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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0023458
|
Shanghai Express
|
In 1931, China is embroiled in a civil war. Friends of British Captain Donald "Doc" Harvey (Clive Brook) envy him because the fabulously notorious Shanghai Lily (Marlene Dietrich) is a fellow passenger on the express train from Beiping to Shanghai. Since the name means nothing to him, they inform him that she is a "coaster" or "woman who lives by her wits along the China coast" – in other words, a courtesan. On the journey, Harvey encounters Lily, who turns out to be his former lover, Magdalen. Five years earlier, she had played a trick on Harvey to gauge his love for her, but it backfired and he left her. She frankly informs him that, in the interim, "It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily." When Lily makes it clear that she still cares deeply for him, it becomes apparent that his feelings also have not changed, and he shows her the watch she gave him with her photograph still in it.
Among the other passengers are fellow coaster Hui Fei (Anna May Wong), Lily's companion; Christian missionary Mr. Carmichael (Lawrence Grant), who at first condemns the two "fallen women"; inveterate gambler Sam Salt (Eugene Pallette); opium dealer Eric Baum (Gustav von Seyffertitz); boarding house keeper Mrs. Haggerty (Louise Closser Hale); French officer Major Lenard (Emile Chautard) and a mysterious Eurasian, Henry Chang (Warner Oland).
Chinese government soldiers board and search the train and apprehend a high-ranking rebel agent. Chang then makes his way to a telegraph office and sends a coded message. Later, the train is stopped and taken over by the rebel army and its powerful warlord, who turns out to be Chang. Chang begins to question the passengers, looking for someone important enough to exchange for his valued aide. He finds what he wants in Harvey, who is on his way to perform brain surgery on the Governor-General of Shanghai. Chang offers to take Shanghai Lily to his palace, but she claims she has reformed. When Chang refuses to accept her answer, Harvey breaks in and knocks him down. Because Chang needs Harvey alive, he swallows (but does not forget) the insult. Chang then has Hui Fei brought to him in his quarters, where he forces himself on her.
The government releases Chang's man, but Chang decides to blind Harvey for his insolence. Out of love, Lily offers herself in return for Harvey's safe release. Harvey remains unaware of the danger he is in and Lily's reason for going with Chang. Chang is stabbed to death by Hui Fei who tells Harvey what has transpired. Finding Lily, the trio boards the train and depart before the body is discovered. The missionary Carmichael, trusting his instincts, gets Lily to reveal the truth about saving Harvey. She insists that he not enlighten Harvey, because love must go hand in hand with faith. When the train finally reaches Shanghai safely, Lily offers Harvey her love unconditionally, but demands the same in return. Harvey finally breaks down and embraces her.
|
revenge, avant garde, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
In this fourth teaming of the Svengali-like director and his Trilby of a star Marlene Dietrich they reach the zenith of their legendary collaboration and strike a template for the kind of movies America would do best and like best: voluptuous hybrids of adventure and intrigue, romance and raffish fun.Leaving for Shanghai to operate on the stricken British Consul-General, army physician Clive Brook climbs aboard only to find the woman he loved but lost five years ago (Dietrich).
Now, however, she goes by another appellation; as she explains, in the script's most emblematic line, `It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily.' Her presence on the train, and that of one of her sisters-in-sin (Anna May Wong) is cause for scandal and indignation among the other passengers: prim boarding-house proprietress Louise Closser Hale (with her pooch Waffles smuggled on board); sputtering man of the cloth Lawrence Grant; sardonic gambling man Eugene Pallette; a Frenchman; a German; and the inscrutable, pre-Charlie Chan Warner Oland.Soon, China being embroiled in a civil war, they have more to worry about than Dietrich's morals.
The storyline is basically a broken romance seeking to be healed between Clive Brook and Dietrich or "Shanghai Lily," the naughty lady who has sold her body the past few years to keep herself in glittery costumes and furs.The real "story" is "Dietrich and von Sternberg visit China" on some movie lot, on their way from or to Russia (The Scarlet Empress), Spain (The Devil is a Woman), North Africa (Morocco), or somewhere in the U.S.
Among the passengers, the British Captain Donald "Doc" Harvey (Clive Brook) that is traveling to operate the Vice-Governor of Shanghai; the courtesan Hui Fei (Anna May Wong); the Reverend Mr. Carmichael (Lawrence Grant); the boarding house owner Mrs. Haggerty (Louise Closser Hale); the French Major Lenard (Emile Chautard); the dealer Eric Baum (Gustav von Seyffertitz); and the local Mr. Henry Chang (Warner Oland).
Out of the blue, Captain Harvey stumbles with the notorious courtesan Shanghai Lily (Marlene Dietrich), who is a "coaster" ("a woman that travels along the China coast with her wealthy clients"), and he recognizes her as her former lover Magdalen.
"Shanghai Express" is a great Pre-Code Film with magnificent performances of the gorgeous Marlene Dietrich and Anna May Wong.
The supporting cast is equally good: Warner Oland as a sly Eurasian; Eugene Pallette as a jovial American gambler; Lawrence Grant as a grumpy old English missionary; Gustav von Seyffertitz as an invalid German with a dangerous secret; Emile Chautard as an elderly French Major with a hidden past; and wonderful old Louise Closser Hale as a feisty American widow who runs `the best boarding house in Shanghai.'Paramount put a lot of money into this pre-Production Code adventure drama, which has an exciting plot, good acting & plenty of romance.
It was also lovingly photographed from beginning to end, everyone and everything gleaming in a by turns savage and erotic dreamlike world.During the Chinese Civil War and travelling on the Peiping-Shanghai Express ("where time and life have no meaning") are a disparate band of Westerners plus a couple of enigmatic natives all sadly lacking in moral fibre except Clive Brooks who has too much of it.
He's still in love with Marlene Dietrich whom he ditched 5 years and 4 weeks before thus unwittingly turning her into Shanghai Lily the notorious coaster - a woman living on the coast of China by her "wits" which is a bit of a serious problem to the upright Britisher even though she still loves him.
However, in this film, his character is supposed to be half-Chinese and half-Western--so the casting wasn't a bad idea at all.Apart from Oland and Dietrich, Anna May Wong, Clive Brook, Lawrence Grant and Eugene Palette, among others, are on hand to provide some color.
One of Marlene Dietrich's most popular films from her early period with Joseph Von Sternberg was Shanghai Express.
Still Brook proves the old flame hasn't quite died down and in fact it hasn't for Marlene either.Other characters on the train are Lawrence Grant as a reverend Davidson type missionary, Louise Closser Hale as an old American dowager, Emile Chautard as a disgraced French Army officer, Gustave Von Seyfertitz as a hypocritical opium dealer, and Eugene Palette as a crass American businessman as only Eugene Palette can play them.
They provide quite a cross section of the western powers who were nibbling on the Chinese body politic at the time.Shanghai Express won an Oscar for Cinematography and was in the running for Best Picture that year, losing to Grand Hotel which has a lot of similarities to this film.
Always enjoy films from the 1930's and especially this one, which stars Marlene Dietrich,(Shanghai Lily),"Touch of Evil",'58, who looks very young and trim and plays a woman who has been around the block quite a few times.
Lily is still in love with a long lost lover and she once again gets involved with him on the "Shanghai Express", along with quite a few other characters on the mysterious train ride.
This is one of the most moving stories ever depicted on film (compare, too, with Nicholas Ray's "In a Lonely Place," which tells a similar tale of misunderstandings that destroy a deep love -- without the happy ending that is so welcome in "Shanghai Express.") All the supporting players brilliantly portray their variously flawed characters, and the direction is simply breathtaking.
Joseph Von Sternberg directed this film about a group of passengers traveling via train during a Chinese civil war.
It stars Marlene Dietrich, Clive Brooks, Anna May Wong, Warner Oland, Eugene Palette and Lawrence Grant.
Kopp and cinematography by Lee Garmes.Plot finds Shanghai Lily (Dietrich) meeting up with old flame Donald Harvey (Brooks) aboard the Shanghai Express during the Chinese Civil War in 1931.
However, this train has many passengers with secrets to hide, so when some rebels ambush the train, such things as loyalties, friendships, hidden motives and the birthing of legends come to the fore.Stylishly crafted by Sternberg and brisker than the other collaborations with Dietrich, Shanghai Express thrives on atmospheric visuals, strong scripting and a sultry turn from the leading lady.
However the love-story is ridiculously unbelievable, since Clive Brook is too wooden in his performance and Marlene Dietrich is too much of a femme fatale.The movie is further more a good looking one, with especially some nice Oscar winning cinematography.
You bet."Shanghai Express" is actually one of the best movies they made together - its almost pity that it had Dietrich in it, because it has interesting story that could have been made differently and used group of passengers on a train as a point towards adventure/thriller.
As the train rushes towards the danger, these random characters could turn movie into "Murder on a Shanghai Express", alas that was not Sternberg's intention - he under uses the talented group of supporting actors just to build a platform for Dietrich and her love interest (incredibly wooden and cranky Clive Brook, who is completely unbelievable as love of her life).
Classic Hollywood meets Mao. Josef von Sternberg gives us an accurate description of the civil war in China of the 1930's in addition to superb performance of Dietrich and Clive Brook makes the movie very enjoyable to watch.A simple love story evolves to suspense theme which enable us to experience the complicity of this civil war, the Nationalist, the Communist and the Westerners amid them.
Marlene Dietrich is Shanghai Lily on the "Shanghai Express" in this 1932 film directed by Josef von Sternberg.
Clive Brook was an actor of the stiff upper lip school, and he was unbelievably wooden.Nevertheless, with Warner Oland as Henry Chang, one of the evil Chinese and Eugene Palette as a passenger on the train, this is a very good, highly atmospheric film.
She speaks least of all, which by Sternberg's camera magic makes her presence and acting only the more expressive in its deep impression.Clive Brook may be wooden and expressionless, but it's a joy to hear his perfect diction and wonderful voice, not really up to Ronald Colman, who came later, but a good prelude to all the great swashbucklers that would follow.It's perhaps both Marlene's and Sternberg's best film, he never succeeded better in bringing the best out of her than here, and on the whole it's a fascinating film and story, which could teach anyone a lot - for all ages..
'Shanghai Express' is arguably the greatest of the seven films that featured the collaboration of Marlene Dietrich and Josef von Sternberg.
Fourth out of seven Dietrich-von Sternberg's collaborations, SHANGHAI EXPRESS confirms with Hollywood's habitually insensitive appropriation of exotic stories, this time, the victim is a civil war-ridden China, the entire film sets during the treacherous journey of the titular express, chugging from Beijing to Shanghai, but apparently, von Sternberg cannot lay his hands on finding enough Mandarin-speaking extras, so all the Chinese bit players are sporting Cantonese with a weird accent that even confounds this reviewer's Chinese ears, and some of them are occasionally being manhandled unceremoniously, notably in an earlier scene by a miffed Charlie Chan, no, actually it is Henry Chang (Oland), an Eurasian warlord of Chinese rebellions with a costly price tag on his head.Essentially, the movie is Ms. Dietrich's star vehicle, kit up with astounding sartorial creations from Travis Banton, and looks gorgeously photogenic under von Sternberg's meticulous coordination, she plays a courtesan named Shanghai Lily, of all people, she chances upon her ex-lover, British Captain Donald "Doc" Harvey (a stiff upper-lipped Brook) on the express, while the pair's romance duly begins to rekindle, Chang and his rebellious rabble hijacks the train and detains Doc as a valuable hostage, soon, it falls to two women's hands to take the situation out of jeopardy, one is Shanghai Lily, who acquiesces to Chang's commander for the sake of Doc's safety, another is her companion, a Chinese working girl Hui Fei (a piercing-looking Wong, the first Chinese-American star in Hollywood), who successfully lands on her feet after a vengeful assassination.Sardonically, the rest western passengers are more or less one-note laughing-stocks, casual scorn is cast upon an opium merchant and self-professed "invalid" Eric Baum (von Seyffertitz), a priggish Reverend Carmichael (Grant) and a congenital bettor Sam Salt (Pallette), whereas Henry Chang is accountable for all the contempt, conversely it is the gamble of love and faith that transpires after its torpid escape hubbub, and it is Shanghai Lily's clandestine repentance finally softens the film's cynical temperament and veers into the usual trajectory of a cheesy romance, but what an extravaganza is on show, von Sternberg's expressionistic idiom would totally normalize the standards we view movies even today, whether it concerns narrative cohesion, the marshaling of a huge set, or spectacular montage arrangements, no wonder audience at that time could rapturously fall under his spell, SHANGHAI EXPRESS is the highest grossing movie of 1932, even today, it demands our collective gaze..
Marlene Dietrich's fourth out of seven collaborations with director Josef Von Sternberg is among her best in films and performances and one of her better collaborations with Sternberg.Dietrich herself is one of 'Shanghai Express' selling points.
And "Shanghai express" was made with and about love as well; directed by the great Josef von Sternberg and starring one of the most controversial but not less talented actresses of the era, phenomenal Marlene Dietrich.
Dietrich never was a complete a unanimity, she was too controversial all the time, his double face which she had assumed by herself nor woman, neither men, bring to his own personal image a dubiouness, in this fabulous movie from sternberg who stolem were a colorful characters, as a cold revolucionary leader played by Warner Oland, a compulsive gambler by the great Eugene Pallette, a dishonored french soldier by Emile Chautard, a old grumpy german as disguised drug dealer, Mr. Carmichael a sort of faith man and finally an old lady who is a real staunch supporter of the good customs, in other hand a fancy well dressed Marlene living in another world as Shanghay Lily obviously a woman of an easy life, the main characters are the supporting casting, we must forget the absence of Clive Brook, masterfully photographed on shadows and lights on glorious black & white!!!Resume:First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
This one has her starring as Shanghai Lily, a notorious "worldly" woman whose mysterious exterior hides a heart of gold, and who's willing to sacrifice herself to save the man she loves (unbeknownst to him).The previous year's "Morocco," also directed by Josef von Sternberg, brought Dietrich her only Oscar nomination, but "Shanghai Express" was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and it won the Oscar for Lee Garmes' cinematography.
This movie is beautifully photographed, and Von Sternberg's care in highlighting Marlene Dietrich (as the infamous Shanghai Lily) is evident in almost every frame.
A train ride through exotic China during a Civil War and involving a trainload of disparate passengers is the stuff for Josef von Sternberg to turn into a showcase for his favorite star, MARLENE DIETRICH.
Never has he captured the Dietrich magic the way he has here, featuring her as Shanghai Lil, a notorious woman viewed with suspicion by the other passengers--a motley bunch if ever there was one--and engaged in a love affair with CLIVE BROOK (the only bad performance) in his typical wooden style.The photography by Lee Garmes won an Oscar, crisply detailed B&W images captured in shadow and light and capturing all the bustling activity and atmosphere of a very colorful story.Aside from Dietrich's feisty and alluring performance as the dazzling Shanghai Lil, the cast includes ANNA MAY WONG, EUGENE Palette and WARNER OLAND as the cruel war lord who meets a cruel fate.Probably the high point of Dietrich's collaboration with von Sternberg and well worth viewing.Trivia note: Excuse the spelling of Eugene's name.
One of the lesser Von Sternberg Dietrich teamings Shanghai Express has an excellent look (lensed by Lee Garmes and James Wong Howe) but chugs ponderously along with an ultra reserved performance from Clive Brook that stops the film in its tracks.
Von Sternberg's habit of sacrificing story in favor of Dietrich's allure at least had Gary Cooper (Morrocco, Dishonored) to balance screen magnetism or an actor the stature of Herbert Marshall capable of being convincingly vulnerable where Brook is merely a fleshed out version of Dudley Doright.On board the express we have the usual assortment of pompous hypocrites, elitists and neophytes new to adventure getting their clichés punched but also the enigmatic presence of Anna Mae Wong who adds to the films eroticism and capable of distracting the viewer from Marlene.
Taking the train from Peking to Shanghai during the Chinese Civil War poses problems for beautiful Marlene Dietrich (as Magdalen) and accompanying passengers.
Their chance to rekindle old romance is complicated by both her past and the encroaching war, which eventually infiltrates the train.Josef von Sternberg's "Shanghai Express" is a very good-looking production.
******* Shanghai Express (2/2/32) Josef von Sternberg ~ Marlene Dietrich, Clive Brook, Anna May Wong.
SHANGHAI EXPRESS (Paramount, 1932), under the direction by Josef Von Sternberg with a star-studded cast headed by protégé, Marlene Dietrich, is a story set on a train where passengers gather together for a journey from Peking to Shanghai that gets attacked by rebels fighting a civil war during its destination.
The people include: Henry Chang (Warner Oland), a Eurasian merchant; Sam Salt (Eugene Palette), a gambler; Mrs. Haggerty (Louise Closser Hale), a dowager who runs a boarding house in Shanghai traveling with her little dog, Waffles; Eric Baum (Gustav Von Seyffertitz), a dope-smuggling invalid; Mr. Carmichael (Lawrence Grant), a missionary; Colonel Lenard (Emile Chautard), a discharged French officer wearing his uniform so not to have his sister learn of his disgrace; Hue Fei (Anna May Wong), an American Chinese girl with a questionable reputation as with the infamous Madeleine, known to all as "Shanghai Lily" (Marlene Dietrich), and Captain Donald Harvey (Clive Brook), a British officer in the Medical Corps on his way to treat a patient who happened to have been Madeleine's lover five years ago.
Who could forget Dietrich's manner of slow speaking when she tells Donald Harvey (Clive), "It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily." With this being Dietrich's fifth under Von Sternberg's direction, SHANGHAI EXPRESS became their only collaboration for which it earned an Academy Award nomination as Best Picture.
Remarkably, given the limitations of black and white film, Von Sternberg left some beautiful images (to this day) of the actress who may have been the most beautiful one in motion picture history.SHANGHAI EXPRESS is set in the China of the Warlord period (as was THE GENERAL DIED AT DAWN).
They include Dietrich, Anna May Wong (her best recalled talkie performance, as the bride to be Hui Fei), Clive Brook, Lawrence Grant, Eugene Palette, Warner Oland, Louise Closser Hale, Gustav Von Seyfertitz, and Emil Chautaud.
Here, however, Wong does take a major role, that of the "coaster" Hui Fei, and makes the most of it.This was one of seven films which Dietrich made together with director Josef von Sternberg, and gives an excellent performance.
Shanghai Lily (Marlene Dietrich), aka Madeleine, meets up again with chilly former lover Dr. Donald "Doc" Harvey (Clive Brook), and they push around the old story of their separation.
It has some camera angles and scenery which are several years ahead of where other film makers were at this time.Marlene Dietrich is outstanding in this film as Shanghai Lily, the woman whose reputation gets in her way.
For having the excellent cast that was put together for the movie, the director did not get the best of the likes of Anna May Wong, Eugene Palette, Warner Oland and the rest of the supporting players.Mr. Von Sternberg was more successful with the technical aspect of the film because of the work of Lee Garmes, with the uncredited James Wong Howe clearly helping to enhance the way the audience perceived the movie.
|
tt2900624
|
All Hallows' Eve
|
After a night of trick or treating, Sarah (Katie Maguire) is surprised to see that Tia (Sydney Freihofer) and Timmy (Cole Mathewson) have received an unmarked VHS tape in one of their bags. They decide to watch the video which contains three stories featuring a creepy clown (Mike Giannelli). The first features a young woman who is drugged and kidnapped by Art the Clown while waiting for a bus. She awakens chained in a room with two other women. Demonic creatures enter, killing two of the women and taking the third to a room where a devil-like creature rapes her. A humanoid fetus is then removed via c section by the creatures. The second features a woman living in a new countryside home who begins to experience strange occurrences. It's revealed she's being stalked by aliens, and as she's dragged off by the aliens, she grabs a sheet which pulls away to reveal a painting of Art the Clown. The final segment features a college student driving down an isolated road. Stopping at a gas station, she finds the attendant furiously kicking out Art who had apparently smeared feces all over the bathroom. The attendant fills her tank and goes inside to fetch her directions. When he doesn't return, the girl inspects to find Art chopping up the attendants body with a hacksaw. She flees and a chase ensues. Eventually Art catches her and she comes to on a crude operating table with her limbs cut off by Art. It ends with Art laughing silently but maniacally. Disturbed, Sarah attempts to shut off the tape but to no avail. Art then steps into frame in a dingy looking basement. He approaches Sarah from within the screen and begins to pound the television glass, ending when she pulls the TV cord. Sarah goes to check on the children only to find out that Art has murdered them.
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0047196
|
Lumber Jack-Rabbit
|
As the story opens a narrator recalls the character Paul Bunyan and his exploits and states that many people still question the giant's existence. Then he challenges to ask "a certain rabbit" whether he is real. Just then Bugs Bunny comes walking by touting a bindle and singing "Jimmy Crack Corn". He then comments on the unusual looking trees he passes, oblivious to the fact that they are abnormally large asparagus and that he has entered a rather large vegetable garden. He then finds an oversized carrot and lies next to it for a nap under the pretense that it is a boulder. However, he quickly rises up and points out that he smells carrots. Turning his attention to the so-called boulder against which he's propped, he scratches some of the contents onto his finger and tastes it. Suddenly, he ecstatically comes to the conclusion that he has discovered a "carrot mine" and starts to frantically dig through the carrot.
On the other end of the garden, Paul Bunyan leaves his log cabin for work with his dog, Smidgen (a gag in itself, as the word is a measurement for a small amount), following behind. Paul instructs the dog to watch over the garden and literally leaves over the mountains.
Back in the garden, Bugs has managed to tunnel through several carrots and lay down tracks for the mining cart he is using to dump the excess carrot chunks over a cliff. Smidgen, drawn to the sound of Bugs' singing, pulls up the carrot that Bugs is in with his teeth. Bugs comes out, stops at the sight of what he assumes is a large billboard (Smidgen's dog license), and wonders where it came from. Suddenly, he realizes that he is suspended high in the air, and frantically climbs up the carrot onto the edge of Smidgen's nose. Bugs then sees the large bloodshot eyes staring at him and realizes what he's up against. However, he becomes enraged, stating to the audience: "I'll be scared later. Right now, I'm too mad." He climbs up, approaches Smidgen's eye, and balls his fists to fight. Smidgen takes his fingers to flick Bugs off his bridge, but Bugs jumps up causing Smidgen to flick his own eye. Bugs then walks through the dog's head, out the left ear to the ground below, and runs down the garden with Smidgen not far behind.
Bugs then happens upon a wormhole and dives in forcing its previous occupant, a worm, out. Smidgen sticks his nose over the hole and starts to sniff, unbeknownst that Bugs has a feather, which he uses to tickle Smidgen's nose, causing Smidgen to give a hearty sneeze that rockets Bugs into Paul's cabin and inside a moose call horn. Smidgen runs into the cabin, grabs the horn and gives several blows that alert a nearby moose. The normal-sized moose happily runs after what it believes is another moose, only to find in waiting an enormous dog. The moose instantly flees, yelping like a dog. Smidgen gives the horn another blow, sending Bugs flying into the barrel of a revolver. Smidgen fires it, sending the bullet Bugs is riding on into a nearby apple in a fruit basket. Smidgen grabs the apple and takes a large bite, leaving Bugs' lower half exposed. Smidgen then eats the entire apple, grabs a toothpick to pick his teeth, and walks away, assured that Bugs has been eaten and taken care of. When he picks his teeth, Bugs comes out unharmed on the top of the toothpick. Bugs then hops up grabbing Smidgen's ear and wraps it around Smidgen's head covering his eyes. Then Bugs dives into the hair on the back of Smidgen's neck. From there, Bugs proceeds to scratch the surface of Smidgen's skin, distracting the dog long enough to allow Bugs to exit via Smidgen's leg and leave the cabin. Smidgen chases after Bugs, except now he wants the rabbit to continue scratching. Bugs, feeling as though he's safe, stops to catch his breath, not knowing Smidgen is right behind him. Before he knows it, Bugs is licked by the dog's enormous tongue, which lifts him off the ground each time. Bugs tries to run away, but stops at the sight of something. Quickly, he sees the world's largest redwood tree and calls Smidgen's attention to it, and the dog runs off to it.
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
The cartoon is nice entertaining, but the 3d effects don't quite work.
As an avid fan of Looney Tunes, I looked forward to seeing Lumber Jack-Rabbit.
It was nice and entertaining, but some aspects disappointed too.
So what disappointed?
Well the pacing isn't as secure as it normally is, while the cartoon is I feel too short at 6 minutes.
But the let down were some of the 3d effects.
Some of them work nicely such as the dog and the horizon but others are distracting and as a consequence fall flat.However, the animation itself, the characters and backgrounds are crisp, colourful and lively, and the music is energetic and fun.
There is also the typical Looney Tunes wit and irreverence that make these cartoons so enjoyable, evident in the witty dialogue and smart sight gags.
Bugs has been better but he is good, while the dog Smidgen is a good foil.
And as always Mel Blanc is stellar with the vocals.
Overall, not the best of the lot by a mile, but definitely worth watching.
7/10 Bethany Cox.
"I'll be scared later.
Right now I'm too mad!".
Interesting Bugs Bunny short, directed by Chuck Jones, that's notable for being the first Warner Bros.
cartoon produced in 3-D.
The story for this one has Bugs finding Paul Bunyan's garden.
Weird, I know, but bear with me.
The vegetables in the garden are, like Bunyan, gigantic.
So when Bugs finds giant carrots he thinks he's hit it rich.
But then Bugs must contend with Bunyan's dog Smidgen (also a giant), who is in charge of watching over the garden.
What follows are some funny lines and gags as Smidgen tries to chase Bugs away and save his master's carrots.
The animation is really good and the 3-D trick shots are minimal so, even though the impact of those effects is diminished with normal viewing, it doesn't take you out of the cartoon enough to affect your enjoyment.
It's a fun cartoon despite a somewhat abrupt ending.
I'll give it points for being a little odd in a good way..
the cartoon is Jones, but the 3d effects are friz.
The 3d effects are an afterthought in this cartoon, and so I think it's harsh to judge it based on that.
The studio had shut down and everyone but friz had left, including Jones.
This cartoon was left to be released, but as the 3d craze started, they had friz rework it in the format, so none of the effects were planned to be made thus suffering a lack of flexibility for creative use.My favorite effects are the dog showing up on the horizon being a much more pronounced effect how large the dog is in 3d.
Seeing bugs behind the dog's eyes in 3d space is another good use of the technique.I can't fault them for the lack of profound effects, but having a closed studio it's amazing that such a gem of a bygone era on the big screen is so much more captivating than in the flat of television.
These cartoons are for a theater audience and nothing shows that better than a whole room full of cartoon fans with their dorky 3d glasses on laughing as the moose comes to meet the call and a 50' dog, then turning tail and running.If you ever get the chance to see this is the stereo projection it was designed for, don't miss!.
Chuck Jones falls flat in 3-D.
"Lumber Jack Rabbit" is the only Warner Brothers cartoon filmed in 3-D.
It's also further proof that Chuck Jones is the most overrated figure in the history of animation.
Jones utterly fails to take advantage of the possibilities of 3-D, and this movie falls flat in every sense."Lumber Jack Rabbit" begins promisingly.
In the opening credits (which are now cut out when this cartoon is shown on television), we see the familiar Warner Brothers logo surging towards the camera, as in so many Looney Toons.
But this time, the logo passes its usual stopping-place and it keeps on coming, until it's nearly in our laps.Viewed in the 3-D process, this is unexpected and truly impressive.
It's also the LAST time this cartoon will impress us.A dull narrator briefly recaps the legend of Paul Bunyan, the giant lumberjack.
(By the way, there are no authentic folktales about Paul Bunyan: he was actually created in the 20th century as part of an advertising campaign for a timber company.) We see gigantic Bunyan (from the chest downwards) striding across his land, on which everything is many times normal size ...
including Bunyan's giant dog Smidgen.
(Is this name meant to be funny?) Chuck Jones brings nothing new to Smidgen; except for his gigantic size, Smidgen is drawn and animated to look exactly like every Chuck Jones dog in every Chuck Jones cartoon, including Jones's boring canine character Charlie Dog.Into this valley of the giants comes a normal-sized Bugs Bunny, who must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
From Bugs's perspective, Paul Bunyan's giant carrots look like redwood trees.
Bugs immediately starts harvesting the giant carrots, only to run afoul of Smidgen the giant dog.
Nothing funny happens.
More critically, NOTHING happens to take advantage of the 3-D aspects of this cartoon.Carl Stalling does his usual excellent work with the musical soundtrack.
Throughout this cartoon, Bugs Bunny sings "Blue Tail Fly", a folksong made popular by Burl Ives.
Most people don't realise that "Blue Tail Fly" is actually a song about a black slave who murders his master and then fools the coroner's jury into returning a verdict of accidental death.
I can't help wondering if Jones (or scriptwriter Michael Maltese) knew how truly subversive this song is.
Stalling provides a jazzy syncopated flute line in counterpoint to Bugs's vocals.
Very nice!"Lumber Jack Rabbit" was originally shown in cinemas in 3-D format, with parallel filmstrips and those goofy cardboard glasses.
It's now shown on TV in conventional "flat" format, which is no loss as the 3-D effects are negligible.
By 1954, when this cartoon was made, all of Warners' best animators (Avery, Clampett, Tashlin) had already gone elsewhere, so this prestige project went to Chuck Jones by default.
I wish that the opportunity to make a Bugs Bunny cartoon in 3-D had been given to Friz Freleng or Robert McKimson instead.
McKimson's contributions to animation have been sorely underestimated, just as Chuck Jones's have been severely overestimated.
Robert McKimson's cartoons were always funny and pleasing to the eye, and he could have done much better work with "Lumber Jack Rabbit" than Chuck Jones has done here..
Chuck Jones' Lumber Jack-Rabbit with Bugs Bunny is the only Warner Bros.
cartoon made in 3-D.
Just watched this Bugs Bunny cartoon on YouTube.
This is the one Warner Bros.
made in 3-D as evidenced by the beginning which has the familiar WB shield going further in front when it moves forward.
I hope to one day see it in the format it was meant to be seen originally but I enjoyed it just the same.
I mean, look at the many gags that emphasized the small size of Bugs and the big size of the giant dog Smidgen who happens to be Paul Bunyan's pet here.
Oh, and he also looks like Porky Pig's usual dog Charlie.
Since this animated short is helmed by Charlie's creator Chuck Jones, that seems to be more than a coincidence.
Anyway, this was a very funny short though I didn't get the ending.
Still, Lumber Jack-Rabbit comes highly recommended.
P.S. It's always nice whenever Mel Blanc sings something in character like here with "Blue Tail Fly"..
Chuck Jones is not overrated..
by a long shot.
Chuck Jones truly put the characters into the shape and form they are today...
I will say that it was a group effort with the animators at WB but the things he did and the characterisation he gave was flawless.If only there was another Chuck Jones in todays animation studios, to revitalise the wb characters past the shells we see today..
When this film was originally released, theater patrons were not handed those stupid cardboard glasses with blue and red cellophane lenses, that are used today.
Instead we had to rent genuine Polaroid glasses.
(This is the main reason 3-D went out of favor, simply because cinema patrons objected to paying the additional charge to rent the glasses).I was one of the few that raised no ruckus at all.
I loved 3-D.
And one of my best 3-D experiences was "Lumber Jack Rabbit" in which Bugs encounters a giant Paul Bunyan and his equally over-sized mutt, Smidgin.Inventively directed by Chuck Jones, with good jests, rapid cutting, and lots and lots of deepie effects (but not too much of simply throwing objects into the camera), "Lumber Jack Rabbit" (the title is misleading) is a real entertainment treat.
Bugs himself is in fine fettle.
Highly recommended..
Why can't we get 3-D glasses for home viewing?.
So I understand that "Lumber Jack-Rabbit" was the only Looney Tunes cartoon filmed in 3-D.
Why didn't they film "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century" like that?
But no matter what got filmed like that, the format unfortunately doesn't show up on TV.
I guess that you just can't try to transpose anything from one format to another!
No matter, I still thought that this was a funny cartoon, as Bugs Bunny stumbles onto Paul Bunyan's farm and has to contend with Bunyan's over-sized dog Smidgen.
As always, despite being a tiny fraction of the size, Bugs somehow always has the upper hand.So, this is far from the best cartoon that they ever produced.
After "Duck Amuck" and "What's Opera, Doc?", I really expect a lot from Chuck Jones.
But this one's OK in a pinch..
It's all a matter of perspective .
. for Bugs Bunny in LUMBER JACK-RABBIT.
Though Bugs gets a brief glimpse from a distance of a gigantic Paul Bunyan, he interacts exclusively with Mr. Bunyan's equally massive dog, the 4,600-ton Smidgen.
Since this hound must eat at least 50 tons of meat daily to maintain even a starvation diet, Bugs represents a drop in his bucket.
(This was NOT the case with my own dogs, two of whom died when little rabbit bones became intestinal obstructions.) Bugs mystifies Smidgen by setting up a "carrot mine" in the Bunyan Garden of Gargantuan Veggies.
Smidgen wonders where Bugs has gotten miles of steel railroad tracks on which to push cars full of carrot ore tailings onto a slag heap.
Why bother, Smidgen wonders.
Is Bugs planning on filling an Olympic-sized swimming pool with carrot juice?
Does the Wascally Rabbit have an Everest-sized mold for carrot jello?
Does he plan on setting a Guinness World Record for the largest carrot cake ever?
Bugs is so busy getting under Smidgen's skin, he never has time to provide the mountainous mutt with any answers.
Too bad.
|
tt0058756
|
The World of Henry Orient
|
In early 1960s New York City, concert pianist Henry Orient (Peter Sellers) pursues an affair with a married woman, Stella Dunnworthy (Paula Prentiss), while two adolescent private-school girls, Valerie "Val" Boyd (Tippy Walker) and Marian "Gil" Gilbert (Merrie Spaeth), stalk him and write their fantasies about him in a diary. Orient's paranoia leads him to believe that the two girls, who seem to pop up everywhere he goes, are spies sent by his would-be mistress's husband.
In reality, fourteen-year-old Val, the bright and imaginative daughter of wealthy international trade expert Frank Boyd (Tom Bosley) and his unfaithful, snobbish wife Isabel (Angela Lansbury), has developed a teenage crush on Henry after seeing him in concert, and involved her best friend Marian. Although Marian's parents are divorced, Marian lives a relatively happy and stable life in a townhouse in the city with her mother and her mother's also-divorced female friend, while Val, whose parents are still married (albeit unhappily), sees a psychiatrist daily and lives with paid caretakers while her parents travel the world.
Val's parents return for Christmas, and Val becomes concerned that her mother Isabel is having an extramarital affair with a young pianist. Val's interference leads her mother to find and read Val's diary. Isabel chastises Val and seeks out Henry, ostensibly to tell him to stay away from her underage daughter. The cheating Isabel and the womanizing Henry are quickly attracted to each other and begin an affair, which Val and Marian accidentally discover while stalking Henry outside his apartment. Val's devastation and Isabel's attempts to cover up her own behavior cause Frank to figure out what happened. Frank and Isabel separate, while the paranoid Henry flees the country. However, positive changes for Val result as Frank, who unlike Isabel genuinely cares about his daughter, resolves to stop traveling so much and establish a real home where he and Val can spend more time together. In the end, Val and Marian have matured and moved on from fantasy play to makeup, fashion and boys their own age.
|
comedy
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
George Roy Hill is a perhaps neglected name in any 'top ten' list of great directors we are likely to see, but his filmography speaks for itself, with a number of quiet classics among a few heavyweight top 100 films--all within a somewhat small oeuvre.
Each of these classics shows to good effect Hill's marvelous aesthetic moods and attention to detail, combined with absolutely expert casting, obtaining winning performances from all of the principles, with superior character acting from the secondaries.Peter Sellers is actually something of a secondary in this one as the title role, but his portrayal of Henry Orient is so ludicrous and wonderful that he steals the show every time he's on screen.
They don't compete for space at all (the scene-stealing qualities of Ms Walker notwithstanding),and they get equal attention and equally precocious dialogue, with the simpatico theme being so stressed as to tell us purposely that they are equal partners through and through.Ultimately the film leaves me feeling bittersweet, partially through nostalgia--Hill's 1963 NYC is beautiful--but also because the movie has that theme of fleeting innocence in the face of oncoming adolescent desire.
Yes, there is pathos, when the two discover how adults have turned their world into Henry Orient's world.Although the cast is sterling all around, Tom Bosley is a standout as father to one of the girls, who helps put things to rights.If the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam are cultural watersheds, then this film is a refreshing antidote; it gives the lie to the glib put-downs of the era by the current generation..
George Roy Hill clearly understood what a real buddy movie is made of, regardless of age or gender (remember "The Sting"?).I showed this film to my daughter when she was 12, and she loved it too.
She's watching it as I write this.A few notes about Merrie Spaeth: First, she became a well-known media consultant and political speechwriter, which is why the film "Wag the Dog" used her name for one of the actresses considered to play the peasant girl in the fake Albanian bombing newsreel.
It is one of those rare, quiet films that not only succeeds as a comedy, amusing to both children and adults, but also as a touching drama, with many poignant moments.The cast is uniformly excellent, with Peter Sellers and Paula Prentiss providing most of the comedy, as they try to have an illicit romance while being pursued all over New York by the love-struck teenagers, played with charming veracity by Merrie Spaeth and Tippy Walker.I was particularly impressed by the way George Roy Hill was able to convey the thoughts and emotions of the two girls with such nuance and understatement.
The manic magic of being a young girl with a dizzy, silly enthusiasm, especially one that is so pretentious on the outside yet deliciously seamy below the surface.This movie is all about the thrill of finding a true friend and the adventures you have with someone who you look up to and who likes you, too.
Peter Sellers may be the bait, but two girls supply the hook that keeps this coming-of-age comedy in people's minds 40 years on.Sellers has the title role as Henry Orient, a pianist more interested in practicing his lines than his scales, but the film's focus is on a lonely young Manhattanite named Gil (Merrie Spaeth) and her new pal Val (Elizabeth "Tippy" Walker), two adolescents who decide to make Val's crush on Orient into the secret center of an adventure-filled friendship."Henry Orient" is a film of two parts co-existing uneasily at times.
The best scene in the movie by far, very much in line with the "Can't Buy Me Love" sequence in the same year's "Hard Day's Night," shows the pair running along a city block, "splitzing" over fire hydrants and tryke-riding boys, their eyes alight with joy as they literally rise over their city surroundings.
He's actually quite enjoyable to watch, doing one of his best voice performances as a Brooklynite who affects a French-Italian accent to charm the ladies (listen carefully and you will hear his Brooklyn undertone throughout) but he and Paula Prentiss as the married object of his desires seem to be in a completely different movie, playing a broad farce at odds with the real, sometimes gut-wrenching tone of the rest of the film.This could be a bigger problem but for Elmer Bernstein's lilting yet driving score, featuring one of the most arresting themes I've heard in film, which seems to carry Val and Gil from one delirious moment to the next with complete abandon while allowing room for darker, contemplative passages.
Director George Roy Hill had a gift for employing music at the right moment (see "The Sting"), and the score of "Henry Orient" is a secret strength as it skates over the thinner plot elements.More obviously a strength is the script by Nora and Nunnelly Johnson, which really captures a sense of how young people talk, goofily, quickly and all-at-once, skipping over the stuff that doesn't matter, like when Val and Gil first meet at their ritzy school.
"No filter!" "He's not scared." One wishes the film found more to draw Orient and his youthful admirers together, though the detour into the state of Val's parental relations has merits of its own, especially with Angela Lansbury doing another of her classic nasty-Mommy turns.While it didn't set the world on fire in 1964 and, like its young stars, slipped off the radar screen too soon after its premiere, "Henry Orient" remains an engaging glimpse at American youth post-Salinger but pre-Beatles.
Val is also a prankster who brings Gil into her high energy and overly dramatic make believe world.Early on, director George Roy Hill pulls together scenes of one afternoon in Central Park spent pretending to be chased by a band of evil cuthroats, leaping over every possible object and their first encounter with Henry Orient.
It is also a very funny movie, with only a couple of occasions where the humor is not appropriate to the emotion of the situation.Val develops a crush on Henry Orient, a concert pianist who hides his Brooklyn roots behind a fake accent and hides his mediocre talent behind avant-guarde music.
Fortunately Turner Classic Movies recently showed it and the soundtrack was not a problem, making possible a fairly decent high-fidelity VHS recording.The two young actresses who played the very natural but entirely madcap duo who precipitate most of the plot's ins-'n-outs are completely charming and they are supported by an extraordinarily well-chosen cast of top-notch professionals.
As the film's title character, Peter Sellers wasn't permitted by director George Roy Hill to unbalance the proceedings.
Two teenage girls stalk a pianist in "The World of Henry Orient," a 1964 film starring Peter Sellars, Angela Lansbury, Phyllis Thaxter, Tom Bosley, Paula Prentiss, Merrie Spaeth and Tippy Walker.Spaeth and Walker are the 14-year-old teens, and the writing for them isn't good - it's PERFECT, capturing what it's like to be that age and having your first crush.
The object of their affections is vain, paranoid Henry Orient (Peter Sellars) a pianist who apparently specializes in somewhat ugly modern music whom the girls see kissing his married girlfriend (Prentiss) in the park.
After that, the girls read all they can about him and start staking out his apartment and restaurants he frequents.The Prentiss character, Stella, lives in fear of her husband finding out about her non-affair - she refuses to go to Orient's apartment, and whenever she acquiesces, she ends up running out of the back of the restaurant while he's getting a cab.
Val comes from a super-rich family and neglectful parents, played by the glamorous Angela Lansbury and Tom Bosley as her quiet, hard-working husband.
Lansbury is terrific and looks great, Bosley is excellent, and Prentiss is a riot as a neurotic mess.But the young girls - what memories they brought back of fantasy, crushes, wild laughter, pranks, and complete devastation.
. .and allowed myself to shed a few tears--or joy and of pain--for the characters.Incidentally, I was fortunate enough to meet Phyllis Thaxter in 1989, and subsequently work with her twice--she starred in DRIVING MISS DAISY in 1991, and was the NARRATOR for PETER PAN in 1994 at Riverside Theatre in Vero Beach, FL, where I was working at the time--and she had very fond memories of making this film.
tippy walker, who evidently left acting, gives a miraculous performance as the kooky 14 year old Val...and Angela Lansbury, Tom Bosley, and Phyllis Thaxter play the various parents with incredible subtlety and perceptiveness.
I loved both movies and watched and rewatched them so when I saw "Henry Orient" come up on cable recently, I was curious to see how it had aged.Wonderfully, in one word.
I've never seen it again, but I've never forgotten the scene where Peter Sellars' character, Henry Orient, is playing a piano concerto with an orchestra in performance.
The story of two young girls who sweetly stalk aconcert pianist, played with insane panache by Peter Sellars, isone of the nicest coming-of-age movies of that era.
This can hardly be called a Peter Sellers movie.The movie really belongs to the two girls with a crush on the Sellers character, Henry Orient, a schlocky avant-garde pianist.
As much as I love and respect Sellers, I could see other actors in the role without hurting the movie.If you want to see teenagers do a good job of acting like teenagers (albeit in 1964 and having a crush on a concert pianist instead of the Beatles) this is a good flick.
Sellers played avant garde (or self-appointed avant garde) pianist Henry Orient, who manages to pick up two acolytes, Tippy Walker as Val Boyd and Merrie Spaeth as Gil Gilbert.
Spaeth's mother (Phyllis Thaxter) is a decent woman raising her daughter with the help of her friend (Bibi Osterwald).The girls decide on being devoted followers of a "cult" of Orient, a concert pianist of dubious popularity whose records they collect and whose photos they pick up.
They certainly spoil his personal lifestyle - especially his relationship with wealthy Paula Prentice.Sellers had some choice, but minor moments in this film - his trying to put a curse on the girls at one point, or his running from backfire (thinking it is a jealous husband).
There was also a concert sequence with the conductor getting angry at the "embellishments" in the score that Sellers puts into the concerto he is playing.But the bulk of the film was really carried by the two girls, who are shown growing up and trying to maintain their friendship.
THE WORLD OF HENRY ORIENT (4 outta 5 stars) Classic little comedy about a pair of 14 year old girls who, bound by their overactive imaginations, become best friends.
One of them becomes infatuated with Henry Orient (played by Peter Sellers), an avant-garde pianist whose one joy in life seems to be in seducing married women.
I searched the IMDB for the two young girls (it was their first film for each) and found they made almost nothing else -- hard to believe when they were so good in this movie.
Peter Sellers uses a great New York accent when he is being his real self, and Paula Prentiss' jittery reaction to his tries to seduce her are hilarious.
The two young girls who play the main characters are wonderful, and if they had a career after this movie it wasn't a memorable one.
Gone is the naivete of the 50's- Valerie's mother is a cold selfish woman who cheats on Tom Bosley and Valerie's best friend lives alone with her divorced mother and a friend- but the idea that two young girls following a grown man around New York City might lead to disaster is not even hinted at in the film.
The title is misleading; it is less about the philandering, phony character played by pre-PINK PANTHER Peter Sellers than it is about two young ladies grappling with puberty and the adult world.
The same year that Peter Sellers starred in "Dr. Strangelove", he starred in "The World of Henry Orient", in which he played a pianist pursued by two girls.
Tiresome, uneven comedy-drama has two precocious (and, I thought, unengaging) teenage girls in New York making life miserable for an increasingly paranoid concert pianist (Peter Sellers).
The remaining adult cast, featuring Angela Lansbury among others, is good in its own competent way.One great unexpected joy of the film was its many scenes of a beautiful and mostly vacant New York City.
Because this was a pretty funny joke, the movie does at least get a score of 7, but the acting of Peter Sellers didn't particularly hurt or help the score, as his role could have been played by many people.
Sellers who starred in Lolita, The Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove has nothing to do, but is forced by the script to do it over and over while Paula Prentiss and Angela Lansbury have their moments, but Tom Bosely, Phyllis Thaxter and Bibi Osterwald bring the film down.
A charming comedy about teenage love interests and friendships, it is excellently acted, especially by Tippy Walker, who is very natural in her role, and the creative camera angles and camera movement are able to keep the film constantly engaging on a visual level.
Sellers plays Henry Orient, but he seems to be performing in some completely different movie.
Manhattan 14 year old private school girls Val Boyd (Tippy Walker) and Marian Gilbert (Merrie Spaeth) become best friends.
They run across egotistical famous avant-garde pianist Henry Orient (Peter Sellers) who is having an affair with married Stella Dunnworthy (Paula Prentiss).
Her mother confronts Henry Orient and end up in an affair with him.The girls are adorable troublemakers and Peter Sellers has great reactions to them.
The World of Henry Orient The key to being a successful groupie is being a woman.And while the fans in this comedy are females, they're drastically underage.Obsessed with concert pianist Henry Orient (Peter Sellers), school girls Val (Tippy Walker) and Gil (Merrie Spaeth) secretly follow him around Manhattan, taking notes on his affair with a married woman, and concocting fantasies about their lives with him.When Val's mother (Angela Lansbury) stumbles on the girls' journal, she accuses Orient of seducing her daughter, only to end up having an affair with him at the expense of her marriage to Val's workaholic father (Tom Bosley).A perfect portrayal of precocious teenage girls, their odd fashion choices, and their naïve views on love, The World of Henry Orient deals with mature matters of the heart with caprice and candor.Besides, the best way to get close to a concert pianist is to impersonate a piano bench.Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
*SPOILERS*The 60 year-old women on IMDb who recall this as a favorite childhood memory should perhaps re-watch this from the jaded 21st century point of view, knowing that the filmmakers squeezed as much sex as they thought they could get away with in this film.I recently watched this for the first time, and was surprised at the blatant and not-so-blatant innuendos.The first thing that struck me was the opening scene, where director Hill got as many up-skirt panty shots as possible.
It was pretty obvious to me this was a closeted lesbian relationship.Paula Prentiss wants to commit adultery, and c**k teases Henry Orient quite a bit.Henry Orient becomes the sex fantasy of mother and daughter, with one having intercourse, and the pubescent one thinking about it to the point of tears.The end of the movies shows the pubescent girls putting on heavy make- up, including "lipstick the color of a scarlet gash".Now that I have all of you prudes up in arms, let me say this-- It was an enjoyable film, mostly due to Tippy Walker.
She showed such promise I'm sorry she didn't get into more films.The music and cinematography were great.Many reviewers here say they wanted more Peter Sellers, and that he wasn't funny enough.
"The World of Henry Orient" is the only film I know of that takes the world of 13 and 14 year- old girls seriously.
Peter Sellers is Henry Orient, yet he is merely a marginal, supporting character in this supremely pointless story.
Still this is a worth while film to view.Peter Sellers is Henry Orient, a classic pianist who appears to be messing up his work because he is being distracted by Paula Prentiss.
I would have loved being distracted by Prentiss.The main story is of two young girls who are musically inclined, develop a crush on Henry & follow him all over town.
Still, seeing this cast & laughing at & with Peter Sellers is a very entertaining way to watch a movie..
Merrie Spaeth and Tippy Walker play two rather eccentric teenage girls (is there any other kind?) who find fascination in the comings and goings of Henry Orient (Peter Sellers), a world renowned pianist they come upon kissing his married mistress (Paula Prentiss) in the Ramble in Central Park.
Like Doris Day's victim (a perplexed movie producer) in "It's a Great Feeling", Sellers gets paranoid every time he sees these two girls.
The World of Henry Orient is a film about growing up and the pain of that first celebrity crush.....Come on!
The girls become fast friends and Val confides that she is in love with a pianist named Henry Orient played by the talented Peter Sellers.
Even though the film is named after Henry Orient we don't see too much of the character in a lot of scenes.
The World of Henry Orient is one of those films that I encourage the young to see.
George Roy Hill directs "The World of Henry Orient", a once original now thoroughly tame film starring Peter Sellers as Henry Orient.
The girls' overworked imaginations result in them pursuing Orient and recording their fantasies in their diaries, a fact which irks one of their mothers, played by Angela Lansbury.Sellers' role isn't particularly well written, but Walker and Spaeth do good work.
|
tt1845307
|
2 Broke Girls
|
The series chronicles the lives of two waitresses in their mid-twenties (at the start of the series): Max Black (Kat Dennings), the child of a poor working-class mother and an unknown father, and Caroline Channing (Beth Behrs), who was born rich but is now disgraced and penniless because her father, Martin Channing, got caught operating a Bernard Madoff-esque Ponzi scheme. The two work together at a Brooklyn diner, soon becoming roommates and friends while building toward their dream of one day opening a cupcake shop. Among those working with them at the restaurant are their boss, Han Lee (Matthew Moy); Oleg (Jonathan Kite), an upbeat but perverted Ukrainian cook; and Earl (Garrett Morris), a 75-year-old cashier. Also featured starting late in the first season is their neighbor and part-time boss Sophie (Jennifer Coolidge), a Polish immigrant who runs the house-cleaning company Sophie's Choice.
During most of the first season Max is also a part-time nanny for the twin babies of Peach Landis (Brooke Lyons), who during the season adopts Caroline's horse Chestnut. At the end of each episode a tally shows how much they have made toward their goal of $250,000. Early in the second season, Sophie lends the girls $20,000, which is enough for them to start their business. However, the business fails, and in the 18th episode they are forced to give up the lease of their cupcake shop with just enough money to pay off Sophie's loan, resetting the end of episode tally to $1.
During the third season, the girls reopen the business in the back room of the diner, using the window as a walk up window. Max also enrolls in, and Caroline goes to work for, the Manhattan School of Pastry, where Max finds a love interest, Deke, marking the first time in the series that Max gets emotional for a man. Caroline has a brief affair with the Pastry School Head Chef Nicholas, which eventually leads to Nicholas closing down the school and moving back to France with his wife. They also attempt to get Deke's parents to invest in the pastry school, planning to run it by themselves but do not succeed.
During Season 4, the girls start their Cupcake T-shirt Business which succeeds briefly before going into the red. Max and Caroline end up in an elite class Pastry Shop called "The High" in order to make more money to return the loan they took for their Cupcake T-shirt business. In the end of Season 4, Oleg and Sophie get married, with the girls realizing they have their own business to worry about and their own dream to work towards, which leads to them quitting "The High" and coming back to their business.
In Season 5, Caroline sells her life story to a film producer for $250,000. She uses most of the money to expand their old cupcake space into the adjacent pizza shop, converting it into a dessert bar. The remaining $30,000 is used to purchase part ownership of the diner to help Han pay off his debts from gambling on women's tennis. While in Hollywood with Caroline consulting on her life story script, Max meets her second major love interest in the series, a Los Angeles-based "lawyer to the stars" named Randy. Meanwhile, despite her advancing age, Sophie becomes pregnant with Oleg's child.
Season 6 sees Sophie and Oleg welcoming their baby daughter Barbara to the world. Randy returns to briefly continue his relationship with Max, but it doesn't work out. Randy wants Max to move to California, but Max, publicly acknowledging her strong friendship with Caroline for the first time, says she cannot do so because she has important people in her life now. Meanwhile, Caroline meets Bobby, a contractor who rebuilds the dessert bar after a storm, and the two start a relationship. By the end of the season, the movie about Caroline's life has been made (albeit with some "creative license" changes), but Caroline destroys a $10,000 on-loan dress at the premiere, which wipes out the girls' savings and returns them to "broke" status. Randy comes back to New York, this time permanently, and proposes to Max, who accepts.
|
humor
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Lets get one thing straight, this is a sitcom.Some of the reviews about this show do not take into account that it is a Monday night CBS comedy TV show, its not meant to be a Grade A show, but I have to agree that the show blows regardless.The premise of the show is so appealing, two 20 something girls that are broke try to get out of their groove to become a success.
