends up adopting 15 dogs and then breaks into her neighbours' house in order to "hunt" him, so that that he knows what it feels like.
Is the main character in Year of the Dog a pathetic woman who is pushed over the edge into animal rights lunacy by the terrible death of her beloved Pencil?
Mike White's "Year of the Dog" stars Molly Shannon as Peggy, a frail, submissive, emotionally sensitive woman who spends her days taking abuse, being snidely judged and dutifully working at a dull, white collar job.
Molly Shannon gives a tour-de-force performance as Peggy, a young Southern California woman who seems to have a much easier time relating to animals than she does to people.
Her co-workers, her relatives, the big-game-hunting neighbor next door, the animal-rescue worker who's so turned off by humans that he has opted for a life of celibacy - all become part of the tapestry of bizarreness that White has woven for the film.In terms of the acting, Shannon is only part of the story, for the film boasts one of the best ensemble casts I've seen in a movie in quite some time, with Regina King, Laura Dern, John C.
Reilly and Peter Sarsgaard, among others, all turning in finely-tuned, delightful performances.I'm sure that we have all known at least one person like Peggy in our lives, so I think that on some level just about everyone - canine-lover or not - can identify with this film.
She does have a little dog named Pencil that she pours all of her love into and while even that doesn't really make her happy, Peggy seems to have come to terms with what her life is.
We're able to laugh with those characters without them becoming the butt of the joke.Molly Shannon does a fine job as Peggy, giving a much subtler performance than you would expect given the rest of her comedy work.
It brings you more into the story and takes you more out of it at the same time.Year of the Dog is a movie that's sad without being sappy and funny without being mean.
If you're a dog lover and you're looking for a dog movie that isn't a children's story or a romantic comedy, this is the film for you..
Maybe I will give it a chance someday but anyway, unlike with The Good Girl I do had interest in seeing Year of the Dog, a film that was not only written by Mike White but also directed by him, making it his debut as director.
Reilly) so the unknown Molly Shannon plays the main character, she is Peggy. |
tt0072317 | The Trial of Billy Jack | Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) goes to court facing an involuntary manslaughter charge stemming from events in the earlier film. He is found guilty and sentenced to a prison term. Meanwhile, the kids at the Freedom School—an experimental school for runaways and troubled youth on a Native American reservation in Arizona—vow to rebuild the school. They raise funds and acquire a new building, eventually starting their own newspaper and television station. Inspired by Nader's Raiders, they begin using the newspaper and TV station to conduct investigative reporting, angering several politicians and townspeople in the process with their exposés.
The school's activities range from having their own search and rescue team, to artistic endeavors such as a marching band and belly dancing. This culminates with the school hosting a large marching band contest and arts festival, which they call "1984 is Closer Than You Think", to raise money for the school.
Midway through the film, Billy Jack is released from prison and, trying to reconnect with his spiritual beliefs, begins a series of lengthy vision quests. He gets involved in a radical group on the reservation which is trying to oppose the federal de-recognition of their tribe and the turning of their tribal lands over to local developers. When one of the tribal members is arrested for poaching deer on what was formerly tribal land, the school comes to his defense.
The school begins to hold hearings on Native rights and child abuse. One of the children at the school was abused by his father who cut off his hand in a fit of rage, and the school defies a court order to turn the boy back over to his father. The FBI begins visiting the school and taps their phones. As tensions mount between the school and the people in the nearby town, a mysterious explosion at the school knocks their television station off the air. The governor calls a state of emergency and mobilizes the National Guard, and a curfew is established in town. The students respond by holding a parade in the town in violation of the curfew. On the way back to the school their bus breaks down and local townspeople confront the students and threaten to set their bus on fire. Billy Jack shows up during the incident to protect the students, and then comes to the rescue of a tribal member who is being harassed and beaten at a local dance in town. Near the end of the film, the National Guard is stationed around the school and is ordered to open fire on the students, killing four and wounding hundreds more.
The entire story is told in flashbacks by Jean Roberts (Delores Taylor, Laughlin's wife), a teacher at the school, from her hospital bed after the shooting incident. The violence in the finale is a symbolic bookend to the massacre of Vietnamese civilians seen in the beginning of the film. During Billy's trial, he mentions the 1968 My Lai massacre and recalls, in a flashback scene, witnessing a similar incident while serving in Vietnam. This scene also reveals a plot error. In all four films, Billy Jack is described as an ex–Green Beret (Special Forces), yet in the flashback he and his fellow soldiers all have 101st Airborne Division shoulder patches on their uniforms. While the army recruits many Green Berets from airborne divisions, qualified Special Forces troops would not be wearing insignia of other formations.
In the DVD audio commentary, Laughlin mentions he also wanted the bloody, disturbing finale to represent all the shooting incidents at college campuses (particularly the 1970 Kent State shootings) where police and National Guardsmen fired upon students during anti-war protest rallies. Unarmed men, women, and children are gunned down in a massacre by Army troops. | tragedy, cult, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Child abuse, the trampling of Indian rights, prejudice, illegal FBI wire-tapping and subterfuge, television exposes, campus shootings by the National Guard, the Mi Lai massacre, culture clashes, Jungian philosophy, police brutality, government corruption, karate, guns, and a spiritual journey are just some of the subjects explored in this sequel to Billy Jack.
The director's commentary on the DVD is very interesting, and my favorite discussion is when Tom and Delores acknowledge they "threw in everything but the kitchen sink." They both wish they had reduced the exposition and some of the plot lines, which would have certainly made it a better film, but they were being true to themselves at the time.
The movie The Apple also rises (?) to this level of dreck as well.Our hero (?) is Billy Jack, a half-breed American Indian who teaches peace through the repeated use of bone-crunching violence!
In fact, the also deadly serious Billy Jack (1971) made zillions at the box office--not because it was a good film (though it wasn't quite as bad as The Trial of Billy Jack) but because it was a perfect film for the times.
Meant to be poignant, it's just hysterically funny instead!FYI--This film had the dubious distinction of being selected for inclusion in the book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" by Harry Medved.
After the first Billy Jack movie where he went to prison for five years for involuntary manslaughter the freedom school that Delores Taylor was building on the Indian reservation has expanded quite nicely.
The maddest of the lot is Riley Hill who is the brother of Bert Freed who was the owner of the local Ponderosa in the first Billy Jack movie.
Which leads to a horrible Kent State like confrontation at the school on the reservation.This film could easily have told the story in a third to half of its running time.
Omaha, Nebraska, had the dubious honour of being the city Tom Laughlin chose to have the world premiere for "Trial of Billy Jack".
How anyone can claim it was good without being an intensely close minded person who honestly believes Laughlin's (sadly not unique) brand of conspiracy theory frankly seems impossible to me.The film is so left wing they did all but urinate on an American flag.
About the only reason I went to see it was because it had been promoted heavily as a karate movie, and martial arts films were quite big at the time.
In this sequel to "Billy Jack", Tom Laughlin and Delores Taylor continue to strongly and clearly convey, via the motion-picture medium, that the situation with which this movie deals is extremely, again, controversial.
Following, it may also beg the question concerning whether or not Billy Jack is a villain or hero, since the caring person has no mercy on the mean people who do the harassing and does not care what happens to such horrible people.
I had previously enjoyed BILLY JACK for what it was, an interesting little action picture with a leftist political conscience.
A lot of people just don't get the point of the BILLY JACK movies.
In these days and times, we need a role model like Billy Jack..
I have spoken to a number of people who didn't like this film, some of whom also did not like BILLY JACK.The only conclusion I can come to is that those people all have one thing in common: they are the kind of people who can never accept correction, and hate having to hear others speak truths they would rather not face.
They don't want to face the prospect of having to stretch their minds or reconsider their preconceived notions.This movie came at a time in my life when it was just what was needed.
It was just what I, and many other young people, needed when it came out.Plus the fact that it is a wonderfully photographed film, that also pays great respect to the Native American community, something no other film had done at that time.Although it has it's flaws, TRIAL is still, to this day, my favorite film of all time.Like the spirits teach us, "Courage is not the absence of fear, but the conquest of it.".
This movie was long,and it was very powerful for its time in both relation to the Native American movement as well as the anti war movement that was common when the film took place and when it first hit the big screen.
This is the third of the Billy Jack films & possibly the worst.
Taking place 5 years after the events of Billy Jack, we have our hero coming out of jail & reentering society to find his friends' school now a major hub of culture & education.
Billy Jack's literal and spiritual trials are boring, pretentious, and minus any good beatdowns.
Pretentious sequel picks up with Billy Jack being put on trial for the events of the first film.
Kind of "Easy Rider" meets "Walking Tall." A lot of the fun of that film was the unintentional irony that Billy Jack was promoting peace & love while giving a beatdown to every intolerant bigot he encounters, but this sequel forgot to include the satisfying Hapkido beatdowns and instead seemed filled with joyless self-important speeches.
While I support most all of the political leanings expressed by the filmmakers, a series of hippie kids making speeches and playing terrible folk music does not make for good entertainment (not to mention having to endure Billy's spirit journey which includes him slapping Jesus at one point).
Top it all off with a Kent State inspired finale and it's pretty obvious that the filmmakers (who are really just writer/producer/director/star Tom Laughlin) forgot what made the first film work.
Overall, Billy Jack's literal and spiritual trials are boring, pretentious, and minus any good beatdowns.
"The Trial of Billy Jack" was included in "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (and how they got that way)" by Harry Medved and Randy Lowell..
Following the events of the previous movie, Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) stands trial and is sentenced by the corrupt system to prison.
The kids from the Freedom School decide to fight the system themselves.The movie makes a big early mistake.
After Billy Jack gets sentenced, the movie needs to follow him into prison.
Instead, his prison time is skipped over and the movie follows a bunch of no name kids with his wife.
a friend had told me there was a powerful sequence in the movie about Billy going on a Vision Quest, something I have been into in different forms ever since.
McLauglin and his family put their heart and soul (and his money, I'm told) into the Billy Jack movies.
This film, while poorly acted (as were all the Billy Jack films), has a strong message and it sure gets in your face with it.
After the success of Billy Jack, the Husband and Wife team of Laughlin and Dolores follow up their mega hit with this epic of padded proportions.
Billy Jack, after serving his prison sentence returns to the Freedom School only to be harassed by a new villain.
I love Trial of Billy Jack but it would be so much better if it was tightly edited and had more fights.
I don't mind the politicalness of the movie but less students and more Billy Jack!That Jason is a real cad, punching that girl in the stomach and smashing that guitar.
Trial Of Billy Jack sadly disappointing ....
While I enjoyed both THE BORN LOSERS and BILLY JACK as fun to watch cult films "Trial Of Billy Jack" was terrible.
I highly recommend it.Come back Billy Jack, we need heroes like you.
I didn't see any of the Billy Jack films when they were first released.The "radical " political sentiments they portrayed were all over the landscape at the time and frankly it was easy to see these films as low budget quickie productions that didn't bring much of anything new to the screen.
"Billy Jack" has the weirdly contagious feel of an improvised film, which it sounds like it almost was.By contrast, The Trial of Billy Jack is every bit as bad as you've heard it is...
Don't think for a minute that anyone had control of this chaotic jaw-dropping idiotic free-for-all.From camping Billy up as a Christ figure, complete with Jesus and Judas in a test in the desert, to bad Kung Fu parodies with wack "effects" that could have been made by shining a Lite Bright into the lens (now you know I'm old) to Laughlin and Taylor having basically the same exchange 50 times ("Damn it Billy, when are you going to learn?" "Aw shucks Jean, what choice do I have?") to Laughlin's over-the-top mind-numbing "gloating" before he "gets physical" with the baddies...
Do a search for listing of the worst films of all-time and you will see this movie on whatever site you come across.
The Second of Three Billy Jack Films.
We saw Billy Jack as a martial arts hero protecting oppressed Indian children in the 1st 2 films so this film that seemed to be saying "You shouldn't have done that, Billy" was just totally wrong.
third Billy Jack movie.
this third movie in the Billy Jack series wasn't as enjoyable for me as the previous two.this one deals with social injustice and racism takes aim at the political machine of the time.beyond that,this film delves deep into Native American mysticism and spirituality.for me,the first half of the film was very long and drawn out.it picks up in the second half.but it's just way too preachy and emotionally manipulative for me.i felt like i was watching a sermon.and the songs seem to serve no other purpose than to tug at your heartstrings.being so blatantly manipulated wouldn't necessarily be so bad,except it seems this is the only reason the movie exists.if there were some lighter moments to break up the heaviness,it would have made the movie easier to bear.as it was,it was just too oppressive and depressing.for me,The Trial of Billy Jack is a 5/10.
On the one hand, this film is in desperate need of editing, since nearly three hours long is far too much(lots of speeches).
Ignore or disparage "The Trial of Billy Jack at your own peril, as "Freedom School, 1975" is "Anytown, 2010".
Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) spends four years in prison for his killing of a sheriff's deputy.
During that time, the Freedom School, a hippie commune led by Billy's lover Jean (Delores Taylor) begins to prosper, releasing newspapers and TV that stick it to the man, caring for underprivileged and abused children, and no doubt doing lots of drugs (oh, I'm sorry - drug use is against the rules there).
Billy helps the Indians and the Freedom School stick up to the crooked landowner Posner (Riley Hill), who ultimately calls out the police and National Guard, with tragic (I guess) results."The Trial of Billy Jack" is an atrocious film that has to be seen to be believed.
The movie's pretentious, overwrought and hilariously un-ironic political and social content isn't the problem here; it's the length, and boy does it drag.The first Billy Jack had a certain purity of form.
The movie could never reconcile its pleas for pacifism with the appeal of Billy Jack's martial arts heroics, but it hardly mattered.
Billy Jack is continually celebrated throughout as a paragon of virtue, albeit a somewhat flawed one, sung about and worshiped by the freedom school kids - yeah, nice humility, Tom. And of course, Laughlin's smug self-assurance that we'll agree with our heroes and their noxious political viewpoint is rather off-putting as well, but he gets around that problem - sort of.The politics are by their nature laughable, accepting and endorsing every bit of radical, leftist conspiracy jargon as concrete fact.
He juxtaposes the film's climactic massacre with real life school shootings like Kent State, portraying them as premeditated acts of mass murder by the National Guard.
Laughlin and Co. seem convinced that they're so important that they're being investigated by the FBI, CIA, and the US government at large for their "scorching exposes" (Laughlin would, in real-life, use this excuse for the failure of his later Billy Jack Goes to Washington).
And we STILL have the problem that Billy Jack is kicking ass is pretty much antithetical to the peace and love message we're supposed to be getting.Okay, the movie has some camp value.
The lengthy Indian vision scenes - where Billy Jack confronts his "spirit double" and a cave full of demons - are pretty darn funny, in a trippy sort of way.
A lot of the dialogue and acting is pathetically bad (I love the scene where a hippie suggests that the Freedom School "BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THEM!").
But the defense of Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) seems inept; the lawyer does not ask about the circumstances.
In the end, Billy Jack goes to prison for involuntary manslaughter and serves four years, so that Laughlin is off the screen for perhaps three-quarters of an hour.
This screen time allows attention on Jean Roberts (Delores Taylor) and the progress of her Freedom School.
The pacing is torpid and several scenes take up too much screen time, like Billy Jack's spiritual vision to conquer his demons (while painted in red).
In all of Laughlin's films we are told that all white people are evil, that the Native Americans are pathetic creatures always getting the short end of the stick, that the President and the government are so gosh-darned evil that they would want to tap into the phone lines of seemingly innocent flower power girls and guys.
Not the case here: I have to be barefoot and were tight-fitting jeans with a goofy looking black hat.The acting is awful, the singing is horrendous, and if the DVD commentary is to be believed that Laughlin and his family didn't know what they were doing, then I guess the majority of you can see why we hate this film.
By comparison to Rambo, a far superior soldier who underwent far worse conditions in the same war and location, Billy Jack comes off as a very hypocritical, stupid character and more like a fan-fiction "self-insertion" of the director..
The actual trial of Billy Jack only lasts a few minutes, and he spends four years in jail, but when he comes back, well...that's when the tedium kicks in full swing.The Freedom School has prospered to the point where it even has its own TV station, and the local Indians host them.
After serving his sentence for involuntary manslaughter, "Billy Jack" (Tom Laughlin) is released from prison and returns to the Freedom School on the Navajo Reservation.
It gets so bad that both the students and Billy Jack retaliate in kind and this only aggravates the situation even worse.
The Trial of Billy Jack is a perfect example of the idealism of many in the 1970's, and how naive many of us were at the time.
Check out the Billy Jack Collection, as it includes The Born Losers, and features 2 different commentaries by Tom Laughlin and Delores for each film!
As pointed out elsewhere we see Billy Jack in court having a flashback to his Vietnam days.
Overlong and indulgent by what feels like 15 different dream sequences, the sequel to "Billy Jack" barely redeems itself with bigger budgeted action scenes.
Tom Laughlin may have been able to coax the Billy Jack character out of his slumber, but in this sequel the man practically needs a pair of crutches.
Laughlin gained weight after the blazing success of "Billy Jack"--instead of getting buffer like Stallone for his follow-up "Rambo"--and it shows in the fight scenes.
Now, Billy Jack likes to talk even more to his combatants before kicking their heads in.
Sad to say the 170 minute movie "The Trial of Billy Jack" was not really about his trial, that lasted no more then ten minutes of screen time, but the suffering of Billy's girlfriend Jean Roberts, Delores Taylor.
Almost the entire film is told in flashback by a crippled Jean in her hospital bed in how a series of tragic events lead to the school massacre that she's a survivor of.Having been released from prison after serving five years for involuntary manslaughter, the justifiable death of Bernard Rosner, Billy is back in town, or on the Indian reservation, and with a new outlook on life.
In that Billy Jack's film success is based on his sh*t kicking abilities not his turn the other cheek pacifism you know that his peaceful and passive outlook on life, as well as his and the Freedom School's enemies, wouldn't last too long!It's when Jean's students start to expose local as well as national, from the president on down, crooked politicians and their big business supporters with a serious of scorching exposes on the students-run TV station that those who run the country, and our lives, decide to put their foot down; On Jean's and her student's necks.
Using a bunch of paid off American Indian leaders to sell their people out, by signing away their land rights, the late Bernard's father Mr. Posner, Riley Hill, who runs to state bank has Jean and her students threatened and harassed at every turn in having their precious Freedom School taken away from them.
Rosner & Co. being totally unsuccessfully in putting Jean and her Freedom School out of business now plans to have the state and federal government do their dirty work for them.Nowhere as good as the previous Billy Jack movies, "Born Losers" & "Billy Jack", the film "The Trial of Billy Jack" despite it's marathon-like screen time, a world-class marathon runner runs that race faster then the length of the movie, it's not at all boring.
What really spoiled the movie for me is that I expected, but knowing better, Billy to throw off his violent past and become a true man of the spirits where violence would be the absolute last thing on his mind. |
tt2991092 | Eastern Boys | Marek, a young Ukrainian immigrant in Paris, works the street in front of the Gare du Nord with his friends, other Eastern European 'toughs'. He is approached by Daniel, a businessman in his 50s, self-consciously cruising at the station, and agrees to visit him at his home at 6pm the following day.
The next evening, Daniel is unnerved to find a 14-year-old boy at his door, declaring himself to be 'Marek'. The boy pushes past him into the apartment and proceeds to chide him for allegedly inviting him, a minor, to his home for sex. A while later the door knocks again and the boy lets in two other Eastern European young men. Soon, to Daniel's horror, they are joined by the rest of the gang, including 'Boss', their Russian leader. Daniel stands by helplessly as the men mount a full-fledged invasion. As they disperse around his well-appointed apartment, helping themselves to its facilities, Boss taunts Daniel about his helplessness, before suggesting to him that it was he who invited them over. He soon launches a raucous party in Daniel's living room, as the other young men strip the apartment of his belongings.
Later in the evening the real Marek arrives, and joins in the dancing, seemingly unclouded by guilt. The next day, Daniel wakes to a trashed and emptied apartment.
As Daniel slowly begins refurbishing his home, and life seems to be returning to normal, Marek visits again. After Daniel yields to his repeated entreats for entry, and opens the door, the young man bluntly offers sex. Daniel agrees after some hesitation. They move to the bedroom, where Marek coldly lies on his side, as Daniel thrusts into him before quickly finishing. Daniel hands Marek a 50 euro note before he hurriedly leaves.
To his surprise, Marek returns a few days later. This time, after they undress, Daniel brings Marek to climax, before he silently climbs under the covers, and goes off to sleep. Daniel wakes to find Marek no longer beside him, but finds him in the kitchen, eating leftovers. Wordlessly, Daniel gathers items from the refrigerator, and they end up sharing a meal.
Over the following weeks, Marek becomes a regular fixture in Daniel's life. Daniel grows fond of him, in spite of himself, while Marek arrives more often and stays longer. Grocery shopping one evening, Marek tells Daniel that he grew up in Chechnya, that both of his parents were casualties in the war, and reveals that his name is actually Rouslan. Back at the apartment, Rouslan tells Daniel that he trusts him, before accusing him of not caring enough to trust him in return. That night, Daniel refuses Rouslan's advances for the first time. When that makes him upset, he tells him that he's 'such a kid'.
Shortly after, Daniel suggests that Rouslan look for a job, saying that he can't live only on his 50 euros. He asks Rouslan to begin sleeping in a bed in the office, rather than in his own. Rouslan grudgingly complies but has a nightmare triggered by fireworks going off nearby. He wakes fearfully, and Daniel finds him dazed, in the living area. Rouslan breaks down, demanding to know why Daniel no longer wants him and afraid that he will make him leave. Daniel assures him that he will not, that he merely wants them to stop sleeping together. He reveals that he wants Rouslan to begin a new life, one that he can help establish. He invites Rouslan to move into his apartment and tells him to break ties with the gang.
Rouslan's passport (along with other gang member's papers) is held by Boss at a cheap, city-limits hotel that serves as the gang's base. Rouslan ventures to the hotel to retrieve it. Although he steals Boss' key to the locker that holds the documents, he is discovered by Boss while trying to find the locker. He is muscled back up to their floor, where Boss assaults Rouslan, smashes his cell phone, and has the other boys tie him up — leaving him restrained in a private storage room.
Daniel becomes worried when he can't reach Rouslan by his cell phone, and drives out to the hotel. When the concierge is unable to confirm Rouslan's whereabouts, Daniel takes a room, at her suggestion, on the second floor, where the immigrants are housed. As she escorts him to the room, they both hear a faint groaning coming from the storage room. Although the concierge brushes this off at first, when Daniel calls down to the front desk shortly after, she explains that the immigrants are managed by Social Services and, as such, are out of her jurisdiction. As Daniel becomes increasingly concerned, she suggests that they call the police. Daniel explains that he must find another way that will not result in Rouslan being arrested and deported.
Daniel ventures back into the hotel corridor and calls out to Rouslan at the door to the storage room. Rouslan, bound and gagged, responds with muffled cries. Realising he must act swiftly, Daniel moves his car into the underground parking lot, then uses the stair access to return to the front desk. With a sense of unspoken agreement, he and the concierge return to the second floor, where she uses her pass key to unlock the storage room. Having played her vital role, the concierge quickly returns to her work, as Daniel moves Rouslan, still tied-up, to his hotel room before the gang members can discover them.
When Boss discovers that someone has unlocked the storage room door and allowed Rouslan to escape, he accuses a junior hotel staff member, before punching him. Hearing the commotion, Daniel sees an opportunity and calls the police to the hotel. As the concierge confronts the immigrants, Daniel uses a fire extinguisher to break into the locker and retrieve Rouslan's papers.
The police arrive and swarm the hotel, while Daniel carries a badly beaten Rouslan down the stairwell to his car in the underground parking lot. As he is lowering Rouslan into the rear of his hatchback, Boss attacks the two of them, pushing Daniel aside and pummeling Rouslan with his fists. Daniel scrambles back to his feet before launching at Boss and choking him up against a concrete pillar.
As the police round up the last of the immigrants, Daniel and Rouslan drive away to seeming safety. Boss avoids arrest and discovers Rouslan's apartment key in the pocket of a leather jacket. Seeing an opportunity to exact revenge, Boss travels to Daniel's apartment, only to discover that just the shell of the rooms remain — Daniel and Rouslan have left the apartment behind.
Months later, the two men sit in a court room, as a committee hear their case, as Daniel seeks to adopt Rouslan. They are told that because of the unconventional circumstances of their association, they'll receive a decision in the fall. As they leave the courthouse, their solicitor encourages them to be patient — telling them that it is a routine adoption and that there is no reason for their plea to be denied. The men walk out into the daylight, towards new beginnings. | violence | train | wikipedia | But as the slow narrative starts to develop, it sucked me in and kept me captivated until the very end.A very realistic, raw image of illegal immigrants and a very sensitive story of deception, love and protection.
I won't spoil the story, but if you are not homophobic and if you like movies such as Stephen Frears's "Dirty Pretty Things", this is a great cinematic experience.
Daniel Muller (Olivier Rabourdin 'Of Gods and Men') is a gay man who is attracted to one of them - he is not sure if they are for rent but approaches Marek and a date is arranged at Muller's apartment.
The main thing is that it is always engaging.Great performances from all the cast but Olivier Rabourdin was totally convincing and Krill Emelyanov as Marek as the confused yet caring Ukrainian was brilliant.
This is for those who enjoy an intelligent gay themed film, but a lot of the issues here are very universal and as such I can highly recommend..
Most will be familiar with Campillo's work from the TV adaptation of his film The Returned, Eastern Boys shares many of the same qualities of the TV show; a poetic approach to actions that are usually bluntly handled in cinema.
The opening scenes are enough to cement the atmosphere of the film, as you are introduced to the eastern boys of the title, hanging around in the Gare du Nord, but it takes an impressive amount of time before their occupation becomes clear, and even then the plot meanders in ways that you may not be expecting.
I was only prepared to give this film just half a chance (which I'm glad I did), and bail out as soon as it got too "Euro" for me.Aside from one semi-painful and overly long techno-music / dancing scene early on, the film was perfectly palatable to this particular Mid-Western American's tastes.As others have noted, it starts off a bit slowly, and you're left wondering if there will ever be any dialogue.Turns out there is, and in multiple languages too.
I loved the realism of the two initially only being able to communicate through their own broken English, instead of their native tongues (each being unfamiliar to the other).Really well acted by all, and beautifully filmed.
It had a documentary feel to it, without the obnoxious jittery camera work that some directors think that look requires.There are some mildly graphic gay sex scenes, so if that's too much for you, consider yourself warned.
It's hardly gratuitous though, and nothing you haven't seen between heterosexual characters in other movies over the last thirty years.The story could have used a bit more background on the primary characters, which is what prevented me from giving it an 8 or a 9.
I can see how time constraints might have gotten in the way of the film maker's doing that however.Anyway, it's a breath of fresh air from the usual formula and is much recommended..
Olivier Rabourdin is "Daniel", who thinks he has picked up a hustler at the train station; instead, things go from weird to weirder.
The person who shows up at his door is NOT the person he thinks he hired, and when a whole group of eastern block people show up, things go south quickly.
Then Daniel sees Marek, the guy who lured him into this whole mess (Kirill Emelyanov), and they strike up an odd relationship.
The last two thirds of the film is mostly about their relationship, which has its ups and downs.Written and directed by Robin Campillo, whose other works are related to gangs or different social classes and the issues that come with that.
EASTERN BOYS is the story of a middle-aged man developing a love interest with an Ukrainian rent boy.
The boy's still caught up in gang life and his troubled condition as an immigrant in France complicate the relationship.
EASTERN BOYS is part drama, part romance, a story told with relatively little words and carried by superb performances.All of the characters appear to be very real, and even the movie's "villain", the gang leader, is relatable and not one-sided.
and a pretty bad overlaid images shot in a dance scene.All in all, a decent gay-themed romance drama that will keep you entertained, but it won't blow your mind..
Most people in the West know that being gay in Eastern Europe isn't easy.
However, the most difficult aspect of being a gay Eastern European - like yours truly - isn't the danger of the situation, or severing the ties to your family, or finding an opportunity to work in a Western country.
No, the most difficult thing is that, once one is there, one is constantly confronted with the stereotypes pictured in this film and many others.Here, we have a well-off man in his 40s cruising a hustler in a station, foolishly giving him his address because he isn't free that day.
The man falls in love with him but the boy's motives remain unclear.The way the story plays out gives very good testimony to older Western gays' fantasies of very young manipulative (or manipulable) Eastern rent-boys.
In their media, they ignore that rent-boys of Eastern origin are usually straight, in reality it's actually very important to them, as they consider paying for sex with other gays unnecessary.
Since this is (fortunately) unlikely with the more liberated gay generation of today, they project this fantasy on poor refugees.If 'Eastern Boys' can be interesting for straight audiences, then because it shows how superficial gay men can be, and that stereotypes in our community can be just as pervasive and mean as those women are often subjected to.
It is beautifully paced and tension builds throughout and I would say that the last act is quite thrilling.I felt I was in for a good film when I saw how the opening scene was shot and constructed so well.
The whole film is very well directed.There are different acts which are given titles and each has a unique feel and this variety helps to maintain interest.The character development is impressive.
In addition to the main characters we get a very good feel for the nature of the secondary characters in the film even though they don't do a lot of speaking.Overall I think anyone will find this to be rewarding to watch except those unfortunate enough to have hang ups about gay relationships..
This movie lingers so much that it's running time is filled with nothing substantial, which is a great shame as the premise feels like it could have grown to more had the pace been quickened to include more meaningful interaction.
A bit of depth is given during a scene with fireworks, but it's the one time we're given insight into a character's inner mind and emotions.
The story concerns an older man, Daniel, who picks up a young male prostitute from Eastern Europe at a train station in France.
The young male prostitute, Marek, is there illegally; living with a gang of other illegal Eastern Europeans, mainly young men, who survive through criminal activities, particularly stealing.
The opening half hour that introduces us to the characters at the train station and the scene where Daniel has his property stolen while he is in the house is mesmerizing.
As the film progresses, Daniel develops, extraordinarily, a relationship with the young Marek.
Through this relationship we develop an understanding of Marek's background and the problems faced with illegal migrants; particularly in regard to being manipulated and susceptible to criminal activity in order to survive, as seen through Marek's relationship with his gang of young men.
The performances are very good, particularly from Daniil Vorobyov, who plays 'Boss', the leader of the gang - he makes you believe the magnetism he holds over this group of young men.
A caution to any people interested, the movie does begin slow for the first 10 minutes.
Following that is a slow, tense build though, which works well.What makes this movie excellent is the twists and turns the story takes.
The acting is great, particularly the main character, the leader of the gang and the female hotel manager (she is very important to the film).
One of the most interesting parts of the story is its take on love and trust.The only issues I have are the technical aspects, such as dark lighting and some odd cinematography.Overall, I would recommend this film.
But, I also appreciated its honest portrayal of hustling as it relates to age and isolation in gay male culture.The choice to make Daniel, the middle aged gay client of Marek/Rouslan, a white-collar depressive who is not a slick English-speaker was brilliantly spot on.
The interchange of language when the two main characters begin to forge a meaningful relationship from prostitution is paralleled artfully with the interchange of sexual positions between them.
The plot and the Boss character's personality take interesting turns which balance the subdued portrayals of Daniel and Marek/Rouslan.As an older gay man who came out at 17 on a hustler strip of an American city in the 1960s because I could not get into bars, I was impressed by how some things really haven't changed despite the progress in developed nations for middle class and wealthy gay men.
The Eastern Boys were familiar to me, as was Daniel, the john.
This is a very well-told story about a young illegal Ukranian immigrant boy called Marek, who is cruised by a 40-ish gay male at Paris' Gare du Nord train station.
and has now - at least according to the film - been taken over by bands of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe.
Daniel makes a date to see Marek the next day, but he gets a lot more than he expected when the entire band shows up and basically takes everything of value.
Little by little, the film becomes a discussion on love, trust and loyalty, not to mention a realistic portrayal of the problems faced by a lot of illegal immigrants trying to eke out a living in Paris through whatever means possible.
The film is well paced, although a touch slow at the beginning, and the tension continues to mount until near the end when it becomes almost unbearable.
The actors are all fine, especially Olivier Rabourdin as Daniel and Daniil Vorobyov as Boss, the leader of the pack.
The main problem with the film is that it occasionally lacks credibility for some of the characters' motivations.
More important, how does Daniel know where to find Marek when he goes looking for him?
This is a major problem as it is not explained at all, and even worse, when Boss returns to Daniel's apartment, the surprise that awaits him makes no sense at all as it would have been impossible to prepare in advance.
In this compelling drama from former editor turned director Robin Campillo (The Returned, etc), a group of young former Russian youths linger around the main Paris railway station, looking for potential victims.
He invites Marek back to his lavishly furnished apartment, but is surprised when a gang of thugs turn up, who party hard while systematically looting the place.
Shortly afterwards, Marek turns up alone, and a relationship begins between the two.
Eventually Muller develops a more paternal concern for Marek and convinces him to leave the gang and start a new life.
An exploration of gay male sexuality, xenophobia, and the immigration problems plaguing Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Eastern Boys begins slowly and undergoes a number of tonal shifts.
Eastern Boys: Far Beyond a Love Story.
I got a little worried about certain issues in this movie, mainly the elitism that was the choice of privilege the view of Daniel (a successful man with economic power and that, in some way, dominates and subjugate Marek) about the events.
This choice, if not looked critically, may seems like a xenophobic Manicheism (Daniel = the man who "salves" Marek from the degeneration/ Boss = the bad guy that preclude the "happiness of the lovers").
But, on the other hand, if we analyze the film without being get stuck by this romantic bourgeois superficiality, the movie can be very rich, extremely delicate and complex, because it allows to the spectator have several reflections about the issues of immigration, oppression and all the problematics the main relationship covers (precisely for the way it was conducted).
The movie puts the spectator in a dilemma: the immediate impression is that the picture is about a fair and emancipator love story of an honorable middle-class man and a lost boy with no future.
But, if we were not hurried, complicated issues arises: Daniel was egoist, he used from your supposed love (or caprice?) and from his power of French citizen to get what he wanted (his beautiful, young, mysterious and economically and emotionally fragile lad) and he didn't give a f**k for the other immigrants.
So, Eastern Boys can be read as a dark portrait of oppression and exploration from the French people to the immigrants.
Maybe, more than showing his love to Marek, with the end of the picture, Daniel showed him his power and became Marek a "good boy", dependent and subjugated to this power of his in order to Marek no longer be a "marginal" who "terrifies" the good French citizens.
The first thing you must understand about this movie is that there is hardly any back story to the characters.
Daniil, the well-off French man, wears a suit, has dinner parties at his house, and desires young men to have sex with.
He finds one named Marek, who is part of a large group of (illegal) Eastern European guys, none older than 26, that cruises and hustles, and ultimately looks for ways to get over on people.
The arrangement is made between the two and disaster happens the following day when Marek's crew shows up instead and ransacks Daniil's place and takes everything.
Daniil, in turn, offers up no story of his own but shows a desire to take care of Marek.
It still makes sense until Daniil's attraction for Marek, who he is getting to know so much about, changes from carnal to paternal.
So by the end of the movie, when Daniil is now trying to adopt Marek as his son, I was very confused.
It just seemed that the maker of this movie wanted to create a relationship between the older man and the younger guy that would be more palpable to audiences.
The plot is not something you would get from a gay May-December affair story.It started and ended like a thriller but at the heart of the film is a love story of a different kind.
This is the relationship of Daniel, a 50's something French career guy and a young Ukrainian hustler.
One gets to know the histories of a person, or why he acts that way, like using sex to interact with people or gain trust, or learn to understand that he might need something else, like guidance and paternal love.It would be easy to miss out symbolism on what led to this change - the airplanes, fireworks, how they dress up and their antics, etc.
The night scene after the fireworks is crucial as the couple showed acceptance of a new kind of bonding.The movie dealt with other realities like the dangers of prostitution, gang behavior and undocumented illegal migrants.
In the beginning I was very confused, there is almost no dialogue for the first ten minutes of the film, and then, what little dialogue there was I did not understand the language.
In Daniel's world, his attractions to the younger "Eastern European Boys" must be conducted in secret.
At first we see them only as caricatures, stereotypes of what (American) society would expect of Daniel, as a man who desires sex with much younger men.
We see Marek as the person who is paid to provide that service, and that's it.As the movie slowly (yes, slowly) unfolds so does their relationship.
Marek returns after his friends completely strip Daniel's home of literally everything they can carry.
It is representing the opening of his heart.For, perhaps the first time in his life, Marek experiences a love from Daniel that asks for nothing in return.
It took me a lot of time and many viewings to give this movie room to breathe in my heart.
After Mr. X, obviously a seasoned professional, picks up a moody youth-hustler in the train station and makes arrangements for him to come to his apartment the next day, a motley gang (of which the youth is a member) shows up instead and ransacks the apartment.
While the portrayal of Eastern European teen prostitutes as predators may be spot on, in this instance their victim's passivity makes us wonder about the whole set up.The movie is well photographed and the actors are good, convincing even.
His initial reaction when a child bursts in accusing him of illegal sex is good, but once an entire gang of prostitute thugs takes over his apartment, his inaction is ridiculous.
A man like that would have cut and run, admitted his bad judgment to the police and had the gang busted.After his apartment has been stripped bare, the gang's lure shows up and the guy lets him in and initiates what we are to believe is a tender, loving relationship.I'm not buying it.
I could see someone acting like a complete fool for a raving beauty with testosterone to spare, but this kid wasn't one by a long shot, IMO.This movie isn't worth watching guys.
This is a review of the first 70 minutes of the 129 minute movie.The movie begins just showing life as you pass it by in any public square, deceptively focusing on a group of characters who turn out to be the main prota/antagonists as the movie progresses. |
tt0120491 | Welcome to Woop Woop | Teddy (Johnathon Schaech) is a New York bird smuggler who goes to Australia to replace a flock of escaped birds after a deal goes awry. While there, he has a wild liaison with a quirky, sexually ravenous girl, Angie (Susie Porter), who after a brief courtship knocks him unconscious and kidnaps him. When he awakes he finds himself "married" to her - not legally - and stranded in Woop Woop, a desolate, dilapidated town hidden within a crater-like rock formation in Aboriginal territory. The residents are people who lived there at an asbestos mining camp before the land was handed over to the Aborigines; following a tragedy in 1979, Woop Woop was abandoned and literally "erased" from the Australian map. Not content with the deal given to them by the mining company (from Fremantle), they opted to return to their old lives in Woop Woop. At first they repopulated themselves incestuously, which caused wide mental instability. A rule was then enacted ("Rule #3") which bans residents from sleeping with their relatives. Since then, outsiders like Teddy have been occasionally kidnapped to keep Woop Woop populated.
Their only export is dog food made from road-killed kangaroos. The town is run by Angie's father, Daddy-O (Rod Taylor), in an authoritarian manner that he disguises as communal (he and the other town elders keep the best luxuries for themselves in secret while doling out only the usual canned pineapple and sub-par tobacco to the others). The only entertainment available to the residents are old Rodgers & Hammerstein films and soundtracks, the latter of which they play constantly. These are presumably left over from the town's last official contact with the civilised world.
After witnessing another kidnapping, 'Midget' the local hairdresser, gets shot to death by Daddy-O during an attempted escape, Teddy soon realizes he will be trapped in Woop Woop for life unless he finds a way out for himself. Initially, he repairs his VW van which had been vandalized by the locals, only to have it vandalised again by Daddy-O. The Australian Cattle Dog that he adopts is shot as part of 'Dog Day.' He befriends a couple of locals, including the scruffy, affable Duffy, and Krystal, Angie's sister, who help him to confront Daddy-O's iron-fisted reign, and to arrange an escape plan. Duffy, reprimanded by Daddy-O for breaking 'Rule #3,' nonetheless elects to stay in Woop Woop, while Teddy, Krystal, and Krystal's pet cockatoo escape. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | The town Woop Woop is literally 'off the map' and its inhabitants interact in a surreal and disturbing fashion.Fleeing from danger in New York, the lead character (Johnathon Schaech) makes it to Australia, only to walk into a much bleaker situation a kind of time-warp - where Daddy-O is the law, the judge, and the executioner.
I watched this film grinning from ear to ear, and if it were not for my neighbour's enjoying it so much, I'd have thought that only Australians would get the drift of this film."Welcome to Woop Woop" is resplendent with Australian iconography, and if you don't know the space you may have a hard time understanding the references.
Cockatoos, dunnies(outhouses), the VW van, the backyard tip (dump), the brand of beer (it's real), Rogers and Hammerstein films, kangaroos as Aboriginal spirits, kangaroos as dog meat (true, not good, but true), even the main character's dog ( a Blue Heeler, Australian Cattle Dog), and the reference to the beach.
Woop Woop is in the middle of nowhere, has a population of 50 and is definetely a strange place--Rodgers + Hammerstein songs are blasting from speakers all day (!!!), they kill kangaroos and make them into dog food and no one is ever allowed to leave the town.
It seems my choice in movies/books etc is not the mass-opinion.This Monday I'm buying it, it's at least number 6 in my 'all time favourites' list :-) 'The usual suspects' & 'Lost boys' are some other examples of great movies (I think) and those are (in average) really well reviewed, so it's not that I only like weird ones.
When con-artist Teddy escapes to the Australian outback, he finds himself drugged, unconsciously married and trapped in "Woop Woop" an outback town inhabited by zany hooligans.I enjoyed it.
Initially, I didn't want to rent it after reading several negative reviews, but I'm glad I finally did proving that critics are often wrong.There's one scene which I won't spoil that hit the film's high-point, and let's just say I will never look at the Sound of Music again, or at least Mother Abbess.The soundtrack was fantastic (especially the "Climb Every Mountain" remix) and the cast were great.
Paul Mercurio also makes a humorous cameo reiterating one of the stricter rules of "Woop Woop" ~ "Nobody leaves".Although some scenes caused me to wince, such as the Woop Woop abbatoir scenes and a funny, yet disturbing incestual relationship, I suggest you check it out.Welcome to Woop Woop is a brilliant satire of Australian culture.7.5/10.
A dime-store hood named Teddy (Johnathon Schaech) from NYC, flees the mob and a psychotic, gun-toting, stripper girlfriend for Austrailia; while crossing the Outback, he meets and seduced by Angie, who knocks him out, drugs him, and brings him to her Outback hometown ("Woop-Woop") of 50 strange friends and relatives.Woop-Woop is a town filled with crazies, hippies, and grandparents (folks long forgotten by society when their asbestos mine is closed).
The locals never leave: they package dog-food made from Kangaroos for a living, and entertain themselves with Rodgers & Hammerstein soundtracks, and a nightly viewings of classic Hollywood musicals.The "King" of Woop-Woop is Angie's Dad (Rod Taylor...
The arid outback, the aussie dialect, and the Down Under idea of Wacky combine in this oh-so-funny film to bring you to tears from laughing so hard.
At the London Film Festical screening director Stephan Elliot started off before the screening that this definitely wasn't the case, and telling us it was about the more obnoxious of his country folk.This shows a side of Australia that is being rather swept under the carpet.
Although raucous and rude in the first half of the movie the mood turns darker towards the end.And don't forget to wait till after the credits end for an amusing extra.There are some very funny scenes including Barry Humphries as a blind petrol pump attendant - which so outraged the US lead that he had to spend time recovering in his trailer - it was done fortunately in one take with Humphries ad libbing the scene.
And an excellent performance by Rod Taylor as the leader of the community.Shot in the height of the summer, due to Stephan Elliot becoming ill just before the original start date, the crew needed 36,000 gallons of water per day to survive and in one scene they had to fit the dogs in the scene with shoes to allow them to run across the set..
Teddy (Johnathon Schaech), an American rare bird smuggler on the run ends up in the Australian outback.
He meets Angie (Susie Porter), a sexually veracious girl who drugs him and takes him to her community in the ex-asbestos mining town of Woop Woop run by her father Daddy-O (Rod Taylor).Teddy wakes up to find he is married to Angie.
He gets caught up in the weird lifestyle of the isolated community whose only source of entertainment and connection to culture is old videos of Rogers and Hammerstein musicals - a little like "Galaxy Quest" where the alien Thermians only understand human behaviour through the signals they have received of old television shows.Along with the most strident of Australian accents, the changes of mood in the film are bewildering - singing, dancing and fornicating one minute and shooting dogs the next.
This slice of Australiana makes the characters in "Wake in Fright" seem like Oxford dons.I only saw "Woop Woop" recently (2015) when it appeared on "World Movies" about the same time as a documentary called "Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!" Apparently Quentin Tarantino championed the documentary and I must admit it was more entertaining than most of the films it featured, including "Welcome to Woop Woop"The cast gave it everything they had, and seemed to be in on the joke.
If this movie is similar to anything, perhaps it is the musical Li'l Abner since there is a sexy blonde (a very appealing Susie Porter, unknown to American audiences) a handsome, dark-haired man (Jonathon Schaech in a vastly entertaining performance that should have made him a big star.
This movie is a little gem and should be seen for a special, funny, weirdly good time..
I've been a fan of this film since 1999 and have enjoyed watching it again and again in the company of many Woop Woop virgins.
While the response to the film even among my friends runs the gamut, appreciation for the film's originality, grittiness and dark humor finds us on common ground.I most recently shared it with a friend who asked twenty minutes into the film, "So where is this going?" A little annoyed as he pressed for my explanation, I replied "Let it show you - the surprises in store are the fun of it!" To best sum up why this is one of my all-time favorite films of the off-the-wall variety: It just makes me laugh every time I see it.
Peter Weir's "The Cars That Ate Paris" took the same scenario and managed to turn it into a watchable, if not entirely likable film (best remembered for the spiky VW beetle).But director Stephan Elliot isn't known for his directorial subtlety, and as such, WtWW treats the subject with all the vulgar caricature we've come to expect.
He'd wanted to capture the last vestiges of "Old Australia" he'd encountered when he'd filmed "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" in various outback towns.
Ok i have to admit that the main reason of seeing this movie was because its been made by the same director as Priscilla Queen of the Desert ( Stephan Elliot ) And that was probably my mistake.
Australian backgrounds, the Northern Territory ( where communities like the WoopWoops would not even surprise me ) and a weird bunch of people.
I'd never heard of this movie, never knew Rod Taylor was Australian (this from someone who saw Hitchcock's "The Birds" in a theater during its initial release) and I really need to see it again when it is not interrupted every five minutes by a string of commercials, as on the Sinclair (Charge!) station where I did see it.
No need to say much more; the other reviews tell you as much as you need to know, but I will say the opening sequence in New York probably probably nails the world's view of American gun culture and the two endings (preceding and following the closing credits) are worth the wait.I did love the throwaway line about the asbestos mine burning for weeks..
I have to admit that Aussie humour is an acquired taste (even though I am now a more complete man for knowing the phrase, "Part me beef-curtains!")but all I have to say is this: why are we getting hot under the collar about something called "Welcome to Woop Woop"?
I suppose a case could be made for this insofar as apparently Australian tax dollars went to support this film (why any country, which no doubt has problems with poverty and so forth as all countries do, would spend precious tax dollars on movies, is another issue altogether).
Having the idea that somehow characters in film must be idealized ethnic, racial, or national archetypes dooms any movie to being insufferably boring.
Does anyone really think that this is going to set some expectations of what Australians are like abroad?Welcome to Woop Woop is not a brilliant film, but I found it entertaining and offbeat enough.
I enjoyed the performances in this film, and the ending with the giant kangaroo actually made me chuckle a bit because I never thought they would attempt to use something that silly.
Welcome to Woop Woop is like "Mad Max: Beyond Thuderdome" meets "After Hours".
More importantly, in that these are crazy people that he can never seem to get away from.The movie is pretty funny because you're forced to witness something of an isolated civilization built on seemingly modern technology, but used in a different fashion (you'll see what I mean when you watch it) and the story contains some political undertones, as well.
He meets Angie, has sex with her a few times and then wakes up married and impossible to leave the small unknown town of Woop Woop.
Woop Woop: So-So. I was never a fan of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, finding it far too in love with itself to enjoy as a whimsical comedy and not serious enough to generate empathy for the characters.
Woop Woop, by contrast, like Priscilla before it, puts the camp right into the film from the outset.
The Australian outback is filmed spectacularly, and the actors do a good job with th limited roles they are given.
Through the odd twists and turns he encounters after meeting Angie and the rest of the Woop Woopers, his selfish motives that lead him to Australia in the first place change into one of actually caring for some of the people he finds exciled there: Duffy, Ginger, and particularly, Krystal.
And the little extra scene after the movie's credits underlines how deep that love between Teddy and Krystal really was.
Certainly not a film I would have thought to be entertaining, "Welcome" turned out to be darkly funny yet depressing.
I for once could not believe that Australia or ANY film company for that matter would finance this garbage that not only bruises Australia's reputation and appearance, but makes a mockery of everything labeled "Australian", especially to the poor soul who makes the most unfortunate mistake of watching this trash.First of all, let's look at the non-existent plot.
He makes a hasty escape to the Australian outback (of all places!) where he picks up a hitch-hiker wonderfully portrayed by Susie Porter who spends most of her screen time running around like a pig so that we can see her bare bum, her breasts in full exposure and having sex with Schaech's character every second she can, all for no reason at all.She now wants to introduce Schaech to her 'loving' father and his clan of loonies who reside in some coregated-iron tin town in the middle of nowhere (hence the title of "WOOP WOOP") where they spend their spare time watching Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals such as "SOUTH PACIFIC" and "THE SOUND OF MUSIC" in between acting like a bunch of rednecks who may have breathed in too many toxic fumes from an 'off-screen' nuclear dump.