Everything seems forced, and the lines are recited in loud obnoxious voices that I guess is supposed to make the jokes more funny (it doesn't.)The characters that are supposed to be immigrants all have terribly unconvincing accents.Most of the dialogue in the script is just one rapid fire unfunny predictable punchline after another.
And if they're not sexual, it's some joke based on racial stereotypes or a very obvious pop-culture reference.Kat Dennings character "Max" only speaks in lame comebacks, delivered in her obnoxiously loud nasal voice.
Is that supposed to make these characters likable?And then there's Jennifer Coolidge who gets a cheer from the "audience" every time she enters a scene.
I don't really care for Whitney Cummings brand of comedy-I had to watch it without my kids around-but I found it quite funny!
I really like Kat Dennings too and was hopeful for this show, but there are only 4 reasons this show is somehow still around: each girl has two of them.
Just out of sheer curiosity I googled, I wanted to know more about the actors and writers.I felt that quite a bunch of people did not get the show's gist and just couldn't help but sigh and roll my eyes at the comments accusing it of being "racist" or "tacky." And I would actually like to ask these people if they know what comedy looks like.
and if they've ever seen a stand-up comedian perform and if they even know what that is.Claiming '2 broke girls' is a bad show because of its tasteless jokes is like saying John Waters is awful because his movies are gross.
It's sad but it is there.To the non-narrow minded and modern individual, 2 Broke girls is hilarious, witty, unpredictable, funny, original and, unlike some other comedy shows, it won't bore you.
And to the bitter people whining about it being "shoved down their throat." Nobody is holding you at gunpoint, if you don't like it don't watch it, find something useful to do with your obviously copious spare time.
And I'm sure Max would come back with some largely unfunny joke based on the inevitable double-entendre.Thing is, as much as I'd like to enjoy the show, it just misses every single time.
Wow, it's like being back in the Seventies!But wait, there's more: Because the script is so weak and obviously being read from a teleprompter (and thus removing any need to act), it's not funny.
Almost every review rates it lower than I have!I can't understand how a show as engaging, warm and genuinely funny as "My Name Is Earl" can get canned so easily, while dross like this is allowed to carry on unabated.
I enjoyed the character progression in the first few episodes and now feel like I've got a better understanding of the characters, especially the two girls.
Watching Max's initially wobbly relationship with Caroline and the way she bonds with Chestnut shows off a softer, more emotional side, that you just don't see in the later seasons.The writing is a bit tighter and there's a few laughs to be had.
What I look for is solid writing, solid acting, a good story line, possible romance or drama to keep me entertained.
What I got was writing from a bad superhero movie, so/so acting that might be do to the terrible dialogue with a story line that leads nowhere.
Put this thing masquerading as a situation comedy out of its misery!Think I'll stick with Mom and reruns of when The Big Bang Theory was good (aka Season 1)..
I've watched a few episodes and keep thinking it might get better because some people rate it highly and it's touted as good on some media.
Kat Denning(Max) has an irritating voice that could be put to good use if she could act.
She has a few funny one-liners, but she sounds like she is reading her lines.
When I don't want to think and just want to watch something fun.Plus, I really dig the fact that this show is not shy about the sex jokes and sometimes gets really rude.
Kat Dennings does some that is effective, but I think Beth Behrs really pulls out the stops sometimes!Sure it's a smart, raunchy comedy, and a funny one too.
They hang onto hope of a better life by their dream of exploiting the character Max's skill at baking delicious cupcakes, and Caroline's Wharton business education and talents into their own business one day.I didn't think I'd like it at all from the ads and teasers, but then watched an episode on TV, as a rerun, when there was nothing else on.
I binge-watched the entire series, over time, and now keep up with the current episodes when they first air.I really enjoy following their journey toward success, and you just might too, if you can relax and go with the roller coaster flow that is "2 Broke Girls".Let's face it, it's not like an Oscar-winning movie, but for what it is, it is very worthy entertainment..
Admittedly, there is very little programming on network TV that is worth watching (and I'm being kind), but this idiotic, excremental excuse for entertainment represents a new low in sitcom history.
I really thought I would never see a worse show then Mike and Molly, but watching 2 Broke Girls is like having your teeth burned out of your mouth with acid.
Honestly, some of the best shows on TV right now are the ones that aren't afraid to be offensive and off collar, but this is just unfunny, mean spirited, poorly acted, poorly written garbage that survives off of the most bottom of the barrel comedy, and Kat Dennings' cleavage.
When I first watched "2 Broke Girls" years ago, I thought there was no way this show would get through its first season.
The actors recite their lines with little actual acting being used, like they're reading cue cards.
2 broke girls - with Kat Dennings (comedy).
I mean, the plot is not supposed to be plausible, it's supposed to be comedy, and a feel good show, and that's exactly what it is, with a little cynical twist added from Kat Dennings.
For people who like Kat Dennings kind of humor, this is a show for you, where she gets to play a little more freely with her puns than she has been able to do previously in movies and other shows.
I'm embarrassed for the people who write this show, produce it, act in it, and watch it regularly.
My review sounds something like this: Most forced, weakest acting since I was in high school drama club for starters, by every actor, the seasoned ones to the idiots all around.
It seems like the writers just try to write up as many sexual jokes as they possibly can and try to throw them in one after another.
I appreciate the time and effort that is placed into shows like these.So i must say that after watching multiple episodes, and giving this show more than a fair chance, i have to say, this is by far the most poorly and completely uninteresting show i have ever watched!!!
The story line , bad acting, poorly written cue card jokes,inane racial stereotyping, sad cookie cutter shallow character ridden sitcom, horribly being shoved down our throats by placing it between decent shows like the big bang theory, is so bad i really cant watch more than 5 minutes of it without turning the channel.
I think the girls are great, the banter, the humor, the whole cast...it is funny, witty, charming and makes you feel good.
I don't mind raunchy, stupidity...even loud and retarded remarks....but with 2 Broke Girls, all I can say is that these writers and the actors who are apart of this show should never EVER GET A chance at doing another sitcom or movie for that matter.
The jokes are funny, and easy to understand, so that you aren't watching wondering why the audio audience is laughing.
I wanted to like this, but the writing is so lame that even if the delivery was better, it wouldn't help The laugh track is making me crazy- it seems almost random, not waiting for a funny line but settling for any line at all.
Probably everything will spin around the two girls by now, but I hope the creators are able to develop other people roles, like Oleg the Russian chef, he's got potential.
He should have learned his lesson after the equally unfunny and putrid Sex & The City 2, but apparently not.There simply isn't anything funny to find in this series, it is utter garbage and suffice to say - I hated it..
From watching the trailers for this show, I actually quite liked the premise and the fact that Kat Dennings was in it.
I believe the target audience for this television show is sexually overactive 12-14 year-old children who lack any sense of wit or maturity, as i don't understand how anyone else could find these poorly written "jokes" funny.
The seventies was a decade of complete divisiveness and bigotry against those not in the elitist factions.The show is depressing and dull.Compare this to the show with Mel's diner long ago, which wasn't a great show in itself, and this one makes that one look classic, and that one was a 4/10 at best.It's hard to make a good show about working class waitresses, but not that hard.
The blond girl delivers lines like Dalia Royce on Suburgatory (a funny show).
'Two Broke Girls' is like many other sitcoms on TV today.
It also has an obsession with sex, and feels the need to have jokes about it every second line.It's a shame really because this sitcom is quite funny in places.
It is every bit as unfunny as Whitney Cummings comedy (she is hilarious as a roaster but cannot stand alone on a stage and hold my attention) Watch the first 8 or 9 episodes for yourself but for me it was a waste of time.
First off, Kat Dennings' voice annoys me to no end, added to that her accent and hardness make her a tough character to like.
I have watched this show a few times including tonight and it's two girls spouting 100+ punchlines for 30 minutes.
I've already spent a season trying to watch this show while hoping that it would evolve into another hit CBS sitcom.
Instead, every week I am wondering why I'm not watching something I've tivo'd."How I Met Your Mother" started out slow but it grew into a very cleverly written series with above average story lines and interesting,realistic characters.
"Met's" sexual humor is funny, with double meanings, sarcasm and delivered with a sense of comedic timing.
I watched this show having seen neither of the leads in anything, so I don't know if they can act, based on this, I'd say no.
At first I thought I would give the show a chance mainly since Kat Dennings was appearing in it, unfortunately (as I expected) it was certainly not worth it.I did however give it a second chance just in case the pilot episode let it down however it did not get any better.I fail to see how the show has managed to get such reviews.
Most of the male characters are mostly misfits of one kind or another,act like it and are equally pathetic.The jokes are B grade and the sex jokes are sub-junior high school.
I like the premise of the show, just not the sexual remarks made instead of developing some funny story lines.
Two Broke Girls is a tacky comedy replete with innuendos and camera shy girls who aren't too sure about how to use hand and body gestures like normal people.
This show is very disappointing to me.I don't hate the two main characters/actors and that is the only reason I will give this show a 2 out of 10 instead of a 1 out of 10 (the lowest rating).The jokes and writing are lame, all of the actors seem pained to be delivering these lines, as if they know how bad the show is or they just can't be bothered to actually learn the lines but instead read them off of cue cards.I hate seeing Jennifer Coolidge in this because I think she is a great actor too, very funny in everything else I've seen her in.
In short, I don't care about any of these awful characters, the writing stinks, the jokes are all predictable/terrible and the writing is about the worst you'll see in a sitcom.
I have been watching this show off and on for awhile now and still waiting for some extended periods of good writing, great one liners and just some laughs.
which being a woman I wouldn't care about it if every episode didn't highlight!There is a lot of hope in the show, every time you watch it tricks you into thinking it'll get better....
The jokes are terrible and this is embarrassing for Kat Denning who I liked in Nick and Nora!
This is probably the worst show aired in a long time.Annoyingly the Series kicked of with a few good episodes, but then rapidly declined into a hulking mess of vile second rate muck.If I were to illegally download these I would feel ripped off.
Its a shame really as the writer did some great work on sex and the city and wrote some pretty good episodes.
First episodes quite okey, but then it getting quite annoying and boring to hear all the "jokes", that either is all about insulting their boss, something about sex, drugs, Carolines previous life as a rich girl or about Max's bad childhood and/or mother and the unknown father.
Stick to good sitcoms like BBT, Modern Family, New Girl, Scrubs, Community.I give it one Star for the boobs and one star cause i sometimes chuckled when oleg is on stage.
Look -- I think shows like United States of Tara and Weeds have holes, but by comparison, those shows are light-years beyond and ahead of 2 Broke Girls.
KIss This Rating 1 out of 5 Kisses or Kissed Off. Two Broke Girls Need Some Spare ChangeIt's like a date you wanted to workout but comes up short changed every time.
The pairing of Kat Dennings and Beth Behrs provides a good sense of comedic delivery and timing.
Of the two sitcoms Whitney Cummings had a hand in, "2 Broke Girls" is the better offering.
While many of the conventions used in this series have been used many times before, "2 Broke Girls" infuses enough quirkiness to give this comedy a little different bent.
By keeping a tight rein on the overused, trite jokes, and by Kat Dennings maintaining her sardonic attitude, "2 Broke Girls" might just be one of the sleeper comedies to bolster CBS..
The baby jokes are dumb, the sex jokes could only entertain 14 year old boys, the ethnic barbs are no funnier than those of Archie Bunker and there is NO WAY a studio audience could find this as funny as the laugh track thinks it is.
I believe 2 broke girls progressed nicely, the writing and acting appeared to have settled in with more confidence as the season past.
It is nothing but stand up comedy with punch lines which aren't even funny.
I'm not a Big Fan. I use to love two broke girls at first, but I stopped watching.Thelanguage and sexual comments are just ridiculous for TV.Maxx has to be the worst Actress alive.
Second, please try to come up with a line or a joke that we haven't already seen a dozen times on Laverne & Shirley or Green Acres or, where it actually worked, on I Love Lucy.
I feel like I need to write a review in this show defense after reading so many negative reviews.I mostly watch it before bedtime and I found it extremely relaxing.
Well what can I say about a show that features 2 average to good looking females who speak in a high pitched voice (that's kind of annoying after a while), with a very dull sense of humor i.e. compared to other popular sitcoms like Modern Family.
I don't understand why one would feel this show is interesting and funny when there have been much funnier buddy comedy shows that were cancelled like "Men behaving badly" which I thought was hilarious.
And I find "2 Broke girls" show not even close to being humorous like those other shows.
I can't imagine anyone living and believing there are people like the two girls on the show who makes fun of others that are different than them like the Asian boss.
2 broke girls show I just feel is that they try too hard to be funny which is giving off the opposite effect.
I truly do NOT believe that people actually watch this..
Not only is the show not funny but the constant gag lines, mostly sexual innuendo, are ridiculously crude and, most of the time, pathetic.
Good thing it got cancelled, we need quality shows not smut..
There is no doubt that shows like this will be the end of TV and put lots of people out of work.
The acting makes it a horrible show.I have better things to do then waste my time watching it.
|
tt6096414
|
Knock Knock
|
Architect and happily married man Evan Webber (Keanu Reeves) has the house to himself and his dog Monkey on Father's Day weekend due to work and a physical therapy appointment due to a shoulder injury while his wife and children go on a family-planned beach trip. His wife Karen (Ignacia Allamand), a successful artist, leaves their assistant Louis (Aaron Burns) in charge of her sculpture that needs to be moved to an art gallery.
Two women, Genesis (Lorenza Izzo) and Bel (Ana de Armas) knock on Evan's door. He opens the door and they say that they are looking for the address of a party. As they have no means of communication, Evan allows them in to use the Internet and get hold of the party's host. The girls make themselves at home and Evan plays a few of his old vinyl records he has from when he was a DJ. They then disappear to the bathroom when their driver arrives. Evan tries to convince them to leave, but as they start forcing themselves upon him, he gives in and has a threesome with them.
Evan finds out that his wife's sculpture has been vandalized by the girls. When Evan threatens to call the police, the girls reveal they are underage. Vivian (Colleen Camp), a friend of Karen's, stops by to see if Evan needs help. Seeing Genesis, Vivian angrily leaves. When Evan threatens to report a break-in, they give in and agree to be taken home.
He then returns home, cleans the mess, and tries to go back to his work. Just as he is getting closer to completing his project, he hears a shattering noise. He finds a broken picture frame of his family and Genesis knocks him out with one of his wife's sculptures. Bel climbs onto him trying to arouse him while role-playing as a school girl in his daughter's school uniform. Evan initially refuses, but the girls threaten to FaceTime his wife with him unless he agrees with their methods. Bel rapes him, and Genesis records everything. However, Evan releases himself, knocking Bel off. He charges at Genesis, but is then disarmed by her and Bel who tie him up to a chair with an electrical cord.
Louis arrives to collect the sculpture and finds Evan tied up to a chair, but before he can help him he hears the girls smashing the vandalized sculpture. He runs to stop them, but then has an asthma attack and realizes they took his inhaler. As he tries to get it back, he slips on a piece of the sculpture, hits his head while falling, and dies. They turn Louis' body into a red sculpture and dig a makeshift grave in the backyard meant for Evan. They tie him up with a hose, then bury him in the hole, leaving only his head above ground. Genesis shows Evan the video she recorded earlier with his phone of him and Bel having sex. As Evan watches on, she uploads it to his Facebook profile. They depart and take Monkey with them, leaving Evan to his fate. Karen and the kids arrive home to the entire house ruined while speechless.
|
entertaining
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0094683
|
Assa
|
The film has several plot lines. The main plot takes place in the winter of 1980 and tells the story of Alika (Tatyana Drubich), a young nurse who stays in Yalta with her patient and lover Krymov (Stanislav Govorukhin), who is considerably older than she is. Krymov is the head of a criminal group and is being watched by inept KGB agents, but Alika is not completely aware of it. In Yalta Alika meets Bananan (Sergei "Afrika" Bugaev), a young and eccentric underground rock musician, who introduces her to the Soviet counterculture. When Krymov discovers that Alika is developing a relationship with Bananan, he becomes jealous and tries to convince Bananan to leave Alika and Yalta altogether; after Bananan refuses, Krymov's minions murder him. When he tells Alika about this, she murders him and is arrested by the Militsiya, although they treat her gently.
Another minor plot line shows the history of the murder of tsar Paul I of Russia. It is based on a book by Natan Eidelman, which Krymov is shown reading throughout the movie.
=== Experimental scenes and Russian rock relation ===
Besides the two conventional plot lines, the film is notable for having many experimental scenes which are only loosely related to the plot: Bananan's surreal dreams, "footnotes" with explanation of Russian rock slang and performances of complete Russian rock songs by Aquarium, Bravo, Soyuz kompozitorov, Yury Chernavsky with Vesyolye Rebyata and Kino. Boris Grebenshchikov of Aquarium wrote the film's instrumental soundtrack and he is also referenced in the film's dialog: Bananan tells Krymov that Grebenshchikov "is a God who radiates light".
The film's memorable final scene symbolizes the liberation of Russian music from the state-imposed restrictions. In the scene, which is barely related to the plot, Bananan's band-mate brings Viktor Tsoi, the singer of Kino, portrayed by himself, to work in a restaurant as a singer; the restaurant manager starts reading to him the strict rules that all restaurant performers must follow, but instead of listening to her, Tsoi goes straight to the stage and starts singing I Want Changes! (Хочу перемен!); after some time the camera turns around and shows that he's not in a restaurant, but in front of a huge admiring crowd of young people in a theatre. This song became strongly associated with the social changes in the Soviet Union in the times of Perestroika and Glasnost in late 1980s, and the Russian opposition movement Solidarnost chose it as its anthem.
Another experimental scene shows one of Krymov's minions (Alexander Bashirov) being interrogated about Krymov's criminal activities. In an attempt to avoid squealing he pretends to be insane and reads a monologue about being traumatized by the death of Yuri Gagarin. The monologue was improvised by Bashirov.
|
romantic, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0075213
|
The Shootist
|
After a prologue—a clip montage of scenes from Wayne's earlier Western films—summarizing the career of J.B. Books, "the most celebrated shootist extant", an aging and obviously pain-ridden Books arrives in Carson City, Nevada, on January 22, 1901. He laments that the Old West is dying—as is he. A trusted friend, "Doc" Hostetler (Stewart), confirms a Colorado doctor's prognosis of an imminent and painful death from cancer.
Books rents a room at a boarding house owned by the widow Bond Rogers (Bacall) and her teenage son Gillom (Howard). Marshal Thibido (Morgan), alarmed at the presence of a notorious gunfighter in his town, asks him to leave. Books explains that he is dying, and intends to die in Carson City. Thibido relents, but says, "Don't take too long to die."
Word spreads that Books is in town; profiteers, young guns, and old friends and enemies are drawn to him. A newspaperman named Dobkins (Rick Lenz) proposes a spectacular series of articles, exaggerating and glorifying Books' tumultuous career. Books kicks him out, only to be visited by an old flame, Serepta (North), who proposes marriage. He is touched, until he learns that she wants to co-write, with Dobkins, a widow's sensational "memoir". "Woman," says Books, "I still have some pride."
Hostetler prescribes laudanum to ease Books' worsening pain, and reluctantly answers his questions about what will come next: The pain will continue to build, eventually becoming unbearable. Hostetler remarks that if he had Books' courage, the death he has just described is not the one he would choose. The undertaker, Hezekiah Beckum (Carradine) pitches a grand funeral, which Books rejects as another profiteering scheme; but he does order a headstone. Two strangers seeking notoriety try to ambush him as he sleeps, but Books kills them. Gillom is impressed; his mother, who is losing boarders, is angry.
During a buggy ride, Books tells Bond he has never killed a man who didn't deserve it; Bond says a higher power will decide that. She worries that Gillom, lacking a father's guidance, is acquiring a taste for violence and drink. Books negotiates the sale of his horse to the blacksmith, Moses (Crothers), who remarks that Gillom already tried to sell it to him, to compensate for their lost boarders. Books confronts Gillom; after they resolve their differences, Gillom asks for a shooting lesson. To Gillom's surprise, he is nearly as accurate as Books, and wonders aloud how Books won all those gunfights. Books points out that the trees don't shoot back. "It isn't always being fast or even accurate that counts," he adds. "It's being willing."
Books asks Gillom to deliver a message to three men: Mike Sweeney (Boone), who has vowed to avenge his brother, killed long ago by Books; Jack Pulford (O'Brian), a professional gambler and pistol marksman; and Jay Cobb (Bill McKinney), Gillom's ill-mannered employer. Gillom informs each of them, separately, that Books will be at the Metropole Saloon on January 29, his 58th birthday. Books insists that Gillom accept his horse, which he has bought back from Moses, as a gift.
On January 29, the headstone arrives, bearing Books' name, birth date, and "Died 1901", with the day left blank. After bidding farewell to Bond, who has grown to like him, he boards a trolley for the Metropole Saloon. The room is deserted except for the four men and the bartender (Charles G. Martin). Books orders a drink and raises a toast to his birthday and his three "guests".
Cobb is the first to draw his gun, but Books easily dispatches him. He then shoots Sweeney through a table he is hiding behind, but is wounded in the process. Pulford now fires, hitting Books again as he takes cover behind the bar. Pulford works his way closer, but Books sees his reflection in a glass and when he peers over the bar, shoots him dead.
Gillom enters and sees the bartender sneaking up behind Books with a shotgun. He shouts a warning, but the bartender blasts Books in the back with both barrels. As he reloads, Gillom picks up Books' gun and shoots the bartender, then drops the gun in disgust. Books smiles, nods approvingly, and dies. After covering Books reverently with his jacket, Gillom walks home with his mother.
|
revenge
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
It is a terrific end to a legendary career.After a brief prologue made up of film clips of Wayne in his career prime, we meet his cinematic alter ego, John Bernard Books, an aging gunfighter who rides into Carson City, Nevada in the early 1900's looking for Doc Hostetler (James Stewart), the old sawbones who once saved his life and apparently the only man he trusts.
Books, with no where else to go, checks into Bond Rogers' (Lauren Bacall) boarding house to live out his final days in peace under the alias "William Hickok." When Bond's delinquent son Gillom (Ron Howard, in a nice change-of-pace performance and his last major film appearance before becoming a director) informs her of his true identity, she tries to throw him out but relents when she finds out his condition and agrees to help him die in peace.
Since it's obvious that no one will leave him alone in his final days, and since he grows fond (to put it mildly) of both Bond and Gillom and wishes them no harm, Books decides to go out in style and on his own terms, and to take a few scumbags along with him."The Shootist" is one of those rare films that seems to have gotten better with age.
In fact, it is now hard to believe that Wayne was not nominated for an Oscar here, as Books is clearly one of the best performances of his career and definitely eclipses his extravagantly praised, Oscar-winning mugging in "True Grit." Indeed, "The Shootist" deserves to stand alongside Clint Eastwood's "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and Oscar-winning "Unforgiven" as the last three great Westerns in cinema history.
Everything about it is immaculate--the sets, the costumes, the supporting cast (including Harry Morgan in a terrific cameo as an unsympathetic sheriff who tells Books, "What I put on your grave won't pass for roses."), the script, and the chemistry between Wayne and Bacall, teaming up for the first time since "Blood Alley." And everything is held together by old pro director Donald Siegel who, aside from the late Hal Ashby, may very well be the most underappreciated director in cinema history.
Wayne's character rides into town at the start of the film and visits James Stewart's pleasant Doc Hostetler, who tells him that he has terminal cancer and will die within two months.
Wayne, who was also dying of cancer, like the character, was trying to accomplish one last thing, a great film.
John Wayne heads the top-drawer main and support cast , he gives a very good as well as dignified acting as a dying gunfighter who spends his last days looking for a way to die rightly but prevented from doing so various younger gunmen out for vendetta or to prove their worth against him .
Early on, Books is told by his old friend Dr Hostetler that he is dying of terminal cancer, and the film chronicles the last week of his life, from 22nd to 29th January 1901, his search for a dignified death in accordance with his own code of honour.The film is about both endings and new beginnings, so it is significant that the action takes place in the first month of a new century.
The Shootist is a great swan song to the film career of John Wayne and a great movie on its own merit.
The parallels between Wayne's life at the time the film was made and the character(J.B.Brooks) he plays in the movie only add a poignant sadness.
He gives Book the most potent pain-killer he gets, and tells him where to stay in town...The film is build to one and only purpose: To let Wayne die with dignity, without physical pain, at the Metropole gambling saloon, in a showdown with three heavies: Richard Boone, a bad-tempered ugly man who wants to avenge his brother's death; Hugh O'Brien, a skilled dealer and a presumptuous gunfighter; and Bill McKinney, an unpleasant provoking gunman just released from prison...Ron Howard plays the crude graceless adolescent, the first to meet Wayne in the street: 'The old man ain't worth a bullet,' he says, 'he looks all tuckered out.' In this particular scene, it comes to my mind the insolent young punk, Skip Homeir, who tries to prove something when he confronts Gregory Peck in the psychological Western "The Gunfighter." Wayne seems surprised by the visit of Serepta (Sheree North), an unscrupulous aging lady-love who tries to take advantage of him, asking him to marry her simply for a marriage certificate, and a famous name...
In a way this also shows some parallels with Wayne's death, when he died a piece of the genre Western died with him as well.Beside 'The Duke' the movie also has some fine other great actors such as: Lauren Bacall, James Stewart (also his last Western as an actor, he however later still provided one of the voices for his final movie "An American Tail: Fievel Goes West".), Scatman Crothers and John Carradine.
Either The Shootist or The Cowboys could serve as his monument.But in John Bernard Books, Wayne gives us one of his finest acted roles ever on screen, legendary gunfighter from the Old West who arrives in Carson City, Nevada to get a second opinion from Doctor James Stewart.
He admires the way she left the mortal coil and he resolves in his own mind a plan to go out the same way.Wayne put a great cast together for The Shootist, some of them friends and colleagues he worked with over the years like James Stewart, Lauren Bacall, John Carradine, Harry Morgan, Hugh O'Brian and Richard Boone.
James Stewart was quoted as saying he was just honored to be in this film with the Duke.One of John Wayne's best acted scenes ever in any of his films is with Sheree North who plays a former girl friend.
The legendary John Wayne gives a fantastic understated performance as J.B. Books an aging gunfighter suffering from stomach cancer and looking to live out the final days of his life in peace.
Both stand in contrast to the view of that life held by Gillom and Moses.Back in 1969, the Academy, realizing it had never appropriately honored John Wayne and fearful that time was running out to do so, gave him Best Actor for one of his weaker performances and poorer scripts.
This gives several scenes a real lump-in-the-throat quality, such as when Wayne tells Lauren Bacall "I'm a dying man afraid of the dark."But even when viewed without that knowledge, The Shootist is a thoughtful, sad and very well acted film.
The supporting cast is also outstanding, and Wayne has several great scenes with actors like Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard and even Scatman Crothers.
Again, it is difficult to view these scenes without thinking of the twilight of Wayne's career and the declining popularity of western films, just as you can't help but connect the plight of his character in this film with his own death from cancer a few years later.It's hard to imagine that any other significant actor ever made a more appropriate and moving farewell film.
He decides to take an easier route, and returns to his old stomping grounds in order to find a quick and painless death.Along the way he meets The Son (Ron Howard in one of his early roles), and a various assortment of other characters, in his search for suicide.Don Siegel ("Dirty Harry") has always been one of my favorite directors -- he's made some truly terrific films in his career.
It's clear from the casting that, even before the Duke's condition was known, the producers and director were casting icons of film (Jimmy Stewart) and TV (Richard Boone, Paladin in "Have Gun, Will Travel" and Hugh O'Brian, the lead in "Wyatt Earp") westerns, as well as just fine, older actors (Lauren Bacall [not so old, really, when this was made], John Carradine, Scatman Crothers, Harry Morgan).More than anything else, this film is about respect: the flawed code of honor that has led Books to kill so many men over honor, respect for the old, respect for the wishes of the dying.
Words can hardly convey the elegiac quality of this beautifully acted mini-masterpiece, with John Wayne playing a part that was surely meant only for him.The whole effect enhanced by superbly filmed locations,authentic period detail (forget the car!) and strong supporting performances from the rest of the cast.It would be pedantic for me to point out that very few Western gunfighters reached the seniority typified by Wayne's character (Wyatt Earp and Frank James excepted) but J B Books apparently survived presumably because of his unrivalled skills in his chosen profession, as demonstrated at the beginning of the film.
It's less a typical western than a man's reflection upon the end of his life.To me, John Wayne will always represent what true American values are all about, and this film, on all levels is the most fitting end to his career that anyone could have dreamed of..
Books (really a tribute to later John "Duke" Wayne movies) – the legendary gunfighter rides his horse into Carson City, Nevada to see a doctor.
In short the entire cast is excellent, although seeing Hugh O'Brian as a bad guy was certainly unusual, for two decades earlier he had starred in TV's popular "The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp." Richard Boone too played Paladin in TV's "Have Gun – Will Travel." Wayne's last movie was so much better than his 1970s films like "Cahill US Marshal," "McQ," "Brannigan," and "Rooster Cogburn." So it is indeed true that "The Shootist" was the only way that the Duke could have made his big-screen exit!.
A dying gunfighter named J.B. Books (John Wayne) rents a room from widow Bond Rogers (Lauren Bacall) and her son Gillom (Ron Howard).
His final lesson will come when Books prepares to settle old scores with enemies who have flocked to town with the news Books is dying.John Wayne's final film and one of his finest performances.
Wonderful supporting cast that includes many former co-stars of the Duke like Lauren Bacall, Jimmy Stewart, Richard Boone, and John Carradine.
J.B. Books, a legendary gunman (John Wayne) visits Carson City, Nevada in 1901 to get a second opinion from Doc Hostetler (James Stewart), who'd patched him up after a gunfight years before.
Things don't QUITE work out how he expects (but he's predicted how he'll go earlier in the film), and Gillom finds out gunfighting isn't a good way to grow old....While it's an urban legend that John Wayne was dying of cancer making this movie (he didn't have stomach cancer until some two years later), his 1964 battle with lung cancer played a large part in his wanting to do this.
The Legend Goes Out on Top. The Shootist (1976) **** (out of 4) John Wayne, in his final film, plays a dying gunfighter who goes to a small town for some final rest but ends up going up against a group of men who won't let him die in peace.
Many believe that Wayne made this film, like the character, knowing that he was dying but apparently that wasn't the case but even so he managed to get talent like Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard, Hugh O'Brien, John Carradine, Richard Boone, Scatman Crothers and James Stewart to appear.
In his final film, Wayne, the great Western star, plays a famous gunfighter dying of cancer.
John Wayne in his last film, and how fitting it should be a western.The Shootist is about a surviving old gunslinger who knows he is dying.
However, the disease was only in remission, and when it became clear in the mid 1970's that the conditional was probably terminal, Wayne chose this film as his way of saying his personal farewell to the movies.Wayne's character, John Bernard Books, is suffering from internal cancer and this is confirmed for him by Carson's Doc Hostetler, played with gentle dignity by James Stewart.
I've often wondered if John Wayne, or someone close to him, intentionally chose this script because they knew Wayne had lung cancer and would likely not be making many more movies.Wayne dying...Jimmie Stewart's, Richard Boone's careers also nearing their end...Boone's character's motorcar ushering in a new era in the movie...western movies out of vogue when this was made...the wild west way of life fading away in the film...these and other symbols are too numerous to be mere coincidences.The cast is excellent...the photography (especially the outdoor shots away from town's center) has the "feel" of authenticity.This was, truly, the only way for John Wayne to make his exit..
I think it was also a great end to the era of the "Wild West" that succeeded in Hollywood for 40 years.In The Shootist John Wayne plays John Bernard Books, a man who has had an infamous reputation as a gunman.
I'm sure he knew that he didn't have much time left,so he decided to make a movie that reflected his life,a western,the same genre that introduced him to the world.If you thought his performance as Rooster Cogburn was the greatest ever,look no where else but here,because he really shines and goes out on top as J.B. Books in the Shootist..
He takes up residence in the house of a pretty widow (Bacall) with a son (Howard) and waits for his death, but every baddie within riding range wants to challenge him for the fame of killing the legendary shootist.Wayne's performance is a gem, cone of his best, and the supporting cast is able.
This is John Wayne's best western and ranks second for me only to his "Quiet Man" film, another role he played where his human side shines though the iconic presence.
Check the cast out in the mid '70s western: John Wayne, Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard, James Stewart, Richard Boone, John Carradine, Scatman Crothers, Sheree North, Hugh O'Brien and Harry Morgan.
Although Wayne doesn't blaspheme, he expresses his non-interest in religion, which must have really pleased the national critics, who liked this film.The positive points are Wayne's still-good performance in his dying days, playing someone who is doing the same thing (dying of cancer); a nice Christian character played by Bacall; some good cameos by other famous actors in their finals years, too, and realistic portrayal of "leeches" - people trying to make a buck out of a dying man (mainly a newspaperman and a former girlfriend).This is obviously a different kind of western, not your normal shoot-em up, but more of a human interest story of a dying man.
Don Siegel directed this western, which stars John Wayne in his final performance, playing aging Gunfighter J.B. Books, who learns that he is dying of cancer, and comes to stay in the home of Bond Rogers(played by Lauren Bacall) and her son Gillom(played by Ron Howard).
Knowing that John Wayne was himself dying when he made this movie, gives this story of a terminally ill gunfighter a dimension of sadness that is difficult to bear, and makes this tragic movie a fitting end to a great career.
Even if you leave aside John Wayne's real life drama pretty much like the film's character he plays (both were dying of cancer) that could add some nostalgic interest to the movie, it stands as a very good product in the genre.John Bernard Books (Wayne) is an aging gunfighter who knows his time is almost over, not only biologically speaking but also because of the inevitable end of his kind as the old west changes with progress.
So he challenges the three top guns in town for a final gunfight in the saloon (where else?).James Stewart, Lauren Bacall and Richard Boone bring a great supporting cast to Wayne -this is his movie- and help a lot to make it a really fine product in the genre.Although a bit slow in the beginning, "The Shootist" turns out as a decent farewell to the actor that was, perhaps, the most representative figure in western films ever.
One of Dukes greatest,The Shootist in my opinion marks the true end of the western era in movies.Wayne who portrays a dying gunfighter @ the turn of the century was himself in real life battling cancer.This movie brings together a cast of characters who in my opinion wanted to be part of what they knew was going to be the Dukes last movie.Duke plays the part with such realism and a level of sadness that has touched me more than any other role he has played.This movie also contains my favorite quote"I won't be wronged,Iwon't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.I don't do these things to other people and I require the same of them."These word represent what the Duke stood for in life,a philosophy that seems to have sadly passed with him..
The great John Wayne delivers a stunning performance as an aged gunslinger living out his final days, awaiting death from cancer.
Directed by Don Siegel(of the "Dirty Harry" movies) this fond farewell to the end of an era co-stars Lauren Bacall,Scatman Crothers,Ron Howard,and also in his final farewell performance as well,James Stewart.
This,naturally is a shock to him,as he no doubt thought he would die at the smoking end of a gun barrel.On the way to a thrilling climax, Books takes time to make friends with the owner of a boarding house (played with class by the great Lauren Bacall),and her son (played by Ron Howard).Worthy of note here is the performance,although a brief one,of the always flawless Jimmy Stewart as the town's doctor.This movie is a must have for any Duke fan..
The film is replete with character actors, Richard Boone, James Stewart,Hugh O'Brien, Harry Morgan, Scatman Crothers, John Carridine and a young Ron Howard.
John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart last worked together on The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, 15 years earlier.Rounding off a great cast we have Lauren Bacall and, representing the new generation, Ron Howard.
|
tt0109890
|
The Getaway
|
Carter "Doc" McCoy, in prison in Texas, is denied parole. When his wife Carol visits him, he tells her to do whatever is necessary to make a deal with Jack Beynon, a corrupt businessman in San Antonio, in order to free him. Beynon uses his influence and gets Doc paroled on the condition that he takes part in a bank robbery with two of his minions, Rudy and Frank. During the robbery, Frank kills a guard. Rudy attempts a double-cross, shooting Frank and drawing a gun on Doc, who beats him to the draw and shoots Rudy several times. Doc leaves Rudy for dead, but Rudy, having secretly worn a bulletproof vest, is alive albeit wounded.
Doc meets with Beynon, who attempts a double-cross before Carol shoots and kills him. Doc realizes that Carol had sex with Beynon to secure his release from prison. Doc angrily gathers up the money and, after a bitter quarrel, the couple flees for the border at El Paso. A bloodied Rudy forces rural veterinarian Harold and his young wife Fran to treat his injuries, then kidnaps them to pursue Doc and Carol. Beynon's brother Cully and his thugs also pursue the McCoys. At a train station, a shifty con man swaps locker keys with Carol and steals their bag of money. Doc follows him onto a train and forcefully takes it back. The injured con man and a train passenger – a young African-American boy whom Doc had rebuked earlier for deriding him – are taken to the police station, where they identify Doc's mug shot.
Carol buys a car, and the McCoys drive to an electronics store. As Doc buys a portable radio, he switches off the television set near the proprietor's desk, which telecasted the news reporting the earlier incidents they were involved in. Suddenly, all the television sets in the store show Doc's picture, prompting him to leave immediately. The proprietor, however, gets a glimpse of the picture, and calls the police. Doc steals a shotgun, leading to several shoot-outs and police chases. The couple escape by hiding in a large trash bin, only to end up in the back of a garbage truck that dumps its load at the local landfill. Filthy and frustrated, they argue about whether to stay together or split up. They decide to see things through.
Rudy's attraction to the veterinarian's wife results in the two having sex in front of her husband. Humiliated, the vet hangs himself in a motel bathroom. Rudy and Fran move on, barely acknowledging the suicide. They check into an El Paso hotel used by criminals as a safe house because Rudy knows that the McCoys will be heading to the same place. When Doc and Carol check in at the hotel, they ask for food to be delivered, but the manager, Laughlin, says he is working alone and can't leave the desk. Doc soon realizes that Laughlin sent away his family because something is about to happen. He urges Carol to dress quickly so they can escape. An armed Rudy comes to their door while Fran poses as a delivery girl who needs to be paid for the food. Peering from an adjacent doorway, Doc is surprised to see Rudy alive. He sneaks up behind Rudy, knocks him out, and does the same to the screaming Fran.
Cully and his thugs arrive as the McCoys try to leave. A violent gunfight ensues in the halls, stairwell, and elevator; and all of Cully's men are killed but one, whom Doc allows to run away. Cully himself dies when Doc shoots the cables of the elevator Cully is in and it crashes to the bottom of the shaft. Rudy comes to his senses, follows Doc and Carol outside on a fire escape, and shoots at them, but Doc returns fire and kills him. With the police on the way, the couple hijack a pickup truck and force the driver, a cooperative old cowboy, to take them to Mexico. After crossing the border, Doc and Carol pay the cowboy $30,000 ($171,800 today) for his truck. Overjoyed, the cowboy heads back to El Paso on foot, while the couple continue on into Mexico.
|
violence, neo noir
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0298408
|
Laurel Canyon
|
Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale) are a newly engaged couple who move to Los Angeles to further their careers. Sam is a recently graduated psychiatrist, starting his residency, while Alex, who comes from a very wealthy background, is finishing her M.D.-Ph.D. dissertation on genomics. The relatively strait-laced, upwardly mobile couple plan to stay at the vacant home of Sam's mother, Jane (Frances McDormand), a free-spirited record producer in the Laurel Canyon section of the City of Los Angeles.
In a change of plans, however, Jane is still around, recording an album with her boyfriend, Ian McKnight (Alessandro Nivola), and his band. The film focuses in some depth on the challenge of trying to create successful pop music, showing work on two tracks (both actually written, and previously released, by the band Sparklehorse). Ian's bandmates are played by noted indie rockers, bassist Lou Barlow and guitarist Imaad Wasif.
Jane and Ian are in the midst of a fiery romance, and both the producer and the band seem more interested in partying than finishing the record. Jane's presence is a source of consternation for Sam, as he and his mother have a somewhat strained relationship, due to their very different mindsets.
Alex, however, is intrigued by the new lifestyle options presented by her soon-to-be mother-in-law. Normally hardworking, Alex begins spending more time with the band and less time working on her dissertation. Her growing fascination with Jane and Ian leads to a scene where the three of them kiss one another while naked in the swimming pool.
Meanwhile, Sam finds himself attracted to fellow resident Sara (Natascha McElhone), who is unapologetically interested in him as well. They share one first kiss while returning from an informal interns' meeting, around the same time Alex has her first tryst with Jane and Ian in the pool. Some time later, while Alex attends Jane and Ian's party held in a crowded hotel suite to celebrate the band's new album release, Sam and Sara meet in a parking lot and, in a conversation filled with sexual tension, they declare their attraction for one another.
The situation strains Sam and Alex's relationship almost to the point of breaking by the end of the film. After the party has finished and the three of them are left alone in the suite, Ian tries to "finish" (in his words) his encounter with Alex and Jane, but the latter decides against it and the threesome does not take place. Upon returning home after his conversation with Sara, Sam decides to go to the hotel and discovers Jane, Ian, and Alex scantily-clad in the bedroom. In a fit of rage he repeatedly punches Ian, hits his mother with the elbow as she tries to split the fight, and leaves the hotel, but Alex chases him down the street and professes her love for him.
The next morning, the situation seems back to normal again. But Sara phones Sam and tells him she can't control her heart, as opposed to what he told her the day before. Sam watches his surroundings, postpones any further conversation, and takes a moment of reflection. Credits run.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
`Laurel Canyon' is about a man named Sam (Bale) and his fiancé Alex (Kate Bekinsale) who move to California so he can begin his medical residency at a local hospital and she can finish her dissertation.
The pair moves in with Sam's mom Jane (Frances McDormand) who is record producer who lives on Laurel Canyon Road in Hollywood.
The soundtrack holds a great deal of classic rock songs from groups such as `Steely Dan,' `Leroy' and `Mercury Rev.' Overall, `Laurel Canyon' was a very good movie that reminds its audience to look beyond the surface of things and to see what really matters in all relationships-love.
The grown son (Christian Bale) of a record producer (Frances McDormand) ends up bringing his girl friend (Kate Bekinsdale) to California.
Christian Bale and Frances McDormand have a poignant scene at the end of "Laurel Canyon", but again the film strangely mutes the power which the actors imbue their characters with.I'd rate this film a 70/100.
I suspect audiences will especially enjoy and identify with Kate Beckinsale's character: a studious and sheltered young doctoral student who takes to the hedonistic Los Angeles lifestyle in a big way.
Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale) are an uptight, New York couple in complete control of their lives, until they move in with Sam's mother Jane (Frances McDormand) who is a loose hippie (in all senses of the words).
Jane also has a slew of rock-and-roll men living in her house, most notably, Ian (Alessandro Nivola), her primary boyfriend with an irresistible accent - but then again Jane and Ian don't really label anything, especially relationships.As Sam grows increasingly frustrated by his mother's lifestyle, Alex grows increasingly intrigued by it.
The sexual tension between Beckinsale, Nivola and McDormand is electric and is able to keep driving the film forward.The dialogue is funny enough and the actors are all very good that they make up for the slightly predictable plot.
Between the generation of hippie organic mama (Frances McDormand) and her predictably uptight conservative doctor son (Christian Bale) and his uber egghead grad student girlfriend (Kate Beckinsale) are the silences of a parent who did her thing and a son who didn't.
Well, the same holds true for writer-director Lisa Cholondenko's latest work, `Laurel Canyon'.Here is a movie featuring characters that are truly authentic.
The music in this movie is awesome, thanks to the writing talents of Mark Linkous, the creative force behind the critically acclaimed band "Sparklehorse." The songs are sung by actor, Allesandro Nivola, who's performance was awesome - as was Francis McDormand, Kate Beckinsale, Christian Bale and Natascha McElhone.
As a married man I understand the temptation he has to deal with.Kate Beckinsale(sp?) also did a convincing job of a playing the awkwardness of a foreigner in an unknown and exciting place.Francis Macdormand(sp?) What can I say, she is always amazing, and natural.Alessandro Nivola is a young actor who you should keep an eye out for!
"Laurel Canyon" isn't a sharp enough barb at the music industry nor is it insightful enough about relationships, but there are individual performances and musical references to make it worthwhile.Frances McDormand as a Queen Bee, omnisexual music producer is a prime reason to see the film, playing the opposite of her "Almost Famous" Mom. There are hints about her musical ears being passe, as her house has a lot more shelves and shelves of old LPs than the few new CDs piled up, plus the photos of her in studios with past stars.
The realistic musical mise en scene includes appearances by musician Lou Barlow and producer Daniel Lanois, among others.The basic tension is supposed to be her being the fascination of the abomination to her straight-laced son Christian Bale (pretty much playing the same character as in "Metroland") and his fiancee, Kate Beckinsale pretty much playing the Susan Sarandon role from "Rocky Horror Picture Show." There's also some irony about Bale's character being an effective shrink in training, with all his mother issues, and a new twist on mother-in-law issues.But that is undercut by virtually all being drawn, a la the Rolling Stones' "Spider and the Fly" song which should be on the soundtrack but isn't, by snake-straight-from-the-Garden-of-Eden Alessandro Nivola's sexy leader of a rock band that sure looks and sounds a lot like Goo Goo Dolls or Coldplay (the film's composer is with the band Shudder to Think) and sincerely says all kinds of unbelievable things about commitment and has no problem writing a radio-friendly ballad.
Francis McDormand, of "Fargo" fame, who is getting a bit too mature to be judged merely for her appearance (although she looks awfully fit for a woman her age), nevertheless is interesting to watch and dominates the situation throughout the movie.
Coupled with the romantic quandary faced by Christian Bale who must choose between fidelity to his fiancée, Kate Beckinsale, and a lustful fling with his alluring coworker, Natascha McElhone, gives this movie an entertaining edge that is not usually seen in more recent Hollywood offerings.
Anyone from Los Angeles will instantly recognize many of the locations, particularly things like the Château Marmont hotel (where, incidentally, Lindsay Lohan lived for months and months in 2006 while she couldn't seem to stop partying enough to find a real apartment) and, more importantly, that charming cafe at the corner of Laurel Canyon and Kirkwood Drive, where I often used to go for coffee.Jim Morisson's house, a few feet away, is sadly overlooked, which is strange since the movie is about the hectic world behind the scenes of the music industry.
It's nearly impossible to imagine a smart, well-balanced young man entering his career as a psychiatrist having come from the environment that Jane (McDormand) would have provided him during childhood, but the situational drama that comes from their relationship is revelatory about both lifestyles.The actual neighborhoods and the style of the houses in that part of Hollywood are presented perfectly, thanks in no small part to the location shooting, but it also captures the attitude in many ways as well.
Frances McDormand gives the film some personality (her straightforward, yet unhurried and unhindered nature does more for the picture than it does for her), but the younger players all look and act like supermodels and the sub-plot about a rock band trying to get their new record in the can is curiously naive.
She looked really good to be play Jane, Sam's(Christian Bale,"Batman Begins") mother who is a record producer, whose lifestyle is virtually unacceptable.
From it's sexy comedic opening scene with a jarring telephone, to the closing, again featuring Chrisian Bale floating in a rather interesting swimming pool, this film features superb performaces by some of the most interesting actors working today such as Mr. Bale, Frances McDormand, Kate Beckinsale, Natascha McElhone and Alessandro Nivola.
Kate Beckinsale is excellent(and marvelous to look at) as the girlfriend and Allesandro Nivola is very good as the leader of the band.So what are my gripes about this film?
Today I found the performance: Frances McDormand as an aging, randy, and still accomplished record producer in Lisa Cholodenko's `Laurel Canyon.' She goes way beyond Marge In `Fargo' to fashion a likeable, unconventional mom living somewhere between Woodstock and Rodeo Drive.McDormand goes through a variety of emotions from bitchy bliss when smoking pot calmly with the band she is producing to conflicted anguish when lovemaking with her son's (Christian Bale) girlfriend.
She is the center of the film regardless of Kate Beckinsale and Natascha McElhone's (second-year resident, yearning for Bale) beauty and Alessandro Nivola's Brad Pitt-like seductiveness.
The stock story of McDormand's son and his girlfriend (Beckinsale) visiting mom in Laurel Canyon while he does his psychiatric residency and Beckinsale her dissertation telegraphs the transformation in their conservative lives at almost every turn.
Alex's mother, record-producer Jane (Frances McDormand) lives an easygoing life of sex and drugs.
In the process of staying with her, Sam and Alex just aren't able to distance themselves from Jane's existence.Granted, with the kind of idiotic movies that Hollywood makes, it's always good to see an indie film like this one.
Sam (Christian Bale) is an uptight twenty-something newly-graduated psychiatrist with an equally intelligent girlfriend, Alex (Kate Beckinsale) who moves to Los Angeles to begin a new job, and moves into his ageing rock-chick mother (Frances Dormand) Jane's plush Laurel Canyon house.
Sam is deeply uncomfortable with his mother's lifestyle, but Alex, after overcoming her initial apprehension, quickly becomes seduced by Jane's way of life.On paper this is the kind of story that's more suitable to a comedy treatment than drama, but writer-director Lisa Cholodenko's talent is of an introspective nature: she prefers to analyse the motivating factors behind the decisions her characters make.
That said, he gives a fine performance as does Natascha Henstridge as Sam's beautiful colleague and potential love interest.Bottom line: difficult to figure out exactly what Cholodenko is trying to say, largely because of the quality of the writing and an inconclusive ending that leaves the viewer feeling cheated.
and since it is a movie about emotional stuff it shouldn't fail precisely in that aspect: there are only 2 or 3 sequences that are really moving, meanwhile the rest of the movie passes between indifference and coldness.Anyway, the final assessment it is rather positive, taking into account this was only the second Cholodenko's film: she knows how to move the camera, she's not pretentious at all, and the actor's selection is just nice: Christian Bale (the son) and Frances McDormand (the mother) are two of the best active actors.
In "Laurel Canyon" Frances McDormand does a juicy turn as Jane, an aging but sexually active record producer, and Christian Bale is irresistibly handsome as Sam, Jane's intern son just out of Harvard Medical School.
After a period of temptation and dalliance, some artistic work gets successfully accomplished, but the young people involved are left dangling and so are we.Cholodenko provides a more complicated plot this time that includes sexual temptations not just for an innocent girl and an experienced woman (Alex and Jane), but also for the innocent girl's boyfriend Sam; the record producer's current flame Ian (Alessandro Nivola); and the beautiful Israeli intern (Natasha) who's drawn to Bale's character.
The movie oscillates methodically between the music folks working on a record at Jane's Laurel Canyon mansion and Sam's straight efforts as an intern in the psych ward of a nearby hospital.Sam and Alex have come to work in California and stay at his mom's house, not knowing that it would be so full of people and rife with opportunities to be naughty.
The medical scenes stay at the level of a wan TV drama while the recording process is made relatively fresh and engaging, and toward the end of the movie Jane declares the record to be one of the best she's ever produced.There's a powerful amount of accent-swapping in this movie: Bale does one of his skillful, if somewhat odd, American voices (he always seems a glamorous alien); the rather stiff Beckinsale does likewise; the equally British McElhone does a Bulgarian sounding Israeli; and Alessandro Nivola, who hales from Boston, does a down and dirty English accent.McDormand alone gets to stick with her own American voice.
Nivola, who's her much younger lover as well as the lead singer on the record, does a good job of keeping up.Charismatic though he may be in his way, Bale doesn't seem to bring much intelligence to his interpretation of the thankless but central role of McDormand's disapproving son.
All that's certain is that the record came out well and that McDormand and her character had the most fun."High Art" was a lower-profile, smaller movie, and though in a sense it went nowhere either, there was that nice little lesbian romance at the center of it, and its New York bohemian scene was more intriguing than the Laurel Canyon/Chateau Marmont recording world of Cholodenko's new movie.
There's sufficient gloss to the music scene to draw you in -- Choldenko's at home with parties and drugged-out artistic people -- but the writer/director isn't adept enough at plot construction to develop the situation's potential for farce.There's a really amusing story hiding here somewhere, no doubt one with Frances McDormand still in the foreground.
The director, the script and the producers who greenlighted this stillborn project are first and foremost to blame here.The story sorta had potential (behind the scenes of the music industry) but I've never seen a movie shoot itself in the foot on so many occasions as this film.
Whatever chance this film had to turn up good was repeatedly destroyed by the kooky decisions made for the film:1 - The Christian Bale and Kate Beckinsale characters are so annoying and unbelievably fake that the whole drama of the story, which weighs on their attitude towards the people they have to live with and their new dwelling, falls apart from the get-go.
Frances McDormand, while seemingly too young to play the role of mom to Christian Bale, delivers a good performance although she has little in the way of script to work with.Interestingly, of three of the principal characters, two of them are British actors playing American characters, and one is an American actor playing a Brit.
They are defending a life style that's always pushed around in these kind of films.But you have Frances McDormand here, which makes the movie at last average.
Natascha McElone and Alessandro Nivola are very effective in their roles, but without a question, it's Frances McDormand's film and it's only when she dominates the screen that things come alive..
Sam decides to have his residence in psychiatric field in California, while Alex is preparing her dissertation in genomics for her Ph.D. They decide to move together to Laurel Canyon Street, a street in Hollywood, to a borrowed house that belongs to Sam's mother Jane (Frances McDormand), a successful music producer.
Meanwhile, Alex feels a great attraction for the different world of Jane and for Ian. In the end, the young couple passes for a new experience in life, and Sam "rebirths" as a different man.
The outstanding Frances McDormand, the mature Christian Bale, the versatile and very gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, the excellent and also very beautiful Natascha McElhone and the surprisingly good Alessandro Nivola, who inclusive sings a wonderful song, are very inspired in this great low-budget movie.