Rod Taylor plays 'Big Daddy O', an overbearing, over-protective father of Susie Porter's character who refuses to let Schaech leave their nice little town because it seems that someone is now expecting a baby.
In fact, he wants Schaech to do the right thing and marry Porter and raise their child in this delightful little neighborhood.The only problem here is that Schaech wants nothing to do with any of this and he spends the rest of his time in the movie attempting to escape the lunatics and crazies that populate this dump.
I actually felt a little embarrassed for Johnathon Schaech who found himself in the middle of this mess and probably wanted 'out' before filming was completed.
And to follow this film up with 1998's cinematic dud, "HUSH", this is definitely something he could afford to leave off his resume.If you want to see a film that portrays the once handsome Rod Taylor as a beer-guzzling, pot-bellied, red-faced, gin-soaked Aussie ocker, then "WELCOME TO WOOP WOOP" is definitely the movie to see him in.If you want to see a film that offers something meaningful to both your intelligence and your wallet, then steer clear of this rot.
Oh man, I feel sorry for actors like Rod Taylor ending up in this awful mess, very embarrassing...
Even out in the far reaches of country Australia only morons and half-wits talk anything like the characters in this film.
"Welcome to Woop Woop" has just about every cultural reference and stellar mega star in disguise in this hilarious satire of a slice of life in outback Oz.Not for the faint of heart, it takes an whoppingly open mind and a good sense of humour to watch this little gem -- from the same director as Priscilla Queen of the Dessert.
If you're careful, "Seppos" might also catch a few observations on the inalienable truths of American life.All the family and friends know about "Welcome to Woop Woop" it's an introduction to one aspect of the country --- bizarre though it is, we hold it dear.
The only redeeming quality about this film is that "John Boy" shows off his bum often in this terribly written story about a hidden town in the Australian outback called WOOP WOOP.....a place that once you enter, you can never leave ( without permission ofcourse ).
Woop Woop was a refreshing movie about one character's realization that everything should not be taken for granted.
So it's probably no surprise that I took every opportunity to watch crappy little films like this one that aired on free to air television.
I usually enjoy Australian movies, but this thing I could pass on if it ever turns up on cable again.Jonathan Schaech (who made his name with "That Thing You Do!"), as Teddy, gets stuck in a ramshackle, bizarro town after being suckered by Angie, a horny woman, to visit her family.
Naturally Teddy falls in with her.Not all Australians like this movie, and I can see why.
For having to sit through this putrefied heap of rotting fecal matter, I now officially detest everyone who had any creative contribution or was responsible in any way in giving this phlegm gobbler life.The purported story goes something like this, (excuse any inaccuracies because after twelve minutes, my eyes began bleeding) - small-time New York hustler, (Johnathon Schaech) who must have agreed to do this effluvium while having a loaded and cocked 9mm held to his head, comes unstuck while trying to illegally sell Australian galahs.
Be offended by films like 'Woop Woop', be very offended..
In Australia, he meets a number of extremely unusual characters, which are likely the above-ground counterparts of New York City's Mole People.
I was should have known it was directed by the same person who did "Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert."Shot in the Australian Outback, it has the trademark humor of most movies from Down Under.
Welcome to woop woop is great fun, provided you leave your morals at the door kick back and enjoy it, like great sex.
I don't want to divulge any of the plot or story except to put it in a nut shell, a con man escapes to Australia, meets and marries a nymphomaniac who takes him home to a town called Woop Woop deep in the Australian outback, run by a mad man, his father-in-law.
If you like bad movies that are so bad they are good, great in this case.
You need to realize that the Outback people in this movie have their own little world & they are all somewhat crazy.
Many people will not realize this & never will enjoy a movie like this.
It ranks up there with movies like Princess Bride and Office Space, that are classic films from the day they debut.
Along the way, he meets more than a few zany folks, and finds himself a virtual captive guest in a town called "WOOP WOOP." The humor is at times perverse, and often hysterical.
I like Aussie movies anyway.
Parts are great fun, and the vernacular is great -(as in "Part my beef curtains again"...)Make sure you watch all the way through the end credits as well...This movie is well worth renting..
It is at the beach that his companion lures Teddy into saying he loves her, and from there the plot develops into a hilarious, albeit kind of twisted, view of a tiny Australian community and their bizarre inhabitants.
This aspect of the movie is incredibly well done, and isn't at all forced as love stories in black comedies often are. |
tt0088915 | A Chorus Line | The show opens in the middle of an audition for an upcoming Broadway production. The formidable director Zach and his assistant choreographer Larry put the dancers through their paces. Every dancer is desperate for work (I Hope I Get It). After the next round of cuts, 17 dancers remain. Zach tells them he is looking for a strong dancing chorus of four boys and four girls. He wants to learn more about them, and asks the dancers to introduce themselves. With reluctance, the dancers reveal their pasts. The stories generally progress chronologically from early life experiences through adulthood to the end of a career.
The first candidate, Mike, explains that he is the youngest of 12 children. He recalls his first experience with dance, watching his sister's dance class when he was a pre-schooler (I Can Do That). Mike took her place one day when she refused to go to class—and he stayed. Bobby tries to hide the unhappiness of his childhood by making jokes. As he speaks, the other dancers have misgivings about this strange audition process and debate what they should reveal to Zach (And...), but since they all need the job, the session continues.
Zach is angered when he feels that the streetwise Sheila is not taking the audition seriously. Opening up, she reveals that her mother married at a young age and her father neither loved nor cared for them. When she was six, she realized that ballet provided relief from her unhappy family life, as did Bebe and Maggie (At the Ballet). The scatter-brained Kristine is tone-deaf, and her lament that she could never sing is interrupted by her husband Al finishing her phrases in tune (Sing).
Mark, the youngest of the dancers, relates his first experiences with pictures of the female anatomy and his first wet dream, while the other dancers share memories of adolescence (Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love). The 4'10" Connie laments the problems of being short, and Diana Morales recollects her horrible high school acting class (Nothing). Don remembers his first job at a nightclub and Judy reflects on her problematic childhood while some of the auditionees talk about their opinion of their parents (Mother). Then, Greg speaks about his discovery of his homosexuality and Richie recounts how he nearly became a kindergarten teacher (Gimme the Ball). Finally, the newly buxom Val explains that talent alone doesn't count for everything with casting directors, and silicone and plastic surgery can really help (Dance: Ten; Looks: Three).
The dancers go downstairs to learn a song for the next section of the audition, but Cassie stays onstage to talk to Zach. She is a veteran dancer who has had some notable successes as a soloist. They have a history together: Zach had cast her in a featured part previously, and they had lived together for several years. Zach tells Cassie that she is too good for the chorus and shouldn't be at this audition. But she hasn't been able to find solo work and is willing to "come home" to the chorus where she can at least express her passion for dance (The Music and the Mirror). Zach sends her downstairs to learn the dance combination.
Zach calls Paul on stage, and he emotionally relives his childhood and high school experience, his early career in a drag act, coming to terms with his manhood and his homosexuality, and his parents' ultimate reaction to finding out about his lifestyle. Paul breaks down and is comforted by Zach. Cassie and Zach's complex relationship resurfaces during a run-through of the number created to showcase an unnamed star (One). Zach confronts Cassie, feeling that she is "dancing down," and they rehash what went wrong in their relationship and her career. Zach points to the machine-like dancing of the rest of the cast—the other dancers who have all blended together, and who will probably never be recognized individually—and mockingly asks if this is what she wants. Cassie defiantly defends the dancers: "I’d be proud to be one of them. They’re wonderful....They’re all special. I’d be happy to be dancing in that line. Yes, I would...."
During a tap sequence, Paul falls and injures his knee that recently underwent surgery. After Paul is carried off to the hospital, all at the audition stand in disbelief, realizing that their careers can also end in an instant. Zach asks the remaining dancers what they will do when they can no longer dance. Led by Diana, they reply that whatever happens, they will be free of regret (What I Did For Love). The final eight dancers are selected: Mike, Cassie, Bobby, Judy, Richie, Val, Mark, and Diana.
One (reprise/finale) begins with an individual bow for each of the 19 characters, their hodgepodge rehearsal clothes replaced by identical spangled gold costumes. As each dancer joins the group, it is suddenly difficult to distinguish one from the other: ironically, each character who was an individual to the audience seems now to be an anonymous member of a neverending ensemble. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2140619 | Two Night Stand | Megan is unemployed and single, and one day she joins a dating website. Her roommates, who just want her to move out, invite her to a party at a club. After a bouncer refuses to let her into the club on the grounds that she looks too young and she is without ID, she sees her ex-fiancé, Chris, and later decides to have a one-night stand with one of the men she saw on the website, Alec.
The next morning, they are less than cordial to each other, but Megan can't leave because of a blizzard. Forced to spend more time together, the two end up telling each other what they did wrong the previous night, convinced that they will never see each other again, and Megan suggests that they "try again". The two make love again, with far better results.
Afterwards, Megan discovers a closet full of women's clothes, and pictures of Alec with a girl. She finds out that Alec's girlfriend, Daisy, had written a note to him, saying that she wanted to break up, but hadn't given it to him, but he had found it accidentally. Alec wanted to have something to rub in her face when she broke up with him, and so he had joined the dating website. Angry, Megan leaves.
When Daisy returns, she finds a note that Megan had scribbled, and she and Alec exchange the notes that they had found, and they break up. At a New Year's Eve party, Megan is arrested because the same note was found in Alec's neighbor's apartment, which the two had broken into earlier. Alec arrives to the prison with flowers and balloons. He pays bail, but Megan refuses to see him or even leave the holding cell.
Later, when her roommates come to pay bail, Alec apologizes, saying that he didn't know her last name and that this was the only way he thought he could see her again. He says that it might be something that the two of them would laugh about years later, but Megan is still angry because she had to spend time in jail. She makes him a deal, asking for his number and promising to call him the moment she laughed about it. She takes a closer look at the presents he gave her. Minutes later, she starts laughing upon seeing the balloon read "I'm sorry, I'm an asshole" and calls Alec. He meets her outside the police station and they kiss in the middle of the road, when it starts snowing again. | comedy, humor, romantic | train | wikipedia | Nice, this 55 year old liked it.Fluffy, yes.Light, yes.But also intelligent, well written, well acted, and realistic.No puerile toilet humour.No clichés.A very smart move which leads to a pleasant end to a pleasant movie, topical on the way people hook up today and deal with the traps, pitfalls and dangers in pursuing the elusive "no strings attached" night of "just sex" with no thought for past, present or future.I liked it, no world beater but it kept me entertained and I felt pleased at the finish.An honourable pass at 5/10 stars..
Megan is forced to reside at Alec's until further notice, making for an ostensibly awkward but thoroughly revealing evening as the two talk about past relationships, critique each others sexual practices, and spend time nosily prying into the lives of one another.The premise for Max Nichols' Two Night Stand is made slightly more original given the fact that the idea of millennial relationships is a fairly topical, sociological talking point at the moment.
The characters, the structure, and the ending of Two Night Stand, however, make the film something of another romantic comedy, but exploring a reasonably believable scenario about failing to have your cake and eat it too.
They thought they were getting carefree sex without any kind of personal relations to follow...what they got was a window to themselves from a complete stranger.Two Night Stand's commitment to perfunctory plot-points (including a pretty senseless ending) are saved by screenwriter Mark Hammer's reliance on conversation in the film, and, most importantly, the performances of Tipton and Teller, two young actors to watch in the coming years, with Teller being the more prominent one.
Starting out finding his footing in amoral comedies like 21 & Over and Project X, Teller has grown into a seriously likable and human screen-presence, inhabiting the role of the cocky yet vulnerable young adult, determined, but somewhat directionless, and friendly, but also contemptible at times.
His versatility is the glue holding Two Night Stand together when lengthy conversations between the two parties take place, resulting in pleasantly lyrical discussions about topics that are finally starting to find themselves more prominent in film.Sex is not an uncommon thing to see in films anymore; the discussion of sex, romance, love, and marriage from the perspective of the people who most often engage in it - teenagers and young adults - are a bit harder to find.
Two Night Stand finds itself released and promoted around the same time as #Stuck, another film about an extended hookup that results in the male driving the female home and both of them getting stuck in a record-breaking traffic jam.
The evasion of feelings and any form of commitment is something that we can see in films with millennial characters, and when they finally are forced to tackle it is when we have an intriguing film on our hands.As I said before, Two Night Stand is burdened by an ending all too conventional and a structure far too similar.
It's a treat to watch Tipton and Teller interact with one another, and an even greater one to know the best is yet to come for both of these young actors.Starring: Miles Teller and Analeigh Tipton.
I knew I was looking forward to it as I like Miles Teller as an actor, but other than that I did not know what to expect.
I have never seen a movie where even the sex scenes made me laugh, this one did.The movie did not only have great writing, but the performances of Miles Teller and Annaleigh Tipton were in my opinion highlights of the movie.
The more I watch this movie, the more I cannot stand the character of Megan.
This was an interesting premise for what might have been a great funny romantic comedy...but the more I watch this movie, the more I can't stand the character of Megan....
and if that is what the movie is trying to go for, it falls super flat.I find her character dull and plays a lot on the stereotypes of certain types of small-town girls....Alec was okay.
Analeigh Tipton is just delicious to look at and Miles Miller comes across as a thoroughly nice chap.There's nothing original or new to see here and some of the plot turns are a bit contrived.
it's a fluffy teen flick that this 55 year old male enjoyed.If you get drained by the overly emotional garbage that usually accompanies American 'romcom' type movies, this one will surprise you in a good way..
After a night with Alec (Miles Teller), Megan has a fight with him but she finds herself blocked in by snow in his place.
I believe with Two Night Stand, Analeigh Tipton has come into her own as an actress -- I found her highly believable, enchanting to watch, and adorable (which is, of course, exactly what the character calls for).It helps, of course, that she's paired here with Miles Teller, who's really coming on strong (Whiplash!).
I believe Ms. Tipton (and Mr. Teller) deserves a lot of credit for keeping things light, and Ms. Tipton did a masterful job of reading, and translating her character, adding just the right touches of flippancy and youthful awkwardness to achieve the goal of every rom-com: Make us want the protagonists to have their inevitable happy ending..
The acting is so obviously scripted that you have a hard time believing that the actors actually believe any of the words coming out of their mouths and the whole situation is so unrealistic that even the benefit of the doubt that you would normally give to ridiculous rom-com movies like this one just go out the window.
Two Night Stand is a hollow picked apart and Hollywood-ified romantic comedy, stripped of all originality despite its unique situation.Loosely based off the real life events of its screenwriter, Mark Hammer, Two Night Stand tells of two virtual strangers forced to extend their one night stand romp.Megan (Analeigh Tipton) is a girl trying to get back on the horse, after she is left in the wind after a brief engagement.
A snowstorm of the century forces Alex and Megan, two complete strangers with the exception of seeing each other naked, to prolong their meet-cute far past the one-night stand status.I had heard of this film when it first came about in 2011 when Mark Hammer's script got an article written about it due to the real life circumstances that served as inspiration for his material.
It works better than similar previous efforts such as "No Strings Attached" or "Friends with Benefits" because, a) it's funny, and b) the two characters don't know each other, so it doesn't feel contrived, and gives these people a decent excuse to be brutally honest with one another...This framework suits Teller in particular - he was terrific in "Whiplash", but outside of drama he unfortunately projects a conceited kind of air that makes him a difficult presence to warm to.
That's not a problem here, as his character in particular is given moments and lines that paint him in an unsympathetic light.The film loses its way somewhat in the final 20 minutes, with the script searching for an unusual and plausible way of bringing the story to a conclusion (it succeeds at the former, but not so much with the latter!) For its first hour, though, this is a frank and funny look at how the different genders approach relationships..
i read some pretty bad reviews from others.OK the movie had no originality.but you knew that ,when you read in the review "two strangers stuck in a place".the actors i thought were playing simple but OK,and young people,or actors ,can sometimes escape bad criticism because hey it is just a little movie,a little romance,and if you think the actors are cute and kind of likable it passes the time.that's what i think about the movie.and i wanted to watch it till the end although yes i knew what was going to happen.my belief is that there is a category of movies that you simply should not judge too harsh.actually the whole thing depends not entirely on the script but in the chemistry of the actors.and i thought these guys were pretty much OK hanging around together.having said that,it was not a great love story or anything as such.but i do not think they intended it to be.i give it a six and a half rating..
Rating: 6/10 Adorable Miles Teller and former model Analeigh Tipton trapped together by snowstorm following a one-night stand have a captivating chemistry,
Megan (Annaleigh Tipton) is the typical break-up suffering girl who wants to get her life back on track and therefore signs in on a dating site expecting a simple one night stand.
Also there is the ending I haven't liked and the lack of some good music.Summed up I recommend the movie, especially at lazy days or for hangover 'treating'.
Two Night Stand was almost there but loses the battle thanks to over-the-top performance and weak screenplay.Two strangers get stuck in a snowstorm forcing them to spend a night together.As a first time director, Max Nichols does show some promise as I like the concept but screenplay is lukewarm which makes the things uninteresting.
I just love this film, it's the perfect romantic comedy to watch when you're in love/single/feeling lonely/your status on facebook is "it's complicated" so pretty much any time.
Also, the actors in this film are great and (I don't know what her real name is) the girl that plays Vanessa in Gossip Girl (add this to your watch-list too, wow GOOD STUFF EVERYWHERE) is real cool, though she didn't get the chance to show off her acting skills..
The characters are perfectly acted, and whether you like the characters or not, they really stand out as two people in a situation trying to tough it out.Thankfully the plot doesn't hang in the apartment for the entire film across the two days, and does well to break the beginning up with a shortish set-up flashback and then quickly moves along into a thoughtful display of two people just trying to get along but ending up on the wrong side of each other until they finally work it all out.
What could have fallen into cheesy romance finishes with all the right feelings intact and not overdone, leaving a sense of realism while still clearly being a product of a movie.It's good stuff, maybe aimed at a 20s to late 30s audience, but other than that, well acted, plausible though unlikely, and quite charming in both its humour and honesty..
It did succeed in making me feel awkward and uncomfortable just watching though, putting myself in their situation.Ultimately, 'Two Night Stand' feels like the type of film your Tinder match would force you to watch on a sketchy "Netflix and Chill" date..
3 stars were given just for Miles Teller, his character is the only one I can stand this entire movie..
and not in a good way.This is the kind of movie that makes you wish you could go back in time and prevent the writers from ever being born...
and not in a good way.If you're into cringy writing and acting that tries way to hard at making statements just to make a statement, then you'll love this movie..
The two characters end up discussing rather personal things, including sex and appropriate techniques, but unlike some movies which make it very crass for shock value, this one instead approaches it in a more naive manner, frank but still in good taste.
Now, I don't have to write long because anyone with working brains could see this movie is scripted like for 12 year old and below & its all about sex.
Poor Acting Poorly Scripted Baseless Story line with lots of holes to fill you need to be high to endure the stupidity in this film and when I say high I mean eyes and ears high like the ones who rated this movie and made it reach "6.4" Movie never made sense at any point but who knows may be some people find their fantasies in this movie.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes romantic comedies because this is definitely one of the good ones!.
Two Night Stand(2014) Starring: Miles Teller, Analeigh Tipton, Jessica Szohr, Leven Rambin, Scott Mescudi, Kellyn Lindsay, Michael Showalter, Berto Colon, Brian Petsos, Josh Salatin, Chris Conroy, Victor Cruz, David Weiss, and Mike Lubik Directed By: Max Nicholas Review BEFORE LOVE.
it would not seem interesting to any person who enjoys the genre of romance because it doesn't feel like a romance, I mean its not like a Nic Sparks movie where their fighting to be with each other, no it's just them talking and having sex and I don't care for the characters at all.
Actually, the movie was better than I expected, because most romantic comedies have a horribly stupid plot, unrealistic dialogue and flat main characters.
Both of them are, of course, adorable: Alec (Miles Teller) is funny and has great jokes and Megan (Analeigh Tipton) is a cutely aggressive, open and attractive gal.
Put them together and the result is a situation in which adorable fights and romance interchange.Miles Teller (Whiplash) played this spontaneous and funny guy Alec and did a good job for a not very demanding role.
I don't know why every romantic comedy has to have the same female character - attractive, talkative, fun, daring, smart, hurt, totally emancipated and in love with life.
Since Two Night Stand is a low budget movie with generic plot and shallow story accompanied with superficial characters, the only way it could be any good, for a romantic comedy, is if there is some chemistry among actors.
However, with Miles Teller having quite a year since The Spectacular Now, and co- star Analeigh Tipton not doing so bad herself by booking her own TV show, Manhattan Love Story, it does make you wonder: why isn't Two Night Stand a straight up theatrical release?
And while roommate Faiza (Jessica Szohr) wants to be understanding, thing is she would really like Megan to move on and out so she can move in her boyfriend Cedric (Scott Mescudi).So, in order to begin the process of moving on, Megan decides to pursue a one night stand through finding someone to hook up with online.
Mostly because it forces the film to develop her character, and makes it seem like she didn't just come into being just because the male lead was lonely.
Though what I really liked about this film is that Tipton and Teller made for an honestly cute couple.
For with Teller being diverse enough to go from comical butt wipe to someone lovable, he makes a good match for Tipton's girl next door appeal.As for the story, there isn't anything really groundbreaking here, however when they are still getting to know each other, and sort of hate each other, there are multiple comedic moments.
Be it them sharing constructive criticism when it comes to each other's sex techniques, her approaching trying to hook up with someone, and then Teller and Tipton after they officially decide on having a two night stand, there are around 15 jokes.
Even if the other person may have done you so well they put you to sleep.Overall: TV ViewingI like the film, but outside of two or three jokes, and the chemistry between Teller and Tipton, there isn't much here.
The story is interesting since it deals with the idea of sticking around after having a one night stand, but the movie as a whole feels like two or three TV episodes, minus commercials, put together than an actual movie.
Making it seem the film was more worried about sticking to the romantic comedy formula than maintaining this sense of realness by showing realistic and funny conversations between two characters who seem like they could be actual people..
The only movie I remember seeing Analeigh Tipton in was Crazy, Stupid, Love and Miles Teller I remember from Footloose and Project X.
The idea was fresh and the chemistry between the leads Analeigh Tipton and Miles Teller, whose becoming an old pro in his 20s, was terrific.I find it mind numbing that this cute little rom/com wasn't promoted and given a larger screening.
There are so many bad major films that don't come near the humor and honesty portrayed in Two Night Stand.Tipton is particular gives a fun performance and as attractive as she looks.
While not as good as "the spectacular now"(granted totally different type of movie/8/10), and certainly no "Whiplash"(again/10/10), but it is most certainly better than your usual rom-coms, it has some really bright moments, and the film finishes rather strong.
The major bad thing about this is that the movie feels overly romantic that the comedies don't feel funny.
Actually the romance parts feel more dominant that it kind of make the comedy part feels like it's just some kind of color variation to the story.Analeigh Tipton doesn't quite get her role to be funny.
Miles Teller is quite good here, although I think his That Awkwar Moment (2014) performance is way better than this one.
I had a look at this because I am fond of Analeigh Tipton and Miles Tiller from a lot of their previous work, and it looked like a cute romantic comedy.
The running time is just shy of an hour and a half, and (spoiler) the ending is typical ROM-COM, but it's a pretty good cinematic example of the expression, "time flies when you're having fun." Definitely worth a buck and a half of your money and 86 minutes of your time if you like cute young characters saying smart, funny things.
and I'm so sad that I've 1 star for movie....I downloaded the movie with a great hope because i have watched whiplash of same actor miles teller and crazy stupid love of actress... |
tt0210814 | Lone Texas Ranger | In the 1890s town of Silver City, "Iron Mike" Haines (Tom Chatterton), is a crooked sheriff who is celebrated for his character and ability to capture bad guys. The townspeople are completely unaware that he is corrupt and that the town blacksmith "Hands" Weber (Roy Barcroft), are partners in crime and are the ones instrumental in the robbing of stages and silver mines, and for framing innocent members of the population for their own misdeeds. As a result of their activities, the local Carter silver mines are near bankruptcy.
Bill Bradley (Jack Kirk), rides into town looking for a job. He talks to Weber who send him to his ranch house with instructions to wait until he can get there later that night. In the meantime, Sally Carter (Helen Talbot), of the Carter mines, waits in the company office with the Duchess (Alice Fleming), who is then introduced so Sheriff Haines. Suddenly, two of Haines's men, Whitey (Rex Lease, and Betcha (Bud Geary]]), kill Sally's uncle Horace and steal the silver that he is guarding. Haines pretends to chase the men, who return to Weber's ranch house and hide-out. They meet the cowboy, Bradley, who is angry to learn what had been done. They kill him and later Haines takes Bradley's body to town and claims that he was one of the robbers. Haines pretends to be grieved about not finding the silver however, Sally is grateful for his efforts.
The Duchess (Alice Fleming) is afraid that Sally will lose her money and so she offers financial help while she sends for her nephew, Red Ryder (Wild Bill Elliott), and his Indian Pal, Little Beaver (Robert Blake). When Red, now a Texas Ranger, and Little Beaver show up in Silver City, Sheriff Haines’ son, Tommy (Jack McClendon) returns home, having graduated from college.
When Betcha and his gang try to rob a stagecoach, Red thwarts their attempt. Whitey escapes and head back to the hideout but is captured by Red Ryder. However, Haines fatally wounds White but in the process is himself shot by Red. Dying, Haines confesses but pleads with Red Ryder to tell his son. Secretly hiding, the henchman Betcha witnesses the shooting.
Red returns to Silver City and tells the townspeople that Haines died, serving the community, in the line of duty. The citizens begin building a monument and elect Tommy as the new Sheriff, in honor of his father. Hands Weber, in the meantime, orders his men to sabotage the mines so that Sally will finally be forced to close the operation. They set off a massive explosion however the miners agree to work for free until the next shipment of silver is made.
Betcha has returned to town and has informed Hands that it was Red Ryder who killed the Sheriff. On the day of the dedication, Hands passes this information along to Tommy who confronts Ryder. While they are fighting, Hand’s gang steals the silver shipment, hiding it in a secret cellar of the blacksmith shop. Red renders Tommy unconscious and moves quickly to question Betcha. Tommy awakens and follows Red who finds the silver while Tommy learns the truth about Hand’s involvement with the gang of outlaws and about his father.
Tommy declares that he will have nothing to do with the dedication, however he is persuaded otherwise by Red who convinces him that the townspeople need heroes and that in their eyes, his father was one. When Tommy sees a young child crying because, although he contributed all his pennies for the monument, he cannot attend the ceremony because of his dirty uniform. Tommy allows the boy to play in the band and then dedicates the memorial to the “reputation” that his father had in the hears and minds of the townspeople. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | A good deed gets an autograph. I found a copy of Lone Texas Ranger on video at the Knoxville Film Convention in 1997. Sitting just a few feet away was the heroine, Helen Talbot, who was signing autographs for fans. Taking the video up to her, I asked if she had a copy of the film, explaining that it was the only Red Ryder she ever made. When she explained that she didn't, but would like one, I told her to give me her address and I would make one to send her. With that familiar smile and twinkle in her eyes that she always gave Don Barry when he saved her ranch in the movies, she thanked me. Not only did she give me her address but also her telephone number much to the surprise of the dealer who was sitting next to her trying to get her to autograph pictures that he planned to later sell at his table. "How do you rate her phone number. I've been sitting here talking with her and she didn't give to me." "You didn't make her the same deal I did," I explained. Since then, Helen and I have corresponded over the years and I got to know a very special lady who was as sweet in real life as she was on the screen.. ...and there's still no "The" in the title.. For their 1940-1941 serial line-up, Republic Pictures Corporation announced that one of the four serials would be called "The Lone Texas Ranger." The ink had barely dried on the announcement before the Detroit copyright owners of "The Lone Ranger" (George W. Trendle- radio station WXYZ and Lone Ranger, Inc.) objected most profoundly, wrote a couple of letters to Republic president Morris J. "Moe" Siegel and the company lawyers threatening court action, and the result was, without going to court, that "The Lone Texas Ranger" disappeared as an up-coming Republic Pictures Corporation serial and was replaced by one called "The Adventures of Red Ryder." The replacement serial turned out to be one of the most-fondly remembered and easily in the Top Ten of all Republic Pictures Corporation (which was and still is the correct name of the company.) The intended script (for "The Lone Texas Ranager") was modified slightly and used as an entry in Republic Pictures CORPORATION's 1941-1942 serial schedule...and now titled "King of the Texas Rangers." And it also turned out to be one of the jewels in Republic Pictures CORPORATION'S serial crown.In 1945, Bob Williams wrote an original screenplay for an entry in the companies Red-Ryder series, and the Republic title-namers called it "Lone Texas Ranger." And got no threatening letters from anybody in Detroit over the matter.. Print the legend?. That famous line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance gets put to the test in Lone Texas Ranger from the Red Ryder series. After Wild Bill Elliott shoots sheriff Tom Chatterton it's Red Ryder who has to decide whether to keep the sheriff's sterling reputation or expose him as an integral part of the gang led by blacksmith Roy Barcroft. Personally I think he made the wrong choice here. The town and especially the late sheriff's son Jack McClendon could stand a whiff of the truth. Elliott and McClendon nearly shoot it out because of the white lie Elliott.I don't think that the yarn that Elliott spins is going into the official report to the Texas Rangers. At least I hope not.Giving credit to Ransom Stoddard for shooting Liberty Valance is one thing. Ransom Stoddard was a good guy who did stand up to Valance. But preserving Chatterton's reputation I don't think he deserved his legend being kept intact. |
tt0043638 | The Highwayman | The movie and subsequent series follow the adventures of "The Highwayman", one of a mysterious group, presumably of U.S. Marshals, conducting crime-fighting missions and solving bizarre mysteries. Each Highwayman in this group is equipped with a high-tech, multi-function truck.
The pilot movie used a different opening narration, also voiced by William Conrad:
The 1987 pilot movie starred Sam J. Jones. The lead character is more mysterious than any of the other Highwaymen in that his real name is never revealed (he is only known as "The Highwayman" or "Highway"). He drives a large, black, computerized truck with a bullet-shaped cabin, which is the nose of a concealed helicopter (an Aérospatiale Gazelle) which can detach from the rest of the truck. The truck can also operate in "stealth mode" to become invisible. A concealed futuristic sports car can emerge from the truck's rear. Some elements of the futuristic dashboard design were re-used from Knight Rider.
Claudia Christian co-starred as the Highwayman's liaison, Dawn, and Stanford Egi as technical wizard Mr. Toto. The pilot was retitled Terror on the Blacktop when shown as a stand-alone TV movie.
After the 1987 pilot film, only Jones returned for the weekly series. The retooling of the premise eliminated the truck's stealth mode, which was never mentioned again. The Highwayman was joined by a new sidekick, Australian outback survival expert Jetto, played by Mark "Jacko" Jackson; Jane Badler as the Highwayman's boss, Ms. Tania Winthrop, and Tim Russ as D.C. Montana, who was responsible for the maintenance and modifications to the vehicles. The show was also filmed entirely on location in the American Southwest. Unusually, the show even switched production companies (the pilot was the last co-production between Glen Larson Productions and Twentieth Century Fox Television, the series was independently produced by Larson's New West Entertainment). (The name "D.C. Montana" is a pun on the name of D.C. Fontana, famed TV script writer who worked on many shows including Star Trek.)
After Jetto's truck, which was identical to the Highwayman's, was destroyed in the first episode, "Road Ranger", he is given his own, unique truck, the front half of which can separate into a futuristic car. The truck was later used in the first episode of Power Rangers Time Force.
Although the organization shares elements with that of F.L.A.G. (the Foundation for Law and Government) from Knight Rider, it shares more with the mysterious "Firm" from the original three seasons of Airwolf. The exact organization that the Highwayman and Jetto work for is never revealed in any great depth. Highwaymen seem to have extra-legal powers that occasionally cause conflict with the local police.
With much of the series featuring the Highwayman (and/or Jetto) driving their trucks along vast stretches of desert road, there are heavy modern-Western overtones to many episodes. With the hybrid vehicles and weaponry, and the ordinary police unable to deal with many fragments of society, and the overall tone of the series, many of the episodes have a vaguely post-apocalyptic feel to them.
Despite its short run, the series was broadcast in various other countries including Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, The Philippines, South Africa, Brazil(SBT), Pakistan (NTM), Peru, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.
The original Highwayman truck (the one with the Gazelle helicopter cab) was designed and built by Jon Ward. It was restored and currently owned by a mobile tattoo service called 'Highwayman Ink' in Sulphur Springs, Texas. | action | train | wikipedia | One of Hollywood's finest classic romantic swashbucklers.. This one has it all . . . thundering hoofbeats, derring-do, moonlight chases, sneering villains, and a dashing hero to entrance his lady fair, all to the rousing music of Mendelsohn's "Italian Symphony", and no Hollywood film composer could have written a more apt score. (You'll be humming it, trust me.) The underrated Wanda Hendrix is lovely in this constume drama, which is based on the legend created from the classic Noyes poem. In fact, all the veteran players are at their best, and the story gallops right along to its gripping end. This is the marvelous stuff that silver-screen dreams were made of, right before Hollywood forgot how it was done.. Alfred Noyes Poem as movie swashbuckler. I actually saw this movie in the theater at the age of seven. Now that's an impressionable age, but more than 50 years later I can still envision the mist on the moors, the clouds scudding across the sky and the haunting music as one of the classic poems is beautifully brought to life. The dashing Highwayman daring all for love of the beautiful Bess; the jealous, sneaky, and lustful ostler betraying him to the authorities; the raucous redcoats lustfully jeering as they imprison the innkeeper's daughter, the brave and beautiful Bess willing to sacrifice all for her lover; who could ask for anything more in an adventure movie. This is a movie for those who just can't resist romance with a touch of ghost story.. The Highwayman was an excellent and enjoyable .film. I have not seen this movie since I was a young lad of seven, when my parents took my brother and I to the cinema to see it. Even at that young age I really enjoyed it. The swashbuckling was fantastic and there was plenty of action. It fitted in well with Alfred Noyes poem. I do not remember if it has ever been shown on television. I would dearly love to see this film again, because I am sure it would bring back so many memories.I know Philip Friend was not really well known at the time but I really enjoyed his acting. I also liked Wanda Hendrix, I always remember being married to one of my favourite Actors (Audie Murphy). All I can hope for is that it might get issued on DVD. Here's hoping. Also, other than this film there are lots of second feature films that I have never seen since I was a child. One in particular was Legions Last Patrol.. Loved it as a boy of 10. I saw this movie as a ten year old when it was released. Like most boys, I loved the rousing adventure, cringed at the mushy scenes, and hated the ending when Bess and The Highwayman died. I haven't seen the film as adult, so I'm not qualified to vote at present. Years later, in junior high school the Noyes poem was required reading as an example of alliteration. I loved the poem then and now. Last night, the words of the first verse kept popping into my feeble brain. Today, I pulled the poem up on the computer, re-read it, and came hunting for details of the film. I wish that I could view the film again and see if it was as good as I remember it to be. Certainly, it doesn't rank with Stalag 17 or other classic films of the fifties, but it was fun. |
tt1925431 | Fire with Fire | Following a grueling day of work, firefighter Jeremy Thomas Coleman and his co-workers contemplate ending the day with a case of 35-year-old Scotch. When Jeremy enters a convenience store to buy snacks, he witnesses the clerk and his son being brutally murdered at the hands of Hagan, an Aryan Brotherhood crime boss. After Jeremy narrowly escapes with his life, police detective Mike Cella, whose old partner was murdered by Hagan while they pursued him in a different case, sees an opportunity to bring justice. Hagan is arrested and Jeremy identifies him in a line up; however, Hagan demonstrates that he knows full well that Jeremy is behind the two-way mirror by reciting Jeremy's full name, address and social security number.
Prior to the trial, Jeremy is forced to change his last name to Douglas and surrender his entire career as he is placed into the witness protection program. Although Jeremy finds it difficult to cope with the loss of his career, he finds consolation in his budding romance with Talia Durham, a Deputy United States Marshal assigned to his case. Later, Hagan's attorney arranges for him to be released from prison in the weeks leading up to the trial. As a result, Jeremy and Talia find their lives in jeopardy. Talia is wounded by one of Hagan's hit men, and Hagan calls Jeremy, threatening to kill everyone he loves whether he testifies or not. Jeremy vows to kill Hagan first and abandons the witness protection program.
Jeremy travels home to Long Beach, California, where he seeks out an Eastside Crips leader to exact revenge. The Crips decline to help but give him a gun. Jeremy stakes out one of Hagan's hiding places and kills three of his men while in pursuit of Hagan. However, he leaves behind forensic evidence that can not be traced back to him due to his WITSEC status. The evidence, though, leads detective Cella to believe Jeremy is behind the killings. Jeremy grows bolder in his actions, torturing one of Hagan's men and confronting Hagan's attorney to find out where Hagan will be one night.
Talia arrives at Long Beach and tries to convince Jeremy to abandon his plan. Jeremy locks Talia in the bathroom and gets away, but Hagan's hit man arrives soon after and kidnaps Talia. That night, Jeremy, using his firefighting knowledge, sets ablaze the building where Hagan and his men are meeting. When Jeremy realizes Talia is also in the building, he puts on his fireman's suit and enters the building to rescue her. Jeremy runs into Hagan inside the burning building and, after a struggle, Talia kills Hagan. Jeremy leaves the building with Talia. At the wrap, detective Cella, while conversing with the DA, states that no evidence was left behind at the burnt building to charge anyone with the deaths of Hagan and his men. Cella is seen putting away a photo of him and his old partner. | suspenseful, murder | train | wikipedia | Similar recent action flicks with decent actors that were worse:The River Murders(3/10), Set-up(3/10), Takers(4.5/10), and Elephant White(4/10).Donofrio is actually really solid as the villain here.The story is very straight forward, but the brutality of some of the violence is quite nice.
Too bad the script squanders the cast with suspect writing and a mail-list of decent actors that have one line in the film.I actually felt like I got my money's worth here, but I only spent .50 for the 3rd choice out of the redbox.Considering the excellent cast - it's a bit of a disappointment.
Placing Bruce Willis, very minor role, in a film and not using him to add to the action and thrill effects of the story is crazy.
"I need you to trust me" - this is how our hero manages to save people from burning buildings.Unfortunately there is nothing he can do to save this movie.As a lover of American cinema, I have seldom seen so much bad acting and writing in one film.The premise of a fireman going on a murder spree to fight for the love of his life, whom he met in witness protection program, is so dumb its painful to watch.He is magically transformed into an killing machine after shooting a few rounds in the forest with his love interest, Rosario Dawson.Every character seems to be made out of cardboard, Bruce Willis is at best a (poorly) supporting actor.50 Cent is on screen for a total of 40 seconds, and I suspect it is a redeeming quality that we are spared seeing more of him.Vinnie Jones is the usual British bulldog, apart from the fact that his ass is kicked by a fireman (this scene is so dumb, it made me cringe)Vincent D'Onofrio is the only actor that is able to make his character slightly interesting as the antagonist.Trying to build a climax our fireman hero resorts to arson to save his love, It would have been a perfect turkey if they could have written in a scene with the dialog "everything going to be alright now"Maybe they did, at this point I actually left - so I would not know.Apart from an obviously decent budget, high production values - there is nothing here worthy of a box of popcorn.I need you to trust me, watch something else..
It is about a fireman Jeremy (Josh Duhamel) who witnesses a murder by an Aryan gang boss Hagan (Vincent D'Onofrio) and ends up in witness protection but Hagan is still able to get to him.Hagan and his gang which features Englishman Vinnie Jones nearly kills his girlfriend and goes after his work colleagues.
The movie itself isn't anything new or amazing but it is actually pretty fast paced and keeps you interested and watching the entire time.
Terrible!Round-Up: Like everyone else, when you see Bruce Willis I'm the cast, you just have to watch it, but this was one movie that I wish that I didn't watch.
It was a bit weird seeing Bruce Willis in a thriller/action movie, not getting involved in the actually nitty gritty of the movie.
Released August 31, 2012 by director David Barrett; starring Josh Duhamel, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis and Vincent D'Onofrio, among some other notable talent.
Realizing no matter what he does their lives will forever be in danger he forgoes marshal protection and takes the fight to the crime lord, using any means necessary to find and kill his adversary.Fire with Fire, point blank, is a low end action film that doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Duhamel does well as the action lead, plenty of practice with the Transformers films I'm sure.I will say, with Duhamel's character supposed to be this do right, save lives kind of guy, the script writers or Duhamel, didn't give his character that feeling of really struggling with the violent acts he had to commit.
Sure, he showed the typical signs, like puking but other then that I just feel Duhamel didn't show the struggle the character felt internally.Rosario Dawson was nice to watch as a female lead.
Do you trust me?" The movie is relatively fast, so it does get right into the action and it is possible you will feel like your missing the meat of the movie but I don't feel it hurts this film too much because if it went on too much longer I think it would have hurt the film more then helped it, though a few more violent scenes from Duhamel and D'Onofrio to show what they were both really capable of would have been nice.So as you can see the film's positives balance out with the negatives.
If your a fan of D'Onofrio, who I enjoy on Criminal Intent, or Duhamel, who I've only watched on Transformers then you will enjoy this movie as the two get plenty of screen time.
Action movie fans, with no real high expectations but who enjoy a simple plot with a bold protagonist will also enjoy this.My last note is towards Bruce Willis and Curtis Jackson (50 Cent).
If your looking for a Bruce Willis action film where he has plenty of acting time and kicks butt all day this is not the film as he plays no real significant character and is not shown often.
Fifteen minutes into yawn-creating screenplay, the plot starts making no sense.Bruce Willis looks like he was forced to wake up and act.
This is more of a missed opportunity by the producer and a waste of Bruce's talents.Vincent plays an excellent villain which is tough as he comes from a very well known law and order role and is tough to shake his character but pays an excellent role.The hero does a great job as an unknown actor which we need more new actors.Watch the movie for Bruce and Vincent if nothing else, go see the movie now playing on Netflix..
Picked this movie just because I watch all Bruce Willis movies and starting to like Josh Duhamel.
The actor that seemed to have put the most effort into this movie is Vincent D'Onofrio who does a good job of playing interesting mob bosses.
Overall it's a typical action movie with a bit of love story in it with very underdeveloped characters despite some well know cast names.
They would have done the movie good to develop his character more but instead, they focused on the boy/girl thing.Action bits weren't too bad - gun shots etc.All in all the acting was about on par with a 70's porno movie, without the porn.Cellphones in the movies always work a heck of a lot better than mine does in real life..
He did deserve a far better film, this material does little for an actor of his amount of talent.However, Willis for someone highly billed doesn't have anywhere near as much screen time as much as one would believe judging by the advertising, like he has been in many of his recent roles he looks like he has given up and in it for the money.
not for story, not for less credibility of many scenes but for the eccentric idea to give a role - perfect for a younger Bruce Willis- to Josh Duhamel who seems out of his character almost scene by scene.
The villain Hagan, played by the totally unconvincing Vincent D'onofrio [ one of the worst actors in the film, to be kind maybe he was miscast] had no impact.
Like anyone else who follows an actor because he is "great" full of "action" "credible" and other terms of endearment...this film had everything going for it...Bruce in a staring roll...other actors maybe not so well known...but hey Bruce is in it...So it seems that either Bruce has given in and accepting a less than lead roll...or the guys/ galls that put it all together will get more at the box office because a "famous actor" is in it...Oh boy wrong again...similar to the film "COLD LIGHT of DAY" where we see Bruce then he's gone...In this film we see him...and again....and again...but if you think it's all about Bruce you may be disappointed...However the film is worth a viewing...it's full of action, blood and guts...a plot...and a maybe a telegraphed ending...but my wife and I did enjoy it...Despite not having as much of Bruce as we could have expected...Lets hope this is just a phase and Bruce Willis will be back on the screen doing what he does best...Action and doing the job through to the end of the film...I gave this a 5 but could well be a 7 out of 10....
If you're a D'Onofrio fan like me you watch it to see the Man do his character actor thing again.
Off duty fireman Jeremy Coleman (Josh Duhamel) witnesses a killing in a convenience store, escapes and is put into Witness Protection until the trial when he is to testify against bad guy David Hagan (Vincent D'Onofrio).
What we have here are 3-things: (1) a vigilante movie and (2) an interview for Josh Duhamel to become a new action hero, and (3) a new scary villain in Vincent D'Ornofrio.
I don't want to believe that a good plot is hard to come by; I also don't want to believe that Bruce Willis was in this movie, but all this happened in Fire with Fire.
The idea of gang violence and the fact that one man can just wake up one day, turn from a life saver to a killer (also an arsonist) and end the entire operation of a mob takeover, is to me too ludicrous a plot to think you have a reason to make a movie.Yet this movie was made, with a lot of expense also because the stunts and work done will show you that money was being spent, the delivery of the actors is not the problem it is what they are delivering that is the problem and the movie's cinematography shouts amateur.Fire with Fire is a 2012 direct to DVD drama action film, in the B-Movie genre that features our Die Hard series veteran Bruce Willis, Josh Duhamel (Fergie's Husband) who played Captain/Major/Lieutenant Colonel William Lennox in the Transformers Trilogy and Rosaio Dawson (Rent (2005) and Eagle Eye (2008)).
I'm sure his part in the movie could have been shot in just 3 days.The plot is about a fire fighter Jeremy (Josh Duhamel) who witnessed a murder done by a known murderer and mob leader Hagan, somehow by share luck Jeremy escapes and goes to the cops.
Jeremy decided to take matters into his own hands and take Hagan down.With Fire with Fire, what we have is a movie produced by 50 Cent (which is another reason to stay clear), predictable to be the last breath and an ending that was just out of place, all through the movie, the protagonist was either beaten when he should have shot, or waste time moaning over a hurt love when he should be shooting, save your cash.www.lagsreviews.com.
In that order, do not expect Bruce Willis to get to action; this time he 's an administrative cop with grief and goes no further.The plot is awfully predictable and sometimes insulting, but it manages to keep an eye on the movie, and that's because one man and one man only.Vincent D'Onofrio is as good as Gomer Pyle (from Kubrick masterpiece "Born to Kill), ruthless, stone-cold mean faced in this film, and that's the only part of a predictable, cheesy movie you should watch.
Vincent's role worth the watch.Josh Duhamel is not bad in this new kind of action role, but I support him for comedy..
As if there were not enough cringe-worthy actors the Director decided to add Vinny Jones and Rosario Dawson to the mix.There is this one scene in which Duhamel is trying to break into a location owned by the villain D'Onofrio.
Bruce Willis actually does a little work as the grizzled detective, and Vincent D'Onofrio is his reliable self as the ruthless bad guy.
It's the story of a fireman (Duhamel) who witnesses a very bad guy (D'Onofrio) kill a convenient store owner and his son.
The Director tries to correct this by surrounding him with veteran action stars like Bruce Willis and Vincent D'Onofrio, but it is still painfully obvious that Duhamel got the role simply to be eye candy, further proved by the amount of times he unnecessarily takes his shirt off.
As with all action films, Fire With Fire has it's moments, and Vincent D'Onofrio is always an entertaining villain, but aside from that, this film is good for nothing more than a 90 minute distraction, that you probably won't even remember it a few days later..
Firefighter Jeremy Coleman (Josh Duhamel) witnesses a murder by gang leader Hagan (Vincent D'Onofrio) and set to testify.
I'm not actually sure what he did in Fire With Fire other than run around a bit and then try to hide from the camera when he realised how bad it is.Fireman Jeremy Coleman (Josh Duhamel, who previously 'delighted' in the execrable Movie 43), escapes a hold up in a convenience store by über villain Hagan (Vincent D'Onofrio).
Fireman goes on the lam and decides to take care of business alone.Oh God, really?OK, it's got some production values and it's also got Bruce Willis, 50 Cent, Vincent D'Onofrio and Vinnie Jones in it.
Bruce Willis might have been paid $5M for 1-2 days of work, as his character never leaves the single location he was filmed in.There are actually 36 producers listed in the credits - maybe that's where the money went?.
And the bad guys easily find where Jeremy and Talia (Rosario Dawson) are hiding, but their hit-man chooses to noisily shoot at them from a mile away instead of just quietly plugging them in their room?I have no trouble suspending disbelief when necessary, but a movie of this genre is supposed to at least try to be somewhat realistic in its portrayal of action and basic plot.
"Jeremy Coleman" (Josh Duhamel) is a dedicated fireman for the city of Long Beach who just happens to witness the cold-blooded murder of a convenience store clerk by a man named "David Hagan" (Vincent D'Onofiro) who is also the leader of an Aryan supremacist gang.
He is a capable and suitable action hero but the story he has to work with loses steam after the first half hour.Rosario Dawson plays an FBI agent - but the most useless agent in history till the end.Bruce Willis looks tired and squinty and doesn't do much - but I guess they need his name to add prestige to the project.It's okay for one watch but it is a bit of a let down and you'll see why it went straight to DVD..
As I expected Bruce Willis was not in the film very much, just slightly more than a cameo, although he has some good lines and a particularly fun "bad-ass" scene of him beating up a thug easily.