Bale tries his best to keep Beckinsale away from his mother knowing the effect she has on people and how she learns them to screw up their lives, something he apparently doesn't want to happen to his girlfriend.
The end of the film is very smart, leaves all the characters thinking about the mistakes they made the night before, mistakes that they'll have to live with, since it's impossible to change things that have already happened.
I don't think I've seen Frances McDormand in one bad film until this one and Christian Bale was definitely out of his element in this role.
Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale) are a straight-laced couple moving to L.A. Sam is a new psychiatrist and Alex is doing her Ph.D. They are staying at his free-spirited mother Jane (Frances McDormand)'s supposed empty home in Laurel Canyon.
If you're going to make a shallow, extremely predictable movie then at least give the audience some steamy or bloody scenes to work with.The acting was bad except for Frances McDormand.Funny how both of the people who tempted Alex and Sam from each other had foreign accents.
Story has Sam (Christian Bale) and his fiance' Alex (Kate Beckinsale) going to live with his mother Jane (McDormand) in Los Angeles while he's in his internship trying to be a psychiatrist at a hospital and she's finishing her dissertation.
At the hospitable Sam starts flirting with Sara (Natasha McElhone) and Alex back home is drawn into the kinky music world of Jane and Ian. Besides McDormand, the other thing I liked about this film is how the character Sam is at odds with himself.
A good cast with Kate Beckinsale, Alessandro Nivola, Christian Bale etc.
This is not the first time I have come across a film that it seems most things were well researched and portrayed authenticly accept one or more details, like the accent of Natscha's character in this movie.
By the way, there is a scene in the film where Christian Bale catches Kate Beckensale in the lead singers bed wearing a black lace thingee where she gets to say that deathless line: 'It's not what it looks like.
Frances McDormand (Fargo, North Country) steals this movie, written and directed by Lisa Cholodenko, with her relaxed portrait of a successful record producer whose never-ending quest for the ideal lover has tarnished her relationship with her son (Christian Bale).While many people would be envious of having a mom who's a rich and famous rock-music producer and totally cool, Sam (Bale) sees only an irresponsible parent who refuses to grow up.
"She's developmentally disabled." It doesn't help that mom is lot for the band's lead (Alessandro Nivola), who is half her age.His W.A.S.P. fiancé (Kate Beckinsale) starts putting aside her dissertation on the reproductive qualities of fruit flies to hang out in the studio with the band.Some may wonder what the point is, and if all the characters are losers in their own way, but I think having a mom who teaches lessons like "pass the bong to guests first, son," is way cool.Of course, the best part of the film is the cast - I love McDormand in everything she does - and the music..
Sam knows it all too well, as this is where he grew up with his record producer mother, Jane (Frances McDormand).But enough about the plot.
And Laurel Canyon is beautiful to look at.I also love movies that are about people making a sort of spiritual odyssey, trying to come to terms with themselves and the world around them.
|
tt2180994
|
A Good Marriage
|
Darcy Anderson has been married to Bob, an accountant from Portland, Maine, for 27 years. They have a happy yet humdrum relationship, running a mail-order business selling and appraising rare coins. One day, while Bob is away on business, Darcy goes into the garage to search for batteries. When she rummages through Bob's belongings, she stumbles across a pornographic magazine showing sadomasochistic images. Unnerved by the magazine – and that it is in Bob's possession – Darcy finds a secret compartment behind the garage's baseboard and makes a more horrific discovery: a small box containing the ID cards of Marjorie Duvall, a victim of a serial killer called "Beadie".
Bob 'phones Darcy and senses her distress. Afterwards, Darcy Googles Beadie and cross-checks Bob's business records with the locations of the murders, finding that Bob was in close proximity to most of the crimes. When Darcy wakes up the next morning, she finds that Bob has deduced her discovery and returned home early. He calmly explains his insanity to his horrified wife, recounting how he and a sadistic friend named Brian Delahanty – nicknamed "BD", from which Beadie's name was derived – planned a school shooting as teenagers. Delahanty was hit by a truck before they could carry it out, but Bob claims he had "infected" him with "certain ideas," resulting in his homicidal urges.
Bob claims that after he started his family with Darcy, his murderous alter ego receded and he was not driven to kill again for several years. He pleads to Darcy to put the matter behind them, for the sake of herself and their family. After mulling it over, Darcy feigns an agreement to do so, on the condition that he bury Duvall's ID cards deep in the woods. Bob believes Darcy has put the truth behind her, however she is trying to think of a way to stop him from killing again. A few months after Darcy's discoveries, an elated Bob finds a rare 1955 doubled die cent, and the couple goes out to Portland to celebrate. When Bob becomes drunk from champagne, Darcy devises a plan to murder him.
Upon arriving home, Darcy has Bob fetch some Perrier while she waits for him upstairs, ostensibly for sex. However, when Bob arrives, Darcy pushes him down the stairs, breaking his arm, neck, and back. She then manages to shove a plastic bag and a dish cloth down his throat, killing him. After removing the evidence of murder, Darcy manages to convince the authorities and the children that Bob died in a drunken accident, and isn't suspected of committing any foul play. Darcy assumes the ordeal is over.
However, not long after Bob is buried, a retired detective named Holt Ramsey visits the house. Ramsey spent years investigating the Beadie murders and had questioned Bob. Ramsey tells Darcy that he suspected Bob was the killer, since his Chevrolet Suburban was seen in the vicinity of each victim. Darcy realizes that Ramsey has figured out her role in Bob's death. Once she admits the truth, Ramsey assures her that she "did the right thing" and leaves; before he does, she tells him about Delahanty. Darcy realizes that Bob was close to being caught and wasn't as smart as he thought he was. She also finds that she can now be at peace with herself.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
There are a few moments of confusion when Darcy (Joan Allen) starts to imagine what would happen if this secret were exposed but, in the end you figure what was and what wasn't and, just generally leave with a feeling of, okay well, it is what it is..
The reason that Stephen King is known as the master of horror is because the things he writes about are realistic enough for you to think
this could happen to me.
Like any good King story this one keeps on on edge and you aren't sure if what you are seeing is real or imagined.
Even though author Stephen King's name is frequently used as a marketing tool, it might be damaging in the case of the film A Good Marriage, because the reference to the "Master of Horror" creates very different expectations to what this movie offers.
To start with, A Good Marriage isn't a horror film, but a boring thriller lacking of energy, suspense or atmosphere, and with weak performances from Joan Allen and Anthony LaPaglia.
To be fair, I haven't read the short story on which A Good Marriage is based, so I can't determine whether the problem comes "of origin", or whether the film couldn't find the proper angle to adapt the story in a more attractive way.
I used to be a fan of King's in previous decades, and I know that his prose is particularly difficult to be translated to cinema, because his characteristic literary "voice" is the first thing to be eliminated when writing a screenplay, something which leaves us with a distillation of characters and concepts which aren't always enough to support a film, unless the movie counts with the necessary ingredients (style, atmosphere, performances) to compensate those things which were lost during the transition.
I was disappointed to read that the screenplay for this was actually written by Stephen King himself.
I was entirely ready to chastise whoever had adapted his novella because, ironically, it felt nothing like a King movie whatsoever.
The character of Bob would have to be the most boring serial killer I've ever seen in a movie.
I watched this today and I was on the edge of my chair, I thought it was very good and I highly recommend this movie.
Don't get me wrong, some Stephan King books have translated into film's quite well, however "The Good Marriage" is not one of those.I'll start off by saying I did not read the story that this film is based on.
I really feel bad bashing it, because I wanted to like this movie.
A wife's seemingly good marriage disintegrates after she uncovers her husbands dark secret.This is a glossy thriller not unlike the plethora of them produced in the 1980's and 1990's.
I was SO excited to see this adaptation after reading it in Full Dark, No Stars - boy, was I disappointed.I even told my mother, who is and has been a massive Stephen King fan probably as long as I've been alive, not to bother, that it was a serious disappointment.I also feel that it was dreadfully miscast.
In the beginning of the book, Stephen King made sure we knew what a good man Bob is - didn't do that enough in the movie.
Plus, I don't think Anthony LaPaglia makes a very good Bob.Yeah, the movie definitely doesn't portray Bob as a nice guy, more like a smarmy used car salesman.
I read the story before I saw the movie and although there were some changes to the script that I thought were not improvements, I was still surprised to see the film was enjoyable and was a great psychological exploration of what a woman in that horrible dilemma might go through.
The story is not about the horrors of serial killers or the supernatural horrors one might expect from King but its about the emotional horror of choosing to live with a secret of unimaginable bearing.
I think older ladies might enjoy this film, probably more those who don't much like men, it feels like a TV movie and is easy to watch though incredibly boring.
A Good Marriage is the latest Stephen King adaptation to hit the film realm and it does so with a splat.
The film stars Anthony Lapaglia and Joan Allen as a happily married couple that have their lives turned upside down when the husband is discovered to be a serial killer.
There is nothing new to the story and honestly, it doesn't even seem like King's work.
I rented this movie thinking "Oh cool, It's a Stephen King movie, It's going to terrify the hell out of me and be gory"..
The idea of the story sounds intriguing, sure, an interesting mystery/thriller subverted with murder and a cheating spouse, but ideas are only grandiose with this movie.
No hair out of place, a couple who have been married 25 years yet still have sex, still love each other and take pride in how they look.That all comes to a screeching halt when Darcy stumbles across the fact that her husband is a serial killer.My thoughts are that this film is watchable but I wouldn't rate it as particularly good.
But it never comes together to feel like a completely movie.
I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy, I have a quote, "you can learn just as much from a bad teacher as you can from a good teacher", I have spent hundreds of hours playing idle games, I have maxed out the timer on dozens of other games at 99:99:99 just leveling up on rpg games, I have read numerous Stephen King books (old school and new school), and I am very familiar with how they translate into movies, and I have never, ever, never, never, ever rated a movie with a rating of 1.I wouldn't even dare you to watch this movie because it'll tempt King to sell books of blank pages and movies of complete and utter nothingness.
A Good Marriage is a very entertaining, watchable movie.Due to this review,I would of passed on this,but I watched the movie before I read the review.Lucky me.As I try to understand why this movie was given a thumbs down,I cannot come to any rhyme or reason why this movie was tossed in the outhouse.Maybe IMDB should review the reviewer..
It may sound like an exaggeration to call it the worst movie for all time but this, for me, is it.
The dialogue is just odd, nothing anybody says at any point sounds like something a real person would say, the acting is god-awful, Anthony LaPaglia's American accent is laughable at best, the plot is nonexistent and there are absolutely no twists or turns at any point.
A little too much time of Allen wondering around the house but if you have read the story, it is understandable.
It is a decent movie with decent acting and a good story.
To be honest, there is almost nothing Stephen King about this movie at all.
I have read a few of his books, seen a ton of the movies based on his stuff, and this movie is missing that extra touch that makes his stories special.Unfortunately it is neither scary, nor exciting.
And most of these reviews sound like these people want to be movie critics but didn't make it.
I think maybe if you're a more mature person who can sit through A movie like this then great maybe this will be a nice simple thriller for you to see as it was for me.
It's not really like other Stephen king films but it's different so.
After 25 years of a good marriage, what will Darcy Anderson (Joan Allen) do once she discovers her husband's sinister secret?
This film is often listed as Stephen King's "A Good Marriage".
That note aside, however, this is actually a fairly decent one.Unlike King's usual horror themes of childhood or the supernatural, this really touches on what could be a real situation: what if a wife finds out her husband is a killer?
The only reason this movie has any good feedback is because Stephen King made it.
A Good Marriage: Based on a Stephen King story with a screenplay by King.
Joan Allen is married to Anthony LaPaglia for 25 years and suddenly finds evidence which suggests that he's a Serial Killer and a really brutal one at that.
I have a feeling "Uncle Stevie" wanted to do his own take on those kind of often cheesy "thrillers" and somehow through his script (based on a story from 'Full Dark, No Stars') found a way to make it an actual tense and weird dramatic thriller with two excellent performances.I say 'weird' since a lot of this comes off not unlike a dream at times - there's a whole bedroom conversation Joan Allen has with Anthony LaPaglia that I thought at first was an Ambien-induced nightmare of some kind - and there's a whole question of morality to the thing.
It shouldn't be some surprise that Allen's character finds out her husband has killed people and has been hiding about it for a very long time.
There's even a scene near the end in a hospital room - and all the more incredible since you know King is hit or miss at endings - which is flat out great.So for a trashy TV movie-of-the-week kind of deal, it's almost a minor miracle this is as good as it is, genuinely so, not a 'so-bad-it's-haha' thing.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Darcy (Joan Allen) and Bob Anderson (Anthony LaPaglia) appear like the perfect married couple, with their several children all having done quite well for themselves and one even preparing to tie the knot.
As is the case with this adaptation of a short story from one of his novellas, although how he managed to make something so challenging so short, I don't know.It's the sort of thing that could only have come from his far fetched, twisted mind, and the tone is as dark as the subject matter decrees it should be, which makes it an uneasy, unsettling journey into something that takes a dark imagination to enjoy.
I haven't seen a new movie based on Stephen King material in awhile, and saw this off Netflix, so I thought I'd give this a go.
Overall, it's a major let-down.Looking into this further, I read at Wikipedia that Stephen King based his book on the Dennis Rader AKA The "BTK Killer".
Well, that being said, if you want to see a much better film about BTK (there are at least 3 or 4 others), I would recommend watching the made-for-CBS TV movie called "Hunt for the BTK Killer" starring Robert Forster.
It's a "CSI"-style show, with a compelling performance by Gregg Henry as Rader.This movie isn't much more than a Lifetime Movie Network film; a BTK story from the wife's perspective, and really didn't find much interesting or compelling about this piece at all..
So no, not 8, to most, give you another extra star, a 4 is being very kind to you.The acting wasn't bad, but it's really odd how the movie ended with how years of love, could be destroyed with one kill just because of fear.
A GOOD MARRIAGE is another recent horror/thriller based on a story by Stephen King, and again it's one of the worst adaptations of his work.
The story is drab and drawn out, dragging on forever, essentially a two-hander between Joan Allen's suspicious housewife and Anthony LaPaglia as her mysterious husband.
What plays out is anything but interesting; a dragged out story of serial killing and cover-up, one that attempts to shock with twists and the like but is forever boring.
It starts with a lot of promise and I was very engaged, watching this picture perfect couple with their 'good marriage' and wondering what was going to happen to shatter their world.
Upon Darcy's discovery that her husband is in fact a serial killer, she reacts like anyone would in the same position - with confusion, shock, disbelief, reversion and panic.
At first, I wondered if we were supposed to question Darcy's morality and that King was playing with us, and actually, she was the evil one, but as the movie progressed that clearly wasn't true.
Having said this, the strongest part of the movie was definitely Joan Allen's performance as Darcy, which I can't fault.
I think it had the potential to be really good, but more thought needed to be put into it, and I'm not sure if the lack of consideration is due to the directors/producers or from the original material by King.
As a Stephen King fan I was rushing out to see this one, unfortunately it does not lead up to expectations!Firstly there are a few plot holes to get out of the way, for example a detective finds out about "Beedee" somehow by combining the names "Bob" and "Darcy" - I still have no idea how Bob and Darcy makes Beedee and this is never explained.
Literally she finds out the husband is a killer, cries for a while then **SPOILER** kills him and the movie is literally over.
I was astonished at how little plot this movie had, you could make it into a 30 minute short!As far as acting goes, it was fine there'll be no awards for sure, but it wasn't terrible.
I liked Anthony Lapgalia in Without a Trace, and Joan Allen is Pamela Lundy from the Jason Bourne movies.This was a good movie until about 20 minutes in.
I kept thinking to myself, "Normal, hard-working people, happy family, solid marriage - I get it already." I honestly wasn't expecting a lot from this movie.
Here, he's spent a huge chunk of his life chasing down a serial killer only to be forced to reexamine his own life and learn that things aren't always so cut-and-dried or black-and-white as they initially seem.In the final analysis, "A Good Marriage" may have been too real and down-to-earth for Stephen King loyalists and people accustomed to high drama, but if you can appreciate an intimate, subtle, slow burning character study I think you will be pleasantly surprised..
Here is the plot, man and wife appear to have an idyllic marriage, in the book apparently the stress is on what a good man Bob is, unfortunately in the film he comes across as smarmy and creepy but not in a horror type creepy.
He turns out to be a rapist serial killer and the wife finds out, to keep the good name and protect the children she carries on with the marriage until she kills him by pushing him downstairs and then suffocating him.
dull.I'm not going to tell you not to watch this, because It's King and Joan Allen.
From a Stephen King short story, A GOOD MARRIAGE falls into a minor position on a long list of notable material.
This story comes from King's 2010 collection Full Dark, No Stars.
Bob Anderson(Anthony LaPaglia)and his wife Darcy(Joan Allen)are a pretty well-to-do couple.
From the outside looking in...the Anderson's have a good marriage.Darcy enjoys and aids her husbands obsession of collecting rare pennies.
Bob leaves to service one of his customers and his wife is searching in the home garage for batteries for her TV remote when she literally stumbles on evidence that points to over-friendly Bob being a homicidal predator...and serial killer.Things get a bit twisted as Darcy begins living in disbelief and horror not knowing how to confront her husband.
I was attracted to this movie after finding out not only was it based on a Stephen King story, but that Stephen King himself adapted the screenplay.
For one thing, the characters are somewhat smarter than you usually get in a movie like this...
Some have criticized the Joan Allen character for not acting right away after finding out her husband's secret, but I think most people in her situation would at first find it hard to do ANYTHING.
It runs just short of 90 minutes which is appropriate.Set in Maine, naturally, Joan Allen as Darcy Anderson and Anthony LaPaglia as Bob Anderson along with their grown son and daughter are celebrating 25 years of marriage.
Anyway, this is King's story so I'm with it...)When she finds the box of batteries she finds a few other things which surprise her, and which get her to wonder about her husband of 25 years, and whether she really knows him at all.
This all happens during the first 30 minutes or so and most of the movie is her dealing with the revelations.As a Stephen King movie you expect it to be a bit strange and it is, but in a dark and entertaining way.
Interesting drama with the flaw being that one reaches a point when you can't explain whether there is fantasy or reality going on.All seems well as a couple are celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary only for the wife to discover that her husband is the serial killer that has been terrorizing New England.The confusion comes in when we don't realize if she is imagining what he is doing to her, especially when she wakes up after a dream sequence.
"A good marriage" is a movie that goes with the flow.
In short is settles around a loving wife which has to discover, that her beloved husband is responsible for the murder of several women, leaving her with the choice how to continue.Unfortunately, the film isn't really thrilling.
Yesterday, I watched the Keanu Reeves film "Knock, Knock", and while I liked its second act a lot more, the same can't be said of "A Good Marriage".
If this film had resembled anything like an actual movie about a Serial Killer, then the fact that it doesn't feel like Stephen King might not matter so much.**1/2 out of ****
|
tt0040662
|
Oliver Twist
|
In the 1800s, young orphan Oliver Twist is forcibly brought to a workhouse in an unidentified town In England on his ninth birthday. He and the other resident children are treated poorly and given very little food. Facing starvation, the boys select Oliver (through a lottery) to ask for more food at the next meal, which he tentatively does. This results in Oliver being chastised, and the workhouse officials, who are wealthy, well-fed, hypocritical men, decide to get rid of him. After nearly being sold as an apprentice to a cruel chimney sweep, Oliver is sent to Mr. Sowerberry, a coffin-maker, whose wife and senior apprentice take an instant dislike to the newcomer. After more poor treatment, Oliver snaps and attacks Noah, the snotty older apprentice, for having insulted his mother. Noah howled instantly and brought Mrs. Sowerberry and Charlotte rushing in to drag Oliver away and lock him in the cold dark cellar. The Violent behavior of the orphan was duly brought to the notice of Mr. Sowerberry and also Mr. Bumble. Oliver was beaten, and knowing his life with the Sowerberrys will only get worse, he escapes on foot early the next morning.
With little food, Oliver determines to walk 70 miles to London. After he collapses from hunger and exhaustion, a kindly old woman gives him food and lodgings for the night. After a week of travel, he arrives at the city, barefoot and penniless. He meets Jack Dawkins, or "The Artful Dodger," a boy-thief who takes Oliver to his home and hideout at Saffron Hill that he shares with many other young pickpockets and their eccentric elderly leader, Fagin. Soon, Oliver is being groomed to join their gang. On his first outing with the pickpockets, two of the boys steal a man’s handkerchief and Oliver is framed. However he is proven innocent by an eyewitness, and the owner of the handkerchief (the wealthy Mr. Brownlow) takes pity on Oliver, who had collapsed from a fever in the courtroom. Brownlow, believing that Oliver is innocent, informally adopts him, giving him new clothes and the promise of a good education. However, while out running an errand for Brownlow, Oliver is forcibly returned to the pickpocket gang by Fagin’s associate, the evil Bill Sikes, and the young prostitute Nancy (who is in a complex and abusive relationship with Sikes). Fagin and Sikes worried that Oliver would "peach," and tell the authorities about their criminal activity. Oliver is put under supervision until Bill Sikes discovers the boy’s connection to the rich Mr. Brownlow. During midnight, Sikes and his accomplice, Toby Crackit, force Oliver to aid them in robbing Brownlow’s house. They are discovered and Oliver is wounded in a brief shootout between Brownlow and Sikes. As the three escape, Bill decides to murder Oliver to ensure his silence, but falls into a nearby river before he can take action.
Sikes survives his near-drowning, but is confined to bed with a heavy fever. Fagin, despite treating Oliver kindly, remains crime-focused and plots with Sikes to kill Oliver when Sikes has recovered. Nancy has a maternal love for Oliver and does not want to see him hurt, but she is controlled by the abusive Sikes. She drugs Bill, and goes to Brownlow’s house where she arranges to have him meet her on London Bridge at midnight so she can provide information about Oliver. At the meeting, Nancy cautiously reveals that Oliver is staying with Fagin, and that the authorities will easily find them. Brownlow leaves to call the police. The Artful Dodger, who had been sent by a suspicious Fagin to spy on Nancy, had heard everything and is bullied by Bill Sikes to give up the information. Sikes is furious at Nancy’s betrayal, and brutally beats her to death in their apartment.
The next day, information about Oliver and Fagin appear in the newspaper, along with Nancy’s murder and Sikes is a suspect. Sikes’s ever-present dog, Bullseye, is a dead giveaway to his identity. After unsuccessfully trying to kill the dog, Sikes takes up residence with Toby Crackit. Fagin, Oliver, and the boys are hiding there too, after escaping their previous location before the police could find it. Bullseye escapes his master’s cruelty, and leads a group of police and locals to the group’s hideout. Eventually, Dodger, outraged at Sikes for killing the good-hearted Nancy, reveals their location to authorities. Bill Sikes takes Oliver onto the roof, knowing they won't shoot if the boy is with him. When trying to scale the building using a rope, Sikes, distracted by his dog, loses his footing and accidentally hangs himself to death.
Some time later, Oliver is living comfortably with Mr. Brownlow again. Fagin was arrested for his pick pocketing actions, and Oliver wishes to visit him in jail. Brownlow takes him to the prison, where they find Fagin ranting and wailing in his cell. Oliver is distraught at Fagin’s fate, as he had been something of a father figure to him. Oliver tells Fagin "You were kind to me," but soon, their bond breaks when a policeman initially tells Oliver to leave, thinking that Fagin can play tricks on the boy's innocent mind, and wanting to escape execution. As Mr. Brownlow escorts a tearful Oliver to his own carriage, gallows are being set up in the courtyard. Townspeople begin to gather to watch Fagin’s execution, while Mr Brownlow and Oliver leave to start their new lives afresh.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1673697
|
The Sapphires
|
In 1968 Australia, Gail and Cynthia head into town for a talent contest but their young sister, Julie, is forbidden from going because she has a child and is too young, until she bribes a fellow neighbour to take her into town. An alcoholic, Irish talent scout, Dave Lovelace, is scolded by his boss for being late despite him sleeping in his car that is near work. After the girls lose the talent contest, even with Julie coming in, Dave gives Gail her guitar back and as Dave is about to leave, Julie hands him a piece of paper, showing that the troops need singers for Vietnam. Soon, Dave goes to make a call and he says they have been granted a spot to audition in Melbourne. Back at their place, Gail, Cynthia and Julie's mother tells him he can take them but without Julie, until Julie's father tells him not to worry about her. Advised by their grandmother, they meet up with their cousin Kay, who had been living in Melbourne for 10 years after the government took her because she had qualified as a white person. She rejects the offer of joining them, but later changes her mind and meets up at their uncle's place. After days of practising their moves, they are almost ready until Julie gives Cynthia a letter from her fiance that he is going to call it off. Despite that, they manage to audition very well and Kay comes up with the group's name, The Sapphires, after looking at Cynthia's engagement ring.
The Sapphires are a success with the crowds, but infighting among the women threatens to tear the group apart: Gail acts as the group's aggressive matriarch. Kay struggles with her multi-ethnic identity because 10 years earlier, she was taken away by government officials because her light skin made her a good candidate for assimilation into white culture. Julie proves to be the group's best voice with a shot at a singing career. Dave and Gail begin a romance, but his reckless behavior and a personal secret push Gail's patience to the limit.
When The Sapphires do another gig, Cynthia drinks with some of the men and is not allowed to go on again. Later, Dave and Gail talk a little before Dave hands her a letter, telling her to open it later and are about to kiss when they are caught in the crossfire of war; Dave disappears in the chaos and gets shot. The girls manage to escape in choppers. At a home, Gail reads Dave's letter and realizes he wanted to propose to her, but it was her choice. The women band together and finish their tour. Dave survives and Gail is reunited with him in a Vietnam hospital. The Sapphires return to Australia and Gail and Dave announce to the family that they plan to marry. The Sapphires give a joyous performance for their friends and family in the yard of their home.
|
flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
An enormous relief, in a film that needed to tell a story, and not turn the experiences of the four girls, and their manager, in to a musical.'The Sapphires' tells a uniquely Australian story of four Aboriginal girls who overcame the prejudice of the 60s to find themselves sent off to Vietnam to entertain the troops, along with their charismatic, but occasionally inept, manager (Chris O'Dowd).
There's a decent ensemble cast, with exceptional performances from Deborah Mailman and Shari Sebbens.The film is uplifting, gently deals with some big issues that faced Aborigines and is entertaining to just about anyone.
I needn't have worried however as it was a fantastic film.It follows four young girls who leave their Aboriginal community in the hope of entertaining US troops in Vietnam and becoming big stars.
Tremendous chemistry between Chris O'Dowd and Deborah Mailman and the rest of the cast drew me in and up, as did the spine tinglingly good soul singing from Jessica Mauboy.
The Sapphires is about four Aboriginal girls who get a chance at the end of the Sixties to go entertain the troops as a singing group in Vietnam.
The film is one of those sneaky ones - not brilliantly made, or brilliantly acted - but it really does entertain - and isn't that the point?Full of great soul music, some good laughs, some nods towards the Rights struggle, The Sapphires is above all big hearted and is always refreshingly straight forward about its objectives.
It is, however, a huge plus in that it does have a positive message and a wonderfully different take from the usual patronising view of Aboriginal life.If you like music movies like The Commitments you will enjoy this - we both thought it was pretty entertaining and a fun way to spend an evening..
The bad: Some of the performances seemed a bit canned, the lead singer sounded like a '90s pop star (with even some auto-tuner) and not everyone on camera was much of an actor - but it's an indie film, so I'm willing to forgive.If you enjoyed The Commitments, know you some 'Nam films, know something about Australia & the sad treatment of the Aboriginal people and you like old soul music, you'll like this movie.
I'm not denigrating those films—some are world-class—but its wonderful to skip out of a movie that shines with positivity telling a unique aboriginal story.The four girls who play The Sapphires are real gems (excuse the pun).
'THE SAPPHIRES': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five) This musical comedy-drama film is based on a 2004 stage play about four Australian Aboriginal girls who form a musical group in 1968, which performs for the troops in Vietnam, under the guidance of an alcoholic talent scout.
The film revolves around four Aboriginal women in Australia in 1968: Gail (Deborah Mailman), Julie (Jessica Mauboy), Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell) and Kay (Shari Sebbens).
Success and dreams finally come true for the girls as they also find romance.The film is very funny with most of the laughs coming from O'Dowd, who plays a great alcoholic (a lot like the one I do in real life) It's also very moving though with some pretty hard hitting drama (and even some Vietnam action).
Inspired by a true story of two sets of sisters who are also cousins they travel to war torn Vietnam to sing for the American troops.This is where the films 1960's musical charm transpires and the four singers and their agent Dave Lovelace wow the soldiers with their soul music and dancing prowess.
If you enjoy a good film loosely based on a true story, with a terrific musical score than don't miss The Sapphires.
The film focuses on four Australian singers that were recruited by a music producer to perform for American troops in Vietnam during the war.
The Sapphires is a soulful, feel-good film, which reminds me a lot of last year's surprise hit Silver Linings Playbook in that both films feature many elements that truly shouldn't work but thanks to competent screen writing and sincere, mature direction they do.
In Australia live four Aboriginal girls - Gail (Deborah Mailman) Julie (Jessica Mauboy), Kay (Shari Sebbens), and Cynthia McCrae (Miranda Tapsell) - who have the energy and drive to be very talented, respectable singers if not for the roadblocks they face.
One day, they meet Dave Lovelace (Chris O'Dowd), an alcoholic, but widely-known Irish talent scout who sees nothing but fame and good fortune for these girls.
Particularly, Mailman and Mauboy show off true acting chops here, as the drama of being a young tour-girl becomes more and more evident and stressful.O'Dowd is one of the biggest things holding the film together and preventing it from falling off into a tired story depicting the unlikely rise to fame.
Brush up on you music and Australian history or just be entertained A great cast, and brilliant acting from the Irish and Aboriginal actors.
Luckily my trepidation was unneeded as this was a great, feel good film with a marvelous soundtrack and decent performances all around from the indigenous main cast.I'm sorry if my review kind of stinks, but my writing skills are far from glamorous.
This one is a feel good movie that makes you think and it succeeds at that.Films like this prove the saying 'the shortest way between truth and the human heart is a story' and 'the shortest distance between two people is laughter.' Go and see it..
That girl has a seriously good singing voice and her acting was certainly a step above some of the other more stiff and unnatural performances.If you like your films very very light and sort of directionless and predictable, and you are a fan of soul music, give it a shot.
The Sapphires is a very good, funny and extremely entertaining movie that I highly recommend.A high point of the film is the performance of Chris o'Dowd as Lovelace,it is a very funny performance and also a surprisingly affectionate one.
mostly good.O'Dowd the boyfriend from "Bridesmaids" is the star of the show here, but the cast of girls does a fine job.It's a well-made film without much action(there is a little), effects, or Oscar winning performances, but the film flows nicely, has few if any odd/could-have been snipped scenes, and the voice-over detail is fantastic.
Yes, The Sapphires is wholly commercial in nature, combining a stock script with an easily digestible plot, but it grasps to an undertone of sheer fun that makes the one hundred minute runtime absolutely fly by.The period piece tells the story of four Aboriginal singers (Jessica Mauboy, Deborah Mailman, Shari Sebbens and Miranda Tapsell) and their off- centre manager (Chris O'Dowd), who travel across Vietnam performing for the military.
The music is great and yes, this 'based on a true story' film is well worth watching just to see and hear the insanely talented Jessica Mauboy (as "Julie") sing, but it's the performance of Chris O'Dowd which really holds this film together from start to finish, albeit in a sometimes rather stereotypical manner.
The Vietnam theme is a strong one but the main is the one of the girls - sisters or cousins and is a strong one.Deborah Mailman is the definite standout for the acting - as you would expect considering her past experience - but all the leads are excellenbt they all sing beautifully.It was a pleasure to watch this film and I wish all the girls the best in any future acting or singing endeavours.Funny, poignant, soul searching.
From Australia comes "The Sapphires," a charming true-life tale of four young Aborigine women who form a singing group in the late 1960s, then travel to war-torn Vietnam to entertain the troops.
But as Dave states at one point, the abrasive and often obnoxious Gail is simply the "mother bear" protecting her sister cubs.But all is not sweetness-and-light, as the girls cope with long-simmering tensions over race, personal identity and internecine relationships, as well as the dangers and tragedies that are an inevitable part of life in a war time setting.There are splendid performances by Deborah Mailman, Jessica Mauboy, Shari Sebbens and Miranda Tapsell as the girls and Chris O'Dowd as their manager, and the singing is a wonder to behold.Skillfully and unobtrusively directed by Wayne Blair, "The Sapphires" is a "feel-good" movie in the best sense of that term..
The film tells the tale of four aboriginal girls in 1960's Australia who become a soul group known as the Sapphires, touring Vietnam and singing for the troops.
THE SAPPHIRES is an Australian film loosely based on the real life story of four Aboriginal women and how they got their fifteen minutes of fame.
As a comedy-musical, THE SAPPHIRES packs a lot of sass and soul despite a contrived message of triumph over tribulation.Based on a 2004 stage production by the same name and directed by indigenous Australian filmmaker Wayne Blair, the story is set against a backdrop of racial prejudice in 1960s Australia.
All this changes at a local talent show when the girls – Gail (Deborah Mailman), Julie (Jessica Mauboy), Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell) and Kay (Shari Sebbens) – catch the attention of talent scout Dave Lovelace (Chris O'Dowd), an Irish version of Simon Cowell.
Even as these subplots detract from the main story, O'Dowd's Dave can be credited for the film's unexpected humor, starting with the scene where he teaches the girls the difference between Country Music and Soul Music.
And, it is worth your time--even if the four girls in the musical group seem more like caricatures than real folks--which is odd, since the story is based on a real Aboriginal group of the same name."The Sapphires" is set during the 1960s.
This film is about four Australian aboriginal girls who goes to Vietnam to sing for the US troops."The Sapphires" tells a story of four girls wanting to achieve their dream of singing, the sad background of the barbaric social policies at that time.
It was a pleasure to write The Sapphires Movie Review.The Sapphires is a story about a group of Australian Aborigines and their experience singing in Vietnam, overcoming their own country's abusive prejudices and each other (nothing like a group of family singers — just ask the Jacksons).
Set amid the tragedy of Vietnam, it is a fabulous film.The entire thing is held together, however, not by the time in which it is set, or its story about the individual lives of its characters, but by the man who was their manager, the flawed and vulnerable Dave Lovelace (played by Chris O'Dowd, who is an actor to be held close and used wisely).
Three sisters and a cousin (Deborah Mailman, Jessica Mauboy, Shari Sebbens, Miranda Tapsell) take their chances with Chris O'Dowd (Bridesmaids), who is a total crack-up as the girls' drunk Irish manager, Dave Lovelace.
However, it's a very long way from the quality or magic of the former and is even in the shadow of the latter.Wayne Blair's feature directorial debut is the story of four Aboriginal girls who sing together, bicker and wind up in Vietnam, in 1968, singing for the American troops, managed and escorted by the frequently inebriated Dave (Chris O'Dowd).
Inspired by actual events it follows four aboriginal Australian girls from a from a small prejudiced town who form a singing group in the 1960s who travel to Vietnam to preform for American troops after being trained by a good humoured talent scout.
A good-time, 60's musical drama set in the unlikely locations of rural Australia and the U.S. Army bases of Vietnam as we follow the on-the-road adventures of four young Aboriginal cousins who form a close-harmony girl-group but who get frozen out at local talent shows due to white prejudice.
Various romantic entanglements follow, not unnaturally as the girls hit their hormonal stride as well as other highs and lows as they end their dramatic tour-of-duty and return back home for the predictable but still welcome happy ending for pretty much everyone.Drawing on the shared racism by black Americans fighting for their country while back home the civil rights movement is in full swing with the less well-known racism experienced by the Aborigine community at the hands of the majority white "gubba" population, the film attempts and largely succeeds in improbably mixing this in with the more showbizzy musical backdrop as the girls knock out highly creditable versions of the great soul numbers of the day from the Motown, Stax and Atlantic labels.Somehow then this unlikely mix of "M.A.S.H." crossed with "The Commitments" works, largely down to the commitment (sorry) of its cast.
Certainly not a perfect film by any means, but it is a generally entertaining film with lots of laughs, a great soundtrack and a excellent performance from the always awesome Deb Mailman.The film tackles some serious issues in Australian history with the stolen generation, but I was happy to see that it wasn't to heavily touched on, some aboriginal themed movies really are heavy handed with it and it can sometimes be a little too much, but in The Sapphires it is just the right amount, Australians will understand it straight away and anyone elsewhere seeing it it will probably spark their interest in the subject, from then on we see 4 sassy gals from the outback entertain the socks off the audience.
The scenes shot outside Australia are very well done, and they don't look like they've been done on the cheap either which is good, that's another thing about Australian movies, most of them are very low budget, but with this movie you never get that impression.The cast is pretty good, obviously most of the acting is done by Deb Mailman, who in my opinion is probably one of Australia's best actresses, and Chris O'Dowd who is perfectly hilarious in every scene, also worth mentioning is Shari Sebbens who I found to be a bit of a scene stealer, she had me near tears a few times, she has a very sweet face and I think and hope we see a lot more of her, and Miranda Tapsell is laugh out loud funny as the tart of the group.
The only criticism I have is that there are so many clichés, people overseas already think Aussies are jumping around on kangaroos, we don't need more Australian clichés in films but oh well, some of them are funny and non Aussies will probably get a good laugh from them.At the end of the day The Sapphires does just what it sets out to do, entertain.
The Sapphires is adapted from a 2005 play by Tony Briggs, who wrote the screenplay with Keith Thompson, it is based on the real-life odyssey of Briggs's mother and three aunts from an outback Aboriginal mission to Vietnam, barely a year after a referendum gave citizenship rights to indigenous Australians.Directed by actor, theatre director and first-time filmmaker, Wayne Blair, it is an upbeat charmer with excellent performances, impressive production values and a terrific clutch of 60s soul hits.
His self-deprecating Oirish sense of humour (the character as originally written was English) is infectious and he makes for a delightfully amusing contrast to Mailman's irascible Gail.Given the huge popularity of television talent shows like Australian Idol (Mauboy was one of its finalists in 2006), and The Voice amongst younger people, The Sapphires with its seamless road to fame (Vietcong mortars aside) should resonate with starry-eyed youngsters, whilst older audiences will appreciate the trip back to the days when pop music really did have soul.
Bring them back together during the Vietnam War to tour military outposts with their special brand of American soul music, add in a Irish ex-pat manager that likes his whiskey but loves and understands his little troupe of Dream Girls and you have a film worth seeing.
The story was great and based on a true story of a group of aboriginal girls who went to Vietnam to sing for the troops.
Set in 1968 and starring Chris O'Dowd (of Bridesmaids fame) as washed up, constantly drunk musician and would-be talent manager Dave Lovelace, who stumbles upon the discovery of his life when he meets a group of young aboriginal girls determined to break through at the music scene.
It was 1968, and this unknown group of Australian Aborigine girls wanted their share of fame, and hit upon the chance to entertain troops in Viet Nam. It also struck a personal chord because in 1968 I was in graduate school, and was being drafted to the Army, and I remember that period very well.The story presented in this movie "The Sapphires" is mostly fictional, with fictional characters, but heavily "inspired" by the real Sapphires.
I honestly would never thought a Boyle man like Chris O'Dowd can sing brilliantly and be involved on a Australian musical film.
The story is about a girl group which includes Gail (Deborah Mailman), Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell), Julie (Jessica Mauboy) and Kay (Shari Sebbens) who sing in and Australia singing competition but when they fail to win.
They then meet Dave (Chris O'Dowd) who decides to work with the girls as they want to go to sing for the troops in Vietnam.
When the group get to their destination they try to fight for fame through their singing.The music of this film is a great mix of soul songs of the time that the women sing and make their own.
If this all seems a bit like a soap opera, it is.Nonetheless, the main thing 'The Sapphires' has going for it, is the wonderful Motown music, mainly sung by Jessica Mauboy, a former Australian Idol finalist, who plays Julia and backed up by the three other actors, playing the three sisters.'The Sapphires' is a feel good film, definitely worth at least one look.
|
tt0097910
|
Moon 44
|
By 2038, all of Earth's natural resources have been depleted. Multinational corporations have taken control of the galaxy and rival companies battle each other for access to mining planets. A major battle is for Moon 44, a fuel mining operation in the Outer Zone. It is the only installation still controlled by the Galactic Mining corporation. Moons 46, 47 and 51 have recently been overtaken by the Pyrite Defense Company's battle robots. Galactic Mining had its own defence system, helicopters capable of operating in the violent atmospheres of the moons, but it was cancelled as too many pilots died while in training. The company sends new navigators to Moon 44 to assist the pilots. However, there is still a shortage of pilots, so the company is forced to use prisoners. Galactic Mining regards its fleet of mining shuttles as even more important, so if the base is attacked, the shuttles are ordered to leave the crews behind.
Galactic Mining hires Felix Stone (Michael Paré), an undercover agent, to investigate the disappearance of two shuttles that went missing under mysterious circumstances. Stone travels to Moon 44 and meets chief navigator Tyler (Dean Devlin) who suspects the shuttles were stolen by somebody after they modified the flight computers. The mining operation's defence director, Major Lee (Malcolm McDowell) and his assistant, Master Sergeant Sykes (Leon Rippy) are the prime suspects. Stone later catches Sykes reprogramming a mining shuttle shortly before its departure. Sykes attacks Stone with an axe but is quickly gunned down by Lee, who then refuses to hand over the modified computer to Stone, citing "company orders".
Having concluded his investigation, Stone prepares to leave, but the mining operation is attacked by a Pyrite "Medusa"-class battle cruiser. Major Lee sabotaged the alarm systems and then orders all of the mining shuttles to return to Earth. Stone manages to singlehandedly shoot down the entire first wave of enemy attack drones, while prisoner O'Neal (Brian Thompson) stays behind to destroy the remaining drones as Lee's actions at the base are discovered.
Lee tries to sabotage the last remaining mining shuttle, but he is trapped in an elevator by Stone and blown up by his own bomb. The others return safely to Earth, where Stone informs the Galactic Mining Chairman (Roscoe Lee Browne) that Lee was bribed by Pyrite to redirect the mining shuttles to a planet in the Outer Zone.
|
cult, revenge, sci-fi
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Look closely...It was Roland Emmerich's first genre movie before "Independence Day", and the two share the same flaws.
Yes, it is full of stereotypes and the end is cheesy, by "B-movie" standards, but it also has some good drama and an interesting mix of characters.
The main assets of the film are its visuals, they make for a totally believable outer space "mining" colony.
compared to other B movies,this one is great.Michael Pare is almost always a very charismic actor,in this movie he is at the top of form,cool story,cool guy,and over the top acting(thats what makes a great B movie).
As a long standing SF fan I was looking forward to it, despite it's low budget and the fact that the director's subsequent movies have been less than satisfactory.
The good points: The special effects are reasonable (although not great) and the set designs are excellent (quite reminiscent of Alien.) The bad points: Cliche after cliche hits you until you can't take it seriously.
Such a fine actor is wasted here.The plot holes are too numerous to mention here but there are lots and lots - probably about 44.There really isn't anything to like about this film apart from the average visuals.I advise you to give this one a miss and pick up a very similar but far superiour movie called 'Outland' starring Sean Connery and directed by Peter Hyams..
I recommend this to anyone looking for a quick, easy to get into, cheap sci-fi B-movie.
Moon 44 is one of those little sci-fi films which really slipped through the cracks during the 1980s and early 90s.
Sadly, these types of tales are nothing more than straight to video fodder with absolutely horrid acting, so this represents one of the last of the cool, dark sci-fi films.
The space ships are cool - though why the good guys only have helicopters is a puzzle.
The actors are either almost famous, or look hauntingly like people who are - I spent a lot of time wondering if I had seen them before (I hadn't it turns out).
Here is my review."Moon 44" is actually a good sci-fi flick.
The acting was good and especially from Michael Pare and Brian Thompson.
It's a good sci-fi film that is definitely worth a look!.
Now usually, I write drug dealer characters off in movies as low-down scumbags ...
Much like his characters in previous films ("Evil Ed" in Fright Night, "Hoax" in 976-EVIL, and "Wendell" in Fraternity Vacation spring to mind), he's a social outcast who used to get beat up regularly for just being a good guy.
Hearing Stephen Geoffreys' sweet voice telling his story to a semi-comatose inmate/pilot (to whom he had secretly given "two double whammys" as revenge for a friend's homosexual rape by another inmate/pilot), you actually feel a little sorry for him -- too bad he didn't give it to the creep who raped his friend!The movie itself runs a little slow overall, but for Stephen Geoffreys fans, it's a must-see.
Not a bad try,Yes it's a cheap B movie ..but its easy viewing and enjoyable..
I love any movies that have to do with Science Fiction, and are based in the future with unique settings.Well I'd like to say that I've seen Moon 44 and consider it a great movie.
You cannot have a Sci-Fi movie without cinematography.I consider the cinematography above average in Moon 44 because the director, even though on a short budget was able to create some neat scenery, of futuristic earth, space ships, fighter planes, the base itself and etc.
I felt like I was in the movie, in Neo Angeles 2019 AD and as the main character.
Moon 44 is a bad start for director Roland Emmerich and nobody-actor turned producer Dean Devlin (who later team up with one another to make the blockbusters: Stargate, Independence Day and Godzilla).The plot of this movie is really weak...
on a moon?) yes, helicopters, to protect their mining robots from theft, even though the ships are stolen IN SPACE while their on transit to Earth.
Since no reputable pilot wants the suicide job of defending the base, the convicts are given the opportunity to do the job for a reduced sentence.One convict is actually an undercover cop (Michael Paré) and his job is to infiltrate the mining complex and expose a traitor who is reprogramming the robot ships to never make it back to Earth.
The movie is filled to the brim, with bad acting, lame dialogue, dry characters, cheesy special effects (even for a 1990 film it looked more like something from 1980) and there is even some homoeroticism thrown in for good measure.
Not the sequel to Moon 43, as most folks would guess, but really a boring sci-fi flick set in the future, where rivals companies duke it out to control mineral sources in space.
One such company keeps losing shuttles (Huge machines that mine for minerals) to a rival company, so they get the big idea of sending ex-cons to man Moon 44's defence system, which is run by a bunch of geeks.
Additionally, the company send an internal affairs cop up there (as an ex-con) to find out exactly where some missing shuttles have gone up to, and therefore Moon 44 begins it's slow, soap opera like plot.Your ex-cons (including Brian Thompson of Hired to Kill) don't sit well with the geeks (including that guy from 976-EVIL), and head of the station, Malcolm McDowell (of Cyborg 3: The Recycler) tries to mediate between them both.
Add to this that everything looks like the director really, really likes Ridley Scott and James Cameron (the interiors are all Blade Runner and Alien like), complete with evil corporation, and you've got a film with plenty of set up and no pay off.
The bad guys, when they do appear, kind of look like Johnny Five if he'd turn to crack cocaine and flew off into space.
I can take bad effects and cheap sets, but the one thing I do not like in a film is nothing happening.
In fact one company is down to only one asteroid, the last stand will be made on Moon 44.You know if you're expecting a serious study on earth's dwindling resources and what I personally think will eventually happen, the strip mining of dead worlds for resources, Moon 44 ain't the film for you.
What we did get in between the giggles and the video game special effects was one of the great homo-erotic science fiction films of all time.The defense craft are these helicopter type ships that only crazy people like prisoners will fly in exchange for commutation of sentence.
But the brawny prisoners and they are all brawny believe me have other ideas about bonding with these twinks from space.Michael Pare is an internal affairs agent for the company going in undercover as a prisoner.
By 2038, the Earth's natural resources have been depleted; valuable minerals are now being mined on distant moons in the depths of space.
With their mines repeatedly coming under attack from rival company Pyrite, Galactic Mining send a group of convicted criminals and computer whizz kids to Moon 44, to train as fighter pilots and navigators.
Tough internal affairs cop Stone (Michael Paré) goes undercover with the prisoners to try and find out why the company's mining shuttles have been mysteriously disappearing.Six years before he scored a massive worldwide hit with alien invasion blockbuster Independence Day, Roland Emmerich helmed Moon 44, an extremely lacklustre sci-fi thriller that saw the director desperately attempting to imbue his film with a sense of style by ripping off the look and feel of Ridley Scott's classics Alien and Bladerunner.
However, some reasonable model effects, and an excess of fluorescent lighting, spurting steam vents, and slowly rotating ventilation fans do little to hide the fact that this is one hell of a dull film, with dreadful performances, terrible dialogue, unexciting action sequences, and characters that it's very difficult to give a damn about.Interestingly, it was shortly after appearing in this film that Stephen Geoffreys, who plays Moon 44's drug-dealer Cookie, left mainstream cinema to carve out a career in gay porn, making one wonder whether he found appearing in that kind of film less embarrassing than being in really bad sci-fi flicks like this one..
Really, really dreadful film combining the worst elements of teen movies, prison movies and low budget sci-fi.
Michael Pare stars as a soldier who infiltrates a group of prisoners used as pilots to find out who has been stealing shuttles and soon uncovers that the people in charge there are looking to destroy the base.
Michael Pare to me has always been hit or miss so while I quite enjoyed the amusing antics of such stupid (yet fun) movies like Instant Justice and World Gone Wild, I was expecting a level of magical dumbness that would make one gleeful of it's absurdities.
Among the cast are Michael Pare, Malcom McDowell and Brian Thompson all look bored with the material.
Lots of cliches, low budget not-really-action-scenes, and typical not-real-ending solution ala the Fortress movies.
I don't know why people who write reviews on this movie, are so grumpy!This movie was made in 1990, it says it has action, it has action, also it says it's a thriller, it keeps the viewers attention and it's sci-fi, thinking it has a low budget, you should expecting to see an Iron Man 3 sci-fi, it has little special effects but it compensates with the talent of the actors that you don't find in our days.I personally like this movie and I appreciated it, because it's an old one and a good one.I really don't regret that I've seen it, I'm glad, Michael Paré is a good actor and his role attitude is fantastic.I scored it a little higher 8 out of 10 i think is around 7.7 out of 10..
Great prequel to Independence Day. Surprise, surprise, as old pal Gomer Pyle used to holler when he found out something surprisingly pleasant - and Moon 44 is all that and more.Perhaps just the first teaming of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin makes this worthy enough to watch.
Devlin though, has no producing credits here, he plays future computer nerd Terry, the main assistant to the film's hero, Michael Pare.
It's made sweet and tasty by an interesting story of greed on a grand scale involving planets and resources, with some subtle commentary on prison abuse.There are comic book bad guys, and Runyonesque inhabitants, but this is some mining planet in some BFE solar system, and it needs a little character color to counter the bleak, dark existence portrayed on Moon 44.The story continually moves forward and will hold you to the screen for the entire length.
And just for fun, see how many cast you can find who played in later Emmerich/Devlin films.
fine early B-movie Roland Emmerich.
With an expected attack on Moon 44, Galactic Mining sends in young tech nerd navigators to guide helicopter pilots.
This is early B-movie Roland Emmerich.
I really like Sci-Fi movies, and this one had a promising plot, I thought.
Actually, in all fairness, I DO think that the movie started fairly well, with the exception of the horrible acting in the board room (wait a minute...
It's a shame too, because it COULD have been a nice, little Science Fiction film.The supposed 'Drama' that pads out this movie is honestly pretty bad.
The dialog was quite painful; even a veteran like Malcolm McDowell looked (and sounded) like he'd REALLY rather be somewhere else and I don't blame him.Basically, the setup and story are fine for a standard 'B' Sci Fi film.
Yes, if you like some movie and its (virtual) reality, you'd like to spend more of your time "in it", but you can do it creatively (invent your own sci-fi world, or your own story, or your own extrapolation of the story), but you don't copy everything word by word, scene by scene.
Roland Emmerich is good at copying movies, but I prefer cocktails like Indepenedence Day - where more famous movies and their features are blended into one VFX spectacle.
I loved this movie, if you're in the mood for a good laugh,it's definitely worth watching.
It could easily be a parody of a million other bad sci-fi movies.
Ignore everything about this movie except that it was the first meeting of B-Movie actor Dean Devlin and director and fellow sci-fi fan Roland Emmerich.From this meeting spawned a friendship, then a partnership, that created production company Centropolis Films, which in turn, created hit movies such as "Stargate", Independance Day", "Godzilla" and "The Patriot".Also look for actor and soon to be Centropolis regular Leon Rippy, featured in "Stargate", "The Patriot" and Centropolis produced TV show, "The Visitor"..
I personally didn't like this movie but that's o.k. But the acting was very good despite the fact that the movie was terrible.
Michael Pare stars as Internal Affairs agent Felix Stone who is sent undercover as a prisoner to Moon 44 to investigate missing shuttles.
This movie does try to steal a page or two from Ridley Scott in both BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN for its look, but with a capable cast and feeling engaged in the story makes this one worth my time.
Not even McDowell can summon up the effort to be interested in his lines and he can usually be counted on to have some fun with his roles.If you do watch this movie after reading the trashing it gets on the IMDb there are some rewards to be got from it.
It's one of those movies that lets you sit there and ask yourself questions like: What are the teenage whizz kid navigators actually FOR?
- The Charles Atlas Fight School of dynamic tension?).As it turns out, these guys ARE as thick as two short planks because, having been told that their lives are in the hands of their teenage navigators they seem to think it's a good idea to anally rape one of them in the shower.
Not clever.Other questions you might like to ask yourself include why ALL the doors in this movie give off huge spurts of steam every time they open, or close.
There is an awful lot of smoke in this movie.It also has that standard shot of space ship approaching planet.