I was worried that like many action films he wouldn't get a really great ending to his villainy but there are no worries in that front because his death scene is A+!
As his new identity becomes compromised Jeremy is forced to take an unexpected course of action in order to get his life back and save the lives of those he loves.....If you take away the 'get them before they get you' part of the narrative,this film is just a dramatic retread of the eighties comedy 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil', person sees a crime, gets away, and the bad guys are after them.But naturally, the cops are after our hero, because he's seen Kill Bill a couple of times.If this had been made in the nineties, it would have starred Keenan Ivory Wayans, and had a comic twist on the narrative, and still have that dark edge.Here we suffice with Duhamel literally taking the title for granted, running every five minutes and breathing heavily.Dawson is the best thing about the film, Vincent D'onofrio turns up as a guest villain, and Bruce Willis, although very good, looks very, very smug.It's by the numbers stuff, and its nothing memorable, but you'll have a bit if fun watching all the clichés add up..
Why is Bruce Willis' character in this film?
But anyways, I digress.The actual stars of "Fire with Fire" are Josh Duhamel (Jeremy Coleman) and Rosario Dawson (Talia Durham), which is probably why the producers of this film opted for the Bruce Willis "bait and switch".
In the end, Jeremy decides to retaliate against Hagan so that further harm does not fall his friends, family, and love ones.This film is the perfect movie for television enjoyment, not great by any means; however, it's definitely quite suitable for renting, pay-per-view, and /or watching on HBO, STARZ, etc.
Firefighter Jeremy Coleman (Josh Duhamel) is a witness to a murder and has been placed in the witness protection program where he falls in love with a US Marshall (Rosario Dawson).
Bruce Willis plays local police chief Mike Cella who would like very much to see crime boss David Hagan (Vincent D'Onofrio) go to jail.While in the program, the bad guys find out where Jeremy is located and threaten to kill everyone Jeremy knows and their family.
I would have liked to have seen more of Willis in the film.Might work as a 99 cent rental for some people.
Considering that this movie went straight to DVD despite having Bruce Willis in its cast, I wasn't expecting much.
Making a bad guy completely evil doesn't add to tension; it turns the story into a comic book.I'm actually one of the few reviewers who appreciated the subdued role that Bruce Willis has in the film.
Fireman Jeremy (Josh Duhamel, in the second film within two hours for me) witnesses racist thug and all-powerful crime boss David Hagen (Vincent D'Onofrio) commit two cold-blooded murders. |
tt1523939 | Answers to Nothing | Against the backdrop of a child abduction case the film follows five days in the life of a variety of people living in Los Angeles. Kate (Mitchell) is a lawyer arguing in a custody battle on behalf of Drew (Bailey) who cares for her completely disabled brother. He was an accomplished marathoner. After celebrating his top 30% finish in the San Francisco marathon, the two had drinks to celebrate, and an accident in the car ride home caused the brother's disability. Her parents want their son put in a home, but Drew's overwhelming guilt compels her to tend to her brother. She is training to run a marathon while pushing her brother in a wheelchair. After losing custody of her brother, she loses heart and drinks some whiskey the night before the race. During the race, memories of the accident overwhelm her, and she crashes her brother's wheelchair into a curb. Her fall dislocates her shoulder, but she decides to finish the race regardless of the fact that all the other runners have gone home.
Kate is struggling to conceive with her husband Ryan (Cook), who is a psychologist. Ryan is having an affair with a singer named Tara (Volkman). At the same time, he struggles to convince his mother (Hershey) that his father is never returning from France, after nine years away. Ryan grows increasingly conflicted over his affair, and on Tara's birthday, he is unable to climax with her. At a fertility clinic, Kate sees a romantic text message from Tara on Ryan's phone right before she goes under anesthesia. Ryan struggles to produce a sperm sample in the clinic, and he has to call Tara to climax. Finally, when Tara is playing Club Tatou in Westlake, Ryan sits in the parking lot, unsure of what to do. He drives home and calls his father in France. His father refuses to tell his mother the truth, which convinces Ryan of what to do. He goes inside to comfort Kate, who has found out that the IV treatment did not work, but she is relieved that Ryan has come home to her.
One of Ryan's patients is a young, African-American TV writer (Hawk), who picks up a young man (Gilford) from her neighborhood, but on their first date, she confesses that she "hates black people". Ryan urges her to work through her identity issues by doing something nice to people who make her uncomfortable.
The main detective (Benz) on the abduction case is a single mother and Kate's best friend. She initially suspects the young girl's neighbor, Beckworth (Germann), of taking her, but when porn is found on the father's computer, he becomes the main person of interest. The media coverage attracts the interest of Carter, a lonely school teacher (Kelly) who spends his free time playing Everquest 2. As the days drag on, with the girl still missing, Carter finds himself unable to stay immersed in his game, and he eventually confronts his neighbor Jerry (Palladino), who everyone knows from around the neighborhood where he walks the beat in a policeman's uniform. Carter urges Jerry to confront the neighbor. When Jerry urges Carter to go back to his apartment and let the police handle it, Carter drives off determined to actually do something.
At the Beckworth's house, Carter is trying to get up the nerve to ring the doorbell when Jerry arrives and begs him to leave. Beckworth comes to the door and grows indignant as he realizes what is going on. Carter flies into a rage and attacks Beckworth. After Jerry separates them, Beckworth produces a gun and starts shooting at the intruders. Jerry manages to kill Beckworth with a fire poker but not before getting shot in the neck. As he dies, he tells Carter to flee, and he manages to flip up a rug, exposing a handle to a trap door. Carter watches the news coverage back at home, and learns that Beckworth had kept the girl alive in a soundproof room in his basement. | comedy, flashback | train | wikipedia | Writer/director Matthew Leutwyler manages to challenge the concentration and intellect and attention span of the viewer in this non-linear and ultimately satisfying intertwining of stories that examine the bad in the best of us and the good in the worst of us.
Against the backdrop of a child abduction case (person of interest is next door neighbor Beckworth (Greg Germann) we follow five days in the life of Frankie, a single parent detective (Julie Benz) assigned to the case, her best friend Kate (Elizabeth Mitchell) whose determination to get pregnant keeps her from confronting Ryan (Dane Cook) her psychologist husband's infidelity with rock singer Tara (Aja Volkman) while he is attempting to reconcile his parents (his fragile mother played by Barbara Hershey) long separation, an on-line video game addicted school teacher Carter (Mark Kelly) and his obsession with the missing child that pushes him to the edge of vigilantism, a beat cop Jerry (Erik Palladino) grieving over the violent death of his wife, Drew (Miranda Bailey) recovering addict and her wheel chair bound brother Erik (Vincent Vinteresca)preparing for the LA marathon, and Allegra (Kali Hawk), a self-loathing African American TV writer's search for love who happens to be a patient of Ryan's (and who is on the brink of a mixed courtships with a shy and likely virginal Evan played by Zack Gifford).
The string of stories asks us to look at their lives (and ours!) and to take action where it is needed to end injustice.The cast of characters is so strong that despite the rather confusing progress o the story we get to know each character very well.
This is one o those surprise films that appears on the surface to be one of those shallow/too much too fast director's egomaniacal art films, but by film's end the audience simply cannot fail to be touched in many different positive ways.
TMG says titles to movies can often be telling.
When I see a film, I want answers to at least one thing—like why I spent my time and money suffering through it.
If you are too happy for the holidays and just feel good about life in general, then go see this film.
If I want to be this depressed, I can take a handful of Valium and watch reruns of Nancy Pelosi speeches.Why so many movie producers and screen writers are just dying to load us all up with piles of depression, cynicism and angst is beyond me.
You simply have a depressed guy named Ryan (Cook) in a loathsome affair trying to gather sperm for his wife Kate (Mitchell) to have a baby and deal with her own, tragic inadequacies.
The most pointed line of the film is Ryan's estranged Dad advising him "In human relations, kindness and lies are worth a thousand truths." I think he was quoting the Bible according to Tammy Faye & Jim Baker.There was some hope because their is one subplot of a guy who kidnapped a young girl and an interesting twist that resolves that situation.
There is one funny scene of Allegra (not allergy medicine, thought this young black gal is sort of allergic to everyone for awhile) doing an obsessive-compulsive thing trying to sugar her ice tea through a straw.
I bet you anything a lot of mentally unstable people and a few manic, tree huggers around Boulder, Colorado or tripping down State Street in Madison, Wisconsin will proclaim this to be a great and inspirational film.
I have been weary of ensemble dramas like this since the manipulative'Crash', but I felt the director and cast did a superb job and the emotion really builds to something tangible and rewarding.
The singer Aja Volkman of 'Nico Vega'provides an emotional charge right through the film and Mad Men actor Mark Kelly gives a great turn as a gamer/High School teacher out for justice.
Great film - highly recommended..
I voted 10, to increase the score of the movie, although I think is a clear 8.If you think movies about real people, real problems and damaged people are not your thing, please don't watch this movie.This movie is amazing in characterizing several kinds of people, is so replete of so many different styles and personalities.
All of them has a different role and all of them is extremely important.I would not like to say much, because I will spoil the movie, but maybe the reason the movie is so hateful, is because people see them in some of the character and hate themselves...Just pay attention to the details and you will have the answer to EVERYTHING..
i like a movie to move me in some way - to make me laugh, make me cry ...
to make me FEEL something for the characters.this movie did just that.
but this movie deserves much more than the 3 stars that it has right now on IMDb.lives crossing paths, zig-zagging and enmeshing one another.
these people have to face theirs - and this is the story of those lives coming to terms and facing the reality of their existence.i rated this movie high because i wanted it to move up in the ratings.
Dane Cook did a great job in this dramatic role, Elizabeth Mitchell is always fantastic ..
Coming in to this movie, I thought it was going to be multiple peoples stories that all come together at the climax of the film.
I felt like the movie was building up to the climax of them all impacting the finding the missing girl, but this is not the case.
Only about 4 characters, out of a dozen, impact what could be called the climax, and I feel like the 4 that do had the least screen time.
Overall, if you get invested into each and every character, the movie maintains interest.
I would have rather seen each characters' story as its own short film rather than thrown into this hodgepodge of lives.
If you enjoy movies like Crash or a much darker version of that comedy Valentine's Day, then you might like this.
PS: Dane Cook gives a surprisingly great performance..
There were some really great performances from people I didn't expect, namely Dane Cook.
It was a sort of a slow story that was all building to the twists at the end.
It felt like Crash or other movies where all of these random stories collide in dramatic ways.
Like when the amazing Elizabeth Mitchell buys baby clothes and stuffed animals and can't tell the check out lady she doesn't have a child.
Good movie if you want something a bit on the dark side..
Dane Cook is not someone I would normally peg as a great actor but this guy has the chops.
I didn't even think about it being Dane Cook at all the whole film.
However, this film is not just about Dane Cook's storyline his is only one of many which is one of the reasons I liked the film so much.
There are about 5 different main characters which you follow as you watch the film and they all intersect through out the movie.
The movie moves smoothly from scene to scene and there is a big climax at the end that I wasn't expecting.
There is some great acting talents in this film.
Answers to Nothing is a complicated tapestry of seemingly disparate threads that ultimately come together in moving and honest ways.
All of the actors do a tremendous job bringing authenticity and conviction to their roles, especially Dane Cook and Mark Kelly.
There are so many emotional states present in this film - many of which are constantly shifting and evolving - and the result is a truthful meditation on the hard work it takes to live with honesty and commitment.
I highly recommend this film - since it has aspects of many different genres and has so many unique characters, there's something in it for everyone..
A wonderful but slow moving movie that will leave you thinking about it long after you watch it.
"I'm buried in the armor, I'm an iron man." After a child is abducted this movie deals with the following five days and a group of people including the single mom who is investigating the case.
Her sister (Mitchell) who wants to get pregnant badly but her husband (Cook) is cheating on her.
An alcoholic who is taking care of her wheel chair bound brother and a self hating black woman who wants to fall in love.
Very slow moving in some parts and not a happy movie at all.
Dane Cook is a huge surprise in this role and is actually a very good dramatic actor.
This movie shows how each person is somehow intertwined in each other's lives and how one life effects the other.
Overall, the type of movie that leaves you thinking about it long after it is over.
Each actor does a fantastic job, with the exception of Dane Cook, who I think had a calculated somewhat forced performance.
I highly recommend it to anyone, especially if you feel like your life is stagnant and needs some motivation..
I usually do not like multiple character study movies.
Most movies without a focal character lose my interest quickly.
Dane Cook is very believable--and I have to say I was very surprised when the in the movie his profession was revealed.
So for the characters alone--which means good writing, this is an excellent movie..
I can't help but believe that somewhere within "Answers to Nothing" is the great film I very much wanted it to be.
Told as a series of interweaving subplots linked together by a single event, it touches on a number of issues that are both fascinating and compelling, including infidelity, recovery, loss, intolerance, love, faith, and strength of character.
It features a decent cast, led by Dane Cook in his first dramatic role since the deliciously enjoyable 2007 crime thriller "Mr. Brooks." It had, in short, all the right ingredients.
Unfortunately, the film falls victim to indecisive editing, character overload, implausible dramatic situations, and surprisingly unconvincing dialogue.
All of this rests squarely on the shoulders of director Matthew Leutwyler, who's also the co-writer and editor.Taking place in Los Angeles, we meet a plethora of characters whose lives are in some way touched by the disappearance of a young girl.
There's Frankie, the detective assigned to the case (Julie Benz); although she has yet to prove it, she seems convinced that the girl's neighbor, Beckworth (Greg Germann), is responsible for her disappearance.
Frankie's friend, an attorney named Kate (Elizabeth Mitchell), is attempting to get pregnant through in vetro fertilization.
So badly does she want a baby that she initially fails to see then turns a blind eye to the infidelity of her husband, a therapist named Ryan (Cook).
The only way he knows that she loves him is because he believes her when she tells him so.We now branch out further into subplots that are either (a) so distantly related to the child abduction subplot that they seem to belong in another movie, or (b) are so badly developed that they should not have been included in the first place.
Kate's current client is a recovering alcoholic named Drew (Miranda Bailey), who's fighting her parents for custody of her brother, Erik (Vincent Ventresca), a former runner who's now a vegetable.
He has also, for reasons known only the filmmakers, become obsessed by the missing girl case.Then there's Ryan's patient, a self-loathing black woman named Allegra (Kali Hawk).
In due time, we see him scanning the obituaries and attending very specific funerals.Inevitably, some will compare this film to Paul Haggis' "Crash," in which Los Angeles is the setting for several interweaving stories that address social issues.
Certain scenes seem to have been included for purposes no greater than creating drama, most notably an unprovoked and unbelievable confrontation between Carter and Beckworth late in the film.
An interesting character study set in Los Angeles.
Its hard to get past the idea of Dane Cook as a psychoanalyst/psychologist and leading man.
The most moving story and interactions in this film involved Drew (Miranda Bailey), Erik (Vincent Ventresca), and Kate (Elizabeth Mitchell).
Maybe a little bit expected for the critically jaded movie audiences, but a moving portrayal of struggle and victory none-the-less.
Barbra Hershey fans will enjoy her appearance as she plays a small role as Ryan's (Dane Cook) mom.
This film has its moments of entertainment but also lives up to its title.
A nihilistic drama that tries to deliver a happy ending; a conflicted movie.
Its an existential kidnapping mystery movie with careless affairs thrown in for good measure, and an odd mix of self-loathing that will surprise you..
I absolutely love films with intertwining stories that eventually connect in some way.
I enjoy watching films and playing a sort of "Where's Waldo" game while I try and spot the ties and connections between the characters.
This film did not disappoint me with its intertwining stories.
The characters in this film are mainly connected by the disappearance of a young girl in Los Angeles, then, the plots and subplots sort of branch off from this main story.
The characters are all dealing with real issues, raw issues that are somewhat deep and dark, but still relatable.
Although the film plays out pretty wonderfully, it is kind of a downer.
Although the film starts off a little slow, the individual tales of each character quickly propels the story onward and eventually wraps up with a killer ending..
I would be curious to see what her real life is like seeing how well she played her character.
I don't think that Dane Cook's performance was too shabby as well.
This is a movie does a good job of showing us what is really important and how easy we get caught up in things that only seem important but in fact may not be.
This is what we call a major league indy plot with loosely connected characters...intertwine is the phrase they like to use to make it sound artsy.
Her friend Kate (Elizabeth Mitchell) is the sweetest thing this side of candy, and she is married to a psychologist Ryan (Dane Cook) who lies and cheats.
There is also a rock band, the woman Ryan is cheating with, a rookie cop, and a teacher so obsessed with the missing girl, that it screws up his on-line video role playing game.The film builds up multiple characters in a mostly boring fashion.
It isn't until the climatic ending that you begin to feel you have just seen a decent film.
This film reminded me in many ways of another indie, "Garden Party." If you don't like one story or character, wait it will change.
The acting was exceptionally good, however a story being all over the place is not everyone's cup of tea.
As a vignette film it spends just enough time on each character so that you still get to know what is going on in each situation.
Not too much time is spent so you forget the rest of the characters, and it is all interconnected in some way.
Deep and poignant, each character is looking for something to fill the void that was left in their lives, like many peoples lives today.
The characters are each trying so hard for something that is wanted so badly in each of their lives and seeking to overcome those obstacles.
Dane Cook does an amazing job at something we aren't all used to normally seeing him do.
Answers to nothing is a film about the fragility of life and relationships.
I would recommend this film to anyone who wants a film to make them feel, Answers to Nothing is one for you..
Films that depend on the interlocking of different story lines are always treading on dangerous terrains.
The seminal film that proves this is Paul Haggis's highly overrated film "Crash," where various story lines and characters intersect each other in the heart of Los Angeles, by way of chance and coincidence, makes the film a shallow and misinformed reading of racism.
Similarly, "Answers to Nothing" falls victim to such a narrative ploy, While I give the film credit for not wholly attempting to shamelessly delve into racial politics, but like "Crash," it fails to say much about anything.
The film's protagonist Ryan, played by Dane Cook, is caught in the terrain of uncertainty through his infidelity.
Carter is an elementary school teacher who is the moral compass of the film, even though he spends most of his free time playing MMO games.
Allegra, a beautiful African- American woman, sees a therapist because she hates "black people." There are more characters and story lines than I can count, all somehow insignificantly connected to the other.
While it is better than "Crash," in that it doesn't rely on the idea of coincidence and chance to propel the story and affect the characters, it is still direction-less and hollow.
The characters try hard in becoming empathetic but the story offers little to relate.
The only meaningful character in the film, which so happens to be tied to the missing girl, is Carter.
I commend the film for attempting this type of narrative.
Like "Crash," it is set in Los Angeles.
great movie.
as you watch the movie look for the theme of "a thousand lies and kindness are worth more than the truth." The movie moves easily between the lives of the characters that are randomly interconnected.
However as I think back on the movie, I actually think about Henry IV, Part One, where few lines or events do not relate back to a central theme.
And that is just one reason why this movie deserves a high recommendation.
Once again, we loved this movie and told our friends to watch it, (with a warning that we thought the opening scene sucked.) |
tt0076868 | Valentino | The film begins with a mock newsreel sequence showing the chaos around the death of 31-year-old film star Rudolph Valentino (Rudolph Nureyev). Thousands of fans mob the funeral home until order is restored, at which point the important women in Valentino's life come to mourn. Each remembers him via flashbacks.
The first of these women Bianca de Saulles (Emily Bolton) who knew Valentino when he was a taxi dancer, and gigolo in New York City. He shares with her his dream of owning an orange grove in California. After mobsters rob him, he decides he must make the move west.
Next is a young movie executive and screenwriter named June Mathis (Felicity Kendal), who has an unrequited love for Valentino. She first meets Valentino in California, where he upsets Mr. Fatty (William Hootkins) by grabbing the starlet next to Arbuckle and romancing her into becoming his first wife, Jean Acker (Carol Kane). Acker's glamorous and luxurious life, made possible by acting in movies, motivates Valentino to try acting himself. Mathis recalls seeing him in a bit part in a movie and, based on that alone, recommending him for a larger role in her next project, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The hugely successful 1921 film launches Valentino to superstardom, and she is proud to have discovered him.
Back at the funeral, Alla Nazimova (Leslie Caron) makes a flamboyant entrance. She proceeds to make a scene and, when the photographers ask her to repeat it for the cameras, she obliges. Nazimova claims a relationship with Valentino and recalls working on Camille with him.
Next Natacha Rambova (Michelle Phillips) enters and tells reporters that, even though she and Valentino are physically separated, they are still close via the spirit world. Her flashback shows that she was at first Nazimova's lover, but that, realizing Valentino's star would far outweigh Nazimova's, she decided to take advantage of Valentino's infatuation with her to do some social climbing. During the filming of The Sheik, she seduces Valentino with a seven veils dance. Despite knowing he is in the midst of divorcing Acker, she insists on going to Mexico so they can marry. Once they return to the states, Valentino is arrested for bigamy. Because Jesse Lasky (Huntz Hall) refuses to pay bail for Valentino, he has to spend the night in jail, where the guards deny him bathroom privileges and, with the other prisoners, taunt him about his lack of masculinity. The result is his complete humiliation.
On the set of Monsieur Beaucaire, Rambova and Sidney Olcott (John Justin) take over directing. Two stage hands, wondering if 'Rambova calls the shots in bed, too', toss a pink powder puff onto Valentino's lap. Rambova demands that whoever did it come forward or she and Valentino will walk off the set for good. Valentino finishes the picture, but Rambova insists he refuse future work at Paramount until Lasky meets certain demands. Lasky suspends them and they end up broke. A man named George Melford (Seymour Cassel) approaches them; Melford is meant to be Valentino's real-life manager, George Ullman. He offers to help them book personal appearances for Mineralava, a beauty product company. The tour is a success, and, with Melford's help, Valentino and Rambova negotiate a good deal with Lasky.
A dramatic moment comes when Valentino reads a newspaper article questioning his manhood. Earlier, the film shows Valentino dancing with a young dancer (Anthony Dowell) in a way that casts doubt on Valentino's sexuality. Whatever his true attractions are, the article outrages Valentino, who challenges the reporter to a duel. For 'legal reasons' the duel becomes a boxing match. Rory O'Neil (Peter Vaughn), who just happens to be a professional boxer, stands in for the reporter. The fight becomes a ballet of sorts, and flashbacks to the dance with Nijinsky parallel the match. Valentino eventually lands a blow which wins him the fight. However, he now begins to exhibit signs of an ulcer.
O'Neil asks for a rematch, this time a drinking contest. Despite his ulcer, Valentino accepts. Although Valentino defeats O'Neil again, his excessive drinking is too much for the ulcer, which perforates when he returns to his home that night. He dies crawling on the floor unable to reach an orange he had drunkenly played with and dropped on the floor (representing his failed dream of growing an orange grove) The film ends with a shot of Valentino's body on a slab in a mortuary as the credits roll. | violence, satire, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0062908 | The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde | Gabriel John Utterson and his cousin Richard Enfield reach the door of a large house on their weekly walk. Enfield tells Utterson that months ago he saw a sinister-looking man named Edward Hyde trample a young girl after accidentally bumping into her. Enfield forced Hyde to pay £100 to avoid a scandal. Hyde brought them to this door and provided a cheque signed by a reputable gentleman (later revealed to be Dr. Henry Jekyll, a friend and client of Utterson). Utterson is disturbed because Jekyll recently changed his will to make Hyde the sole beneficiary. Utterson fears that Hyde is blackmailing Jekyll. When Utterson tries to discuss Hyde with Jekyll, Jekyll turns pale and asks that Hyde be left alone.
One night in October, a servant sees Hyde beat to death Sir Danvers Carew, another of Utterson's clients. The police contact Utterson, who leads officers to Hyde's apartment. Hyde has vanished, but they find half of a broken cane. Utterson recognizes the cane as one he had given to Jekyll. Utterson visits Jekyll, who shows Utterson a note, allegedly written to Jekyll by Hyde, apologising for the trouble that he has caused. However, Hyde's handwriting is similar to Jekyll's own, leading Utterson to conclude that Jekyll forged the note to protect Hyde.
For two months, Jekyll reverts to his former sociable manner, but in early January, he starts refusing visitors. Dr. Robert Lanyon, a mutual acquaintance of Jekyll and Utterson, dies of shock after receiving information relating to Jekyll. Before his death, Lanyon gives Utterson a letter to be opened after Jekyll's death or disappearance. In late February, during another walk with Enfield, Utterson starts a conversation with Jekyll at a window of his laboratory. Jekyll suddenly slams the window and disappears. In early March, Jekyll's butler, Mr. Poole, visits Utterson and says Jekyll has secluded himself in his laboratory for weeks. Utterson and Poole break into the laboratory, where they find Hyde wearing Jekyll's clothes and apparently dead from suicide. They find a letter from Jekyll to Utterson. Utterson reads Lanyon's letter, then Jekyll's. Lanyon's letter reveals his deterioration resulted from the shock of seeing Hyde drink a serum that turned him into Jekyll. Jekyll's letter explains that he had indulged in unstated vices and feared discovery. He found a way to transform himself and thereby indulge his vices without fear of detection. Jekyll's transformed personality, Hyde, was evil, self-indulgent, and uncaring to anyone but himself. Initially, Jekyll controlled the transformations with the serum, but one night in August, he became Hyde involuntarily in his sleep.
Jekyll resolved to cease becoming Hyde. One night, he had a moment of weakness and drank the serum. Hyde, furious at having been caged for so long, killed Carew. Horrified, Jekyll tried more adamantly to stop the transformations. Then, in early January, he transformed involuntarily while awake. Far from his laboratory and hunted by the police as a murderer, Hyde needed help to avoid capture. He wrote to Lanyon (in Jekyll's hand), asking his friend to bring chemicals from his laboratory. In Lanyon's presence, Hyde mixed the chemicals, drank the serum, and transformed into Jekyll. The shock of the sight instigated Lanyon's deterioration and death. Meanwhile, Jekyll's involuntary transformations increased in frequency and required ever larger doses of serum to reverse. It was one of these transformations that caused Jekyll to slam his window shut on Enfield and Utterson.
Eventually, one of the chemicals used in the serum ran low, and subsequent batches prepared from new stocks failed to work. Jekyll speculated that one of the original ingredients must have some unknown impurity that made it work. Knowing he would become Hyde permanently, Jekyll decided to write his "confession". He ended the letter by writing, "I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end." | insanity, gothic | train | wikipedia | Amid the long lists of accomplishments, for actor Jack Palance, is this truly remarkable film achievement.
Robert Louis Stevenson created his memorable set of characters; humanitarian Jekyll and terrifying Mr. Hyde, never realizing how many thespians would attempt to personify his creations.
Many are consider excellent, but for my money, the very best is none other than Jack Palance as Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde.
I suppose its because, Jack Palance throughout his movie career, has established himself as a reputable heavy.
For the first time in film history, has an actor stun the audience with such an incredible performance, as to leave them applauding him with praise and wonderful accolades.
They included Denholm Elliott as Mr. George Devlin, Leo Genn as Dr. Lanyon, Torin Thatcher as Sir John Turnbull and wonderful Oscar Homolka as Stryker.
You may see other film adaptions of this horror tale, but in my opinion, few to equal this version.
I remember the television broadcast and knew of Palance at that time, but I didn't have much to compare performances or know what to look for.I just remember it was an outstanding production with full credit going to Palance in the lead role.then last week eureka!!
I found the DVD in a 2nd hand shop and snatched it up right away.the devilishness and morphing from Jekyll to Hyde was incredible.
Jack Palance was a very gifted actor and had a certain honesty about him, a dedication to his craft that goes beyond the adulation and wealth other hollywooden types seek.and that thing about push ups at the Oscars will go down in the history of entertainment.
Jack Palance hams it up as Hyde: a friend who saw the movie with me said he looked like a muppet during the scene at Tessie's music hall!
But his Dr. Jekyll is a brilliant character, full of the best kind of noble suffering that a great tragic hero endures.
Any fan of _Dark Shadows_ will love this _Jekyll and Hyde_; and any horror fan should enjoy seeing it, too!.
One of the better versions of the classic story..
In the late 1960s, Dan Curtis made a name for himself by being the executive producer and writer for "Dark Shadows".
In addition, he made a few made for TV horror films--including "Dracula", "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and this film, "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".One problem with this and all other versions of the story I have seen is that they have the same actor play both Dr. Jekyll AND Mr. Hyde.
I say this is a mistake because in Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, the reason why folks could not believe the two men were one was that Hyde was SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the doctor.
In other words, films only use a bit of makeup to make the transformation and the two invariably look too similar to make the story very convincing.Unlike the movie versions of the story made during the sound era, this one is unusual in that it jumps right into the action.
Within a few minutes of the start of the film, Dr. Jekyll has already created his elixir to transform himself into a less restrained persona, Mr. Hyde.
His motivations and good works he did before the transformation are really not explored in any depth like other films.
I don't think this is a bad thing--just different.Another thing that was a bit different is that this version is quite a bit more violent than other versions (such as the Frederic March and Spencer Tracy films).
Plus, the awfulness of Hyde is well in keeping with the spirit of the novel.I think the thing that surprised me the most is that Jack Palance was quite good.
He was intense as Hyde and quite restrained as Jekyll.
As a result, it's about as good a version as you can find--though, as I pointed out above, it sure would be nice to see a version closer to the book in regard to how Hyde looked..
Jack Palance seems made for this role.
As the mild mannered Henry Jekyll, Palance is subdued, allowing none of his usual acting intensity to mar the characterization.
As Hyde, Palance comes alive as he does in many films, relishing his own evil (Dracula, Barrabas, Scrooge).
This film's focus is not on the horrifying transformation from Jekyll to Hyde that you expect to see.
In fact, you don't see the first one, and Jekyll only learns about it by people telling him what happened the night before when Hyde appeared.The makeup for Hyde is not drastically different from Palance's own appearance; he is ugly but not hideous.
Denholm Elliot is Devlin, Jekyll's friend and "savior".I've only seen the Barrymore version in comparison.
Barrymore is a much more monstrous Hyde, but both versions are excellent..
This was the first version of the story I ever saw so I may be a bit biased.
As a long time student of this genre and of this story in particular, I can say that while not the Stevenson novella verbatim, it is still much closer than other adaptations.
Mr. Palance gives a bravura performance in the dual role.
Is it my imagination or does the Mr. Hyde make-up created by Master Make-Up Artist Dick Smith resemble classic depictions of Satan or perhaps the Satyr?
Dan Curtis assembled an excellent cast in a sterling production.
John Barrymore's one is also still very good and Burbank Films Australia's animated version surprisingly good too, didn't care all that much for the Spencer Tracy film but even that wasn't too bad.
Before seeing this, I would have considered the March film the best version but now it'd be this one.
The whole adaptation looks great, the lighting has that atmospheric Gothic touch, the costumes are sumptuous and the sets and the way they look make you feel like you're there in Victorian London and with the characters, which is remarkable for a made for TV film to do.
London looks so beautiful and evocatively creepy at the same time, and how the fog is done and used really stands out in terms of visuals and atmosphere.
Adding a lot also is Robert Cobert's score, which is very haunting without ever being obvious, it's not as spooky as the score he did for 1973's Dracula(also directed by Dan Curtis and starring Jack Palance, which is also worth seeing but not quite as good) but is so in a different kind of way.
As an adaptation, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde may not be word for word, detail for detail to the Stevenson classic with a few changes and additions but actually all the major details are intact and so is the spirit of the story, and it does this more successfully than any of the other versions.
The idea of Dr Jekyll being responsible for the crimes due to Hyde not being a whole person, as heard in Devlin's line "You don't understand, do you?
The story is very suspenseful, the scariest parts actually being genuinely so, and entertaining at all times, especially with any scene with Mr. Hyde, it was good also that it got straight to the point instead of being bogged down by filler, even more remarkable is that it managed to be loyal to such a timeless and well-known story and make it feel fresh.It is more violent than the other Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde adaptations, but not in a gratuitous way.
Curtis' direction is as solid as rocks, and the characters carry the narrative beautifully, the most interesting of course is Jekyll/Hyde but the other characters are hardly given short shrift, Devlin actually is just as much and has some of the adaptation's most memorable lines.
But it is Jack Palance who walks away with the acting honours, as he rightfully should, managing to make Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde completely different from one another without making Jekyll too mannered or dull or Hyde too over-the-top or completely brutish, both of which is what makes this iconic dual role tricky.
He does superbly as both Jekyll and Hyde, loved the refinement and nobility he brought to Jekyll, possibly Palance at his most restrained, but he is even better as Hyde, as well as being one of the most physical and brutal in the role he is also the one that comes off the most genuinely scary and passionate, he hams it up just a tad but actually in this case that was what made the performance fun to watch.
Overall, a brilliantly done version of a classic and the best version seen so far.
Robert Louis Stevenson's book was more of detective story than anything else, hence its called "The Strange CASE of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde".
It is about Dr Lanyon hearing of these unusual and horrific events and trying to piece them together, and in the final few chapters (Jekyll's letters) the story is finally told.
As a book, that was very interesting, though as a film this would have been rather dull, and it is much more exciting to see these events unfold on a screen.The story is very well-known, a scientist splits his personalities and creates an inhuman tyrannical demon that destroys the lives of both of them as well as many others.
Only in the book Jekyll invented the drug because he thought that as every man had only one life and two sides, it is impossible to leave a life that satisfies the urges of both of these sides.
Here it is merely out of reckless curiosity, he does something purely because he can without stopping to think if he should.It also suggests the idea that Dr Jekyll is responsible for Hyde's murders, not Hyde.
Hyde is the dark side of Jekyll, and nothing about Hyde wasn't already inside the doctor.
I would agree with this.A brilliant display of fine performances and dialogue, as well as some very interesting imagery, Dan Curtis' adaptation is a delight.In particular, Jack Palance is extraordinary in both roles.
Showing us carelessness and selfishness and in the end fear and desperation in Jekyll as well as impulsiveness, anger and just pure evil in Hyde.Outstanding!
The best version of the story I have ever seen.
I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and at least one other time on TV.
I had read the book and had seen several movie versions and was delighted at the vigor and believability that Jack Palance brought to the title role(s).
He was good as both the good doctor and as Hyde, but was remarkable in bringing Hyde to life without much makeup, rather with the strength of his acting.
Jack Palance gives a darn good performance and the atmosphere is outstanding.
I've always been a Palance fan, so I am a bit partial, but this is good, Gothic horror.
Worth a Friday night viewing.I love the old, classic horror movies.
Palance, as Jekyll, is almost too shy but as Hyde he shows all the passion of a man living his life solely for himself, without a care for any one else'e feelings or safety.
This story is, perhaps, more relevant today than at any other time in man's history..
Character of Jekyll & Hyde is most faithful to the novel.
This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen.
It is both faithful to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and it has take that woman that movie needs(they did it also in 1931 and 1941 versions in Hollywood but they are not faithful to the novel).
No doubt: Dr. Jekyll's and mister Hyde's character's are the most faithful one's to the novel.
Dr. Jekyll is almost middle aged man how does not have a girl in he's life and how is very shy.
Mr. Hyde is cruel and really evil man.
The makeup(made by expert Dick Smith) make's him look like a human and that what he was in novel, really ugly and evil human.
Not any ape looking or gorilla.Actors: Jack Palance is wonderful as Jekyll/Hyde.
If there would not have been Fredrick March(in 1931's version)there is nobody that could be as good as Palance.
Also Denholm Elliott(RAIDERS OF LOST ARK) as Jekyll's friend and Billie Whitelaw(THE OMEN)as the unlucky girl are doing good job.Really good version.
To all Jekyll & Hyde or Dan Curtis fan's..
One of the best horror movies ever.
Doctor Jekyll discover that man has to souls one good one and one evil.
Jack P.a.l.a.n.c.e who played the part of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde was also in Dracula play the lead part.
He was one of the best actors of this time.
Dracula was his best movie.
This would be his second best movie.
Mr Hyde is on a rampage in Victorian London.
This is easily my favorite version of the Robert Louis Stevenson monster tale.
Jack Palance is ideally cast as Mr Hyde.
He is physically strong, athletic, menacing, and quite vicious when crossed.Legendary make up artist Dick Smith created Hyde's Satanic look.
Palance's Dr Jekyll is effective as well.He plays him as socially awkward and uncomfortable with his emotions.
Billie Whitelaw plays Gwyn as sexy,vulnerable and the object of Hyde's sadistic lust.Dan Curtis became a master of Gothic story telling and he gets strong performances from everyone involved.
He capture's the look of London in the 1880's with its foggy and gas lit back streets with help from set dresser Fred Brown.Robert Colbert's eerie theme music would later show up in Curtis's Dark ShadowsA chillingly good story and outstanding performances make this one a must for any horror film connoisseur.8 out of 10..
The best version of this classic ever made..
In my opinion, this is the single best screen adaptation of the Robert Lewis Stevenson classic ever made.
I have seen the greatest actors in the world perform the role, from Fredrick March to Spencer Tracy, and although they were all superb, the often overlooked Jack Palance SHINED in the role, using every bit of his experience to breathe life into this dusty morality play.
I recall the Tracy version looking so incredibly heavy that he looked like a cross between a deranged monkey and a Neanderthal.
Better yet was the SUPERB all-British cast of seasoned stage and film performers they surrounded him with, including a terrific Billie Whitelaw as the victimized dance hall girl (who also played the demonic nanny in an equally excellent, "The Omen"), a superb Denholm Elliot as the long-suffering best friend, and even a memorable cameo by the great Welsh stage and screen star, Tessie O'Toole, in the most memorable musical number of the entire film.
But the only reason that I did not give this wonderful production a well-deserved "ten," was the rather hokey use of video that the producer, Dan Curtis, decided to use (to his utter shame) instead of shooting it on film.
As Mr. Curtis was primarily known as the producer of the much hailed horror TV classic, "Dark Shadows," it logically followed that he should continue in his favored genre (including incorporating the same spooky, low budget music score that held him in good stead in the TV series), but overall I think the decision flawed an otherwise perfect film..
I first saw this TV version of "Jekyll and Hyde" on Sunday night, January 7, 1968 (I remember for two reasons: I really liked it, and it was my 11th birthday.) I seem to recall, although I could be wrong (help me out if anyone knows) that it was repeated on July 4th of that year.
While everyone else in my family was outside watching fireworks, I was in watching Jack Palance give what I consider to be one of his best performances as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde.Palance evokes sympathy as the doctor, and his Hyde was (and is) pure evil.
In two scenes (the beating of Lanyon and the murder of Gwen), Hyde is brutal, uncompromising and without remorse.
I was really pleased (after several years of not seeing her in anything else) to see her in THE OMEN.Of the classic horror tales that Dan Curtis adapted over the years, this is the best.
It compares favorably with the Frederic March version (the only other version I enjoy), it is superior to MGM's glossy Spencer Tracy version, and it makes the musical version (with Kirk Douglas as the doctor) look like the joke that it was.Rent it and enjoy!.
The big problem is how to make Hyde look sufficiently different from Jekyll without turning him into something that in a real world would be caged in a zoo.
The Tracy version is the one extreme--the fact no one recognizes Hyde as Jekyll after a 3-day bender is absurd.
This version solves the problem neatly, by casting an actor (Jack Palance) who starts out looking more like Hyde than Jekyll.
In fact Dan Curtis has said they used almost as much make-up to soften Palance's appearance for Jekyll as they did to turn him into Hyde.
This 1968 version is both intense and entertaining.
The performance of the title character by Jack Palance is excellent.
His Hyde is at first light hearted but soon turns to what the author Robert Louis Stevenson attended.
Is it because the producer Dan Curtis whom also created the horror soap "Dark Shadows" shot this show also in the same format.
A fine TV version of the story.
This film is another adaptation of a classic horror novel by Dan Curtis, the man who pretty much owned TV horror in the 1960s and 1970s.
Jack Palance gives a very good performance in the dual role, and this version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, although hampered by the TV budget, is appropriately authentic and atmospheric.
Dick Smith, the man behind THE EXORCIST, supplies the make-up effects, which are unusual and effective, and some seasoned character actors like Leo Genn and Denholm Elliott work well in support. |
tt0049065 | Checkpoint | Checkpoint is shot in cinéma vérité style with no narration and very little context. Shamir himself is absent from the film except for one scene in which a border guard asks him to try to make him "look good," and Shamir asks how he should do that.
The camera films people trying to cross at various checkpoints. At some, such as the high-tech fortress like that at the Gaza Strip crossing there are hundreds of people crowded, waiting to get through. At others such as at South Jenin there is just a truck blocking the road while Palestinians trickle by. Interactions vary, ranging from mundane to mildly frustrating to maddening in their unfairness. Sometimes people show their identification cards without incident but much of what Shamir has chosen to include are the messier incidences. A school bus full of kids (averaging around eight years old) the viewer sees several times and passes at South Jenin quite regularly (the bus driver says everyday) is emptied and told that it cannot proceed. A family is separated because a border guard does not see the need for the father to accompany his family to the doctor because he is not sick. A woman sends her crying children back home on their own because their papers are not in order. Hundreds ignore soldiers at one place and walk through to town, many carrying nothing but groceries. On the way to Nablus an ambulance is stopped and each passenger is forced to explain what their need for treatment is. A soldier calls Palestinians animals while they wait at Kalandia checkpoint in the snow. Sometimes the soldiers are obviously playing around with the people they are monitoring but often it seems that they are following arbitrary orders outside their control. The situation is only worsened by the fact that rarely does either party speak the same language: The entire film is spoken in patches of Arabic, Hebrew and English. | murder | train | wikipedia | Nice scenery, not so thrilling car race..
This film was produced in colour in 1956 at a time when Britain was just emerging from post-war austerity and pleasant motoring trips to the continent were becoming a possibility for the British middle class.
The film was made on location and Ralph Thomas the director is clearly anxious to show off the delights of Florence and the Italian lakes.
In fact the whole thing is like a Peter Stuyvesant cigarette commercial.
It includes a great deal of motor racing from an era when 160 mph racing cars were raced on public roads with huge crowds lining the routes and minimal safety considerations (fits in with the ciggies I guess).
The plot is pretty mechanical, the acting, except for Stanley Baker, who was incapable of a bad performance, is pretty routine and the script merely servicable.
I have to confess to liking James Robertson Justice, the overbearing boss from central casting, but actually the cars (Aston-Martins) had the meatiest roles.
The participation of Aston Martin no doubt accounts for O'Donovan trying to burn some DB3 bodyshells in the opening sequences.
Well, it was all a great excuse for some jaded Rank and Aston-Martin employees to catch some Italian sun and one can only hope they enjoyed themselves..
A good film for motor racing enthusiasts.
The film uses much footage from the Mille Miglia and although the plot is fairly thin it's worth watching for the amount of original footage of period racing cars.
From the cars involved and the date of release it would appear to be the 1955 race, which was won by Stirling Moss and Denis Jenkinson in a Mercedes-Benz 300SLR.
The cars used in the 'team' are actually Lagonda versions of the Aston Martin DB3S.
Keen observers will note the scenes in the introduction, allegedly set in an Italian car factory, show Sunbeam Rapier bodies on a production line in what would have been Pressed Steel in Coventry.
As the Rapier was introduced in 1955 this sets the date.
Rootes Group were never slow in offering cars to the British Film Industry for scenes by way of publicity.
The sports car bodies shown in part of the scene are obviously made-up replicas with a hint of Porsche.
Worth watching if you are a car nut, but the scenery both automotive and geographical outweighs the story..
Above average car 'thriller'..
With simply stunning scenery which has now been all but destroyed or tamed by modernity, this film is more than a good British film, it is a wonderful tourist film and social documentary.
A typically stout performance by JRJ helps the film retain some semblance of realism against a backdrop of lakes and mountains that post war Britain must have forgotten about.The cars are the undoubted stars of the film, with many classic marques in evidence.
They alone can make the hairs stand up on your neck as they go through small villages at (slightly) unbelievable speeds whilst driver and co-driver mange to hold a conversation!!
Other performances are up to usual standards for the type of film, and as usual in this type of film, young men are played by ever-so-slightly older ones.Overall a good film that can help while away a wet afternoon whilst taking you back to the post-war era that didn't really exist..
Enjoyable and fast paced thriller.
I taped Checkpoint when Channel 4 screened it one afternoon earlier this year (2006) and quite enjoyed it.A man, O'Donovan breaks into a car factory to steal some plans for new models of racing cars to ensure his company wins the forthcoming race.
But things go wrong and gets spotted resulting in him killing a security guard and several coppers who were sent to see what was going on at the factory after an alarm was triggered.
The factory then catches fire.
Later, O'Donovan enters the race himself and threatens his driver with a gun and both end up in a cliff hanging position, literally...This movie contains some great Italian scenery and nice to see some classic cars too.A great cast: Stanley Baker (Zulu) as O'Donovan, James Robertson Justice (Mobey Dick, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), Anthony Steel, Maurice Denham, Odile Versois, Michael Medwin and Anne Heywood.Watch out for Checkpoint in TV listings, doesn't seem to have been released on video or DVD anywhere.
A treat.Rating: 3 stars out of 5..
Running With the Devil.
The stars of this movie are the beautiful cinematography of the Italian towns and vistas and the great stock footage of the vintage Euro racing cars.
The story itself is pretty far-fetched.
James Robertson Justice owns a British racing team that he wants badly to displace the Italians as champions.
So he dispatches Stanley Baker to Italy to hire the key designer away from the competitive team.
Instead, Baker blows up the Italian plant and kills several inept policemen during his theft of the race car blueprints.
Making this all the more unbelievable is that Justice knew Baker was a crook when he hired him!
There's a lot of silly womanizing and drinking on the part of the drivers that must be sifted through not to mention the love story between Steel and Versois.
While the ending is somewhat exciting, this one is really mainly for racing enthusiasts..
Underrated.
The robbery of an Italian automobile factory goes horribly wrong, resulting in the deaths of several policeman.
After he escapes, the robber, O'Donovan (Stanley Baker), is able to blackmail his sponsor into helping him get out of the country.
Their plan is to use an international automobile race as a cover to smuggle O'Donovan out of Italy and into Switzerland.
O'Donovan will have to impersonate one of the co-drivers.
Will the other drivers go along with the plan and can O'Donovan keep his cool all the way to the Swiss border?
This is one of those cases where I find a film underrated on IMDb. IMDb - 5.6/10.
So it's obvious that I enjoyed Checkpoint much more than most.
There's a lot I liked about director Ralph Thomas' film.
There's plenty of drama, action, and intrigue throughout Checkpoint.
The opening robbery, even though at this point we have no idea what's happening, is a great introduction to what is to come.
The race scenes really worked with me and I found them incredibly exciting.
I've seen other films with similar race scenes that either do not look "real" or are just plain old dull.
The fight scene at the film's end is thrilling.
It could have gone either way in my mind.
The acting is top notch.
Stanley Baker plays about as good a thugish brute as anyone.
And Odile Versois is just delightful - a word I don't think I use very often, but it describes her perfectly.
Finally, the Italian locations are as gorgeous as anything I've seen recently.
It's all so beautifully filmed.
I can't say enough about Ernest Steward's cinematography.
My only complaint is with the second act of the film where Checkpoint seems to lose a bit of focus and almost turns into a schmaltzy romance.
Still, the overall movie is highly enjoyable.
I don't know much about old racing cars, but the cars featured in Checkpoint are amazing looking machines.
If you're into racing, it's probably worth checking out the movie for all the cool cars and real racing footage..
Terrific looks, great performance, feeble plot.
There is a lot to like about this film, particularly if you're a fan of motor racing and cinematography.
Beautiful costume, wonderful settings and terrific cars all shot in sumptuous colour.
Stanley Baker and James Robertson Justice adding more than a little gravitas to roles thinner than a ten-bob note, but even though they're backed up by the talents of Odile Versois and Maurice Denham amongst others, they are unable to drag your attention from a plot so ludicrous that even 'Boys Own' would have rejected it.
Anthony Steel has top billing, but the troubles that had begun to dog him off-screen translate into a performance that barely registers and one wonders if there were major changes in the story and script to accommodate his fall from grace.
The film is quite an enjoyable romp and definitely worth watching, even if it's just for a glimpse of such obscure cars as the Fairthorpe Atom and Isocarro Furgone! |
tt0054757 | The Comancheros | In 1843 roguish gambler Paul Regret (Stuart Whitman) escapes a death penalty after killing in a duel Emil Bouvier (Gregg Palmer), the son of a Louisiana judge. Regret claimed that he would have only wounded Bouvier if he hadn't sidestepped. He is captured by Texas Ranger Jake Cutter (John Wayne) after a tryst with a mysterious lady, Pilar Graile (Ina Balin). Regret manages to escape, but is subsequently recaptured after a chance encounter with Cutter in a saloon.
In the process of returning Regret to Louisiana, Cutter is forced to join forces with the condemned to fight the "Comancheros", a large criminal gang headed by a former officer that smuggles guns and whiskey to the Comanche Indians to make money and keep the frontier in a state of violence. Cutter stops at a ranch owned by a friend when there is a sudden Comanche attack. During the attack Regret jumps on a horse and flees, but instead of making a clean getaway he soon returns with a unit of Texas Rangers and the attack is repulsed.
Eventually they infiltrate the self-sufficient Comanchero community at the bottom of a valley in the desert. Pilar reappears as the daughter of the wheelchair-bound but ruthless leader Graile (Nehemiah Persoff). After Cutter and the other Texas Rangers defeat both the Comanches and Comancheros, Regret and Pilar leave together for Mexico and Jake rides off into the sunset. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0068688 | Heat | FBI agent Sarah Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) is an expert and effective investigator in New York City, but is despised by her allied agents for her egotistical & vicious personality. When her manager assigns her to a mission in Boston, she meets a detective named Shannon Mullins (Melissa McCarthy), a skilled but loudmouthed, bloodthirsty, sadistic, hot headed, & dirty cop who is part of the Boston Police Department. Ashburn's ruthless philosophy clashes with Mullin's nefarious style of law work, proved during their attempt to interrogate local drug dealer Rojas (Spoken Reasons) who was captured by Mullins. Under pressure from Hale (Demián Bichir), her employer, Ashburn reluctantly agrees to work with Mullins as her ally.
Ashburn and Mullins tail a local nightclub manager named Hank LeSoire (Adam Ray) to his place of business known as Club Ekko and successfully place a bug on his cell phone in an effort to get information on a drug lord, Simon Larkin. As they leave the club, Ashburn and Mullins are confronted by DEA agents Craig (Dan Bakkedahl) and Adam (Taran Killam), who have been working the Larkin case for several months and are worried that their case will be compromised. Ashburn and Mullins discover a surveillance video in the DEA agents' van showing Mullins' brother, Jason (Michael Rapaport), apparently connected to Larkin's organization. Jason was recently released from prison, having been put there by Mullins to keep him off the streets and out of trouble.
Ashburn convinces Mullins to go to her parents' home to ask Jason for information on Larkin. On their arrival at the home, it becomes apparent that Mullins' parents (Michael B. Tucci and Jane Curtin), particularly her mother and three brothers, Peter (Joey McIntyre), Mark (Bill Burr) and Michael (Nathan Corddry) two of whom have girlfriends, Gina (Jessica Chaffin) and Beth (Jamie Denbo) still resent Mullins for her involvement in Jason's incarceration. However, Jason does not have any ill feelings toward his sister, and tips her off about the body of a murdered drug dealer by the name of Sal Netalie in an abandoned car. Chemicals on the victim's shoes lead Ashburn and Mullins to an abandoned paint factory, where they witness a drug dealer being murdered by Julian Vincent (Michael McDonald), vicious criminal and second-in-command of Larkin's organization. They apprehend Julian but are unable to extract any substantial information regarding Larkin's whereabouts, even with Mullins going so far as to play Russian Roulette with Julian's testicles.
The pair spend the evening bonding in a bar, where a drunk Ashburn reveals that her foster child past may be partly to blame for her attitude. After a night of raucous drinking and partying, Ashburn wakes up the following morning to discover that, in her drunkenness, she has given her car keys to Wayne (Steve Bannos), one of the bar patrons. After unsuccessfully pleading for the keys, Ashburn and Mullins watch as the patron starts the car and is killed by a bomb. They discover that Julian has escaped from custody and means to harm Mullins' family, so Mullins moves her family into a motel. Jason leaves, intending to join the Larkin organization in an attempt to help Mullins solve the case. Jason gives her a tip about a drug shipment coming into Boston Harbor. Despite Mullins' reluctance, Ashburn gets the FBI to take down the shipment. The FBI finds that the ship is actually an innocent pleasure cruise ship. Jason was being tested by Larkin, who shoots Jason for informing the FBI about the supposed drug shipment. Jason escapes death but falls into a coma. A falling out occurs between Mullins and Ashburn, with Mullins vowing to bring her brother's attacker to justice. They then reconcile when they arrest several drug dealers as a way of gaining leads to Larkin's whereabouts, including Rojas.
Ashburn and Mullins go to equip themselves with assault weapons from Mullins' extensive personal arsenal, and infiltrate one of Larkin's warehouses. Despite taking out several of Larkin's men with a hand grenade, the two officers are captured and bound. Julian is about to torture them with knives when he gets called away by Larkin. Before Julian leaves, he stabs Ashburn in the leg and leaves the knife in the wound. Mullins removes the knife from Ashburn's leg and uses it to cut the rope binding her hands. Before she can finish freeing herself and Ashburn, they are discovered by Craig and Adam. Craig begins to untie the two women, but is shot and killed by Adam. Ashburn and Mullins learn that Adam is actually Larkin, who has been working his own case from inside the DEA for several months. Julian returns and Larkin orders him to kill Ashburn and Mullins while he goes to the hospital to kill Jason. After Larkin leaves, Mullins manages to finish freeing herself and Ashburn incapacitates Julian with a head butt, after Mullins had stabbed him in the leg. Mullins and Ashburn race to the hospital to save Jason.
Upon their arrival, Mullins rushes to find Jason. Ashburn, hindered by the stab wound in her leg, lags behind, unable to move quickly. Mullins learns that, due to the foul language she and her family exhibit, the doctor moved Jason to another room in the hospital; she finds Jason's room, only to be disarmed by Larkin. He is about to kill Jason when Ashburn, having had to crawl to the room, subdues Larkin by shooting him in the genitals (much to Mullins' surprise, as she would never actually do so; scaring Julian earlier was only a way of making him talk). With Larkin captured, Ashburn requests to stay in the FBI's Boston field office, having developed a strong friendship with Mullins. Jason is shown having fully recovered from his coma. The film ends with Mullins receiving a commendation from the Boston Police Department. Members of her family are present and they cheer Mullins, now having reconciled with her. Ashburn later gets a call from Mullins to look in her year book. Mullins had signed the back of Ashburn's yearbook with the words, "Foster kid, now you have a sister", showing the strong friendship that Mullins felt for a previously unpopular Ashburn.
As a surprise, Mullins brings to Ashburn the cat that she had found in Ashburn's neighbor's house, believing it was hers. Earlier, when Mullins saw a photo of Ashburn with the neighbor's cat, Ashburn had lied and said it was her cat which had gone missing in New York. Mullins quickly deduces that the cat is not Ashburn's; Ashburn confesses and the cat is boxed to be shipped back, ending the film. | cult, satire | train | wikipedia | In the moments of their most wooden acting, the fascinations of the real person - whether it be the gapingly numb Joe Dallesandro, the ogrishly preening Pat Ast or the gonzo mystery of Andrea Feldmen, emerges with overexposed brilliance.Sylvia Miles plays her role with subtlety and iconic ugliness.
A funny, almost mystically seedy story about the impotent, vacuous end-point of trash culture - the former child star now a passive, blankly available icon of smooth flesh: fame and "art" (if there is such a thing) having become mere hollow commodities on the one hand, and a medium for posturing neediness on the other (Miles).
Heat actually has a plot, the actors including Joe Dallessandro are very good and the camera moves, instead of being stable.
Wonderful moment: Sylvia Miles on her way out of the motel just after a big fight with Jesse (Andrea Feldman) and there's Lydia-Pat, leaning against the wall in her platforms, shaking her head disparagingly as Sylvia walks by.
Check out the moment when Pat, having bribed Joe into a sexual encounter, starts obsessing on crazy poor Andrea is and how she "just can't" have people like that around her anymore.
Warhol-Morrissey's film, Heat, uses the themes from Billy Wilder's famous Sunset Boulevard movie, but by stripping it of prurience and distractingly high production values, makes the moral dilemmas more accessible.In place of opening credits, an intertitle asserts: "In 1971 another film studio, the Fox Lot on Sunset Boulevard was torn down." Cut to an attractive young man standing on a demolition site.Several strands are immediately established.
She disapproves of the pervs at Lydia's motel, including the brothers who earn a living by having sex on stage, and her own daughter Jessica who is going through a lesbian 'phase'.
If Joey plays his cards close to his chest, Jessica is completely up-front about her relationship with 'Mom', openly claiming she's only interested in her money.Morrissey uses Warhol's distancing techniques to establish Brechtian analysis on the part of the audience.
It has neither the manufactured, over-acted look of pornography nor the air-brushed unbelievability of the 'erotic' scenes from mainstream movies.When Sally enters the story, things progress to a more traditionally dramatic level (Sylvia Miles went on to become twice Oscar-nominated for later films).
Sally's hypocrisy is exposed when Jessica later makes a jealous play for Joey.The moral ambiguity is developed by making the younger characters sympathetic.
Boulevard's Joe Gillis, like the Joey of Heat, really has no faithfulness to anyone.
Like it or not, the crazy Sally Todd (Sylvia Miles) / Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), has her feelings protected by society.Morrissey takes bare Warhol aesthetic and makes it accessible.
Character-for-character comparisons with Sunset Boulevard instantly raise it above the "unsavoury piece of work laced with sex, lesbianism, self-abuse and perversion" with which one tabloid equated it.Heat's sheer comic inventiveness will keep you glued to your seat wondering what surprise turn will hit you next.
As I had been anticipating, the third and last of Paul Morrissey's trilogy of films with Joe Dallesandro as the (willing) object of desire of practically the entire cast irrespective of gender, is the best made and most accessible.
With no full-frontal nudity this time around, the services of an Oscar-nominated actress in Sylvia Miles, a narrative which obviously (and not unamusingly) parodies Billy Wilder's SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950) and a generally more disciplined approach, Morrissey was clearly striving towards the mainstream here
although HEAT is still full of offbeat, individual touches and the dubious ingredients associated with this type of film.Dallesandro is now a minor ex-star of Western TV series who's keen on kickstarting a singing career and Miles a fading character actress who likes to think she still has influence in the business and promises her support in return for certain favors.
After a stint at a dingy Hollywood resort (the scene has shifted from New York to Los Angeles as per Joe's ambitions) where he submits to the wiles of the obese and frizzy-haired female owner played by Pat Ast Joe is soon shacked up in Miles' old-style mansion as a kept man.
Here, however, he also attracts the unwelcome attention of Miles' mixed-up daughter (whom he actually met at the resort, where she was staying with her possessive girlfriend and baby in tow); appearing in this role is Andrea Feldman the girl in search of a trip in TRASH (1970) who seems to have been troubled in real-life as well, seeing how she committed suicide before this film had even opened!
Unlike the previous films in the trilogy, here Dallesandro is pretty much the observer or, rather, the catalyst for the histrionics of the three women (Miles, Feldman and the acid-tongued Ast); two other notable characters (also residing in the run-down motel) are siblings involved in an incestuous stage act(!), one of whom is a dimwit who wears female clothes and has an embarrassing penchant for public manifestations of masturbation!!
While the plot only really parallels that of SUNSET BOULEVARD on the surface, the ending of the film sees Miles attempting to shoot Dallesandro as he leaves her for good just as Gloria Swanson did to William Holden in the unforgettable climax of the Wilder classic with, admittedly, hilarious results!
The perennially struggling actor, the withering diva, the junkie daughter, and the sleazy motel owner are the main clowns in Paul Morrissey's trash fest, "Heat", famously produced by Andy Warhol.
Most are already familiar with the film's plot and the "Sunset Boulevard" connection, as well as the infamous cast including Pat Ast, Andrea Feldman, Sylvia Miles, and, of course, Joe Dallesandro.The memorable opening theme, the mostly eccentric characters, and the retro vibe of the film are major reasons why "Heat" is so entertaining.
The film was made certainly just to have an excuse to ogle him on screen for 90 minutes."Heat" is among the trashiest films I have seen and my favorite, the most palatable in the famous Warhol trilogy (with "Trash" and "Flesh"), and the quintessential 70's "art"/trash film.
Heat Is On. I caught this one late at night on the culture channel and expected nothing much, except maybe a bit of skin, lots of artsy film student tomfoolery and wonky camera-work throughout.
And then the film grabbed me, sucked me in and knocked me over.OK, so this pic has the technical perfection of a VHS holiday video, and marketing it under the labels "art" and "Andy Warhol" might actually be more of a setback these days, but it's one hell of a movie.
And I could heap equal praise on the other actors.Forget all the gimmicky rigmarole about how little this movie cost to make, how it was being shot in just two weeks and all the other irrelevant gossip: this is great cinema, and Paul Morrissey did for a pittance what Hollywood so frequently fails to do for a budget that could send a man to Mars..
Paul Morrisey's camera typically meanders around, catching whatever it can on the fly, but for one classic moment: Sylvia Miles walking into frame and interrupting a twisted little encounter between Joe Dallesandro and Feldman; the camera stays stock still, but the timing of the movements of the actors is a stitch!
He isn't quite as bad an actor as his reputation makes him out to be--he's actually quite subtle and kind of funny when he dumps Miles at the end--but one look at him and you know why he's in this movie..
After meeting Joe by the pool, she convinces him to come back to her room and hang out with her and her mother, the not-so-famous, Sally Todd, seemingly to get under the woman's skin.
This film is apart of the Morrissey Flesh-Trash-Heat Trilogy.
Joe Dallesandro is as indifferent as ever (still no acting skills) and Andrea Feldman (Jessica), as usual, is conveniently out of her mind, probably on acid.
Heat is peculiar, mean-spirited, and vulgar, and filled with Inept, yet highly improvised acting, with very little point, which are just a few reasons to not hate this movie.
"Pat Ast, 59, Film Actress.WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif.
Oct 26 - Pat Ast, 59, a model and actress who appeared in Andy Warhol films, died on Oct. 2 of natural causes at her home, it was reported in the Los Angeles Times.
She moved to Los Angeles in the mid-1970's and appeared in several films, including 'Reform School Girls, and 'The Incredible Shrinking Woman.'"thought someone might like to know..
Paul Morrissey's FLESH, TRASH, and WOMEN IN REVOLT are classics of underground cinema.
While I prefer TRASH and WOMEN to FLESH, all of them have a certain appeal (wether it be Joe Dallesandro or the Factory transvestites) that keeps a legion of fans happy.
HEAT, while a technically superior film to the above-mentioned, has less of that appeal, but is still enjoyable.Joe Dallesandro is Joey Davis, a former child star who is trying to revive his career.
He takes up residence in a sleazy motel run by Pat Ast and also occupied by Andrea Feldman, an odd lesbian whose mother, Sylvia Miles, is a has-been actress.
Miles and Dallesandro have a brief affair that cuts itself short when Joe begins having sexual encounters with every person he runs into!As usual, Morrissey's film relies on great acting by the cast.
Joe Dallesandro is good, as usual, but was much better in TRASH.
The two actors who really steal the film are Pat Ast and Andrea Feldman.
While many believe she is basically playing her crazy self, I think she manages to create a wild, yet sympathetic character and making this performance even more believable is the fact that Feldman killed herself shortly before the film was released.
I wonder if her career would have continued had she lived?HEAT has a Hollywood feel to it, despite being filmed in the standard cheap way by Morrissey, which makes it a bit less realistic to some viewers.
I would recommend this over any other Morrissey work for those who have yet to venture into the world of Andy Warhol's films, as this is easily accessible and is a bit easier to view (FLESH has bad sound and editing, TRASH has unflinching realism) for the mainstream film viewer..
Heat revolves around a few characters, a hag who runs a motel, an aging actress, brothers who have sex on stage in a nightclub act, a young lesbian who isn't quite sure if she is a lesbian, and yes girls..Joe Dallesandro.Joey is a struggling child actor, who has come back from a stint in the army and hopes to get back into acting.
There really are no major plots or twists or even morals in any of Morrissey's movies even more so in heat.
The fact that a director can make movies based on real life exploits of real life people and make it interesting makes him a brilliant director.This movie is ugly, sexual, amusing and obscure, the fact that nothing really happens shouldn't put you off, you will be entertained and amused by the actors, if you really get bored you could pick out the flaws such as- Why does everyone have a New York accent when they live in LA, or is that a man or a woman?
But for us girls Morrissey delivers us another film in which we can drool over Dallesandro, sadly he doesn't spend nearly half the amount of time naked as he did in flesh.
(Pat Ast is actually in Midnight Cowboy) For fans of trivia ..Heat is essentially an unofficial remake of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard with Dallesandro playing William Holden's part.I feel Paul Morrissey is a highly underrated director, every film I have seen of his has left me wanting more, left me shocked, disturbed, in hysterics and leaves me raving about how simplistic yet fantastic they are.
"Heat" is the final film in Paul Morrissey's 'Bad Taste Trilogy', following "Flesh" (1968) and "Trash" (1970), all from the Andy Warhol studios.
Joe Dallesandro, star of the previous two films, plays Joey Davies, an ex-child star, who comes to a run-down motel, populated by a variety of strange people, including masochistic lesbian Jessica Todd (Andrea Feldman), who keeps her baby quiet with sleeping pills, and the obese and flamboyant land-lady Lydia (Pat Ast).
Jessica introduces Joey to her mother Sally (Sylvia Miles), who once acted with Joe on a TV show and who is now a fading Hollywood star.
Joe starts an affair with Sally, hoping to restart his career, as well as having affairs with both Lydia and Jessica.The film is more accessible than "Flesh" and "Trash", and is at least similar to conventional mainstream cinema, with something like a story, basically a pastiche of Billy Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard" (1950), and actors playing characters.
As with any Warhol film there is a cast of a dozen or so said freaks, half living on the edge of society & the other half the high society & the two halves meet for 90 minutes or so in movie form.
This film is obviously culled & spliced together from hundreds of hours of improv dialogue, like, the director told the actors 'here's where your character talks about this thing & then that thing.' Then the editor splices the few interesting scenes into a movie.
Paul Morrissey's semi-parody of Sunset Blvd, Heat, puts Joe in the shoes on an ex-child actor.
Living at a semi-resort neighboring a vulgar landlady and a crazed lesbian named Jessica(played by the amazing Andrea Feldman in a role that is just as memorable and amazing as her role in Trash), Joe hooks up with Jessica's mother Sally Todd as a means of getting back into the industry.
This is Paul Morrissey's most mainstream film in his trilogy starring Joe Dallesandro as well as the more narrative-based.
In addition to all this is the Oscar nominated actress Sylvia Miles playing Sally Todd in what could probably be considered the best performance of all of Paul Morrissey's films since Holly Woodlawn.
Sylvia Miles does such an excellent and professionally mannered job here that she makes the rest of the cast look almost too amateurish as a result, and often times it really sort of takes you out of the world of the film.
Everything is too clean and too stylized for the style of filmmaking to work.However, Heat is still an excellent film full of life, humor, shock, and color.
I think the fact that the film takes place in California instead of New York really makes this a completely different kind of idea, but done in the same style and tone as both Flesh and Trash.
As I mentioned above, this is definitely the best film in the Paul Morrissey trilogy to start with.
The revelation of the film is Sylvia Miles, she is the best, most natural and believable.
Joe Dallesandro is the same as in all his movies.
The difference is that Paul Morrissey, funded by Andy Warhol Factory, provides much sexuality.
Campy classic, extremely low budget and the third in Paul Morrissey's collaboration with Andy Warhol.
Joe also does a very good job as does Pat Ast, perfect in her role as the concierge of a small Hollywood Motel.At times the film suffers from poor editing and maybe some rough acting but you believe these people.
Heat has Joe Dallesandro playing Joey Davis, (ex-child-star from a t.v. show called Mousetime U.S.A, and a western show called The Big Ranch).
In the beginning of the film we find Joe walking around the grounds of an old studio in Hollywood that has been torn down.
The hotel is filled with weird characters, one's that you come to expect in a Morrissey movie.
Jessie, (Andrea Feldman) plays The daughter of Sally, (Sylvia Miles), A fading Movie star who's reduced to doing game shows, But insists she's "semi-retired".
Joe moves into her Huge mansion, liking the posh lifestyle, also thinking that Sally can be useful in getting him some acting jobs.
Sally appreciates Joe's company, because he represents something that she used to be, she longs for the youth, beauty, of her yesteryear, making her painfully attached to Joe. Andrea leaves her Lesbian lover, and moves into the mansion with them, not because she's attracted to Joe, but just to try and get in the way of them.
Sally manages to get a movie producer to meet With Joe, but is turned down saying that they are looking for a "Elliot Hoffman" type.
The Movie ends with Joe leaves Sally to move back into the hotel.
As unfortunate as that is, I would imagine the shock of the person who was expecting Mann's movie and got Morrissey's "Heat" instead.
As a parody of Sunset Boulevard it is a little hilarious, but it lacks the raw fractured style of the New York films with their broken soundtracks and even more deadbeat people.
I found watching the wretched scum of New York junkies and prostitutes to be much more mesmerizing and horrifying, even though all three movies are essentially about selfish people.Joe Dallesandro has actually come into his own as an actor at this point--he's somewhat believable as the lackadaisical child star mooch just looking to screw his way through life, and almost succeeding but for the destructive attitude of Jessie (Andrea Feldman).
Your tolerance for the unbelievably grating Sylvia Miles may dictate how much fun you have watching Paul Morrissey's demented take on SUNSET BOULEVARD.
She's a faded actress holed up in a decaying mansion who finds herself in lust with handsome former child actor Joe Dallesandro.
He's got his hands full living in a seedy motel where he's dogged by both Miles' crackpot daughter (Andrea Feldman, in a great performance!) as well as sleazy landlady Pat Ast. Dalessandro is his usual stolid self and the movie is dominated by the wacky females...Feldman is priceless and her scenes with Miles are hysterical (particuarly when she claims to be a lesbian).
The production values are surprisingly good...this is Morrissey & Warhol's most accomplished work. |
tt0167720 | Seven Days | The plot follows a secret branch of the United States' National Security Agency which has developed a time travelling device based upon alien technology found at Roswell. As the opening of the show says, the Chronosphere, or Backstep Sphere, sends "one human being back in time seven days" to avert disasters. The show's name refers to the fact that the Backstep Project can only backstep seven days because of limitations imposed by the fuel source and its reactor. As the fuel source is limited, there is a strict mandate that they only Backstep for events relating to "National Security". The backstep team and the equipment are stationed in a base called Never Never Land, which is in a secret location somewhere in the desert of Nevada.
=== Project Backstep ===
Project Backstep was initiated by the National Security Agency (NSA) after the Roswell incident of 1947. The crashed alien saucer was taken to a secret base called "Never Never Land" (inspired by Groom Lake in Area 51, nicknamed in real-life as "Dreamland") in the Nevada Desert where it was reverse-engineered.
By reverse-engineering the alien technology, they were able to create a time machine. The "time machine" consists of the Chronosphere, including the Chronosphere's hangar and its supporting equipment.
The time machine uses Element-115 salvaged from the Roswell crash. This transuranic element allowed them to generate a time distortion field around the Chronosphere. The sphere is teleported away from the hangar and into space, after which the chrononaut, Frank Parker, steers the sphere towards the required space and time coordinates (referred to as "flying the needles"). | alternate history | train | wikipedia | To make a series with a story based on time travel is quite tricky.
It certainly has it flaws and errors, but if you don't take it all to serious and don't think too much about it this show will be quite entertaining and enjoyable.Frank Parker is pulled out of a secret mental institution and trained to be the chrononaut in a secret government project called Backstep.
From the remains of the Roswell crash they have managed to build a device that can send one man seven days back in time.
Under NSA control a Backstep is issued to correct events concerning national security.If you take this series all too serious you will get disappointed cause this show don't take it self all that serious.
This series is a nice mix of action, sci-fi and comedy.
It could've been a lot better, but the nice punchlines and great characters make up for a occasional less good story.
Jonathan LaPaglia does a good job in portraying Frank Parker.
The general performance is good, but there are a little miss here and there.Scott Gilman has done a very nice job scoring this series.
The sphere and time travel effects are good, but the for instance the CGI explosions are rather obvious fake and less good, but they do the job and it could have looked a lot worse.Over all Seven Days is an entertaining and enjoyable show.
"7 Days" was an awesome mix of sci-fi, action, drama, suspense, and dark comedy.
Parker, the Chrononaut (aka time traveler), was a mischief-maker and had a lot of emotional and mental problems.
But deep inside he was a good guy -- he did the right thing by saving the country (sometimes even the world) because it was his job and honor to do it.I wish UPN had given this show a better chance, rather than shuffling it around and taking it for granted.
I absolutely LOVE time travel, and anything to do with that be it books, movies, or TV shows.
And guess what this show came along and wow I loved it...I watched most of the episodes when they were on TV here and I really got to like the show.
From the never ending come ons Frank did to Olga to try and woo her to the various missions he did.
Some of the show did at times get a bit repititious but I glossed over that and just enjoyed the show for whatit was, which was entertaining....It's a pity our local TV station gave it a bad run but I live in hope this will come to DVD and then I'll probably buy the whole set.....
Every week there's a interesting mission or twist on the concept of time travel.
Anthony LaPaglia's brother, Jon, starred in this short-lived sci-fi series about a government agent who can travel a short distance back in time and does so on behalf of a secret agency that tries to right some recent wrongs.
LaPaglia is the usually cool, calm and collected type who occasionally gets a bit frantic trying to make things right.
One memorable episode, the plot of which has turned up in virtually every time travel show or movie ever made, has the agent returning to an altered present where no one believes or knows him.
You can see their lookalikes/soundalikes on current shows like EUREKA and any CSI series.
I myself along with others have wondered why Frank doesn't run into himself 7 days in the past but I think this show is really good.
Oh yea, and for the females that don't like the action stuff, Johnathan LaPaglia is hot so that should make you tune in....I personally love the action & a hot lead star helps make it even better, but that's not the only reason I like the show!!!!
I haven't seen an episode that I don't like....they have great story-lines!!!.
It has a lot of character development and great plots.
I always crack a smile when Frank is trying to flirt with Olga, the bickering between Frank and Ramsey, or when we get a peek into Dr. Ballard's amazingly good love life.
A great watch when trying to unwind after a long day.As for the reason why Frank doesn't run into himself: Because when Frank goes back in time, he "jumps" into himself minus a week.
I LOVE time travel shows!!!.
I love time travel shows and Seven Days was one of the best series out there...I especially enjoyed "Empty Quiver" (episode # 3.16) 3/21/2001.
I thought it was way cool to go back in time and see Molly as a young girl...the girl who played Young Molly (Jenny-Lynn Hutcheson) was really good...one scene she was crying and explaining what she sees and my heart just went out to her...soooooo emotionally convincing...I will never tire of time travel shows, especially good ones like Seven Days...anyways I was very sad when it was canceled!!.
When are they going to bring out 'Seven Days' on DVD.
The majority of TV shows have DVD's released normally start a couple of months after the final episode of the first season goes to air and yet, 5 Years after the final episode of 'Seven Days', it is still not available on DVD.
I believe that writers should always get paid for their work, so I think the writers of 'Seven Days' would still like to collect royalties for 'Seven Days' by people going out and buying the series on DVD..
He gets to travel back in time 7 days to fix anything like the killing of a great leader or the White House being blown up etc.
I love the whole premise of the series, going back in time only 7 days, and not being able to go back 7 days, then 7 days again, because the reactor needed 7 days to recharge!
Every now and than some tv show comes along on one of our commercial Tv stations, we have 4 in Holland, that is worth your time and is not going to persuade you to bang your head against the wall in utter terror mumbling "how bad can it be, it can't be this bad" The Outer limits was one of them, the first seasons of X files was one of them and now there is 7 days in the re- run.
The first look will have you search your favorite wall again, bulky muscle guy in the lead role, mindless explosions, the cast made up of an atractive female lead( is there a spark between her and the muscle guy , duuuhhh), a smart guy in a wheelchair, a not so good guy, you know the drill.
But leave the wall alone, the stories are quite good, there is budget that is well used( not he sphere that is used for the time-travel, it's a big blue screen tennisball) and everything falls in place,the actors are believable and the whole thing is fun to watch.
So if you can get past that, you'll find Seven Days to be one of the most entertaining shows to hit primetime TV in a long time.
Johnathan LaPaglia plays Frank Parker, a former soldier who spent the latter part of his life in the looney bin, until the NSA recruited him for a top secret government project.
They've developed a device that can take one man back in time 7 days.
As you can probably guess, every week something horrible happens, and Frank must travel back in time to prevent it.
What makes Seven Days so good is the characters and their interaction with each other.
Watching these two flirt back and forth makes us long for the day they actually hook it up and stop kidding themselves.
The production values tend to run high in each episode, especially in the first season.
I would advise anyone who would like to get into this series to look for the two-hour pilot to be re-run.
It's always hard to jump into the middle of a sci-fi series storyline without knowing the facts leading into it.
Just remember, it's still relatively new to television, and like any show will take time to grow.
Why do all the good shows get cancelled?.
I don't get it - it seems like all the good TV shows get cancelled into the fifth or sixth season.
Seven Days was no different - UPN obviously thought the show was "expendable" and decided to start changing the time slot it was on, so nobody could watch it, cause nobody knew when it was on.
You ruined a perfectly good TV show, that was a great compliment to Star Trek: Voyager..
There's action, sexual tension with Olga, and some alternate history thrown in.If you're looking for "reality" in any way, on the other hand, you should probably look elsewhere.Here's the problem with the premise: It's not really possible to "fix" anything when traveling backwards in time.
If you travel backwards in time and fix anything, you just erased the reason for your trip in the first place, along with your memory of why you did it.
The way that standard time-travel stories work is to create alternate universes, but if you do that, then it defeats the purpose: The problem you set out to fix remains a problem in the universe you just left.
The general premise of the series makes possible an endless number of intriguing and thought-provoking stories.
Unfortunately, the writers generally fail to achieve anything close to its full potential.The actors (Nick Searcy in particular) must be frustrated with their often one-dimensional characters, who never show any character development or long-term growth, and who are frequently forced, by the requirements of ill-developed plots, to act entirely unlike the scientists and military personnel they are supposed to be.(Would a paranoid security chief really overlook major personality shifts and gaps in basic knowledge every time a protagonist is replaced by a doppelganger or impostor?
I tend to doubt it, especially given the regularity with which it seems to occur.)The show is also plagued by gross scientific implausibilities and continuity errors, all of which could easily be remedied (or at least be given better explanations) -- but that would require the writers to put forth a great deal more effort.This show COULD be good, perhaps even excellent -- but only if the actors are given better material to work with.
The Pilot is a real perfect product for a TV Series of that time and comes close to a cine film like "Stargate (1994)" and is pretty sure worth the rumored 10 MioThe first season is really interesting, catches up with most time traveling ideas and and is really entertaining.
Emotional, well scripted, no overflow of bad CGI and the best I've ever seen in a Sci-Fi Series.
The third and last Season is solid work, except some lost knowledge of their own history and more goofs.In short words: Good Start, getting low (of budget) in the middle and than solid to the end line.
Scifi Time Travel TV Series.
Seven Days is one of my favorite TV Series of all time and I wish they would put it on DVD.
When I watched this TV series almost every day that it was on TV, a few weeks later I had a dream where I was the main character..
Jon Lapaglia (Tony's brother) is a Chrononaught, there is a secret program called Backstep, based on technology left over from the 1947 Roswell crash that allows them to send one person back in time seven days.
There's always a question of whether or not they have to send the person back exactly seven days, there was one episode where they only sent him back a day.
But usually hilarious things ensue because of Frank Parker's (Lapaglia) limited foresight.
Many of the episodes parody TV shows and movies that were popular during the time the show was on, i've located charmed, three kings, maybe even 2001 where an artificial intelligence goes haywire and has to be shut off the same way Hal was, by regressing it back to infancy.
Frank is able to "back-step" more than 7 days from the event.
But Frank returns to his own self which is 7 days younger, only his memory retains all the events of the last week, except the objects that Frank carries with him in the sphere during "back-step".I am sorry that this very series came to its end.
The acting is great, the stories are interesting and the general idea of "back-step" is fantastic.
It carries him to the next mission that I'm looking forward to.Eventually, who wouldn't like to step back in time and make this world a better place?
Parker's pretty fine for a guy, and the gal who plays Olga isn't half bad either).
I have more a question instead of a comment on the "Seven Days" series.
I mean after the first mission you will have two Parkers in the same time line?
You can only keep so many Parkers locked up in the mental ward...Or does he get to fly back secretly to his own time line when no one is watching.
It has a great story, lots of action, and is dramatic.
This show is not very popular, but i think that if people actually watched it, people would like it.
No one else seems to have quite appreciated this series for what it deserves.It's probably for the best they did not make more episode than they did.
1st series great, second entertaining.
The plots always challenged you and the fact that many of the events in the first season hit close to home on 9/11 makes them all the more special.
So those of you who enjoy general action shows will enjoy it throughout but those of you "more serious", for want of a better word, won't enjoy the second and third seasons as much.
It's the one thing about this great show that was so obvious, but never even addressed once during it's 3 year season.The question is this: What happens to the Frank B.
Parker in the present-time when the Frank B.
Granted that stories concerning themselves with time travels are logically speaking almost always tricky to pull off, this one's especially hard for me to swallow.
Not that Sci-Fi's supposed to make sense, but there is a limit to one's intellectual auto-piloting and "7 Days" pushes mine.OK, so Lt. Parker travels back one week in time to correct some injustice or another which has occured, and every single time the "Team" (his buddy Donovan, the sexy Russian scientist, that bloke in the wheelchair, et al) seems equally interested in hearing from him.
That is the Parker of that seven-days-earlier time dimension, not the one from the future?
See my problem?At least most other similarily themed shows/movies/books take the time explain inevitable paradoxes such as this - however cockneyed these explanations often are.But if none of the above should bother you, just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride..
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven days will start again on April 3 spike TV at 8am CST.
Seven Days is awesome.
I didn't watch the show before it went into syndication, but the show is awesome, I know that it just seems like more science fiction junk but its a lot more then that.
This is a problem that has plagued other shows based in Canada, John Doe recently is a good example.
"Raven" episode with Bobbie Phillips was great!.
I only started watching the show when I heard Bobbie Phillips was going to be on.It was a Great episode!
I was able to catch earlier episodes (from Season 1, I believe)and really enjoyed them.
I've watched this show many times on nights before Voyager where I just got home and was pooped out from work.
Sometimes, there's a great episode on.
Being as it is that Seven Days is on before Voyager, I started watching it out of convenience <g> and now I've seen that it's really a pretty enjoyable show.
The premise of going back in time to prevent disasters wouldn't be so original on its own, but the seven-day time limit gives it more possibility.
Frank, Olga and the others aren't extremely 3D, but they're likable and interesting, and it works.Seven Days isn't quite Star Trek caliber, but it's a pretty engaging and well-done show, usually interesting to watch.
It should be given credit for its creative uses of the time travel premise.
Its sad that 7 days got cancelled, especially when it was doing so well.
Hopefully, the Seven Days producers will run with her character and add her to the show.
Great Work to everyone on this episode.
Going back in time seven days to correct mistakes and prevent tragedies is a good premise, but the series is in danger of becoming too set in a familiar pattern.
Still, most of the shows so far have been passably good, and the cast is better than average.
Seven Days has a good mix of drama, comedy and action, however, at times the writing just gets plain lazy.
Seven Days TV Series 1998 (3 years).
One of which was a unit or device in the flying saucer that, with proper control, could send a person back in time, but only 7 days.
He was assigned to operate the vehicle and go back in time 7 days before the attack and stop it from happening. |
tt0465940 | Cinderella III: A Twist in Time | Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother and sister. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.
The Prince brings Cinderella back to the palace and explains everything to the King and the Grand Duke. The King orders the Tremaines arrested, but they escape using the wand. As Cinderella prepares for her wedding, Lady Tremaine emerges with Anastasia, who has been magically transformed into a doppelgänger of Cinderella. Lady Tremaine then transports Cinderella, Jaq and Gus into the castle grounds, where they are to be taken to their deaths in a twisted pumpkin carriage with Lucifer as its human driver, but they manage to defeat Lucifer and escape, leaving Lucifer stranded in the woods.
Cinderella races to the castle as the vows are about to be exchanged. At the last moment, Anastasia's conscience gets the best of her and she turns the Prince down. Lady Tremaine and Drizella reveal themselves in their anger. The King orders the Tremaines arrested, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to fend off the guards, turning them into animals. During the scuffle the wand's magic is deflected, and Lady Tremaine and Drizella are turned into toads and transported to the castle cellar. Retrieving the wand, Anastasia reverts herself to her original form, and Cinderella restores the Fairy Godmother. The Fairy Godmother offers to reverse the timeline to its original state, but Cinderella and the Prince decline. The pair are married and live happily ever after again.
In a mid-credits scene, Lady Tremaine and Drizella are turned back into their original selves, but dressed up as maids, much to their horror. | romantic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | Even Cinderella herself showed a courageous side that you didn't get to see before.It seemed to be a darker story compared to most Disney movies and it turned out well.
Here's what makes this plot better than the "classic" fairy tail: 50 years ago Disney's idea was to adapt the fairy tale into a full length film.
. someone will eventually show up and magically make them come true.That lesson is turned on its ear in "A Twist In Time." Instead of making everything easy for Cinderella, she is now working against magic and must overcome something a lot more powerful than a mean old lady- a mean old lady with a magic wand.
Oh sure, the mice help, but Cinderella is the clear heroine in this new film- a heroine that little girls can look up to.Step-mother gets hold of the Fairy Godmother's wand and turns back time to the shoe fitting scene from the first film.
Knowing what the girl he danced with looks like, the prince is forced by magic to think that Anastasia is the right girl for him.
Although what follows seems a bit hokey when describing it (The magic of the wand is not as powerful as Cinderella and the prince's predestined love) it is handled maturely and time is given for the couple to get to know each other a bit more (in the first film they had said, what, four words) before getting married.
Cinderella also has a pretty stiff design, but under senior animator Ian Harrowell's supervision she is allowed to be expressive and give a performance that can match with Jennifer Hale's vocals.The songs are a bit more contemporary than the classic film, but that's to be expected.
In a time when every other blonde that girls are looking up to are drug-addicts or bulimic it's refreshing to see a twist on a classic character that makes her someone to be admired.As I've said the animation in this film, which seems to be getting the most flack from critics is astounding.
It reads "Special Thanks to DisneyToon Studios Australia for their many years of producing beautiful hand-drawn animation." I mourn the loss of an art form that Disney worked so hard to gain respect for, the brilliant animators who are now out of a job, and for the fact that their efforts will no doubt be overlooked as "mediocre" by critics and audiences that simply don't understand the effort that went into this film.
The plot was decent and the animation, while nothing can compare to the original, is decent and colorful as well.I'm sad to say that the second movie actually had better music than this one.
Cinderella III is the story of our beloved Disney Princess celebrating her one year anniversary married to the prince.
Cinderella III also gives the character of the Prince a chance to develop (even though they still don't give him a name!) All in all, Cinderella III is full of good morals, great new songs, a few subtle jokes for the parents, and of course, a famous Disney Happily Ever After ending..
However, I believe all the originals are better than the sequels when it comes to Disney classics- EXCEPT for when it comes to Cinderella.Don't get me wrong, I loved the original- I mean, it IS a classic.
But in my opinion, this sequel is simply better.'Cinderella 3: A Twist In Time'is a heartwarming tale that teaches many lessons to both young and old.
Another good thing about this film, is not only the stunning animation, but the development of certain characters- specifically Prince Charming, Anastasia, and even Cinderella herself.
And instead of Cinderella simply getting everything without working for it, like it is in the original, she actually has to WORK for her dreams to come true in this sequel.
I HIGHLY recommend this movie, and I believe those who enjoy suspense and good fun in a Disney movie, will thoroughly enjoy the film.'Cinderella 3: A Twist In Time" gets Two Huge Thumbs Up from me..
I usually try to watch all of the Disney sequels I can, and have certainly been disappointed a few times, but this movie is proof to me that, sometimes, they do a great job!
And even though I really wanted to see it when I found out about it, I certainly didn't expect it to be great (especially not for a SECOND sequel that didn't seem at all necessary), but we thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it, and laughed quite a few times!
I have never liked the prince in the original Cinderella; he had pretty much zero character development (understandable), and I actually thought he was a bit too girly, even for a Disney prince, but this movie has completely changed my opinion about him!
And I really liked the music, true it isn't like the beautiful Tchaikovsky-inspired melodies of the original, but it is memorable and a notable improvement over the awful contemporary songs in Cinderella 2 that felt uninspired and rushed.
I didn't think this one, released five years later, would be any better until I saw that it had a significantly higher rating here, so even though it was another one of the Disney direct-to-video sequels, which are usually fairly weak, I had higher expectations for it than I did for the middle "Cinderella" film.
While this film still can't match the original, it is above average.The Fairy Godmother's magic wand falls into the wrong hands when she accidentally drops it in front of Anastasia, who has been spying on the couple's wedding anniversary and witnessing the Fairy Godmother doing her magic, and by doing so, she has found out how Cinderella and Prince Charming got together in the first place!
At least they are sung by the characters, and are not like the pop songs performed by Brooke Allison and featured in "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True".
However, I have no complaints about the animation in "Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time", and the story is the main thing that keeps this direct-to-video release from being boring, even if it wasn't 100% satisfying to me for some reason.
It most certainly wasn't like I didn't care what was going to happen to the characters.As with any direct-to-video sequel to a Disney animated feature, some fans of the original theatrically released movie (in this case, one which was made and shown in theatres long before the invention of the home video) are bound to hate "Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time".
The premise sounded interesting to me before I watched the film, as much as some viewers might be disgusted by it, and may be the main reason why this particular Disney direct-to-video sequel is better than most of the many others I've seen.
although when you kids see this and also the first sequel (cinderlla 2 dreams come true) they will learn that something might happen to their magical person and that when you sit around doing nothing you wont get anything near of what you want (ofcoarse friends would also be helpful) also in both sequels Cinderella is much more independent and you learn a lot more about the other characters like the princes mother and the kings past and the stepmother is countless times more evil.
What leads is a real hard effort from Disney to fill the void between the first and second Cinderella movies.First off, No sequel nor prequel can beat an original.
Recently they've been advertising that Cinderella III: A Twist in Time along with the other Cinderella movies are going back into the "Disney Vault".
But when the mice find out about what the step mom did, they are going to make sure things get set back right with Cinderella and her prince charming.Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is pretty fun to watch, it has a good story, fun songs, and just makes you go "Aww", all the ingredients to a decent Disney movie.
Even though Cinderella III: A Twist in Time isn't up to Cinderella's original magic, it's still a fun little movie that I'd recommend for any child.6/10.
The story line is a lot better than the previous sequel and i personally think more original.
Anastacia's singing voice is Ariels from The Little Mermaid however her voice is slightly altered to suit the character and the Prince in Cinderella 3 has the same voice as Prince Eric also from The Little Mermaid 2.BUT GO OUT AND PLEASE WATCH/BUY THE FILM IT WILL NOT DISAPPOINT LIKE SO MANY OTHER Disney SEQUELS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
On the anniversary of Cinderella and Prince Charming's marriage, one of the stepsisters, Anastasia, finds the Fairy Godmother's wand in the forest.
However, Lady Tremaine makes the glass slipper fit Anastasia before Cinderella has a chance to try it on.
I'd even say that the score of this film is on par with the score of the original classic.If there are any flaws with Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, it's that, in my opinion, the Fairy Godmother isn't very well-portrayed in this movie.
The original was much better but this is one of those good Disney sequels up there with: Lion king 2, Aladdin 3, Little Mermaid 2, Kronks new groove, and of course lion king 1 1/2.
Disney's "Cinderella III: A Twist In Time" is an exception.The story is very well crafted including homage to just about everything from the first.
I remember sitting in the theatre when the movie was re released in New Zealand cinemas at the age of ten and falling in love with the story then.So when the sequel 'Cinderella 2 Dreams come true' came out( and I was a teen ) I was eager to see where the writers would take us next in Cinderellas life,unfortunately I was very disappointed.
The movie was entertaining and fun.I was impressed and I highly recommend this film.It seems the department that makes these Disney DVD Sequels is set to close.
Cinderella is Disney's sweetheart, I can't believe they would butcher her movies like this..
lol it was like they read some fan fiction that involved this plot and thought that it would be neat to try going in that direction.An I got to say I didn't expect it to turn out so well from the beginning but now I must say it's because I was being a hard headed Disney purist with the whole thing of No Disney Sequels are Bad!
I've not seen the second movie, nor do I plan to.The animation for this film is decent, though sometimes Cinderella looks like a man and her head is too big.
This movie features Lady Tremaine (AKA the wicked stepmother) stealing the fairy godmother's magic wand and traveling back in time to make it so that her daughter, Anastasia is the one the Prince marries.
Much of the screen time is taken up by Prince Charming is this movie, compared to previous Cinderella titles, i found this disappointing because he is quite a boring man.
Not only is the animation better than the original film, but I think the story as well.
In short, Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, as silly as it sounds, is a highly recommendable Disney Sequel.
It's higher than the other Disney movie sequels' reviews, yet not as high as the original.Here, Cinderella and Prince Charming are celebrating their first anniversary.
Lady Tremaine gets it and makes time go back, then having the glass slipper fit Anastasia and her to marry the prince.
But after I watched it, I thought Cinderella 3 (as well as 2) are great sequels for everyone to enjoy: kids and adults like me.The film has great animation and music and I thought the voice casting was very good; Tress McNeille was great as Anastasia and Jennifer Hale as Cinderella.
Why is Disney wasting their time with these unoriginal sequels to classic movies?
isn't it that ever after means 'Forever??' Disney shouldn't have stated during the last part of Cinderella I that they lived happily ever after because what happened in Cinderella III is not a happy part for the Prince and Cinderella.,, can't Disney make other stories to HIGHLIGHT the character of the prince if that's what they are up to., I agree also in the "goofs" posted in wikipedia.org that At the first movie, the king saw Cinderella before he got out, and obviously the Grand Duke, but neither, even when they're not in magic, don't they recognize that Anastasia is not Cinderella."What makes the least sense is that the king even made a face at Anastasia at the ball.,, oh, that not the topic in here anyways, just got carried away because of disappointment......the statement "Lived happily ever after again doesn't make sense for me..
I loved the twist at the almost end made it more dark.I also love the fact that Cinderella Got the princes love more harder then before not just cause of her looks and everything but cause of more she had to fight for love it was more realistic then a girl going to the ball and thats it.They showed more of the prince too we didn't really know him before and he talked a lot more which made it better.The 2nd movie was horrible made no sense and was not interesting to watch and way off story line.
Cinderella III is by far the best Disney movie to be the final chapter in a trilogy.
The whole movie still has that "I'm not even going to try to live up to my original" sequel feel.
i love the whole plot to the movie, makes you really think what would have happened if Cinderella never got her fairy tale prince and all.
As well as the pace and animation, the best aspects of this film were Anastasia and Drizella getting more screen time in this film than its predecessor, Jaq and Gus's hilarious re- enactment of Lady Tremaine stealing the Fairy Godmother's wand to undo Cinderella's spell, Anastasia turning into a Cinderella clone towards the end and Lucifer turning into a convincing human during the climax.
After the success of the hilarious Lion King 1 1/2, the third Little Mermaid (Ariel's Beginning) definitely made par - Cinderella III: A Twist in Time also lives up to the standard set by both it's predecessor and what we've come to expect from Disney sequels.Cinderella is married to Prince Charming and living in the castle - her stepmother, Lady Tremaine, and her stepsisters, Drizella and Anastasia, are stuck doing all the chores she used to to.
Cinderella, with the help of her mice friends Jaq and Gus, must now fight for her happily ever after.I never liked Cinderella - I accept it as a timeless classic; I know it was groundbreaking for both animation and for film-making at the time it was made, and respect it for that.
And, since the Fairy Godmother is frozen at the beginning of the movie, she must battle Tremaine's magic with nothing but her own wits.Cinderella III: A Twist in Time recaptures not only the drama of the Grimm fairytale, but also the magic of Disney hand-drawn animation, an art form that has been lost in the flashiness of CGI.
While this film's animation hasn't the beauty of other Disney flicks, it still retains enough of the magic to keep you riveted.All in all, despite obvious issues with Disney sequels, Cinderella III: A Twist in Time brings an interesting plot, more three-dimensional characters, and a little Grimm touch to an undeniable classic - all the while retaining the intimate feeling of hand-drawn cartoons..
The opening sequence where Stepmother gets her hands on the wand happen all in the confines of a song about how in love the prince and Cinderella are, and then we're OFF!
Of course, there were a few good things, it was always fun to see Lady Tremaine (the stepmother) appear on the screen and when she left you wished she would come back, and the movie would be entertaining enough for a child, but it sadly doesn't even scratch the surface of the true classic, the original Disney's Cinderella..
well i found watching this movie a bit disappointed as the animation , colour is not what it was when the first movie came out.The colours make it not at all good and you feel as the essence of Disney has gone but i do think number 3 is better than number 2 as number 2 really had no sense just telling small stories with no actual plot or anything !!
The Fairy Godmother is turned into a statue trying to get the wand back, and the Stepmother turns back time to the point before Anastasia tried on the glass slipper in the original Cinderella.
The Stepmother uses the wand to change the slipper to make it fit Anastasia's foot, and later makes the prince forget that it was Cinderella he danced with.
Cinderella and the Prince get married again, and Anastasia finds true love by marrying the Baker..
I must say that there really wasn't a lot of things going on in Cinderella, the original film from 1950.
I actually thought each of them were okay because it's cool to see different characters have their own new storyline, like Jaq worrying that Cinderella wouldn't need him or the other mice after marrying the prince.
Both sequels actually did a good job with showing more of the prince that Cinderella married and Anastasia and giving them more depth to their personality.
While Anastasia wants to find true love, she still doesn't want to steal it from Cinderella and lets Cinderella marry the prince at the end.
It happened before the beginning of this 3rd film where they go back in time to change the ending of Cinderella..