Christ I was bored.If for nothing else I will be grateful for this movie for being so vacant of anything worth watching or caring about that it gave me time to think that one out.Worst Line: "I got fed up with talking to my French fries.".
Don't be fooled by Roland Emerich's name amongst the credits; this is truly a C-movie.The plot goes something like this.
That's 'Moon 44'.Like so many of these cheap (and not so cheap) movies, money seems to have been saved by not employing a lighting facility.
Moon 44 is a good B grade movie.
Moon 44 is a b grade sci-fi gem of a movie about in the year 2038 mineral resources on earth have ran out and different corporations are fighting for the last few planets and moons that have minerals on them.Nobody wants to man moon 44 because they are scared of being killed by people from other corporations but some convicts get sent to moon 44 to fly helicopters to defend it in exchange for some time of there sentences and with the convicts are some smart young men who navigate for them and an under cover agent who is there to try and find out who is hijacking the mining shuttles.The acting in this movie is OK and the best 2 actors in this movie are the OK actor Malcolm McDowell and the sort of OK actor from the OK movie Cobra and he plays one of the punks in the start of The Terminator.There is only one thing wrong with this movie like how most of the special effects are crap but this movie is a b grade movie so its OK that the special effects are crap.Over all if u are a fan of good b grade movies or sci-fi movies i think that u will really like this movie.And my rating for this movie is six out of ten..
Roland Emmerich doesn't make good movies.
And corridors - you can never have enough corridors with lots of PVC conduit.Second, Roland Emmerich saw Alien, Blade Runner, Blue Thunder (yes helicopters) and Star Wars and decided it'd be a great idea to smash elements of each of these into his movie.
He also likes prison rape, so he threw that in (yeah, really).The result is a movie that makes zero sense.
If you like bad movies, yes it is, but you have to be quite the masochist to subject yourself to this steaming heap..
and this piece of trash sure hasn't aged well.But even if this were opening day, this absolutely abysmal movie would still rank as one of the worst in history.It starts out with some of the worst acting I've ever seen, people sitting around a conference table at a major corporation.
I swear it looks like the director or producer just decided to cut costs and have his friends and family fill in for real actors.
One can really appreciate good acting when one sees the complete opposite.The worst, most ill-conceived character is the Sergeant aboard the space ship.
Maybe standards for movie making were more lax back then, but his was incomprehensible.All the characters are cartoonish, the acting is horrendous, and the amateurish "plot" is just an embarrassment to anyone who loves good movies.
This one insults our intelligence at every turn.As you probably know, this movie is about the (grim) future when we need to exploit space for raw materials.
Therefore, they need to find out what's going on, or the company will lose everything.That could be an interesting premise for a movie, but not the way it was done here.
|
tt0073018
|
French Connection II
|
Picking up two or three years after where the original left off, narcotics officer Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) is still searching for elusive drug kingpin Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). Orders from his superiors send Doyle to Marseille, France, to track down the criminal mastermind and bust his drug ring. Once in France, Doyle is met by Inspector Henri Barthélémy (Bernard Fresson), who resents his rude and crude crimefighting demeanor. Doyle then begins to find himself as a fish out of water in France, where he is matched with a language he cannot understand. Doyle is shown round the police station where he finds his desk is situated directly outside the toilets. He tells Barthélémy that he is not satisfied with this positioning and hopes it is not a joke at his expense. Barthélémy informs Doyle that he has read his personnel file and is aware of his reputation and especially hopes he has not brought a gun with him as it is strictly forbidden in France for visiting police officers from other countries to carry firearms.
Doyle continues to struggle with the language and tries to order drinks in a bar. He eventually makes himself understood, befriending a bartender while buying him drinks and they eventually stumble out of the bar together at closing time. Determined to find Charnier on his own, Popeye escapes from his French escorts. While Doyle watches a beach volleyball match, Charnier sees him from a restaurant below. Charnier sends his henchmen to follow Doyle through the town, where they capture him and take him to a hotel for interrogation.
For several weeks, Doyle is injected with heroin in effort to force him into capitulation. Scenes of his growing addiction follow, including one in which an elderly lady (Cathleen Nesbitt) visits him in his befuddled state. She talks to him, declaring herself to be English, and saying that her son is "just like" him, while stroking his arm. Initially she seems compassionate to his plight, but a change in the camera angle reveals her 'track' marks and that she is slowly removing his watch.
Barthélémy has sent police to search for Doyle and, as the raids close in on where Doyle is detained, he is dumped barely alive but addicted in front of police headquarters. Scenes of resuscitation and drug withdrawal follow. In his effort to save both Doyle's life and his reputation, Barthélémy immediately quarantines Doyle in the police cells and begins his cold turkey withdrawal from the heroin. Supervising his recovery, and at his side with both emotional support and taunts questioning his toughness, Barthélémy ensures Doyle completes the cycle of physical withdrawal. When he is well enough to be on his feet, Doyle starts back on the road to regaining his physical fitness. He searches Marseilles and, finding the hideout/drug warehouse he was brought to, he sets it on fire. He breaks into a room at the hotel and finds Charnier's henchmen, whom he interrogates as to the whereabouts of Charnier. Doyle is joined by Barthélémy and other inspectors who engage Charnier's henchmen in a gun battle in a dry dock, which results in water from multiple spillways pouring out. The henchmen and inspectors are killed but Doyle rescues Barthélémy. The following raid on Charnier and his henchmen is successful, but Charnier escapes. Doyle, in a foot chase of Charnier, who is sailing out of the harbor on his yacht, takes his gun out, calls Charnier's name, and finally shoots him dead.
|
neo noir
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
The movie concerns on Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman), an unorthodox New York narcotics cop investigating the flow of drug that follows the trail of the French connection .
He travels to Marsaille following the foreign connection and tries to track down the eluded evil Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) , the smuggling ring chief , who escaped from N.Y.C. There , he joins forces to the French gendarmes (Bernard Fresson and Jean Pierre Castaldi , among others) to hunt down the ringleader .
In the movie there is action , suspense , violence , intrigue and a little bit of humor in charge of Popeye Doyle , as he begins to find himself as a fish out of water in France and particularly on his relationships with the French people .
The motion picture has action-packed but in the intervening period when the starring ends up being abducted by Alain Charnier's henchmen , it results to be a little bit boring , with overlong scenes ; besides , quite disagreeable as Popeye is injected heroin .
The terrain has changed, but the raw unadulterated character acting of Hackman still makes it one hell of a roller coaster ride.Rife with dirty cops, drug smugglers, and French thugs, this movies direction and writing reminds instantly that it is part of the production catalyst that would later see series like The Shield have such success in prime time TV.
"French Connection II" focuses on 'Popeye' Doyle who takes revenge on the drug smuggler Alain Charnier, not in New York this time but Marseille, France.
Sure, 'Popeye' Doyle's character is strong enough to carry the entire movie but he just ain't the same without 'Cloudy' by his side.There are more than enough good moments that make up for these losses, the ending for example is really brilliant and I absolutely loved it!Once you've seen "The French Connection" this isn't really a must see but nevertheless, it's a very good movie and perfectly watchable.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
The sequel to the massive hit "French Connection" pales a bit in comparison to the original,but it also adds more depth to the story and Popeye Doyle as a character.Gene Hackman almost outdoes his Oscar-winning performance here as Popeye Doyle running loose in Marseille.The film is a bit uneven and exhausting,but the ultimate showdown is well crafted.The scenes when Doyle is on detox after getting injected with heroin add to the overall dramatic depth of the film,making the original look more action-oriented and systematic.Ergo does this movie come out as a sort of theatric depiction of Popeye Doyle and his pursuit for Charnier.The problem with this film is that its too long,but I guess that couldn't have been avoided when you are Frankenheimer.Hackman keeps his humour and treats us with a few classical Popeye lines,my favorite being:"You put me next to the shithouse!".8 out of 10..
In this riveting, darkly dramatic sequel, Popeye Doyle (Hackman in one of his most overlooked performances) travels to Marseilles to track the elusive Alain "Frog One" Charnier (Fernando Rey), whom he failed to catch in New York City.
A fresh plot and gritty, realistic direction by John Frankenheimer make "French Connection II" worthy enough to be compared in merit to the original, despite the absence of Roy Scheider as Hackman's partner.
In William Friedkin's original film, Gene Hackman played Popeye Doyle as a compulsive, single-minded narc, whose life Friedkin merely gave a little descriptive distinction in one scene, where Popeye is distracted from his consumption with menacing hoodlums when he, in his own expedient manner, picks up a girl who just as immediately disappears the following morning along with his thought of her.
That kind of character consolidates well with the brand of merciless, methodical, naturalistic film-making characteristic of Friedkin.Whatever Popeye was, he wasn't a buffoon, and that's what he comes disconcertingly close to seeming to be in French Connection II, John Frankenheimer's fictional addition to the initial true account.
The story, his hunt, are all dismissed during Hackman's solo routine.Marseille is a place it's patently clear no sane superior would ever send Popeye, no matter how relentless his urge would be to track down the one that got away, unless they wanted to get rid of him for good.
Whether or not Frankenheimer and his screenplay don't do right by the character, which is debatable, they definitely do right by the genre, and this is better than most of the many cop movies that followed The French Connection into release.
The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in?
Gene Hackman is also brilliant with his acting in the cold turkey scenes among the best he has ever done, and while the ending is abrupt in a way due to its sharpness and thoughtfulness this abruptness works.
French Connection II takes the real characters of Popeye Doyle that Gene Hackman won a Best Actor Oscar for in the first French Connection movie and spins a whole new tale about Hackman's obsession with getting the man who eluded him in the first film.
Unfortunately for Hackman, this time he's fighting the battle on the other guy's home turf.Hackman's character of narcotics cop Popeye Doyle is still as vibrant as in the first film.
But what he and director John Frankenheimer got to work with was some bits cobbled together from Murder My Sweet and The Man With The Golden Arm, a couple of better films with the theme of narcotics addiction.The minute that Hackman's nemesis spots him on his home ground, Fernando Rey decides a little poetic justice bad guy style is what's in order.
When Hackman's dumped on the streets and found barely alive, the police work to both bring him around and to have him kick the stuff cold turkey like Frank Sinatra did in The Man With The Golden Arm. The withdrawal scenes are Hackman at his best, after that French Connection II slips into an ordinary police drama with nothing we haven't seen or heard before.
The French Connection II is a decent flick - the problem lies in the fact that the first film was so damn good that it was always going to be very hard to match, let alone beat.Gene Hackman reprises 'Popeye' Doyle.
The reliable John Frankenheimer takes the helm this time round and places a unique spin on the story, completely switching locations so that Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle is now tracking down Fernando Rey's heroine kingpin in his own home ground of Marseilles.
Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) travels to Marseilles to find Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey), the drug smuggler who eluded him in New York.Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film two and a half out of four stars and said that "if Frankenheimer and his screenplay don't do justice to the character (of Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle), they at least do justice to the genre, and this is better than most of the many cop movies that followed." Is this the classic the original was?
The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it.
William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e.
With uncompromising harshness Frankenheimer plunges into the black hole that comes with loss of self-control and self-respect, and it is stunning to witness Gene Hackman's performance as his Popeye Doyle is being forced into drug addiction himself.
"French Connection II" makes a huge mistake right away by taking Popeye Doyle out of his native New York and placing him in France.
Hackman Great, Script Not. In this sequel to the Best Picture Oscar winner, NYC cop Popeye Doyle goes to Marsailles in pursuit of the drug smuggler who eluded him in the first film.
French Connection was set and filmed in the port town of Marseilles.Ben "Popeye" Doyle does not have a lot going for him, at the beginning and for most of the movie.
The sequel offers a fictional extension of the original film's true events, and sees Detective Doyle following the trail of drug-lord Charnier (Fernando Rey) onto the unfamiliar and unsympathetic streets of Marseilles, France.
Detective Popeye Doyle (Hackman) is sent to France to resume his chase for the drugs baron Alain Charnier (Rey) The sequel to the Oscar winning smash brings back the electric Hackman as Popeye as he continues his search for Fernando Rey's criminal in another highly charged crime drama that is brimming with sizzling drama and passion that arguably betters the original in more ways than one.What made the first film special for me was the climax.
French Connection 2 (1975) is an Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller movie starring Gene Hackman aka Popeye Doyle, a New York narcotics detective.
Even though this film is far more darker, sinister & depressing in its subject matter I just couldn't really relate to it as being from the same stable as the original & superior French Connection some four years earlier.Hackman does a very good job as the harressed & vengeful cop, Popye Doyle.
It was much more 'story-telling' based and much slower than its sequel 'French Connection II.' In this movie, Gene Hackman excels even further, and the move shifts from an excellent telling of a non fiction story to a dark, gritty character study of our anti hero 'Popeye.' In a sense, the sequel is necessary because it completes the character development of Popeye and it shows how much he is willing to lose in his desperate pursuit of Charnier.
New York police detective Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle (Gene Hackman) arrives in Marseilles, France to track down drug kingpin Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey).
Doyle and his inseparable hat are back once again on the run to get Charnier (Fernando Rey), known as Frog One, the smart criminal who ran away from him in the film directed in 1971.This time the hunt will take place in Marseille instead of New York and he's no longer with his cool partner Russo but instead of all that he's stuck with the bureaucracy of the French police, following lots of procedures that won't allow his tough reprehension of bad guys, beatings and the famous 'Have you ever picked your feet on Poughkeepsie!'.Gene Hackman brings back the character in all of his glory, his mannerisms, his unusual humor and some innovations brought by the screenplay, things that might upset viewers from the classical first episode.
So, this is how complicated Popeye's mission is."French Connection II" is a little disappointment if compared to the Oscar winning film directed by William Friedkin.
In this sequel to the crime drama masterpiece "The French Connection" we see the character of Popeye Doyle played wonderfully by Gene Hackman travel to France in order to capture the drug smuggler who tormented him in the original film.
The film is not as good as the original but it still packs a lot of fun and interesting sequences that expand the non-fictional Popeye Doyle into a real character.3(***)out of 4(****)stars.
I just sat through French Connection II as a midday movie (uncut), and my God, it was absolutely terrible.There is practically no story going on; just endless scenes of Gene walking around the streets of France (at least he got a free holiday out of it) and occasional interactions with some obnoxious French citizens.Then in the middle of the movie, we get an extended (and I mean, really long and boring) sequence with "Popeye" getting forced into a junk addiction, and following that, another really loooong sequence of his recovery (it never seems to end).Just when I was about to change channels and end my suffering, some action happens towards the end, and then there is probably the crappiest ending I've seen in a film in a long time.An awful movie, and a horrible "movie" experience.
John Frankenheimer (who directed in France again recently for Ronin) makes full use of the 'innocent abroad' line to provide a paradox between the worldly wise New York narcotics cop Doyle of the first film and the one we see here, battling not only the language barrier but the natural suspicion and unease of the Marseille drug squad.Although more languidly paced than its bigger brother, French Connection II has some inspired action sequences, such as the shoot-out at the docks.
Mixed with scenes that are almost painful to watch, as Doyle is made to go cold turkey after being turned into an addict at the hands of captors, we see there is more to Doyle than the hard man image portrayed in New York.Of course Gene Hackman puts in a great performance, but there is nothing unusual about that!Make sure you watch Popeye Doyle's big apple exploits before viewing this superior sequel, to fully appreciate his motivations..
Directed by John Frankenheimer, this is a sequal to the original New York narcotics detective Popeye Doyle, played by Gene Hackman.
Its sequel, therefore, was wholly unnecessary and only served two functions: to further humanise Popeye Doyle and to punish Charnier for escaping at the end of the first film.This film was about a half hour too long (the first movie clipped along at a good pace) and dragged in certain parts, most notably the withdrawal scene.
Admittedly a good film, with an excellent performance from Hackman, The French Connection II serves no narrative purpose other than to satiate an audience upset at the ending of the first movie..
The French Connection had one of the greatest auto chases in movie history, this film has a great foot chase where Hackman chases down Charnier in the very end of the film.
But in French Connection II, if you remember for one thing, it's not a chase scene, its an entire segment revolving around Popeye (Hackman, again) recovering from his heroin addiction that became forced upon him by heroin dealer himself Alain Charnier (Rey).I said the film was a three in one deal; that much is technically true.
So with the establishment of the film and the character complete with some hard boiled and entertaining scenes in which an inside man gets severely messed up; Doyle deals with two tails and also extensively bemoans his office locale, French Connection II is impressive.
This sequel to "The French Connection" of 1971 has the same hero, Popeye Doyle in pursuit of the drug lord who escaped at the end of the first film.
After the movie fans are treated to an action movie classic in The French Connection,a little known movie was made four years later this time only presenting Detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle in his travel to France in The French Connection II.Gene Hackman returns to portray his role of Popeye once again together with Fernando Rey,who portrays Alan Charnier,the drug kingpin that eluded Popeye in the first film.
John Frankenheimer directs the movie.The story picks up with Narcotics Detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle still on the hunt for drug kingpin Alan Charnier,who is also known as Frog One,after he eluded him and his partner Buddy"Cloudy" Russo.On the trail for Frog One,Popeye goes to France by himself and leaves New York.He lands on Marseilles.But he gets captured by one of Frog One's henchmen and injects him full of drugs with the hope of turning him into a drug junkie and send him to jail.ButHenri Barthélémy asked the help of the police look for Popeye.After Barthélémy has located him,Popeye undergoes a so-called "cold turkey" treatment wherein the drugs injected from him was withdrawn.After his treatment, Popeye gets up to hunt down for Frog One until justice was meted out.No question that this film was solid and well- made.It was well- acted too especially Gene Hackman who portrayed Popeye very well.It remained as explosive and tension-filled as the first movie.The story was also interesting especially the experience of Popeye being injected with drugs and withdrawn from it afterwards.It was a good way the big difference between a person who is a junkie and that one who is free of drugs.But in spite of it all, Too bad the expectations were higher and it wasn't able to be as compelling as the original film.Too bad it precedes a classic film and suffers from being a sequel..
Besides, Scheider had already done a sort of "French Connection" sequel two years earlier with "The Seven-Ups." It was another New York-set cop movie and had several similar hair-raising car chases in it.
It's like a holiday home movie from hell as Hackman's character struggles with the language, the locals and looks lost and he wanders the labyrinthine streets in search of his quarry.Later on in the film, Charnier finds out that Doyle has followed him to France to continue the game of cat-and-mouse they started in New York.
As sequels go, it's one of the best recapturing the character of Doyle and style of Friedkin well.John Frankenheimer must have enjoyed shooting this movie in France, as he returned 23 years later to shoot a movie even more like the original "French Connection" with its kinetic car chases – "Ronin" with Robert De Niro in 1998.
Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle (BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Gene Hackman) is in Marsailles trying to find Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey), the drug dealer/smuggler, the villain who escaped at the end of the previous film.
Although most don't think the 2nd french connection is as good as the 1st, I think is almost equals it, VERY under-estimated film and I think one of Hackman's best acting.
|
tt0048529
|
Rabbit Rampage
|
When Bugs realizes who is in charge of the feature, he makes plain his desire not to be a victim to an animator who plans on making him look bad. With that said, Bugs is about to get back into his hole, but the animator erases it, causing Bugs to jump headfirst into the ground. After Bugs stands up, he restates his desire not to work with the animator, who puts yellow paint on Bugs' back, implying that Bugs is a coward. Bugs grabs the brush and breaks it in half.
Bugs emphatically states that he will report the animator to Warner Bros. and calls the animator a menace to society, while the animator draws a picket sign ("I won't work") in Bugs's left hand. When Bugs sees the sign, he throws it on the ground, off screen. Bugs asks if the animator is trying to get him fired, before explaining that he has become a good asset to the studio, which gives the animator time to draw another picket sign ("I refuse to live up to my contract"). After throwing away the last sign off-screen, Bugs returns, wiping off the yellow paint with a towel. Afterwards, Bugs agrees to work on the picture, but pauses once he sees that the animator drew a hat on his head, prompting Bugs to throw it on the ground, stating that the animator knows he's not supposed to wear a hat. In response, the animator draws a big pink women's hat, and Bugs throws it on the ground, too. This cycle continues with very ridiculous hats and wigs until Bugs gives up. The animator draws a rotated forest, and Bugs tries to get in his hole by climbing down a nearby tree. The animator draws an anvil on Bugs's tail, causing Bugs to fall on a street, later rolling into an empty area.
Angry, Bugs incoherently yells at the animator, which the animator responds to by erasing Bugs's head. When Bugs notices this, he taps one foot impatiently and points at the spot where his head existed. The animator then draws a jack-o'-lantern on Bugs's body. When Bugs realizes this, he demands it to be corrected, which the animator supplies by simply adding rabbit ears to the existing head, infuriating Bugs even further. The animator erases the pumpkin head and then draws a tiny version of Bugs's head. Bugs does not realize what has happened until he pulls a carrot out of his pocket, stopping short when he sees that something else is wrong. He then takes notice of his high-pitched voice. He smacks his hand against his face and realizes that his head is now small. He angrily requests that the animator draw his head back in properly, which he does, except he forgets to apply the ears. Bugs requests the ears to which the animator puts in human ears. Bugs requests that he have long rabbit ears, to which the animator then draws long, droopy rabbit ears, only to revert them back when Bugs snaps at him not to be "so danged literal."
Now with his ears back, Bugs walks away, only to have his tail erased and replaced with a horse's tail. When Bugs states that a horse's tail belongs on a horse, the animator erases Bugs's body and redraws him as a horse. Bugs, while standing on two hindlegs and eating a carrot, points out to the artist that this misinterpretation will not make his employers happy, allowing the animator to pretend to comply with what Bugs is telling him by erasing Bugs's horse body and drawing him as a more abstract, simplified rabbit with big cheeks and feet. The abstract version of Bugs warns the animator that this latest bit of teasing can lead to serious consequences for both of them, which leads the animator to draw him back to normal.
When Bugs sardonically asks the animator if he wants to paint him into a grasshopper, the animator takes out a brush and Bugs takes it back. Bugs attempts to make friends with the animator, promising that they could do something popular. In response, the animator draws two clones of Bugs, prompting Bugs to shove the clones out of the picture. As Bugs states that he will not leave the spot until the animator gets the boss, the animator paints Bugs on a railroad track with a train coming through a tunnel behind it. As the train passes by, Bugs leans on a rock and says that there is still one way out and he cannot stop Bugs. He jumps up and pulls down a card with the words "The End."
The camera pulls back to the animator, who is revealed to be Elmer Fudd, in a cameo appearance, who laughs and states his delight to the audience, "Weww anyway, I finawwy got even with that scwewy wabbit!"
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Bugs Bunnys "Duck Amuck".
If you have seen both this and "Duck Amuck," you'll probably say that they are basically cousins.
At that point you're correct.I'll start off by telling you that this is _NOT_ superior or equal to "Duck Amuck" in any way or form, but still manages to hit the nail on the head pretty well despite a few flaws.
Although the jokes aren't the same, their theme is identical in some ways.
For example: in "Duck Amuck," Daffy Duck is crudely painted by his animator, and later on is redrawn to wearing a baby's garnet, having a flag for a tail that shows a screw and a ball, and walks on his arms and legs; while in "Rabbit Rampage," Bugs Bunny has his ears redrawn into a humans and later on the ears are redrawn into very long, dragging ears.
What I mean is: character doctoring, but here, it still manages to give some laughs.Overall, despite over-copying themes to jokes from its superior cousin, "Rabbit Rampage" still holds up as a good package.8/10.
"Well anyway, I finally got even with that scwewy wabbit".
Even before reading the reviews on here, I could see a number of similarities to Duck Amuck.
Duck Amuck is definitely superior to Rabbit Rampage; I consider Duck Amuck not only one of the Daffy's best cartoons but also one of the best Looney Tunes cartoons in general, while for Bugs I would put What's Opera Doc?, Broom-Stick Bunny, Rabbit Seasoning, Rabbit Fire, Rhapsody Rabbit and Water Water Every Hare over this.In general, the animation was not too bad, Bugs himself looks somewhat odd, but the colours, backgrounds and visual tricks are very nice.
In fact, like Duck Amuck what actually made Rabbit Rampage were the visual gags, they were clever and funny.
That and Elmer's last line at the end, which I was not expecting.
The music is also a nice touch, the dialogue is amusing, Mel Blanc is superb and the pacing is secure enough.
Overall, not Bug's best by all means, but worth watching.
9/10 Bethany Cox.
"I've got a good mind to tell the Warner Brothers on you!".
Trying to replicate his success with Duck Amuck, Chuck Jones returns to the "breaking the fourth wall" routine with this short.
Here Bugs Bunny fights with his unseen (until the end) animator, who has a grudge against him.
It's not a bad cartoon and I don't really fault Chuck Jones or writer Michael Maltese for ripping off their own idea.
After all, ideas were (and still are) recycled all the time in cartoons.
But this one does suffer by comparison, as well as the fact that, as other reviewers have mentioned, the plot is more suited to Daffy than Bugs.
No one watches a Bugs short to see him frustrated and one-upped at every turn.
We like to see him get the upper hand and outsmart his foes.
At one point Bugs even mimics Yosemite Sam by using the word "idjit." Still, there are some amusing bits here and there.
The animation, music, and voice work are all top notch.
On a related note, there was a video game for the Super Nintendo called Bugs Bunny Rabbit Rampage that was released in the 1990s.
It was obviously inspired by this short, both in title and plot.
I haven't played it since I was a kid but I recall liking it..
There Should have been a third short!
& "A 3-ring CIRCUS" times 2!.
Warner Brothers' animation should have created an additional short!
Where Daffy creates problems on Elmer Fudd!
It would have been a "three-ring circus", among Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck & third, Elmer Fudd.
Duck Amuck, first of all, (as almost everyone knows), is of Bugs Bunny's animation fun with Daffy Duck.
Second was Rabbit Rampage, as Elmer Fudd created numerous problems, to Bugs Bunny.
If there was one created, of Daffy as a one-time animator, creating problems, to Elmer Fudd.
If this had occurred, then the "revenge factor" would have been evened out as a 3-way tie!
Among all three Warner brothers' animation characters, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd & Daffy Duck!
Plus there should have been a short on Yosemite Sam as an animator and was the victim, of a secret animation group, Tweetie & Grannie creating numerous problems, onto Yosemite Sam. And then, later on Yosemite Sam is the secret animator creating problems onto Sylvester, the Cat. Then next, there should have been a short of Sylvester, as secret animator, creating problems, with Granny & Tweetie!.
Daffy works much better in Duck Amuck (1953) but this is good entertainment anyway..
I think this cartoon was released to enhance the success that Daffy Duck's Duck Amuck (1953) achieved by using an even more famous and loved character in Bugs Bunny (better-loved for an unknown reason).
It did not work.
Though it's funny and I like it, Daffy is the kind of character that is supposed to do this kind of thing.
Bugs just isn't himself when at the recieving end of torment.
But I guess it shows his other side.
But as always, you still get some Jones hallmarks, like the vivid use of colour, good verbal comedy and great animation and expression.
The score complements all of that, but as Bugs takes on several forms through the animator's whim, he doesn't feel like Bugs except he continues to crunch his carrot even when he has been drastically modified.
Duck Amuck was a better cartoon, much, much better.
But this is entertainment, and a funny cartoon is a funny cartoon, I'll admit.
So if you look for nothing but seven minutes of a good cartoon, I recommend this one.
Good to see it's in print..
Bugs replaces Daffy.
Sort of a re-imagining of "Duck Amuck", "Rabbit Rampage" has Bugs Bunny getting tormented by an unseen animator (whom he apparently recognizes at the beginning).
Whereas the original cartoon made use of Daffy Duck's explosive personality, Bugs obviously can't do that.
It seems to me that he behaves here more like Heath Ledger's version of the Joker in "The Dark Knight".Overall, I can't quite figure out why Chuck Jones repeated the story from one of his greatest cartoons.
It's not a bad cartoon, and we certainly shouldn't lower our opinions of Jones for it.
But other cartoons were definitely better..
Reasonable idea but doesn't work and Bugs isn't himself.
The new Bugs Bunny script is in production, but Bugs finds that the animator on the picture is a difficult sort; he threatens to walk off the picture.
However, as the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword and Bugs find himself at the mercy of the animator's imagination.Ironically enough for a cartoon where the animator is (literally) the star, the actual animation here is only average.
The plot is quite a good idea but it doesn't really work.
The various little tricks that the animator pull just get a little dull after a while and, while it is different, it simply isn't very funny.Worse still is the fact that Bugs isn't really himself his personality isn't really Bugs as we have come to know him and he could easily be any character at all.
In fact, given that much of the action involves redrawing Bugs (or bits of Bugs) as something else, it never really feels like him.
The animator may be given a face at the end but really he is a meaningless paintbrush for the most part and fails to be a part of the cartoon.Overall this is a good idea but nothing is done with it that works.
The gags tire after a while, the animation is average at best and there is a shocking lack of character in Bugs and the cartoon as a whole.
Not really worth a look..
Wabbit Wampage.
"Rabbit Rampage" is an excellent and fairly unusual Bugs Bunny cartoon directed by Chuck Jones and written by Michael Maltese.
Bugs is completely taken advantage of by the artist, thus making this one of the few cartoons in which Bugs cannot retaliate from getting picked on.
Believe me, the artist gives it to him good!
In a sense, then, "Rabbit Rampage" is a remake of "Duck Amuck" (1953), which features Daffy Duck as the artist's victim.My favorite moments from this cartoon: The artist draws a cavalcade of chapeaus on Bugs' cranium, with appropriate musical accompaniment from Milt Franklyn.
With an anvil tied to his tail, Bugs takes a nasty fall onto the pavement; after cussing like Yosemite Sam, Bugs' head is then transformed into a pumpkin.I remember seeing "Rabbit Rampage" on TV when I was a kid, and it can now be found as one of the bonus cartoons on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 6 Disc 1.
Whenever Bugs Bunny loses, he loses BIG TIME!.
Clairvoyant Looney Tuners try to prepare America for 2016 .
. with their animated short from the 1950s titled RABBIT RAMPAGE.
Donald J.
Trump is SO elderly that he was able to enjoy RABBIT RAMPAGE on the big screen when it first came out.
As a young lad, Leader Trump was so impressed by the concept here of Elmer Fudd moving Bugs Bunny's rabbit hole into the sky, erasing Bugs' head, and giving Bugs demeaning labels and paint jobs that wee Trump became obsessed with making Elmer's Revenge Story his own Real Life Deal.
(Of course, at this time young Leader Trump was suffering from constant bullying about his tiny fingers and T-Rex-like atrophied arms.) Trump-the-Boy decided that these other kids were not Real.
This Solipcistic Approach to Life has allowed Leader Trump to discard worn out wives left and right, weasel out of all of a responsible citizen's tax obligations for the Common Good, violate contracts he's signed by the hundreds, shortchange his lowliest dishwashers on their wages, curse and slander President and Pope alike, and run a bankruptcy-based Ponzi Scheme to gain whatever "Wealth" he has.
Just as Warner Bros.
feared, the American Voters are proving that they are NOT Real People with the ability for individual critical thinking, but merely 350 million props to Mr. Fudd\Trump's Megalomania..
Karma strikes for Bugs!.
In this semi-sequel to Chuck Jones's excellent "Duck Amuck", Bugs Bunny, the mastermind behind Daffy Duck's systematic breakdown in the previous film, is struck by karma when another mastermind pretty much does to him what he had done to Daffy two years prior.This cartoon is not quite as good as its predecessor, mainly because Daffy generally works better as a flustered loser than Bugs does, but it's still solid stuff, thanks in no small part to its great animation and funny gags (the "shrunken head" gag in particular is priceless).
In any case, "Rabbit Rampage", much like Freleng's "The Hare-Brained Hypnotist" and Clampett's "Falling Hare", is an interesting character study of how Bugs Bunny hates to lose.
The real humor of the cartoon lies in that Bugs is also much more in-control here than he normally is in most other "loser Bugs" cartoons (he THINKS he is, at least), thus making his barely-contained rage and desperation even funnier in an odd way.When I first saw this cartoon, I expected the mastermind to be either Daffy or Cecil Turtle.
The decision to have it instead be Elmer, the last character you would ever expect to play such clever and cruel tricks on Bugs, is a stroke of pure Jonesian genius..
Disappointing rip on "Duck Amuck".
Although brought to you by Chuck Jones and Michael Maltese, the geniuses behind "Duck Amuck," "Rabbit Rampage" isn't half the pic that is for one reason: their refusal to follow through on the premise.In "Duck Amuck," Daffy has absolutely no control over what happens.
Here, Bugs always has some control, even when he loses his cool; he even takes the paint brush away from his "tormentor." Daffy nearly comes to blows with his twin; Bugs kicks his twins out of the frame.
Daffy never learns who drove him to the brink of madness; from the start, Bugs knows who's wielding that paint brush.
Elmer declares he "finally got back" at Bugs, but did he?
To "get back" at someone, you must have complete control.
When Bugs brings down the "The End" card, which he tells Elmer he can't stop him from doing, he takes that control and comes out on top, as usual.
That decision by Jones and Maltese dooms "Rabbit Rampage" to one of the rare misfires in the Bugs Bunny canon.
|
tt0024978
|
Chu Chin Chow
|
The wealthy merchant Kasim Baba (brother of Ali Baba) is preparing to give a lavish banquet at his home for a wealthy Chinese merchant, Chu Chin Chow, who is on his way from China. The robber chieftain, Abu Hasan, wishes to add to his riches the property of Kasim. Abu Hasan forces his captive, the beautiful Zahrat al-Kulub, to spy for him in Kasim's house, disguised as a slave girl, by holding her lover hostage. She is nearly found out several times. Zahrat sends a message to Abu Hasan, letting him know about the banquet. Hasan arrives at Kasim's palace in disguise as Chu Chin Chow, whom his gang has robbed and murdered. He tries to glean information that will enable him to rob his host.
Meanwhile, the slaves tell Ali Baba, Kasim's poor, lazy brother, about Hasan's secret cave and the password "open sesame". Ali Baba enters the lair helps himself to some of the thieves' treasure. The greedy Kasim persuades his brother to tell him where his sudden wealth came from and slips out to see what he can find at Hasan's cave. Kasim finds the treasure but is captured by Abu Hasan and put to death. Hasan and his forty thieves plan an attack on Baba household on the occasion of the wedding of Ali Baba's son Nur al-Huda Ali and the slave girl Marjanah.
Finally, on the eve of the attack, Zahrat gets her revenge by disposing of Hasan's men using boiling oil, stabbing Abu Hasan to death, and generally saving the day. Zahrat and her lover are reunited, Ali Baba gets Kasim's widow, Alcolom, and all ends happily.
|
revenge, murder, violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1483324
|
At Middleton
|
Edith Martin (Vera Farmiga) and her highly strung daughter Audrey (Taissa Farmiga), and George Hartman (Andy García) and his unmotivated son Conrad (Spencer Lofranco), arrive for a campus tour of the quaint Middleton College led by junior "dingleberry" Justin (Nicholas Braun). When Edith and George wander off, the two bond as they try to reunite with the tour. When they meet the group in the library, Edith and George embarrass their children.
Audrey accuses Edith of not supporting her decision to go to Middleton, and as revenge, Edith lies and says that she and George are taking an exclusive tour of the campus with the university's Dean. Audrey and Conrad are then left alone with the rest of the "cookie cutter" tour, while Edith and George play hooky. The two borrow some bikes to explore the campus. They climb to the top of the belltower, and sneak into an acting class. During an acting exercize, the two emotionally connect.
Meanwhile, Audrey tells Conrad that the reason she wants to attend Middleton is so she can be mentored by Middleton's acclaimed professor Roland Emerson (Tom Skerritt). Conrad says he's keeping his options open. At lunch, Audrey calls the Dean's assistant, and finds out that Edith was lying about the exclusive tour. She then bumps into George and demands to know where her mother is. He tells her that Edith went to the observatory, when she is really having lunch with George in the cafeteria. Edith and George discuss their relationship, unsure of what it is since they are both married.
Audrey and Conrad go to the observatory, finding it locked. In her anger, Audrey insults Conrad, saying he's peaked in life and it's all downhill for him; Conrad walks off. George and Edith then meet film student Daphne (Daniella García), who offers George her computer so he can help out a heart patient. Edith and George then get high with Daphne and her boyfriend Travis (Stephen Borrello), and discuss their relationships with their children.
Audrey and Conrad go to their respective meetings with professors. Audrey has tea with Emerson, while Conrad meets Boneyard Sims (Peter Riegert), who runs the campus' radio station. Audrey finds out that Emerson is going on a sabbatical, meaning he won't be able to be her advisor should she attend Middleton. Audrey reacts angrily, and Emerson warns her that she might've crossed the line from ambition into obsession. Conrad realizes his interest is in radio.
Edith and George go back to the belltower, where they spend an intimate moment. Conrad apologizes to Audrey for her bad day, and informs her that he could see himself going to Middleton; Audrey tells him she no longer wants to go there. As Edith and George head back to their cars, they emotionally part ways. The two then embrace their children and drive off. Edith tells Audrey that they're going to be okay, and George requests Conrad take the long way home.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1411236
|
Stalker
|
The "Stalker" (Alexander Kaidanovsky) works in some unclear area in the indefinite future as a guide who leads people through the "Zone", a vicinity in which the normal laws of reality no longer fully apply. The Zone contains a place called the "Room", said to grant the wishes of anyone who steps inside. The area containing the Zone is sealed off by the government and great hazards exist within it. At home with his wife and daughter, the Stalker's wife (Alisa Freindlich) begs him not to go into the Zone but he ignores her pleas. In a rundown bar, the Stalker meets his next clients for a trip into the Zone. The "Writer" (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and the "Professor" (Nikolai Grinko) agree to put their fates into the hands of the Stalker. Their specific names do not come up as they all agree to refer to each other pseudo-anonymously by just their professions.
The three of them evade the military blockade that guards the Zone, attracting gunfire from the guards but all survive. They then ride into the heart of the Zone on a railway work car. The Stalker tells his clients they must do exactly as he says to survive the dangers which lie ahead, and explains the Zone dangers are invisible. The Stalker tests for traps by throwing metal nuts tied to strips of cloth ahead of them. The complicated path that they must take cannot be specifically seen nor heard but can only be sensed.
The Writer feels skeptical of any real danger, but the Professor generally follows the Stalker's advice. As they travel, the three men discuss their reasons for wanting to visit the Room. The Writer expresses his concern of losing his inspiration. His manner appears angry and stressed during the journey. The Professor appears more content, though he carefully insists on keeping a backpack filled with unknown contents close to him. While the Professor's desires are not clear, he reluctantly gives in to countless pleas from the Writer and admits he has hopes of winning a Nobel Prize through scientific analysis of the Zone. The Stalker insists he has no motive beyond the altruistic aim of aiding the desperate. At times, he refers to a previous Stalker named "Porcupine", who had led his brother to his death in the Zone, visited the Room, gained a large sum of money, and then hanged himself, failing to achieve the happy ending implied in rumors about the Zone.
While it seems the Room fulfills all the wishes of a visitor, this creates a serious problem given that these might not be consciously expressed wishes but the true unconscious desires of those that come in. In addition it appears that the Zone itself has a kind of sentience. When the Writer later confronts the Stalker about his knowledge of the Zone and the Room, the Stalker replies that his information came from the now deceased Porcupine. After traveling through tunnels the three reach their destination. They determine that their goal lies inside a decayed and decrepit industrial building. In a small antechamber, a phone begins to ring. The Writer answers and cryptically speaks into the phone, stating "this is not the clinic", before hanging up. The surprised Professor decides to use the phone to ring up a colleague. In the ensuing conversation, he reveals his true intentions behind his whole journey.
The Professor has brought a nuclear device with him, and he intends to destroy the Room for fear it might be used by evil men. The three visitors to the Zone then fight verbally and physically in a larger antechamber, just outside the Room. The fight ends in a draw, all three men exhausted. As they catch their breath, the Writer experiences an epiphany about the Room's true nature. He argues that when Porcupine met his goal, despite the man's conscious motives, the room fulfilled Porcupine's true, secret desire for wealth, instead of bringing back his brother from death. Thus, Porcupine's suicide came about from the resulting guilt. The Writer further reasons the Room is genuinely useless to the ambitious since its ability to look inside those who enter it renders the Room only dangerous to those who seek it for negative reasons. With his earlier fears assuaged, the Professor gives up on his plan of destroying the Room. Instead, he disassembles his bomb and scatters its pieces.
The men rest before the doorway and despite their long and arduous journey, they never enter. Rain begins to fall into the Room through its ruined ceiling, then gradually fades away. The Stalker, the Writer, and the Professor are shown back in the bar, and are met by the Stalker's wife and daughter. A black dog that had followed the three men through the Zone is in the bar with them. When his wife asks where he got the dog, Stalker declares that it just came to him, and he remarks that he felt unable to leave it behind.
Later, when the Stalker's wife tells him that she would like to visit the Room herself, he expresses doubts about the Zone. He states that he fears her dreams will not be fulfilled. As the Stalker sleeps, his wife contemplates their relationship in a monologue delivered directly to the camera. She declares that she knew full-well life with him would be hard, since he would be unreliable and their children would face challenges, but she concludes that she is better off with him despite their many trials. "Monkey", the couple's daughter, sits alone in the kitchen, reciting a love poem by Fyodor Tyutchev.
Monkey holds the large book and lays her head on the table before her. She then appears to use psychokinesis to push three drinking glasses across it, one after the other moving over the table. The final glass falls to the floor, but does not break. A train passes by where the Stalker's family lives, and the entire apartment shakes. As the stark, crashing noises of the train begin to subside, the film ends.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
A very decent effort!.
One reviewer claims this isn't a horror film then seeks to justify that comment by saying there's very little gore.
Dear me, when did good horror require gore?
If done with a bit of style, atmosphere, decent acting and a proper understanding of and respect for the genre, then it's not needed at all.
The interesting thing is that the writer and director is none other than Martin Kemp.
The man has gone from child actor to pop start to cinematic gangster to soap star to music revivalist to screenwriter and director...and like everything else he's done, he's been successful!
Interesting too that he would know much about the infamous Hose on Straw Hill/Expose film of the mid-70s.
Perhaps other reviewers would question that films horror veracity too?
Here Kemp remakes with a considerable twist (albeit a somewhat clichéd one) and even brings back Linda Hayden who played a younger, saucier character back in the day.
From the original film to Hammer Dracula to the awesome 'Blood On Satan's Claw', Linda is always a welcome contributor.
Convincing performances from Jane March and Billy 'The Bill' Murray also help and it's mice to see the excellent Colin Salmon, though he seems less comfortable.
In short, a psycho thriller type horror film that isn't particularly original but successfully evokes the feel of mid-70s independent British horror.
I hope that Kemp makes more of these..
Stalker is nothing to get to excited about & is not a horror film.
First of all everyone should know this is not anything even close to what you would expect from a film named "Stalker".
It involves a writer under pressure for her second book, her first was a #1 Bestseller so people were eager to see what's next.
The author, rumored to have had a recent breakdown, has also had a very tragic childhood.
We are given flashbacks from what appears to be her childhood but it all doesn't make full sense until near end.
It is a short film at around 70 minutes and I was getting kind of bored around mid point, but then the unveiling of the classic twist which we have seen many times before.
So all in all it was a decent effort but was nothing to run out & try to track down or pay to view for that matter.
It was an average movie & I had no problem spending some time watching it.
I'm not really sure how to rate it mainly due to it's lack of originality.
However this is not a horror movie at all it has been MISLABELED there is very little gore & very very little tension till the final minutes.
So if you're looking for that as I was, you will be sadly disappointed..
Not bad, but rather odd and misguided remake of a movie most people have never seen.
This is an (oddly unacknowledged) re-make of the 1970's film "House on Straw Hill".
The gender of the protagonist has been changed to female, but the same basic plot remains--a blocked writer, who is trying to finish a novel, hires a sinister secretary, who quickly takes over both her book and her life (and casually murders several people).
The ending of this movie though goes in quite a bit different direction.The movie was directed by Martin Kemp, who is mostly known for his acting and music.
The original "House on Straw Hill" was the only British film to be labeled as a "video nasty" during the infamous British censorship hysteria of the early 80's (most of the other banned "nasties" were Italian cannibal films or obscure American horror flicks).
It was banned not because it really had that much violence or that much sex, but what the authorities considered to be an unhealthy combination of the two.
Oddly, this remake has less violence and far less sex than the 70's version.The cast is interesting.
Udo Kier, who played the protagonist in the original is sorely missed, but Linda Hayden, who originally played the sexy psycho secretary gets a cameo role as the housekeeper (which is odd since she has had nothing good to say about the original film over the years).
Her former role meanwhile is played by Jane March, who has had a remarkably similar career to Hayden.
Both appeared in notorious erotically-themed films as teenagers ("The Lover" and "Color of Night" for March and "Baby Love" and "Blood on Satan's Claw" for Hayden) that may have hindered their later careers (March has done little work since the 1990's while most of Hayden's later work was in goofy sex comedies and a cameo role in "Boys from Brazil").
March is not nearly as good as Hayden in this role, neither as sexy nor as deliciously evil, but I think Hayden was just a much better actress (extremely underrated actually).Frankly, this whole project is a very strange undertaking since the original film is still essentially MIA in Britain and is only getting a DVD release in America this year.
And the remake doesn't even use either title of the original (which is better known as "Expose" in Britain), but goes with the bland title "Stalker" (actually, also the title of great Tarkovsky film).
The movie itself isn't bad, but this whole project seems very odd and misguided..
When i don't give a film 10 stars i explain why.
Before I explain why I removed 3 stars I will say this is a good film .
it just could have been better with a few minor changes.
The Real Lead Anna Brecon did a fantastic job as did most everyone else I can recommend this on a rainy or foggy night.
Did the lead Character tell anyone she had a PA coming to help her ?
Did Linda The PA introduce herself to he writer ?
Just Say Personal Assistant because Not everyone knows what a PA is .
If my 2 questions would have been answered in that 4 minutes that were edited from the version I saw sorry but I had to take a star for that hole in the set up .I didn't remove a star for the fact that the film makers chose to push the less important character Linda as the Lead in the film when she isn't.
The Actress playing Linda isn't the better actress of the 2 and she hasn't learned to speak her lines Clearly.
When the 1st human was killed the killer mumbles the second half of the lines but lucky for the audience later we hear that Full line from a recording Where Surprise the lines were clearly spoken otherwise we would have no idea what was said and it's important to the plot .
But I didn't remove a star for that .The film loses a second star for the movie cover because it gives too much away .It lost a 3rd star for allowing the villain to too quickly & too easily without justification or explanation bully the lead character into submission when saying "The servants have to leave they annoy me ." Yes the actress who you gave 1st billing Linda Overacts If she usually does a lot of stage acting and didn't adjust herself to the small screen that could explain that.
Otherwise a well written ,directed and acted film ..
Starring Some Creepy Muzak.
Not to be confused with the 1970s Soviet film where three men wander off in to the Russian wilderness and do absolutely nothing for four hours STALKER is no less unentertaining .
Based upon a British horror movie from 35 years earlier whose only claim to fame it was banned by the BBFC .
It features a plot about a female writer working on her second novel but instead of getting on with the task of writing a book she sits in the garden , sips a glass of wine , has a bath , lies in bed and does a hundred other mundane things , none of which involve typing stuff up on a lap top .
There might be something about to happen because creepy music plays out on the soundtrack .
Ms Writer sits down in a chair , creepy music .
Ms Writer stares at a computer , creepy music .
Ms Writer brushes her teeth , creepy music .
In fact no matter what happens creepy music is the star of the movie .
Considering the director of STALKER is Martin Kemp the talented pretty boy from Spandau Ballet this might be the reason for it.
Who knew Martin Kemp had it in him?.
STALKER is the Martin Kemp-directed remake of the notorious video nasty THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL, a sordid tale of depravity and murder that came out in the mid-'70s.
Thankfully enough has been changed in this story to make it an effective shocker in its own right, one that even fans of the original film will find has surprises in store.Truth be told, I quite liked this movie.
It's no classic but it is a solid little thriller and, given it's a low budget British B-movie, the quality is a lot better than you'd expect.
The dull Anna Brecon stars as a mousy writer who goes off to live in a remote country cottage to work on her new novel, only to fall foul of a psychopath.STALKER benefits from effective direction, some shocking moments of violence, and decent performances from the supporting cast.
Best of all is Jane March (COLOUR OF NIGHT) playing the secretary and having a ball with the role.
Dependable character actors like Billy Murray and Colin Salmon turn up and are most welcome, and there's even a minor part for Linda Hayden, who of course starred in the original film.
STALKER is a film that kept me interested throughout, and that's a rare enough thing for a low budget film these days..
Wasted potential.
Essentially the movie is about the writer Paula, who travels to her uncle's house hoping for inspiration there on writing another book.And admittedly, the film has good atmosphere at first, and then some weird writing assistant shows up.
From there it appears as if the movie could take itself in an interesting direction, but...It's like this - suddenly the assistant is in control of the situation, and here's technically a SPOILER - not because of the detail itself, but because this works up to a very overused twist; see basically, Paula isn't seen talking to the assistant near anyone else, she never inquires about the things her assistant does, almost like she already knows, and so on.If it had taken another direction, the film might have been pretty good, but this became predictable and unexciting..
She's in the cellar......
When novelist Paula Martin retreats to the seclusion of her family home Crows Hall she hopes to clear her mind and focus on her new book.
The arrival of an assistant, Linda, should take the pressure offBut bodies begin to pile up, and Paula finds herself trapped in a terrifying nightmare of murder and madness.....A remake of the criminally under seen 'house on straw hill', Stalker begins very well, and Kemp proves he is as good behind the camera as well as in front of it.
But as soon as March appears on the screen, it falls apart.I haven't seen March in anything prolific since Color Of Night, and back then she was known as 'The Sinner From Pinner' and this stuck in my head for the majority of the film.Salmon is good, but he's nothing more than a narrator, filling in the blanks for the clueless audience...if there are any.The rest of the cast are really good, but March hams it up too much to be a convincing men ace.
Half the time she looks ill, and the other half just being too prissy toward everyone.So all in all, it's well made, Kemp is a very able auteur, but March needs to pull her reins in.
She ruins the movie.
|
tt0025862
|
Tarzan and His Mate
|
The film begins with Tarzan and Jane Parker living in the jungle. Harry Holt and his business partner Martin Arlington meet up with them on their way to take ivory from an elephant burial ground. Holt tries to convince Jane, who was with him on his first trip to the jungle, to return with him by bringing her gifts from civilization including clothing and modern gadgets but she tells them she would rather stay with Tarzan.
When Tarzan learns that the two men wish to loot the elephant's graveyard, he will have nothing to do with it; so Martin shoots an elephant so it can act as an instinctive guide. Only Jane's intervention keeps Tarzan from murdering Martin. But Martin's attempt to remove the ivory is thwarted when Tarzan appears with a herd of elephants. Martin feigns repentance, and promises to leave the next day without the ivory.
Early the next morning, Martin attempts to kill Tarzan, and Jane thinking him dead, decides to return to civilization. Meanwhile, Cheeta and his ape friends nurse Tarzan back to health in time for him to stop the men who shot him. But they are attacked by lion men, who summon lions to help them kill the members of the safari. Both Martin and Holt lose their lives through lion attacks, and Jane is in danger from lions. Then, Tarzan and an army of apes and elephants arrive in time to rout both the lion men and the lions, after which they return the ivory to the elephants' graveyard.
|
romantic, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0264472
|
Changing Lanes
|
In New York City, a middle-aged African-American insurance salesman named Doyle Gipson is a recovering alcoholic who is attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to stay sober. On the same morning that Gipson drives to a hearing to try to regain custody of his children, a successful, white, young Wall Street attorney, Gavin Banek, is distracted while driving and collides his new Mercedes CLK320 with Gipson's older Toyota Corolla. Banek was in a rush to get to court to file a power of appointment document, which will prove a dead man signed his foundation over to Banek's law firm. Gipson was also in a rush to get to a hearing to argue for joint custody of his sons with his estranged wife. Banek tries to brush Gipson off with a blank check, rather than exchanging insurance information, thereby disobeying the law. Gipson refuses to accept the check and voices his desire to "do this right", but Banek, whose car is still drivable, insists upon leaving immediately. He leaves Gipson stranded, telling him, "better luck next time". After arriving to the court late, Gipson learns that the judge ruled against him in his absence, giving sole custody of the boys to Gipson's wife and allowing her to proceed with a plan to move to Oregon, never knowing that Gipson was about to buy a house locally and give it to his wife and children as part of his effort to make joint custody workable for everyone.
When Banek gets to court, he realizes that he dropped the crucial power of appointment file at the scene of the accident, and the judge gives him until the end of the day to retrieve it. Gipson, who scooped up the file, is torn, and initially refuses to return the file. Banek, who is desperate to get his papers back, goes to a "fixer", a shady computer hacker, and gets him to switch off Gipson's credit, which destroy's Gipson's chance for a home loan to keep his family together. Gipson is distraught when he finds out his credit has been ruined and he comes close to drinking again. Determined to get back at Banek, Gipson loosens the bolts on one of Banek's tires, and Banek suffers some minor injuries after his car crashes on the highway. Enraged, Banek goes to the elementary school of Gipson's children and tells school officials that Gipson plans to kidnap the boys, so Gipson is arrested and jailed. His enraged wife declares her intention to move forward with taking their sons to Oregon and says that Gipson will never see them again.