By the time the Prince has rescued Cinderella from exile and Lady Tremaine realizes magic is too strong for love, you can tell Anastasia's becoming increasingly uneasy and reluctant. |
tt1542429 | Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight | The prologue takes place in the year 2062, 15 years after the Tiberium Wars (which led to the invasion and defeat of the Scrin), and 10 years after the end of Kane's Wrath (where Kane regained possession of the Tacitus). Tiberium has evolved and is spreading at such a rate that the whole planet is expected to become uninhabitable by 2068. Humanity is on the brink of extinction.
At this time, the leader of the Brotherhood of Nod, Kane, heads directly to the headquarters of the Global Defense Initiative, in hopes of using the Tacitus and GDI's resources to construct a worldwide Tiberium Control Network. This network will allow the spread of Tiberium to be controlled and turn Tiberium into an inexpensive power source. Even though the idea of alliance has been met with hostility (which has sparked the brief Incursion War), the two factions have nevertheless united. The campaign itself starts 15 years after the formation of the alliance, as the Tiberium Control Network nears completion. The spread of Tiberium is finally stopped, bringing optimism to the world's remaining population. However, extremists from both factions start to cause unrest, which sparks the Fourth Tiberium War.
The player takes the role of Commander Parker, a GDI military officer who receives an optical implant after his battle wounds have caused him to lose his eyesight. The player is presented with the possibility to aid either Colonel Louise James's GDI extremists or Kane's Nod Loyalist forces in the Fourth Tiberium War.
The game's missions chronicle Kane's attempt to activate the Threshold 19, a tower constructed by Scrin aliens during the Third Tiberium War that functions like an interstellar portal. He claims to have used the Tacitus to help create both the Tiberium Control Network and the optical implants; these are, in fact, the keys to the activation of the tower. While the GDI and the Nod finally form an alliance, two groups of separatists desperately try to spark a war to stop (or punish) Kane. The madman Gideon leads the Nod separatists, while Colonel Louise James commands the GDI.
After the final battle for the Threshold 19, Kane is about to leave Earth using the Scrin tower. He convinces Commander Parker (the player) to activate it for him with the optical implant. The player is shot by Colonel James but nonetheless succeeds in activating the portal. In both campaigns, Kane enters the portal. (In the GDI campaign, Kane promptly thanks the player before entering it.) In the ending cut-scene, news channels announce that the Tiberium growth has receded following the complete activation of Tiberium Control Network and all the Nod followers have entered the Scrin tower and disappeared. | violence, alternate reality, alternate history | train | wikipedia | Why?. What a rip off. After years of following a game franchise the reward is to be treated with contempt. This game is a C&C in name only. Any soul the series had, has been well and truly ripped out, and stomped on. The cynical creeps, who made this fiasco, care not about the gamer, but about how they can market online gaming and the add-ons etc they can punt. What a dire end.Mr Duncan, when you realise this is the Alien 3 of Kane, try not to be surprised when we don't come flocking back for the resurrection you will no doubt make when the creeps realise they have slaughtered a prize pig.Wraith? No, just scorn.. Come on, it's not that bad.... Yes it's not a normal C&C RTS game. Before it was released it was being made as C&C Arena. It was supposed to be an online game only. Which matter of fact would have been a much better choice.The wrong part from the developers was when they thought at the last minute to make this into a 'full' game, and at the last minute just scrapped together a short boring campaign and called it C&C 4.However, if you look at it as just C&C Arena and love online games, then go for it. It's actually lots of fun playing this game online.If you wanted to see the 'epic conclusion' like most of the fans then yes, you will be disappointed. But it's too late to change the game now, play it for what it is and have fun.Another detail that proves this is supposed to be an online game is all the fun Achievements, this game has lots of Achievements you can try to harvest, just like every modern online game now-days have. Give it a try.. A dire game with little thought put into it. I had very high hopes for C&C4 as many a long-term C&C fan did. It was after all the game that was supposed to tie up a 15-year long story arc that had engrossed many millions of players. The game itself is actually of very poor quality - you only need to read the reviews on Amazon. Suffice to say the entire prior fan base has been ignored with changes to the game mechanics that change the very nature of the game to the degree where it ceases to be a C&C game. However the biggest surprise is just how poor it is and how badly designed from the offset.The game forces you to use a tiny unit-capped army of fewer units even than that you would use in say Company of Heroes (about ten or so), and then designs the game around a number of controllable checkpoints that cannot be held as the player has to go to find more control points to raise their technology level. This creates seemingly endless, monotonous games that are nothing more than constant back-and-forthing between the same points on the map. This is made worse by the fact that there is a requirement to be online and connected to EA's servers the entire duration of your game which includes to save games. As server connections are intermittent this makes for a hugely frustrating series of games where you do the same thing repetitively and then suffer a catastrophic loss of your position because EA's servers have gone down or are suffering from a bad connection. Furthermore EA have discontinued support for a number of games that have only been out for a year or 18 months or so and so there is every reason to believe that once many people have bought this game EA will simply pull the plug on their servers once they become uneconomical at which point we have to assume you will no longer be able to play the game that you purchased.Little effort has been expended on a single player story - no plot lines have been taken from prior games so there is little continuity and there is an air of 'that'll do' about the sets and acting (apart from Joe Kucan - sublime as always as Kane - his last lines are delivered with pathos and quiet empathy that actually add to the depth of the megolomaniac character). The stories are both not only well below the quality of the admittedly camp but thoroughly enjoyable stories of previous games but both campaigns can be played through in a few hours. The overall impression the player gets is that the single player experience was simply of no interest to the designers.This grates because for 6 months the hype machine has emphasised time and again that this is the 'grand conclusion' to a story arc.This mindset applies to the game-play and graphics - the machines seem far too large and cartoon-like - far from the hi-res models of earlier games to the degree where you feel that you are playing a beta of a game and that perhaps real unit models will be released later. Combined with the game-play which seems to have been designed to draw out maximum effort and time spent playing from the player for minimal design effort on the part of the design team this reduces the quality of game-play almost to nothing. This is actually a very common multi player design aspect called a time-sink where the player is forced to do repetitive tasks in order to artificially lengthen the playing duration. As annoying as this is in multi player it is dull as dishwater in single player. There simply isn't any fun to be had here.Some comments suggest that the main target audience of this game is multi-player but this simply isn't the case - this isn't what the publishers have been hyping for months and it is only now that the game has received a drumming that there seems to be a 're-trenchment' to try and re-define the game as being aimed at multi-player. The multi-player experience will be identical to single-player only with even less reason to play. Certainly there are games that do the squad thing 1000% better than C&C4 and the gamer is unlikely to think that sharing a evening going back and forth between the same three checkpoints for an hour constitutes 'fun'.Finally the gaming community has noticed that there has been from launch a sudden arrival of a number of unusually positive reviews from individuals, often with no history on the site, that radically contrast the vast, vast, vast majority of independent reviews and marks/grades. On each major review website there seems to be one standout extremely positive review usually marking the game at some outrageously high mark such as 10/10 or 100% with glowing recommendations but from only this single reviewer. This seems to suggest a coherent attempt by party or parties unknown globally to 'stem the tide' of the negative response to the game in a very sinister and underhand fashion. This extends as far as Amazon in the UK which censored negative reviews in the first week of the game's launch. Take a look at each major review site and there will be perhaps 100 negative 1/10 reviews yet with one standalone review marking 10/10 and saying it's the greatest game ever. This extremely obvious form of manipulation is extremely underhand and just serves to bring down the reputation of the publisher/developer further.All in all a tragic end to a classic series that many people have waited literally more than a decade to see the completion of. To be dismissed as merely 'the old guys' and to have this dire quality sub-standard game passed off as a true successor to the C&C franchise is insulting to the loyalty of the previous gamers and the intelligence of the new. |
tt2120779 | Jason Becker: Not Dead Yet | The film documents Becker's rise to near-stardom, following him from the first time he touched a guitar as a five-year-old to when he was drafted into The David Lee Roth Band as lead guitarist at the age of 19. In 1990, this was considered perhaps the most coveted rock guitar gig on the planet, as Becker would be following in the footsteps of acclaimed guitarists Eddie van Halen and Steve Vai, both of whom played with David Lee Roth as lead guitar player. It was shortly after that Becker was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, more popularly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and given just 3 to 5 years to live. Becker was able to finish the recording of Roth's third full-length studio album A Little Ain't Enough but was unable to make the tour due to his physical decline.
Despite his diagnosis, Becker continued to write music even after losing all the ability to move and speak. Becker would go on to write and record two full-length studio albums Perspective (1996) and Collection (2008). Becker communicates exclusively via an eye pattern chart invented by his father, artist and poet, Gary Becker.
Although the film examines Becker's physical decline and his missed shot at rock superstardom, the film is a positive account of Becker's strength and survival for the last 22 years of his life.
The film makes extensive use of Becker's family archives through photographs, Super 8mm film and VHS footage. The film features interviews with Becker's family and friends as well as notable guitarists Joe Satriani and Steve Vai. | inspiring | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0026082 | The Arizonian | Clay Tallant is on his way to Silver City, Arizona to meet up with his brother, Orin. As he approaches the town, he stops a stagecoach robbery being attempted by Frank McCloskey and his gang. In intervening, Clay saves Kitty Rivers, a singer in the town's saloon, who is engaged to Orin. In town, the marshal accuses McCloskey of the robbery, after which he is killed by McCloskey, who works for the sheriff, Jake Mannen. Clay is offered the job of marshal by Mayor Ed Comstoc, and accepts. As he attempts to clean up the town, he runs afoul of Mannen. Clay arrests "Shot-gun" Keeler and the rest of McCloskey's gang, but they are released by the judge, who is on Mannen's payroll. Mannen hires gunman Tex Randolph to come in and dispose of Clay, but this backfires when Randolph instead joins Clay and Orin.
Mannen sets up several ambushes in which to kill Clay, but one of them leads to Clay killing McCloskey. However, eventually Mannen traps Clay, Orin, Tex, and Pompey (their servant) in a burning building. When Pompey makes a break for it to get help, he is gunned down. As the three lawmen begin to battle back against Mannen and his henchmen, Clay is saved by a mysterious woman, who shoots and kills Mannen just as he was taking aim on Clay.
Having cleaned up the town, Clay leaves Silver City, taking Kitty with him, who has changed her romantic interest from Orin to his brother. | violence, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | The Very Wild West.
This is a damn good western from the mid-thirties, and it features two or filmdom's more rugged players, Richard Dix and Preston Foster, in leading roles.
There's a natural masculinity both in the movie itself and its stars that many films strive for and few achieve.
A good number of fights pepper the film as well.
I cannot say that the plot is unique or memorable, but the presentation is.
Hungarian-born Charles Vidor directed vigorously.
Also of note are a couple of black characters in fairly unstereotyped roles, and the woman does something near the end of the film that will knock your socks off..
Echoes of "Cimarron" and "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral".
This obvious attempt by RKO to duplicate the success of "Cimarron" (1930) actually succeeds, despite all the odds against it.
Director Vidor handles the film's many action scenes with a bold and vigorous hand that will have even the most jaded western fans cheering..
Better than your average B oater of the 1930's.
Sure, it has all your typical elements of a Western: town with a big bad boss, hero who rides in from the horizon, the reluctant sheriff, stagecoach robberies, themes of guns vs.
the rule of law.
So at first you think this is going to be the kind of Western that John Wayne languished in between 1930's "Big Trail" and 1939's "Stagecoach", but it is more than that, even minus John Wayne.
This has some things which distinguish it.
The dialog is well done.
It's direct, spare, understated, and, when it needs to be, hard.
Richard Dix is especially good in this kind of environment.
It also has some crisp direction by Charles Vidor, best known, I suppose, for Gilda, who makes the conventional final shoot-out thoroughly unconventional.
The movie stumbles worst with the inclusion of a love triangle between the hero, his brother, and the woman between them.
All the people die who are supposed to, though sometimes in a surprising way, and the West is made safe for civilized people.
Good support from Margot Grahame, and Preston Foster..
Special Protection.
Richard Dix who cut a fine figure of a westerner in the original Cimarron plays a Wyatt Earp like marshal in The Arizonian.
He's ready to retire from town taming, but when the forces of law and order need his special talents in a place where brother James Bush is settling down in.The outlaws in this town have special protection as the sheriff Louis Calhern is their leader.
He's made them his deputies which is a license to commit all kinds of depravity.
One guy definitely not on Calhern's pad is Preston Foster who plays a Doc Holiday type figure.Foster and Calhern dominate The Arizonian.
Dix was always a stalwart hero, a little too stalwart at times.
Foster and Calhern give this film whatever color and bite it has.Western fans should like this..
Trouble in Silver City.
Blonde singer-dancer Margot Grahame (as Kitty Rivers) leaves the western town "Silver City" to escape the clutches of corrupt sheriff Louis Calhern (as Jake Mannen).
She must leave boyfriend James Bush (as Orin Tallant) behind, but he's too timid to fret about.
On the way out of town, Ms. Grahame's coach is held up by Mr. Calhern's thugs.
Fortunately, they are stopped by big, brave Richard Dix (as Clay Tallant) who is going to see his brother in "Silver City".
Grahame is so impressed with Mr. Dix' manliness, she decides to join him.
Everyone is impressed with Dix and he is appointed marshal.
Dix hopes to clean up the town, but Preston Foster (as Tex Randolph) stares him down...In one of the story's most memorable scenes, Mr. Foster buys a round of drinks and throws them in a line of faces.
Foster has the most interesting part.
Dix and the others are fairly routine.
If you're looking for racial stereotypes, you might be interested in the dotingly slavish Etta McDaniel (as Sarah) and her "pussy footin'" dumb boyfriend Willie Best (as Pompey).
In a story written by Dudley Nichols, director Charles Vidor is especially adept with the cast and crew on RKO's western street set/facade.
The studio may have been thinking "The Arizonian" would be another "Virginian".
They get no cigar, but gravelly-voiced Ray Mayer (as Frank McClosky) is a good western Eugene Palette.***** The Arizonian (1935-06-28) Charles Vidor ~ Richard Dix, Margot Grahame, Preston Foster, Louis Calhern.
Having Richard Dix in the lead is already one major plus for this film..
In the 1930s, Richard Dix was a heck of an actor.
While far from handsome, he was rugged and very dependable---a sort of 'anti- Hollywood' type.
I love most of his films, and that's why I had to see this film when it came on Turner Classic Movies.
Was I disappointed?
Read on...Clay (Dix) arrives in a town to see his brother.
He also sees that the place is out of control and lawless and so he takes it upon himself to pick up the sheriff badge and put an end to all this killing.
The problem is that the baddies LIKE all the killing and their evil boss-man (Louis Calhern) is going to do anything he can to keep it going.
Another problem is that Clay's brother has a girl...and she's falling head over heels for Clay!The plot for this one is relatively familiar, so the film gets no point for originality.
Likewise, when the girl falls for Clay, the viewer isn't the least bit surprised what eventually happens to the brother!!
Still, the film is well made--much better than average.
Plus Dix and Calhern were exceptional...making this film well worth your while..
a very fine Western with Richard Dix. Richard Dix was a ruggedly good looking star who always seemed more at home on the range than in the drawing room.
By the time he made this film in 1935, he was entrenched in the Western genre, having also made 2 epic Westerns, "Cimarron" (1930) and "The Conquerors" (1932).Jake Mannen (Louis Calhern) is the sheriff in the town and controls everyone in it - Kitty Rivers tries to leave town but is held up by his henchmen.
The lovely Margot Grahame, who was so effective in "The Informer" (also written by Dudley Nichols) plays Kitty, billed as the English Nightingale, who opens the film singing "Roll Along Covered Wagon, Roll Along".
Clay Tallant (Richard Dix) comes to her rescue and she decides to go back to town.
After that the stage is really held up by bandit Tex Randolph (Preston Foster), who takes all the cash.Clay is made a Marshall to clean up the town but after the man he arrests is fined only $25 he gives back his badge.
When he finds that his kid brother has been beaten and warned off he asks for the badge back.
J. Farrell MacDonald has an amazingly small part as a Marshall who tries to arrest members of the gang but is shot.
Another surprise appearance is by Edward Van Sloan, who was in some classic films "The Mummy" and "Dracula" - he has the uncredited part of Judge Cody.There is a lot of action - there is a showdown in the main street - the gang on horse back (Joe Sawyer and granite faced Bob Kortman are unmistakable to miss), just itching to shoot Clay, who is walking slowly towards them - the tension just oozes out of the scene.
There is a shootout in the bar when Clay is disarmed and taunted by Joe Sawyer and others.
Tex joins forces with Clay and becomes a deputy Marshall.Clay and Tex are thrown into jail on a trumped up charge.
Sheriff Jake tries to burn down the jail and in a pivotal scene Pompey (Willie Best) is shot in the back by Jake while trying to aid the prisoners.
Willie Best had a long career.
Initially billed as "Sleep'n'Eat" he mostly had uncredited parts - one of his roles was in Shirley Temple's "The Littlest Rebel" (1935).In another great atmospheric scene at the end Clay, Tex and Orin walk into the smoke shrouded street shooting it out with the unseen enemy.It is a great western and I highly recommend it..
interesting casting of African American roles.
This film is rather unusual because of the two African American characters.
Although Willie Best had no choice other than to portray the stereotypical black shuffle a la Stepin Fetchit, Etta McDaniel has a very strong role and participates in the climax of the film in an extremely unusual and satisfying way (no spoiler intended here).
It's a shame that McDaniel, as with other African American actors and actresses, was limited to roles such as maids or nannies.
Etta McDaniel makes the most of her time on the screen.
The film ends with Richard Dix and Margot Grahame heading off to California in a covered wagon, and a second wagon is being driven by McDaniel--an indication that her character played an important role in the film..
Remarkable!.
Associate producer: Cliff Reid.
Copyright 28 June 1935 by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Roxy: 26 July 1935.
U.S. release: 27 July 1935.
Australian release: 4 September 1935.
8 reels.
75 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A corrupt sheriff and his gang are cut down by an unlikely alliance between the town marshal and a bandit.
NOTES: One of the Ten Best Films of 1935, according to Frank S.
Nugent in The New York Times.PRINCIPAL MIRACLE: Succeeds in recapturing the vigor of Cimarron (1930).COMMENT: This obvious attempt by RKO to duplicate the success of Cimarron (1930) actually succeeds, despite all the odds against it.
The budget is only half for a start (and so is the running time) but it's still very lavishly produced.
The budget is only half for a start (and so is the running time) but it's still very lavishly produced.
Secondly, heroine Margot Grahame is certainly no Irene Dunne, but she's a very capable and highly sympathetic player nonetheless.
Secondly, heroine Margot Grahame is certainly no Irene Dunne, but she's a very capable and highly sympathetic player nonetheless.
Thirdly, the movie lacks an epic stampede but it still manages some really vigorous action sequences including a knock-out climax which has echoes of the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
Thirdly, the movie lacks an epic stampede but it still manages some really vigorous action sequences including a knock-out climax which has echoes of the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
Actor Richard Dix's manly presence is just right for the Wyatt Earp character, while Louis Calhern plays the slimy villain with all the fascination of an utterly vicious yet superficially elegant snake.
Actor Richard Dix's manly presence is just right for the Wyatt Earp character, while Louis Calhern plays the slimy villain with all the fascination of an utterly vicious yet superficially elegant snake.
Preston Foster was always better at the badman-turned-goodie (or vice versa) type of role and is in his element here.
Preston Foster was always better at the badman-turned-goodie (or vice versa) type of role and is in his element here.
The support players include such dyed-in-the-wool villains as Joe Sawyer and even Marc Lawrence, whilst that perennial soak, Francis Ford, is all nicely dressed up here and hardly recognizable as the well-groomed mayor.
The support players include such dyed-in-the-wool villains as Joe Sawyer and even Marc Lawrence, whilst that perennial soak, Francis Ford, is all nicely dressed up here and hardly recognizable as the well-groomed mayor.
Etta McDaniel also gets a chance to shine.
Etta McDaniel also gets a chance to shine.
Director Vidor stylishly handles the film's large budget and many action scenes with a bold and vigorous hand that will have even the most jaded western fans cheering.
THE DIRECTOR: No relative of America's King Vidor, Charles Vidor was born in Budapest, Hungary, on 27 July 1900.
He gained his education at the University of Budapest and the University of Berlin, learning civil engineering and indulging his interest in music, writing and sculpture via a general arts course on the side.
He served in the German army during the First World War, was wounded thrice and decorated on four occasions.
After the armistice he tried first to use his engineering knowledge to earn a livelihood, then his singing voice.
The first landed him only a chance to dig ditches, the second to sing in beer halls.It was then that he turned to films.
Commencing at the UFA studio in Berlin doing odd jobs, he in time graduated to the position of an assistant editor, then a chief editor, and finally an assistant director.
After serving in this latter capacity on Fridercus Rex ('21), he left Berlin for New York. |
tt1764651 | The Expendables 2 | The Expendables—leader Barney Ross, knife specialist Lee Christmas, hand-to-hand combat specialist Yin Yang, heavy-weapons specialist Hale Caesar, demolitions expert Toll Road, the unstable Gunner Jensen, and sniper Billy the Kid, the team's newest recruit and Ross' protégé—are deployed to Nepal to rescue Dr. Zhou, a hostage. They also rescue the captured mercenary Trench, Ross's rival. Yang leaves the group to escort Zhou back to China.
After returning to New Orleans, Billy tells Ross that he intends to retire at the end of the month and live with his girlfriend Sophia. Later, Ross is forced to accept a mission from CIA operative Mr. Church to retrieve an item from a downed airplane in Albania. Church sends technical expert Maggie Chan with the team. In Albania the Expendables retrieve the item, but are then ambushed by international criminal and arms dealer Jean Vilain, his right-hand man Hector and his mercenary group (the Sangs), who have captured Billy. Vilain demands the item in exchange for Billy's life. The team gives up the item, but Vilain roundhouse kicks a knife through Billy's heart and flees with the Sangs by helicopter. Ross recovers a note for Sophia from Billy's body; the team buries their fallen comrade, swearing vengeance on Vilain.
Maggie tells them that the item is a computer, with the location of five tons of refined plutonium abandoned in a mine by the Soviet Union after the Cold War. Vilain intends to retrieve the plutonium and sell it. The Expendables are able to weakly track the computer's signal and follow Vilain, which leads them to Bulgaria where they stay overnight at an abandoned Russian military base. The next morning, the team is ambushed by the Sangs and a tank. After the Expendables run out of ammunition, they are saved by Ross's old friend, Booker, who quickly eliminates both the Sangs and the tank. Before he departs, Booker informs the group of a nearby village whose residents oppose Vilain. Meanwhile, Hector and Vilain dig up the plutonium and begin collecting it.
In the village, the Expendables find several armed female villagers guarding their children from Vilain's forces. The local inhabitants are taken and put to work as slaves in the mine, never returning, and the women ask for the Expendables' help. The Sangs arrive for more villagers, but are ambushed by the Expendables and killed. After locating Vilain and the mine, the team assaults the area with their plane before deliberately crashing into the mine. The team saves the enslaved miners from execution, but Vilain and Hector escape with the plutonium. Vilain remotely detonates explosive charges in the mine; it collapses, trapping the miners and the Expendables.
Church and Trench arrive, freeing the miners and the team, and join the Expendables to pursue Vilain. The group intercepts Vilain and his men at an airport as he prepares to leave by plane. Joined again by Booker, the Expendables, Trench and Church engage the Sangs in battle. Christmas decapitates Hector, while Ross and Vilain fight hand-to-hand. Ross defeats Vilain, stabbing him and avenging Billy.
In the aftermath, Ross is given an old Antonov An-2 biplane by Church; Church, Maggie, Booker and Trench then leave the team. In France, Sophia discovers a box on her doorstep with a large sum of money and Billy's letter. As the Expendables depart in the plane, they propose a final toast to Billy. | boring, murder, bleak, violence, cult, good versus evil, humor, action, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0243559 | Sikandar | Sikandar Raza (Parzan Dastur) is a 14-year-old schoolboy in the Kashmir valley. Ever since his parents were killed by jihadis (from Azad Kashmir) (militants) 10 years ago, he has lived with his aunt and uncle, in a small town called Kupwara in Kashmir valley. All Sikandar’s desires revolve around the happiness of his foster parents and getting the ball into the goal on the football field.
One day, on his way to a school football match, Sikandar finds a gun lying on the path. Despite admonishments by his newly made school friend, 14-year-old Nasreen (Ayesha Kapoor), Sikandar picks up the gun and begins a journey into the darker side of his nature. The quiet-yet-strong Nasreen becomes Sikandar’s conscience keeper. She tries to dissuade him from giving in to the lure of the gun.
Sikandar gets embroiled further and further in situations beyond his control, and people get killed. At first it seems that the happenings occurring alongside Sikandar’s predicament are not connected. But, as layer upon layer is revealed, it becomes clear that Sikandar is the innocent victim in a game being played out between the militants, the army, the peace-bartering politicians and the religious heads of the little Kashmiri town. The pieces of the puzzle come together at the very end, leading to a shocking revelation. The movie is a portrayal of how child psychologies can be moulded, how terrorists are made. "Bholi bhaali rahne do" by Prasoon Joshi wonderfully sums up the movie. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Prithviraj Kapoor & Sohrab Modi magic. A historic epic produced & directed by Sohrab Modi is basically based on faceoff between Alexander the Great & King Puru, whilst Sikander enters Indian subcontinent en route to his journey to conquer the world. Who wins the battle is a question for everyone to find out but the movie is a feat for movie lovers. Everyone knows the story but watch out for two acting power houses, Prithviraj Kapoor & Sohrab Modi, facing each other. First two scenes, featuring both of them together, are sheer magic. You will love their dialogues & dialogue delivery. Watch this movie to find out that Prithviraj Kapoor was the first dashing hero of Indian silver screen. He was not less than a Dilip Kumar, a Dharmendra or a Vinod Khanna or a Salman Khan. He looks amazing.. Indian view on well-known story. As there was no rewiew here, I think it would be good to put some words about this quite unusual movie.First of all - I saw this movie with subtitles, since i couldn't find voiced version. With a rare movies from 'talkies' era like this it's quite common. At some moments i had the feeling that subtitles may be more or less incomplete and did not reveal all details of sophisticated language, but still i found dialogues interesting and the overall story was easy to understand.The movie focuses on indian campaign of Alexander the Great, and depicts it more from indian perspective - meaning at some point we can see Alexander more like invader and king Porus like idealised protector of homeland. From the very beginning we see impressive decorations of palace settings - I was very surprised to see such good depiction of foreign costumes in an indian movie (although in closer look a nimble eye can see fakeness of all greek armors). Visuals are the stongest side of the movie - although camera work isn't so impressive and sometimes diminishes the aestetic effectiveness of scenery. Battle scenes in movie - they are different... Sometimes depiction is nominal and sometimes we can see an elephant charge through infantry made without any special effects - absolutly mindblowing!Although the story is not very complicated, the movie has very slow pace. Some simple dialogue scenes are more several minutes long. Its good to show character's deepest motivations, but in the middle of the film we know motivations of every character quite well - and neverthenless movie has this slow temp to the end.Few words about characters - there is some very distinct and interesting ones. Alexandr is depicted always optimistic and joyful neverlosing young conqueror - pretty realistic in my opinion. Rukhsana is just adorable in her youth and passion. Aristotle showed here very astere and cold but later we see, that there is still humanity beneath logics of the wise. And of course Porus - an idealized near-chakravarti (ideal ruler in buddhism) in this movie, still has a stong bit of charm in his all-about-virtues attitude of mind.What an indian movie without songs? There is some (not too much), and they are pretty lovely, although one song choice still make me scratch my head - a greek soldiers, singing 'Life is all about love' while marching on conquest? That must be some bad translation or maybe here comes that long expected cultural difference?.. |
tt3424814 | Die kleine Meerjungfrau | Ariel, a sixteen-year-old mermaid princess, is dissatisfied with underwater life in the kingdom of Atlantica and is curious about the human world. With her best friend Flounder, Ariel collects human artifacts in her grotto and often goes to the surface of the ocean to visit Scuttle, a seagull who offers very inaccurate knowledge of human culture. She ignores the warnings of her father King Triton, the ruler of Atlantica, and Sebastian, a crab who serves as Triton's adviser and court composer, that contact between merpeople and humans is forbidden.
One night, Ariel, Flounder, and an unwilling Sebastian travel to the ocean surface to watch a celebration for the birthday of Prince Eric on a ship. Ariel instantly becomes enamored with Eric. The birthday celebration is cut short by a violent storm which destroys the ship and tosses Eric overboard. She rescues him and brings him to shore. Ariel sings to Eric, but immediately leaves just as he regains consciousness to avoid being discovered. Fascinated by the memory of her voice, Eric vows to find who saved and sang to him, and Ariel vows to find a way to join him and his world. When Triton discovers Ariel's love for Eric, Triton confronts her in the grotto and destroys most of the artifacts with his trident. After Triton leaves, two eels named Flotsam and Jetsam convince Ariel to visit Ursula the sea witch.
Ursula tricks Ariel into making a deal to transform her into a human for three days in exchange for Ariel's voice, which Ursula puts in a nautilus shell. Within these three days, Ariel must receive the "kiss of true love" from Eric. If Ariel gets Eric to kiss her, she will remain a human permanently, otherwise, she will transform back into a mermaid and belong to Ursula. Ariel accepts and is then given human legs and brought to the surface by Flounder and Sebastian. Eric finds Ariel on the beach and takes her to his castle, unaware that she is the one who had rescued him earlier. Ariel spends time with Eric, and at the end of the second day, they almost kiss but are thwarted by Flotsam and Jetsam. Angered at their narrow escape, Ursula sets a trap for Eric and Ariel: she disguises herself as a beautiful young woman named Vanessa and hypnotizes Eric with her singing voice.
Discovering that Vanessa is actually Ursula in disguise, Scuttle informs Ariel of Ursula's plan to marry Eric while Sebastian informs Triton about Ursula's actions. Assisted by her friends, Ariel stops Eric's wedding to Ursula, destroying the nautilus shell around Ursula's neck and restoring Ariel's voice. Realizing that Ariel is the girl who saved his life, Eric rushes to kiss her, but the sun sets and Ariel transforms back into a mermaid before Ursula kidnaps her. Triton furiously confronts Ursula and demands Ariel's release, but the deal is inviolable. Ursula tricks Triton into taking Ariel's place as Ursula's prisoner, giving up his trident. Ariel is released as Triton is transformed into a polyp. Ursula steps forward as the new queen, but before she can use the trident, Eric intervenes with a harpoon. Ursula attempts to kill Eric, but inadvertently kills Flotsam and Jetsam in the process. Enraged, Ursula uses the trident to expand into monstrous proportions.
Ariel and Eric reunite on the surface before Ursula gains full control of the entire ocean, creating a storm and bringing sunken ships to the surface. Attempting to kill Ariel, Ursula herself is killed by Eric with one of the wrecked ships. With Ursula destroyed, Triton and the other polyps are restored to their original forms. Realizing that Ariel truly loves Eric, Triton willingly changes her from a mermaid into a human and approves her marriage to Eric. Ariel and Eric marry on a ship and depart. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0049125 | Davy Crockett and the River Pirates | === Keelboat Race ===
Davy Crockett and George "Georgie" Russell are loaded with pelts as they make their way to Maysville, Kentucky on the Ohio River after a successful season of trapping and hunting. There they encounter Mike Fink, blowhard captain of the keelboat Gullywhumper who refuses to take them downriver, unless they pay a ridiculously high fee. That evening, Fink gets Georgie drunk and convinces him to keelboat race down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to New Orleans, with the season's pelts as wager against two barrels of Fink's "Monongahela whiskey", as well as his own self-proclaimed title of "King of the River".
Crockett uses his celebrity to put together a crew for Capt. Cobb's keelboat Bertha Mae and the race begins. Overcoming numerous obstacles, including an Indian attack near Cave-In-Rock and Fink's dirty tricks, Crockett ultimately wins the race but amiably waives his claim on Fink's share of the wager. In gratitude, Fink offers them a free boat ride back upriver so Crockett and Russell can get home.
=== River Pirates ===
Fink drops Crockett and Russell off along the river, where they march inland to find friendly Chickasaw tribesmen to buy horses from. However, Crockett and Russell are captured by a Chickasaw hunting party and taken to their village. There, the chief informs them that white men have been murdering members of the Kaskaskia and that they are preparing to go to war for vengeance. Russell tells them that he and Davy witnessed an attack on Fink's keelboat coming downriver, but is told that the Kaskaskia were driven out of the area prior to the encounter. Crockett and Russell deduce that the attackers are in fact pirates masquerading as Indians. Having also heard of Crockett's fame and friendly relations with Indians, the chief releases them, promising to keep peace if the pirates are brought to justice.
Returning to the river, Crockett and Russell reunite with Fink, who agrees to help them take on the pirates. They find a crewless keelboat drifting downriver bristling with crudely made arrows and virtually all its supplies missing, having been raided by the pirates. Worried the pirates will refrain from attacking because of their successful defense from before, they disguise Fink's boat and pose as a captain and banker hauling Spanish gold. Stopping at towns along the Ohio, they brag about their rich cargo to tempt the pirates into action. The tale attracts a traveling minstrel named Colonel Plug, who asks to ride along to the next town. Crockett, who correctly suspects Plug is in cahoots with the pirates, allows him aboard.
Plug entertains Fink and the crew with some music. He sings very loudly, the lyrics telling the hidden pirates ashore about the gold. Led by Samuel Mason and the Harpe brothers, the pirates prepare to attack from Cave-In-Rock. Plug is subdued when he discovers the truth. The pirates attack as Indians again and the crew successfully defends the boat. The Mason and the Harpe brothers retreat, pursued to the cave by Crockett and Russell. In the ensuing fight, the Harpe brothers are both subdued. A keg of gunpowder explodes, sealing the cave and killing Mason. Crockett and Russell once again part ways with Fink and head for home. | violence | train | wikipedia | "Davy Crockett And The River Pirates" was originally produced for television and was broadcast on ABC as two episodes of the "Disneyland" series in 1955.It is very easy to see why there was a Crockett phenomenon at the time.
Fess Parker is perfect as Davy, and his sidekick, Georgie Russel, is played by Buddy Ebson, a few years before "Beverly Hillbillies".
They play off of each other like a perfectly matched pair of shoes.This film is wonderful and makes me wish that Disney had made more of them back in the 1950's.
Unfortunately, however, the interest in Crockett was winding down by the time this one played in the theaters, and Disney used Fess Parker in other movies, like "Old Yeller" and "Westward Ho!
The Wagons"Still, this is a great film that is a lot of fun.
The boats were later taken to Disneyland and utilized as the Mike Fink Keelboats ride.-- One sidenote here: the keelboats were removed from Disneyland in 1996 following an accident that dumped a load of passengers into the water!
--As with most of the old Disney titles, I greatly recommend this film..
davy crockett takes on Mike fink, then they both go after river pirates..
This was the second of two Disney Crockett theatrical features, edited from a pair of Disneyland TV episodes during that show's second season.
The first three Crockett stories, run during the first season and then later released theatrically as a mini-epic, were all at least in part based on Crockett's life, as the opening image - his journal allowing us to slip inside - makes clear.
The follow-ups were based on the famed Almanacks that appeared after Crockett's death in 1836, and so are right filmed in a much broader style, visually suggesting a tall tale rather than a fact based adventure.
In the first half, Davy (Fess Parker) and pal Georgie (Buddy Ebsen) engage in a legendary keel boat race with Mike Fink (Jeff York).
Lots of good natured action-fun.
In the second part, they join forces to eradicate the wicked river pirates who not only prey on innocent passersby but blame their wicked deeds on the innocent Indians.
That allows for a highly effective message, much like that in the first film, whereby Crockett becomes a spokesman for Indians' rights.
As always in Disney, the entertainment qualities are balanced with an attempt to educate the audience on the greatness of ethnic diversity.
Lots of fun.
This film is a lot of fun.
It originally played on the Disney TV show as a two parter.
Fess Parker plays Davy, and Buddy Ebsen plays George Russell, his friend and traveling partner.
They run afoul of Mike Fink and his crew; Mike is played by the wonderful and boastful Jeff York.
George mistakenly bets all their winter's fur inventory that Davy and he can beat Mike to New Orleans.
Mike tries all kinds of devious and underhanded ways to win, but in the end Davy manages to beat him.
Mike is contrite, and he and Davy become friends.
In the second part, Mike and Davy take on the river pirates from the title, who've been posing as hostile indians and killing settlers coming downstream.
Of course, they win.Mike's crew is played by veteran Hollywood actors; Kenneth Tobey plays Mike's right hand man, and believe me, if you've seen Ken as the staunch commander in the original "The Thing", you won't recognize him in this.
He's a natural comedian, and with his expressive face he's a source of constant amazement.Don't miss this movie; kids will love it.
And Mike Fink's song is catchy and memorable.
In all, a great family film.
Funny and fun adventures starred by Crockett/Fess Parker and his pal Giorgie/Buddy Ebsen against nasty river pirates.
This was a theatrical compilation of two episodes of Davy Crocket series that were aired on ABC TV Disneyland , 55-56 years , taking footage here and there .
In this adventure and comical Western movie is narrated myths and legends in hilarious style of the famed American frontiersman and explorer .
I deals with Davy and his colleague Georgie Russell , Buddy Ebsen, vying a boastful fatty called Mike Frank , Jeff York, nicknamed " the King of the river" in a boat race to city of New Orleans and along the way they encounter some nasty river pirates .After that , once the competition is finished , Crockett and Georgie supported by Mike take on the river pirates who are attempting to rob the sailors of their possessions .The plot is is simple, the first part concerns about a fun race in which our friends compete against "The King of the River" and fight off each other to win the risked competition ; second part deals with the three allied friends battling pirates who disguising as Native American to take earthly supplies from naive boat passengers ; this plot bears remarkable resemblance to the classic film" How the West was won" by Ford , Marshall and Hathaway, in which mountain man James Stewart was robbed by river pirates In Cave-in-Rock , the same place where was shot this Davy Crockett and River Pirates .
As usual, Fess Parker and and his sidekick Buddy Ebsen give sympathetic performances .
They are accompanied by Jeff York as the sly , boastful Mike providing a lot of laughters and mayhem .York starred various chapters of Disneyland and "The great locomotive chase" along with Fess Parker .And an enjoyable support cast as Mort Mills, Kenneth Tobey , Clem Bevans, Douglas Dumbrielle and Hank Worden .This movie was actually 2 episodes of Disney TV show spliced together and released as feature movie .Walt Disney shot this show in color in spite of few color TV's were being sold, yet .
This one contains agreeable musical score by George Bruns , Disney's regular ,including classic song "The ballad of Davy Crockett" sung by singer Bill Hayes , lyrics Thomas Blackburn , it had number 1 billboard pop hit in 1955 .Colorful cinematography by Bert Glennon , shot on location in Cave In Rock , Illinois and New Orleans, though is urgent necessary a perfect remastering .The motion picture was well directed by Norman Foster who directed various Disneyland episodes , adventure movies ,and numerous Western series and films such as Tombstone territory , Bat Masterson, Viva Cisco Kid , The sign of Zorro , Navajo , Crazy and Custer the untold story and Rachel and the stranger.
Rating : 6.5/10 essential and indispensable watching for adventure fans and Davy Crockett series enthusiasts .
Wow.Sometimes a film is powerful because it WAS powerful.This is an amazingly dumb movie but perhaps no dumber in extremes than today's.
But this was also the first movie that was also a theme park ride.
That Davey Crockett ride lasted 40 years!
(Incidentally, students of film will see blocking similarities between Depp's boat ride in the bayou and Parker's.)Its also one of the movies most obviously designed for boys.
You have tricksters.And most of all, you have a juvenile version of that John Ford/ John Wayne meme: real men achieve honor through recreational fighting.Seeing it again fifty years later is very strange.
Young people watch movies more closely than adults I think.
The only time girlie stuff appears is when the pirates try to attract Mike Fink's crew to an ambush.
They do this by dressing up as floozies, which of course he cannot resist.And its also an influential film in melding a certain collection of values to a certain collection of cultural carriers.The values are honesty, plainspokenness, insight outside of book-larnin', loyalty (at least among men).
Capitalizing on the popularity of the Davy Crockett phenomenon, Disney produced a story that had to take place at an earlier time.
Mike Fink is a keel boater (boats that are pushed with poles), the best around.
Georgie Russell (Buddy Ebsen) makes a bet with Fink, banking on the ingenuity of Crockett who has never pushed a keel boat.
The race is fun with Fink using every method he can to take away Davy and Georgie's chances of winning.
River pirates have been robbing the hard working people who depend on the waterway for their business.
If this phenomenon had been in more recent times, we would have had a series, starring Fess Parker, that would have lasted a long time.
The King of the Wild Frontier meets the King of the River.
The second Davy Crockett movie made from episodes of Disney's "Disneyland" television series.
The first part has Davy (Fess Parker) and his comic relief sidekick Georgie (Buddy Ebsen) in a keelboat race with blowhard Mike Fink who calls himself the "King of the River." The second part continues from the first and deals with Crockett fighting river pirates Samuel Mason and Big & Little Harpe.
It's a fun movie with a lot of action and humor.
Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen are both great.
The rest of the cast includes Kenneth Tobey, Jeff York, Clem Bevans, and Mort Mills.
It's a beautiful-looking movie, with lovely scenery and filmed with that wonderful old-school Disney polish.
In addition to Crockett, some of the other characters, like Mike Fink and the Harpe brothers, are based on real people.
It's a fun movie that should appeal to the kid in all (well, most) of us.
Davy Crocett is a man of few words.
Davy Crocett is not a man of few roundhouse kicks to the face..
Davy Crockett counted to infinity - twice.If you found 'Davy Crocket: King of the Wild Frontier' a fun film, you probably liked it.
'Davy Crocket and the River Pirates' continues the fun and increases it as it flows more smoothly story wise then it's predecessor.
Davy goes up against the King of the River Mink Fink in a race down the Ohio.
After beating the tar out of each other, they take on the river pirates giving the Indians a bad name and beat the tar out of them.
And the fight scenes believe you me, looks just as real as if Davy Crockett was fighting outside your local bar.
Davy Crocket is so suave and cool, basically because he just is and quite frankly he is humble about it which makes him more suave and cool.
He doesn't brag or come up with wise cracks like some modern action heroes, he just goes and kicks butt wherever it is needed.
But Davy has his own theme song, which they take time for in this production to sing as their going down the river.
Mink Finch has his boys sing a song about him, but it never caught on in record sales.The River Pirates deserves a place on your video library shelf, right next to the other Davy flick.
Davy Crockett's fist..
Fess Parker, God bless his recently deceased soul, returns as Frontier Jesus himself, Davy Crockett.
Buddy Ebsen is also back as Georgie Russel, Davy's best friend and comic foil for local wildlife.
But by far the most entertaining character is Mike Fink, played by the ever-talented Jeff York.
I don't know how, but they got the perfect amount of over-the- top with his character: he's always drinking or smoking or getting into fights, his mouth is always open, NOTHING he does is subtle, and his overblown expressions alone are worth checking out in this movie.King of the Wild Frontier suffered from being a bit dark and kind of awkward at times with Davy Crockett going throughout his life and experiencing both highs and lows.
In The River Pirates, there are no lows to bring you out of the glorious legend that is Davy Crockett.
Even though the stories are kind of lame, this is one of those movies where you could watch the characters sit down and play cards for an hour, and you'd STILL be entertained.If you haven't seen the Disney Davy Crockett movies, first off, shame on you.
Second, while I can't really recommend the first movie to everyone, as it does have a somewhat inconsistent tone, this one I highly recommend to EVERYONE: kids, teens, and adults alike.
It's a ton of fun every time I watch it, and even today it still oozes with Walt's magic..
The movie that has that song, that will never leave your head..
Although not as good as the first movie, I really enjoyed it.
I loved this movie as a kid...and as an adult!.
Great Disney sequel to the first Disney movie on Davy Crockett.
I enjoyed the characters, particularly Mike Fink, who gave the film a lot of humor.
I particularly liked the scene when Mike Fink had to eat his hat after losing the keelboat race.
Of course, at the end, the King of the River and King of the Wild Frontier part as friends.
Excellent plot, good story, good action and a lot of good humor..
Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen are back as Davy Crockett and his sidekick in another film culled from Disney's TV series.
This time they encounter Mink Fink, King of the River captaining a boat on the Mississippi.
They agree to race him to New Orleans, and then they team up with him to defeat pirates masquerading as Native Americans.
This one is slightly superior to the original film mostly due to having a less episodic story..
A sequel on the same level of fun as its predecessor.
'Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier' may not be a masterpiece, and there are better Disney live-action films and Disney films overall.
It is a however impossible to dislike film and it was easy to see why anything to do with Davy Crockett was such a phenomenon in the 50s.The same goes for its sequel 'Davy Crockett and the River Pirates'.
'Davy Crockett and the River Pirates' is every bit as good, with two improvements over its predecessors, it is not quite as episodic (while still feeling like a film of two halves) and it flows a little.It is not perfect.
The dialogue is even sillier and more childish in places than in 'Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier', and a couple of the action sequences in the second half are still exaggerated and more cartoonish than epic.As hoped though, 'Davy Crockett and the River Pirates' has a lot to like and is very difficult to hate.
It is a good-looking film, with gorgeously epic scenery and evocative production design that looks like a lot of care and homework went into it, all handsomely filmed.
The music is rousing, especially the timeless theme song that is one of Disney's and childhood's best and most memorable theme songs.There is some endearingly-good natured dialogue, and as said the story is eventful and often exciting.
A lot happens, especially in the first half, and never does it lull.
The characters are a lot of fun, with a charismatic and likable hero in Davy Crockett, and direction is breezy and bright.Fess Parker is jovial, charismatic and immensely likable in the title role and Buddy Ebsen counteracts with him very nicely.
A splendidly hammy Jeff York stands out in support.Overall, a very enjoyable sequel with a huge amount of appeal.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Davy Crockett and the River Pirates.
Davy Crockett and the River Pirates starts off with the credits at the beginning of the movie, so you know you are in for an old fashioned adventure.Set in the 1800's, the dialog is based on the way words were spoken back then, so it might be a little hard for youngsters to maintain focused, I know it took me a little while to get used to the talk.
Other than that, this movie is a fast moving fun story.Davy sets out on a journey to sell some fur caps, and along the way comes into contact with pirates, Indians and many more fun situations.The viewer can tell many of the scenes have been shot in a studio with the background added in, especially water scenes, but this shouldn't hinder any person's watching of the movie..
Crockett and Fink were real men.
*Spoiler/plot- 1956, The story contains two major plots, both dealing with American river history.
Mr. Crockett meets and become friends with Mr. Fink on the Ohio & Mississippi Rivers after a challenge of a river race to New Orleans.
Then, both heroes team up to clean-up outlaw river pirates that are threatening the peace with the local river Indian tribes.*Special Stars- Fess Parker, Buddy Ebsen, Jeff York, Kenneth Tobey*Theme- Honesty will win out every time.*Based on- Crockett and Fink legendary tales of history*Trivia/location/goofs- Crockett and Fink were real men and historical folk heroes.
This is the second feature film released from Watt Disney Buena Vista Productions consisting of several Disneyland ABC TV show episode material.
The Mike Fink keel boat race was one TV episode and the river pirates were another TV episode.
The first Davey Crockett feature film was 'Davey Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier'.
Davey Crockett and the River Pirates were filmed on the actual locations of the Ohio River and other great American rivers.
The 'Davey Crockett' fan mania was huge in America due to the popularity of Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen with this TV show.
Disney went on to create more of these public fan 'mania' with Guy 'Zorro' Williams and many other folk heroes.
These actors were now for making personal appearances at Anahiem's Disneyland theme park and across the country.
Look for the typical Disney on screen non-violence in the fight scenes and the obvious moral to the actions of the series heroes at the episode's end scenes.*Emotion- Rather well made movie and thoroughly enjoyable especially for those who lived through this era of Disney TV history in the first ABC network series.
Full of fun and good memories for the 'Baby Boomer' crowd, hopefully new ones for the younger set. |
tt0107505 | Mandroid | In his hidden laboratory deep in Russia, Dr. Karl Zimmer (Symonds) has invented the Mandroid, a humanoid robot which follows the motions of a man in a special control suit. He has offered the invention to the United States, which has sent Agent Joe Smith and Dr. Wade from the CIA for inspection.
However Zimmer's partner Drago (Lowens) has different plans, and wants to sell Mandroid to the military. The night he tries to steal Mandroid, he becomes exposed to the highly toxic Superconn and is terribly disfigured. During the struggle Zimmer's assistant Ben Knight also becomes exposed however he begins to turn invisible.
Drago enslaves a homeless mute and partially fixes his face. But the mute has to make him a metal mask. Using the Mandroid, Drago kidnaps Smith. Drago demands that Zimmer give him the Superconn in exchange for Smith.
Zimmer, Zana and Wade retrieve the Superconn. Meanwhile Smith is revealed to be in cahoots with Drago. The chief of police arrives at the trade with a squad of police officers.
Through Mandroid, Drago reveals Smith's duplicity and fatally shoots Zimmer, then shoots Smith. As Zana mourns her father, the rest of them go after Drago and the Mandroid. Mandroid kills all of the police. Smith atones by killing the mute but dies from his injuries.
Wade destroys the Mandroid. Drago shoots Wades legs crippling him. Wade causes the building to collapse on him.
Wade and Zana start a relationship. Drago is revealed to be alive. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0290455 | Batman Returns | On a snowy Christmas night, Tucker and Esther Cobblepot throw their deformed infant child Oswald into Gotham River, fearing he would become a menace to society after attacking their pet cat. His basket floats to an abandoned zoo and is found by a flock of penguins who raise him as one of their own.
33 years later, during the lighting of Gotham City's Christmas tree, a villainous gang of carnival performers stage a riot. While billionaire Bruce Wayne, as Batman, subdues the criminals, corrupt businessman Max Shreck falls through a trapdoor and is brought to the underground lair of Cobblepot himself, who is now the nefarious kingpin known as The Penguin. A former sideshow freak, Cobblepot explains his desire to become a respected citizen of Gotham and blackmails Shreck into helping him.
Meanwhile, Shreck's secretary, Selina Kyle, inadvertently discovers her boss's plan to illegally monopolize Gotham's supply of electricity. To protect his secrets, Shreck pushes her out of his office window. Falling through several canopies, Kyle miraculously survives but lies unconscious in an alley. A group of cats swarm around her and she suddenly regains consciousness. Traumatized, Kyle develops dissociative identity disorder and, after having a mental breakdown and trashing her apartment, she fashions a black vinyl costume and whip, becoming the formidable Catwoman.
Shreck arranges for one of Cobblepot's men to kidnap the Mayor's infant son, allowing Cobblepot to "rescue" him. As a reward, Cobblepot is given access to the Gotham City Archives, where he learns his real name, and that he is the last surviving member of his family. Meanwhile, the Mayor, persuaded by Wayne, refuses to give Shreck a construction permit for his power plant. Cobblepot orders his gang to attack downtown Gotham, ruining the Mayor's reputation and giving Shreck the opportunity to propose Cobblepot as a replacement. Batman confronts Cobblepot, but Catwoman appears while firebombing Shreck's department store, and Cobblepot escapes. After a fight in which Batman knocks her off a building, Catwoman survives by landing in a truck full of kitty litter.
While Kyle enters a romantic relationship with Wayne, as Catwoman, she agrees to help Cobblepot with a plan to ruin Batman's reputation by framing him for the abduction of Gotham's "Ice Princess" beauty queen. While traversing the rooftops to find the Ice Princess, Penguin's goons disassemble the Batmobile and plant a device into the car that will allow Penguin to control it. Distracted by Catwoman, Batman is unable to stop Cobblepot from attacking the Princess using a swarm of captive bats. She falls to her death before Batman tries to save her, making everyone believe that Batman pushed her. When Catwoman rejects Cobblepot's amorous advances, he responds by attacking her with his motorized helicopter umbrella. As the umbrella takes her up into the sky, Catwoman narrowly cheats death again as she falls into a rooftop greenhouse. Fleeing from the police, Batman realizes that Cobblepot is remotely controlling the Batmobile, taking it on a rampage through Gotham. Batman disables the control device, but not before recording the Penguin's mocking insults about how gullible the people of Gotham are.
At a press conference for Cobblepot organized by Shreck, Batman broadcasts the recording, destroying Cobblepot's public image. Enraged, Cobblepot flees to the sewers and orders his gang to kidnap and drown all of the first born sons of Gotham's citizens. At a masquerade ball hosted by Shreck, Wayne and Kyle deduce each other's secret identities. Cobblepot suddenly invades the party, revealing his intention to drown the kidnapped children, including Shreck's son Chip, in sewage water, prompting Shreck to offer himself instead. Batman defeats the kidnappers, prompting Cobblepot to unleash an army of penguin soldiers to destroy Gotham with missiles. Piloting the Batboat through the sewers, Batman redirects the penguins to instead fire on Cobblepot's hideout. Cobblepot attacks Batman in a rage, but ends up falling through the ceiling of his lair and into the toxic water.
Catwoman ambushes Shreck in a vengeful attempt to kill him, but Batman stops her and unmasks himself, as does Catwoman when she rejects Wayne's attempts to reason with her. Shreck then shoots Wayne before shooting Kyle multiple times until he runs out of bullets, leaving her severely injured, but not mortally wounded. Putting a taser to his lips, Kyle kisses Shreck while grabbing hold of an exposed power cable, causing a fiery explosion that kills Shreck. Wayne, who survived, uncovers Shreck's corpse while digging through the rubble in an attempt to find Kyle. Cobblepot, mortally wounded from his fall, then arises and tries one last time to kill Wayne with his umbrella, but fails and succumbs to his injuries. Subsequently, his penguin family carry out a makeshift funeral that culminates with them pushing his corpse into the water.
Afterwards, as Alfred drives Wayne home, Wayne spots a shadow outside resembling Catwoman. He follows it and instead finds a stray black cat deciding to take it home. As he leaves, the Bat-Signal lights up in the night sky as Catwoman watches from afar. | good versus evil, insanity, revenge | train | wikipedia | Great Time Killer......
This action/beat-em-up Snes game is excellent as a time killer, if any of you out there still have a Super Nintendo, and a store that rents the games, look for it and pick up a copy.It's the best beat-em-up on Snes other than Double Dragon, and Final Fight..
a very good game based upon the movie.
Batman returns is a very awesome game for the super Nintendo.
Based upon the motion hit movie of the same title, you play as the ultimate dark knight batman.The game is basically a "left to right" walking/fighting game similar to "final fight"/"streets of rage"/"golden axe" etc.
You have your power ups and unlimited supply of bad guys to get through on each level as well as boss to take on at the end of the levels.The controls are very easy and will be good for the non hardcore gamer, the game itself has wonderful background scenery, some being usable for you to throw the enemy into and partially interact with, the graphics are very good as well as the music.Any game with batman/catwoman and the penguin in it cannot be bad.If u see it..buy it..
Great.
Batman Returns the game.
Is one of the best games based off a movie to date.
Great graphics for a SNES game.
It can get hard,but it's still a great time-killer.
Full of surprises.
This game is one of the best.
I can't get enough of SNES.
They will always be the best!.
Great fun game based on the movie!.
Movie based games get a bad rap but there are some that are really awesome and this is one of them.
I personally don't mind even a "bad" movie based title, its just fun to be able to play as one of your favorite superheroes and kick lots of bad guy arse.
but this is actually one of the exceptions where the game is very well done, we're talking a 20 year old game here!
Batman Returns is one of my favorite comic book films, in fact its in my top 3, and that's saying something since we are now living in a time where comic book movies are a dime a dozen, similar to how horror/slasher movies were in the 80's.
however the originals are still the best IMO.
however we are here to talk about the video game.Its pretty much your standard side scroller kick punch type of game, but its got some gorgeous scenery and really captures the style elements of the film, from the Christmas setting, Shrecks store signs everywhere, and even the very eerie opening of the movie is replicated here with snow falling, the music is ripped straight from Danny elf mans fantastic score, only "digitized" for the game.
the levels definitely get an A+ design wise because it truly captures the look and feel of the movie, its as if the movie were shrunk down into a video game.
the cut scenes are also pretty fantastic, with cutouts of the movie characters put into the game to tell the story the "old fashioned" way where you had to read it.
ah, I miss these kind of games, you had to use your head and read a bit.
character models are straight out of the movie, from Batman's new suit to the clowns and the skeleton motorcycle guys, its very faithful to the movie and is easily one of the best looking movie based games out there.
the gameplay is fun and easy to get hooked, punching and kicking at rapid speed.
cat woman and penguin are naturally tough to beat but the game looks and plays so great, it keeps you wanting to come back for more.overall this I a must if your a batman fan, a fan of the film, or just like well done superhero beatemup games.
I'm a fan of all 3.
I actually grew up with the sega genesis version, which was actually pretty good, but graphics wise the SNES version blows the sega version out of the water.
This was a multi platform game, so there were many wholly different versions of the game, the Sega CD Batman Returns game was more of a driving game, the Gensis version was more of a normal adventure game, and the SNES was a great side scroller beat'em up game.
all good in there own way, but SNES versions tops them all.
still great after all these years which is amazing considering the giant leap in graphics detail..
Batman Returns!.
Batman Returns is one of the one of the coolest video games!
The characters, the action, and the sure thrill of excitement makes this game a fun non-stop playing time!
Below is a brief look how I think the game is!
Game Play: The game play is very good.
There is really basic controls here and is easy to perform.
Novice gamers should have a good time here!
Graphics: The graphics are wonderful especially for the Super Nintendo The backgrounds are really beautiful!
Difficulty: The game is easy but as it goes on you find out that it will become more difficult!
Music: The music is great!
Just fantastic catchy tunes through out the game!
In My opinion its some of the best music ever in a video game!
Sound: The sound is great.
Nuff said!
Overall: I have always loved Batman Returns!
If you like excellent fighting and adventure games, and more then I strongly recommend you play this game!
To purchase this video game check out Amazon.com! |
tt0118859 | City of Industry | Retired thief, Roy Egan (Harvey Keitel), comes out of retirement to help his youngest brother, Lee (Timothy Hutton), with a jewelry heist in Palm Springs. Along for the job are hired muscle, Jorge Montana (Wade Dominguez), and wheelman, Skip Kovich (Stephen Dorff), who is running late. While they wait for Skip, the three men prepare for the heist by surveying the jewelry store they're planning to rob. Elsewhere, Skip is doing business with gunrunner, Odell Williams (Michael Jai White), who offers Skip his services in case he needs anything. Once Skip finally arrives to the rendezvous spot, a trailer park, he joins the crew and the heist goes down, the next day. Thanks to Jorge's scrambling of the police monitors and traffic signals, their getaway is successful.
At Skip's motel room, his bimbo girlfriend, Gena (Dana Barron), sparks a notion in his head about how much money he would be receiving from the heist—which doesn't look appealing. At the trailer park, as Lee and Jorge are having some beers and expressing satisfaction with how the heist went down, Skip guns both of them down. Roy, who was in the bathroom, smacks the door on Skip, sees the dead bodies, and makes a run for it. Skip blasts his way out of the trailer, but loses Roy. Roy hides inside a drainage pipe and Skip takes off with the money. When the coast is clear, Roy steals a car and heads to Los Angeles, where he rents a room and tries to gather himself together. The next day, Roy attempts to find Skip, hurting a few people along the way, but coming empty-handed. Roy stops at Jorge's house to inform his wife, Rachel (Famke Janssen), about her husband's death and if she knows Skip's whereabouts, but she angrily she kicks him out. Skip soon gets word that Roy is after him, so he makes a call to Odell and employs him and his crew to protect him, as he attempts to deal with a loan shark, Harvey (Elliott Gould), to whom he is already deep in debt. Harvey is also connected with the Chinese mob, and has eyes and ears all around town. Skip convinces Harvey to use his connections to track down Roy, in exchange for more money on top of what he already owes him. Roy is found by the mob, beaten, tied, and thrown in the back seat of a car. As the kidnappers drive, Roy frees himself and kills his captors, causing the car to flip over.
Rachel finds a bruised and bloody Roy lying on her yard. She cleans him up and attempts to take him to a hospital, but Roy refuses and offers her $5,000 to take care of him. Once Roy recovers, Rachel refuses the money he offered her, wanting $100,000 instead. Roy refuses at first, but when she gives him Jorge's address book full of contacts – including Skip – he accepts. Rachel takes Roy to a laundering setup belonging to the mob, which is holding Skip's money. Roy attacks the operator in charge, Uncle Luke (François Chau), and takes Skip's money, but unknowingly loses his motel key. Uncle Luke informs Skip that Roy took his money and that he's on his own to get it back, but also tells him of the key Roy left behind. Roy prepares for his confrontation with Skip and tells Rachel to pack her belongings. As he leaves, Rachel gives him a rosary for protection. Mobsters attempt to kill Roy in his motel cabin, but Roy takes them out by exploding a gas tank located outside the cabin.
Skip kidnaps Rachel and calls Roy, demanding the money from the heist back. He gives Roy a time and place to meet, a construction site. At the site, Skip finds that Odell had sent two of his guys after him for the money he owes them; they've also taken Gena hostage. Skip kills them both, as well as Gena. When Roy arrives, he gets into a gun battle with the mob, who are also after Skip. Roy takes them out, but is severely wounded. Skip tries to make off with the money, but Roy trips him, beats him to death with his bare hands, and rescues Rachel. Rachel speeds Roy to a hospital and rushes to find help. When she returns, both Roy and the car are gone, but he leaves her money in a duffel bag by the bushes. Rachel and her children bury Jorge and relocate to Port Arthur, Texas. One day, the postman delivers her a small package. She opens it and finds the rosary she gave Roy, assuring her that he's alive. | revenge, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | In this contemporary film noir, two brothers with the same alma mater-- Folsom Prison-- discover something about loyalty and what `honor among thieves' really means, in `City of Industry,' directed by John Irvin.
Lee Egan (Timothy Hutton) puts together a crew of four men, including his brother, Roy (Harvey Keitel), to take down a jewelry store in Palm Springs, California.
As is befitting the subject matter, the film is dark-- much of it takes place at night, or in rather seedy, industrial locales-- with a touch of artistic cinematography that gives a sense of urgency to the story.
As Rachel says to Roy at one point, `You guys are all alike--' As Roy, Keitel carries the film with the kind of credible performance we've come to expect from him.
A violent and stylish examination of the criminal element in our midst, `City of Industry' is a hard-edged film that presents the matter-of-fact way in which those who subscribe to a life of crime seemingly function within their own sect of society.
With solid production values and a top notch cast, and set against a sunny and seedy Los Angeles backdrop, this fast-paced story of desperate criminals driven by greed and revenge is the perfect vehicle for "Guy's Movie Night."
Harvey Keitel is at his best as Roy Egan, the hardened career criminal bent on avenging a double-cross by former partner-in-crime, Skip Kovich (played by Stephen Dorff, in his best performance ever).
As if this weren't enough, this movie is notable for providing the only film nude scenes of Lucy Liu (a brief role as Dorff's stripper ex-girlfriend), and Dana Barron (Audry Griswold in the original "Vacation").Despite its occasional plot holes, this film gets better with repeated viewings.
And for fans of what my Manly Man Movie Night associates have deemed "Keiteling" (the mandatory Harvey Keitel emotional and physical meltdown, e.g. the church scene in "Bad Lieutenant") it doesn't get any better than this.
Keitel runs, walks, staggers, stumbles, and crawls through "City of Industry" to settle a score with fellow thief Dorff in this surprisingly entertaining but gritty and violent action/drama from the same mold as "Reservoir Dogs".
He plays Roy Egan, a veteran con helping his kid brother, Lee (Timothy Hutton), and two other desperados, pull a big jewel job in Palm Springs.
The job goes well, but then one of the gang gets murderously greedy, and Roy goes into LA, after him and the loot.The other element which lifts the movie from competent to first rate are the downtown and industrial locations.
At the same time, writer Ken Solarz and director John Irvin make good use of LA's ethnic mix, with both Chinese and Black gangs playing a part as Roy hunts his man.
Hutton, Stephen Dorff, Wade Dominguez and Famke Janssen contribute solid performances, and Lucy Liu is also to be seen.
Sure, you can find some plots holes in this film big enough to drive a semi through, but that just keeps it from gathering awards, not from being worth a view.If you like revenge flicks, and noir, and lots of action, as well as a look at Lucy's Little Lius as she does a pole dance, then you might find this film interesting.What makes it most interesting, however, is the presence of Harvey Keitel.
harvey keitel first off - then i found a new femme fatale in famke janssen - then an incredible new villain in stephen dorff - and the list goes on, with an incredible film score and blend of unique artists, no superstars but viable musicians that make you want to hear more.
It has a perfect set-up for character establishment followed by a few surprises and then the chase is on between the young arrogant Skip,(Dorff), and the old but wiser Roy, (Keitel).
I think it's safe to say that this can best be described as a " standard urban revenge thriller It plays out very much like a heist movie where some naughty men carry out a robbery and then the naughtiest man in the pack decides he's going to keep the money for himself at the expense of his colleagues .
This alone makes the movie recommended Another recommendation is the performance by Harvey Keitel who is incapable of ever giving a bad performance and in this type of role as a mean bad mother who is out for revenge he's certainly in his element .
Director John Irvin gets the best out of Keitel and you really believe this guy is a killer , not something you can say about one of Kietel's peers in later films - Yes Mr DeNiro I mean you Despite a heart stopping sequence when it looks like the heist merchants are going to be caught when dozens of cop cars surround them there's one or two sequences by Irvin that don't really make sense .
Things like this and Elliot Gould's pointless cameo stop the movie being anything more than standard but if passes the time if you enjoy crime thrillers.
All the acting in this movie is great - the four male leads are well- cast and work well together, and Jorge's wife Rachel is sympathetic as a young mother who wants to do what's best for her kids.
An old thief named Roy Egan (Harvey Keitel) , is drawn into the final jewel heist to Russian Mafia when his youngest brother named Lee (Timothy Hutton) asks him for a last score before they get out of the game .
One of them decides he doesn't want to share the goods and betrays the group and happens murders and wreak havoc .The retired thief swears revenge on the lunatic who murdered his partners, while going on the run with the loot they stole.This modern adaptation of noir cinema contains thrills , intrigue, explosive scenes of action and over-riding feeling of heat .
Good performances from all-star cast as Harvey Keitel as an old pro robber who has vowed to avenge his brother , Stephen Dorff as a volatile , violent wheelman and Famke Janssen as a suffering wife .
'City of Industry' has a nice first half hour and a fine Harvey Keitel to keep the other minutes entertaining.
After a score he is betrayed by Skip (Stephen Dorff), who killed Roy's brother Lee (Timothy Hutton) and a fourth person who helped with the score named Jorge (Wade Dmoniguez).The first half hour I was talking about shows us some preparations for the score, the score itself and the betrayal.
I watched this film mainly to see Harvey Keitel's work: I was wholly unprepared for the slam-bang surprise after the heist.
City Of Industry is the bleak and noirish tale of a group of jewel thieves, who after pulling off a heist is betrayed and killed by the driver Skip(Dorff).
Harvey Keitel shines as Roy Egan, he's at his badass best here people and Stephen Dorff does fine as Skip.
This is pretty much a noir revenge story, with stone loner Roy Egan(the great Harvey Keitel) navigating the high and low of seedy LA, wending his way through dive bars, upscale LA law firms, and enduring beat downs from Asian and black gangs while pursuing THE BIG PAYBACK, son.
As JB, the godfather of soul might say, "His patience thin, he want revenge." Harvey reluctantly joins a heist crew led by little brother Hutton that will knock off high-end jewelry store connected to the Russian mob.
this was a fairly entertaining crime drama.it moved at a quick pace and it wasn't boring.i liked the fact that it didn't feel as depressing as many movies of the genre.it's still dark and gritty,just not oppressive.it pretty much follows the standard formula.betrayal,leading to revenge ending in bloodshed,usually death.it's all pretty predictable,and there a few illogical moments.still,it is entertaining for what it is.what elevates this material though, is Harvey Keitel,who makes just about any film he's in better than it otherwise might have been.Stephen Dorff,Timothy Hutton,Famke Janssen,Michael Jai White,and Wade Dominguez co star.and Lucy Liu also has a small role.recommended as long as you know what you're in for.it doesn't break any new ground,but it doesn't completely butcher the genre either.for me,City of Industry is a 6.5/10.
Oh good another heist gone wrong movie - and it stars Harvey Keitel!
A good crime tale, with superb acting from Janssen, Keitel, and Dorff.
Overall, the movie has a excellent story combined with the acting from Janssen, Keitel, and Dorff.
This movie was written for Harvey Keitel, it fits him like a glove; and Stephen Dorff playing the antagonist, it is a perfect fit as well!!!!
This film had a lot going for it - Timothy Hutton, Harvey Keitel and Stephen Dorff all did admirable jobs with what they were given.
Demented).But what this story loses with Dorf's unnecessary hamminess, it picks up in Harvey Keitel's exquisite performance as a professional jewel thief on his last job, who suddenly finds everything shot to hell due to the greedy Dorf character - including his brother.There are indeed problems with this movie, but the essential grittiness the script calls for remains, which thus leaves Keitel in his element, and he does fine .Oh, the film also has a naked Lucy Liu before she became famous, and besides being very hot, she does a fine job in a bit part as an abused former mistress of the Dorf-guy.
If I was you I would see the two of them because they are two good movies and will keep you happy to the end Harvey Keitel is a very good actor and he does not disappoint you in this movie ever.Stephen Dorfe plays a very good bad guy and Timothy Hutton is not bad either it is a good revenge movie and not a bad heist movie either, don't get it mixed up with Reservoir Dogs because it is a different type of movie all together except from there being a heist in it but it is more of a revenge movie..
In "City of Industry" everyone is trying so hard to look cool but it is not very believable at times.All in all this is still a reasonably good heist movie with lots of killings and revenge.
By the time I watched it, I think I knew it wasn't the most popular crime thriller ever made, and like probably many other viewers, I was disappointed, finding it to be a rather weak film of its genre.
His widow, Rachel, is eventually involved in Roy's mission after she learns what has happened to her husband.Harvey Keitel plays the starring role of Roy Egan, and does a decent job, but this may not be the case with the entire cast.
Despite these flaws, there's still at least some suspense, as well as poignant moments, and enough to keep me interested until the end, during my second viewing, that is.Now that I've seen "City of Industry" twice, I don't exactly think it's bad, as I definitely found more redeeming qualities the second time than I did the first (I'm not sure if I really found any the first time), and a major reason for this is that it just MIGHT be a better film to watch alone.
And, even when playing a bad guy, he always manages to show the human side of even the worst of types...Because, make no mistake, in this story he's a tough minded, no-nonsense killer, Roy Egan, out to settle a score the psychopathic wheel-man, after the diamond heist just completed, has killed Egan's brother, Lee (Timothy Hutton) and a buddy, Jorge (Wade Dominquez) and run off with the loot.
Hence, Roy sets out to find the wheel-man Skip (Stephen Dorff), kill him and recover that loot now converted to cash.Yes, this type of story has been done many times: Point Blank (1967), its remake Payback (1999) and many other similar films.
The real treat is the nude scene by Lucy Liu...Keitel plays the part of the wronged brother well enough, but the audience is expected to believe quite a bit of material that is tough to swallow..
I loved this movie i caught it on TV and wasn't expecting much it surprised me the twist at the beginning of the movie is very unexpected and shocking Keitel is good as the guy hungry for revenge but he's not the kind of actor who makes you feel sorry for me Famke Janssen compensated that by an amazing dramatic role too bad she had little to do in the first half of the movie but once the movie starts to focus on her it gets better and better!
Doroff is great as the villain , Lucy Liu is also in this in a very small but nude role!i look forward to seeing him in other films overall great movie a must see for all Famke Janssen fans!.
Making the dreaded mistake of taking out 2 of his fellow crew members, instead of 3, that being Keitel (the bashing job he does on Dorff, a bloody howl with cheer masterpiece) the rest of the film is a death dodging revenge tale, where this one kind of rises surprisingly above many others, I guess in the way it engages the viewer, as we wait for Harvey to get his guy.
I really liked the first thirty minutes of the film, where after, I was kind of thinking, or felt it was gonna lack, where as a viewer, I've seen a lot of these revenge pieces, where some moments can become long bores.
The movie has a cloudy and unsatisfying, ending, but what makes the film work are the five main players, where most of the film is left to Keitel to carry, as this great actor, does none other a fine job, carrying a lot of weight and fists of death.
Dorff, we do, and Keitel show us the best way, amongst some other blood spilled moments in the film.
Harvey Keitel comes to play, delivering a fully-formed and convincing portrait of a professional criminal who wants revenge--and the loot that's been stolen from him.Violent and cynical, City of Industry is everything a crime film should be: gut wrenching, powerful and intensely gripping.solid performances in Backbeat and Blood and Wine behind him, Dorff expands his range with a convincing portrayal of youthful amorality.
City of Industry is, of course dominated by Keitel, the god head of indie crime films.
Stephen Dorff is outstanding as Skip, charming yet ready to blow at any time, while Timothy Hutton is gripping as Lee. These characters drive this thriller, set in a gritty, ruthless Los Angeles.
I love the genre of noir, pulpy crime and a couple of heist films but City of Industry is just a bank job too far; a wise talking gangster too far and a story of pulp fiction too far.
Throw in some badly done gunfights and a weak romance sub-plot and you have a sort of fun at times gritty crime film but something forgettable in the long run.The biggest problem I had with City of Industry is its point of view approach.
The scene that suggests this is when he's standing at the trailer door when Skip (well played by Stephen Dorff) arrives because the camera cuts to his point of view; the point of view angle is very important as it puts the audience in the character's head, so the film has changed its mind again.
Egan floors a jerk of a bartender, he spends some time with the widow that is Rachel and he gets around stealing cars and interrogating people good fun, you think.But then the film steers itself off the thin track it was already on.
City of Industry is a decent effort at a crime movie, and perhaps one the better of a bad bunch of these types of films that seemed to be on a production line since Pulp Fiction came out.
They get Harvey Keitel's character, Roy Egan who is the brother of one of the two, and the "wildcard" character, Skip.
Thief Harvey Keitel comes to Southern California to join his younger brother, Timothy Hutton, and a nice Latino (Wade Dominguez) and a driver (Stephen Dorff), to pull off a diamond heist at one of those high-end stores that line the main drag in Palm Springs.
At the end, having dispatched Dorff, the wounded and bleeding Keitel sees to it that Dominguez' widow (Famke Janssen) gets most of the money from the job.
(Famke Janssen)'s performance and beauty (her hair was exceptional !), (Harvey Keitel)'s silent mountainous anger, and (Stephen Dorff)'s attitude; they did the job finely.
Like "52...", there are several splendid performances, not the least being that of Harvey Keitel, a vengeance-seeking career crim, and Stephen Dorff, an incredibly savage villain.
None of the main characters are actually good people and so the audience find themselves taking sides with an anti-hero who, as well as being a brutal thug and killer, does at least have some sort of code by which he operates.Retired thief Roy Egan (Harvey Keitel) is persuaded by his younger brother Lee (Timothy Hutton) to join him for one last job which should pay off handsomely for both of them.
Directed with a lot of finesse by John Irvin and starring Harvey Keitel, CITY OF INDUSTRY is a fine crime thriller.
Keitel, who could easily sleepwalk through this type of film, gives a very good performance (he takes a real beating...several times) and has a lot of chemistry with Famke Janssen (as the widow of one of his cronies).
The night photography is at times too dark, there is surely one too many name-less characters chasing Keitel, and Dorff is not really threatening enough to be convincing.
The second that happened, I pretty much checked out, and just waited the rest of the movie out.And, of course, it's a "final heist" for Keitel's character.
So, that naturally means that everything's going to go wrong, guaranteed!The film is entirely on the shoulders of Harvey Keitel's performance. |
tt1998355 | The Voorman Problem | Dr. Williams (played by Martin Freeman) is hired by Governor Bentley (Simon Griffiths) to work as a prison psychiatrist after "The War in the East" has produced a doctor shortage. Williams is informed about the Voorman problem; a prisoner named Voorman (Tom Hollander) is convinced that he is a god and has convinced the rest of the prisoners who spend all day chanting in worship. It is unclear what Voorman's crime is due to a computer malfunction.
Williams interviews a straitjacketed Voorman in a locked room in the prison. Voorman calmly explains that he is a god, and that he created the world exactly nine days ago. When the Doctor objects, Voorman suggests a test of his powers. He will eliminate Belgium as proof he is a god.
At home a frustrated Wiliams tells his wife about the case. He laughingly brings the claim that Voorman will eliminate Belgium. His wife is confused, having no idea what Belgium is. Williams attempts to show her Belgium in an atlas but finds it is gone and replaced with a body of water called "Walloon Lagoon."
Back at the prison, Williams is baffled by the lack of any evidence of Belgium, but refuses to believe in Voorman's divinity. Voorman expresses his exhaustion with being a god and suggests the two switch places. In a flash the two have switched places, Voorman dressed as the well dressed doctor, and Williams disheveled and in a straitjacket. Williams calls for the guards and Voorman starts to leave stating that it is no use. As he leaves, Voorman advises Williams to "keep an eye on North Korea."
Voorman leaves the room as the sounds of the prisoners chanting get louder. | insanity, comedy | train | wikipedia | We need to talk about Voorman. While Mark Gill's "The Voorman Problem" is intended to be darkly comedic, I found the short mostly disturbing and often offputting. That's definitely not a bad thing, but the comedic element, in my opinion, is something I found extremely subtle rather than prominent, as many viewers of the short had claimed. The film is a neatly and intriguingly shot short following a psychiatrist named Doctor Williams (Martin Freeman) who is called into a mental hospital for urgent evaluation of a patient named Voorman (Tom Hollander), who has convinced practically every other patient in the facility that he is indeed God. When Williams visits Voorman, he takes note of his slow, confident speech and his wily personality, as Voorman claims to have created the world in nine days. When Williams asks how that is possible, seeing as he himself is thirty-five-years-old and has clear and vivid memories of his childhood, Voorman replies in an assured manner that he himself created those memories, ideas, Williams as a person, and even Williams' skepticism of his actual powers. The short is beautifully shot, with wide, spacious shots depicting both men in conversation and even a terrific overhead shot that shows the contents of a desk early in the film. With vague but present vibes of the underrated science-fiction film K-PAX and a solid couple twist towards the end, "The Voorman Problem" finds ways to intrigue the same way it finds ways to mystify.. For once, a doctor who doesn't think he's a god!. Today I went to a special showing of the Oscar-nominated Live Action films. This was a very unusual year because I don't see any clear winner nor did I see any film I disliked. Oddly, however, I didn't see any I loved either and picking the winner is amazingly difficult.Of all the nominees, "The Voorman Problem" and "Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?" are by far the slightest and least likely to win the Oscar. HOWEVER, both films are very good and I am thrilled they included them. That's because the other three are all super-depressing (one is about child soldiers/rape and murder, another is about domestic violence and the other is about a child who is dying). I and the rest of the audience really NEEDED a film like "Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?" as we might have otherwise just stuck our heads in the oven when we got home! Now I am not being critical of these depressing films--they deserved the nominations. It was just nice to see one a little lighter and more fanciful like "The Voorman Problem".The film stars Martin Freeman--a very, very familiar face these days. He was a Hobbit in the recent Peter Jackson films and also had very memorable appearances in "Love Actually" (very memorable in this case), "Hot Fuzz" and "Sean of the Dead" (among others).Freeman plays a psychiatrist, Dr. Williams. Williams has been called to the local prison because one of the inmates believes he's a god--and all the prisoners are now sharing this belief! They worship the man and the prison routine is in shambles. So, not surprisingly, the prison wants to ship this guy off to the looney bin. What happens next? I won't tell you....you've GOT to see it for yourself. Funny, dark and very clever. It probably won't win the Oscar but I a was sure thrilled to see it.. Well-written. "The Voorman Problem" is an Academy Award nominated short film from 4 years ago. I remember vaguely that it was the suspected winner in the live action short film category, but it lost to the more emotionally involving "Helium". The main character is played by Martin Freeman who you may know from "Sherlock" or the "Hobbit" trilogy. The co-lead is played by Tom Hollander. People who watched the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise may know him. All in all, it's a decent short film in my opinion. Fairly entertaining 12 minutes and the BAFTA agreed. The script is clearly the best component in here for me. The Belgium reference was pure comedy gold and the final twist at the end with Freeman's character actually screaming that one out was hilarious as well. The other aspects weren't that outstanding, so as a whole I am okay with this getting an Oscar nomination without winning it. Good watch and I recommend it. Makes me curious about the next projects by Baldwin Li and Mark Gill. |
tt0101130 | Land of the Lost | Motivated by the success in syndication of the cult 1974 series Land of the Lost, Sid and Marty Krofft created a new version of it. The new Land of the Lost had advanced special effects and a lighter, less survivalist-oriented tone. Frequent writers Len Janson and Chuck Menville had previously crafted numerous scripts for assorted Filmation series, while producer Jerry Golod had earlier collaborated with George A. Romero on Tales from the Darkside.
The series ran for 26 episodes spread over two seasons, with each season consisting of thirteen episodes. It featured the Porter family—father Tom, son Kevin and daughter Annie—trapped in a parallel universe after their Jeep Cherokee fell through a time portal while exploring the back country. They soon meet another human, a beautiful "jungle girl" named Christa who came from 1960s San Francisco. Christa became trapped in the Land of the Lost when she was very young and grew up alone. (An earlier concept would have featured an adult Holly Marshall as the "mystery girl" along with Cha-Ka but due to casting the characters were revisualized as Christa and Stink).
The Porters live in a large "treehouse" (although it is actually built between a series of large logs and not rooted trees) that the family built after they realized their tents provided little safety from dangerous predators. After their first encounter with Scarface, they devised an alarm system by stringing up a series of empty tin cans surrounding the treehouse perimeter that would shake and make noise if Scarface were to show up again.
Intelligent natives of the Land of the Lost include chimpanzee-like Pakuni and the lizard-like Sleestaks, and there are many species of dinosaurs filling the jungle. A Paku named Stink and a baby dinosaur named Tasha were befriended by the Porters. Acting as antagonists were a trio of exiled Sleestak criminals named Shung, Keeg and Nim. Shung is their leader and possesses a powerful crystal sword. Another major obstacle faced by the Porters was a one-eyed Tyrannosaurus named Scarface, who lived near the area where the family made their home and frequently chased after them in an attempt to eat them.
A sorceress named Keela with genuine magical powers was introduced in the second season and appeared in two episodes. Another character added in the second season was Namaki, a strange fish-like humanoid who befriended Christa when she was just a little girl. Twelve episodes of Season 1 were released onto videocassette at two episodes per video. As of 2016 the series has yet to be released on DVD or Blu-ray. | alternate reality | train | wikipedia | people live with dinosaurs.
The special effects are amazing.
So amazing, in fact the same scenes must be reused over and over - and it never gets old!
The episode with the dinosaurs was just great.
Those Sleestaks always gave me nightmares when I was little; creepy!
Ed Gale does such a great job in this show.
15 years later and I still sing the theme song in the shower every morning!!
"Doncha turn your back -- you'll become a snack!" I have all the action figures, and they reside on my mantle.
As I grow older and my hairline recedes, I look more and more like Stink every day.
LOTL will hold a special place in my heart 4eva.
In conclusion if there's anything to be learned from LOTL it is to always wear your seat belt and steer clear of potholes..
This show totally falls short of the Original..
The new Land Of The Lost was a total disappointment to me.
I thoroughly loved the original - it had great dinosaurs for the time, and the new one had dinosaurs that weren't good for this time.
The family in the original was very real - the kids fought, but their love for each other shone through.
The original sleestaks were far scarier than the newer ones, and the backgrounds, the special effects, were so cool on the original.
The story and effects on the new Land Of The Lost were so crazy - a jeep, a bush bunny named Christa, and an extremely unreal looking baby dinosaur.
All that said, I hope that the new one will somehow be as much of an enjoyment, a life-changing, never-to-be-forgotten experience as the original was for this LOTL-er when she was seven years old..
Not as bad as I expected.
As a major fan of the original Land of the Lost, I was excited to hear there would be a remake.
I was unsure whether it would be a retelling of the original story, or something new.
I was disappointed by it initially, but it grew on me over time.
It would have benefited by having better writing!
Having missed the first episode, I was confused by Christa at first.
I thought maybe she was supposed to be Holly, years later!
Even though it turned out to be an "alternate universe", and not the original Land, I still enjoyed it.
Christa was great, with her pet triceratops.
The Sleestak were OK, but I felt like they should have been called something else - they were more like orcs than Sleestak.
The one part that bothered me the most was that the family never ran out of batteries or fuel!
Maybe it was some mysterious unknown quality of the Land...
batteries never die!.
It was a great show in my opinion..
Until Nick at Night did a special where they ran episodes of Lidsville, H.R Pufnstuff, Bugaloos, Electra Woman and Dyna Girl, and a bunch of other wierded out 70's stuff...(it was the 90's at the time and the 70's were the major trend, much like the 80's are experiencing a comeback now, THANK GOD!!) ...I had no friggen clue that the Land Of The Lost I used to watch durring saturday mornings on ABC in the early 90's was not an orriginal show (but hey nothing is ever orriginal anymore is it?) I loved the show to death for its strange "Star Trek meets the prehistoric age" atmosphere.
Albeit the characters were meager and there were some nitpicks but the writers usually don't factor in the concept of kids nitpicking Sat Am TV or their parents saying--"Hey!
I remember a similar show back when I was little!"
Because of course those kids will laugh at you and look at you like you're insane so everything is fine.
I myself was born in 1981 and my idea of good TV is Knight Rider.But durring the 90's there was this resurgence of 70's stuff and so alotta music and television programs got re-made.
Land Of The Lost was about a guy and his kids who's jeep got lost in some cave that transported them into the era of the dinosaurs.
A scary and strange enviroment for the son and daughter as well as the dad.Dino's are just about everywhere, and the ancient technological race called "Sleestaks" are always trying to hurt the humans.
The fact that they and the cave girl speak english without being taught doesn't really bother me, its a kids show and I was young when I watched it.
Kids generally don't nitpick inconsistencies in their saturday morning tv shows.I always loved the baby dinosaur and the cave girl, they were the most memorable characters in the show for me.
One of my fave episodes of the show is when the humans think they have gone home but things don't seem quite right in their old house.
Everything is really a fake projection and a T Rex comes storming thru the hologram town.
Awesome and ironic.
Great looking special effects.
And what about the themesong?
Gotta find a place to download that.After seeing the orriginal 70's incarnation of "Land Of The Lost" on Nick at Night I learned that0 - Special effects in the 70's were crude and lame.0 - There was too much obsession over censorship and cleanliness then.0 - I appreciated and miss >MY< 'Land Of The Lost' that much more.And the most important one of all.0 - Its okay for TV producers to refurbish a show from a couple decades back so long as the kids watching it don't have a clue that its not an orriginal concept.I know the feeling of betrayal when your fave series gets remade and all the brats watching the new stuff think you're stupid when you try to tell them about the orriginal.
When Knight Rider gets remade I'm going to complain to those kids at the theatre about the orriginal and..
they're going to look at me like I'm insane.Its conspiracy I tell ya!
-BlazeFoxKitsune=^.^=.
An adventurous dino TV show!.
Nickelodeon was one of my go-to channels for cartoons as a kid, but there were a small handful of live action shows I've watched, including this one.
It's a show about the Porter family who, on the road to vacation, gets sucked into another dimensional portal and into the land of the dinosaurs.
Appearing stuck in that time zone, they built a house there and gets themselves acquainted with the locals - all the while dodging dinosaur attacks.Though I don't remember much from it, I did tune in to several episodes and remember for it being adventurous and just interesting to watch - especially since I am a big fan of dinosaurs.The acting was pretty good, setting was fresh, and you get that all-around innocent feeling in this family series.
The opening scene and the theme song will instantly remind you of 80, 90s fare, but it's still great television - certainly better than what you see on TV well in the 2010s.Grade A-.
What a letdown!.
I was 3 years old when the original show came out.
It was one of my favorite Saturday morning shows.
I still enjoyed it when they put it in reruns on one of the local stations, several years later, even though by then I could tell how hokey some of the special effects were (it was a low-budget show, duh!).
When the new show came out, I was sorely disappointed.
The producers had "modernized" it too much.
I mean, c'mon!
In the original series, the Marshall family got by on the little bit of gear they had when they were whisked away into the "Land of the Lost".
The producers had gone to the trouble of creating a "vocabulary" of 200 words or so for the Pakuni (the little hairy caveman guys), and that added to the story.
Every story was an adventure.
The new show, they got an SUV, for crying out loud, and the Pakuni spoke (broken) English!
I only hope that, when the movie comes out, they do it right...and stick to the original story!.
Good show.
I used to watch this show when I was growing up.
I remember it vaguely, though.
If you ask me, it was a good show.
I also remember the opening sequence and theme song vaguely, too.
In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast.
Also, the writing was very strong.
The performances were top-grade, too.
I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode.
Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I'm not sure if I've seen every episode.
Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good..
Sub Par Remake.
I have to agree with Wakener below with his comments on this sub par remake of the original show.I wonder if the people who decided to make this show were actually fans of the original or if they were only taking advantage of the current dinosaur craze of the early 1990's.I just hope that the people who are making the theatrical movie version of this show (starring Will Ferrell), which is supposed to stand true to the original series, won't louse it up.I bet if Steven Spielberg or Tim Burton got their hands on a theatrical release of the original television show, a descent movie could be made..
Land of the Lost Remake Rocks.
I never saw the original.
I read up on it and looked into it some more on the internet, and I'm going to have to say the remake definitely gives it justice.
I don't think it really matters if the show wasn't as scientifically proved or logical as the old one from the 70's.
The concept is fine and was made for a younger audience.
It is not something that should be judged by validity of the story line much as the entertainment, colorful world, and characters it brought with it.
The show totally rules, but some of the cast was cheesy (but don't we all like that sometimes).
There was the mini dinosaur Tasha and the sasquatch guy Stink!
The villains were amusing and so was the irony that the (motherless) family that get lost happens to meet a perfect replacement with a woman who had been lost in the world since she was a child!
You totally want them to hook up in the show..
haha.
I watched it when I was younger..
I like the nostalgic TV shows.
I am an 80's TV fan, and i think 80's TV held strong, with influence well throughout the 90's.
I can't say I would ever expect a show like this to air again with the shows on TV today..
Fun kids show from the 90's, my childhood!.
funny thing is, I never forgot about this show, and im 26 now.
the theme song would get stuck in my head randomly.
however I happen to be in the library recently that has a lot of older videos, and I couldn't believe I see a videotape of this show that had 2 episodes on it.
needless to say, I grabbed it and watched it when I came home.
holy moly, that intro REALLY brought back waves of memories that I had almost forgotten.
that theme song still catchy as ever!
of course with my adult eyes I can see just how cheesy the show is, especially the acting, like that teen kevin with is LA 'tude but it was still great to see this awesome hilarious kids show as an adult and it sure was nostalgic to see it!
now I've seen tim bottoms in many different things but I always knew him first as the father from land of the lost.I've never seen or heard of a 70's version of this show as I was a 90's kid so I only know this version.
I looked up the 70's version out of curiosity and jeeeeez I didn't think it could be sillier then the 90's version but my my, it is much worse.
plus the 90's version had Christa, and that automatically raises it for having a hot babe.all in all, I have such fond memories of watching this show with these characters, this was in a time when kids shows were allowed to be a little silly and cheesy, usually had some kind of moral or message and weren't trying to be all super sassy and attitude problems like they do today.
this was in the golden age of nickelodeon, and sadly you wont see something this silly and charming today because everything sucks today, and that's not just my opinion..
I enjoyed it..
When I was around 5 years old this new Land of The Lost came out.
Like any 5 year old I had no idea it was a remake.
I'm 16 now and I still have a vague recalection of these "remake" episodes.
If you'd ask me I loved it.
Although I havn't seen the older ones, if they're better than these I need to try to find one and watch it..
ok everyone needs to get their facts straight....
Ok first of all, their mother died before they left for vacation(before they visited the "lost world").
Secondly, it was cancer that killed her not a T-Rex; therefore, they were not trying to get back to their mother.
"Living in the Land of the Lost" or just "Land of the Lost" was a brilliant show that had limitless possibilities.
This show had a chance to become one of the longest running series on television but it was denied the opportunity! |
tt1753496 | Biohazard: Damnation | Underneath Raccoon City exists a genetic research facility called the Hive, owned by the Umbrella Corporation. A thief steals the genetically engineered T-virus and contaminates the Hive with it. In response, the facility's artificial intelligence, the Red Queen, seals the Hive and kills everyone inside.
Alice awakens naked in the bathroom of a deserted mansion with amnesia. She dresses, checks the mansion, and is subdued by an unknown person. A group of Sanitation Team commandos led by James Shade breaks into the mansion and arrests Matt Addison, who just transferred as a cop in Raccoon P.D. The group travels to the underground train under the mansion that leads to the Hive, where they find Spence. The commandos explain that everyone in the group except Matt is an employee of the Umbrella Corporation, and Alice and her partner Spence are security guards for a Hive entrance under the disguise of a couple living in the mansion. Five hours prior, the Red Queen had shut down the entire facility and released a gas which killed everyone inside, flooded the labs, and destroyed the elevators, also causing Spence and Alice's amnesia.
At the Queen's chamber, a laser defense system kills Shade and three more commandos. Despite the Red Queen's urgent pleas for the group to leave, Kaplan disables the Red Queen systems, and the power fails, opening all of the doors in the Hive. This releases the zombified staff and containment units containing Lickers. When everyone regroups, they are ambushed by a horde of zombies and a gunfight ensues. J.D. perishes as the group becomes overwhelmed. A bitten Rain retreats with Kaplan and Spence; Matt becomes separated from Alice, who starts regaining her memories.
Matt looks for information about his sister Lisa and finds her zombified. Alice saves him, and Matt explains he and Lisa were environmental activists, and Lisa infiltrated Umbrella to smuggle out the evidence of illegal experiments. Alice remembers she was Lisa's contact in the Hive but does not tell Matt. The survivors reunite at the Queen's chamber, and the commandos explain they have one hour before the Hive traps them inside automatically. Alice and Kaplan activate the Red Queen to find an exit. To force her cooperation, they rig a remote shutdown. As they escape through maintenance tunnels, zombies ambush them, and a reanimated J.D. bites Rain before getting killed. The group reaches safety, but Kaplan is bitten and separated.
Alice remembers that an anti-virus is in the lab, but they find it missing. Spence remembers he stole and released the virus. He hid the T-virus and anti-virus on the train. Spence is bitten by a zombie, which he kills before trapping the survivors in the lab. He retrieves the anti-virus, but is ambushed and killed by a Licker. The Red Queen offers to spare Alice and Matt if they kill Rain, whose health is fading and who has been infected too long for the anti-virus to work reliably. As the Licker attempts to reach them, a power outage occurs. The lab door opens to reveal Kaplan forced the Red Queen to open the door. The group heads to the train, where Alice retrieves the T-virus and kills a reanimated Spence before escaping with the others.
On the train, they inject Rain and Kaplan with the anti-virus. However, the Licker is hiding on the train and attacks them, clawing Matt and killing Kaplan. In the ensuing battle, Alice subdues the Licker before Matt is attacked by a now-zombified Rain. He shoots Rain dead, causing her head to hit a trapdoor button, opening it and dropping the Licker under the train which ultimately kills it for good. At the mansion, Matt's wound begins mutating. Before Alice can give him the anti-virus, the mansion doors burst open and a group of Umbrella scientists seizes them. They subdue Alice and take Matt away, revealing he is to be put into the Nemesis Program.
Some time later, Alice awakens at the Raccoon City Hospital strapped to an examination table, with no memory of what happened since her capture. After escaping, she goes outside to find Raccoon City abandoned and ruined. Alice arms herself with a shotgun from an abandoned police car as the camera pans out. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3169706 | Pride | It is 1974 and life is not easy for a black male to find employment, even college-educated Jim Ellis (Terrence Howard). While struggling to find anything better, Jim, a former competitive swimmer, is working on the decrepit Marcus Foster Recreation Center operated by the Philadelphia Department of Recreation. The center includes a dilapidated swimming pool, which Ellis rehabilitates. Ellis's presence and activities cause friction with a bitter, overprotective janitor named Elston (Bernie Mac). One day, Jim invites a group of black teens who have just been thrown off the basketball court in the Center's yard in for a swim. Andre (Kevin Phillips), Hakim (Nate Parker), Reggie (Evan Ross), Puddin’ Head (Brandon Fobbs), and Walt (Alphonso McAuley) prove to be fairly capable swimmers and with a few pointers, could become great swimmers. With some help from Elston, Jim decides to try to save the swimming pool by starting the city's first all African-American swim team, the P.D.R. team (Pride, Determination, Resilience). When the team acquires Willie (Regine Nehy), a female swimmer more talented than any of the boys, the prospects of competing against much more experienced white teams begin to improve. Jim also develops a romantic interest in a beautiful city councilor (Kimberly Elise), Hakim's sister and guardian. Throughout their struggles in and out of the swimming pool, Jim and Elston encourage and mentor the kids, helping them not only to become successful at swimming but also in their struggles against prejudice, crime, and poverty. | queer | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0361467 | Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen | Mary Elizabeth "Lola" Steppe (Lindsay Lohan) is a 15-year-old girl who grew up in New York City and wants desperately to be a famous Broadway actress. Lola narrates the story. Much to her annoyance, she moves with her family to the suburbs of Dellwood, New Jersey, but she confidently tells the audience, "A legend is about to be born. That legend would be me."
At school, Lola makes friends with an unpopular girl, Ella Gerard (Alison Pill), who shares her love for the rock band Sidarthur. Lola idolizes the band's lead singer Stu Wolff (Adam Garcia). She also meets Sam (Eli Marienthal), a cute boy who takes a liking to her, and makes enemies with Carla Santini (Megan Fox), the most popular girl in school.