Both men, shaken by the consequences of their actions, start to reconsider their desire for vengeance and try to find a way out. Although it appears unlikely that either man will achieve what he had hoped, both resolve to let go and do what is right, and the two men apologize to each other. Gipson returns the file containing the power of attorney, which Banek has since learned was obtained illegally, and he uses it to blackmail his boss to conduct business honestly and get approval to represent Gipson pro bono to resolve his legal troubles. Banek also visits Gipson's wife to explain everything. The film ends with Gipson's wife and children smiling at him from across the street.
|
revenge
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
(Late in the film, he agrees to hire an idealistic young intern because, he laughs uncontrollably to himself, he wants to see what the intern's optimism and altruism looks like after 5 years of hard weathering by his no-rules-in-life employer.) Affleck is sick, and while he finally recognizes that sickness, he resigns himself to keep doing the same thing because, as his boss tells himself, he is willing to believe he has done more good than harm at the end of the day.
The Affleck character's motivations for being extra bad, in the episode of his life we glimpse here, are strong enough to keep Changing Lanes from being just another American psycho study; it's easy to believe we could turn Affleck, given a similar circumstance in our life.The ending is a somewhat forced positive one, but not nearly as much a sell out as is usually the case with a made-by-committee major commercial film.
The most obvious is probably that the characters develop before, during, and after the presented story, as the film opens at a critical time for both of them and closes with them having changed major parts in their lives.I expected this to be a glorified version of Madd's Spy vs.
The pacing is good and kept me interested throughout, partially to see what the main characters would do next and partially to see what, if anything, they would learn from the experience.It is not as "epic" as something like Shawshank Redeption, and doesn't deal with esoteric themes such as Meet Joe Black or ominous themes such as Equilibirum or 1984(the novel), but in a way it is more epic because it deals with normal people who struggle to be beneficial humans despite major mistakes, pressures, and conflicts..
Unlike Sam Raimi's upcoming `Spider-Man', delayed after September 11th so that the WTC could be digitally removed, this is a film unafraid to date itself, and unafraid to look at human truth.Affleck plays the role of the oddly named Gavin Banek (did they take the name Ben Affleck', throw it in a blender, and add some new letters for good measure?), a high-power lawyer on the verge of becoming one of the partners at his law firm, alongside his father-in-law.
On a critical day in both their lives, Doyle going to court to try winning joint-custody, and Gavin on his way to seal his career-making case, the two get into a minor accident on the FDR turnpike, causing Doyle to miss his hearing and Gavin to accidentally give Doyle a signed document that is critical to his case
and it all unravels from there.The two tumble in a daylong haze of malice and self-destruction, sabotaging each other's lives.
His life quickly falling down around him, Gavin begins to examine it for the first time, taking a deep look into his wife, his law firm, his boss/father-in-law, and himself
ultimately questioning his motivation for trying to retrieve the document in the first place.This is where the film really shines: many movies ask the question what makes a man?' but `Changing Lanes' does it with honestly and authenticity.
The movie does not even seem to suggest that Gavin and Doyle's struggles could even be applied to women (obviously they could, had the movie explored that).Jackson, always an excellent actor, is great as Gibson even if he has performed better before.
Surprisingly, in this film Affleck's acting actually seems to surpass Jackson's in this amazing performance that is probably the best we have seen from Affleck so far.All of the characters in the film, including minor-roles and extras, all exhibit a very human feel, and seeing real-feeling people on the screen has always been something rare and not to be taken for granted.
William Hurt, who seems to do a movie every 5 years, unfortunately has a small, thankless role as an alcohol counselor.The script is well-written, and the film is a lot more character-driven than ones of recent years.
A lot of the people in the packed theatre where I saw it apparently expected that other film too; they seemed disappointed when they'd left - they'd probably been expecting yer basic escalating violence, with us cheering for Jackson as the good guy and Affleck as the bad.
One character's next move to destroy the other makes compelling viewing, and we can actually feel some sympathy for them, as we see both their emotional and compassionate side.The story flows well as we are drawn into Banek and Gipson's desire to cause pain and hurt, not giving any thought to others who maybe affected by what they are doing.
Enjoyed the great acting of Ben Affleck,(Gavin Banek) along with an outstanding performance by Samuel L.
So it's not too surprising when a fender-bender on New York's FDR Drive brings into conflict a hot-shot young lawyer trying to keep his law firm out of serious trouble (surprisingly well portrayed by Ben Affleck) and an alcoholic struggling to keep in touch with his estranged wife and two sons (Samuel L Jackson as a more conventional character than usual).
Along the way, Sydney Pollack, who has himself directed a movie exposing the hypocrisy of the legal profession ("The Firm"), is on the mark as the head of the law firm and the father-in-law of Affleck's character, but first-rate actors like William Hurt and Toni Collette are only given bit roles.
Whilst Affleck and Jackson are perfectly cast as the lawyer losing sight of his morals and a desperate recovering alcoholic who seems to be fighting the whole world at once, the film never brings either to life.
Basically, I share the opinion of a local newspaper in my town: for a Hollywood movie to tell a story about two very real people, two all the more everyday-people as their lives and consciences are neither pure nor desperately soiled, AND getting through it quite decntly - well, that's something.I also will agree on a couple of things said by mattymatt4ever (now that's a long screen-name to type): Jackson is just a-ma-zing, maybe I've never seen him that good, because it's so far from his accustomed turf.
it means you suddenly have a situation; and it's just such a situation that is explored by director Roger Michell in `Changing Lanes,' a tension filled drama starring Ben Affleck and Samuel L.
This was a pretty good movie about the chain reaction that occurs between two men (Ben Affleck and Samuel L.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsAt first glance of Changing Lanes,it looks set to be a Duel-esque road chase movie,with a criminally insane Samuel L.
Jackson chasing Ben Affleck's lead character until the inevitable end showdown.And,to a degree,it is.But,to the surprise of the viewer,this is not the central driving force of the film.The movie spends most of its time doing a really good,and to be honest,downright exceptional job of developing the two main characters.Jackson is not simply a crazy man,hell-bent on killing Affleck over a minor fender-bender,but a real person,totally contrary to the viewers pre-conceptions of the film.We learn why he is mad at Affleck,and what he has that he can use to make Affleck's life hell.Aside from the characters,the movie also ends in an unexpected and very peculiar way.All this,however,comes at the expense of the story,which in turn,loses focus and narrative,making the viewer become too consumed with one thing when they were really expecting more of the other.Worth seeing,but really as a break-from-the-norm as opposed to what you might otherwise have payed to see.***.
The movie is about a half hour too long and is crammed fill with Hollywood Character Traits - Sam Jackson is the recovering alcoholic who's just trying to be a better Dad to his kids, and so and so forth, boo-hoo, cry me a river.
The two main characters Gavin Banek (Affleck) and Doyle Gibson (Jackson) are both, deep inside, good people; but when they're put to fight each other, they seem to have no limits to get what they want and they become authentic criminals.The movie shows two very different men: the successful young lawyer and the almost-broke guy in his 40's.
Jackson and Ben Affleck are both good actors and their performances in "Changing Lanes" are not disappointing at all.
I also liked that you could agree with the point of view of both characters, Sam Jackson and Ben Affleck, in a way they were both right and both wrong.
Up until its bogus everything-must-go ending (insanely belying the movie's honest grapple beforehand with the impossibility of avoiding selling out), CHANGING LANES brings you back to gritty, downbound dramas of ethics circa late-seventies--no-exit pictures like Ulu Grosbard's STRAIGHT TIME and Sidney Lumet's PRINCE OF THE CITY.
It starts as an almost abstract fantasia on the differences between two Americans: a white guy (Ben Affleck) who lives in a glass tower of a law office with fake Alex Katzes on the world; at the end of a hard day he comes home to Amanda Peet and a present--his father-in-law's old forty-foot yacht, thrown him as a bonus.
White and Black collide, literally, on the FDR Drive, and the rest of the movie Aristotelianly tracks their crosses and double-crosses and triple-crosses in the course of a single wearying, life-wrecking day.Unlike the "issue" TV CHANGING LANES sometimes feels like, the work of the screenwriters, Chap Taylor and Michael Tolkin (one suspects Tolkin rewrote the younger writer) has a feeling of uncanny end-of-nineties accuracy--unsteady fat cats feeling their cooked books coming home to roost, and have-nots getting steadily angrier at their have-notness.
This is a revealing tale of two souls with anger building with each scene and not only with each other but with themselves as well.The film takes time in showing what the two leads- Ben Affleck as a wall street lawyer on the verge of making partner and Samuel L.
But it goes a little deeper than you'd expect than that, which is just one of the film's sweet surprises.Hollywood needs to make more movies like this where formulas aren't pumped into situations that clearly can go on interesting routes and turns, and give the cast and crew space to expand on ideas which better the movie.
The resultant game of cat-and-mouse, which could so easily have devolved into a cheap, tawdry melodrama of violence and revenge, instead achieves surprising moments of thought provoking depth and insight.`Changing Lanes' is, indeed, that rarity among American films: a drama more concerned with issues and ideas than with cheap thrills and emotional exploitation.
The underlying cynical subtext is, of course, that, in the corporate business world, all morality is relative, a fact Banek, in particular, is ultimately forced to face up to - and, by extension, to act upon.Although it does seem to strain a bit to make its point every now and then - employing overemphasis when subtlety is what is really called for - the film boasts a number of beautiful and haunting moments such as when the director, Roger Michell, intercuts between a quiet, but highly charged and revelatory conversation Gibson has with his longsuffering wife and a scene of Banek seeking surcease from his guilt in a quiet confessional.
Changing Lanes is a good movie with a well developed plot and a great cast.
There are far too many slow moments with heavy dialogue, it needed more car chase's and suspenseful parts, it never truly delivers on its potential.Though it may suffer from predictability, Changing Lanes is still an enjoyable ride that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good drama or thriller, just do not go out of your way to see it.
The scenes in which the leads share screen time are very effective.The story is slow-paced but this works in the film's favour, building up a realistic picture of life in New York and carefully developing the characters along the way.
The story of what happens one day in New York when a young lawyer (Ben Affleck) and a businessman (Sam Jackson) share a small automobile accident on F.D.R. Drive and their mutual road rage escalates into a feud.What I find interesting is that comments on this film tend to be regarding which side to take, with some saying Jackson is "vile" or Affleck is "selfish".
Jackson's point of view are about meeting the standard, not having that next drink, showing his family he is worth having back.The choices for Ben Affleck revolve around ethics, partnership, revenge and the Manhattan moral world that requires things done because they must be done.
Jackson and I thought Ben Affleck was a bit of a loser, he cries again a few times in this movie, but in the end, when he stood up against his father in law, he did a good job and I sympathized a bit with him too.
That somebody is good ol' Affleck who leaves the scene of their accident saying the ominous words "Better Luck next time!" What makes this movie work is the supreme performances by the entire cast.
I don't think Affleck is a very versatile actor, but he is VERY good in this film although parts of his character are quite similar to the guy he plays in The Sum of All Fears but how much more powerful does he come across here!
It also has the thrill of seeing Samuel L Jackson go ballistic (and who does it better?) and Ben Affleck *finally* plays a character who deserves to be socked in the nose as much as any right-thinking heterosexual male wants to sock Ben Affleck in the nose.The plot of the film is thus: down-on-his-luck insurance salesman Doyle Gipson (Jackson) and self-centered yuppie lawyer Gavin Banek (Affleck) crash into each other while both are on the way to court.
And for the first time in eight years, Jackson wears a wig that looks like something that might actually grow from a human head (those of us who have seen "The Red Violin" know Jackson's real hair is nowhere near that thick or dark).The film does stretch credibility with the war of attrition and the fact that Gavin waits until he is almost thirty to ask himself if he is a good person (most of us started asking ourselves that at a much earlier age).But still, this is one of the most thoughtful movies I have seen in years, and certainly the best film of 2002 I have seen thus far (I haven't seen "Minority Report", "Insomnia" or "Road to Perdition" yet, but I hope to soon).
Though the film is not without it's extreme bits of behavior & action that aren't entirely credible (Ben Affleck's character literally goes straight from Catholic confessional into his most heinously immoral act in the entire story.
It is refreshing to come across a major American release that tells an involving story about people caught in a sudden moral dilemma and then follows through with a fairly reasonable facsimile to human behavior if not a totally realistic solution to the plot's initial set up.A minor fender bender on NY City's FDR Drive starts a tumultuous chain of events involving a young up and coming attorney on his way to court to wrap up a less than honest estate settlement and a harried father on his way to the same courthouse to battle for custody rights of his children.
If one can get past the overly schematic script then this film works fairly well as a modern day story of deceit, greed and ultimately (although not very convincingly) of redemption.Director Roger Michell, whose last project was the entertaining romantic comedy NOTTING HILL, does a complete turn-around here, giving the viewer a harsh, overcast look to the city (albeit effectively photographed by Salvatore Totino) and keeping the audience fully involved for the nearly hour and forty minute running time.
His Gavin Banek (who thinks up these names?!) is a real person, both attractive and vulnerable, and watching Affleck with all his human foibles encountering each situation is a revelation; this movie puts him on the map as a first class film actor.
Jackson continues with his crazy character roles like the way he did with Pulp Fiction, Die Hard 3, The Caveman's Valentine.When Wall Street lawyer Gavin Banek (Ben Affleck) ends up in a mild car accident with former alcoholic Derek Gipson (Samuel L.
So what happens is, Gavin and Derek mess with each other in life threatening situations until they can come to a deal for Gavin to get the file back which is like a big battle considering the movie takes place through the course of one long day.Ben Affleck (Chasing Amy, Stolen Summer), Samuel L.
I rate the choice of scripts as better than what B.A. has been doing lately but as for Samuel Jackson, his track record of pretty darn good movies makes me wonder what he was thinking when he accepted this.Good points: Amanda Peet as the creepy rich wife of B.A. and Sydney Pollack as his creepy boss/father in law..
This is the moral decision Gavin Banek (Ben Affleck) is faced with when his car collides with Doyle Gibson's (Samuel L.
The way they mix, almost like a DJ, from Affleck's character to Jacksons shows how the choices each man makes causes each event.
Changing Lanes is one of Affleck's best performances to date, and is a movie that will go unappreciated for the spectacular film is it.
But the light at the end of the tunnel is 'Changing Lanes'.The film is a weaving of montages of two characters: Gavin Banek (played by Ben Affleck) and Doyle Gipson (played by Samuel L.
And 'Changing Lanes' is the way we handle the things we can control, either in a good way or a bad way, and how this control will impact those around us.Jackson plays a father who is trying desperately to regain his family, which is a refreshing difference from the "destructive black man" seen on tv and films today.
|
tt0094347
|
The Year My Voice Broke
|
In the 1960s, Danny (Noah Taylor), a thin, socially awkward adolescent, falls in love with his best friend Freya (Loene Carmen) in rural New South Wales, Australia. Unfortunately, she is attracted to Trevor (Ben Mendelsohn), a high school rugby star, larrikin and petty criminal who helps Danny with the school bullies. Shortly after sleeping with Freya at the abandoned house, Trevor steals a car for a joyride and is arrested and sent to juvenile detention; it is while he is away that Freya reveals to Danny that she is pregnant. Danny offers to marry her and claim that the child is his, but Freya refuses, saying that she does not want to marry anyone. Meanwhile, intrigued by a locket left to Freya by an elderly friend of theirs who recently died -engraved "SEA"- Danny begins to investigate the town's past, and discovers a lone cross in the cemetery bearing those initials, belonging to a "Sara Elizabeth Amery," who died days after Freya was born. Through inquiries with his parents, Danny learns that Sara was something of the town prostitute years ago, and that she was Freya's biological mother, who died trying to give birth by herself at the abandoned house.
Meanwhile, Trevor breaks out of detention, steals another car, and severely wounds a store clerk during an armed robbery. Trevor returns to town long enough to reunite with Freya at the abandoned house, and learn that she is pregnant. The police arrive at Trevor's hiding place, but Danny warns him, and Trevor is able to escape. The police then run his car off the road during the course of the pursuit, and Trevor dies the next day. Freya disappears, and later suffers a miscarriage and hypothermia until Danny finds her (at the abandoned house) and takes her to the hospital. Hesitantly, Danny reveals the identity of Freya's mother to her. Realising the stigma now hanging over her, Freya decides to leave on the night train for the city. At the station, Danny gives her his life's savings to support herself and sees her off - promising their friendship to one another and to keep in touch. Later Danny travels to their favourite hangout spot and carves Freya's, Trevor's, and his name into a rock, as his adult self informs the audience that he never saw Freya again.
The film is a series of interconnected segments narrated by Danny who recollects how he and Freya grew apart over the course of one year. Danny's history continues in the 1991 film Flirting.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Australia seems to have an incredible knack for turning out beautiful films about real life situations fraught with meaning and mystery.
Like the Peter Weir classic _Picnic at Hanging Rock_, the landscape seems to come alive on the screen, and the sense of Australia's isolation does as well.What I especially liked is that many of us (myself included) can empathize with Danny, but he's not perfect.
Trevor also embodies the kinds of guys that inexplicably attract strong-willed women like Freya.
Despite the fact that one might not like his character, he's shown to have genuine feelings for Freya, and to be somewhat understanding of Danny.
The major strength of the film is that the characters are fully fleshed out, with their own virtues and vices.Instead of watching the cruddy teen movies that Hollywood churns out nowadays, give this one a try..
"The Year My Voice Broke" is one of those unknown, quintessential diamond-in-the-rough films that can't seem to find its way into the DVD market, but breaths Criterion throughout the entire viewing.
The daring, honest, and descriptive story of a young boy, his love for this older girl, and the tribulations of growing up in a small town are merely scratching the surface to what this film has to offer.
It speaks, and pays homage, to those classic films from the late 40s, early 50s by creating a town with character, mythology, and individuality.
One could argue that the town in which this film takes place is our fourth character, behind Danny, Freya, and Trevor – but perhaps this enthusiast is getting ahead of himself.
Watching this import on a used VHS, the picture was grainy, the player made noise, and the sound was utterly destructive – yet the heart of this film oozed from the screen.
The power of the characters, the detail of our story, and the truth in director/screenwriter John Duigan's words went from having meaning in a 1987 film (that was supposed to take place in 1962) to creating a story that didn't feel dated or old watching it today, at the end of 2009.
That is the legacy of "The Year My Voice Broke", the raw emotion harassed in this film continues to be relevant today – perhaps even more.
As Hollywood uses every CGI possible to recreate the same effect, all one needs to do is look back at films that used the old-fashioned method
great actors, a daring script, and a background that could knock your socks off.To applaud this film, one would need to pat the back of a very young, a very talented, Noah Taylor.
Noah Taylor, known to me as Technical Support in "Vanilla Sky", succeeded gracefully and with the power of most of our top paid American stars.
His ability to show us his unconditional love for Freya, his quizzical hatred for Trevor, as well as his sleuthing skills proved that this kid was ready for anything.
Freya, played by Loene Coleman, a newbie to the screen, was enchanting as the love interest.
The same can be said for Trevor, played by Ben Mendelsohn, who's diabolical, nearly irritating, laugh created a character all his own.
To demonstrate the intensity of these actors, watch closely the scene in which they spend the night in the "haunted" house near the railroad tracks.
Each one has a motive, each actor/character delivers their emotion, and with each line the scene gets more and more powerful.
I wasn't expecting this with children so young.With these three dominate characters; one may ask what else would be needed for an independent film to succeed?
Throughout the film, our characters are continually building their moments via smaller lives within the town.
We learn about Danny's passion for the black arts, that Trevor knows the police firsthand, and that Freya's unknown secret keeps the town at bay.
Without the closeness of this town, "The Year My Voice Broke" wouldn't have worked.
If filmed in a bigger city, the intimate feeling of a protective yet destructive town would have floundered.
The town had to be a character in this film.
Without Noah Taylor, Loene Coleman, or Ben Mendelsohn, this film would have failed.
Director Duigan, if I haven't already drooled over him enough, understood this film, wrote a genuine story, and built a cinematic triumph.
Alas, this film has been forgotten, but look closely at the cinematography, the lavish landscapes, the devotion of our characters, the above mentioned town – these all could not have been accomplished without a passionate eye.
I applaud Duigan for his talent and ability to transform this 1980s film into a universally emotional and exciting moment of cinema.Overall, I have said enough.
It was a rough couple of prior films, but "The Year My Voice Broke" provided that classic niche.
Buy a VHS player and get a copy of this movie, you will not be disappointed.Grade: **** 1/2 out of *****.
The Year My Voice Broke is the finest film to come from Australia.The acting is wonderful, the scenery is glorious, the cinematography superb, and everything clicks to make for a very moving story.
The young actors are very natural in their approach to acting and one feels they are very real people who are going through this strange change in life through which all must pass.
The talented John Duigan (perhaps best known for directing WIDE SARGASSO SEA (1993), based on the novel by Jean Rhys) wrote and directed this wonderful film about kids growing up in New South Wales, Australia, in 1962.
Four years later, with the same boy in the lead, Duigan directed its sequel, FLIRTING (1991).
The film was made in the small town of Braidwood, which apart from its cinema looks like something from 1862 rather than 1962, so things clearly didn't change much in those days in the area they call the 'Tableland'.
Seventeen year-old Loene Carmen is so fresh and real as the girl Freya Olson, but also so convincingly sad and tragic in the light of the events which ensue.
The boy Danny is played by Noah Taylor.
He languishes with hopeless love as an onlooker to the tragic first romance of his childhood friend, Freya, who being older than him is 'out of his league' romantically.
Ben Mendelsohn plays an older boy with a maniacal laugh who steals Freya's heart but who turns out to be mentally unbalanced, presumably with incipient schizophrenic.
John Duigan's The Year My Voice Broke stands out from other coming of age films because of its simple honesty and natural performances.
Gorgeously photographed in Braidwood, New South Wales, Australia, the film avoids the usual "rites of passage" cliches and makes real the heartbreak of awakening sexuality and feeling alone.
Set in 1962, Danny Embling (Noah Taylor) is a sensitive, scrawny 15-year old who is obsessed with his childhood friend, 16-year old Freya Olson (Leona Carmen).
Both teens feel isolated, Danny from the macho attitudes of his schoolmates and Freya because of the truth she senses about her mother.
Freya is increasingly attracted to Trevor (Ben Mendelsohn), a rugby player who is given to petty crime.
Though the mood grows dark, Duigan uses humor to lighten things up when Danny attempts to hypnotize Freya into loving him, and when the boy tries mental telepathy to prevent Freya from kissing Trevor.
Danny's loneliness is painfully evident when he tags along with Freya and Trevor on a date and has to endure the agony of watching them make love at a "haunted house".
This house plays a significant part in Danny, Freya, and Trevor's relationship and in the film's dramatic climax.
Duigan ties his story to the dark secret of the town whose discovery will change the lives of the characters forever and leave you reflecting on the pain of growing up..
Australian classic - Growing up in the real Australia.
This film is a genuine and moving portrayal of growing up in Australia.
For people wanting to see the 'real' Australia, rather than the Crocodile Dundee myths, this movie is a classic.Definitely a film for the sentimental thinker.
Like most Australian movies, it lacks the big-budget shoot em up special effect American style.
It made quite an impression in Australia when released, but was less successful overseas.The sequel of this movie, "Flirting", starred Nicole Kidman and Thandie Newton, who played a cameo in "Interview with the Vampire" opposite Tom Cruise..
This movie is the best film I've ever seen in my life.
A coming of age story, this movie is set against the early sixties and what it was like growing up as a teen, in Australia, it tells a story of two teenagers trying to find themselves and eventually each other during one year.
The laughter and tears makes this movie a classic, and will be adored by teens for years to come.
Danny and Fay, are the best characters and best teenagers you would ever want to know, and have as friends.
With beautiful shots, love scenes, friendships, and just being a teen, this film is my favorite, and will stay my favorite for many years to come, and my voice has already broken..
The Year My Voice Broke is basically about three young kids growing up in a small, desolate town in Australia during the 1960s.
The main character and narrator is Danny.
Danny is like Lucas in that he is in love with his childhood friend, the only girl who seems to understand and appreciate him.
But 'The Year My Voice Broke' deals with much more adult situations than simply being a matter of 'puppy love,' and thus some of the results are tragic.
Mixed feelings swell inside a scrawny, timid teenager as he watches his lifelong crush fall in love with a muscular jock in this Australian drama starring Noah Taylor.
From the outset, 'The Year My Voice Broke' might sound like just another love triangle tale, but the character dynamics are rich and complex.
Taylor hates the jock (played by Ben Mendelsohn) as he represents everything he is not and because he is able to get the girl (played by Loene Carmen).
Mendelsohn, however, believes Taylor to be his closest male friend, not thinking twice about rescuing him from bullies and obliviously telling him how much he fancies Carmen.
Then there is Carmen, who seems to know that Taylor like-likes her, but yet does not consider his feelings when making out in front of him.
In particular, we never see what Taylor sees in Carmen, who between her crooked teeth and tomboyish mannerisms is anything but a conventional love interest, but Taylor's performance is so solid that we believe his affection even if we do not understand it.
Australian screenwriter, producer and director John Duigan's eight feature film which he wrote, is loosely based on his own experiences and is the first part of a planned trilogy which was succeeded by "Flirting" (1991).
It tells the story about an adolescent student named Danny Embling who lives in a small town at a hotel which is managed by his father and mother.
Danny spends most of his time with his friend named Freya who lives with her adoptive parents and her stepsister named Gail and is seriously infatuated with her, but when Freya is introduced to the local rebel named Trevor Leishman he has to find new ways to gain her affection.Subtly and acutely directed by Australian filmmaker John Duigan, this finely tuned fictional tale which is narrated by one of the main characters and from multiple viewpoints, draws a memorable portrayal of a pivotal year in the lives of three Australian misfits who are connected by their alienation.
While notable for it's naturalistic and distinct milieu depictions, sterling cinematography by Australian cinematographer Geoff Burton and production design and costume design by production designer and costume designer Roger Ford, this narrative-driven, conversational and dramatic story which examines themes like identity, friendship and the rites of passage and where a girl is drawn towards the Australian landscape and an amorous boy begins studying hypnotism, depicts three dense and interrelated studies of character and contains a great and timely score by composer Christine Woodruff.This literary, romantic and atmospheric coming-of-age film from the late 1980s which is set during a summer in the early 1960s in a country town in the Tablelands of New South Wales in Australian and where a triangle drama arises between a musician, an orphan and a wild football player, is impelled and reinforced by it's cogent narrative structure, substantial character development, subtle continuity, endearing characters, spiritual undertones and the wonderful acting performances by Australian actors Noah Tylor, Ben Mendelsohn and Australian actresses Loene Carmen and Lynnette Curran.
A rejuvenating, admirable and majestic drama from the later period of the Australian New Wave which gained, among other awards, the AFI Award for Best Film, Best Direction John Duigan and Best Supporting Actor Ben Mendelsohn at the 29th Australian Film Institute Awards in 1987..
This 1987 film written and directed by John Duigan and starring the ingenious Noah Taylor is a undiscovered gem.
Set in 1952 in rural Australia the story centers around Danny Embling, a likeable and thoughtful boy outcast by his peers.
He is in love with his best friend Freyia,and it is their turbulent relationship that is the heart of the story.
When Freyia falls in love with Trevor, a hyper-active and troubled boy, the three struggle with their emerging feelings and the life altering decisions that they must make.
Although all the performances are commendable,none so much as Noah Taylor's heartfelt portrayal of our bumbling hero.
This is a wonderful film that everyone, art film buff to action fan,from 14 to 94 should see for the sweet story and natural performances especially from the wonderful Noah Taylor..
A reluctant nerd approaching the awkward end of adolescence finds his intellectual pursuits in fierce conflict with his awakening lust for a childhood friend from the wrong side of the tracks, who meanwhile is infatuated with a kindred rebel spirit more her own age.The subsequent rite of passage doesn't stray too far from the patented coming-of-age blueprint (laughter leading to tragedy leading to bittersweet wisdom), but writer-director John Duigan's affectionate screenplay avoids falling into any sentimental traps, and the isolated Australian outback setting recalls some of the melancholy nostalgia of 'The Last Picture Show'.
If not much else the film is a welcome throwback to a time when Australian movie-making meant well-crafted, unpretentious entertainment, before the Down Under film industry devolved to the level of 'Crocodile Dundee'..
Coming of age films aren't exactly new to cinema.
It's a subject that has been revisited in every generation, ever since James Dean helped Hollywood discover a new species – the teenager.Although 1955's "Rebel Without a Cause" probably wasn't top-of-mind when John Duigan made "The Year My Voice Broke" in 1987, the alienation, emotional confusion and search for identity felt by many teenagers provides a common theme even if separated by three decades, different stories and different continents.With its nostalgic narration, slow pans of the landscape and soaring strings on the soundtrack, "The Year My Voice Broke" could have been cloying; instead it is captivating.
It gets you in and keeps you there thanks to inspired casting, an unusual setting, and a seductive mood – thanks in no small part to those soaring strings.The story revolves around three teenagers living in an Australian country town in 1962, Danny Embling, Freya Olsen and Trevor Leishman, played by Noah Taylor, Leone Carmen and Ben Mendleson.Danny narrates the story.
He is in love with Freya, a girl who has lived her whole life in the town, but is treated as an outsider by many of the townspeople.
Freya sees Danny as a friend, but has stronger feelings for the rebellious Trevor.
Eventually Trevor gets into trouble with the law – and also gets Freya into trouble – a tough situation for a girl in a country town in 1962.
Danny discovers the reason why Freya is treated as an outsider, and Trevor's wildness and criminal tendencies cause tragedy.
Freya departs never to return, leaving Danny with memories of a love that was never returned.This poignant film shows Duigan's understanding of his teenage characters; their lack of sophistication, their loyalties, the conflicts with their peers, and the pressures they face in a small town.However, the film really hangs on Leone Carmen's performance.
While Nicole Kidman is the epitome of a movie star, Leone Carmen projects an almost opposite quality.
Attractive, but with not so perfect teeth and hair she is refreshingly natural; almost too real, she gives life to the role of the tomboy developing into a woman who does not quite fit in.Noah Taylor shines as the awkward 15-year old who knows that he will never win the girl he is obsessed with; he looks unhappy in just about every scene and we feel his pain.
Ben Mendelsohn's Trevor, the catalyst for much of the action, is an unappealing youth with a reckless streak.
Freya is drawn to Trevor's sense of danger.
But Mendelsohn overdoes Trevor's mannerism, especially the affected laugh – less would have delivered more as it does in his calmer scenes.Vaughan Williams' "The Lark Ascending" is one of the most emotive pieces of music ever composed.
Originally written for the concert hall, it was an inspired choice for the film – it's really Danny's theme, capturing his anguish and, as the music swells and soars, his eventual acceptance of things he can't control.This movie has a unique quality.
Like all movies that really matter, it stays with you..
Being the biggest Noah Taylor fan, bought it off ebay, unsure what to expect, as I am usually unwilling to just purchase movies I've never seen.
The girl that falls for the dumb jock instead of the guy she SHOULD have fell for, and Noah Taylor is a genius portrayal of the "boy next door." And if you're a Nicole Kidman fan, she's in the sequel, so this would give you a little background on Danny for "Flirting.".
|
tt0042952
|
Shadow on the Wall
|
Child Susan Starrling (Gigi Perreau) is the sole witness to a killing, but the shock causes her to suffer amnesia about the event. Her father David (Zachary Scott) is convicted of first degree murder of his wife. However, psychiatrist Caroline Cranford (Nancy Davis) is convinced she can cure the young girl and begins to suspect that another person is guilty.
That person is Dell Faring (Ann Sothern), who became incensed after brother-in-law David discovered that while he was away serving his country, wife Celia (Kristine Miller) was having an affair with Dell's fiance, Crane Weymouth. A resentment already existed between the sisters because Dell felt this was not the first time Celia had selfishly taken something from her. Celia knocked David unconscious during a quarrel over her infidelity. Dell then arrived, picked up a gun David brought home from the war and killed her sister with it. With no memory of what happened, David can only assume he was the one who shot Celia, so he accepts the jury's verdict and the judge's sentence that he be put to death.
Susan, who saw the murder from the door but repressed the memory, is haunted by the image of a shadow on the wall. A distraught Dell, realizing that Dr. Cranford is trying to restore the girl's memory, attempts to murder the child. When she fails, she adopts Susan instead. Dell casts a shadow on the wall that triggers Susan's memory.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
I'm convinced that movies that have SHADOW in the title have a better than average chance of being good flicks.
Ann Sothern turning in a surprising performance, always the good girl in movies, here the director plays on that, to create a character whose actions becomes ever more...
with her fall.A movie that ultimately revolves around four women as central characters, would hardly seem to fit the noirish mold, but this film is far less lifetime network and far more grim, and gritty.
The only foray into the the world of Noir by its director Pat Jackson, and the only script ever done by its writer Hannah Lees, the movie is deserving of far more recognition than its received.
MGM Playing Catch Up. Unheralded little thriller with a number of nice touches.
Little Gigi Perreau (Susan) has the pivotal role and comes through beautifully.
The movie scared the heck out of me as a boy, mainly because I was viewing the menace through the eyes of my peer, little Susan.
Nancy Davis Reagan-- perhaps surprisingly for many viewers-- is very persuasive as the doctor helping Susan to recover.Looks like this was another B-movie from MGM's Dore Schary period when he was refashioning the studio's star-studded image.
The under-rated Scott and Sothern are certainly playing against type, he as a kind-hearted father, she as a cold-hearted murderess.
In terms of actual screen time, it's probably Nancy Davis's movie, though she was likely too unknown to get star billing.
Note Pike's (John McIntire) shadow engulfing Dell (Sothern) at movie's end indicating the retribution to come; the blurry special effects mirroring little Susan's traumatized mental state; the suggestive hair-drier closing over Dell's head like an electrocution helmet; the great noirish shot of Dell framed against ominous skyscrapers suggesting dark powers looming over Susan.
Anyway, this all adds up to a very effective little thriller, proving that even though late to the party, MGM could B- movie with the best of them..
Ray June was the cinematographer, and his deep focus work makes the film worth seeing all by itself.
Zachary Scott, for a change, plays the typically confused noir male, and Ann Sothern, showing the force of period style, switches from Maisie to a somewhat tormented femme fatale.
A young girl(Gigi Perreau) becomes traumatized after she witnesses the accidental killing of her stepmother(Kristine Miller).
Well-acted film noir showcases the dramatic talents of the exceptionally gifted actress Ann Sothern, who was known primarily for her 'light' roles in films like MAISIE.
I saw this movie years ago when I was a little girl.
Although I was young, I remember it in detail and consider it to be one of the best movies I've ever seen.
A young girl(Gigi Perreau)suffers amnesia after witnessing her stepmother's murder.
Ann Southern, straying from her comedic roles, has trouble hiding her guilt and even thinks of causing harm to the little girl to keep her quiet.Fast moving film-noir also starring John McIntire and Nancy Davis.
Nancy Davis (Reagan) was solidas the psychiatrist trying to help little Susan (Gigi Perreau in a very good performance) remember a horrible event which she hadwitnessed.
Zachary Scott equals film noir, right?
The movie then turns into a potboiler about child psychiatry and the star of the film becomes Gigi Perreau.Had never seen or heard of this picture until it was on TCM the other evening and I thought what a shame to squander the talents of Zachary Scott and Ann Sothern in such a tepid melodrama.
Instead, I got Nancy Davis doggedly trying to probe the mind of a six-year old.I suppose it was interesting enough for a rating of six and all concerned did a good job in the acting department, but the storyline bordered on tedium for prolonged stretches, relieved only by Ann Sothern's scenes.
Containing Two of the Tropes Familiar to Film-Noir (not counting shadows), Amnesia and Psychiatry/Psychology, this Off-Beat Little Movie is Big on Suspense and Contains an Unusual Lead Role for a Child.Reminding of Val Lewton, the Film has an Ethereal Quality that gives it quite an Edge.
The Cast is Better than Average with Zachary Scott and Ann Sothern Playing Against Type and Nancy Davis giving a Low-Key, Restrained Good Turn as a Psychiatrist that Works Fine for the Film.The Child Actress Gigi Perreau is in Many Scenes and Holds more than Her Own with a Performance that is Spot On as the Disturbed and Haunted Little Girl.
The Movie has Style with a Number of Ominous Scenes and Flourishes that Enhance the Mood.A Definite Film-Noir with MGM Finally Deciding to Slum and Forego the Haudy Studio Persona, Finding Itself Forced to Play the B-Movie Game by 1950 with Changing Post-War Audience Expectations.
But the rest of the film centers on their daughter, who has witnessed but repressed the scene, and her psychologist, Nancy Davis (later Reagan).
The movie will probably keep your attention (it's blessedly short) but it's hard to work up much affection for a vehicle that so totally miscasts, and wastes, Ann Sothern..
FOLKS, please stop abusing the term "film noir." This flick is a very mundane B movie, with a ridiculous plot.The actors are adequate, certainly, but this film is little more than a "filler." Scott, Southern and Davis are fine, considering the material with which they are working.The first twenty minutes are promising, but the film quickly falls apart, once the plot is centered on the young girl.It's great to have access to these obscure movies on TCM.
Shadow on the Wall is directed by Pat Jackson and adapted to screenplay by William Ludwig from the story "Death in the Doll's House" written by Lawrence P.
It stars Ann Sothern, Zachary Scott, Nancy Davis, Giggi Perreau and John McIntire.
Story centers on a young child called Susan Starrling (Perreau), who after witnessing the murder of her step-mother, succumbs to amnesia.
Can the real killer ensure that that isn't the case?It's a personal thing of course, but I have always found there to be something off kilter about doll's houses, and here we are greeted to an opening shot of one, superbly accompanied by Previn's ominous music, it's a perfect mood setter as to what is to come.
The main building of the piece is not the doll's house, but that of the hospital where Susan is receiving treatment, and at night photographer Ray June perfectly sets it up for peril and dastardly deeds.
Honours go to Perreau, who is never once annoying, turning in an involving performance that has us firmly involved in her world, whilst Davis (the future First Lady Reagan) is very understated, where she gets a well written female character whose not relying on male dominance to expand the part.
David (Zachary Scott) is married to a no-good cheat, Celia.
In the meantime, Celia's sister, Dell (Ann Sothern) arrives and confronts Celia for stealing her fiancé.
David's been sent to death row and the only glitch in Dell's plan is that David's young daughter (Gigi Perreau) might have witnessed the killing and Dell needs to be certain she won't talk.
While the young girl is too traumatized to fully recall the events, she could remember through the course of therapy...and it could be Dell on death row instead!
So Dell can either wait and hope the child cannot remember or kill her to make certain!This is an unusual film due to the casting.
This is NOT a complaint, but seeing Ann Sothern playing a killer is interesting, as she usually played nice, sweet folks like her Maisie character from the 1940s.
At first, you can understand her motivation in killing her sister...but to see her attempting to murder an innocent child...that is a dark and twisted character!
Additionally, this is one of the few films I've seen where Nancy David (Reagan) is given a chance to really act and she was quite nice as the child psychiatrist, Caroline.
In general, film noir pictures were done by other studios and MGM preferred making 'nice' movies...but here they've created a rather hard-hearted film!
Not Zachary Scott's best film.
A child (Gigi Perreau) witnesses the murder of her soon-to-be step-mother but "represses" the memory until a psychiatrist at a children's hospital (Nancy Davis) succeeds in bringing out what really happened that night.
The dead about-to-be step-mother, engaged to the father of the child (Zachary Scott) was romantically involved with her sister's (Ann Sothern) fiancé.
The shadow on the wall is a nice touch as is the performance of Gigi Perreau, but Sothern makes something considerably less than the cold-blooded murderer she's supposed to play, although she isn't too bad in her attempts to silence the girl for good that take place within the confines of the children's hospital.
As for Zachary Scott, he's been in a few better films than this one..
Best known for starring in the classic sitcoms "Private Secretary" and "The Ann Sothern Show", Sothern delivers a dynamic dramatic performance in this suspenseful thriller.
Ann plays a woman who discovers that her sister is having an affair with her husband-to-be.
Sothern confronts the sister, accidentally kills her, then flees the scene, allowing her brother-in-law to take the rap.
The plot thickens, however, when it is discovered that Sothern's traumatized young niece witnessed the dreadful event, and the child is starting to regain her memory.
A young husband comes home only to discover her second wife has been having an affair behind his back with her own sister's boyfriend.
David Starrling has entrusted his young daughter, Susan, by a previous marriage to Celia, a beautiful and sophisticated woman, who is more preoccupied in two timing the absent husband than caring for the girl.
When she gets custody of the girl, wants her to come stay in her country place, Susan, who has suffered a great deal, suddenly sees a familiar shadow projected on the wall and screams for help, as the mystery is solved.Pat Jackson, a British director, got an fine screen play from William Ludwig, which he turned into a satisfying thriller.
He got helped along the way by the interesting music score Andre Previn composed and the cinematography by Ray June, with its dark shadows.
The movie holds the viewer in a certain suspense, even when the culprit is known from the start.Ann Sothern, who for some reason bears an uncanny resemblance of Agnes Moorehead in this film, has some good dramatic moments; she makes the best out of them.
Sweet Gigi Perreau is seen as Susan, the girl at the center of all the intrigue.
Nancy Davis, who went to be the First Lady of the land, makes an impact as Caroline Canford, the doctor that is able to untangle everything in the young girl's mind.
I remember well as a little girl watching this movie in the sixties and being shocked at the end of it.
If you are looking for the new type of "sixth sense" thriller, then this movie isn't for you.
But, if you like a good time trying to figure out what's going to happen, then "Shadow on the Wall" is not disappointing.
I saw Shadow on the Wall when I was 11 years old as part of a double feature with Annie Get Your Gun. I have never forgotten it.
It is the only movie that I remembered Nancy Reagan being in, and I thought she and Zakery Scot were great and that Gigi Pieureux was marvelous.
I have described this movie to friends many times over the years, and now I look forward to seeing it again at age 71..
The first was Nancy Davis as the psychiatrist talking about the sketch of the Indian doll which little Gigi Perreau* had named "Cupid." At five years of age I assumed that "Cupid" was an Indian spirit that was menacing the girl.
The second was the climax in which the little girl realized that her aunt, Ann Sothern, was the killer(I won't go into details for people who have not yet seen this film, but it's a stunner.) The latter scene practically scared me out of my diapers, as I thought that Sothern was not a human being, but a ghost of some kind.I carried the memories of those two scenes with me for over fifty years.
As it turned out, SHADOW ON THE WALL was not a supernatural tale of menace, but a darn good little suspense story.
Ann Sothern (Dell Faring), Zachary Scott (David Starrling), Joan Davis (Dr Canford), Gigi Perreau (Susan Starrling), Kristine Miller (Celia Starrling), John McIntyre (Pike Ludwell), Tom Helmore (Crane Weymouth), Helen Brown (Miss Burke), Barbara Billingsley (Olga), Marcia Van Dyke (secretary), Anthony Sydes (Bobby), Jimmy Hunt (boy with chocolate milk), Roger Moore (Townsend), George Eldredge (prosecutor), Thomas Browne Henry (judge), Don Haggerty (rescuing physician), John Maxwell (jury foreman), Johnny Indrisano (juror), Pierre Watkin (Dr Hodge), Ruth Lee (nurse).
84 minutes.SYNOPSIS: When a six-year-old child's memory is restored by a psychiatrist, she remembers a puzzling detail about her mother's murder.
COMMENT: Although slow to get going, this unusual "B" from Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer turns out to be an engrossing little film noir.
Perennial heavy Zachary Scott plays the good guy, a victimized innocent, while fluffy Ann Sothern of the light-headed "Maisie" series is the chilling murderess.
Not only are they essential to the plot, but they feature the gorgeous Kristine Miller, whose performance is the best in the movie.
Future First Lady Nancy Reagan is in Shadow On The Wall as a mental health therapist.
Her client is young Gigi Perreau who got the career role of her life as the young girl who saw her stepmother being murdered and her father Zachary Scott going away for the crime.Still Reagan suspects something's not quite right as Perreau fails to recover despite all kinds of treatments, some of which today would never be used.
With dad in jail the closest living and she's not quite a relative is Ann Sothern, victim Kristine Miller's sister.For those used to seeing Ann Sothern in roles like Maisie Revier on the big screen and Susie McNamara on television her portrayal here will be a revelation.
For those who remember The Mask Of Dimitrios this is a totally different Zachary Scott.This one is worth a look..
Gigi Perreau is Susie, a traumatized child in "Shadow on the Wall," a 1950 movie also starring Zachary Scott, Ann Sothern, and Nancy Davis aka our First Lady from 1980-1988.
Zachary Scott is David, who confronts his wife Celia about her affair with her sister's fiancé.
Her angry sister Dell (Sothern) arrives and kills her.
With her father on Death Row, Susie winds up in a hospital being treated by Dr. Canford (Davis), who tries to recover the child's memory of the murder and what she's blocking.Today, I doubt if Dad would be bringing his child an Indian doll, referred to in the movie as a "black Injun doll" that little Susie names Cupid.
I haven't seen many films of Ann Sothern, but apparently she starred in mostly light-hearted, comedic fare.
Nancy Davis takes a good turn as the caring psychiatrist assigned to help the young Susan remember what she saw.
I think the child actress did a great job as the daughter who witnesses her step-mother's murderer, but claims she can't remember anything.I liked some of the imagery used in this film.
There is a nice split-screen effect when young Susan is remembering the shadow on the wall and juxtaposes it with her "Injun" doll.One oddity in the film I noticed is the court scene when the father is being sentenced - the jurors are all men.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, but not until 1973 could women serve on juries in all fifty states.) Also, there is a scene where the step-aunt (aka the murderer) is allowed to sit in a room behind a two-way mirror and observe the psychiatrist's working with Susan.
Also, there is a "bath therapy" where Susan is left ALONE in a treatment room in a bath hammock and almost drowns - again, something that would never happen.My biggest complaint with the movie though is the attempts that the step-aunt/murderer, Dell, takes to murder her young step-niece.
But here, she causes it, accidentally killing her evil sister and allowing innocent brother- in-law Zachary Scott face the chair.
Hodiak's young daughter (Gigi Perreau) saw Sothern's shadow and has had a breakdown.
Along comes future first lady Nancy Davis as a child psychologist who vows to uncover the secrets Perreau has locked up inside her mind.This glossy MGM film noir is interesting in its use of who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist and how the truth plays out.
Perreau is incredible as well, showing great depth as her horror comes and goes, giving quite the adult performance in the fact that this would be quite difficult to understand for a child in the situation, let alone play it out.
Every film I have ever seen her in she is usually the star to watch.
Celia has it all, marriage to a devoted husband David (Zachary Scott) and a sweet step daughter Susan (Gigi Perreau).
David finds out and makes it known to Dell who then comes to Celia's apartment for a showdown.
But there is a witness - Susan, who is in shock and by the help of a caring psychiatrist (Nancy Davis) is being persuaded to remember!!The movie really belongs to the talented Gigi Perreau, she has always had an ethereal aura (she was magical in "Enchantment") and was groomed as a successor to Margaret O'Brien.
While at first she was a happy little girl, most of the movie is set in the trauma ward of a children's hospital.
After asking a little boy to drink it as she thinks it tastes "nasty and bitter" they are both saved when it is accidentally spilt.This is a stylish film noir and Ann proved, once again, that she had what it takes to be a big star.
|
tt0878647
|
The Art of War III: Retribution
|
Agent Neil Shaw (Treach), who has returned to working for the United Nations, assassinates an arms dealer in downtown Los Angeles and also kills a suicide bomber who was there as part of an unrelated plot, but is reprimanded by his superior, Gaines, for his indiscreetness in doing so. Shaw is nonetheless sent on a mission to South Korea, which is a few days away from a peaceful reunion with North Korea, though the process is threatened by North Korean separatists who are rumored to be buying a nuclear weapon from Russian arms dealers. The mission quickly goes wrong when one of the two agents under Shaw's command is spotted and shot dead by a sniper, resulting in a firefight in which Shaw finds a woman named Sun Yi (Sung-Hi Lee) with the arms dealers; he considers her to be out of place, and captures her in order to get answers out of her, though the second agent under Shaw's command is also killed as they leave the scene.
Shaw and his remaining agent, Jason (Warren Derosa) attempt to interrogate Sun Yi, but find that she knows nothing of importance. Shaw then tries to contact Gaines, who has just arrived in South Korea, but men working for the arms dealer intercept and kill Gaines, and plant evidence to frame Shaw for his murder. Shortly afterwards, Kim (Leo Lee), one of the men at the earlier meeting, arrives with several men under his command, leading to a firefight in which Shaw kills two of Kim's men before he, Jason and Sun Yi escape the scene. After getting to a hotel in the local red light district, Shaw concludes, over Jason's objections, that the best course of action is to break into Seoul's United Nations branch and personally appeal to the Secretary-General. That night Shaw and Sun Yi make love, but are interrupted by the arrival of more armed men, who Shaw is forced to kill.
The following day, Shaw and Sun Yi enter the United Nations building in disguise, with Jason providing surveillance. Before they go into the building, however, Sun Yi knowingly gives Jason's location away to some waiting assassins, and while he's ultimately able to fend off their attack, they destroy the equipment in the van, forcing Jason to follow Shaw and Sun Yi into the building. After fighting off the security guards, Shaw and Sun Yi get to the Secretary-General's office, and are surprised to find that Kim is there, along with the Secretary-General, the South Korean ambassador and several guards. Kim reveals that he is actually a Secret Service agent who has been working with the United Nations to track down the arms dealer, who in reality is none other than Sun Yi. On having her cover blown, Sun Yi grabs Shaw's gun and quickly kills everyone in the room except for Shaw and the Secretary-General. This leads to a gunfight in which Shaw and Sun Yi unsuccessfully try to kill each other before Jason enters and distracts Sun Yi long enough for Shaw to incapacitate her.
Disillusioned by the recent events, Shaw tells the Secretary-General that he's leaving the United Nations' employ, this time for good, but she refuses to allow him to do so, saying that he's far too valuable an asset.
|
violence, philosophical
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1441952
|
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
|
Fisheries expert Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) receives an email from financial adviser Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt), seeking advice on a project to bring salmon fishing to the Yemen—a project being bankrolled by a wealthy Yemeni sheikh and supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Alfred dismisses the project as "fundamentally unfeasible" because Yemen cannot provide the necessary environment for salmon. Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister's press secretary Patricia Maxwell (Kristin Scott Thomas) suggests the salmon fishing story to the Prime Minister's office as a positive story to help improve relations between Britain and the Islamic world.
Alfred meets with Harriet to discuss the project, but despite Harriet correcting his misconceptions of the Yemen environment, Alfred is convinced that the project is foolhardy. Alfred's boss, pressured by Patricia, forces Alfred to accept a position on the project. Alfred considers resigning rather than ruin his reputation in the scientific community, but is convinced by his wife that they need his income and pension.
Harriet arranges for Alfred to meet the sheikh (Amr Waked) at his estate in the Scottish Highlands. The sheikh is excited to meet Alfred, the inventor of the "Woolly Jones" fishing fly. While the sheikh acknowledges that the project may sound crazy, he still believes that fishing is a noble pursuit that promotes harmony and requires immense faith.
After his wife accepts a position in Geneva, Alfred devotes himself to the salmon project. Although painfully shy, he enjoys working with Harriet and they begin to make progress. Their enthusiasm is interrupted, however, when Harriet learns that her new boyfriend, British special forces captain Robert Meyers (Tom Mison), is missing in action. Devastated, Harriet withdraws to her apartment. When Alfred visits her, she gets upset, thinking he just wants her to return to work, but then she realizes he's come to comfort her, and the two embrace.
Meanwhile, the sheikh continues his work, despite radicals who accuse him of introducing Western ways to their region. Patricia informs the sheikh that because of opposition to removing salmon from British rivers they will need to use farmed salmon. The sheikh does not believe that salmon bred in captivity will survive and rejects Patricia's offer, ending the British government's involvement in the project. Alfred resigns his government job to continue with the project.
After a confrontation with his wife in which he realizes that their marriage is over and that he is in love with Harriet, Alfred convinces the sheikh to give the farmed salmon a try. As the two are fishing, a Yemeni radical attempts to assassinate the sheikh, who is saved by Alfred casting his fishing line towards the assassin. Soon after, they return to the Yemen, where Harriet and Alfred continue to grow closer. After a moonlight swim, he asks her if there was a "theoretical possibility" of the two of them ending up together. She accepts with a kiss on his cheek, but says she will need some time.
At a press conference in Yemen with the Foreign Secretary, Patricia reunites Harriet and Robert, who survived the antiterrorism operation. The PR stunt leaves Alfred heartbroken. That night, Harriet realizes her feelings for Robert have changed, and when Alfred gets a text message from his wife asking him to return, he declines.
The following day the fish are released from their holding tanks. The fish swim upstream and everyone celebrates the success of the project. While Robert and the foreign minister fly-fish for the photographers, terrorists break into the dam upstream and open the flood gates. Although most people survive the resulting flash flood, the valley is left in ruins. The sheikh blames himself for the tragedy, and vows to rebuild—this time with the support of the local community.
The next day, as Harriet prepares to leave with Robert, she approaches Alfred to say goodbye. Just then they see a salmon jumping from the water, indicating that some fish survived. Alfred tells Harriet he will stay and help them rebuild. Harriet asks if he will need a partner—and Alfred realizes she is talking about herself. They embrace, and then hold hands while looking out over the river.
|
romantic, entertaining
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
However, there are also enlightening points to the movie that come when you least expect them.Of course, that is not to say that you have to actually LIKE fishing, or understand it, to enjoy "Salmon Fishing In The Yemen".
Just like a current, there are times you don't know where the story is going.Ewan McGregor plays Fred Jones, a fisheries expert for the British government who receives an odd request from legal representative Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt).
He wants to take a healthy population of salmon from the British lakes, and transport them to the Yemen River to live and breed.The reason this plot does not make for good cocktail party small talk or water cooler chatter is because it takes such a long time to describe the rationale behind such an ambitious task.