When Lola auditions for the school play, a modernized musical version of Pygmalion called "Eliza Rocks", she is chosen over Carla to play Eliza, and Carla promises to make her life miserable. Lola also beats Carla on a dancing video game at an arcade, where Carla reveals that she has tickets to the farewell concert of Sidarthur, who recently decided to break up. Afraid of being one-upped by Carla, Lola falsely claims that Ella and she have tickets, too. She loses her chance to buy tickets and new clothes when her mother takes away her allowance, and the concert is sold out by the time she persuades Ella to pay for the tickets. Lola explains that they can buy tickets from a scalper, though, and she gets Sam to sneak Eliza's dress out of the costume room for her to wear at the concert.
On the night of the concert, Lola and Ella take a train to New York City, but Lola loses the money for the tickets, and her plan to sneak into the concert does not work. Lola and Ella finally give up and walk through the city to Stu's after-show party. When they get there, Stu stumbles drunkenly out of the building and passes out in an alley. The two girls take him to a diner to sober him up, but he gets in trouble, and they end up at a police station, where Lola gives her father's New York City address.
At this point, Lola's dishonesty becomes a problem. When she met Ella, she tried to impress her by telling her a dramatic story about her father dying years earlier. Ella highly values honesty, so she becomes infuriated when she discovers that Lola's story was a lie. After Lola's father arrives, and they explain what happened, Stu gratefully takes them all back to the party, where Ella forgives Lola for lying, and the two girls see Carla, who sees them, as well, and looks upset. Lola talks with Stu about his work, but is disappointed to discover that he is a drunk.
Back at school, Carla humiliates Lola by denying that she saw Lola or Ella at the party and calling Lola a liar. None of the other students believes Lola's story about being arrested with Stu and leaving her necklace at his house.
Afterward, Lola goes home, depressed, and refuses to perform in the play, but she is spurred on by Ella's encouragement and arrives backstage just in time to prevent Carla from taking over her part. As she is about to go on stage, her mother wishes her good luck and finally calls her by her nickname, "Lola". The modernist interpretation of Pygmalion (Eliza Rocks) ensues. After a great performance that brings a standing ovation, the cast goes to an after-party at Carla's house, where Stu arrives to see Lola. Carla tries to save herself from humiliation by saying he is there to see her, but is proved wrong when Stu gives Lola her necklace in front of everyone. As Carla's lies become apparent, she backs away from the crowd on the verge of tears and falls into a fountain, greeted by everyone's laughter. In a conciliatory gesture, Lola helps her up, and Carla accepts defeat. After dancing with Stu, Lola dances with Sam, and they eventually share a kiss. | dramatic, comedy | train | wikipedia | 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' comes as a disappointment from Lindsay Lohan after the very funny 'Freaky Friday' and 'Mean Girls'.
Other parts involve a school play where Lola is cast for the leading role and Carla only for a small supporting role.I am not sure why this film was made, but I guess to show Lohan dancing, singing, being arrogant, learning her lesson, have a happy ending, do some more dancing and some more singing.
Not for male adults, not for teenage girls.I like Lindsay Lohan, a lot actually, therefore I was able to finish this film.
I won't say much as to not ruin the movie for those who have not seen it but i will give my opinion on the mood of the film and such.If you want to see this, don't expect a deep and meaningful (or realistic) outlook on highschool life because it is your everyday teen/highschool comedy with the over-used storyline of new girl vs popular girl then new girl gets the guy and brings popular girl down.
Lindsay Lohan plays Lola, a hip Greenwich Village teenager who moves to a new school in a Jersey suburb, where she faces Carla Santini, a girl claiming to be the most popular girl at her school, a title that Lola must have no matter what.
After trying to nab the lead role in the school play, the competition between the two girls culminates at a sold-out concert by Lola's favorite band that Carla conveniently has tickets to see.The previews made the film seem boring and for the most part it is.
"Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" is the story of Lola Cep, played by Lindsey Lohan, trying to fit into a new town and school after moving from New York.
It is all part of her attempt to be more interesting.I really thought the movie could have been better.Lohan does a great job playing the "drama queen" and for the most part her character is believable.Her new friend Ella, played by Alison Pill, is the nice rich girl while Carla, played by Megan Fox, is the nasty bitch rich girl and Lola's main nemesis.I was in drama club in high school and those scenes did seem believable as the group is preparing for the school musical.
Carol Kane's Miss Baggoli was a bit too loopy but my drama directors could be strange.The problem was the story.The main theme of the movie, as I saw it, was Lola building this fantasy world for her life, having it crash down as lie built upon lie does eventually, then comes redemption and she becomes a better person for it in the end.
The performances are almost uniformly terrible (Lohan should have played the rich snob, for starters), and the film's rock-musical adaptation of PYGMALION (yes, you read that correctly) is one of the more painful things I've ever had to sit through.
It gives me new appreciation for THE LIZZIE MCGUIRE MOVIE, which is a bad film, but whose star now looks like a beacon of modesty and talent compared to Lohan in this make-me-a-star-now vehicle.
Critics trashed the movie; but, then again, critics are probably mostly 40-year-old men, and I can see how people like that would not appreciate this film.Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, all together, was a well-put film that truly entertained me (and just about everyone else in the theatre).
I would recommend this film to Lindsey Lohan fan's who like her music more than her acting and 10 year old girls..
Every detail of the movie is 'flufftacular,' from the casting (notables: the 'dork' sidekick best friend, the cutie-patootie guy friend/crush, the rich-bitch popular girl, the wacky drama teacher) to the costumes (the high school girl's version of Sarah Jessica Parker's if-only-I-had-the-guts-to-wear-that wardrobe) to the soundtrack (Atomic Kitten, Simple Plan, Lillix, Wakefield, and tracks by Lohan herself that I guarantee you'll be humming).
The familiar dilemma of juggling one's dreams with the realities of school, family and self-esteem is there - but it is first & foremost about friendship, portrayed in a wonderful, natural way by Alison Pill (Ella) and Lindsay Lohan (Lola/Marie).
I couldn't believe how bad Lindsay Lohan was in this after she made some good efforts in movies such as "The Parent Trap", "Freaky Friday", and my current favorite, "Mean Girls".
"Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" is one of her lamer efforts, and so far it's the worst movie I've seen this year.While watching this garbage, I asked myself.
I've recommended many movies that might not appeal to men like A Little Princess and Mean Girls but 'Drama Queen' is NOT for us.
She's crazy, I guess it was because of all the bright colors and costumes worn by Lindsay Lohan and maybe she liked the musical finale as well, which was the worst part of the movie, in my opinion.
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen looks like a very over-produced film (every scene features loud bright colours, neon lights, heavy costume design..etc)and the scene where Lola and Carla (Megan Fox) are sitting in the auditorium features heavy blurring, thereby making the scene a tad jarring.
I did think that Lohan, Garcia and Kane gave solid performances even if the latter two didn't get as much screen time.The film is far from the worst ever made, but it is definitely one of Lohan's weaker films, especially compared to the likes of "Freaky Friday" and "Mean girls".
When the teenager Mary Elizabeth Cep (Lindsay Lohan), a.k.a. Lola, moves with her mother and two younger twin sisters from New York to the suburb of Dellwood, New Jersey, she has the feeling that her cultural and entertaining world ended.
However, the girls get into trouble while helping the lead singer and Lola's idol Stu Wolf (Adam Garcia), changing their lives forever."Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" is a delightful entertaining, with one of those predictable but sweet stories with a message in the end, as usual in Walt Disney movies.
I personally like the gorgeous Lindsay Lohan, who is a starlet in this movie, acting, singing and dancing in a sweet character.
I didn't think it was very cute, and it makes all the pretty girls at school out to be b*itches, and that includes Lohan's character, Lola.
Sam deserves someone better, not a lying selfish, not to mention weird, bitch who thinks that everyone's a retard so getting what she wants wont be difficult!Then I smirked as we got near the end when you know that Disney was just putting in stuff to cover up this evil character
like telling a rock star he's drunk and get him on rehab the next day?
Is "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" a good vehicle for her?Ah well, four out of five isn't a bad average.You can't deny that this lives up to its title; the heroine, uprooted from her beloved New York City to a New Jersey town and thus derailed from her dreams of becoming an actress, lies and overreacts to everything around her while keeping us additionally informed in voiceovers.
It all seems like we're watching a feature-length After School Special, and not a particularly good one at that; maybe the running time of less than 90 minutes kept anything from being developed, but even so it would have been nice if director Sara Sugarman and writer Gail Parent had given the elements some kind of balance (the whole business with her favourite group Sidarthur's farewell performance and the shenanigans involved with it takes up far too much time, and we don't get to see enough of how she fares in her new town).It doesn't really register as anything, and the heavy-handed use of songs on the soundtrack doesn't help (every time the school's resident snob appears, up pops that song by Lumidee).
And why does the school musical practically scream "Fame"?Alison Pill (as her new best friend) and Adam Garcia (as the singer with Sidarthur) are a big help, but most of the highlights of the movie are, sorry to say, the FX-filled fantasy sequences from Amoeba Proteus - and surely there has to be something wrong when such is the case in a movie like this.
But I have a feeling that "A Cinderella Story" will be more suited to Miss D than this movie is to Lindsay.Ah well, we in the UK still haven't seen "Mean Girls"....
If I had the chance to meet a star that a girl I hated wanted to meet so bad AND crashed his party, and then no one believed me, I'd feel really bad and annoyed.The play at the end of the movie was ok.
Coming off an extremely successful performance in the summer hit Freaky Friday, Lindsay Lohan does her best to save the flat and unimpressive script of Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen.Lohan stars as Lola, a teenage Manhattan girl whose dream is to become a famous actress.
I knowingly and willingly recorded and watched a film called "Confessions of a Drama Queen", knowing full well at the time that it starred Lindsay Lohan and that it was unlikely to offer the sort of mature character development that I would normally look for in a drama.
It is not totally without appeal because I suppose teenage girls do like these fantasy films where people just like them with pushing parents and school problems get to meet the pop star of their dreams, be proved right after all, find a boyfriend etc indeed the sheer volume of "good things" that happen at once in the final scene of the film just showed a real contempt for the audience in my opinion.
For example, judging a standard family movie like "Madagascar" against some type of epic adult feature such as "The Godfather" would be ridiculous - different genre, different crowd, different goal as a movie.But "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" doesn't even stack up against other family films of its kind.
On one level it begs to be some type of satirical comment on drama queens and materialism, but that's EXACTLY what the film falls victim to - its lead character, played by the despicable Lindsay Lohan, is a trashy drama queen who apparently spends all her free time lusting after a hunky teen icon.
Hot teen foxes MUST do better, Lindsay-love.In this movie, the brighter star is relegated to playing the bad girl.
But I suppose Hilary was off on a rock tour.Movie itself is kinda drab and one big yawn and Walt Disney is really in the doldrums judging by the junk they advertise on the DVD which does succeed to make CONFESSIONS OF A TEENAGE DRANA QUEEN look like a sparkling Ferris wheel.
That is of course not the point, because for a high-school girl these things would be, like, super-super- important, but the movie is kind of a storm in a teacup itself.
Lindsay Lohan does give a very entertaining performance as Lola, a girl who moves to New Jersey, and the film really starts from there.
I went through high school, too, and I have never met a girl as in-your-face nasty as the movie's reigning status queen, a drama director as awkward and flaky as Miss Baggoli, or a boy as flat and uninteresting as Lohan's "love interest" Sam (okay that's a lie.
Confessions of a Teenage Drama QueenMary (Lindsay Lohan), who likes to be now called Lola, is being moved from New York, along with her younger twin sisters by their mum, Karen (Glenn Headly).
How do you get "Lola" out of Mary Elizabeth?I give it 2 stars Oh by the way, the acting was normal for a girl like Lindsay..
Horror, Thriller, and Dramas are way better than stupid comedy/drama movies that show teenage girls singing and crap like that.
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen wasn't at all like a Freaky Friday movie.
And excellent performances from the supporting cast support Lindsay Lohan's adequate one in the title role."Lola" is a Manhattan girl transplanted to Dellville, New Jersey, against her will.
Lola finds a loyal friend in Ella(Alison Pill), who helps in her desire for the coveted lead in the school play; as well stays by her side as the class princess Carla(Megan Fox)and prissy clique try to make light of the attractive New Yorker.
I have a soft spot for quirky teenage geared movies and this looked like another I would thoroughly enjoy but, no luck.The movie follows "Lola", played by Lindsay Lohan, a quirky, overactive imagination teenager who is transplanted from New York to New Jersey.
I love Lindsay Lohan, and I thought she was great in Freaky Friday, and maybe the reason she annoyed me so much in this movie was the fact that she was TOO good.
I know a lot of people will think this movie is pointless and stupid, but they are just like a character in the film named, Carla.
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen is a family film in which actress/singer Lindsay Lohan really shines!
In 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' - which hits what is surely a new low in dreadful 'Clueless' clones - Lindsay Lohan plays a 15-year old girl who suffers what the filmmakers obviously see as a fate worse than death: being forced to move from New York City to suburban New Jersey (from the way she carries on, one would think her mother were dragging her off to live in Iraq or Afghanistan).
One element of the 'plot' involves Lola starring as Eliza Doolittle in a preposterously bad high school musical version of 'Pygmalion.' My suggestion to all those young ladies out there is to skip this film entirely and watch 'My Fair Lady' instead..
He does it really great as Stu.Of cause some of the scenes are just to show Lindsay Lohan, like in the end where she sings at the High school musical.
Lindsay Lohan's performance was decent, although it feels the same like "Mean Girls".This is a very forgettable film.
I especially like the scene where Lindsay Lohan's (who plays Lola) hair is being messed up while trying to get ready for the concert.
Lindsay Lohan really got into the character of Lola Cep, as she had all the motions of drama queen.
The plot on a whole is good, but the cast possibly isn't.I don't berate Lindsay Lohan when I say this, but this just sounds like Mean Girls, with a few script rewrites.
I thought Ella was adorable, and reminds me a lot of myself - never wanting to stray from the rules.The ending involving Lola and Sam was not needed at all, as it featured a storyline that had barely been touched on in the movie at all, and wasn't at all related to the main storyline.Despite my negative comments, this was a quite good film, with a few flaws - 7/10..
So very needless to say I was looking forward to Lindsay Lohan's new movie Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen.
The movie is about a girl named Lola (Lindsay Lohan) who has just moved from New York City to a small town in New Jersey.
I only hope that Lindsay Lohan's new film Mean Girls is better than this one.
Lohan is quickly becoming a star, one to rival Hilary Duff; movies like 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' will serve to elevate her and her work to the popularity it deserves.
From start to finish it remained a typical Disney Teen Movie, the main role of Lola is played by Lindsay Lohan.
Dyan Feldon wrote the book in which the movie is based, and Gail Parent, a woman who knows how to write comedy, adapted it for the screen.The film best asset is Lindsay Lohan, who plays the main character, Lola.
After watching it, a new star, Lola, is born.The film capitalizes on Lindsay Lohan's talent.
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen (2004): Dir: Sara Sugarman / Cast: Lindsay Lohan, Glenne Headly, Adam Garcia, Alison Pill, Megan Fox: Amusing and colourful teen comedy about a girl who dreams of becoming an actress but her family moves from New York to the suburbs.
Lindsay Lohan stars as this Lola (she makes up her name because she doesn't like hers, Mary).
Here is the plot: Lola, played by Lindsay Lohan (Freaky Friday, The Parent Trap) is an egocentric teenage girl who has a passion for acting and singing and dreams of Hollywood.
Here is the plot: Lola, played by Lindsay Lohan (Freaky Friday, The Parent Trap) is an egocentric teenage girl who has a passion for acting and singing and dreams of Hollywood.
4/10So this movie comes down to this:If you're a *true fan* of Ms. Lohan, you will get delightful scenes of her in the movie, and you should watch it.If you're looking a *different movie*, one which mixes teen romance, drama (as the title suggests), a bit of comedy and music, then give it a try.If you're just too picky, or none of the above, read the other reviews and make your own call.It worked for me, and I believe the international movie database's rate of 4.0/10 is a fair one..
4/10So this movie comes down to this:If you're a *true fan* of Ms. Lohan, you will get delightful scenes of her in the movie, and you should watch it.If you're looking a *different movie*, one which mixes teen romance, drama (as the title suggests), a bit of comedy and music, then give it a try.If you're just too picky, or none of the above, read the other reviews and make your own call.It worked for me, and I believe the international movie database's rate of 4.0/10 is a fair one..
I thought the story was good but the lead character that Lindsay Lohan plays was bad!
I don't think that this movie helps self-conscious girls in any way!!The only good parts of this film was from actress Alison Pill who plays Lohan's best friend. |
tt5038448 | Bruce Lee-The Fighter | Karthik and Kavya are the children of Rama Chandra Rao (Rao Ramesh). Rama Chandra Rao wants to make Karthik into a collector. The only problem is that Kavya wants to become a collector as well, but Rama Chandra Rao cannot afford to pay for both of their studies. Because of this, Karthik deliberately fails in his exams so that his sister can join Delhi Public School in order to become a collector. The only one aware of his sacrifice is his uncle (Tanikella Bharani).
Years later, Karthik a.k.a. Bruce Lee (Ram Charan) is a stuntman working under stuntmaster Dangerous David (Jaya Prakash Reddy) and Kavya (Kriti Kharbanda) is still the smart girl she was. Once, Bruce Lee goes in the middle of a shooting to a hotel to save his friend's sister who was being kidnapped. Riya (Rakul Preet Singh), a game designer, who came there to meet a police officer (Satyam Rajesh) for marriage, sees Bruce Lee in his police costume and mistakes him for a brave officer. She becomes a fan of him and rejects the other police officer because he is corrupted. Some days later, Bruce Lee finds out that Riya uploaded the video of him fighting in a police costume on Facebook. When he goes to meet her, he falls in love with and finds out that she is designing a video game called SuperCop based on him. From then Riya spends time with him continuously, while Karthik is still afraid of revealing his identity as he fears she might go away from him. Meanwhile, a terrorist attack occurs in a hotel. Karthik's elder brother, Ravi (Ravi Prakash) and commissioner Marthand (Sayaji Shinde) confirm that it was a terrorist attack. Later, Ravi finds evidence to prove that it was not a terrorist attack but an attempt to kill 2 rival businessmen by Deepak Raj (Arun Vijay). He goes to Marthand, but Marthand is actually corrupt and turns Ravi into Deepak Raj who knocks him unconscious. Meanwhile, Riya keeps getting Bruce Lee into fights thinking that he is an undercover cop. In the meantime, Kavya writes her final exams needed to become a collector and while she is returning, Deepak drugs her forcefully and arrests her to trick Ram Gopal (Nagendra Babu), someone trying to get him in jail, to think that it was his daughter. Bruce Lee knows of this and beats up Deepak, sending him into a coma, and returns in time for Kavya's engagement with Rahul (Amitash Pradhaan), the son of Jayaraj (Sampath Raj) and Vasundhra (Nadhiya) who are bosses of Rama Chandra Rao. It's shown to us that Deepak is the first son of Jayaraj with an unofficial wife, Malini (Tisca Chopra). A couple of days later, Riya takes Karthik, who she thinks is still a police officer, to meet her family. Her father is IB Chief Bharadwaj (Mukesh Rishi) who knows Bruce Lee's real profession and his background and they both start a mission to capture Jayaraj and Deepak. Following the plan, he joins Jayaraj's company as his assistant and uses Suzuki Subramanyam (Brahmanandam), an undercover cop, to reveal Jayaraj's secrets to Vasundhara, causing her to leave him. Meanwhile, Deepak captures Bruce Lee and shoots him. Later, Jayaraj, with his men, try to kill Vasundhara, Rahul and Kavya. Bruce Lee comes back as he was aware of all of Deepak's plans. This is because they had replaced G. Ramji (Jaya Prakash Reddy), a corrupt inspector under Deepak's payroll and David's lookalike with David himself. Karthik was actually wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt and there were blood bombs in the vest. Deepak's shots caused the bombs to burst. In the ensuring fight, Bruce Lee kills Deepak and takes his body to Jayaraj, revealing to Jayaraj who he actually is. In revenge, Jayaraj kidnaps Riya and stabs Rama Chandra Rao in front of his eyes after he tells him all about Bruce Lee's sacrifices for his family. Bruce Lee admits his father in the hospital and calls Megastar Chiranjeevi (Chiranjeevi) who is in shooting for his 150th movie to help Riya. Chiranjeevi goes and beats up the goons and saves Riya. In the meantime Suzuki arrests Jayaraj finishing his last mission before he retires and his first ever success that he got after being admitted into the police force. At the last scene of the film, During a celebration, Riya asks Karthik to fill up a form and become an actual police officer, to which everyone starts laughing. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0039321 | Dick Tracy's Dilemma | Ruthless killer Steve Michel is known to the public as "The Claw" for his way of killing her victims with his prosthetic hook. After his accomplices Ryan and Taylor have broken in and stolen furs from the Flawless Furs warehouse, Steve kills the guard with his hook. When the police arrive at the crime scene in the shape of Detective Dick Tracy, he talks to Humphries, who is the owner of the store; Peter Premium, who is a representative for the insurance company; and a man named Cudd, who is the insurance investigator. The insurance company only has twenty-four hours to find the stolen goods, or they have to reimburse the fur company. Tracy and his semi-competent assistant Patton examine the dead body at the morgue and find a note on it stating that there were three perpetrators performing the hit against the warehouse. It also mentions that they used a truck with the name "Daisy" on it. Unfortunately, the three perpetrators disguise the truck before Tracy can find it, and the lead is a dead end. The robbers soon leave their hideout in a local junkyard and go to a nearby bar to phone their boss and get new instructions. As they speak with the boss on the phone, their conversation is overheard by an informant, a blind beggar called Sightless, who goes to pass the information on. Sightless is sloppy and noisy when eavesdropping, and is nearly caught by The Claw. Still, he manages to escape the bar.
Sightless goes directly to Dick Tracy, but is stopped at the door by Tracy's friend, Vitamin Flintheart. Vitamin believes the beggar is up to no good, and denies him entrance to the house. After listening to Sightless' message, Vitamin gets rid of him. Still, he passes the message on to Tracy later, and Tracy and Patton manage to find the fence that the three robbers were meeting, Longshot Lillie. Lillie is taken into custody and questioned, but is unable to identify the robbers. At the same time The Claw finds Sightless' apartment and kills the blind man with his hook. Soon after Tracy and Patton arrives, and The Claw flees the scene. Patton pursues the killer, fires a shot and wounds him, but still, The Claw manages to escape.
Tracy notices that The Claw had tried to make a phone call from Sightless' phone, and can identify the first digits from hook scratches on the phone dial. He sends Patton to find the rest of the phone number. Tracy himself goes to the insurance company and accuses them of stealing the furs from the warehouse. They protest against the charges when Patton arrives and tells them that the number leads to the store owner Humphries. Humphries' plan was all along to sell back the furs to the insurance company after the twenty-four hours had passed and collect the penalty fee stated in the policy. He calls the robbers at the same bar as before, instructing them to tell the insurance company to come to the bar with $50,000. Feeling guilty about sending Sightless off to a certain death before, Vitamin goes to the bar to find the killer, pretending to be a blind beggar himself. Sam and Fred make an attempt to steal the money for themselves, but The Claw, wounded but still capable of fighting, manages to kill them both. The killings are witnessed by Vitamin, who also hears The Claw talk on the phone to Humphries, telling him the furs' whereabouts.
Meanwhile, Patton and Cudd have gone to Humphries and are watching him as he talks to The Claw. Humphries tells The Claw over the phone about his predicament, and The Claw becomes suspicious towards Vitamin and his blind beggar performance. Tracy arrives to the bar just in time to save his friend from The Claw, and there is a chase back down to the junkyard. Tracy chases The Claw to a high-voltage generator, and the killer is killed by an electric shock when he touches a wire with his hook. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0082477 | Gregory's Girl | Gregory Underwood (John Gordon Sinclair) is an awkward teenager who plays in his school football team. They are not doing very well, so the coach (Jake D'Arcy) holds a trial to find new players. Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), turns up and, despite the coach's sexist misgivings, proves to be a very good player. She subsequently takes Gregory's place as centre forward, and Gregory in turn replaces his friend Andy (Robert Buchanan) as goalkeeper.
Gregory is all for her making the team, as he finds her very attractive. However, he has to compete for her attention with all the other boys who share the same opinion. Gregory initially confides in his best friend Steve (William Greenlees), the most mature of Gregory's circle of friends, and asks him for help in attracting Dorothy. Steve, however, is unable to assist him.
Acting on the advice of his precocious 10-year-old sister, Madeleine (Allison Forster), he awkwardly asks Dorothy out on a date. She accepts, but Dorothy's friend, Carol (Caroline Guthrie), shows up at the rendezvous instead and informs Gregory that something had come up; Dorothy will not be able to make it. He is disappointed, but Carol talks him into taking her to the chip shop.
When they arrive, she hands him off to another friend, Margo (Carol Macartney), and leaves. By then, Gregory is rather confused, but goes for a walk with the new girl. On their stroll, they encounter a waiting Susan (Clare Grogan), another of Dorothy's friends, and Margo leaves. Susan confesses that it was all arranged by her friends, including Dorothy. She explains, "It's just the way girls work. They help each other."
They go to the park and talk. At the date's end, Gregory is more than pleased with Susan, and the two kiss numerous times on his doorstep before calling it a night and arranging a second date. Madeleine, who had been watching from the window, quizzes him on his date and calls him a liar when he claims he did not kiss Susan.
Gregory's friends, Andy and Charlie (Graham Thompson), are even more inept with girls but see Gregory at various times with three apparent dates, and are envious of his new success. They try to hitchhike to Caracas, where Andy has heard the women greatly outnumber the men, but fail at that as well. | whimsical, romantic, comedy | train | wikipedia | The story is nothing big and dramatic, just a boy liking a girl and learning a bit about himself and about love in general in the end.
The lead character of Gregory is very convincing and very real, you like him but at the same time you can't help wincing a bit at his awkwardness, especially in the scene where he's helping Dorothy out in football by playing goalie.
I love this movie.Its my fav movie of all time ,Everytime i watch it its like meeting an old friend again.It is so rich with subtle humour and possibly every scene makes me chuckle.the teenage anguish is never over played and ever actor in the film has never surpassed there performances in this movie growing up in Scotland myself i still don't feel that the movie is regional and anyone who is able to see it please do so .The clothes are dated but the humour is still spot on.This film is a Scottish gem and should be given more praise.I just cant fault it.If i had to cut my DVD collection down to two gregorys girl and this is spinal tap would be my only choices..
Gregory's Girl makes me laugh every few seconds, and the only mention of a bodily excretion I can remember is Andy's "chat up line" in the school cafeteria: "Did you know that when you sneeze, it comes out of your nose at a 100 miles an hour?" Even though I thought I knew all the funny bits after seeing it so many times, each viewing finds me laughing at things I hadn't noticed before, as well as at all the other bits that never seem to grow stale.There's the occasional Pythonesque line, as the football coach's description of the "two basic skills" of a goal scorer: "Ball control, shooting accuracy, and the ability to read the game." But Forsyth the writer creates a constant stream of little gems that are very much his own style of wry humour, taking real life and stretching it just that little bit further, but not so far that it's no longer recognisable.
But girls know all the best ones.It's fun to see how comic setups and situations from Gregory's Girl come back in Forsyth's Local Hero ("everyone's second favourite film", as Mark Kermode put it), deeper and more fully developed.
John Gordon Sinclair exudes a gawky, gangling charm as the lovesick Gregory and the rest of the cast are perfect.Jake D'Arcy is wonderful as Phil Menzies, the ambitious sports master, the brilliant Chick Murray is the pompous headteacher, Dee Hepburn is Dorothy, the confident, dedicated new member of the soccer team, Gregory is besotted with her.
There's just something about the combination of youngster actors who obviously hadn't come from the usual stage schools, the lines from minor characters that you almost miss the first few times (the school reporter - 'I want to interview you and that girl in 4A who had the triplets' - and so many more!) and just the general surrealism (the penguin wandering around the school must surely have influenced the writers of 'Teachers'?) There's a wealth of bizarre characters, both pupils and staff, and for someone who was 13 when it came out, it will never fail to take me back to those awkward teenage crushes and raise a smile.
John Gordon Sinclair and Dee Hepburn were absolutely wonderful in this story of teenage love and the sudden twists & turns that occur when you think you've met THE ONE, but then someone else....
This unpretentious tale of adolescent adoration (all right, puppy love), is one of the purest, most enjoyable, romance films I have ever seen.Unlike American cinema where the main characters would be satisfying raging hormonal urges in gratuitously graphic sexual detail, this film by Mr. Forsythe catches the true essence of "young love" by letting the cast be what they are.
Simply young people with an awkward sense of decency and a genuine curiosity for the opposite sex.This is a must see, especially if you ever thought you might have been in love or think you are now.Try to see the uncut version, as the British film industry has a different sense of 'Family Values' (whatever that is).I love the secondary sub-plots.
I loved the end to the film and whenever i had a date with a girl in the eighties and nineties my mind would flashback to a certain clock tower, a white jacket (without the stain),a beret,whistling, horizontal dancing and kissing with numbers.Unfortunately my dates would never hit the heights of Gregorys date but if i was fortunate to get the girl home then without fail the Gregorys video would be shown to what would normally work in my favour.
Yes, it is a comedy, and yes it is very innocent, but if you have ever been in love or at least you think you have, I'm sure you will enjoy it.I saw this movie on one of those late night showings and having nothing better to do I kept watching.
Somehow It reminded me of my teenage years and how deeply you could fall in love.This film show us that, for a movie to be really good, a large budget is not necessary, not even a bunch of stars (at the time they were pretty unknown, I think), just a great filmmaker and something important to tell, 'That's that.
And why not...he's young, it's a lovely Summer's day in Cumbernauld...it's all there for the taking.If this film doesn't make you smile, you either have no heart or the Scottish accents are put you off.
Set in 1980's Glasgow and featuring a typically acerbic and avant garde Glaswegian screenplay, the film concerns the adventures of Gregory (failed soccer striker cum goalie) and his pursuit of Dorothy, the dashingly glamorous new addition to the school team.
There's some superb performances in this film from the wonderfully frustrated John Gordon Sinclair as Gregory, plus Dee Hepburn as Dorothy the stunning love interest.
'Gregory's Girl' was clearly filmed between Spring and early Autumn and there's one enduringly beautiful scene where Dorothy plays keep-up with a soccer ball, shot against the maternally basking backdrop of urban Glasgow, whilst a haunting saxophone laments and chases the fading daylight, bemoaning the inevitable and eventual closure of our younger years, brief and fleeting as the scene itself.
Admittedly, the plot is strangely lop-sided, with the last 15 minutes proving quite detatched from the rest of it, and a perhaps quite unpredictable ending.But what is great about this film is its depiction of adolescent gangly awkwardness, mostly in the form of John Gordon Sinclair.
The beauty of the hills and the sunsets are left to towards the end, which acts as a great contrast.Certain comparisons might even be drawn with later films like The Rachel Papers and Ferris Bueller's Day Off (ie the role of Cameron), although don't expect either of those to prepare you for the dazzling Gregory!Good to see Clare Grogan pre- pop stardom with Altered Images too....
Favourite bits - probably the little moments that you only spot after repeated viewings; when the teachers spot Gregory weaving across the empty playground when he's late for school - "does he think he's invisible?!", the banter with his pal Steve - "fud, fud, fud, is that all you think about, you're unnatural pal, you're a freak!", Andy & Charlie's doomed attempts to pick up girls, Chic Murray's delightful cameo as the headmaster - especially the piano playing scene, "off you go, you small boys" and watch out for the worst high jumper in the world.
Plus it's a coming-of-age rom-com for ADULTS rather than for teens.Such a wonderful script and characters, and an excellent cast starting with the likes of John Gordon Sinclair (Gregory), Allison Forster (Madeline), and Clare Grogan (Susan).
Watching 'Gregory's Girl' for the first time in over two decades, one is immediately struck by reminders of when it was made: the grainy film, the dreadful soundtrack, the big hair of both its male and female characters.
For at its heart, Bill Forsyth's film captures two eternal realities, the (potentially charming) essential uselessness of a certain sort of teenage male, and the particular uselessness of just about all males when confronted by a sufficiently pretty girl (Dee Hepburn, although Clare Grogan, later a pop star, appears in a secondary role).
As with most British movies, it's shot like crap but you know, it really doesn't matter when the script and the performances complement one another so well.I've grown up with it and still find something to smile about every time, much the same way that I do when listening to Jonathan Richman's mid-80's albums Rockin and Romance and Jonathan Sings.There's a really beautiful balance of knowing and naivety in most of the characters.
I may love me a bit of the old cynical satire, pitch black comedy, gritty drama, and brutal tragedy all the time, but that doesn't mean I am often equally affected by much sweeter, kinder, gentler stories as long as they are done right, and let me just say that 'Gregory's Girl' is a love story that is done absolutely right, in fact, it goes beyond being just 'right', it is simply splendid, spectacular, and beautiful.
This is a highly relatable little movie for almost any adolescent boy who has ever felt romantic feelings (whether he be gay, straight, bi, whatever), and ends with total hopefulness, which is the type of conclusion I may not always seem to go for personally, but by God does it work in a film like this.
Director Bill Forsyth depicts how a young British lad gets true love in a film with football as a key element..
British film 'Gregory's Girl' is about the innocent world of young people who learn about different ways of the world uniquely from their own ingenuous perspective.
Plot focuses on gawky teenager Gregory (J G Sinclair) who becomes infatuated by the latest addition to the school's football team, Dorothy!
The scene in Bill Forsyth's 1981 film Gergory's Girl that goes a long way in cementing just how special, just how close it is to the work of genius, is the one in which, on preparation for a date with a girl, the lead male character is reminded of a joke that is what we perceive as a really dirty and unnecessary one given the scenario.
Whereas many in numbers but lesser in greatness coming-of-age comedies from more recent times enjoy piling on smut and vulgarity, Gregory's Girl is able to establish such a thing exists within the universe of these characters but, crucially, amongst all the funny stuff going on around it, is able to produce laughs out of it without ever actually resorting to it.
This is something more recent films of this ilk do from the off and rely on as a genuine source of humour throughout; without actually getting anywhere.The film takes place in and around a Scottish school and sees youngster Gergory (Sinclair) whittle away his days milling in and around the premises of this school, in which he will go to class; talk to friends and spend a lot of his time playing football.
Things change with the introduction of Dorothy (Hepburn), a girl that stumbles into Gregory's world when it appears she wants to be a member of the football team.
Despite this, football and football practise will take on a more important role for him with Dorothy's introduction to the team when the two items he's interested in most clash.The film's attitude toward gender will see a girl play football to a rather high level and consequently provide us with a male character in the form of Steve (Greenlees) as an individual whom looks as if he's at the top of his game in the art of cooking and culinary activity.
Through Dorothy, he attempts to learn the Italian language by way of joining a class and fast-tracking most of it out of eagerness mixed with desperation; this, as he comes to terms with the thoughts and feelings that accompany wanting to ask the girl out on a date and confines in his younger sister for advice.I think there's real heart in Gregory's Girl, a sweet exploration of a character who seems to fumble his way through life but comes to realise certain things.
As far as coming of age tales that fall into the realms of comedy go, Gregory's Girl has more than enough laughs as well as a genuine fondness for its characters of whom it pays close attention to, indeed enough to recommend over a good number of other films of this ilk..
Gregory's Girl is a poignant coming of age film about a boys first falling in love and how surreal and unexpected that moment can be.
Bill Forsyth has a delightful touch.For those of you interested, John Gordon Sinclair won the British Olivier award (analogous to our Tony) a few years ago for his leading role in the stage revival of "She Loves Me".
If you like British humor, though, you'll love this film, which seems to have been built up into a sort of cult classic on that side of the pond.Gregory, a meek and awkward teenager in Scotland, meets Dorothy at the school's soccer try-outs and falls in love.
As a resident of Cumbernauld, where the film is set, I often feel a nostalgic fondness for Gregory's Girl.
The town is virtually the same as when the film was made 21 years ago; the big clock is still there in the town centre, Abronhill High School is still standing (just) but it is the character of Gregory that really stands out in this movie.
Gregory, played by John Gordon Sinclair, is a gawkish, skinny, tall teenager who is the hapless (and hopeless) goalkeeper of his schools football team.
When Dorothy (Dee Hepburn) insists on playing for the school, Gregory is immediately obsessed with her and awakens lustful feelings never felt before in his teenage years!
But this film is memorable for many other scenes like in the opening sequence where a gang of boys are watching a girl strip through a window - "All that for a bit of tit" says one of the non-plussed kids!
And also the friend who has left school to become a window cleaner, who leaves them with the phrase - "If I Don't See You through the week , I'll see you through the windae"!In conclusion, I would recommend you see this film, if not to remember what it was like being a love struck teenager but just to see some silly haircuts!!.
When one thinks of the best school based films this gem is often overlooked in favour of well known American films which is a shame as Gregory's Girl is just as good.
As soon as he sees her play Gregory falls in love with her and sets about getting a date with her.John Gordon Sinclair does a great job as awkward teenager Gregory and there is a fine supporting cast including Dee Hepburn as Dorothy, Clare Grogan as Susan, a friend of Dorothy's who likes Gregory and young Allison Forster who, in her only acting role, was delightful as Gregory's sister Madeline.
Gregory's Girl shows that a good film can be made on a microscopic budget.
But, although Gregory's Girl is good, I prefer to remain in the 21st Century with regard to films about footballing females and Bend It Like Beckham is much much better..
If you were ever an innocent adolescent and can recall your first infatuation with a girl with a wry smile, then this will make you laugh at yourself and cry at the same time - what more can you ask from a film?
This does not seem the most promising setting for a film, but Forsyth is able to invest the town's bleak modernist housing estates with a surprising amount of melancholy charm.Gregory is a teenage schoolboy who falls in love with Dorothy, the attractive girl who succeeds him as centre-forward of the school soccer team.
Dorothy and two of her friends, Carol and Margo, have conspired to set Gregory up with a fourth girl, Susan, who has always been keen on him.John Gordon Sinclair (Gregory) and Claire Grogan (Susan) have gone on to become well-known members of the British acting profession; Claire also had a pop career as the lead singer with Altered Images.
"Gregory's Girl", however, is not an altogether realistic film, despite its ordinary setting.
"Gregory's Girl" is the film which best captures what it is like to be an ordinary teenager.
While there are adult characters in the film (most notably the coach, who is himself awkward and hardly authoritative), and while we meet Gregory's dad briefly, they come off as backdrop, and the overall impression is that this is like a live-action, Scottish, adolescent version of Charles Schulz's 'Peanuts' movies, where kids run about on their own seemingly at whim after school, but aren't necessarily concerned with being full of destructive mischief given that freedom.
Great acting from a cast of mostly unknowns, a more-or-less aimless story that you don't want to end, and a lovely look back to a time period that I actually miss make this movie a favorite..
I really love this simple, unforced comedy about a boy named Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) who falls for a straight talking female footballer named Dorothy (Dee Hepburn).
The children look like we did.One thing I've always wondered about...Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) is attracted to Dee Hepburn, fine, nothing wrong with that.
Gregory (BAFTA nominated John Gordon Sinclair) is the typical Scottish geeky virgin who along with his friends are starting to find out about girls.
It is weird when towards the end Gregory turns his attention to another girl, but it is still a good film.
A simple, dull plot line sees a geeky teenage boy fall in 'love' with some football playing girl. |
tt0278504 | Insomnia | In the small fishing town of Nightmute, Alaska, 17-year-old Kay Connell (Crystal Lowe) is found murdered. LAPD detectives Will Dormer (Al Pacino) and Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) are sent to assist the local police with their investigation, at the request of police chief Nyback (Paul Dooley), an old colleague of Dormer's. Also, an intense Internal Affairs investigation in Los Angeles is about to put Dormer under the microscope. Eckhart reveals that Internal Affairs has offered him an immunity deal in exchange for his testimony regarding one of Dormer's past cases. Eckhart says that he has no choice but to accept the deal, to Dormer's frustration.
Dormer comes up with a plan to lure the murderer back to the scene of the crime. The attempt fails, however, and the suspect flees into the fog. The police give chase, and the suspect shoots one through the leg. Dormer spots a figure in the fog and fires with his backup weapon and without calling out. On his way to the fallen figure, Dormer picks up a .38 pistol the suspect has dropped. He then discovers that he has shot Eckhart. As he dies, Eckhart accuses Dormer of murdering him. Because of Eckhart's pending testimony against his partner, Dormer knows that Internal Affairs will never believe the shooting was an accident. He tells his colleagues Eckhart was shot by the suspect. He doesn't mention he has the .38 pistol. Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), a young local detective, is put in charge of the investigation of Eckhart's shooting. Police find the bullet that sliced the first officer's leg, a .38 caliber. That night, Dormer walks to an alley and fires the .38 pistol into an animal carcass. He retrieves the bullet and cleans it, then visits the morgue. The staffer hands him the bagged bullet retrieved from Eckhart's body. She is unfamiliar with its type. He leaves and switches the bullet with one from the .38.
Over the next few days, Dormer is plagued by insomnia, brought on by his guilt over killing Eckhart and further exacerbated by the perpetual daylight. He then starts receiving anonymous phone calls from the suspect (Robin Williams), who claims to have witnessed Dormer kill his partner. After looking through her belongings, the police learn that Kay was a fan of a local crime writer named Walter Finch. Dormer looks up his address in nearby Umkumiut and breaks into his apartment. Finch soon comes home, realizes the police have arrived, and evades Dormer after a chase.
Dormer returns to Finch's apartment. While there, he plants the .38 to frame Finch. Finch later contacts him and arranges a meeting on a ferry. Finch wants help in shifting suspicion to Kay's abusive boyfriend Randy Stetz (Jonathan Jackson) and will stay silent about Dormer's role in the Eckhart shooting in return. Dormer gives advice on handling police questioning. After Finch leaves Dormer on the ferry, he shows the detective a tape recorder he used to record the conversation.
Finch calls Dormer and tells him that Kay's death was "an accident" — he beat her to death in a fit of rage after she rejected his advances. The next day, Finch gives false testimony at the police station. When Finch claims Randy had a gun, Dormer realizes Finch has discovered his plant, and has hidden it at Randy's home. He races to Randy's house to find the gun before other officers, but is unsuccessful, and Randy is arrested. Finch offers to give Burr letters indicating that Randy abused Kay, and asks her to come and collect evidence from his summer home the next day.
Burr finds a 9mm shell casing at the scene, which conflicts with the bullet type found in Eckhart's body. She reads old case files from investigations Dormer was involved in and learns he has carried a 9mm, suspecting he has been lying about who shot Eckhart. Dormer confides in the hotel owner, Rachel Clement (Maura Tierney) about the Internal Affairs investigation: he fabricated evidence to help convict a pedophile he was certain was guilty of murdering a child.
Dormer searches Finch’s apartment for an address for his lake house, and realizes Finch intends to kill Burr after finding Kay's letters in the apartment. As Burr and Finch move through his house, Finch knocks the young detective unconscious. Dormer reaches the cabin, but is too disoriented from lack of sleep to fight off Finch. Burr revives and saves Dormer, while Finch escapes. Burr reveals she knows Dormer shot Eckhart. He admits it, but says he is no longer certain if it was an accident. From his shed, Finch shoots at them with a shotgun, and Burr returns fire with Dormer's gun, allowing him to sneak around to Finch's location. After a scuffle, Finch finds Burr's gun and shoots Dormer, who shoots and kills Finch with his own shotgun. Burr rushes to the fatally wounded Dormer's aid and comforts him by affirming that Eckhart's shooting was accidental, then moves to throw away the shell casing to preserve Dormer's secret. Dormer stops Burr, however, telling her not to lose her way and tells her to let him sleep as he passes on. | psychological, neo noir, murder, thought-provoking, atmospheric, flashback, tragedy, romantic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | Like the 1997 Norwegian film on which it is based, `Insomnia' is a superbly crafted crime thriller, one that is more concerned with the psychological complexities of its main character than with the minutiae of the criminal investigation itself - though the details of the case are fascinating in their own right as well.Al Pacino delivers his finest performance in years in the role of Detective Will Dormer, a seasoned homicide investigator brought in from Los Angeles to help solve the murder of a seventeen-year-old high school student in rural Alaska.
The outstanding screenplay by Nikolaj Frobenius and Erik Skjoldbjaerg really knows how to get into the minds and emotions of its characters, particularly in the case of Dormer, who turns out to be one of the most psychologically complex and fascinating figures we have encountered in the movies in a long, long time.
Hilary Swank brings a warmth and compassion to her role as Ellie Burr, an eager-to-please detective who has long idolized Dormer and his work, who also has to make an emotionally wrenching choice near the end of the film.
Finally, Maura Tierney makes her few scenes count as a sympathetic innkeeper whom Dormer turns to as the person who happens to be handy at the moment when the need to unburden his soul spontaneously arises within him.As the film's director, Christopher Nolan establishes and maintains a mood of quiet intensity throughout the course of the film.
The insomnia of the title is suffered by the Pacino character, who can't sleep during the movie's 7-day span.
"Insomnia" is gripping and it's best to see the movie cold.The acting, especially Robin Williams as the key suspect in the child slaying, is top notch.
Because this is a character-driven story that revolves around Dormer, his pain, anguish and guilt on account of accidentally taking his partner's life, constant insomnia and subsequent threats by his nemesis, played by Robin Williams as a writer of trashy detective novels who's fascinated by Dormer and blackmails him by threatening to spill out the secret of Dormer shooting his partner.
I greatly look forward to seeing his next project, whenever that may be.I recommend "Insomnia" to anyone who loved Nolan's previous "Memento" or anyone who simply enjoys a great, multi-faceted mystery/thriller that will keep you guessing at every turn.
Hilary Swank is superb as is Robin Williams and its refreshing to see him taking a serious role instead of sentimental trash like Patch Adams but as per usual it is Al Pacino who steals the show.
It's his work, along with the actors, that lifts up the movie into the `well worth watching' category.I was, in the end, a little bit disappointed with `Insomnia'.
Nolan (Memento) creates a complex and carefully construed tale that has plenty of intentional misdirection that is quite convincing.Al Pacino plays another one of his droopy detectives in a role that is quite unoriginal if placed in other films.
Based on a 1997 Norwegian film written by Nikolaj Frobenius and Erik Skjoldbjærg, Insomnia is a true work of art in the world of film.Christopher Nolan takes all that was the 1997 film, and brings it to the next level, using his own style of directing, a musical score with shades of Memento, and an all star cast.
Hilary Swank also pulls out what is the greatest role of her career.Insomnia brings you in as an audience, with it's perfectly woven plot, with a film noir feel to it, just as Nolan's first two films.
I erred in giving into temptation to watch the original Norwegian "Insomnia" on IFC just a couple of weeks before seeing this Hollywood re-make directed by indie-credible "Memento" Christopher Nolan with a very effective Academy Award-winning cast.The original movie had a tiny budget and also an excellent cast, led by the terrific Swede Stellan Skarsgård, growing as pale as that relentless sunshine during the course of the film; the usually haggard-looking Al Pacino interprets his insomnia visually through an ever more haggard face.Though the original film isn't given as the source material until well into the closing credits, this follows the main thrust of the story closely.
Significantly, there is less sex and more morality.Hilary Swank's character is more naive than her counterpart; Martin Donovan's character's role is more central to the story and, of course, Robin Williams gets more screen time than his original counterpart, as the conflict is less in the lead's mind and more on the screen as a duel.
The plot twists are done differently so I shamefully got confused between the two movies.While not as overwhelming as the original, I do think this version should rank right up with the great detective/cop-does-the-right-thing movies, and the plot makes more sense than "The Big Sleep."(originally written 6/16/2002).
The film would have been unknown to me if there weren't the three Oscar winners, Al Pacino, Robin Williams, and Hilary Swank that made this thriller for what it is, also if Christopher Nolan hadn't directed it.
(All three are Oscar winners by the way, and deliver performances that are definitely worthy of an Oscar.) Throughout the film, Pacino's character's mind wreaks havoc; the Alaskan town is so far up north, they get "white nights" (I.e. the sun doesn't set for half the year).
"Insomnia" is a thriller that has some big names attached to it: Al Pacino, Robin Williams & Hilary Swank; all designated as 'Academy Award Winner' on the movie poster.
Director Christopher Nolan is also well-known, though his only Oscar nomination is for a co-screen writing credit.The story concerns a veteran cop (Al Pacino) sent to Alaska along with his partner in order to aid in a murder investigation.
Especially if you're a fan of Christopher Nolan's other work or like the actors Al Pacino, Hilary Swank or Robin Williams..
Once upon a time (nine years ago to be exact) he was at the helm of a criminally underrated crime thriller by the name of Insomnia.Starring Al Pacino as a L.A. detective who travels to a remote Alaskan town to help identify the killer of a teen, this is one of Pacino's most recently truly great performances (a shame, I know).
This naturally ties into a specific subtext that reveals much about Dormer's personality and tainted past as a detective, and it's very refreshing to see the usual them of darkness giving way to light flipped on its head.The problem with writing a review of Insomnia is that I can't detail too much about what unfolds (in terms of plot) without ruining some of the major twists that lend genuine weight to the story as it ambles along some truly dark and disturbing corridors.
I think he was best filmmaker in the past decade, and if he continues making highly innovative,different,engrossing and intense films like memento,Batman Begins,TDK and now Inception, he's going to have a claim to be one of the greatest directors of all time.
What really draws you in is Al Pacino showing his greatness as an actor with a brilliant rendition of William Dommer,the title character .A cat-and-mouse game between hero-cop-with- skeletons-in-his-closet-suffering-from-insomnia-and-guilt and criminal- with-ace-up-his-sleeve is intriguing and engaging.
It's a remake of a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name.LAPD detective Will Dormer (Pacino) and his partner Hap Eckhart (Donovan) travel to the remote Alaskan town of Nightmute to aid the local cops investigating the savage murder of a teenage girl.
Yet Insomnia is so much more than that, it's a deep movie dealing in complex psychological issues, a blanc-noir of some character substance, a picture clinically put together around one man's descent into a private hell, with the beautiful Alaskan backdrop perversely claustrophobic and Anthony Mann like in being at one with Will Dormer's fragmented state of mind.Killing changes you.
What action there is also comes with a side order of otherworldly delights, a chase across floating logs and a stalk through eerie fog being the two particular highlights.Sleep comes at a cost.With three Oscar winners in the cast Nolan had some serious quality to direct, that Pacino, Williams and Swank deliver excellence is high praise for the British director.
InsomniaWhen you have insomnia, you finally get the chance to finish listening to those tranquil noise CDs that you always fall asleep during.Unfortunately, the restless detective in this thriller doesn't have time to listen to humpback whales in the rain forest.While under investigation for shooting his partner, LAPD detective Dormer (Al Pacino) travels to the land of the midnight sun to find the killer of a 17-year-old girl.Partnered with a green officer (Hilary Swank), Dormer is drawn towards a local writer (Robin Williams), whose work was found near the body.Meanwhile, Dormer cannot sleep – thanks to perpetual daylight and guilt over his partner's death.With strong performances and masterful direction at the hand of Inception creator Christopher Nolan, this melancholy and maddening remake of a Norwegian film is an intense and intelligent contribution to the thriller genre.The cure for sleeplessness, mind you, is to mainline tryptophan.
With the perpetual daylight, the mind games of a reclusive writer (Robin Williams) who is the prime suspect and suspicions from an idealistic local cop (Hillary Swank) in regards to his partners death; Dormer is stretched to his psychological limit and is haunted by sleep deprivation.Pacino, Williams and Swank all deliver top performances in this tense and mysterious thriller, that keeps you under its spell until the conclusion.7/10.
"Invited to 'Nightmute', Alaska, to head a murder case, veteran LAPD detective Will Dormer (Al Pacino) finds his investigation interrupted by an ever-shining midnight sun that wreaks sleep-depriving havoc on him - and by personal guilt over a second crime that may be real
or a figment of his increasingly unstable consciousness," according to the DVD sleeve description.Director Christopher Nolan does an excellent job crafting a North American version of the original 1997 Norwegian crime drama, helped immensely by Hillary Seitz' intricate, intelligent adaptation.Also extraordinary are Mr. Pacino, cinematographer Wally Pfister, and editor Dody Dorn.
Mr. Pfister knows how to hand-hold cameras, and Ms. Dorn's editing skills are sharp - hopefully, this team will receive some more film projects.********* Insomnia (5/3/02) Christopher Nolan ~ Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Hilary Swank, Martin Donovan.
There was killer Finch (Williams), irritating hero-worshiping local Alaska cop Ellie (Hilary Swank) - no wonder they had to go out of state - corrupt Dormer (Pacino) and his squealing partner Eckhardt (Donovan.) Is there anyone here to feel sympathy with?
But the real murderer (Robin Williams) saw him killing Eckhart and starts to blackmail him.It is from this reversal of situation, the cop dominated by the killer, that "Insomnia" draws its originality.
Hilary Swank plays an impressionable young officer who meets their seaplane -I liked her here, trying to impress Al Pacino as the folklorish cop hero.While apprehending the suspect Al accidentally (?) shoots his partner and then covers it up, giving the lurking Robin Williams killer character blackmail ammunition against him.
Five years later, in the year of 2002, British director Christopher Nolan adapted the material into a way bigger production, brought in A-listers Al Pacino, Robin Williams, and Hilary Swank, re-located for a small town in Alaska, while keeping the original title.
All of this is only slightly spiced up by what is most definitely Al Pacino's best acting performance in this century.Even though Nolan has several good approaches, Insomnia is nothing more than generic, unspectacular, and forgettable in the long run.
The actors in this film were absolutely terrific in their performances, especially Robin Williams who has proved to many that he can act brilliantly in a drama and now in the thrillers.
Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Willaims all did a terrific job of acting, they really clicked and made the film work.
Pictures in spring 2001 after making "furore" with memorable independent thriller "Memento" starring Guy Pearce to be adviced to direct star-actor Al Pacino, reviving inspector-seeking-the-truth genre hits as "Serpico" (1973) directed by Sidney Lumet or "Sea of Love" (1989) directed by Harold Becker and unusual intensely-dark playing Robin Williams (1951-2014) to full mind binding nemesis character confrontations of two stunning staccato-cut on-foot chase sequences in frozen, exotic blue/white reflecting glaciers in further highly-atmospheric on-set exteriors locations in Alaska, USA and British Columbia, Canada; when executive producers Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney in favors for a Warner Bros.
It is a first class thriller, with brilliant performances, character depth,cinematography and a great score.Nolan is one the best new talents out there, and i can't wait for more of his stuff.A lot of thrillers rely upon a tense plot to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, films like Misery or maybe Fatal Atrraction.
Constant daylight and chilling temperatures add an interesting backdrop to director Christopher Nolan's take on Nikolaj Frobenius' story of lies and deception in the suspense-filled, dark drama Insomnia.Will Dormer (played by veteran actor Al Pacino) and Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan II) are Los Angeles detectives sent to the remote town of (aptly named) Nightmute, Alaska to help the local police department solve the recent murder of a young teenage girl.
Director Christopher Nolan creates the perfect tension between local detective Ellie Burr played by actress Hilary Swank and Al Pacino as she conducts a separate investigation of a shooting incident.
The film Insomnia, based on an earlier Norwegian film, is an almost winner.By acclaimed directed Christopher Nolan, (Memento,) this is a bet that almost, but not quite, pays off, in the sense of waiting for the "other shoe to drop." It is not so much a murder mystery as it is a character study, but, as with the rest of the film, it's almost but not quite that, also.Al Pacino is Detective Will Dormer, who has been summoned to Nightmute, Alaska by an old friend to help solve the murder of a 17-year-old girl.
As I'm always interested to see the films that nobody talks about, let's go take a look at one of Nolan's earliest films.Insomnia follows two Los Angeles detectives who head to a small fishing town in Alaska to investigate the murder of a teenage girl.
Hilary Swank plays the traditional cop who wants to be one of the greats, like Dormer, Nicky Katt is one of the cops from Alaska investigating the girl's murder, and he does a pretty good job.
I'm not sure Williams or Pacino's performances should have won Oscars but they are definitely under-appreciated.It's hard not to mention Hilary Swank who gives another incredible performance in a movie that she could have easily been overshadowed by two of the all time greats.
Insomnia is one of the all time great crime films and I really hope that after Interstellar Nolan moves back into that genre and maybe even brings back Pacino for something.
Go check out Insomnia and you will be pleased with the outcome.+One of Pacino's last great performances +Intense and thought provoking (as usual with Nolan) +Swank's overlooked performance +Williams creepy villain +Nolan directing a crime film -Ending a bit of letdown compared to other Nolan films 9.3/10.
With Oscar winners Robin Williams, Al Pacino and Hillary Swank giving faces to the characters Insomnia becomes a real knuckler..
From murders to the protagonists' struggle with sleep, it really does bring some eye-catching moments and very much brings good "hold onto your seats" thrill-rides that makes the audience want to understand more about what could and had been happening.It's not the best Nolan film, but Robin Williams and Al Pacino pull off a very warm-welcoming investigation to there own by bringing fantastic enjoyment to a never-ending chapter of pure excitement to its own synopsis.
With three big cast who won the Oscars: Al Pacino, Robin Williams, and Hilary Swank, Insomnia is one of those movies that isn't so bad as for what people say it and I find it worth to watch.After his successful and got a lot of attention because of Memento in 2000, Christopher Nolan then made a crime drama movie called Insomnia in 2002.
Insomnia is one of those movies that is so easy to forget by people who watch all Christopher Nolan movies.The premise is like his films in general similar to Memento where the two films have a main character that filled with a lot of pressure.
But this is different from the others because it's not a movie about cat and mouse, a story which one the culprit is, or a totally unexpected plot twist.Simple it, we'll be more focused on the main character played by Al Pacino, as always his performance is great.
In the end, we'll not see a happy ending as some of you would have predicted it.On the other hand, I also like the antagonist played by Robin Williams and his acting in here is the best of all his films because it comes out of his character that never looks like this.
The character that played by Robin Williams is also nothing different from Al Pacino because both of them made an "unintentional mistake." After sharing the issues between the two characters, they both help each other from behind the screen but at the same time cornering each other.Hilary Swank is also the same with both actors, she is more opening to the performance in this movie as well although her character isn't described deeply in detail.
This psychological thriller starring acclaimed actor Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, Martin Donovan, and Robin Williams in a role unlike any of the charismatic characters he's swallowed in his career; showcases a true and fascinating demonstration of what Nolan is capable of, even if it's quality leads less memorable than his other efforts.
While working on the investigation, he never gets sleep because of the 24-hour light outside so he begins to be affected mind and body and that may lead to some interesting things.Al Pacino and Robin Williams give very strong performances in their roles.
It's not ALL bad, though, because Al Pacino was excellent, and Robin Williams was the best thing out of EITHER movie (that man is actually a comedian???...with a MAJOR LEAGUE creep factor like THAT??? |
tt0038160 | They Were Expendable | In December 1941, a squadron of PT Boats under the command of Lt. John "Brick" Brickley (Robert Montgomery) is sent to Manila to help defend the Philippines against a potential Japanese invasion. However, upon their arrival, instead of a welcome, they are ridiculed by the local military commanders. One of Brick's men, Lt., J.G. "Rusty" Ryan (John Wayne) becomes disgusted when his superiors refuse to see the small boats as viable naval craft and is in the process of writing his request for a transfer to destroyers when news arrives of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which makes transfer at that time impossible.
Ryan and Brickley's demands for combat assignments for their squadron are frustrated for a time as they are assigned to messenger duty, but when the Japanese launch a surprise attack with warplanes, they are hastily pressed into combat duty. They are again subjected to messenger duty, infuriating Ryan who continually requests transfer to a destroyer. Eventually, the local command recognizes the effectiveness of the small boats and use them for intercepting and sinking larger Japanese boats. As they are about to leave on a mission to sink a Japanese cruiser, Brick orders Rusty to the hospital, where it is discovered that he has blood poisoning. While in the hospital, Rusty begins a romance with Army nurse Sandy Davyss (Donna Reed). Brick's boats sink the cruiser, after which the squadron meets with more and more success, even as they suffer the loss of both boats and men. However, the American forces are vastly outgunned and outnumbered by the Japanese forces, and it is only a matter of time before the islands are lost.
With the mounting Japanese onslaught against the doomed American garrisons at Bataan and Corregidor, the squadron is sent to evacuate General Douglas MacArthur, his family, and a party of VIPs. This done, they resume their attacks against the Japanese, who gradually whittle down the squadron. As boats are lost, their crews are sent to fight as infantry. Finally, the last boat is turned over to the Army for messenger duty. Brickley, Ryan and two ensigns are airlifted out on one of the last planes because the PT boats have proved their worth and they are needed stateside to train replacement PT boat officers and crews. The remaining enlisted men, led by Chief Mulcahey, are left behind to continue the fight with remnants of the U.S. Army and Filipino guerrillas. | realism, suspenseful, murder | train | wikipedia | I'm thinking that John Ford wisely decided that World War II being recently over, the country's mood was joyous, but somber in terms of the heavy human cost.They Were Expendable has the benefit though of the American audience knowing the ultimate victory.
The story begins in the Phillipines in 1941 with Robert Montgomery as real life naval hero John Bulkeley, renamed Brickley for the film, trying to convince the brass of the usefulness of the P.T. Boat in combat, not just for scouting and courier duty.
Of course that experiment is cut short and the P.T. Boats and their crews are rushed into some on the job experience.During the film MacArthur, you might recall Gregory Peck saying that he was going to be evacuated from Corregidor by "one of Johnny Bulkeley's torpedo boats." That scene is dramatized as a wordless Robert Barrat plays MacArthur traveling on the boat commanded by John Wayne.Wayne is Montgomery's second in command of the P.T. boat squadron who is not thrilled to be there.
Growing up with WWII as the dominant theme of modern history and an appreciation of the older film stars, this film is without question the most realistic in terms of the message and of just passed events with superb performances in the old morality style of the 40's.The old Navy, surviving in the Asiatic backwater where promotions could take years, bears the brunt of the onslaught of total war for America.
The dying of the old Navy from Yangtze to Cavite with gutsy sailors like "Boats" living hard in the backwater paradise of the Pacific on $20 a month.The tragedy of continuing defeat, overwhelming catastrophic events, the ill prepared Nation, the dying of the old Navy, all combine to make this film, made with event still fresh in the actors and film makers minds, a statement of that war and of the heroes which the audience knew first hand.
But then, there's the great Robert Montgomery, who did active duty (unlike Wayne), and I truly believe he was playing this film, both as actor and co-director, straight from the heart.
Memorable, slow-paced World War II film with fine performances from Robert Montgomery, John Wayne and Donna Reed with excellent direction by John Ford..
John Ford's excellent direction turns these mundane moments into one of the most memorable war films ever.
Robert Montgomery's "looking for the Arizona too" comment to Wayne sums up the feelings of its time much more than a five minute speech on how important it is to win the war could ever do.The cinematography is top notch, as it is in most of Ford's films.
LOL Years later my father spoke of the movie as one of his favorites, and one Saturday night while up late working on model airplanes or ships, They Were Expendable came on and I realized that the guy in the baseball cap was my favorite actor John Wayne.
My own recollection was that most of the ordinary joes were always referring to Douglas MacArthur as "Dugout Doug," a derogatory swipe at his flight to Australia and reluctance to go on the offensive for some time thereafter.Like other great war films such as All Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory, this one takes its place right up there..
Although I am a big fan of some of John Wayne's other war pictures such as The Flying Tigers and The Fighting Sea Bees, these films are not exactly realistic and make it look like Wayne and his friends could have almost single-handedly beaten the Japanese!
Realism is key to this picture.Oh, and by the way, Robert Montgomery gets top billing because when the film was made he was the bigger star--Wayne's rise to the top in Hollywood was still to come.
They were no doubt aware of this, and that escape before the Japanese arrived was their only real chance of survival.John Ford created a basically solemn film in keeping with the times.
A downbeat ending with some crew going off to help plan for later battles and others marching off to almost certain death, but it is in keeping with what the US forces faced at the time.Recent good WW2 films such as Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line show what can be achieved now with a big budget and huge technical advances, but it doesn't make them any better than this film.I only hope it comes out in DVD in the UK.
decided to depict a part of the war where it was difficult to remain positive, where you were forced to leave members of your crew behind to face the uncertainties of meeting up with the enemy.Yes, there are times when Ford lays it on a little thick, and his use of "Anchors Aweigh", "Halls of Montezuma" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic" are a little too much, but these are minor flaws.
Truly John Ford directed just more than a war film here; he directed a gallant and heartfelt tribute to America's fighting men and women everywhere..
You see that John Wayne was a very good actor, an actor with charisma.This is a great war movie.
Stirring WWII film, directed by John Ford, about the contributions of the Navy torpedo boat squadron to the war effort.
In addition to the action and wartime heroics, there are subplots about the rivalry between Navy lieutenant Robert Montgomery and frustrated subordinate John Wayne, and a romance that blossoms between Wayne and nurse Donna Reed.Montgomery, a gleeful ham when the role calls for it, offers one of his most subtle and successful performances as the sober squadron commander.
Definitely worth a look for Ford and Wayne fans, or anyone who enjoys World War II films.
Perhaps Wayne should have done more supporting roles like this one with less flag waving and more portrayal of actual events and people.Can anyone tell me the title of the song that was played when John Wayne and Donna Reed were dancing about an hour into the film?
First To Fight, First To Die. Released at the end of World War II, with the ink on the final surrender documents still fresh, "They Were Expendable" is a rousing yet sobering look back when American service personnel faced total defeat at enemy hands.
It's not a question of "if" for them, just "when," and this is director John Ford's way of paying tribute.We open in December, 1941, as Lt. John Brickley (Robert Montgomery) is trying to make his superiors see the value of the squadron of PT- boats he commands, presently stationed on Cavite in the Philippines.
Brickley's second-in-command Rusty Ryan (John Wayne) even has to shed a promising romance with nurse Sandy Davyss (Donna Reed) as the exigencies of war take precedence.The message of "do-and-die" is presented early by Brickley's commander: "You and I are professionals.
Several key players in the Ford acting troupe have standout scenes, and with Ford manage to incorporate needed doses of humor in small but strategic ways.I really like Wayne in this movie; already a star, we see him here beginning to emerge as an actor, whether grousing about PT-duty early on, making a hash of an attempt at telling Sandy he loves her on a bad telephone connection, or reciting verse over two dead comrades.
While Montgomery sets the tone of the film, Wayne provides the crucial backbone for it to work.In a way, the great strength of "They Were Expendable" is also a weakness; that it was made when the subject was not only fresh but still an open wound.
John Wayne, Ward Bond and other familiar faces handle their roles well without exception.Even the love interest with Donna Reed doesn't impede the continuity of the story.In fact,it adds a soft note to an otherwise gritty war scene.Although shot in Florida, the locations easily pass for the Philippines ,the locale of the action.
Strong action on sea interwoven with a love story and very good character development by Robert Montgomery and John Wayne, accompanied by the then awfully young Cameron Mitchell and Marshal "Daktari" Thompson.
John Ford + John Wayne + Robert Montgomery = a great war movie..
I know that most of these WWII films were propaganda for the war effort, but at the time, this was the best way to show the folks at home what the navy accomplished in the Phillipines.
The photography is spectacular, the people so gentle, courtly I would say, in that trying time, a terrific story and a movie to show Robert Montgomery and John Ford at their best.
This is John Ford's excellent war film about the conflict in the Pacific.
A very understated performance by Wayne, ably supported by the 'average sailors doing their job', and for me at least, a great (if short) performance by Reed, as the nurse everyone loved!I have to say, I'm surprised she doesn't seem to be as recognised as other leading ladies from that time, and that apart from the movies mentioned and From Here To Eternity, she didn't seem to have too many big roles.Overall, one of the top wartime movies, superbly directed and performed by all, with Wayne, Reed and Robert Montgomery in particular..
One of the best films to be inspired by WWII, to which THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and MEN IN WAR serves as a nice companion pieces, directed by the best (and most prolific of Twentieth Century Director: JOHN FORD.Mounted in a lavish manner but maintaining the POV of the men that served in the tragic fall of the Philippines..., well- just buy it or rent it and you will see for yourself..
And he had been an actual PT boat commander in the war, and knew something about it that was irreplaceable.In fact, the film is remarkable for its verisimilitude--its convincingness, in both the broad sweep (the advance of the Japanese) and the details (all the things that make a movie make sense without distraction).
While filmed in Florida, it looks completely like the Philippines, and the boats and planes (American planes, all of them--the great Mitsubishi Zero planes that wreaked havoc in the first year of the war were mostly destroyed) are real.
The cast was great, with Robert Montgomery, John Wayne, Donna Reed, Ward Bond and many others, all of whom give wonderful performances.
six years later at the Pantages Theater.) In "They Were Expendable," Wayne's energy plays off Robert Montgomery's authority, and with John Ford, Wayne's usual wise-ass demeanor is under control, effectively making this a buddy picture but one of great subtlety and pathos: the storyline tracks the U.S.Navy's retreat from the Philippines, leaving many crew members to face what became the Bataan death march
The attack sequences of the PT boats going up against Japanese cruisers are unbelievable, matching up Ford's eye for spectacle with anything he did later in Monument Valley.
but the battle scenes and portrayal of everyday naval life in this branch of the service is not only interesting as a film but important as historical preservation since even in its production period of 1945, finding several actual working PT boats was a miracle indeed, even though most if not all did not see any real combat service only a year after the war ended.
A decent film with a good cast and usual fine directing from John Ford, it's worth seeing for the military enthusiast, just for the PT Boats!.
John Ford Goes to War. In the Year of Our Lord 1941, Lieutenant Robert Montgomery (as John "Brick" Brickley) mans a torpedo boat.
Then, it's back to the Pacific...Montgomery and director John Ford had just returned from serving in the war, and are credited with their "U.S.N.R." (United States Navy Reserve) military title.
Ms. Reed contributes an especially impressive dramatic performance.***** They Were Expendable (12/19/45) John Ford ~ Robert Montgomery, John Wayne, Donna Reed, Marshall Thompson.
This film held my interest from the very beginning to the very end and there was plenty of action involving the Navy PT Boats and how they were first introduced into World War II in the Pacific.
Robert Montgomery, (Lt. John Brickley) commanded his squadron of men including John Wayne, Lt.(j.g.) Rusty Ryan who both worked together to provided the Navy with the best performance the P T Boats had when they were utilized for destroying large Japanese boats and munitions.
In real life, Robert Montgomery actually was a P T Boat Commander during World War II and was very admired by John Ford who did his best to outshine John Wayne who had no military experience.
This was a great movie also one of the few that feature the PT boats of the Navy.A story seldom told or heard by a lot of people.I enjoyed this movie not only because i like John Wayne(The Duke) But all the actors played believable parts.The navy is well represented in this movie as several actors all served in the navy during the Second world war with great distinction.Robert Montgomery plays a good roll as did the Duke and Ward Bond and others.I hope this movie comes out in Color on the DVDs as it would be interesting to see the difference in it from the original black and white show.This shows the real story about how some of these men fought a tough war on plywood decks and still had a good sense of humor..
Unlike some of John Ford's better films, They Were Expendable is only sporadically great; several individual scenes are beautiful.
The legendary John Ford and actor Robert Montgomery direct this bland, but interesting war drama about the use of PT Boats during WW2 in the Philippines.
It is, in some ways, a documentary drama of those days just after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour with utter confusion by the American forces.It is clear that many of the actors and others involved with the making of the film had served in WW2.As you watch the movie, notice the number of times when actors move away and you don't hear what they're saying and the Director leaves it to you to imagine what's being said.They can't make films like this nowadays!.
None that is, except today's subject, the fine World War II Drama, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE (MGM, 1945).NOT only was it a rare appearance for "Pappy" Ford; but also one in which he brought his Cinematic Step-Son, John Wayne with him, for a rare appearance at MGM for the 'Duke'.COMING toward the end of the conflict and being released in December of 1945, a full four months after both VE Day and VJ Day; the picture benefited from the knowledge of actual occurrences in the Philippines during the dark, early days of the Conflict in the Pacific.ADDITIONALLY, co-starring with Mr.
In good evidence in the film one will see: Donna Reed, Jack Holt, Ward Bond, Leon Ames, Marshall Thompson, Donald Curtis, Cameron Mitchell, Jeff York, Murray Alper, Charles Trowbridge, Blake Edwards, Louis Jean Heidt, Wallace Ford, Duke Green, Sammy Stein, Kermit Maynard, and a cast of thousands.THE story is a fictionalized account of the struggle of the Philippine Islands and its people as well as the United States' Forces stationed there before the attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941.
The name PT was settled on later; from the initials for Patrol Torpedo Boat).AS in any of John Ford's Films, true love a and appreciation for our American Freedoms and way of Life, as well as for the United States itself are clearly evident; although it is most usually implied in the passing and never stated explicitly.EVEN though the characters are fictional (except for folks like General Douglas MacArthur & Company) the fiction is not to be classified as strict fiction as the incidents portrayed are all based on real occurrences.AS for a Rating, as a War Picture or as any General Category, we award this rare MGM, John Ford, John Wayne Wartime Drama the same designation of rank that General Doug MacArthur had.
John Ford's They Were Expendable makes good use of John Wayne, Robert Montgomery, and Donna Reed in this World War II drama.
John Wayne, Robert Montgomery and Donna Reed head a great cast in this moving drama.
She is a far different World War 11 Reed than what she would be 8 years later when she said to Monty Clift: "What did the army ever do for you." Imagine saying that to John Wayne in a film!!!!!
According to John Wayne, Ford poured his heart and soul into this movie but then reportedly expressed his disappointment with the final results, that is until he was coaxed into actually watching it and then abruptly changed his mind.For me, this also features performances that rank among the finest of the three main stars, John Wayne, Robert Montgomery, and Donna Reed.The message that I received from this film is that it wasn't only the PT boat crews who were expendable.
John Ford's "They Were Expendable" ranks as one of the all time great World War II epics about the U.S. Navy.
Ostensibly, the film is based on the actual exploits of Brickley and the events surrounding the fall of the Philippines between December 1941 and April 1942 when the United States was losing the war.John Ford had seen war first-hand before he helmed "They Were Expendable" and he made it for the Navy to promote the use of PT-boats, The war ended, however, before MGM released the film and studio chief Louis B.
Real life events were still fresh in the minds of war combatants John Ford and Robert Montgomery when this film was made, evidenced by how news of the day might have been hampered by the available technology.
Many think this is a John Wayne movie, but the young Wayne plays a secondary character to Robert Montgomery.
At the end John Wayne and Robert Montgomery both get out on the last plane out of the area because of their PT boat experiences. |
tt2771200 | Beauty and the Beast | A widower merchant lives in a mansion with his six children, three sons and three daughters. All his daughters are very beautiful, but the youngest, Beauty, is the most lovely, as well as kind, well-read, and pure of heart; while the two elder sisters, in contrast, are wicked, selfish, vain, and spoiled. They secretly taunt Beauty and treat her more like a servant than a sister. The merchant eventually loses all of his wealth in a tempest at sea which sinks most of his merchant fleet. He and his children are consequently forced to live in a small farmhouse and work for their living.
Some years later, the merchant hears that one of the trade ships he had sent off has arrived back in port, having escaped the destruction of its compatriots. Before leaving, he asks his children if they wish for him to bring any gifts back for them. The sons ask for weaponry and horses to hunt with, whereas his oldest daughters ask for clothing, jewels, and the finest dresses possible as they think his wealth has returned. Beauty is satisfied with the promise of a rose as none grow in their part of the country. The merchant, to his dismay, finds that his ship's cargo has been seized to pay his debts, leaving him penniless and unable to buy his children's presents.
During his return, the merchant becomes lost during a storm. Seeking shelter, he enters a dazzling palace. A hidden figure opens the giant doors and silently invites him in. The merchant finds tables inside laden with food and drink, which seem to have been left for him by the palace's invisible owner. The merchant accepts this gift and spends the night there. The next morning, as the merchant is about to leave, he sees a rose garden and recalls that Beauty had desired a rose. Upon picking the loveliest rose he can find, the merchant is confronted by a hideous "Beast" which tells him that for taking his most precious possession after accepting his hospitality, the merchant must die. The merchant begs to be set free, arguing that he had only picked the rose as a gift for his youngest daughter. The Beast agrees to let him give the rose to Beauty, but only if the merchant or one of his daughters will return.
The merchant is upset but accepts this condition. The Beast sends him on his way, with wealth, jewels and fine clothes for his sons and daughters, and stresses that Beauty must never know about his deal. The merchant, upon arriving home, tries to hide the secret from Beauty, but she pries it from him. Her brothers say they will go to the castle and fight the Beast, but the merchant dissuades them, saying they will stand no chance against the monster. Beauty then agrees to go to the Beast's castle. The Beast receives her graciously and informs her that she is now mistress of the castle, and he is her servant. He gives her lavish clothing and food and carries on lengthy conversations with her. Every night, the Beast asks Beauty to marry him, only to be refused each time. After each refusal, Beauty dreams of a handsome prince who pleads with her to answer why she keeps refusing him, to which she replies that she cannot marry the Beast because she loves him only as a friend. Beauty does not make the connection between the handsome prince and the Beast and becomes convinced that the Beast is holding the prince captive somewhere in the castle. She searches and discovers multiple enchanted rooms, but never the prince from her dreams.
For several months, Beauty lives a life of luxury at the Beast's palace, having every whim catered to by invisible servants, with no end of riches to amuse her and an endless supply of exquisite finery to wear. Eventually, she becomes homesick and begs the Beast to allow her to go see her family. He allows it on the condition that she returns exactly a week later. Beauty agrees to this and sets off for home with an enchanted mirror and ring. The mirror allows her to see what is going on back at the Beast's castle, and the ring allows her to return to the castle in an instant when turned three times around her finger. Her older sisters are surprised to find her well fed and dressed in finery. Beauty tries to share the magnificent gowns and jewels the Beast gave her with her sisters, but they turn into rags at her sisters' touch, and are restored to their splendour when returned to Beauty, as the Beast meant them only for her. Her sisters are envious when they hear of her happy life at the castle, and, hearing that she must return to the Beast on a certain day, beg her to stay another day, even putting onion in their eyes to make it appear as though they are weeping. They hope that the Beast will be angry with Beauty for breaking her promise and eat her alive. Beauty's heart is moved by her sisters' false show of love, and she agrees to stay.
Beauty begins to feel guilty about breaking her promise to the Beast and uses the mirror to see him back at the castle. She is horrified to discover that the Beast is lying half-dead from heartbreak near the rose bushes from which her father plucked the rose, and she immediately uses the ring to return to the Beast.
Beauty weeps over the Beast, saying that she loves him. When her tears strike him, the Beast is transformed into the handsome prince from Beauty's dreams. The Prince informs her that long ago a fairy turned him into a hideous beast after he refused to let her in from the rain and that only by finding true love, despite his ugliness, could the curse be broken. He and Beauty are married and they live happily ever after together. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0291032 | Xiao cai feng | The film is set in a period between 1971 and 1974, during the later stage of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Two city boys in their late teenage years, Luo Min (played by Chen Kun) and Ma Jianling (Liu Ye), are on their way to a remote village in the mountainous Sichuan province for re-education. Upon arrival, the boys are questioned on their "reactionary backgrounds" by the Chief (Chen Tianlu), the village leader, in the presence of the other villagers. Luo's father turns out to be a dentist who had once fitted a false tooth for Chiang Kai-shek, while Ma's father is a doctor. The Chief also examines the boys' luggage and burns a cookbook, which he claims to be bourgeois. He is about to throw Ma's violin into the fire as well before he is stopped by Luo, who lies that the Mozart's Divertimento KV 334 Ma plays is a "mountain song" titled Mozart is Thinking of Chairman Mao.
The two boys are allocated a house and immediately join in the labours of the locals, which include transporting buckets of human waste used for fertilizer as well as working in the coal mine. One day, a young girl, granddaughter of a tailor from the neighbouring village and known to everyone as the Little Seamstress (Zhou Xun), comes by with her grandfather to listen to Ma play violin. Luo and Ma befriend the Little Seamstress and soon both fall in love with her. The girl, illiterate but hungry for knowledge, and the boys, vowing to transform her, devise a plan to steal a suitcase filled with banned translated Western novels from Four-Eyes (Wang Hongwei), another boy undergoing re-education in the village but bound to return to the city. Luo begins to read to the Little Seamstress every day, books including those by Stendhal, Kipling and Dostoevsky. But her favourite turns out to be Balzac.
The Little Seamstress soon falls in love with Luo. One day, as Luo is departing for the city on a two-month leave to visit his sick father, she tells him that she has a problem but does not elaborate. She later confides to Ma that she is pregnant, but population-curbing laws forbid marriage before 25 and abortion is illegal without a marriage certificate. Ma travels to the city to find a gynecologist who knows his father and begs the latter for help. The gynecologist is moved and agrees to travel to the village to perform a secret abortion. Upon Luo's return, life resumes as before.
One day, however, the Little Seamstress, now completely changed by the new ideas Luo and Ma have introduced her to, abruptly decides to leave the village to seek out "a new life," despite pleas from her grandfather and Luo. Later, in 1974, Luo and Ma both return to the city as well. Luo later becomes a professor in a dental institute in Shanghai, while Ma moves to France and becomes a professional violinist. In the late 1990s, when he sees on the news that the construction of the Three Gorges Dam will soon flood the village he spent three years in, Ma travels back in the hope of finding the Little Seamstress again. However, his efforts are futile and he brings back only a video recording of the village and the people, including the now aged Chief. As Ma meets up with his old friend Luo in Shanghai, the latter confesses an earlier failed attempt to search for the Little Seamstress in Shenzhen and Hong Kong. The film ends with a news clip of the flooded towns and villages and a scene of the three, back to their youth years, also submerged in water. | romantic, autobiographical, flashback | train | wikipedia | Despite this, there is something innately satisfying about watching it, which defies casual analysis.The story centres on two young men, Ma and Luo. Coming from "reactionary bourgeois" families in the city, they are sent by the Chinese authorities for "re-education" to a beautiful yet achingly backward and isolated community in the mountains.
There they undertake menial work, live in comparative squalor, but predictably find love in the form of the same woman known throughout the film simply as "the little seamstress".While "Balzac
" will win few originality awards, its strength lies in execution.Sijie Dai manages to tell his story (which is semi-autobiographical) in a straightforward way.
The local party chief exclaims early in the film "revolutionary peasants will never be corrupted by filthy bourgeois chicken"; Ma and Luo are sent to the cinema with instructions to tell the story to the village on their return; the little seamstress comments wistfully that she can "see planes flying overhead, and wonder to what far cities they are going" reminding us painfully that this is the 1960s not the 1860s.Mostly, though, the audience is reminded of the futility of repression; the insatiable thirst for knowledge and new ideas, even among the villagers who are transfixed by the basic choices to be found in a city-boy's cookbook.The cinematography is also wonderful.
In 1971, in the China of Mao Tse Tung, the two university students Luo (Kun Chen) and Ma (Ye Liu) are sent to a mountain mining village with very ignorant peasants and also a Maoist rehabilitation camp, to be reeducated.
They become friends, and Luo and Ma steal forbidden books of western literature, and while they read the books and teach the little seamstress, they also tell the story to the community and play classical music in the violin, developing and improving their lives.What a magnificent and beautiful movie is "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress".
In a wonderful landscape with stunning scenery, this revolutionary love story about the importance of books to improve the life of people is very believable and I am not sure whether it is based on a true story.
Sijie Dai's wonderful novel, "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress" was a joy to read.
The author, who one thinks must live in France, made it possible for people that haven't read the book to see it as a motion picture that captures the spirit of the novel.The action takes place in the China of the Red Brigades.
Among the people that fell prey to the hysteria of those days, two young city young men were apprehended and sent to a remote area by the magical Phoenix mountains to start work in one of the mines in the area as part of their reeducation, or brain washing process.Young Luo and Ma, can't do without their beloved books and the violin that one of them played.
Thus begins a series of readings from the classical books, mostly French, and the young men disguise as coming from another source.When the tailor for the area arrives with his little assistant, both Luo and Ma can't help in falling in love for her.
I was lost in the film,as was the rest of the audience(including the cute girl) This film took a wide eyed,but intelligent swipe at the upside down vision of Mao's Cultural Revolution,and asked us"What if?" The simple,humorous story,and the lead characters drew that whole audience in,and reminded me of why I like the movies.
I like a good heavy drama as much as anyone,but as I sat there in the dark packed house that night flying over the most beautiful lush Chinese landscapes,and really being involved in the three characters plights,amid tears and sniffles scattered throughout the theatre(i got choked up a bit too) I realized that sometimes less is more in filmmaking,and it can mean the difference between connecting with the story and characters,and just being along for the ride du jour.
The underwater scene at the end, while having a melancholic touch, did come across as rather forced for an otherwise "natural" film.The characters are all believable, amicable, intriguing and make you all the more interested in the story, which takes place during the Chinese cultural revolution.
you could fall in love with The little seamstress just the way to protagonist and Luo do.the scenery is perfect, and makes you wish to be re-educated, although...
I was really moved by the portrayal of the friendship of the Little Seamstress, Ma, and Luo, and how their lives were changed by their experience in the mountains in this brief span of time.
The mountains were beautiful, the re-educators were not presented as monsters, and the acting, esp Xun Zho as Little Seamstress and Ye Liu as Ma was really good.
Most importantly, I rediscovered how lucky I am to be able to read and watch what I want when I want, and how I am almost obligated to take advantage of my freedom to read and watch movies.For me, the filming was never as strong as the better Asian movies but once the movie got going the filming became stronger as did the movie.The character of the harshness of the cultural revolution in China in the 60's was shown thru a politically soft-focus lens, but I did not mind this as there are more than enough Chinese movies that have leaned in the other direction, and for me, this was a movie about friendship and love in a political and cultural setting, not the other way around which matches my own personal preferences..
"Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (Xiao cai feng)" raises the awkward situation of commenting on a semi-autobiographical story which was originally written, then adapted and directed by the person who lived it in the same, beautiful locations where the events that inspired Sijie Dai took place.
The basics of the story would seem like a 1940's sci fi allegory of a totalitarian, anti-intellectual society if the Cultural Revolution under the here ubiquitously revered ruler Mao Tse Tung hadn't actually happened, with its anti-literate class-based revenge of kicking the children of the perceived elite out of the cities to rural areas for re-education at rigorous manual labor.
In outline, his story is like a real life "Fahrenheit 451" and "the Little Seamstress," the teen ager, played charmingly by Xun Zhou, who gets caught up in a triangle between the out-of-towners, like "Ninotchka." She, startlingly, has far more ambition than the loyal peasant girl in "The Road Home."So it's hard to tell if the strong condescension in the tone to the local peasantry is what the two young men finally learn to overcome or is somewhat shown to be just as endemic in the Communist Party as is seen at the end they were suppressing the beauty of local traditions almost as much as intellectual influences.
Balzac and the little Chinese seamstress is one of those movies, you're glad you caught at your local cinema, even though you never originally planned to see it.
Boys lose girl.Whoever said "No girl was ever spoiled by reading a book"?"Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress" is supposed to be an ode to the transforming power of music and literature, beauty and love.
"Balzac and the little seamstress" is French made film which portrays the profound impact that illicit French literature has on a peasant Chinese village during the cultural revolution.
This Chinese movie, set in 1971, is about two university students that in the middle of the Cultural revolution, are sent to a mountain village for reeducation, in order to "learn from the peasants".
Amid the menial work they are forced to do and the stifling stupidity of the villagers, the pair manages some solace by seducing the young seamstress granddaughter of a local tailor, when they introduce her to a secret cache of forbidden books (including a tome by Honore de Balzac referred in the movie's title).
Balzac et la petite tailleuse chinoise (2002)(shown in the U.S. as "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress" is a movie that is pleasant to watch, but that doesn't provide much to think about later.
They also manage to find books of translations of great literature--including Balzac.A young woman is added to the equation--the Little Seamstress of the title.
At the very end of the film, we are brought into present-day China, so that we learn the fate of the characters we see as young people.
(Other people attending the movie had read the book, and told us that this ending was tacked onto the film, which lessened the emotional impact.)In any event, I enjoyed this movie, and learned something more about history and also the social structure of China.
At the core of 2003's Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress, a film directed by a man adapting his own novel, is a bond shared between two men at a time of oppression and punishment - something which is threatened into disintegration on account of a young woman seemingly coming between them.
As he looks on, there is a looming sense of whatever little fondness the film infers he has for her is clashing with the fact she is coming between him and his friend; in spite of the fact the film is somewhat of a love story, this sense of men and males bonding in harsh circumstances takes centre stage - Dai Sijie's film deceptively about the fondness two people share for a member of the opposite sex and more-so about the understanding two of the same gender have with one another; those around them and their predicament.If one were to say that the sorts of films Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress feigns to be more often than not end with a heterosexual embrace, the final few scenes of this film display a muted mutual understanding of what two people of the same gender went through: thinking along the lines of 'we experienced all of that, lost it, but still have each other'.
Such a man is Luo (Chen), a young adult suffering through the same hardships with a good friend named Ma (Liu), of whom is a bit of a musician.From robotic foundations comes the film about characters exploring books and music and other texts at the higher end of culture; items which touch the characters so much that they decide to print verses from their favourite banned material on their shirts so they may feel how they feel.
There in the mountains, they meet an attractive Chinese little seamstress who they read books too like Balzac and others that are normally forbidden.
They become friends with a local girl, a seamstress whose true name they never learn, and the three begin a covert reading group of forbidden foreign novels.First of all, BALZAC and the LITTLE Chinese SEAMSTRESS is just a very moving, engaging, and intelligent story.
The two young men Luo and Ma become acquainted with the local girls, especially the Little Seamstress (her actual name is not given), who lives with her grandfather.
The two young men steal foreign books from someone named "Four Eyes" and they try to teach the little seamstress to read.
You just look at the company and console yourself with the awards you have already won.This was a beautiful film with Xun Zhou (The Emperor and the Assassin) in the title role as an uneducated villager who is exposed to banned books by two university students, Kun Chen and Ye Liu (The Promise, The Curse of the Golden Flower), who were sent to her mountain for reeducation.Besides another critical look at the reeducation program under Mao, it also provides a look at how all yearn for freedom, much like watching the second hour of the new John Adams mini-series did.One thing that was very interesting in the film was the way it demonstrated the flooding of the Yangtze to create the 650 square mile lake in China.
Sijie Dai's semi autobiographical novel BALZAC AND THE LITTLE Chinese SEAMSTRESS is one of those little miracles of a film that lingers in the mind and heart long after the credits are over.
Sijie Dai wrote the screenplay, cast the film and directed his story about the changes that occurred in Communist China in such a way that the full spectrum of 'revolution' is appreciated without polarizing the audience.The time is 1971 and the city bourgeois children are sent to the rural areas for re-education in to the mindset of Socialism and the glory of Chairman Mao. Among these are two young boys - Luo (Kun Chen), son of a dentist and a scholar who loves to read, and Ma (Ye Liu) who also loves learning and is an able violinist.
The boys adjust to the rigors of hard labor, mix with the rural folk and the other boys being reeducated - Four Eyes (Hong Wei Wang) secretly hides classic books and is befriended by the boys - as well as the venerated Old Tailor (Zhijun Cong) and his delightful granddaughter Little Chinese Seamstress (Xun Zhou).
Luo falls in love with the Little Chinese Seamstress (and so does Ma) and the three experience the beauty of nature and music and literature until circumstances force their separation.
Few of us understand the changes in philosophy that accompanied the Chinese Communist Cultural Revolution and this story and film offer an enchanting view of how the human spirit can survive almost any obstacle when it is married to friends, to literature and to music.
A charming teenager love story in China during time of Cultural Revolution..
In China, in times of Mao Tse Tung cultural revolution, two young university students, Luo and Ma are sent in a retired mountain village to be rehabilitated et purged of their old western education.
A love story rapidly develops between Luo and the young seamstress at the same time they read together forbidden books such as works of Honore de Balzac that they have stolen to another student under Maoist rehabilitation.
The young Xou Zhou is fantastic as the seamstress that sees her life change after the two boys come from the big city to live near her village.
The story of the two boys and the little seamstress was simple, there was no dramatic love struggles, like so many of the mainstream movies.
Chen Kun (Luo) and Zhou Xun (the little seamstress) mastered a totally different accent of the same language, thus adding authenticity to the movie.
Both fall in love with a seamstress in the village to whom they read forbidden books to in stolen moments.
The boys steal it, and with the help of their favourite author, Balzac, the little Chinese seamstress is changed forever from the simple girl she was.The movie itself leaves something to be desired.
People would have to read the book before seeing the movie to work out which parts fitted where and what was happening.
When he is reminiscing about how the little seamstress had left a while earlier (from what can be pieced together) it is very confusing trying to work out whether he is in the present or the past.The director of the movie (Sijie Dai) is also the writer of the book, so a better movie would be expected then this.
I think another commentator made the point that the film doesn't deliver the levels of triumph, nor tragedy, so deserved for a such a portrayal of love, and freedom, amid such life-altering times, as that of Mao's Cultural Revolution in 1970's China.
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress, France's nominee for Best Foreign Film at this year's Golden Globe Awards, is about re-education and is based on the experience of the director Dai Sijie who spent four years of his life in a similar program.
They steal "subversive" novels of Honore de Balzac, Flaubert, Dostoevsky, and Gogol from a student named Four-Eyes and read them to the granddaughter of the local tailor, known only as the Little Chinese Seamstress (Xun Zhou,).
Talk about a Cultural Revolution.While the acting is strong, Xun Zhou looks more like a model from a Beijing studio than a naïve mountain seamstress and the boys seem more like symbols of the power of art than real people undergoing a difficult and painful experience.
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress wants to tell an important story, but comes across as a bit too precious, trivializing its material in a sentimental tone poem that ultimately fails to satisfy.
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress by Sijie DaiThe film was a very affectionate story right in between important events and right at the very end where it showed an important past of Luo(Kun Chen), Ma(Ye Liu), and The little seamstress(Xun Zhou) in the shed where they were re-educated and where Luo and Ma first feel in love with the Little Seamstress.
I always thought that something would happen between Ma(Ye Liu) and Luo(Kun Chen) over the Little Seamstress(Xun Zhou) because Ma was always down about seeing Luo with The Seamstress, and i thought his jealousy would get in the way later on."Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress" is a passionate film that idealizes two guys who are in love with one girl and shows how determined the two guys were in trying to change the girl.
Luo and Ma both try to find a way to reform the Little Seamstress by using forbidden books.
It somewhat showed how Ye Liu's character is and how it might shape him in the future in the film as Ma. One element of the film i really didn't like was when Kun Chen's character Luo wanted to change the Little Seamstress so that she would match up to him.
Luo was a bit selfish but when it happened Luo fell in love with her anyways.The film was directed by Sijie Dai, who used the books and Concepts of Balzac, who is an author and introduces the New form of the Little Seamstress as time went by.
The movie failed to depict closely to the book.Luo and ma was sent to work in the Pheonix Mountains during the Cultural Revolution in China. |
tt2911674 | Tiger House | Mark, who comes from a well-off family, meets his gymnast girlfriend Kelly after school. She becomes uncomfortable when he shows her a crossbow that he has brought along with her. While demonstrating it, he accidentally shoots her in the leg. An unspecified time later, Kelly sneaks into Mark's house through his second-story window and confront him on why he has not contacted her lately. Mark reveals that his parents have grounded him and taken away his mobile phone after finding a condom and drugs among his possessions. Lynn, Mark's mother, interrupts them. As Kelly hides, she overhears Lynn insult her, calling her low class and unworthy of Mark.
After Lynn leaves, Kelly tells Mark she is pregnant. Upset, Mark complains his life plans could be ruined. Before they can discuss it further, Mark hears a loud thump. Unknown to Mark, home invaders have killed his dog and taken his parents hostage. He leaves his room to investigate, and Kelly hears further noises. Panicking, she hides under Mark's bed. The bedroom door bursts open, and robbers Shane, Callum, Sveta, and Reg enter. Shane has a glass shard embedded in his side, and they set him down on the bed. He instructs the others to stick to their plan: Reg and Sveta are to take Mark's father, Doug, to his bank and rob it while Callum and Shane watch the hostages.
As Callum researches how to make a tourniquet on Mark's computer, Kelly desperately reaches for a cell phone, only to find its battery is dead. Mark becomes excited when he learns Lynn is a doctor, and he temporarily frees her so she can look at Shane. Suspicious Mark may have invited her over, Lynn intentionally drops an item so she can glance under the bed. After stabilizing Shane, she is taken back to her bedroom and tied up with Mark. As Callum is distracted and Shane rests, Kelly escapes the bedroom. She sneaks around the house barefoot and manages to avoid getting caught. She is about to leave the house when Ferdinand, a man with whom Lynn is having an affair arrives. When Ferdinand sees Callum's unmasked face, Callum kills him.
As Callum menaces Mark and Lynn, Kelly sneaks up on him and stabs him with a scissors. Callum chases her back the bedroom, and she flees to the attic, stacking heavy objects on the trapdoor. In the attic, Kelly finds Mark's crossbow, though it is not loaded. As Callum enters the attic, she slips by him and traps him there. Shane stops her with a pistol. He confesses to her that he knows he is dying and has become scared. After they have a tense conversation, in which he learns about Ferdinand's murder, Shane allows Kelly to go. She frees Mark and Lynn, and they race downstairs. Mark and Lynn and immediately recaptured by Reg and Sveta, who have return from the successful heist.
Reg and Sveta free Callum. After grabbing a bolt, Kelly returns to the attic and retrieves the crossbow. When Reg refuses to kill the hostages, Callum takes his shotgun and says he will do it himself. As Callum leaves to look for her, Kelly shoots Reg with the crossbow, killing him, though he starts a fire before he dies. As the house burns, jumps out a window and surprises Sveta, killing him with the same bolt used to kill Reg. Kelly puts on Sveta's mask, tricking Callum into believing he needs assistance. Before she can kill him, Doug knocks her unconscious. As Callum prepares to kill Kelly, Shane recovers long enough to shoot and kill him.
Doug says he only wanted to escape his unhappy marriage and retire wealthy. Blaming him for the entire ordeal, Lynn shoots and kills him with a Reg's shotgun. With all the robbers dead, Mark, Kelly, and Lynn leave the burning house. As Mark helps Kelly load up her car with the stolen money, he offers to leave with her. Kelly stops him, telling him that he has his whole life ahead of him. Mark and Lynn practice their story, in which they say Kelly was never there and infighting caused the deaths of the robbers, and Kelly drives off. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.