It's a shame that Oscar season just ended, because the early release of this film alone hurts his chances of receiving a Best Supporting Actor nomination, although he deserves it.The inevitable love story in the movie is also unpredictable, if only because you're not sure whether McGregor and Blunt should be together.
McGregor's Fred is married, and Blunt's Harriet has a boyfriend who is sent off to fight in the Afghanistan War. There are plot twists for both characters, but even you, the audience, remains unsure whether the two characters working together so well to bring salmon to Yemen means they should be together.
Adapted by Simon Beaufoy ("Slumdog Millionaire") from a popular 2006 Brit-lit book by Paul Torday, the story primarily concerns the two people who get caught up in Sheikh Muhammad's dream - tweedy fisheries expert Dr. Alfred Jones, Fred to his friends, and super-efficient public relations consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot.They are enlisted by Patricia Maxwell, the hell-on-heels press officer for the British prime minister who is desperate for a feel-good distraction from the bloodshed occurring in Afghanistan.
If you want to come away from a movie-going experience feeling good with plenty of information to discuss afterwards with your date, then RUN to see "Salmon Fishing in Yemen"!.
"You can't catch faith with a fishing rod." After Harriet (Blunt) contacts Dr. Alfred Jones (McGregor) about a Shiek from Yemen who wants to bring the sport of salmon fishing to his country he laughs it off.
What makes this such a joy is its impish sense of humor, irreverence toward the British government, the simply delightful acting of leads McGregor and Blunt (who has never looked so good as she does here), the appealing nature of so many characters, and, perhaps most of all, its unpredictability.
Each takes solace in their Yemen project.What works best in this movie is the chemistry between Blunt and McGregor; the former plays an optimist ready for new challenges, and the latter is more of a stick-in-the-mud with little sense of humor.
It's thankfully the former which makes it a little more engaging and less of a focus on what could be a solitary activity, and a romance-comedy-drama that centers about the theme of hope, even though this British film has plenty of elements to keep one entertained, especially the good ol British wit and humour that comes fast and furious when the need calls for it.Directed by Lasse Hallstrom whose last film was an adaptation of Nicholas Sparks' Dear John, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is based on the novel by Paul Torday, that tells the unlikely romance that sparked between Dr Fred Jones (Ewan McGregor) and investment consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt) while working on a theoretically possible project funded by a rich Yemeni Sheikh Muhammad (Amr Waked).
Dr Jones, the bureaucrat stuck in a dead end job and happily coasting along in spite of having useless superiors, is the initial skeptic, preferring the status quo than to question and set challenges for himself, being the expert on fishing and a mean fly-fisher himself, while Harriet is that can-do go-getting consultant who doesn't take no for an answer, herself in a sub story arc involving a British soldier sent to the frontlines in Afghanistan.Together, they work under a programme mooted by the Sheikh to bring salmon fishing to his country, which of course has plenty of detractors especially from extremists who see this as a waste of resources spent on infidel activities involving the West, especially so since Kristin Scott-Thomas' thrash talking Bridget Maxwell, the publicist for 10 Downing Street, sees it as opportunity to raise the Anglo-Yemeni friendship and profile.
The movie, "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen," directed by Lasse Hallstrom, starring Emily Blunt and Ewan McGregor, and put out this year by the BBC, is among a very small number of Western productions partially set in the Middle-Eastern country at the tip of the Arabian peninsula.
The messy details will be filled in by the Fisheries Department representative Dr. Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) and an investment rep for the sheikh, Ms. Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt).Naturally, Dr. Jones is incredulous that anyone would think it feasible to move 10,000 salmon from Scotland to Yemen and considers his assignment a fool's errand.
The writer, Simon Beaufoy, most recently adapted 127 Hours and Slumdog Millionaire into scripts and even he chose to leave that tiny detail out of the script.What comedy there is in Salmon Fishing in the Yemen comes from the Prime Minister's press secretary, Patricia Maxwell (Kristen Scott Thomas).
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is another 'feel good' dumb British movie that appeals to those who subscribe to a middle upper class idealism that has little grounding in reality.
All the actors were just great, I liked a lot the sheik role played by Amr Waked, although he is not mainly from Yemen he was the light coming from the east , full of faith not religious faith but faith about life/fishing.The scenes are organized to deliver the ideas in a smart way, one scene you see the extremist killing the British soldier in Afghanistan , the next scene is the extremist are trying to kill the sheik getting you to think that extremist full of hate kill every one even their own peoplewell done by everyone.
It's a story of faith and science between what is possible and impossible as a "visionary" tries to do something that has never been done before, bring salmon fishing to the Yemen.Check out my full review here: http://reelstorymovies.blogspot.com/2012/04/salmon-fishing -in- yemen.htmlThe film is peppered with references to faith and believing as a Yemeni Sheikh, Muhammad (Amr Waked) has faith that he can bring his love of salmon fishing to his mountainous region in Yemen, to his hometown, to his people, to bring unity to a fractured land."Faith is the cure that heals all troubles.
Faith comes before hope, and before love." -Sheikh MuhammadAs Sheikh Muhammad tries to convince the doubting atheist and scientist, Dr. Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) of the feasibility of bringing salmon fishing to the arid desert of the Yemen, he talks to Dr. Jones of faith.
He instead pursues the younger, more fun, and lively "partner" he has made during the project, Ms. Harriet Chetwood-Talbot (Emily Blunt), who is struggling as well with her feelings towards a casual fling who goes missing in Afghanistan after enlisting in the army.The relationship issues surrounding this film are my biggest issues with it as the characters are entangled and pulled every which way.The film may have done better to have a dull, single guy without any love in his life fall for the beautiful and energetic Ms. Harriet, who does not know who she wants, the soldier or the scientist, as they work together and find mutual interests and ambitions.Kristin Scott Thomas offers the comedic relief in this romantic "dramedy" about an impossible endeavor to bring salmon fishing to the Yemen as she plays the British Prime Minister's head of Public Relations as Patricia Maxwell, a foul-mouthed, fast-talking, do-it-all.
McGregor plays Doctor Alfred Jones (It was funny to hear him called Doctor Jones throughout the film), a fishery expert who's asked to help with a project bringing salmon fishing to the yemen.
His help is pursued aggressively by the sheikh's financial adviser Harriet Chetwod-Talbot (Blunt) though and when the British Prime Minister's domineering press secretary (Kristen Scott Thomas) sees the project as a way to improve on negative press (mostly dealing with mosque bombings in Afghanistan) Doctor Jones finds himself being blackmailed into doing the job.
Working with a script by Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty, Slumdog Millionaire, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Yasmin, etc) adapted from Paul Torday's popular novel by the same name, and selecting a cast of some of our brightest and worthy character actors in the business, he has created a strange story that is at once full of political satire, relationship studies, fragile human frailties and hope, and in doing so has given us one of the surprise best films of the year.Sheikh Muhammed (Amr Waked, a mesmerizingly fine actor) is a visionary sheik who believes that his passion for the peaceful pastime of salmon fishing can enrich the lives of his people, and he dreams of bringing the sport to the not so fish-friendly desert with the hope that he can make the desert green and a happy home for his people.
For example, there's a sub-plot about a group of terrorists who want to kill the Sheik in order to avoid the waste of money into something as trivial as salmon fishing, while most of the population is living in poverty...but those terrorists end up being simple puppets from the screenplay.In the leading roles, Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt have a good chemistry with each other, and despite being very famous actors, they are both perfectly credible as two normal people in a labor situation which invites the romance almost by accident.
"Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" is, first of all, a feel-good movie that discusses many things related to how life breeds around us.
Seriously the entire theater except us looked like the cast of Cocoon (1985).The movie itself was fun and heartwarming, the story stayed relatively true to the real events and Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt make for charming leads.
"Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" is a charming, New, very British film and i enjoyed watching it despite its flaws.
I watched that movie for "Amr Waked" who made the "Sheikh Muhammed" Role, the whole movie is Good, i gave it 6/10, one thing i didn't like is the part where they showed us a Dam that according to the script should be in the Yemen, but actually that Dam is in Brazil, so a big fail for the script and direction in that point.
Whilst it is that, Salmon Fishing is a enjoyable light comedy that should please audiences.Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt) is a consultant who is representing a wealthy Yemeni sheikh (Amr Waked) who want to introduce salmon fishing in the harsh climes of Middle East.
But as the project progresses Harriet and Fred get closer as their personal lives are thrown into turmoil.What makes Salmon Fishing in the Yemen works is that Blunt and McGregor both a very likable screen presence, having excellent chemistry together and very natural in their respective roles.
It just felt a bit out of place to the story of Fred and Harriet One aspect that felt real and strong was the character of Robert played by Tom Mison, who was made out to be a decent bloke, not the typical unlikable scumbag that is typical of romcoms.Despite the seemingly standard direction to the film, Lasse Hallström does a lot to make Salmon Fishing as visual as possible.
Fisheries expert Dr Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) gets reeled in by a billionaire Sheik and his lovely assistant Harriet (Emily Blunt) in attempting to bring salmon and fishing to the desert of Yemen.
The violent complications that briefly add excitement to the story are dubiously dealt out by those typically slippery Middle Eastern stereotypes but the film does question the ethics and intentions of both the wealthy Sheikh and those intent on destroying what he intends to create.The love affairs of the upper crust characters fail to ignite the screen with the relationship between McGregor and Blunt being a little damp but both stars give charming performances given the limitations and predictability of the script.
It's the gender-swapping of the UK prime minister's press secretary Maxwell (which is actually male in the book) that did wonders for the adaptation, and also, for choosing a superb Scott Thomas to fill in that role, wherein that switch helped very much in shifting away the focus of an epistolary novel's narrative that just taps into the absurdist vein into one that showcases audience-friendly characterizations that has a career-mom spin doctor's narrative pitted side-by-side with that of the fisheries expert Jones' (McGregor) and financial adviser Chetwode-Talbot's (Blunt) romance born out of a man's need to escape a dull marriage to long-time wife (Stirling) who only just takes him for granted, and a woman's grief for having lost her soldier-lover (Mison) during a tour of duty in Afghanistan whom she had only actually known for three passion-filled weeks.Faith is something that has been tossed out liberally in the story, overcoming adversity, all that stuff, courtesy of the Yemeni sheikh, Muhammed.
A fisheries expert, Dr Alfred Jones (played by Ewan McGregor), is hired by a wealthy sheikh to introduce salmon fishing to the desert of the Yemen.Weak.
The plan is encouraged as a PR stunt, to prove that good relations between the UK and the Middle East are not impossible.Therefore, Dr. Jones unwillingly cooperates with Harriet (played by Emily Blunt) and gets to know the Yemenite sheik (Amr Waked) who is willing to invest lots of money to fulfil his dream.
Through a series of events he agrees to help a Sheikh fulfil his lifelong dream of bringing sport-fishing to the deserts of Yemen and along the way he also falls for a woman hired to be part of the project.This is a quirky, funny, very British and kinda moving movie.
One of the most simple and sweet films comes from director Lasse Hallstrom called 'Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.' It stars Ewan McGregor as Dr.Alfred Jones, a consultant who is a fisheries expert who works with a woman named Harriet (Harriet) to help a Sheikh in The Middle East bring Salmon Fishing back.
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen tells the uplifting story of fisheries expert Dr Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) who is approached by consultant Harriet (Emily Blunt) who persuades him to work on a project for a sheik who wants to introduce salmon fishing to the Yemen.
The setting is beautiful, some fantastic Scottish landscapes (something I really need to see more of having lived here most of my life) and from the Yemen too.Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is an uplifting and inspiring story that offers a touching reminder that anything is possible with just a little faith, something that few films provide.
When Alfred "Fred" Jones (Ewan McGregor) asked by Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt) to bring Salmon from UK to Yemen he said : that was unfeasible!
Having said that, embracing the ridiculousness of the premise is what the script relishes on while adding a lot of charm, chemistry, life philosophy, faith and comedy along the way.British fisheries department is asked to estimate the feasibility of Salmon fishing in the Yemen's desert going by the vision of the rich and affluent Sheik Muhammad (Amr Waked).
They make what seemed as a boring idea turn into a good film.Dr. Alfred Jones' (Ewan McGregor) life revolves pretty much around Salmon fishing.
Clearly an Anglophile and well versed in all of the fine arts that so many Englishman ignore, he proposes as a side line to the main Dam project, to indulge his love of Salmon fishing in his own country If it costs the 50 Million pounds that Dr Jones randomly suggests, based on purely theoretical ideas, then so be it.The Sheik is looked after by an investment firm, more importantly by the rather lovely Ms Harriet (Emily Blunt), who of course adds a certain frisson to the scheme for the dusty, bookish Doctor.Blunt and McGregor play this part well, the opening scenes are delightful, light frothy and perfect for a date night picture.The scheme starts to come together and attracts political clout as Patricia Maxwell (Kristen Scott Thomas) senses an opportunity for a much needed "good news" Middle East story.
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen The best thing about the sport of fishing is that you don't even have to be alive in order to be successful at it.And while this romantic drama doesn't address the tedium of trolling, it does display its worldwide popularity.Dr. Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor), an uptight employee of the British Fisheries Department, is approached by Harriet (Emily Blunt), the liaison of a wealthy Sheikh (Amr Waked) interested in bringing salmon fishing to the Middle East.Uninterested, Alfred declines the offer, only to be order to proceed with the project, as it is seen as an excellent gesture of peace between both countries.Doubtful of the endeavour from conception, over time, Alfred warms to the notion, and his assistant.Based on the popular novel, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is an unrealistic love story with a formulaic ending that lacks bite.Besides, shouldn't those female salmon be wearing Burqas?
Vaguely interesting story about the cynical attempts by the British government to mask some of the 'negative press' about the middle east with a feel good story, which they feed to the press involving Ewan McGregor's character travelling to the Yemen to manage a £50m project to introduce salmon to the area.
although the whole idea of the film makes you think it might be something boring,it really isn't,at least not for me.The acting is just perfect Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt are great in this movie(as always).
In this film there are all parts of his the best movies as lovely humor, pretty love story, engrossing nature and plus remarkable actors Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt and Kristin Scott Thomas.
|
tt0121220
|
Dragon Ball Z: Doragon bôru zetto
|
Dragon Ball Z picks up five years after the end of the Dragon Ball anime, with Son Goku as a young adult and father to his son Gohan. A humanoid alien named Raditz arrives on Earth in a spacecraft and tracks down Goku, revealing to him that he is his long-lost big brother and that they are members of a nearly extinct extraterrestrial race called the Saiyans (サイヤ人, Saiya-jin). The Saiyans had sent Goku (originally named "Kakarrot") to Earth as an infant to conquer the planet for them, but he suffered a severe head injury soon after his arrival and lost all memory of his mission, as well as his blood-thirsty Saiyan nature. Goku refuses to help Raditz continue the mission, which results in Raditz kidnapping Gohan. Goku decides to team up with his former enemy Piccolo in order to defeat Raditz and save his son, while sacrificing his own life in the process. In the afterlife, Goku trains under Kaiō-sama until he is revived by the Dragon Balls a year later in order to save the Earth from Raditz' comrades; Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta. During the battle Piccolo is killed, along with Goku's allies Yamcha, Tenshinhan and Chaozu, and the Dragon Balls cease to exist because of Piccolo's death. Goku arrives at the battlefield late, but avenges his fallen friends by defeating Nappa with his new level of power. Vegeta himself enters into the battle with Goku and after numerous clashes Goku manages to defeat him as well, with the help of Gohan and his best friend Kuririn. At Goku's request, they spare Vegeta's life and allow him to escape Earth. During the battle, Kuririn overhears Vegeta mentioning the original set of Dragon Balls from Piccolo's home planet Namek (ナメック星, Namekku-sei). While Goku recovers from his injuries at the hospital, Gohan, Kuririn and Goku's oldest friend Bulma depart for Namek in order to use these Dragon Balls to revive their dead friends. However, they discover that Vegeta's superior, the galactic tyrant Lord Freeza, is already there, seeking the Dragon Balls to be granted eternal life. A fully healed Vegeta arrives on Namek as well, seeking the Dragon Balls for himself, which leads to several battles between him and Freeza's henchmen. Realizing he is overpowered, Vegeta teams up with Gohan and Kuririn to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries summoned by Freeza. After Goku finally arrives on Namek, the epic battle with Freeza himself comes to a close when Goku transforms into a fabled Super Saiyan (超サイヤ人, Sūpā Saiya-jin) and defeats him.
Upon his return to Earth a year later, Goku encounters a time traveler named Trunks, the future son of Bulma and Vegeta, who warns Goku that two Artificial Humans (人造人間, Jinzōningen, lit. "Artificial Humans") will appear three years later, seeking revenge against Goku for destroying the Red Ribbon Army when he was a child. During this time, an evil life form called Cell emerges and after absorbing two of the Artificial Humans to achieve his "perfect form," holds his own fighting tournament to decide the fate of the Earth, called the "Cell Games". After Goku sacrifices his own life a second time, to no avail, Gohan avenges his father by defeating Cell after ascending to the second level of Super Saiyan. Seven years later Goku, who has been briefly revived for one day and meets his youngest son Goten, and his allies are drawn into a fight by the Kaioshin against a magical being named Majin Buu. After numerous battles resulting in the destruction and recreation of the Earth, Goku (whose life is permanently restored by the Elder Kaioshin) destroys Majin Buu with a Genki Dama attack containing the energy of everyone on Earth. Goku makes a wish for Buu to be reincarnated as a good person and ten years later, at another martial arts tournament, Goku meets Buu's human reincarnation, Uub. Leaving the match between them unfinished, Goku departs with Uub to train him to become Earth's new defender.
|
tragedy, violence, romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
I mean it is awesome.This anime is based on the later part of the Dragon Ball manga written by the insanely talented Akira Toriyama.
The series goes across four main sagas- Saiyan, Freeza, Cell and Majin Boo. It takes place over a time span of about 27 years, which is pretty cool, and something you rarely get to see in a show like this.
Some character you will like a lot more by the time the series is finished.
Dragon Ball focused more on humour and martial arts, this focuses more on powerful ki blasts, hardcore action and ridiculously powerful character.
And you will still be sad when it ends.The Dragon Ball Z movies can be seen as separate stories, as most do not fit into the timeline of the series well.
The music of the series is nothing spectacular either, although I like the theme songs to the series a whole lot.This is the show that, along with Evangelion: Neon Genesis, helped me get into anime, way back when I was just a dumb kid.
I grew up with the edited and dubbed version, which is great for kids, but if you are looking for the true series, try and get your hands on some DVDs with Japanese language options.
No matter how you want to watch it, I would just advise you to sit down, switch off, and enjoy.With the upcoming Dragon Ball live action movie, I can only hope that it is successful enough to warrant a few sequels, as a Dragon Ball Z movie would be awesome.
I would not expect it to quality cinema, just a whole lot of fun.There is also a sequel to the series, known as Dragon Ball GT, which is not based on the work of Akira Toriyama.
The american translated versions may lose something in the translation, but the show is still a very cool show, and I hope Cartoon Network picks up the entire seven year run of the series.
I watch the series everyday on Cartoon Network when they air two episodes side-by-side (which makes since seeing as how the show moves along so slow).
The show is divided into "sagas" or series of episodes telling a certain story.
It has everything a good anime needs: action, comedy, powerful evil guys and so on.
A lot of you probably think that the Simpsons is a good anime.
The Super Saiyan themes add that little extra to show the mood that the fighters are in when they power up.My favorite character is Vegeta and Piccolo.
Toriyama's Freeza saga was probably the best-told part, despite the fact that the anime completely f-ed it up--the reason for everyone to be there in the first place actually made sense, and the transition from the Vegeta fight to the Freeza fight (and the reason Vegeta eventually joined with the rest of the group) was actually logical.
I noticed that most of the negative comments written about this series all talk about how the show's sagas are basically the same thing over and over again (and yes I know they basically are).
How could they know all the sagas are pretty much the same thing over and over again if they only watched two or three episodes?
Probably the greatest animated series of alltime.The drawings are simply superb, the characters and the whole story is so complex and thrilling you simply can't miss it.
The Best Anime Series, Toriyama = genius.
The people who view classic series/movies such as this as negative obviously didn't really watch it.
I admit the FUNimation version isn't as great as the original Japanese, but it is still a great anime series, easily one of the best.If you're new to the show, watch it from the very beginning to understand.
The only reason i gave it a 9 is because in some sagas like Frieza for example the graphics kind of suck and the tendency of the series to"kill time" like showing us the terrain and stuff which clearly is annoying,other than that the plot is awesome with minor holes, basically this is my favorite anime of all time since i was in the 6th grade!I remember back when i couldn't wait to catch an episode of DBZ only the sad part was that the only network that actually aired it in my country was RTL II,but i quickly got used to it,learned German :P and actually understood the series,and in comparison to the us version it was pretty good,the soundtrack was the original Japanese one and it didn't have to chsese lines like funimation does,in other words good ol RTL II saved me some trouble :D.
Dragonball Z, yet messed up by English editing and translation, is the greatest and best animated cartoon in the world.
Gohan, Kakarot's son, and his friend Krilian, leave for the Planet Namek to find the Dragonballs, 7 magical balls which when joined can call forth the Eternal Dragon who grants any three wishes you want.
I was 11 going on 12 that year and having loved Dragonball, i immediately grew to like its sequel.
There isn't really much character development to speak off as the stories are more focused on the plot and the characters are just pre-set anime stock characters, put in place to advance the plot from one fight to the next.
However some exceptionally poor animation and an over usage of animation short cuts give this whole show a very cheap look even for its time.(Some of the worse episodes of G I Joe were better animated than Dragonball Z).
To kids who are not exposed to greater world of animated series and graphic novels, Dragonball Z would no doubt be one of the best shows around.
People's minds tend to get clouded by the fact that Dragonball Z was so influential or might have been one of the first anime they ever watched(and thus introduced them to anime in general) that they remember only the good points and overlook the numerous jarring flaws of the series.Objectively speaking, Dragonball Z definitely does not deserve its current rating of 9.0/10.
This show has his moments like some good character progression, but nevertheless, it has too many flaws to speak of..
It was entirely in Japanese with no subtitles, yet I could still get the gist of the story.When tried watching the English dub on Cartoon Network, I couldn't get over it.
The music is different, the dubbing is horrible, they cut out huge scenes practically blotting entire episodes, digitize out a lot of the blood, change a lot of the great lines, for some reason change a lot of the names, and basically change plot points.I couldn't stand it.
(But don't ask me why CN never thought DBZ qualified for Adult Swim instead of "Inuyasha.") However, if you are an adult, and want to watch the best anime show this side of "Akira," definitely watch DBZ, but ONLY in Japanese..
A lot of hardcore anime fans diss Dragonball Z because it's so simple and there is hardly any plot after the Saiya-jin Saga.But on weekdays, when you need something fun to watch, then it's a great show.
When I was roughly 11, and still getting into the whole 'anime' scene, Dragonball Z was one of my first series.
But by chance, I saw an episode of the original version, and never went back to the dub.
It does succeed in being a wildly popular children's show, because that is what it was made to be for North America, not a mirror of the original.After constantly seeing the dub on TV, and all the hype surrounding it, I simply told myself it was garbage, people know nothing, and just stopped watching the series all together.
There were many other fans like me at that time reviewing Dragonball Z on IMDb, and to you I say, get off your high horses.
I think it's hilarious that even the 'master creators' can take the time to appreciate Toriyama's work.I'm sick of seeing so many stuck-up anime fans regard shows like Pokemon, Digimon, Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc (despite in truth, some of those shows aren't very good no matter what version you're watching) because they don't showcase the utter brilliance and beautiful animation of the likes of lets say, Miyazaki.
The best thing about Dragonball Z is it's characters.
The music and voice acting (props to Ryo Harikawa and Masako Nozawa) really set a good tone to whatever scene they're in, and almost makes up for the plot lag.Almost.
Dragonball Z has a pretty good plot, it just drags and drags and drags it as far as it can, making the series last so long, and scenes go unbearably slow.
If you watch an episode, notice how many times the animators bring you shots of them staring/breathing/pointless setting/random face reactions.
The fighting is absolutely great in this show, though the dub edits out all the good stuff.
The major character is Son Goku (voiced by Masako Nozawa), who is a man with incredible powers (actually from another planet).
I'm a dragon ball z fan for 15 years and I'm still watching it to this day.
YYH characters are not all that interesting while some of DBZ like Vegeta, Piccolo, Gohan Trunks and Goku are more interesting then the entire cast of YYH.
I guess because the fans wanted to see what it was like for the Z squad when they grew up, but if you ask me, the Buu saga took care of that pretty nicely..
I don't mind the English dub either, because Goku sounds a lot better in the English version than he does in the Japanese (I think he is dubbed by a gal).
Though if you are a fan of the show you will notice how some of the characters from the original Dragonball are just phased out more and more as this one progresses.
Likewise Dragonball I haven't seen the original Japanese version but the censored American version is still entertaining.
The person who originally reviewed Dragonball Z admittedly wasn't a big anime fan.
Dragonball Z is the best ACTION anime to ever come to America from Japan.And as for Ghost in the Shell.
Watch the whole series before passing judgment and if you don't like it keep your opinions to yourself..
A sequel to the original Dragon Ball saga that debuted in the mid 80s, this successor to the manga based comic book franchise has it all...pryotechnics, stunning animation, and catchy phrases like "This goes to 1000!!!".
I don't know what the big deal was about there being english dubbing in Dragonball Z.
I'd rather watch Dragonball Z dubbed AND with some of the scenes cut out then try to figure what they are saying in it was in its original format.
I find this to be a better anime cartoon than any other one I've seen because of the deep storyline and martial arts action.
I also like the fact that this cartoon picks up off five years later after the original Dragonball.
(I especially like Goku's Kayoken attack) But the strange thing is that the people have strange looks on their faces!
It's like a soap opera, but it's got great fight scenes.
Personally I love this show as it, but is I have never seen a subtitled version so I cannot comment on that, for all I know it could be better.
Unfortunately the station I watch it on only runs like a 50 or so episode loop so I haven't even seen the destruction of the ginyu force.
From what I've seen you'd be better off buying the english comic version being released by Viz or the original Japanese volumes.
I can understand not having the characters swearing like in the original, but c'mon kids have heard the word death before.
Dragonball Z is the Best Anime I have seen.
THIS ANIME ROCKS.The reason I say this is because it is true.Before,I use think that Pokemon was better than this.After I saw a episode,I got hooked on it.But the english version is very cheesy.So I suggest that you watch the Spanish version of DragonBall Z to see the things you will never see in the DUB version:).
Although this may cause some odd comments, Vegeta is my favorite character aside from Goku.
DBZ is by far the coolest anime I ve seen( and Ive seen lots) The storyline is very in depth and interesting,the characters are especially cool,because theyre not all the same,(like other anime)and the action in the show is awesome.
But still, even the English version its an amazing show (tells ya sometin) If your going to watch any anime,this is the one.
Now, I have seen the fansubbed versions and I must admit that they are better, but what we have in America isn't bad and I am a fan of anime.
The dubbing was typically bad, though perhaps not quite as bad as some (possibly because what the characters are saying is complete crap anyway).This series has few redeeming qualities about it, if any at all.
Poorly animated - there are so few frames put into the movement of characters, coupled with the fact that almost everything is looped OFTEN, and sometimes even blatantly repeated in the same episode, makes this very poor.3.
When the characters do talk to each other, it's usually about how they're going to beat the guy they're talking to, in 4 or 5 episodes time when they actually stop grunting and try and fight.4.
Really, I could eat a bunch of Archie comics and crap out a better animated action series..
I mean, if you want to see an anime with repetiveness and confusion, see that dang "Yu-Gi-Oh!".With the arrogance of Vegeta, the smart-aleckyness of Trunks and Goten, and the funny child-like character of Mr. Buu/Fat Buu, it's quite enjoyable.
The villians are cool, and it's nice when they find a villian that's really so evil they're entertaining.(especially Babidi, he's such a wicked little troll^_^?) Although I was wondering how many times they would have Vegeta become GOOD before he actually BECAME GOOD, he is indeed one of the finest characters.
The animation is quite nice, but how many times does the good guy have to save the world from impending doom?
Do NOT watch any dubbed anime.
I like Anime.
Dragonball's story and characters are its weakest point...
Death loses all dramatic function because when a character dies we all know he'll be back.The series is mediocre at best.
I like anime most of the time, but sheesh....
Of the, like, two and a half episodes that I bothered to sit through, there was absolutely no story, horrible dialogue, and some snore-inducing fights.
The villain will beat the living snot out of the hero for minutes on end, with the characters watching from afar and saying things like, "Master, surely he cannot defeat the wicked Hiroshabitoktok!
There are many more anime shows and movies that they could be watching if they are into the genre.
If you are new to anime, I recommend finding a much better series, like getting fansubs of some of the older Gundam shows.
The animation is bad, the voices are annoying beyond belief, and the plot is like watching a Street Fighter game, there is no plot other than to annoy people in its idiocy.
My favourite being Supreme Kai.Voice Acting (English Dubbed): Bad. The voices change in the middle of the Frieza Saga and again in the start of the Android Saga.
Upon request of people hailing this anime as the "best of all time", I decided to give the undubbed version a try (albeit not being a big fan of anime to begin with) and found it as dull, meandering and insipid as the English dub.
If you're an intelligent person looking for good anime, I suggest you save your time for something worthwhile like "Ghost in the Shell"..
I'm basically used to English Dragon Ball Z, but after a few bad comments of it, I'd like to make my opinion.
They don't really like censoring all in all but the dub is not at all bad.
Dragonball Z has been maligned more than any other Japanese anime series(Except maybe the infamous "Pokemon").
The show doesn't really begin to develop real good animation until the Buu saga, around 1993 or so.
DBZ is one of the few animations-American or Japanese-in which the characters grow with the audience.
As far as character development, although many of the original Dragonball characters don't really change that much(Including Goku), it's intriquing to watch the development of the characters introduced in the show-particually Gohan, Vegeta, and Trunks.So despite a few problems, DBZ is an okay show.
With more characters, more villains, and more episodes, "DBZ" is one of the best animated shows I can think of.
The action in battles was amazing (The father son KameHameHa was probably my favorite Dragon Vall scene of all time) and the dialogue was great as well.
My favorite anime serie, I guess.
(minor spoilers)This is set 5 years after the original Dragonball serie.
The first set of episodes, the Saiyan saga (1-35) are particularly good, loaded with action, and they reveal Son Goku's past (he's an alien from a race called the Saiyans).
The Freeza saga, which follows it, was great, and exploited the Vegeta character that fans seemed to love, telling his past, showing his emotions.
Well, to sum it up, I watched episodes from most animes, including Escaflowne, Evangelion, Ranma 1/2, etc, and I find DBZ to be the best..
Dragon ball z is great but they made too many episodes.(spoiler alert) For instance it takes like 5 episodes for the planet namike to explode.I think in the original version it ran year round.But I don't know oif they did that hear.Overall I'd have to say that this is a okay series but I'd reccomend you watch dragon ball gt.
|
tt0118686
|
Basil
|
Basil (Jared Leto) is a young British aristocrat who grew up on the country estate of Windermere Hall. His father, Frederick (Derek Jacobi), is a traditionalist who believes that there are things people of their class should never do. One of those things is romancing the women of lower classes, and Frederick threatens to disinherit Basil as he did Ralph, his elder son, should he also succumb to this temptation.
Whilst on holiday from his studies in Oxford, young Basil happens to meet a commoner named John Mannion (Christian Slater) whom he later befriends, against his father's wishes and behind his back. Through John the young aristocrat meets Julia Sherwin (Claire Forlani), the beautiful daughter of a London merchant. Later, in a rash move shortly before he can inherit, and against the initial council of John, Basil secretly marries Julia. She uses his amorous advances to extract gifts and even his promise that she should own Windermere Hall. By chance, he finds Julia in bed with John, following which Basil viciously attacks him in the street, kicking him repeatedly.
Afterwards, Basil delivers Julia's child, then hears John coming up the stairs. Basil hides, seeing John with a mask covering his face. As Julia tries to lift it, John says, "Remember me as I was, not what I am now". Julia dies in John's arms after confessing the child is his, not Basil's.
All John wants is to take the child and leave. Basil hears this and chases after John with a knife. As they fight, Basil pulls down John's mask, revealing John's mutilated face. John sees the reflection of his face in the blade of the knife, leading him to take his life by jumping off a cliff.
Basil takes the newborn child and escapes to Ireland, naming her Clara, after his childhood friend and orphaned cousin Clara Fairfax. On his return to England over a decade later, whilst walking with his daughter, Basil chances to meets his cousin Clara. She then takes Basil's daughter for hot chocolate, telling him to speak once more to his aged father. Basil's father admits that he disowned both Basil, and Ralph before him, because his son's affairs both reminded him of his own betrayal of his bedridden wife in his youth. Basil's father now regrets his infidelity, professing he loved Basil's mother deeply. Basil and his father reconcile as the film ends.
|
melodrama, revenge, gothic, romantic, flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
"Basil" is a film that has all the ingredients of a classic soap opera.
First of all, the film is based on a novel written by Wilkie Collins, one of the most important English writers of the 19o.
Maybe the only negative point is that the plot is too predictable but even though you can still have a good time watching the film..
Jared Leto and Christian Slater both did fine jobs playing Brits and I would recommend this film to anyone..
I love time period films and think "Basil" is a wonderful movie.
Jared Leto was fantastic in this movie.
I love all of his work on the big screen, but I have to say that His portrayal as Basil in my opinion is one of his finest performances.
Jared Leto, Christian Slater, and Clair Forlani are just magnificent in this film.
I congratulate the performances in this movie, and I would love to see more movies like "Basil" on the big screen.
I highly recommend "Basil" to anyone who loves period films.
A wonderful chick flick with 2 sexy men, Jared Leto and Christian Slater.
I love the twist on the movie and the ending.
Nothing's wrong with this movie, the three eye catching main cast were doing fine for the film, but the story itself just lack the passion of becoming a powerful drama.
Too bad.But again I think this is still a better romantic thriller film than most teenage romantic movie you'll find everywhere this day.
This movie is based on Wilkie Collins' (author of Moonstone and Woman int White) little known 2nd novel "Basil".
The story is an unexpected combination of a Victorian Gothic novel with lust, passion, betrayal, revenge and more.
The plot twists are quite startling and some aspects of the story don't make that much sense in a but it's a suspenseful and satisfying yarn to watch on screen.The filming is quite well done with atmospheric locations and sets.
The cast is interesting with Jared Leto and Christian Slater both playing English characters with accents that aren't quite spot on of course.
Half Italian Claire Forlani plays an English lady although she has a slightly Mediterranean look.Instead of watching another adaptation of Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights give this one a chance..
Jared Leto as Basil is a little strained in his acting, but always nice to look at.
C. Slater is surprisingly (and obviously) good in this "historical" role, and he has a secret which provides a twist near the end.
The end itself provides a strange turn that may make you wonder if Basil wouldn't have been happier in a new-age commune in modern New Mexico.
Basically it was a dismal, fragmented movie that lacked flow from short unimpressive scenes that served no purpose but to hold the frail story together.
A twenty-six year old Claire Forlani might be one of the better reasons to give this film a try.
Good, romantic period piece with good acting from both Slater and Leto!.
I thought this movie was a good romantic period piece in the tradition of Dickens.
I enjoyed the performances of Slater and Leto, this being the movie that first brought Jared's acting abilities to my attention.
Well, it wasn't all that bad, but truth to be told, it wasn't that special as well.The actors, not only incredibly gorgious Claire but also Jared Lehto (who is developing into being a very fine mime), know how to do their job and so the lack of originality in the story does not hurt too much.
I'm guessing the people who like this are simply satisfied to stare at Jared Leto for an hour or so, because I can't image anyone likes it for the story.
There is an opening voice over about how the mansion is run down, and it looks like the Production designer had 5 dollars and about 5 minutes to make the mansion look old.To be fair, a lot of what makes this film laughably bad is because of what must've obviously been severe budget constraints, as it had scenes that clearly needed many extras, but only had a few to fill the background.But you can't blame lack of money for bad dialogue, bad acting, and some atrociously bad accent work by Leto and Slater.
It's George Lucas Phantom Menace level of bad dialogue.I'll stop now, because this movie deserves no more of my life or your time spent reading this review.Cheers..
The cast was good, the acting creditable, even the story line had potential but the directing was awful.
Someone took a good story, some great actors and made a really poor movie.
Slater was not particularly inviting, the aristocrat had no personality, had no sexual excitement, was difficult to care who ended up sleeping with anyone since the plot was easily discerned after 20 minutes or so.
Basil hooks up with the grungy Christian Slater, who helps hook him up with the object of his lust, played by Claire Forlani.And it all goes downhill from there.
To talk of the Victorian novel, and any film derived from them, generally imposes the theme of the sociological novel: these works were frequently what might be called a social critique, unbehest by the landed gentry of the times, ignored by the reigning sovereign, much encouraged by the publishing houses, lapped up by the intelligencia of the public at large, but in general lacking the more profound humane sentiments of, say, the Russian novel.
Thus any serious attempt at transposing such works to the screen is bound to bump into all kinds of problems; however, Radha Bharadwaj resolves most of them with a certain degree of panache, such that the end result in this film is more or less acceptable.
But it must be said, Wilkie Collins drove himself to his own despair, and this is clearly shown in his novels, though not so clearly perceived in this film.
But do not compare this film with the recent `The Hours' (q.v.), nor even with `The Portrait of a Lady' (q.v.), Jane Campion's exquisite film based on the novel by Henry James.Notwithstanding (how good that word sounds in Dickens' novels!) the film has its interest; not necessarily because either Christian Slater or Jared Leto have anything special to offer on which to comment, as they are both merely acceptable, nor for Claire Forlani's part, nor for yet another appearance by yet another member of the Bonham-Carter family - in this case Crispin, cousin to Helena.
How much of the film is made in Cornwall or even Yorkshire will have to be guessed.An interesting film for its story-line, with not much real tangible evidence as to the Victorian scene, but which worked hard to transport the book to visual contemplation..
The script suffers from extreme tell-a-life-story-in-two-scenes-itus leaving any tension or drama on the cutting room floor.
Slater and Leto, who can normally make the best of bad writing, appear wooden and passionless.
With so many other excellent period dramas available, it is little wonder this movie ended up in the bargain bin..
But I'll try not to!This is a reasonably interesting film that unfortunately suffers from deviating too wildly from the original plot by the Victorian writer, Wilkie Collins.
To modern audiences this film may seem slow or without much point; a shame, since the Collins novel it is based on is extremely exciting (Collins was an unorthodox writer, considered very shocking by many people of his day - far more explicit re.
violence and sex than say, Dickens).Jared Leto stars as a young and naive aristocrat ('Basil')who suffers from having his friendships and imagination restrained by an overbearing and class-conscious father.
Claire Forlani plays the woman with whom Basil falls in love.
The luminosity, vivaciousness, and little-girl behaviour (which makes Basil love her) that her character has in Collins's book, just isn't there.
The remarkable way in which Basil meets her in the novel is completely missing.
Christian Slater also appears as Mannion, whom Basil befriends, but again the film script has entirely altered how he and Basil meet, and changes many dynamics of their relationship: he becomes Basil's friend, rather than an enigma Basil is intrigued with; not exactly Collins's intention.
The wonderful Derek Jacobi also appears, but again isn't given much great material to work with.
He remains a very important character but his behaviour and personality also differ from in Collins's 'Basil'; some important details are completely changed.
Modern films generally tend to try to intensify the plots of classic novels when they adapt them; this film instead dampens Collins's plot.
The Collins book is considerably more intense: he was one of the best plotters in Victorian fiction, and great at character psychology.
Clearly the intent here was not a faithful adaptation, but I see little reason why the director and screenwriter here didn't keep his major plot points.Those who like this film should perhaps read the book: they will then know a far better version of the story, especially a far more powerful version of Mannion (I thought Slater miscast, or his role basically wrecked).
Basil is meant to be naive and honest, but too often in this film we see him doing or saying things that don't make sense or go too far (again, deviations), yet Leto isn't as intense in his portrayal of Basil as I would like (Basil's mental instability is mostly missing); still, he is easy to like, and certainly remarkable-looking.
The scriptwriting and editing, as other reviewers noted, are not so good, but the film looks beautiful and has good locations and period detail.
Yet another example that just plodding through a novel has little to do with making a tenable film.
That way we know we have something to recall when new information is revealed.Everyone else seems to lack direction.The original story had promise because of the revealing layers and plots.
Jared Leto plays the title role in a film adaption of a novel by Wilkie Collins, not a guy terribly known to today's audiences, but who had a good popularity in his day.
He was a good friend of Charles Dickens and this film Basil is kind of like a dark version of David Copperfield.Derek Jacobi lends his presence to this film as Leto's very proper Victorian gentleman father whose strict standards cause him to lose the affections of both his sons who grow up to be Ralph Bonham Carter and Leto.
As a young kid Leto catches his father en flagrato with another woman so when his beloved and sickly mother dies, Leto is rather inclined to do like Dad does, not like he says.All of which makes him putty in the hands of Christian Slater who has a deep seated hatred for Jacobi and you have to see the film to know what it's about.
He and his girlfriend Clara Forlani set young Leto up good and proper and he becomes the second son to have been cast from his father and Bonham Carter was similarly thrown out.Like David Copperfield we see the protagonist over the years grow from little kid to full adulthood and like Copperfield, Basil gets involved with two women, the second being the one that counts in the person of Rachel Pickup, a young girl taken in by Jacobi and whom he grew up with.
But some truly dark impulses involving sex and infidelity that Dickens would not have explored for a protagonist of one of his novels are present in Basil and in Christian Slater's character of John Mannion.Leto and Slater are present in this British Victorian novel clearly for American box office.
That said, here we go...This movie has some good elements that we can notice right from the start like a good setting for the environments, an interesting narrative style and some feeling of nostalgia that accompanies the scenes.Along with many other mysteries, right from the start, we can foresee that the character of the Basil's father, Frederick, must hide a lot of guilt out of either past errors or sins or both, hidden behind all that overwhelming necessity of control.
Everything else is just the outcome of such character flaws.John Mannion, played expertly by Slater, isn't a bad man.
And thus his destruction.This tale isn't about Basil's life or his feeling or emotion although they do play a small role.
One of the best scenes in history is when John is in bed with Julia and tells her that she must marry Basil.
"If you don't marry Basil you can not have me." HE doesn't appreciate the love, not because he's a bad person or in essence evil but because he is just too focused.
Slater is an under-appreciated acting genius who has given more outstanding performances than anyone else I can think to mention.
Jared Leto and Christian Slater played the principal roles, each superbly.
Playing on their sympathy for having saved Basil from drowning, Slater's character worms his way into the family and eventually introduces Basil to the woman of Basil's dreams.
Little does Basil know that the woman is already married to Slater's character and he has been duped but good.
Basil, based on the Wilkie Collins novel, has little of the novel in it.
In the novel, John Mannion is a man in his forties who is completely calm at all times and intrigues Basil, as a mystery.
I like the inclusion of Basil's imaginary masked man stories as a child.
In having already exiled Ralph, we see clearly what the father will do if he finds out about the relationship between Basil and Julia.
Basil, being only 20, and still at college, makes it far more believable that he would not suspect those around him of being anything but honest and honorable.
In the book Basil insists that his father is a good man, though blatantly classist, and cold to his children.
In the movie, we know that he is not as good as he wants people to think.Basil's having to do manual labor, and being shocked at the pittance he gets for it is still a social issue and one Collins did not address.
The inclusion of the child shows Basil to be a much more honorable, moral and principled man in the end than his father ever was.
It's an interesting movie, the acting is suited to a Victorian drama, and I enjoyed it very much..
I know it was a melodrama, but between some of the casting and the simplistic story line, I couldn't even enjoy it for that.
Jason Leto delivered a very callow Basil who did not age credibly, and Christian Slater's English accent came and went.
Derek Jacobi did his very best to raise the level of quality acting, but by far Claire Forlani did the best job of putting life into her role.
*Minor Spoilers* Basil, starring Jared Leto and Christian Slater, isn't a movie most film-buffs will recognize.
Even fewer people know that it was an adaptation of a nineteenth century novel by English novelist Wilkie Collins, which – unlike the vast horde of ignoramuses who also never saw the movie – I happen to have read.So if you're wondering whether I'm gonna be that guy, the answer is 'Heck yes', but with a crucial caveat.Most filmmakers, tasked with converting a novel from the 1800's to a film palatable to today's viewers, take the low road.
The end result is at best a somewhat decent movie which shares many similarities to an amazing novel, but with a lot more zing.
If you don't, you end up with the '98 adaptation of Basil: a flat, obtuse take on nuanced literature (whose themes, quite frankly, didn't have a lot to offer your average 21st century moviegoer in the first place).The eponymous hero is played by Jared Leto, of recent (undeserved) acclaim for his minuscule role in the latest Superhero crapfest, Suicide Squad.
The father's shown browbeating any sign of creativity or independence from Basil, culminating when he exiles and disowns Basil's older brother for the crime of loving a woman below his station.The very next scene reveals his hypocrisy and the root of his prejudice: yup, you guessed it, fornicating with one of the serving girls out on the manor grounds.By the time Jared Leto steps into Basil's shoes it's obvious he's on the path to rebellion.
A chance meeting with mysterious John Mannion from London (Christian Slater) kicks Basil's rebellion into full gear.
The forbidden love blossoms over the course of several scenes, delving into a world of intrigue and betrayal which Basil's father wouldn't have approved of even if it was all roses and daisies, which it's anything but.
They Bay-ize some of it, sure, replacing a few of the novel's turning points and climaxes with scenes more likely to appeal to the modern audience who won't settle for anything less than over-the-top.
But it's not as if Bharadwaj butchered the thing; I can't point to any single example so egregious as to claim they've fundamentally, irreparably ruined the story.What Basil lacks is depth and nuance.
Wilkie Collins worked in the realm of literary prose, utilizing a set of authorial tools entirely separate from those in film.
So much of the nuance of character and story is lost when it's compressed into a film of any length, and Bharadwaj's take is continually flat.
The relationship between Basil and John Mannion – despite the underrated Slater's noble attempt to carry the weight of the entire film on his shoulders – ends up looking more like a Buddy Movie or Bromance in the first half of the flick, abandoning novel-Basil's infatuation with a more enigmatic John Mannion.Furthermore, Wilkins was a master of the serial and is often cited as singlehandedly inventing the modern detective story.
There's nothing about any single scene in Basil's adaptation which hooked me or left me on a cliff; it drags ponderously, even for a historical drama.
|
tt0091699
|
Otello
|
Time: The late 15th century.
Place: A coastal city on the island of Cyprus.
=== Act 1 ===
A town in Cyprus, outside the castle. An inn with a pergola, in the background the quayside and sea. It is evening. Lightning, thunder, gale force winds.
On a stormy evening, the people of Cyprus anxiously await the arrival of the new governor, Otello, from a naval battle with the Turks (Chorus, Montano, Cassio, Iago, Roderigo: Una vela! / "A sail!"). For a moment it seems as if Otello's ship will founder, to the delight of Otello's treacherous ensign, Iago, but Otello arrives safely and announces that the Turkish fleet has been destroyed, and the Cypriots cheer (Otello, chorus: Esultate! L'orgoglio musulmano sepolto è in mar / "Rejoice! The Mussulman's pride is buried in the sea").
Iago offers to help the young Venetian gentleman Roderigo in his seduction of Otello's wife, Desdemona – Iago envies Otello his success and longs to destroy the Moor (Iago, Roderigo: Roderigo, ebben che pensi? / "Well, Roderigo, what are you thinking?"). Among his grievances, Iago is outraged that Otello has appointed Cassio to be the captain of the navy, a position that Iago hoped to have. The people of Cyprus celebrate the safe return of Otello and his men by lighting a bonfire and drinking (Chorus: Fuoco di gioia!/ "Fire of joy").
Iago proposes a toast to Otello and his wife, while Cassio praises Desdemona (Iago, Cassio, Chorus, Roderigo: Roderigo, beviam! / "Roderigo, let's drink!"). Iago offers Cassio more wine, but Cassio says he has had enough. Iago pressures him and offers a toast to Otello and Desdemona. Cassio gives in. Iago sings a drinking song and continues to pour Cassio wine (Iago, Cassio, Roderigo, chorus: Inaffia l'ugola! / "Wet your throat").
Montano enters and calls for Cassio to begin his watch; he is surprised to find Cassio drunk and barely able to stand upright. Iago lies to Montano, telling him that this is how Cassio spends every evening. Roderigo laughs at Cassio's drunkenness and Cassio attacks him. Montano tells Cassio to calm down, but Cassio draws his sword and threatens to crack open Montano's head. (Montano, Cassio, Iago, Roderigo, chorus: Capitano, v'attende la fazione ai baluardi / "Captain, the guard awaits you on the ramparts".) Cassio and Montano begin to duel, and Iago sends Roderigo to call the alarm. Montano is wounded and the fight is stopped only by the appearance of Otello.
Otello orders Montano and Cassio to lower their swords. He then asks "honest Iago" to explain how the duel began, but Iago says he doesn't know. Otello then turns to Cassio, who is embarrassed and cannot excuse his actions. When Otello discovers that Montano is wounded, he becomes enraged. Desdemona enters, and, upon seeing that his bride's rest has been disturbed, Otello declares that Cassio is no longer Captain. (Otello, Iago, Cassio, Montano: Abbasso le spade / "Down with your swords".) He tells Iago to patrol the town to restore quiet, calls for help for Montano and orders everyone to return to their houses.
The Cypriots leave Otello alone with Desdemona. Together Otello and Desdemona recall why they fell in love. Otello, in an ecstasy of joy, invites death, fearing that he will never know such happiness again. Desdemona prays that their love will remain unchanged. They kiss, overcome with love for each other. (Otello, Desdemona: Già nella notte densa s'estingue ogni clamor /"Now in the dark night all noise is silenced".)
=== Act 2 ===
A hall on the ground floor of the castle, divided by a glass partition from the garden at the back, with a balcony.
Iago suggests to Cassio that he should ask Desdemona to talk to Otello about his demotion; Desdemona can influence her husband to reinstate him (Iago, Cassio: Non ti crucciar / "Do not fret"). Desdemona and Emilia can be seen walking the garden. Cassio approaches Desdemona. Watching from the room, Iago voices his nihilistic beliefs and hatred of humankind (Credo in un Dio crudel / "I believe in a cruel God").
Otello enters the room; Iago, pretending not to notice him, says that he is deeply troubled. Cassio sees Otello from afar and goes discreetly away. Otello asks what's wrong, but Iago gives only vague answers. Finally, he hints that Cassio and Desdemona are having an affair. Otello begins to get suspicious, but declares that he needs proof before believing that Desdemona has been unfaithful. (Iago, Otello: Ciò m'accora... Che parli? / "That worries me..." "What did you say?") Iago warns Otello against jealousy, but also advises him to be vigilant.
A crowd of children, sailors, and Cypriots sing to Desdemona, praising her beauty and purity (Chorus, Iago, children, Desdemona, Otello: Dove guardi splendono raggi / "Wherever you look, brightness shines..."). They present her with gifts and wish her happiness before leaving.
Desdemona carries Cassio's request for reinstatement to Otello. Otello sourly tells her to ask him another time; as she persists, he grows impatient and says he has a headache. Desdemona offers to wrap his head in a handkerchief Otello once gave her, linen embroidered with strawberries. Otello throws it to the ground and says he doesn't need it (Desdemona, Otello: D'un uom che geme sotto il tuo disdegno la preghiera ti porto / "I bring a petition from one who suffers under your displeasure"). Emilia picks up the handkerchief. Desdemona asks for Otello's forgiveness. Aside, Iago demands that Emilia give him the handkerchief. When she refuses, Iago forcibly takes it from her.
Otello dismisses the others, and declares that he now believes that Desdemona may be deceiving him (Otello: Ora e per sempre addio sante memorie / "Now and forever farewell, holy memories"). Iago returns, and the jealous Otello demands proof of Desdemona's infidelity. Iago says that once, when he and Cassio were sleeping in the same room, he heard Cassio talking to Desdemona in a dream. In the dream, says Iago, Cassio told Desdemona that they must be careful to conceal their love. (Iago: Era la notte, Cassio dormia / "It was night, Cassio was sleeping".) Iago says that dreams don't prove anything, but remarks that he saw Cassio carrying Desdemona's strawberry-embroidered handkerchief just the day before. Otello swears vengeance on Desdemona and Cassio, and Iago joins him in his vow (Otello, Iago: Sì, pel ciel marmoreo giuro / "Yes, by the marble heavens I swear").
=== Act 3 ===
The great hall of the castle. To the right, a large colonnade leading to a smaller hall, in the back of which is a balcony. Othello and Iago talking in the hall as a herald enters.
A herald brings news of the approach of ambassadors from Venice. Iago explains to Otello that he will lure Cassio here and talk with him while Otello watches, hidden. He leaves to go get Cassio. (Iago: Qui trarrò Cassio / "Here I will bring Cassio".)
Desdemona enters and reminds Otello of Cassio's request. Otello says that his headache has returned, and asks Desdemona to wrap her handkerchief around his head. When Desdemona produces a different handkerchief, Otello demands the one with strawberries. When she says she does not have it, Otello says that it was a talisman, and troubles will befall her if she loses it. Desdemona says that he is trying to ignore Cassio's plea, and as she asks him about Cassio, he demands the handkerchief ever more insistently. (Desdemona, Otello: Dio ti giocondi, o sposo / "God keep you merry, husband".) Desdemona protests that she is faithful; Otello sends her away (Desdemona, Otello: Esterrefatta fisso lo sguardo tuo tremendo / "Terrified, I face your dreadful look").
Otello laments his fate (Dio! mi potevi scagliar tutti i mali / "God, you could have thrown every evil at me" ). When Iago calls out "Cassio is here!" Otello hides as Iago and Cassio enter. Cassio says he had hoped to see Desdemona here, for he wanted to know whether she had been successful with Otello (Iago, Cassio, Otello: Vieni; l'aula è deserta / "Come, the hall is deserted"). Iago asks him to tell of his adventures with that woman. Cassio asks which woman, and, softly, so that Otello cannot hear, Iago says "Bianca" (the name of Cassio's actual lover). As Cassio laughs about his romantic adventures, Otello assumes he is speaking of Desdemona. In a conversation only partially heard, Cassio seems to be telling Iago that another woman, a secret admirer, left him a handkerchief as a token. At Iago's urging, Cassio produces it, whereupon Iago seizes it—for it is Desdemona's—and holds it out where he knows Otello can see it. He then returns it to Cassio and teases him, while in his hiding place Otello fumes (Iago, Cassio, Otello: Questa è una ragna dove il tuo cuor casca / "This is a spiderweb in which your heart is caught").
Bugles sound, announcing the arrival of the Venetian ambassador, Lodovico. Iago warns Cassio that he should leave unless he wants to see Otello. Cassio exits, and Otello asks Iago how he should kill his wife. Iago advises Otello to kill Desdemona by suffocating her in her bed, while he will take care of Cassio. Otello promotes Iago to Captain.
Lodovico, Desdemona, Emilia, Roderigo, and other dignitaries enter. When Lodovico notes Cassio's absence, Iago tells him that Cassio is out of favor. Desdemona interrupts, telling Lodovico that she hopes he will soon be restored. Otello calls her a demon and almost strikes her violently but is held back by Lodovico. Otello then calls for Cassio. (Lodovico, Otello, Desdemona, Emilia, Iago, chorus: Il Doge ed il Senato salutano l'eroe trionfatore / "The Doge and the Senate greet the triumphant hero".) Cassio enters and Otello reads (mixing in insults to Desdemona) a letter from the Doge, announcing that he (Otello) has been called back to Venice and Cassio is to succeed him as governor of Cyprus. Enraged, Otello throws Desdemona to the ground. (Otello, Roderigo, Iago, Cassio, Lodovico: Messeri! il Doge mi richiama a Venezia / "Gentlemen! The Doge recalls me to Venice".)
Desdemona, on the ground, laments (A terra! … sì … nel livido fango / "Fallen! yes, in the foul mud..."). The various characters express their feelings: Emilia and Lodovico express their sympathy for Desdemona, Cassio marvels at his sudden change of fortune, and Roderigo laments that Desdemona will soon depart. In separate asides, Iago urges Otello to take his revenge as soon as possible, while he will take care of Cassio. He advises Roderigo that the only way to prevent Desdemona from leaving is for Cassio, the new Duke, to die, and suggests that Roderigo murder Cassio that night. (Emilia, Cassio, Desdemona, Roderigo, Lodovico, Iago, Otello, chorus: Quell'innocente un fremito d'odio non ha nè un gesto / "That innocent one is without feeling or gesture of hatred"). In a fury, Otello orders everyone to leave. Desdemona goes to comfort him, but Lodovico pulls her away as Otello curses her. As the others leave, Otello raves about the handkerchief, then collapses. Iago presses Otello's forehead with his heel, then walks away. Outside the crowd of Cypriots calls out victory and glory for Otello. (Otello, Desdemona, Emilia, Cassio, Roderigo, Lodovico, Iago, chorus: Fuggite! / "Begone".)
=== Act 4 ===
Desdemona's bedchamber. A bed, a prie-dieu, a table, a mirror, some chairs. A light burns in front of an image of the Madonna which hangs above the prie-dieu. To the right is a door. On the table a light. It is night.
Desdemona is preparing for bed with the assistance of Emilia. She asks Emilia to put out the bridal gown she used on her wedding day, and says that if she dies, she wants to be buried in it. Emilia tells her not to talk about such things. Desdemona recalls how her mother's servant Barbara was abandoned by her lover, and how she used to sing the Willow Song (Desdemona: Piangea cantando nell'erma landa / "Singing, she wept on the lonely hearth"). After Emilia leaves, Desdemona prays (Ave Maria) and then falls asleep.
Silently, Otello enters, with a sword. He kisses his wife three times; she awakens. Otello asks her if she has prayed tonight; she must die, and he does not wish to condemn her soul. She asks God for mercy, both for her and for Otello. Otello accuses her of sin, saying that he must kill her because she loves Cassio. Desdemona denies it and asks that he summon Cassio to testify to her innocence. Otello says that Cassio is already dead. Desdemona, horrified, pleads for mercy, but Otello tells her it's too late and strangles her (Otello, Desdemona: Diceste questa sera le vostre preci / "Have you said your prayers tonight?").
Emilia knocks at the door, (Emilia: Aprite! Aprite! / "Open up!") announcing that Cassio has killed Roderigo. Desdemona softly calls out that she has been unjustly accused, but refuses to blame Otello. She dies. Emilia calls Otello a murderer; he retorts that Iago gave him proof of Desdemona's infidelity. Otello begins to threaten Emilia, who calls for help. Iago, Cassio, and Lodovico enter. Emilia demands that Iago deny Otello's accusation; he refuses. Otello says that the handkerchief Desdemona gave to Cassio is proof enough. Emilia, horrified, explains that Iago stole the handkerchief from her—Cassio confirms that the handkerchief appeared mysteriously in his lodgings. Montano enters and says that Roderigo, with his dying breath, has revealed Iago's plot. Iago, brandishing his sword, runs away.
After he realizes what has happened, Otello grieves over Desdemona's death. Initially he draws his scimitar (Otello: Niun mi tema / "That none fear me") but then relinquishes it. He then stealthily draws a dagger from his robe (Otello: Ho un'arma ancor! / I still have another weapon!) and stabs himself. Others try to stop him, but it is too late. Before he dies, he drags himself next to his wife and kisses her (Otello: Un bacio...un bacio ancora...ah!...un altro bacio... / A kiss.. another kiss...ah...and yet another kiss). He lies dead next to Desdemona.
|
tragedy
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
A real rarity -- an opera on film that still retains its power.
That being said, this is one of the best movie versions of this opera around.
As for Katia's Desdemona, she is a great singer and beautiful woman (for an opera singer, of course).
Justino Diaz's Iago is as evil and vile as Shakespeare wrote of him.
In terms of audience expectations, opera films are the luckiest in the medium.
Whereas comedies have to be funny, action films exciting or mysteries mysterious, opera films could be the dullest, visually incompetent farragos ever, as long as the music is there, booming in all its glory.
And, with a few noble exceptions - the Archers, Losey, Bergman - that is in general what we opera lovers have been given: we are that easy to please.Zeffirelli's OTELLO is far better than the usual, but is, if I may say so under IMDb guidelines, still hampered by a curious mixture of unfounded arrogance, cautious reverence and imaginative timidity.
As any fool knows, the best films are founded on melodrama, literally music and drama, just like opera (and many great film-makers have produced opera also).
Because action on stage is evidently limited, all the excitement, passion, emotion of characters' feelings and of extreme circumstance are carried by the music, in the same way narrative is less important in the films of, say, Minnelli or Sirk, than the vibrant mise-en-scene which speaks for characters when they cannot.Opera, therefore, might seem a perfect medium for cinema.
But any director of opera carries the millstone of the score - you can cut, but you cannot write new music (or if you did you'd be shot), and so you have to work with what you've got, which increases the theatricality.
Again, depending on your genius, you can be limited or liberated by this.OTELLO benefits from this concentration because it is such an inexorable, claustrophobic piece, where the confinement of setting mirrors the different prisons characters find themselves in.
But claustrophobia is uncomfortable, and Zeffirelli is catering to a bourgeois, generally non-cinema going audience, who want a tasteful, middle-brow night out, and so he never explores the opera's intensity as much as he might.
And, we are reminded of Welles's OTHELLO, the second greatest Shakespearean adaptation, and know how it can be done.This is a very traditional interpretation, not just for opera on stage, but for Shakespearean performances as well.
We get the usual Cyprus garrison, the Renaissance costumes, the exotic local colour, the play of black and white, the sight of pure Desdemona in white lying on her pure, white bed.
But Zeffirelli makes a few 'adjustments' that are not neccessarily in Verdi, but have some justification from Shakespeare.
For instance, Desdemona's relations with Cassio are ambiguous, made seemingly sexual from the very beginning, making Otello's rage less irrational, and her 'innocence' more complicated.
This might blunt the story's symbolic force, but makes the characterisation more plausible, as does Otello's suspicion from the start, so that Iago's poison is only one factor in the Moor's anguish.
There are two sequences - Iago's self-revealing credo and Otello's jealous soliloquy - full of huge metaphysical power, bracing blasphemy and emotional voids that cry out for Welles; in fairness, these are the film's best scenes, but they are suffocated by restraint.
Curiously enough, with the excessive zooming, clumsy compostions and unrhythmic editing, the nearest filmmaker to Zeffirelli is Welles' friend Jesse Franco - if the Italian never approaches that maverick's sheer profusion of ideas, there is a gratifying homoeroticism (especially Iago talking about Cassio's dream, immensely revealing or the villain's character) to compensate.It would be inappropriate to expect astonishing acting from opera performers - the histrionic requirements of a huge hall and an exposing close-up are completely different.
Surely, in the mid-80s, it is beyond offensive to cast a boot-polished singer in the lead role, especially with so many great black performers more than qualified.
On the other hand, Domingo is the greatest tenor of the 20th century, the most daring, versatile and exciting, as well as the one with most subtle and expressive dramatic range.
In his first appearance, entering from the storm, and in his first beg scene, halting the drunken brawl, Otello is a figure who emerges from chaos to assert order; his decline into madness, pointed by the profusion of scientific, 'rational', instruments, which become expressions of distortion, is painful to watch, but true.
I had just seen an excellent stage production of Otello last week and pulled out this tape to watch with a friend and again savour this wonderful opera.
Some are disappointed, others are surprised.It seems, having found out Franco Zeffirelli's entire filmography, that the key movie which truly delivers the director's masterful eye for details as well as the desirable faithfulness in adapting the classical source to the screen is TRAVIATA with Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas.
Indeed, echoing Vincent Canby's words of September 1986, in TRAVIATA "opera and film are effortlessly made to seem one." OTELLO, made 5 years later with the great tenor in the lead, appears to be a slightly different case in which aesthetic beauty is combined with classic tragedy but the manner is ultimately individual.The 2013 Year of Verdi may constitute a wonderful opportunity to broaden one's knowledge of this great composer, the genius of his time.
However, many viewers who have seen Franco Zeffirelli's OTELLO will probably agree with the New York Times reviewer, Vincent Canby, that, unlike TRAVIATA, the movie rather "ornaments" the original than "reveals" it.
Therefore, from the very opening shot with its grandeur and the majestic display of elaborate visuals rather than Verdi's storm music (which appears to be in the shadow of spectacle), OTELLO is foremost an expression of the director's style.Yes, it is more Zeffirelli than Verdi in its divided pieces, some chaotic continuity, dreamlike photography by the director's mainstay, Ennio Guarnieri, aestheticism and the vital, engrossing and a little terrifying conclusion.
Although it may consist of certain liberties with the original source, nothing seems to stand in the way towards leaving the viewer dazzled at the creative use of images, dazzling costumes, breathtaking colors, camera angles and the cast who make it all beautifully acted and sung.
Yes, they will completely captivate you.Of course, the nature of this movie, opera, makes the performances considerably overacted.
Yet, Zeffirelli, as in many (of not all) of his other movies supplies us with beautiful characters whose looks alone somehow make them easily identified with and likable.
The pairing of Placido Domingo as Otello and Katia Ricciarelli as Desdemona rewards us all.
By splendid combination of emotional resonance and the dramatic tensions, they deliver exceptionally memorable moments, in particular their wedding night which is a true visual poetry on screen.
Domingo beautifully highlights the typical way of a tragic hero - from victory to tragedy, from pride to humiliation, from being hailed to being doomed.
Yet, however they differ, as it is in the classical tragedy, they both fall victims of evil scheme, of the hero's evil genius.One line says: "Beware of jealousy!" This, unfortunately, did not apply to "Beware of an evil man!" Justino Diaz portrays Jago, a malicious man who believes in a god of vengeance...that is his creed.
It is him who plants the seeds of doubt about Desdemona and her alleged lover, Cassio (Urbano Barberini) and his poison really works in the hero's mind.
In one of the most powerful scenes of the movie, Jago stands at the cross in a typical Zeffirelli imagery (compare to the film about saint Francis) and, on the verge of blasphemy, he sings out in pride and vanity "Heaven is an idle tale" That scene has its continuation at Otello's oath.
Zeffirelli delivers a splendid performance from Justino Diaz, the most memorable character/villain of the movie.From the supporting cast, a mention must be made of Urbano Barberini.
Here, the classical idea of beauty, sort of Michelangelo's David is evoked, in particular, at the additional scene (which Canby relates to as 'gross interruption') when Cassio is showed succumbed to the wild pleasures of erotic dreams about Desdemona.
Yet, OTELLO may be forgiven its liberal treatments of the classical source and may be considered a significant film by those seeking high art on screen..
It might be great for opera fans, but it was all lost on me..
This is easily one of Franco Zeffirelli's better opera films.
A chief example of beauty was Desdemona lying on the bed all pure, as white as snow, as is said in the Shakespeare play.
The subtitles are also very easy to read, and the plot while shortened is faithful to the play and to the opera's libretto.
Verdi is without doubt up there with Puccini as the finest Italian opera composer, composing masterpieces such as La Traviata, Il Trovatore and Aida, and Otello based on Shakespeare's play deserves to be up there with them.
So many highlights to choose from, there is Exultate, there are a couple of beautiful choruses and the riveting revenge duet between Otello and Iago, but my favourite has to be Desdemona's beautiful but haunting Willow Song(only in excerpt form here), that can give you goosebumps, because the repeated word Salce is quite hypnotic and foreboding.
Placido Domingo was just brilliant, yes in the play, Othello is supposed to be black, I am trying to avoid being racist here, but Domingo is such a versatile talented singer, with a phenomenal voice, and a stage presence that does make Pavarotti inferior in comparison, it is forgiven.
Katia Ricciarelli looked beautiful as the tragic Desdemona, and her voice was like an angel, in one word stunning.
And Justino Diaz is very convincing as the hissable villain Iago, especially in the blasphemous but chilling Credo, who manipulates Otello into believing that Desdemona is unfaithful in quite an entertaining way.
Overall, a very well done film adaptation of Verdi's opera.
This film could have been one of the best opera movies ever, if only Zeffirelli had refrained from interfering with not only the musical score, apparently to cut down the length to standard two-hour movie time (which is bad enough), but with the contents of the opera as well.
His version blatantly suggests that Cassio was indeed somehow interested in Desdemona (on which level remains vague) which is simply not the case.
It is very important that Otello's jealousy has indeed no basis in fact but is solely propelled by means of Iago's evil insinuations.
In my opinion it is a rather cheap attempt by Zeffirelli to wring more "movie drama" out of a piece that already is so dramatic it doesn't need the "enhancement".
For someone who loves this particular opera it is very painful to see and hear it mutilated like that (Zeffirelli has proved with the Traviata film that you can slightly reduce the score in a manner that is much less offensive).
Placido Domingo, having been in his prime at the time, is a rare example of an opera singer able to apply just the right amount of subtlety required by the occasion.
Whereas other singers tend to overact in a medium that is defined by a much closer look on the actions and expressions of the actors he gives a very moving, very convincing performance, always aware that no excessive gestures are needed, instead making you believe that the character is a real person.
His singing is beyond reproach or criticism, the voice has a beauty you rarely find in other tenor voices of the time.
Katia Ricciarelli is also very good and moving, although her performance slightly leans toward the theatrical approach.
Justino Diaz is convincing enough as the villain and obviously enjoys the role which adds to the altogether gripping feel of the movie.
The setting, production design and costumes are at the usual level of Zeffirelli's well-known naturalistic directorial approach and attention to detail, which I rather like in opera movies.
To sum it up, I wish he hadn't tempered with the opera but instead had shown a little more faith in and respect for Verdi's work..
Once again, Zefferelli produces a tour de force after the smash hit that was the 1982 film adaptation of Verdi's La Traviata starring Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas.
Placido Domingo, whom we are led to believe must be Zefferelli's favorite tenor (he never cast Pavoratti in any of his films, though Pavoratti was enjoying immense success at this time as well)is Otello.
Zefferelli uses up all the tricks of his sleeve- Renaissance period costumes, authentic detail, color and backdrops (shot in Venice, Italy, which to the Italian Zefferelli is probably only a block away) beautiful people in the cast- even Cassio (Urbano Barberini) is quite good-looking and in a twist performs the role with a bit of ambiguity so as to make us believe that perhaps there is a little truth to Iago's story.
He did have a dream in which he was making love to Desdemona and it's not altogether impossible that he wanted her for his own.
And this is not a full-length stage version but a movie!!!
In a movie, we are limited to 2 hours at most, while some operas can last 4 hours.
He never loses the integrity of the spirit of the work.This late opera of Verdi is actually quite difficult to sing and anyone who can master the roles here are especially talented and dedicated to their art.
Domingo shines in every scene, from the opening "Exultate!" as he returns home triumphant after defeating the enemy, to the tender love scene with Desdemona in which he recalls his tragic past (he was sold as a slave and taken from his native African soil and Zefferelli effectively uses flashbacks) to all his monologues which border on Laurence Olivier theatrics, to the intense finale in which he stabs Desdemona, he is quite frankly the best.
What the world is waiting for, as well as I, is an African-American tenor who can master the role of Otello.
There is a very limited supply of black men in opera.
Domingo makes a nuanced performance and quite moving.
"Maybe it's because I'm black" he says at one point when he begins to question why Desdemona would turn to another man for love or passion.
Surely at this time, a successful, victorious General like Otello, who was black in a white-European world, would cause some jealousy and envy by such people as Iago.
Although it may not necessarily be a question of color (Iago, after all, wanted the position of Cassio and perhaps even Otello's own office as the great General and in this way was simply full of envy).
This is a great film with top singers giving it their best.
I am an opera fan for life after seeing this movie.
My favorite moments include- Desdemona's Prayer Scene before she is killed, Iago's blasphemous "Credo" (I believe in a Cruel God") in which he mocks the very establishment of religion, calling Heaven a lie, and praising the evil nature of man.
Justino Diaz is a particularly devilish Iago, though I would have loved to see Samuel Ramey in the role.
Diaz seems to be putting forth only vocal effort and lacks the "slime" he needs in acting/body movements, etc to effectively portray opera and literature's most evil villains..
He is married to the daughter of a high ranking family, Desdemona, who is carrying in her own name the fact that she has a very doomed, demonized lot due to this very disruptive situation and love.
This creates a rivalry, antagonism with the captain of the fleet, Cassio, and the extreme envy if not hatred from Iago is enough to turn a disruption, a breach of balance into a major catastrophe.
A handkerchief and its supposed or alleged circulation will sign the end of Desdemona strangled by Othello, a strangulation that is very strange in this film since she will survive it long enough to expose her murderer and then die peacefully.
The play by Shakespeare and this opera reveals a deep racist inspiration.
Othello is bringing this drama to Venice because he is a Moor, an Infidel, a Blackman, etc
That theme exists in other plays like "Titus Andronicus" or "The Merchant of Venice", with an anti-Semite dimension in these latter cases.
In this case, the object of that envy is Othello's wife and the game is to make the successful warrior kill his love, which he does out of some jealous lust, some possessive desire.
The subsequent drama and the repentance of Othello shows how things are changing in these renaissance years, how women are little by little capturing some individual existence of their own, on the way to freedom, even if it ends up in death altogether.
In fact Shakespeare in his English society is more advanced than Verdi in his 19th century Italy.
Shakespeare doubles the point by making Desdemona's maid the final and lethal accuser of Iago and his lying and conspiring.
We have to think of Romeo and Juliet but this latter case is pure love, no conspiration, jealousy or whatever, though the end is the same apart from the poison.
Zeffirelli does a pretty good job by creating a rich environment, at times maybe too rich.
A slightly leaner production would have probably emphasized the beauty of the music and the singing.
Othello as well as Desdemona reach the depth and density the tragedy requires.
This is a great adaptation of one play made by William Shakespeare, being one of the best movie versions of his works: Franco Zeffirelli made a great job with the original story making a incredibly good movie that has excellent performances, beautiful music and many memorable scenes.Actually, this is probably one of the best movies that I've ever saw: Everything about it was great and captivating.
Placido Domingo made a completely unforgettable performance as Othello, and the rest of the cats made a magnificent work as well.This movie is a masterpiece, and definitely deserves more appreciation and recognition.
|
tt0076059
|
Fun with Dick and Jane
|
An upper-middle-class couple, Dick and Jane Harper, hit a hump in living the good life when the husband loses his job. Falling through the cracks of society in the United States, they become high-class thieves to get back all they have lost.
Dick Harper is a successful aerospace engineer in Los Angeles, where he and wife Jane have a lovely house, with a swimming pool and new lawn under way. Due to financial reversals at the agency, however, Dick's boss, Charlie Blanchard, suddenly fires him.
Dick and Jane owe more than $70,000 and abruptly have no income. His attempts to find other gainful employment fail. Jane lands a fashion modeling appearance at a restaurant that becomes a fiasco. Dick ends up applying for unemployment and food stamps, while Jane's wealthy parents, rather than help, advise them to use this experience positively as a life lesson.
Unable to come up with any other solution to their problems, Dick and Jane turn to a life of crime. They make an effort to select their victims judiciously, robbing the telephone company, for instance, which makes customers in line cheer. In time, Dick and Jane weigh their guilty consciences against their needs, trying to get their old lives back and keep out of jail.
|
satire
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
I agree with the reviewer who said that George Segal and Jane Fonda are an unlikely couple to star in this movie.
George Segal and Jane Fonda are not he kind of actors you would expect to find in this movie with low brow humour that is a delightfully guilty addiction.
Dirty jokes, a rancid social commentary and the glib life of bad mid to late 1970's economics drive 'Fun With Dick and Jane' to a level of crime that makes you root for them.
Another one has Fonda visiting her conservative parents to ask for financial help and her father turning her down with an evangelical sermon and Dick and Jane's first stick up at a cheap motel.
The Excellent George Segal And The Equally Excellent Jane Fonda, Play Dick And Jane, A couple who have it all, a large dream home complete with maid, and swimming pool(Under Construction) and a young son, and even a dog named Spot!George Segal, is a successful Aerospace Executive, who get's laid off due to some unforeseen cutback's, unfortunately the couple who are living beyond their mean's, and soon hit rock bottom as the pair struggle to find employment, with exceptionally hilarious result'sBut where there's a will their's a way as Dick And Jane 'Accidently receive stolen money from a botched bank raid, the couple who develop an appetite for robbery then devise various and ingenious method's of grand larceny to pay off their mortgage/Bill's,Unfortunately they had to unnessesary remake this gem for the attention deficit generation,(which is nowhere as great as this!.
As usual, it's a "Jane Fonda movie" that thinly conceals a social message underneath its comic scenario, but I didn't feel it got too preachy until near the finish-line.
George Segal works very easily with Fonda, and there are some hugely funny scenes after an arduous opening wherein Segal loses his cushy job.
But for every foul ball there comes along something fresh and groovy, like the sequence where Fonda acts her way out of neighborhood humiliation once the gardeners start rolling up her lawn, or when the gentleman from Food Stamps shows up at an inappropriate moment (a ritzy family dinner) confessing he just had a Big Mac and a Coke.
When the executive engineer Dick Harper (George Segal) is unexpectedly fired by the president Charlie Blanchard (Ed McMahon) of the Taft Aerospace, company where he works, his wife Jane Harper (Jane Fonda) and him get completely broken, full of debts including the mortgage of their fancy house and without means to support their lifestyle.
There is a heist in the bank and Jane accidentally steals some money from the thieves, and the couple decides to robber to survive and maintain their social status."Fun with Dick and Jane" is a great amoral comedy that has not aged or dated.
Jane Fonda is very beautiful and shows a great chemistry with George Segal.
The story of the American Middle Class in jeopardy and is aptly personified in this movie, called 'Fun With Dick and Jane.' There have been several other films based on this theme, but for my money, the stars of George Segal and Jane Fonda are solidly entrenched and not easily replaced by later film couples.
Segal stars' as Mr. Richard Harper a Aero-space executive who as his boss (Ed McMahon) states is the very best at his job, but like so many other corporate executives is no longer needed.
"Fun with Dick and Jane" from 1977, starring George Segal and Jane Fonda, is the type of comedy that's rarely made anymore in mainstream cinema.
Like the remake, which had a different script but the same premise, it's about a financially totally overextended couple who find themselves flat broke when the husband, Dick, loses his job.
When Jane looks over the bills, she declares her husband "the Typhoid Mary of finance." What follows is a very funny comedy as Dick and Jane try to make it on unemployment, apply for food stamps, and attempt to borrow money at a 17% interest rate ("That's illegal!" Jane yells).
Today you need a Jim Carrey to sign on for a film like this in order for it to be made, where in the '70s and '80s, these movies were plentiful.
Dick and Jane Harper are happy and very well off; they have a dog, a son, a great house and Dick has a high-powered job as an aerospace company executive.
Fun with Dick and Jane serves as an entertaining satire on the upper middle class standards of living, produced in the presumably stifling corporate environment of the mid-1970's.
Lovely wife Jane Fonda, who handles matters fairly well when their landscapers tear up all their unpaid work, finds herself forced to find some source of income to maintain their expensive lifestyles it would seem Segal's unemployment only takes them so far.
Fonda secures a job as a model while Segal manages to lose his benefits when a gay unemployment officer spots him working as a bit character in the opera.
In addition, Fun contains a few instances of dated racism, with jabs at homosexuals, Hispanics and African-Americans (who hold a pajama dance party in McMahon's office as Segal and Fonda crack his safe, their loud drill protected by the celebrants' louder music).
Fun With Dick And Jane has George Segal and Jane Fonda as this upper middle class suburban couple living the American dream with their son Sean Frye.
It all comes to an end when aerospace engineer Segal gets fired by his unctuous and smarmy boss Ed McMahon.
After trying other ways to get an income and failing, Segal and Fonda turn to a life of crime.
Though they have many setbacks, they begin to like it.Watching Fun With Dick And Jane put me in mind oddly enough of dealing with World Trade Center families at Crime Victims Board who were a lot like Segal and Fonda.
There's a great cameo part from Dick Gautier as a crooked televangelist Fonda and Segal rob.
That should almost be legal.With all the humor Fun With Dick And Jane is an interesting social critique and commentary on American values.
It was a little painful to see George Segal be so homophobic, but I choose to see this as a reflection of how far society has leapt in the last 25 years.I've read elsewhere that Jane only made this movie for the $ to support then-husband Tom Hayden's political campaign/career.
Even still, the late 1970s was Jane's era, in which she cranked out gem after gem, from the Electric Horseman to an incredibly bitchy role in The California Suite to a powerful performance in The China Syndrome.All in all, FWDAJ is a funny time capsule that has a few messages, but don't be mislead by posters here who say it's a thinly-veiled moralistic movie.
The Harpers (Fonda &Segal) are yuppies trying to hang on to middle-class status after Dick is fired from well-paying aerospace job.
Dick Harper (George Segal) and Jane, his wife (Jane Fonda) believe themselves to be living the high life.
I'm a big fan of Jane Fonda, and she's great in this movie.
Fun with Dick and Jane is a take on the Dick and Jane children's books; George Segal and Jane Fonda play the title characters who've always played by the rules and done everything society's told them to do.
They try everything they can think of to get jobs and money, but when they reach the end of their rope, they turn to crime.This movie isn't made to be taken seriously, so don't expect a dramatic heist film.
Our couple, portrayed by George Segal and Jane Fonda are really, really good a defining how we saw ourselves at that time.
Dick (George Segal) and Jane Harper (Jane Fonda) are living the American dream.
George Segal and Jane Fonda play a good bickering couple.
After upper middle-class aerospace executive George Segal (as Dick Harper) is unexpected fired from his high-paying job, he and housewife Jane Fonda (as Jane) are forced to tighten their economic belts.
However, when Ms. Fonda fails to hold a job of her own and Mr. Segal is exposed as a unemployment check cheat, the increasingly desperate couple must become the "Bonnie and Clyde" of the corporate world...Watching "Fun with Dick and Jane" alongside the 2005 re-make elevates this version of the film, although neither really approaches classic status.
Don't blink once or you'll miss Jay Leno, twice for Thayer David.****** Fun with Dick and Jane (2/9/77) Ted Kotcheff ~ George Segal, Jane Fonda, Ed McMahon, Hank Garcia.
Jane Fonda, George Segal, and Ed McMahan are both very well cast and very effective - This is a great movie for those who think Jane Fonda can't do comedy.
I saw this movie in the theaters back in 1977 and it is one of my favorites.The chemistry between George Segal and Jane Fonda is good and there are some very funny moments like when he tries to hold up an Afro-American bar and they just look at him and ask "When did they start busing the white robbers to the black neighborhoods?" The other crack that was risqué for the time is when Dick shoves the pistol in his waistband and screams.
Later at the party, someone is admiring his Jaguar and he cracks, "I took one for a test drive and loved it."Ed McMahon is great as the drunken manager firing everyone, playing off his reputation from the Johnny Carson show and connections with Budweiser as their spokesman.It's really a very funny movie for it's time and wears well with age.
"Fun with Dick and Jane" is a solid, well-made family movie, although it goes without saying that it's not perfect.Dick (George Segal) is a successful upper-class businessman who suddenly loses his job when his boss (Ed McMahon) fires him.
His wife, Jane (Jane Fonda), soon finds her world turned upside-down as she is hard-pressed to afford the most simple commodities.In a last-ditch effort, the couple turn to harmless crime such as robbing banks (never killing people - it is a PG movie after all and they aren't Bonnie and Clyde, as the tagline says), until they decide to even rip off Dick's ex-boss at one of his Christmas parties.The movie is being remade this year with Jim Carrey (originally to co-star Cameron Diaz, who pulled out) and I don't think it's necessary.
The original works as an amiable, entertaining family comedy and a remake set today would only seem redundant.The cast is strong - McMahon is a scene-stealer and Fonda and Segal have good chemistry.It's a lite version of "Bonnie and Clyde" with a predictably fairy-tale-happy ending and likable characters.
It's not ugly or mean-spirited, it's just a nice family film - and what more would you expect from a movie called "Fun with Dick and Jane"?
And, if you never really were around during the late 70's, you won't get the concept either....Sure, we've all read and re-read the plot concept - upper middle income bracket Dick (George Segal) loses his job - just at the time with he and his wife Jane (Jane Fonda) are playing 'keep up with the Joneses' - by buying and buying and buying everything that his salary will afford: there's the new home (typical of ANYTHING in Orange County at the time), the cars, the household furnishings and electronic gadgets, and, oh, yes, let's not forget the LAWN!
George Segal made his name in the 1960s with dramas such as King Rat and the sublime Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?In the 1970s he became a master of light comedy and this is a good example as he teams up with Jane Fonda.
Dick is unable to get another job and when Jane succeeds with employment it ends in disaster.The couple turn to theft rather ineptly at first to make ends meet.
They then decide to rob Dick's former boss who has stashed some slush money in his safe.This is an immoral light hearted film with a subtext of life in breadline America which did get worse from the late 1970s onwards.Its a fun, zippy film which is a lot better than the Jim Carrey remake but has dated with its racial attitudes.
Ironically Segal would go on to make Carbon Copy a few years later which would examine prejudice as he discovers he has a grown up black son played by Denzel Washington (his film debut.)George Segal and Jane Fonda bounce off well with each other, there is a nice cameo from John Dehner who plays Jane's father who turns down her plea for financial help..
George Segal and Jane Fonda play a yuppie couple whose well-to-do lifestyle suddenly gets interrupted when he loses his job.
I taped 'Fun With Dick and Jane' nearly four years before I actually watched it.
But I like Jane Fonda and George Segal so I figured I would watch it SOMEday.
Sometimes a movie starts with one idea and goes nowhere other trying to exploit it several ways.Jane Fonda was the rare thing: a so-called sex kitten ingénue turned serious actress, additionally capable of comedy.
Tame today but a big deal in its time.Jane (the character has this name, and he husband is the dick) comes home with a great, exciting idea.
Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people.
Dick Harper (George Segal) is suddenly fired from his high-paying job.
The best thing about Dick & Jane is the music, like the main theme by The Movie 'Ahead of the Game', and as some of it's supplied by Lamont Dozier it's not hard to see why.
This film brings a smile to my face every time I think about it!Jane Fonda and George Segal are Jane and Dick Harper,A typical Suburbia Couple in LA.When Dick loses his Aerospace job,he goes downhill,first losing his Welfare status by Working one night at the Opera,and getting caught by the welfare adjuster!!And the laughs just keep on coming.Jane loses her job,Dick borrows money from a loan agency,but as they collect the cash,the place gets robbed.The Harpers get a new idea:Rob to pay the bills!As the story progresses,they rob:The telephone company,A record store,a no-tell motel,and a minister!But the best of all:When the Harpers are invited to a party at Dick's old job,they go in and steal all the money out of his old boss's safe.Since the Money is not supposed to exist:He let's them go:WITH THE MONEY!!All in all a good film and one that will make you laugh to see that crime does pay......In Laughs!!.
''Fun with Dick and Jane'' is not the best comedy I watched, but still is a nice movie from the 70's starring George Segal and Jane Fonda as Dick and Jane, a couple from the upper-middle class who suddenly stay with high debts, since Dick was fired, and decide to steal to pay their bills and keep their life style.
In this one, George Segal plays a serious executive engineer, while in the new version, Jim Carrey makes Dick a stupid idiot.
Jane Fonda is very beautiful, and I am amazed that she was already 40 years old when she did this movie,since she doesn't look more then 32..
George Segal and Jane Fonda had the right chemistry to pull off their roles here, but a lot of times I thought the story was forced and didn't ring true to character.
I actually know a married couple whose names are Dick and Jane who are friends of mine, and managed to reference the film the last time we got together.
"Fun with Dick and Jane" was released during George Segal's flirtation with real stardom during the mid-1970s.
While pleasant in tone and easy to take, the movie loses momentum about halfway through, wandering to a strictly standard ending.Dick (George Segal) and Jane (Jane Fonda) are a couple living the Southern California dream: lots of money, big house, comfortable lifestyle.
Then Dick is laid off by his drunken boss Charlie (Ed McMahon), resulting in the couple borrowing money at first, then turning to a life of crime later.
Great stuff.It wasn't a 'fall out of your seat laughing' kind of comedy, but none the less it was amusing and entertaining enough to be perfect family viewing on a rainy afternoon.It really is Fun with Dick and Jane..
All the characters are awesome, and George Seagal and Jane Fonda had brilliant chemistry together, and made a hilarious duo, plus The ending was especially smart and clever.
George Seagal is brilliant here, he had wonderful chemistry with Fonda, was hilarious, seemed to be enjoying himself,had some great dialog, and before this I have never seen him in anything, but will be checking out more of his movies after this terrific performance!.
Jane Fonda was gorgeous and was equally as good, she was very funny, added spark, also seemed to be having fun, and proved she was indeed one of the greatest actresses of all time!.
It is the same format, executive engineer Dick Harper (The Cable Guy's George Segal) is unexpectedly fired by Charlie Blanchard (Ed McMahon) just after finishing a new swimming pool, and he and his wife Jane (Jane Fonda) are in financial trouble.
I saw this back in 1979,when you often used to get 2 movies for the price of one.Its probably not the funniest film either Segal or Fonda made.but it races along providing plenty of laughs and hitting its targets.Basically Higher middle income bracket couple turn to crime,after he is made redundant and finds he can't get another job.The funniest scene involves them trying to rob a bar in a black neighbourhood,unsuccessfully.Along the way come encounters with the welfare,food stamps,the opera and a bank robbery.Overall,no classic but very funny and worth seeing at least once,certainly much better than some of the witless drivel that passes for comedy these days.
|
tt0179196
|
Zbogum na dvaesetiot vek
|
Goodbye, 20th Century! consists of three stories of extreme violence and emotional despair. The first takes place in the year 2019, where the world has become an environment of apocalyptic wreckage and ruin. A man named Kuzman is sentenced to death by a nomadic tribe, but their attempts to fatally shoot the condemned man are a failure. Fated to live forever, Kuzman wanders the wasteland until he encounters an enigmatic figure who offers him information on how he can escape eternal life.
The second story is a three-minute segment that takes place in 1900. Presented as a record of the first wedding ceremony ever captured on film, the scene devolves into violence when it is discovered the newlyweds are actually brother and sister.
The third story takes place on New Year's Eve 1999. A man dressed as Santa Claus returns to his apartment building, where a wake is in session. The solemn mourning degenerates into violence while the sounds of the Sid Vicious punk rock rendition of My Way floods the proceedings.
|
avant garde, murder, violence, absurd, psychedelic, satire
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0219139
|
The Longest Journey
|
The game takes place in the parallel universes of magic-dominated Arcadia and industrial Stark. The protagonist, April Ryan, is an 18-year-old art student living in Stark, identified as a 'Shifter' capable of movement between these worlds, and tasked with restoring their essential Balance.
The story begins in Stark, where a sleeping April unintentionally shifts to Arcadia and meets the 'White Dragon', who identifies her as the heroine of the coming story. Upon learning this, April is attacked by a dark 'Chaos Vortex' and awakens in Stark, where she dismisses her experience as a nightmare. The character 'Cortez' later surprises her by revealing his knowledge.
When surreal activity begins affecting her friends, April meets again with Cortez, who transports her to the Arcadian city Marcuria. There she meets Tobias Grensret, Vestrum of the Sentinel; learns Alltongue, the common language in Arcadia; and hears from Tobias that the Balance protecting both worlds is dissolving after the dereliction of its Guardian, and must be restored by the appearance of another.
To return to Stark, April visits Brian Westhouse, a friend of Cortez, who assists her return; Cortez then tells her of the organization known as the Vanguard or Church of Voltec. The next day, April consults Warren Hughes, a homeless boy who agrees to help April if she erases his criminal record and locates his missing sister, in doing which April finds a data cube on the Church of Voltec. Hughes then refers her to a hacker named Burns Flipper, who reveals that the wealthy magnate Jacob McAllen is head of the Vanguard, assisted by Gordon Halloway, a former candidate for Guardianship divided by the Vanguard into Chaos (in Arcadia) and Logic (in Stark), and gives her a false identification by which to infiltrate the Vanguard through its front company MTI.
Meeting Cortez and Father Raul in a Catholic cathedral, April is told that Arcadia is on the brink of war. Later in Arcadia, April meets the innkeeper, Benrime Salmin, and the clairvoyant Abnaxus, ambassador of the Venar, who identifies the coming danger. In the morning, April learns of four magical species, each of whom has prophecies of a savior who will restore the Balance, only to finally break it – and determines to visit one such species, the winged Alatian of the island Alais, having gained sea-travel by rescuing a talking bird that she names Crow. Before departing, she learns that she must defeat an alchemist named Roper Klacks, in order to free the ships' wind that he holds captive.
At Roper Klacks' Tower, April challenges Klacks to use his magic against her calculator, and wins. Immediately before her departure to Alais, Tobias gives April the Talisman representing the Balance. En route, April kills the monster known as 'Gribbler' while rescuing one of her captive Banda, whose species later give her the name 'April Bandu-embata' as a mark of gratitude and grant her part of the disc necessary to restore the Balance.
On the voyage to Alais, a 'Chaos Storm' attacks the ship, and April sabotages the ship's compass to restore its course. When the ship's captain seizes her Talisman, April attempts to retrieve it, and in so doing sinks the ship, whereupon the crew abandon her on a raft. She is taken prisoner by the Maerum, a Mermaid-like species related to the Alatian, but currently their enemies. In revealing their common ancestry, April fulfills a prophecy of the 'Waterstiller', a foretold savior of the Maerum.
After fulfilling the second prophecy by killing a 'Snapjaw', she is conveyed to fulfill the third by re-uniting the Maerum with the Alatians. After a series of tasks and in meeting with the Alatians' leader, April fulfills their prophecy by flying without wings, and convinces the Alatian to make peace with the Maerum.
In a coastal sea cave, the Teller's guard and the Maerum Queen bring stones which combine to form the second part of the Balance's disc; whereupon the Maerum convey April, at her own request, to the Blue Dragon, who gives April one of the disc's Jewels and takes her to a ship inhabited by the Dark People, who give April the third piece of the disc, and an astral map locating the Guardian's Realm.
At the Marcurian Harbor, April is attacked by the Chaos and returns to the Cathedral in Stark. There, Father Raul reveals that he is also a Sentinel Minstrum of Stark, and that Cortez is missing. On returning to her lodgings, April is caught by Gordon Halloway. She is rescued by another character, Lady Alvane, who teaches April to shift at will, and sends April to Abnaxus to receive the disc's final piece. April then returns to the White Dragon, who reveals herself as April's mother and dies, and a new White Dragon emerges from her egg.
Returned to Stark, April gives Flipper the star map to decipher, infiltrates MTI, and is captured by antagonist McAllen. Unable to escape, she surrenders her two jewels and the disc, and is then imprisoned. Upon escaping in pursuit of her object, she is trapped again; but rescued by Cortez. McAllen then reveals that he and Cortez are two Dragons (called 'Draic Kin', in-universe) meant to protect Stark, but at odds after McAllen's decision to re-unite the two worlds despite the risk of Chaos. The two then appear to die in combat. Retrieving the disc and the four jewels, April returns to Flipper, whom she finds dying after the seizure of her deciphered map by Gordon Halloway, and gains a copy from him, which she uses to locate the Guardian's Realm near the space station 'Morning Star'.
At the station, April frees Adrian, the derelict Guardian, and escapes with Halloway in pursuit. On her way to the Guardians' Tower, she imprisons the Chaos Vortex in her Talisman and later summons Crow, who helps her complete the necessary trials. Inside the tower, April re-unites Halloway with the Chaos Vortex to restore his candidacy as Guardian and returns to Stark and Arcadia.
In the Epilogue, the scene returns to Lady Alvane’s home, where she has narrated the entire story to two youths, and where she reveals that the two worlds re-united under Gordon Halloway. Upon their departure, an aged and graying Crow enters, asking the tale of the "warrior princess" who won the war of the Balance, and she corrects his impression; a possible reference to the sequel, Dreamfall: The Longest Journey.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0101764
|
Double Impact
|
The story begins with the opening of the Hong Kong Victoria Harbour tunnel by business partners Paul Wagner and Nigel Griffith (Alan Scarfe). Paul attends with his wife, and their twin infant sons, Chad and Alex. However, after the celebrations, the family is followed home by a Triad hit squad on orders from Griffith and crime lord Raymond Zhang (Philip Chan). A shootout ensues, in which Paul and his wife are killed by Moon (Bolo Yeung), Griffith's henchman. Chad is rescued by the family bodyguard, Frank Avery (Geoffrey Lewis), and raised abroad. Alex is dropped off on the doorstep of a Hong Kong orphanage.
In the present day, Chad (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and Frank are running a successful martial arts business in Los Angeles when Frank reveals a new "business" for the two of them in Hong Kong. Soon after arrival, they find Chad's long-lost twin brother Alex (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and Frank explains their shared past. It is revealed that Alex is immersed in the Hong Kong crime world ruled by Zhang, and has a girlfriend who works for Griffith’s company, Danielle Wilde (Alonna Shaw). After escaping the Hong Kong Marine Police for trying to sell foreign cars with electronics inside, Chad (mistaken for Alex) is taken in by the Triads to discuss the incident. During the interrogation, Chad learns about a drug lab in Causeway Bay.
Alex and Chad arrange to destroy the lab by planting C4 in the complex one night, but Chad's clumsiness triggers a massive gunfight. The lab is destroyed, but Alex loses any respect for Chad. Later, Danielle and Alex talk on a ferry and discuss a meeting that will take place soon in a night club in Hong Kong, with Zhang and other bosses in attendance. Alex, Chad and Frank endure their third mission to take down Zhang using Cognac boxes with C4 encased in them.
Zhang discovers that both Chad and Alex are not only twins, but the twins from 25 years ago. Danielle locates the document she had been sent to recover, but is stopped and sexually harassed by Kara (Cory Everson), Griffith's assassin. She reports her findings to Chad, who goes to meet her alone. He brings her to one of Alex's hideouts in a bar, but they are forced to flee when the Triad comes looking for them. Due to an incomplete phone call, Alex suspects Chad of having an affair with his girlfriend and starts drinking heavily as he dreams of Danielle and Chad having sex. He attacks and fights Chad in a drunken rage upon his return, after which the brothers angrily part ways.
After a massive hangover, a sober Alex returns to the house to find it being raided by armed soldiers working for Griffith and Zhang, who capture Frank and Danielle. They are taken hostage on the Golden Glory ship's furnace room where they are tortured. Despite the ongoing tension between them, Alex and Chad join forces to infiltrate the ship and rescue Frank and Danielle. The duo, well-armed, arrived at the ship where they fight their way through Griffith and Zhang's henchmen, while Chad fights and kills Moon, Alex saves Danielle but not Frank, following his escape. After a climactic showdown, Chad and Danielle are confronted by Griffith who tried to kill Chad with a big vehicle. Chad fakes his death by jumping to the sea, and then, he kills Griffith after getting into the vehicle. Alex kills Zhang by making him fall to his death, and Frank came out alive, the duo are reunited as they are decide to put their rivalry aside.
|
revenge, cult, murder, violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1330559
|
Blind Side
|
The film opens with a seventeen-year-old Michael Oher talking to an NCAA investigator. Then a flashback ensues.
Michael has been in foster care with different families in Memphis, Tennessee, due to his mother's drug addiction. Every time he is placed in a new home, he runs away. His friend's father, on whose couch Mike had been sleeping, asks Burt Cotton, the coach of Wingate Christian School, to help enroll his son and Mike. Impressed by Mike's size and athleticism, Cotton gets him admitted despite his poor academic record. Later, Michael is befriended by a younger student named Sean Jr. ("SJ"). SJ's mother, Leigh Anne Tuohy, is a strong-minded interior designer and the wife of wealthy businessman Sean Tuohy.
The school staff tell Michael that his father has passed away, apparently due to an accident. Later, Leigh Anne and Sean watch their daughter Collins playing volleyball. After the game, Sean notices Michael picking up leftover food on the bleachers.
One night, Leigh Anne notices Michael walking on the road, shivering in the cold without adequate clothing; when she learns he plans to spend the night huddled outside the school gym, Leigh Anne offers to let him sleep on the couch in the Tuohy home.
The next morning, Leigh Anne notices that Michael has left. Seeing him walking away, she asks him to spend the Thanksgiving holiday with her family. Slowly, Michael becomes a member of the family. Later, Leigh Anne drives Michael to his mother's house. He sees an eviction notice posted on the door, and his mother is gone.
Leigh Anne's friends wonder what she is doing; they suggest that Collins might not be safe around Michael, but Leigh Ann rebukes them. She later asks Collins how she feels about it. Collins replies that they cannot just throw Michael out. When Leigh Anne seeks to become Michael's legal guardian, she learns he was taken from his drug-addict mother when he was seven and that no one knows her whereabouts. She is also told that, although he scored poorly in a career aptitude test, he was ranked in the 98th percentile in "protective instincts". When Michael appears to be hesitant to use his strength and size while learning to play football, Leigh Anne tells him, as an offensive lineman, he must protect his quarterback. From that moment, Michael improves drastically, well enough to play at the college level. However, to do that, he must meet the minimum grade point average to get in so the Tuohys hire a private tutor for him, the outspoken and kind Miss Sue.
Leigh Anne has a face-to-face conversation with Michael's mother about adopting him. Although she seems unresponsive in the beginning, the mother finally wishes Michael the best.
Michael is heavily recruited by many prestigious schools. SJ talks to coaches and negotiates on Michael's behalf – and his own. When Michael gets his grades high enough, he decides to attend Ole Miss, where Sean had played and Leigh Anne had been a cheerleader. That causes NCAA investigator Granger to look into the matter to determine if the Tuohys took him in and unduly influenced him just so he would play for their alma mater.
Michael runs away before the interview is over and confronts Leigh Anne about her motives for taking him in. He then proceeds to find his biological mother in Hurt Village. A gang leader welcomes him back, offers him a beer, and makes sexually offensive insinuations about Leigh Anne and Collins. When the gang leader threatens to go after them, Michael battles with him and other thugs. After thinking things over and questioning Leigh Anne, Michael tells Granger he chose Ole Miss because "it's where my family goes to school". Michael is accepted into college and says his farewells to the Tuohy family.
The film ends with information about and photos of the real Tuohy family and Michael Oher, who went on to play in the National Football League. He was then drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in the first round of the 2009 NFL Draft.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0032156
|
Zangiku monogatari
|
The film is set in Japan in 1885, alternating largely between Tokyo and Osaka.
Kikunosuke Onoe, generally called Kiku, played (in his movie debut) by the stage actor Shotaro Hanayagi, is the adopted son of a famous Kabuki actor, who is training to succeed his father in an illustrious career. Whilst hypocritically praising Onoe's acting to his face, the rest of his father's troupe deride him behind his back. Otoku (Kakuko Mori), who lives at the father's house as the young wet-nurse of the infant son of the father's natural son, is the only one frank enough to disclose his artistic shortcomings and urge him to improve himself. When Otoku is dismissed by Kiku's family for her over-closeness to the young master, with the potential for scandal, Kiku tracks her down and states that he wishes to marry her. His family is outraged and Kiku is forced to leave Tokyo, taking the train to Nagoya, honing his art away from his father, much to the latter's wrath.
The story jumps by a year. Kiku is acting alongside his uncle, Tamiro Naritaya in Osaka, but remains dissatisfied, and wishes to join a travelling troupe. Then Otoku tracks down Kiku and re-inspires him. She becomes his common law wife and continues to encourage him. When his uncle dies, four years later, he decides to join a travelling troupe and their times together become even harder. A further four years pass and we see Kiku and Otuko on the road, their fellow actors squabbling over small amounts of money. Kiku has changed in character to the point where he even strikes Otuko. She still loves him, but his love has clearly faded. Their position worsens and Otoku becomes very sick.
Otoku goes to meet Kiku's brother to beg that he be given an acting role in Tokyo, re-using the famous family name. He agrees that Kiku can play the part he was due to play on two conditions: one, that his acting has improved; two, that he and Otuko split, as this is needed to reconcile with their father. Fuku returns with Otoku to fetch Kiku.
We then see Kiku on-stage giving a bravura performance of Sumizome, a difficult and critical female role. He has at last found his niche and the fame he had always sought as a Kabuki actor. Otoku watches sadly from the wings, but she is happy for him. The family agree that Kiku may perform in Tokyo. As Kiku boards the train to Tokyo Otoku cannot be found, and Fuku hands him a letter from her, explaining everything. His companions explain that paradoxically he must continue to Tokyo in order to make Otoku's sacrifice worth while. He is a success.
The Tokyo troupe visit Osaka and have a triumphant welcome. Kiku's father says that Kiku may take pride of place in the river parade after the performance. Otuko's father comes and tells Kiku that she is ill and will die that night. Kiku hesitates as it is his evening of glory, but his father forces him, saying how much Otoku helped him. Ultimately Kiku's father accepts that Kiku may marry Otoku and Kiku tells her this, but this reconciliation comes only when she is already on her deathbed (inferred as tuberculosis) in her old family home. Proud that he is at last happy, she ushers him to join the river parade, and says they will never meet again.
She dies at home with her sister and uncle, as her husband's parade passes the window.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0131459
|
Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos
|
King Richard LeGrey is the leader and 40th heir of the Gladstone Keep and the White Army. Gladstone is the base of operations for all of the civilized areas. The White Alliance has been defending it from many threats for three generations. The King is worried about Scotia (Margarithe Fiston), an old witch and ruler of the Dark Army who has recently acquired a ring called the Nether Mask, which allows its user to assume any form of any power or capability. The King sends the player out on a mission to acquire the Ruby of Truth from Roland.
When the hero finds Roland, he learns that the Ruby of Truth has been stolen as Roland dies. When he returns to Gladstone, he sees Scotia poison King Richard and escape. It is now up to the player to save the King and defeat the evil witch Scotia. He must visit the Draracle and obtain the recipe of an elixir that will save King Richard. Once they have the recipe, the party must travel the Lands of Lore to find the ingredients, while simultaneously learning as much as possible about the Nether Mask in the hopes of defeating Scotia.
|
good versus evil, violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
A great Role Playing Game. When Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos came in 1993 or 1994, people were amazed. Not only did the game have an intro that was one the most beautiful to that date, it did also incorporate a good and interesting game-play. A funny side-story to this whole game was that Lands Of Lore originally was the game Eye Of The Beholder 3. But Westwood (who made Lands of Lore) lost the rights to do it, even though they had made much of the game. The remains of Westwood's Eye Of The Beholder 3 were converted into Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos. A good story about the evil witch Scotia taken possession of the enchanted ring "The Nether Mask", which she used to cover the lands in darkness. The Dark Army where on the move, and succeeding in smashing Gladstone, the symbol light of the lands, and poisoning King Richard. In the game your job is to slay Scotia. In the new version of this game King Richards voice where played by Patrick Steward - who did a good job. Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos where so successful, that it where succeeded by two sequels. I love this game. It is one of my most fondest memories of the mid-nineties.. Excellent game. Lands of Lore is an excellent game with a GREAT storyline and hours of fun. Richard LeGrey is the noble King of the Gladstone and ruler of the White Army. The King and his council fret of the rumors they hear about Scotia, an evil hag and ruler of the Dark Army, and her uncovering of the Nether Mask- a magical ring of extreme power that allows its wearer to shape-shift. But, this is no rumor, for the Mask was found deep within the mines, causing many vile creatures to be released into the lands. Now Scotia can assume the shape of any person, or creature... After Richard learns of the Dark Army's findings, he seeks a champion to retrieve a magical necklace from an old friend in hopes to destroy the hag and stop her evil plots of taking over the Gladstone Kingdom. But after failing to find this Ruby of Truth, the champion returns to Gladstone only to find the Scotia has already begun her vile plot--poisoning the King! Protected by a spell from his council, the King is in need of an Elixir that can only be retrieved by his champion, whom is set out to explore the lore and mystery of the surrounding lands in hopes to save their beloved King and stop Scotia from victoriously gaining control of the Kingdom. You're that champion. And by the way... Scotia hates you. You are able to choose from one of four pre-developed characters to serve as the King's champion, each having their own strengths and weaknesses in three categories: Magic, Protection, and Might. Along the way, you pick up companions to fight along side you (some are optional).
|
tt1237838
|
Mystery Team
|
The Mystery Team consisting of "Master of Disguise" Jason Rogers (Donald Glover), "Boy Genius" Duncan Wheeler (DC Pierson), and "The Strongest kid in town" Charlie Day (Dominic Dierkes) began with three children who styled themselves as detectives, solving mostly kid-related mysteries such as missing cats or a lost baseball, but also gaining some local fame. Somehow, the trio have remained as naïve as ever, although they are about to graduate from high school. They have continued the same mindset and antics even though they are teenagers, focusing on children's infractions, although adults (such as their parents) wonder when the teens will grow out of this attitude.
To prove to themselves and the town at large that they can be "real detectives", the Mystery Team take it upon themselves to solve a double homicide when they are hired by a young girl named Brianna (Daphne Ciccarelle) to discover why her parents were killed. Although Duncan and Charlie reluctant to help her, Jason convinces them to help to her stating that it is their chance to prove they can be real detectives and earn everyone's respect. Then they meet Brianna's older sister Kelly (Aubrey Plaza), whom Jason becomes attracted to, and tells them let the cops handle it. They ignore her, and go to the local grocery store, where they are told by their Jordy (Bobby Moynihan) that a hobo named Sam know may know something. They given stuff from Kelly's house from Sam and find a card from a local bowling alley with symbol engraved in it. They go to the bowling alley where they meet a clerk who has a grudge against them and refuses to scan the card. However, they spot a guy named Dougie who the card belongs to and see that he's wearing Kelly's ring. They follow Dougie to a local gentlemen's club were a bouncer attempts to throw them out for spying on Dougie and a stripper with him. However, they escape from the bouncer and Jason overhears Dougie saying that someone named Leroy gave him Kelly's ring and the ring is now in the stripper's vagina. He, Duncan and Charlie then retrieve the ring from the toilet the stripper urinated it into and escape from the gentlemen's club before the bouncer catches them.
After returning the ring to Kelly, they go back to Jordy, who tells them about Dougie and who Leroy is. Leroy Maddox (Peter Saati) is a dangerous drug dealer used to work at the local lumber yard. After learning his address at the lumber yard, they go to his house claiming to want to buy drugs from him. Jason sneaks away hears Leroy arguing with someone on the phone about finding some papers. After going to Kelly's house to find the papers. He finds Kelly there and they both find a paper that states something called Iphedolene is extremely toxic. However, Leroy, who become suspicious of Duncan and Charlie, shows up at Kelly's house and takes them hostage but they manage to escape. After Kelly thanks Jason, who promises to tell everything to the police, he, Duncan and Charlie return the lumber yard to where find they find Leroy and his girlfriend's dead bodies. A horrified Duncan then decides to give up despite Jason's objections. He and Charlie then reveal to Jason that they are going to college and leaving him, as he didn't apply. After a fed up Duncan and Jason get into a fight, he and Charlie abandon Jason. After going to talk to Kelly and Brianna, their dad's friend Robert Finney, who they have been staying with since parents' death, helps fix his damaged bike. However, Jason realizes that Robert was the one he heard Leroy arguing on the phone with and quickly leaves.
After going to a police officer, who tells Jason he needs proof to believe him, he goes to the Holden and Charles Corporation, where Robert works and Kelly's father worked, but not before attempting to warn Kelly about Robert on a walkie-talkie he give her, not knowing that Robert has it. At Holden and Charles, Jason bonds with two employees Jim and Frank, who get him drunk and give advice on asking Kelly out. After sneaking into Robert's office and learns that Robert is trying to treat wood with the toxic substance Iphedolene. Kelly's father, who was lawyer, learned this and was going to ruin the company and Robert, which is the reason Robert hired Leroy to scare him, not kill him. When Leroy kept asking for money he killed him too. Duncan and Charlie, who heard Jason talking about Robert on a walkie-talkie, also show up to help him. The three are then confronted by Robert, but they manage to escape. After Jason makes up with Duncan and Charlie, Robert, who has taken Kelly hostage, uses the walkie-talkie to contact them into bringing the papers he needs to the lumber yard. After they give him the papers, Robert holds them at a gunpoint to kill them. When Jason tries to reason with Robert, he shoots him, but Charlie attacks him allowing the others escape. When Jason, who admits his feelings for Kelly and kisses her, finds a firecracker Jordy gave to him earlier and gives it to Duncan who lights it and shoots it at Robert with his slingshot severely damaging his face. The police show up and Jason has wound tended to (off screen).
Months later, Jason is recovering from his gunshot wound, and thanks to Jim has a job in medical technologies and his parents have adopted Brianna. While Kelly is at Dartmouth College, but is still together with Jason. After Jason says goodbye to a departing Duncan and Charlie, a man comes out of the woods needing help. The film ends the guys getting ready for another mystery in excitement while the man shouts in anguish.
|
comedy, mystery, murder, absurd, psychedelic, humor
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0955484
|
Camp Lazlo: Where's Lazlo?
|
The story opens with Lazlo missing, and Clam and Raj relating the tale up to this point.
The first segment reveals how Raj and Clam meet. They meet a common enemy, Edward, who is the camp bully. Most of the other campers follow Edward's lead and after a scuffle, Lazlo makes his appearance. What follows builds Edward's growing resentfulness towards Lazlo, and Lumpus' dissatisfaction with the three new scouts behavior. After choosing to name their cabin after the jelly bean, Lazlo builds a totem pole to decorate their new cabin, when Lazlo hears an animal in distress. Given Lazlo's nature, he goes to find it and help it, while Clam and Raj choose not to accompany him.
Lazlo finds a bear with a pinecone stuck in his nose, and pulls it out, earning the bear's gratefulness. The bear, now named Fluffy, follows Lazlo home and he hides it in his cabin. When Edward tells Lumpus that Lazlo has left camp, they both attempt to confront Lazlo, but are instead met by Fluffy. Protecting Lazlo, Fluffy attacks Edward and Lumpus. While everyone hides in Lumpus' cabin, Lazlo follows Fluffy out of the camp; when Lazlo's torn Bean Scout cap is later found in a gory, flesh-like mess, the others assume that Lazlo was mauled and eaten by the bear.
When Edward can find neither the bear nor Lazlo, he concocts a story about how he scared Fluffy off by his "skills", and demands the camp's respect. The next series of scenes deal with both Edward spinning a web of lies, and Lumpus trying to come to grips with Lazlo's disappearance, but only due to his fear of Commander Hoo-Ha, not over any real concern for the missing scouts.
Finally understanding that Edward was lying (Clam actually figuring it out, by remembering that the bear that Lazlo brought to camp was brown, when Edward mistakenly said it was black), Raj and Clam find Lazlo, alive and well, working as a waiter in the Prickly Pines restaurant, Beef Lumberjacks. Lazlo explains the incident, but is reluctant to return to Camp Kidney, as he refuses to put up with the unfair rules. Feeling Lazlo has given up on them, Clam and Raj leave, but they've unknowingly convinced Lazlo to return.
Upon Lazlo's return, he finds an angry-turned Fluffy ravaging the camp, but this time, he has two pinecones stuck in his nose. As the bear approaches Edward and begins to attack him, Lazlo calls Fluffy off. When Lazlo understands the bear's situation, he tells Edward to help Fluffy by pulling the pinecones out of his nose. After Edward pulls the pinecones out, he is free to go and then, the rest of the camp cheers. Fluffy thanks Lazlo for helping and the two share a hug, then the bear takes his departure from Camp Kidney.
As the story closes, Lazlo appears from off-scene. Seeing Lazlo, Clam and Raj are overjoyed and rush to greet him, to which he replies that he has been in the bathroom. The movie then ends with Lazlo hoping that they were not talking about the story with Fluffy (again).
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
That was ok. I don't know! Why? Why this won award.
Story was pretty week and pretty stupid.
Music and soundtrack was boring.
Well many cartoon were better than this. But it was ok.
|
tt0355954
|
Riding the Bullet
|
Set in 1969, Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) is a young artist, studying at the University of Maine. He becomes obsessed with death, and believing he is losing his girlfriend, Jessica (Christensen), he tries to commit suicide on his birthday. His friends surprise him, and he cuts himself, which sends him to the hospital. He eventually recovers and decides to accompany them to a John Lennon concert.
Before leaving he receives news that his only living relative, his mother, Jean (Hershey), is in the hospital because of a stroke and is near death. Alan decides to hitchhike to reach the hospital before she dies. On his way there, he has multiple strange encounters with the living and dead. The film ends when Alan, now in his 40's, tells the audience that his mother died of a heart attack while watching television. He married his girlfriend Jessica, but it only lasted four years.
Alan never made it as an artist, but he does go to the theme park every summer in memory of his mother. While walking from the park, a person who looks like his friend George Staub offers him a ride, but he refuses. He tells him to "take your button and get outta here".
|
horror
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Sunday, August 1st 2004 was the World Premiere of Stephen King's Riding The Bullet, which was hosted by DIRECTOR MICK GARRIS.The story is set back in 1969.
This is not one of the worse adaptations of Stephen King's work, but it's another one that makes the successful ones (De Palma's "Carrie," Reiner's "Stand by Me," and Kubrick's "The Shining" come immediately to mind) seem all the more remarkable.
It's nice to see Barbara Hershey and Cliff Robertson working, but the film is an incoherent, drug-trippy, red-herring-loaded road movie in which each succeeding segment and flashback builds to a huge....
I've seen IT, I've struggled through the long run of "The Stand", but it is this film which stands out more than any of the other adaptations of Stephen King's work.A chilling narrative of a man traveling across country in the 70s, Riding the Bullet succeeds where many other movies have failed by presenting a personal conflict, that is, one which exists within the main character's mind.I don't think I could've asked for a much better acting job from any of the cast, either.8/10..
But I liked the story, I'm a Stephen King nut, and I enjoy watching films that aren't very well known.
MickGarris, director of Riding The Bullet, is no stranger to adapting the work of Stephen King for the screen, having previously tackled TV versions of Quicksilver Highway, The Stand, and The Shining, and the big screen adaptation of Sleepwalkers.
Naturally, this is also how I felt about Garris's adaptation of Riding The Bullet.Troubled teen Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) is hitch-hiking to see his mother in hospital.
On the way, he encounters many strange people and before his journey is through, he is forced to confront his demons and make some life-changing decisions.I must stress that this is not a horror film; there are spooky moments, but these are not necessarily supernatural, and are more likely the result of the lead character's fertile imagination.
To me, the film was more about not wasting the gift of life, dealing with guilt, and the importance of making good choices.Garris attempts some particularly strange visual gimmickry during the telling of this tale, but I personally found his quirky directorial style to be annoying, and a truly awful performance from David Arquette certainly didn't help matters; only one or two genuinely creepy moments manage to stop this from being a complete waste of time.
Not only am I barely standing watching it, I am also embarrassed that I actually liked the very story the usually atrocious movie is based on.So here comes "Riding the bullet", the movie based on a story I rather enjoyed.
He likes to draw monsters and has hallucinations of shoddy Death creature with heavy-metal background music (oh, the movie is set in 1969 by the way, so good choice with the score, guys!).
Receiving news his mother is dying, a college student decides to hitchhike out to go see her, but as he gets closer and closer to his goal he begins to feel a dangerous supernatural entity is playing games with him and vows to put an end to them before it's too late.This here actually wasn't that bad at times.
The fact that it shows the family history as much as it does is one of the problems, but here it just throws useless scene after another detailing it, then it decides to throw in the flashbacks which barely makes it any better by going to a time that doesn't help revealing important information about the story or why anything is happening, and all they do is add to the confusion which is a really hard task to accomplish.
What is also tough to understand is the motive for the main villain who initially appearing as a sort of Grim Reaper-like figure that spends half the running time talking away with the supposed victim and never tricks them into killing or any other vile activities as there were plenty of available times to do that to pad out the film's running time which really makes little sense here.
Maybe Stephen King's book is good, I have never read it, but this adaptation is a crap.
As a horror film it doesn't scare.As a psychological thriller doesn't get you anxious.I think that they tried to balance between them and fell into the river.The acting though wasn't bad.Music was good too.Haven't read the book to know if the plot sticks to the movie but it was a little swallow.It is a bad replica of the shining with the other characters except the main having anything to offer.Especially the grim reaper character who was just for laughs.Do your self a favor.Don't lose your time watching this movie.I like horror movies but this ain't one.It is more like a comedy with bad acting except the main character who wasn't anything special either..
Join Alan on all hallows eve, 1969, as he hitchhikes home from college to be with his mother who has had a stroke.I have a love hate relationship with Stephen King and I would have long ago dismissed him as trash if the first book of his I had read wasn't "The gunslinger" (actually his first book, and subtly brilliant if hard to read).
What mister King realises of course is that the great Homeric task of the modern American is to reconcile their relationship with their parents (Ulysses was only trying to get back to his wife, which says something about dysfunctional marriages in classical Greece).The movie stuffs around the time line a lot.
I am undecided if it was too much, because half way through you knew when things were not real, or if it was just right, by the end you began to get confused again about what was real and what was imaginary.The result is entertaining, funny, scary, thought provoking, and basically an interesting story, without much intelligent plot over the usual clever Stephen King idea.I can well understand why some people loved it and others hated it.
Unfortunately, if you've ever ridden one of those old wooden roller-coasters like "The Bullet," you know that they also bounce and trounce you around and can give you a little bit of a head ache--and that's also what this film does.It's really difficult to keep a viewer hooked when the film tries to be so much--it's a comedy/horror/romance/drama.
In the end, it goes for the same tone as some other Stephen King adaptations like "Stand By Me" or "The Green Mile"...even though it didn't begin that way.
That's what this movie is made up of, there's no real story and the ending is the kind of mawkish crap you'd get from a fifteen year old bashing out their first novel.I couldn't really get into any of the characters, especially the protagonist who just seemed to be whiny and other than having his joint stolen by the grim reaper had little to moan about in the grand scheme of things.
The guy is VERY talented, don't get me wrong; and he certainly has an excellent imagination and is able to come up with some great ideas and stories.Now, let me break away from a deeper analysis of King himself and get to the film here at hand.
Apparently opinions about his approach to King's work are VERY divided.This is one of those MANY films where if you are a stolid 'Realist' and don't get into any form of Fantasy at all, then you likely will not be very impressed with this movie.
This movie is serious enough to tip the scales a bit more toward the kind of film that I prefer.FWIW, the thing about Stephen King, and I'm SURE that many others will disagree if they really like his work, and the very reason why I gave up on him (or more honestly got tired of him) is that to me, almost EVERY story follows the exact same pattern.
I hadn't heard much about the movie, but couldn't quite believe it really was that long, especially since I knew King's story and couldn't imagine how you could stretch it that much.Now, after having seen the film myself, I know that it is only 100 minutes long and that the story is not enough for even those 100 minutes.
The movie does indeed feel as if it is 3 hours long, because there is not really a plot and because it is so full of distractions that it never finds its way around.The plot should be that Alan (Jonathan Jackson) hitchhikes to his hometown, because his mother (Barbara Hershey) had a stroke, but is picked up by a strange man named George (David Arquette) who maybe is already dead.
None of the things Alan experiences really seem plausible, at least not if they all happen on the same night.When you watch a movie, you are aware that there has to be a point where it gets going, sort of like a starting point.
There are flashbacks to Alan's past, which are set up by an endless series of old video footage during the opening credits, some of which is quite unlikely or even impossible to have been filmed with a video camera.With such a disjointed mess of isolated episodes and repetitious hallucinations it is no surprise that movie feels twice as long as it is.
Every time I watch this adaptation of a Stephen King story about a college student hitchhiking home to see his ill mother, my mind starts to wander and I either doze off or change the channel and then switch back occasionally to see if anything has happened.
Mick Garris ('The Stand', 'The Shining (TV)') has not strayed too far from the path with this macabre tale of a hitchhiker who is offered rides from a handful of weird and wonderful characters one Halloween night.The year is 1969 and Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) learns that his mother (Barbara Hershey) is dying of cancer, so instead of going to see Lennon and McCartney, the troubled teenager is forced to hitchhike back to his hometown.
Parker is then forced to confront all the demons from his past if he is to survive what could be the last ride of his life.Like the original story, the film has all the makings of a campfire tale.
Alan Parker is a college student who likes to draw pictures, but he is always thinking about death and in many ways wants to die.
Alan has to make the unexpected choice that will mean life or death for him or his mother.Directed by Mick Garris (Critters 2:The Main Course, Quicksilver Highway, Desperation) made his first theatrical release film since Stephen King's Sleepwalkers.
King says that "Riding the Bullet" is the best of the independent films from his work since "Stand by Me".
Movie gets a 10 in my book excellent twists and story lines, very original and not like a lot of other Stephen King stories.
The highlight of the movie is Jonathan Jackson, who pulls off a rather difficult role as Alan, a twenty-something college student who's hitchhiking home to attend to his mother who has recently suffered a stroke.During his journey, he encounters a number of strange individuals, including the always entertaining David Arquette.
The longest hallucination is when he bumps his head in a cemetery and is out for a prolonged period of time as he meets George, the Elvis wan-a-bee driving the Plymouth Fury.I didn't read the Stephen King story so I don't know if this was a good or bad screen adaptation.
Riding the Bullet (2004) * 1/2 (out of 4) Stephen King adaptation about troubled teen Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) is about to go to a John Lennon concert when he gets word from his neighbor that his mother (Barbara Hershey) has suffered a stroke and is in the hospital.
Alan must hitchhike his way through the state as he thinks about his own life, his death and runs into a wild range of people from a twisted farmer (Cliff Robertson) to some drunk rednecks and eventually a stranger (David Arquette) that he probably shouldn't have gotten a ride from.
But when the movie came to an end i couldn't help but think that i was very entertained by this mans journey to see his mother and to find out what kind of a person he really was...especially when it came to life and death.
With respect to the previous reviewer, I believe that die-hard King fans (especially those who have read Riding the Bullet) will be, if anything, more disappointed in this movie.
Get hold of a printed copy of the original story Riding the Bullet (collected in Everything's Eventual by Stephen King) and let the director of your own imagination put it up on the screen of your mind..
O.K. To start off I have read many of Stephen Kings books and short stories, and have loved them all.
The acting is good but the actors are nobody's (yes David Arquette is a nobody too).So, in conclusion, if your looking for a film to investigate the mind of a character and his internal struggle, rent this movie.
I didn't think this flick was all that bad, but when I plug it into my list of Stephen King-based movies I've seen so far, it comes in dead last out of twenty one titles.
An interesting point in retrospect is that you don't really know if the first two drivers who picked up Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) were apparitions or not, the way George Staub (David Arquette) turned out to be.
How these aging actors cannot see how silly they look....anyhoo...we yet get ANOTHER one of Stephen King's lame adaptations from a short story...a moral Tale of Death that is a fine premise however it plays out like Garris took a gaggle of Stephen King's short stories, wadded them up and pasted the pages together...it really is a mess...there are maybe a couple of interesting scares but thats it...the first problem with the movie is lead Jonathan Jackson who definitely represents the dark and brooding "suffering" effeminate male who speaks in an annoying drone that is quite common for the Male of the 2000's..Jackson is just awful as the lead and cannot garner any empathy or sympathy with his drony lackluster acting...I think this movie was probably aimed at the conflicted early 20 somethings...the generation who all got a trophy for existing...the best eye opening parts of this movie was the campy performance of art teacher Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer...very funny and I thought appropriate..and the GORGEOUS Catherine Devine just sitting there as a nude model...that was about the only two scenes that animated me other than snickering at Barbara Hershey-Stein's pie hole.....
Alan manages to get several rides as he gets closer to Lewiston but finally ends up in the red Plymouth Fury of George Staub (David Arquette) whom Alan becomes to believe is dead, George offers him a deal in which he has to make a choice whether his mother or himself dies that very night...This American, German & Canadian co-production was written, co-produced & directed by Mick Garris & was based on the internet publish story Riding the Bullet by Stephen King, any horror film fan worth anything will know that generally speaking Stephen King books don't make particularly good films although it seems his name sells so I guess people will continue to make make crappy films based on his usually great work.
At 100 minutes long Riding the Bullet is watchable & if you can get into the sloppy narrative & like the character's then you may enjoy it, I didn't think it was terrible as it had a few moments here & there but overall the film feels shallow, unfocused & almost unfinished.
A strange sort of road trip, dark comedy horror thriller that I didn't hate but didn't love either.Mick Garris seems to have a thing about Stephen King adaptations having worked on as either writer or director on the likes of Sleepwalkers (1992) & Quicksilver Highway (1997) as well as the television series The Stand (1994), The Shining (1997), Desperation (2006) & the recent Bag of Bones (2011).
I thought this was great, it seemed every single Stephen king movie dealt with someone being terrorized by something...and that just...well, I'm a slasher fan, so let's say I'd seen it done better.I loved the depth of the story, the lead was so refreshing, the loner-type.
Stephen King's fans won't be too disappointed---just don't think you're watching Riding The Bullet.Recommended..
This is a film that should be watched and not for its author may I add, as Stephen King can write in various ways but many only think true horror when they hear his name.
As I am a die-hard Stephen King fan from way back, I could appreciate the subtleties of the work and the "hidden meaning" that was attempted to be relayed, but for those that were watching it with me that were not familiar with the author or his work, it was like a bad acid trip.I was surprised that my guests found the movie to be more of a comedy than anything else.
Not every driver is ideal though.Stephen King is probably my favourite author (in that I like both the general area he covers and also his style) and it is always interesting to see filmed adaptations of his work.
If anyone has read the short story "Riding The Bullet", they know this movie has strayed far from it's original path.
I love King adaptations and some of them are good, some of them are not and this one is just very different.Riding The Bullet is the story of Alan Parker, a college student in the late sixties who is having a hard time with life and finds himself fascinated with death until it stares him in the face.
|
tt0060414
|
A Fine Madness
|
Samson Shillitoe, a poet, lives in Greenwich Village with Rhoda, a waitress who stands by him through all his troubles.
When Samson cannot find the inspiration to finish his latest poem, he becomes belligerent and depressed. Samson is continually pursued by a debt collector after his late alimony payments to a previous wife; if Samson doesn't pay he will be arrested. Samson eventually assaults a police detective who accompanies the debt collector.
Samson has other troubles when he loses his job as an office cleaner when he has sex with a secretary (Sue Ane Langdon) whilst his carpet cleaning machinery fills the office with soap suds. However, Samson does earn a $200 fee for doing a recital of his poetry to a woman's group that ends in disaster.
On Samson's behalf, but unknown to him, Rhoda seeks the help of psychiatrist Dr. West (Patrick O'Neal), who claims to be able to cure writer's block.
Rhoda gives Dr. West the $200 she collected for Samson's lecture to treat Samson for what she fears will become suicidal depression if he can't finish his poem. Dr. West reluctantly agrees to see him, and when Samson confronts the Doctor about the return of his money, West is fascinated by Shillitoe and persuades him to become a patient. In order for Samson to be away from the chaos of his life in the city that he might finish his poem, Dr. West arranges a stay for him in a sanitarium upstate.
Another doctor at the sanitarium, Dr. Menken (Clive Revill) is also interested in Samson, but for the purpose of experimenting on him with a new surgical technique to quell his violent temper. He persuades Rhoda to agree to the surgery. Dr. West and two other colleagues vehemently oppose such a procedure, as it is too close to a lobotomy to be safe.
Dr. West's wife, Lydia (Jean Seberg), is frustrated with their marriage. He is a popular TV guest for his pop psychiatric methods and views, and she sees very little of him. Eventually she runs into Samson at the sanitorium. Samson does not know she is married to Dr West but recalls her when she walked out of his women's club lecture. In his usual manner Samson immediately seduces her and the two have sex in a therapeutic bath. Dr. West, looking for Samson, secretly sees them in the tub.
When it comes time for the clinic senior staff to vote on allowing the surgical technique to be performed on Samson, Dr. West, having seen Samson with his wife, changes his vote, enabling Dr. Menken to go ahead. Lydia finds out about the surgery and rushes to stop it, but arrives just after it has been completed.
When Samson awakes from the surgery, at first his voice is so low and quiet he cannot be understood. As Dr. Menken leans in to listen, Samson throws a punch that lands the doctor on the floor. The operation has had no effect, and Samson returns to New York.
Rhoda quickly learns of his arrival, and rushes to rejoin him. Samson has finally been served with his subpoena, so he must pay his ex-wife or go to jail. Rhoda prevents him from pummeling the civil servant, until Lydia appears and pays him the amount owed.
Lydia informs Samson she is leaving Dr. West and hints that she would like to be with her new lover, Samson. Rhoda protests, as Samson invites her to come live with them both. Lydia, disgusted by the idea, becomes hysterical and rushes out, presumably never to speak to Samson again. Rhoda pleads with Samson as he goes charging off down the street, before informing him that she is pregnant. He accidentally punches her and the movie ends with him fighting off an angry mob of indignant spectators.
|
insanity
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
If ever there was an award given out for "Most Outrageously, Sexist-Minded Film Ever (of the 1960s, that is)", I think that A Fine Madness would, most definitely, be a sure-fire winner.And, with that said - If you are, indeed, a total feminist (or a feminist-hugger), I guarantee you that frequent key moments throughout this utterly absurd comedy will surely get your dander up like no other film from that era ever has.
(I'm not kidding about this, folks!) Of course, in order to get any sort of real entertainment value out of A Fine Madness's story one must keep it firmly in mind that here is a film that is a complete product of its time.
This is a man's world!" (so if you're a woman you better like it, or lump it).In my opinion - A Fine Madness was solely made to cash-in on Sean Connery's rugged animal magnetism and his equally virile screen-charisma (following his huge success playing James Bond in 1965's "Thunderball").So, just be warned - If you're prone to detest a lead character who just happens to be nothing but a boozing, womanizing, wife-beating, loudmouth with a hair-trigger temper, then, believe me, you're probably not likely to find this comedy to be much of a laughing matter, in the long run..
A Fine Madness marks Sean Connery's venture into screen comedy and while the man has had many funny moments in his film, comedy was not his strong suit.
Ironically he's cast opposite Joanne Woodward who as we know was married to someone who many critics also said was not at his best in comedy.Whatever else is wrong with A Fine Madness I have always loved Connery's character name, Samson Shillitoe.
One of the best screen names ever invented and so right for a would be poet.Samson for Connery is a peculiar combination of James Bond and Ralph Kramden with Joanne Woodward as his long suffering Alice.
He also has a process server in John Fiedler chasing him down for back alimony to a former wife.Woodward puts him in the hands of psychiatrist Patrick O'Neal who claims he can cure creative people of their hangups so they can do their thing.
Connery proves an interesting case however to O'Neal's colleagues, Colleen Dewhurst, Jon Lormer, Werner Peters, and especially Clive Revill who's developed a modified lobotomy that can really cure anti-social behavior.
You'll find few screen characters as anti-social as Samson Shillitoe.
He's also of interest to O'Neal's wife Jean Seberg who just plain ain't getting any lately.There are some funny moments in A Fine Madness, but ultimately I found it unsatisfying.
As a poet who is institutionalized, Sean Connery distances himself quite grandly from screen alter-ego James Bond.
Connery is unexpectedly gregarious as the avant-garde writer, Joanne Woodard is suitably shrill as his spouse, the supporting cast (including Jean Seberg and the wonderful Zohra Lampert) is terrific, but this is an extremely bumpy, frantic piece on challenging the system.
The script, from Elliot Baker's novel, is uneven, yet the film certainly looks good, with handsome photography and fine use of New York locations.
Often gets confused with "They Might Be Giants", another comedy which also co-starred Joanne Woodward and dealt with a certain madness.
In the midst of his "Bond" persona (two years after "Goldfinger") Connery gives a brilliant, anti-typical performance as Samson, a poet to whom art is everything, and the polite fictions and civilities of society nothing.
Connery's talent and charm save this very funny movie from the somewhat offensive obnoxiousness of its hero, and clinch its optimistic argument about the ultimate triumph of artistic greatness.
Okay, to borrow a few things from the previous commenter's observations, sure, this is an adaptation from a novel, and apparently the main character is an obnoxious lout who happens to be a genius.Here's where this film fails in just about every department.Not for a second do we buy that Sean Connery's Samson is a "genius" in any sense of the word.
Genius, he is not.Topping poor Connery in the shouting department is the screeching yowl of Joanne Woodward, whose hapless wife character of Samson, Rhoda, is given all the depth of a punching bag (literally).
She plays the stifled wife of a renowned psychiatrist, Patrick O'Neal, who for some reason, and quite illogically I can only add, winds up having sex with Connery in a whirlpool bath and then dumping him the next time she sees him.
There is no logic in having her character even in this film other than to flesh out the above-the-line star wattage on the marquee.Only Clive Revill, playing a hare-brained psycho-therapist in every sense of the word, cuts loose with the material and lends a Peter-Sellers-like diversion for a total of 3 minutes screen time.I cannot conceive of any audience, whether in the '60s or today, eliciting anything more than ho-hum chuckle and a wan smile over this pale comedy with absolutely no focus and one of cinema's most ill-conceived one-note main characters.My rating: 1 out of 5 stars..
"Let's make a movie about a hot-tempered madman genius poet living a Bohemian lifestyle in NYC, and who beats his wife, who falls into the clutches of effete careerist psychiatrists who believe he is a perfect candidate for a lobotomy." Sean Connery probably agreed to do this because at the time he would take any route necessary to prove he should not condemned to play only James Bond for the rest of his career.Why Joanne Woodward, who plays his punching bag of a wife, got on board is a mystery.
Probably it was a chance to play opposite hot property Connery.If anyone truly needed a lobotomy, it is Samson Shillitoe..
Sean Connery did make about half a dozen excellent non-James Bond Films.
Connery messing up a Lady's Club invitation to read his poetry is not as funny as it should have been, but is the funniest scene in the film.Unfortunately the film goes nowhere after that.
Why is that supposed to be funny?" The name of Connery's character is Samson Shillitoe.
I'm not sure if the character had anything to do with the man.I do think Sean Connery and Joanne Woodward deserve some credit for developing their characters as much as they do.
Everybody else, including Jean Seberg, Patrick O'Neil, Coleen Dewhurst and Zohra Lampert are wasted in non-roles that should have been played by less talented actors.Altogether, not an enjoyable film, but possibly worth a look as an example of a bad New York City mid-60's comedy.
Released in 1966 (a year after Thunderball), Connery obviously wanted a departure from the static James Bond debonair and so took on the volatile character - Samson Shillitoe (erratic poet).
Those looking to see "action hero" Sean Connery will probably be disappointed.
Sean Connery was a great choice to play a blocked, womanizing writer at the core of the drama and he centers the film with his amiable exuberance.
Comparisons to Cuckoo's Nest are inevitable, and this film lacks the other's stifling power and resonance, but it shares a common vision of the psychiatric profession acting as a microcosm of authoritarian abuses in society at large.
Still, this is a funny and charming, much lighter satire on the same subject, energetically directed by Irvin Kirschner, and enjoyable for Connery fans in any case..
"A Fine Madness" is a very strange movie.
It stars Sean Connery (with a very strange performance, one of his worst - somewhere between Bond and a plain ruffian; frankly, I don't think Connery is apt for any comedy at all) plus a lavish supporting cast consisting of renowned character actors - but, still, the film is horrible.It has an absolutely inane screenplay, and Irvin Kershner's (lack of) direction leaves a most confusing impression, even considering the somewhat strange Sixties style which was "en vogue" then.
Alright, this film is generally awful, admitedly...However, I always try to look at any motion picture in the context of it's day and in it's retrospective historical perspective.I like to look at movies as sociological studies, and the best ones transcend their time, becoming truly timeless."A Fine Madness" fairly stinks of clueless farce.
Hollywood was out of touch with the youth of the counter culture, and with some exceptions, like "Hard Days Night", "Alfie", "Medium Cool" and "Easy Rider", most 1960s movies that tried to look authentic and relevant to the times, failed.So, despite its badly written characters, it's hopelessly dated Psychiatric themes, its corrosively dated sexism and the apaulingly visionless, artless presentation, there ARE a few interesting elements.Clearly a big budget film, I was impressed by the progressive bravado that the director showed in manhandling New York City.
This is the sort of movie that makes me ponder the whole time I'm watching it, "Who SHOULD have been in these roles?" Connery and Woodward really give it a good try, chewing big hunks out of the scenery, but they never convince, not for a moment.
The role of Samson Shillitoe, deranged poet, could have been handled well by Jason Robards or Walter Matthau, and his mysterious attraction for women would have been more believable with the former, and more humorous with the latter.For me, the only real laughs came from the one short scene featuring pudgy businessman Sorrell Booke learning the facts about his wife's hysteria.
"You'll ascertain MY virility????"I think they were trying for the kind of thing here where, like Alec Guiness's deranged artist character in "The Horse's Mouth," the obnoxious jerk has a mysteriously endearing charm or ability that shines through despite his appalling behaviour, but this poet isn't the horse's mouth.
A Fine Madness (1966)Plot In A Paragraph: Samson Shillitoe (Connery) a genius poet, who is irresistible to women but is plagued by writer's block.
If you find Connery using his wife (Joanne Woodward) as a punching bag funny, you may enjoy it, but I don't find anything to laugh about here!!
I will applaud Connery for trying something totally different in an attempt to move away from Bond, but I wish this wasn't the movie he chose to do so!!
It has a certain wild charm about it, but ultimately what really makes it worth a look is the performance of Sean Connery.Connery clearly desperate to escape the James Bond mould takes on the role of a non conformist borderline nutcase poet with the unlikely name of Samson Shilitoe.
Although this might sound like an impossible transition, Connery with his powerful presence and loads of charisma plunges into the role and turns in a riveting performance.There's also fine support from Joanne Woodward, Colleen Dewhurst and Clive Revill.
The only disappointment is Jean Seberg who seems wasted in an underwritten thankless part.For Connery fans this is essential viewing but others too may be surprised by this somewhat beguiling movie..
Samson Shillitoe (Sean Connery) is a frustrated poet and a ladies' man in NYC.
His live-in supportive waitress girlfriend Rhoda (Joanne Woodward) gets him a poetry reading gig at a high-class ladies group and it goes badly.
The movie has a couple of slapstick scenes that border on comedy.
It's a strange little film showing Connery in a different light..
While this may not be the worst film I have ever seen, it comes very close to being the worst comedy of all time.
It's a distillation of everything that was wrong with '60s comedies.Sean Connery plays a violent, philandering, selfish, hateful bully who imagines himself to be a brilliant poet.
When he suffers writer's block, his screeching, yammering nag of a wife (Joanne Woodward, at the nadir of her career) sends him to a pretentious psychiatrist for treatment.
After Connery ends up seducing the psychiatrist's sexy wife (Jean Seaberg, in a squandered, vapid role), he is condemned (spoiler alert) to have a lobotomy.
Along the way the audience is treated to "wacky" chase scenes, goofy camera angles, rinky-dink pianos and theremins in the soundtrack, and incessant shouted dialogue -- while every female role is an insulting caricature: the prissy old matron, the nymphomaniac secretary, the harpy of a wife, the bored socialite, and so on.
Connery's poet is supposed to be a lovable anti-hero, but he comes across as loathsome and contemptible, and by the end you'll want to give him a lobotomy yourself just to shut him up.What makes all this especially puzzling is that Connery was the top leading man in the world when "A Fine Madness" was made, riding high on the unparalleled success of his James Bond roles.
A terrible career blunder.Imagine taking the film "Charly" (aka "Flowers for Algernon," about a retarded man who is given brain surgery), the worst episode of the TV sex farce "Love American Style," and some outtakes from the Keystone Kops, and then editing them all together into a disastrous mash- up of conflicting styles and painfully unfunny humor -- voila, you have "A Fine Madness."The only redeeming features are the true-life location shots on the streets of mid-'60s Manhattan (which New-York-o-philes might enjoy), and a hilarious mini-documentary about Sean Connery made in 1966 to promote the movie, included on the DVD as a bonus.
Aside from that, though, "A Fine Madness" is a depressing fiasco of a film, not even worth watching in the "so bad it's unintentionally funny" category.
What were they thinking?If, by writing this review, I can save just one person from having to endure sitting through "A Fine Madness," then my life will have been worthwhile..
I never thought I'd see a movie in which Sean Connery, master of ironic understatement, could be accused of overacting.
But there's a scene here in which Connery has been paid two hundred dollars -- he's a blocked poet and down on his luck -- to read before some ladies' literary club.
(Except for Jean Seberg, who is not at all ugly.) The title comes from Michael Drayton, who in 1627, referring to playwright Christopher Marlowe, wrote: "For that fine madness still he did retain Which rightly should possess a poet's brain." But this movie has a lot less to do with poetry than with madness.
It's a little reminiscent of "Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment." But that film was both funny and tragic, whereas this is neither.I can't tell whether or not Connery was asked to speak with a working-class New York accent or not.
Joanne Woodward, as his wife, does a little better with her acting and her accent.
Sean Connery plays Samson Shillitoe, a divorcée who's remarried.
The only reason I could see Connery and Joanne Woodward (who plays Rhoda Shillitoe) doing this film is for their roles.
Deliciously off-beat characters interacting in some really standout scenes make "A Fine Madness" a really wonderfully must-see comedy.
The movie boasts a terrific cast led by Sean Connery in one of his best roles, Joanne Woodward and Jean Seberg.
Plot in a nutshell: An anti-social poet (Sean Connery) short on cash and suffering from writer's block is sent to a shrink by his wife (Joanne Woodward).
Polarizing mid-60s screwball comedy has some very funny bits here and there, but suffers from over-length and some very dated "to the moon, Alice!" style humor that will undoubtedly rub modern audiences the wrong way.
Connery gives his all in a go for broke performance that he probably hoped would help off-set his James Bond image (never mind that his self-destructive poet still fools around with women despite claiming he doesn't like them) but the character is so unlikable that some of the humor falls flat.
Other reviewers on here have said that comedy was not old Sean's strong point as a performer; I don't really agree with that (he was after all hilarious as the bumbling father of Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade) but feel it was really more that the character was a hard sell to begin with - and would have been for any actor.
It's a little sad watching the late Jean Seberg in this film, seeing her so young, so beautiful, so obviously a fine actress wasting what little time she was going to have in such an unsatisfying comedy as the desperate, sexually frustrated housewife of the primary doctor who finds an afternoon's delight with Connery - and is later hilariously horrified (admittedly one of the film's better moments) to find that he seriously expects her to just roommate with him and his unhappy wife when she expresses an interest in trying to be something more.Of interest mostly for fans of the stars and fans of the 60s..
When actors look back on their life's work, there will be film that they will wonder why they ever agreed to be part of it.I suspect that this might be the case with this film for two very fine and talented actors.
Sean Connery and Joanne Woodward.The central premise of a self centred, self obsessed, wife abusing poet called Samson being chased for various reasons by various people and creating havoc is a limp plot.
Joanne Woodward's shrill whine becomes annoying after ten minutes of listening to it, and the supporting actors all look slightly embarrassed, as if the director just said, "Go for it, we've got James Bond, so it should be a hit." Not even a slightly good film, not even slightly a bad film, just an appallingly terrible film..
In this "wacky" comedy, Joanne Woodward plays a role that today would be unplayable, probably unwritable even by a hack like Elliott Baker Cohen.
She is Rhoda, the long-suffering partner of mad poet Samson Shillitoe.
Shillitoe never really exists, he's just Life Force write large, and Sean Connery blunders through the part just adequately.
Cute music, New York street scenes, lots of pace, some really good actors, an audacious plot, probably ahead of its time, some delightful vignettes, so what went wrong?
The film could not exist without Samson Shillitoe, no other set of characteristics would bring all those disparate plot and character elements together.
You might say that Shillitoe is the creator of the story, indeed, of the little world that the film inhabits.
|
tt0063809
|
The Wild, Wild World of Jayne Mansfield
|
The Wild, Wild World of Jayne Mansfield began production in 1964 and continued shooting sporadically through 1967 as the budget was limited. The film consists of Mansfield visiting various locations throughout Europe and the United States. The European footage, shot in Rome and Paris, features Mansfield observing Italian roadside prostitutes, running from the paparazzi and attending the Cannes Film Festival. She is also filmed visiting "unusual" European locations such as a French nudist colony, strip clubs, a gay bar and a massage parlor. The footage shot in the United States features Mansfield judging a transvestite beauty pageant in New York City along with footage of dancers at a Los Angeles topless bar. Musical performances by the all-girl topless band The Ladybirds and Rocky Roberts & The Airedales (to which Mansfield does the Twist) are also included. Rounding out the film are clips of Mansfield's nude scenes from the 1963 sex comedy Promises! Promises!, the 1964 Italian film Primitive Love, and shots of her Playboy magazine pictorial.
Production ceased after Mansfield died in a car accident in June 1967. Upon her death, the film's producers added news footage about her death and photographs from the scene of her fatal car accident. The film concludes with a tour of Mansfield's Los Angeles home, the Pink Palace, given by her ex-husband Mickey Hargitay and a video tribute.
|
cult
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0267287
|
Avalon
|
In an alternate universe, many people are addicted to Avalon, a military-themed virtual reality shooter. In the game, solo players or parties raid levels populated with AI-controlled enemies and opposing players. Winners are rewarded with experience point and in-game money, which can be exchanged for cash, allowing skilled players to make a living. As their brains interact with the game directly, Avalon places significant mental strains on players, and has rendered players catatonic in many cases.
Ash is a famously skilled player, who only plays solo after her party Team Wizard was disbanded. After a Class A mission, the GM (Game Master) warns her of the next level's danger, and suggests she joins a party. The next day, Ash watches a Bishop-class character break her record time on the same mission. Intrigued, Ash tries but fails to learn about him or his avatar. As she leaves the game terminal, the Bishop player watches her.
Ash runs into a former teammate, Stunner, who mentions Murphy, her former team leader. As the two visit Murphy at a hospital, Stunner tells her Murphy went after a hidden NPC in Avalon, a young girl nicknamed "ghost". The girl is allegedly the only gateway into the rumored Special A, an extremely rewarding but incredibly challenging mission where players cannot "reset" (a mechanic allowing players to abort mission without their avatars being killed). Players who went after "ghost" never wake up from the game and became "Unreturned". As Ash walks through the corridor, a girl looking similar to "ghost" watches her. Ash looks at Murphy, who has now become comatose.
At home, Ash searches for words regarding Avalon, Unreturned, and the ghost. The search leads her to the "Nine Sisters", another Arthurian legend reference. Further researching and questioning the GM proves fruitless. Upon entering the game, Ash receives an invitation to a meeting, and is ambushed by a group of griefers, who lured her there to rob her equipment. After she overpowers a player, the group leader reveals that only the real Nine Sisters - Avalon's creators - know how to access Special A. They are interrupted by an attack helicopter which kills most of the players. Due to a lag, the helicopter's missiles teleport in front of Ash. She "resets" and leaves the game, narrowly avoiding losing her avatar. On the way home, Ash notices people around her are immobile, with the exception of a dog. At home, after she finishes preparing a meal for her dog, she realizes that it has disappeared. She hears the helicopter from the game flying pass.
The next day, Stunner meets Ash. He tells her of a high-level Bishop player who can make the ghost appear, and is sought out by parties seeking to enter Special A. Before becoming an Unreturned, Murphy himself was a Bishop player. At her house, Ash finds the Bishop player waiting. He offers to form a party with her and she accepts. Ash arrives at the game terminal and tells the receptionist that she plans to enter Special A to look for Murphy. She enters the game, despite warnings from the receptionist and the GM.
In the game, Ash meets the Bishop player, whom she suspects is working for the Nine Sisters. Stunner arrives, revealing he has been helping Bishop recruit Ash all along. The party confronts the Citadel, an enormous boss. Stunner, Bishop and his summoned dummy players distract the giant, while Ash attacks its weak point. After the Citadel is destroyed, Stunner spots the ghost. He is then shot by an enemy. Before being forced out of the game, Stunner tells Ash of the only way to kill the ghost. Ash goes after the ghost and manages to kill it, turning it into a gateway. Ash steps into the gateway and disappears.
Ash "wakes up" from the game booth, which is put in her apartment, wearing civilian clothing and without equipment. Bishop contacts her and tells her she is in Class Real. The only way to exit the game is to complete the objective: defeat the Unreturned staying here. Ash takes the provided gun and proceeds to her destination, an Avalon-themed concert by the Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra. On the way, she is stunned by the vibrant and bustling world, which is in stark contrast to the previous levels and to the world outside the game. At the concert hall, Ash sees Murphy, and they walk outside to talk. As she confronts Murphy about his decision to stay in the game, he states he prefers the "reality" within Avalon. Ash mortally wounds Murphy, who urges her to stay, then disappears. Ash enters the now empty concert hall, and sees the ghost on the stage. Ash trains her gun on the ghost, who flashes a smile. The text "Welcome to Avalon" is blended in.
|
alternate reality, sci-fi
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0929864
|
Love's Unending Legacy
|
Missie LaHaye bids a reluctant goodbye at the grave of her late husband Willie, who died two years previously in the line of duty as the sheriff of Tettsford Junction. Even after giving up her job as the town schoolteacher, Missie has found running the ranch on her own overwhelming, so she has resigned herself to letting her son Jeff and his new bride take control of it jointly with her brothers Aaron and Arnie.
Missie and her ten-year-old son Mattie travel back to her hometown to live near the farm of her parents, Clark and Marty Davis. She goes back to teaching school. At her first Sunday service, Missie and Mattie learn from the Pastor that an "Orphan Train" with homeless children in need of good homes will soon arrive from the Children’s Aid Society of New York. Outside the church, Clark introduces Missie to sharp-tongued biddy Mrs. Pettis, who disdains the orphans as "ragamuffins." At the same time, Missie catches the eye of a passing horseman: bachelor Sheriff Zach Tyler, another target of Mrs. Pettis’ vitriol. Claiming that Zach is not a godly man, Mrs. Pettis passes her judgment on him, implying he has a shameful past on the wrong side of the law.
On her way to work, Missie passes the church just as the orphan distribution is underway. Although she is firmly determined not to grant Mattie’s request for a new sibling, she goes in—just in time to witness 14-year-old Belinda behaving belligerently toward the Pettises as they choose eight-year-old Jacob—looking on him as a farm worker rather than a son. Realizing that the lone orphan Belinda will be sent back to the foundling home in New York, Missie volunteers to adopt her.
Unbeknownst to all, Belinda is Jacob’s sister. She kept this secret to prevent potential parents from breaking up siblings because they see her as "too old" to adopt. With Jacob secured in a home nearby, Belinda can figure out a way for them to flee; she believes that their father had given them up for adoption with the full intention of reuniting with them in the near future. She is so sure of this that she resists family life within the loving embrace of Missie, the Davises, Zach, and the community; she sneaks out of Missie’s home nightly to reassure Jacob that soon they will leave together. She becomes more determined after learning that the Pettises beat and starve him.
Missie tells her mother Marty that she feels as if a voice inside told her to adopt Belinda, but she still can’t explain why. Perhaps, says Marty, "God knew that Belinda needed you. And maybe, for some reason you don’t understand yet, you need her." Zach attempts to court Missie, but she resists, explaining she could never love anyone the way she loved her late husband. Missie then struggles to convince herself that although she is not in love with the sheriff, at least he would make a good marriage partner.
While Missie discusses Belinda’s disturbing nocturnal disappearances with Zach, who has warmed her heart with his kindness toward the young girl, he states he has no faith in God if a child can suffer like Belinda. Later, Missie tells her mother she couldn’t love a man who didn’t share her faith. Zach and Missie discover Jacob’s plight, but are anguished that they can’t rescue him unless he exposes the Pettises, which he won’t out of fear of reprisal. While Missie and Zach appreciate their mutual desire to help the boy, they clash over how to save him. An angry Belinda berates them for their inability to help Jacob, claiming her father will soon come to their aid.
Exasperated by Belinda’s rejection, Missie visits Marty, who reminds her that Missie once had trouble accepting Marty as her stepmother. Sagely, she tells Missie that "loving a child has nothing to do with giving birth" and "being a family is a choice, not necessarily something that just happens because you’re related by blood." Belinda shows Missie a note written by her father. Belinda can’t read, but is sure the note explains how he’ll come back for her and Jacob. Missie then reads her the note, and Belinda learns that her father had actually left them at the orphanage for good.
Later, Zach visits Missie at the school to explain his lack of faith: his fiancée was an innocent victim of murderous bank robbers. Missie then relates the story of her husband’s death.
After Missie again fails to rescue Jacob, Belinda runs away with him into the stormy night. Everyone joins a desperate search for them. Amid the lightning-laden thunderstorm, Zach prays. He then hears a voice over the din and follows it to the abandoned mine where the children have sought shelter. Zach tells Missie it was God’s miracle that guided him in the wilderness, but as she later admits to her father, she doesn’t know how to "let go" of her late husband. Clark tells her love doesn’t die when a person passes away; it stays in a person's heart forever as she moves on to a new life with a new chance for happiness. Missie takes that chance by marrying Zach. They adopt Jacob as well and begin their lives as a family of five.
|
christian film
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
can't get past the books.
While I appreciate having decent,wholesome movies to watch, the movies based on the Janette Oke "Love Comes Softly"series are such a disappointment.
I know some of the messages suggest "if you can just get past the books" you can enjoy the movies.
I love those books and do not understand why it is so hard to make movies that align more with stories and plots in them.
I know some books are hard to make into movies and need some dramatization, but I don't think these books need THAT much help.
I watched the first three but by movie number four, I'm reading the back of the DVD and I'm thinking "No thank you!" It really is a shame, these could have been terrific movies..
It's three years after Missie LaHaye lost her husband Willie shot in the line of duty as sheriff.
She moves back east to her parents Marty Davis and Clark Davis with her young son Mattie.
She takes the teaching job.
She adopts bitter orphan Belinda who is the last without a home.
Her little brother Jacob had been taken by the Pettises looking for a farm hand.
Sheriff Zack Tyler falls for Missie.The adoption story is compelling.
The overall feel is a bit disjointed especially at the beginning.
The story improves as it concentrates more on Belinda and the adoption.
That's the more dramatic part and a real tear jerker.
This is a sincere faith-based movie.
It's the fifth in the series.
It's the fifth in the series.
The TV movie does have its charms but also has its limitations..
Belinda and Missie.
These two are perfect for each other and I love Belinda's story.Once again the movie diverges from the book.
Still a great story..
5. The stories of Missie and the orphan siblings: Uniting again with a new family..
The fifth one in the Hallmark's 'Love Comes Softly' movie series.
Once again the story skips to a couple of years forward.
I remembered last time I said the movie was better than what others thought about it, but this time it was not the same case.
It was a little letdown, especially in the first half.After losing the husband, Willie, in the line of duty, Missie and her son Mattie moves back to be near with her parents and to start afresh life.
It is a changed town now, less opportunities and more competitive for everything.
Missie decline's her parents offer to help her financially.
The mother and son rent a small house and settles down with enough earnings to support themselves.
Until one day an orphan girl joins them and changes the course of the narration in a new direction."I couldn't save Jenny...
And you couldn't save Kathy.
But we can save Jacob."The first three films were so good in the series, but I kind of feeling it beginning to decline as the rest of the movies followed, especially since the previous one.
It was so wonderful to introduce some interesting characters, but did not capitalised with the fetchable scenes.
In this, the second half was so much better than the first.
The movie regained its strength because of what came forth.
Otherwise, it would have been the worst in the series, but still it is like the least satisfying film by far.Eliminating the character, Willie, was severely criticised from all the quarters, that mean the movie is not following the book as it should have been.
I think being accurate to the book might have brought the justice.
But I won't come to any conclusion comparing with both the format since I have not read the book.
They might have thought changes could give a new look for those who have read the book, but seems the idea did not clinch well.The two new characters and their quest were the highlight.
Some of the issues it talked were inspired by the real ones.
From the societal perspective that was a good thing.
Kind of refreshes from the regular perspective of the storytelling like ranch, school, especially deaths.
Yep, so far, the series had deaths in each film, but none in this one.
There was one prior to this story commence, which was kind of told in a flashback or from recollecting the memory.
Anyway, it was a passable product, like as always hoping to get better in the next.6½/10.
A good TV movie with a poor musical score.
What could have been a good TV movie was weakened by an overdone and unsuitable musical score.
I found this was an annoyance during the first half of the movie.
Performances overall were not that bad but the this mood music (that didn't seem to suit a western film) played over the actors as they spoke in many scenes and this became a real distraction.In one scene, which takes place in the church, a pastor is asking a congregation to volunteer to take care of homeless children lined up across the platform behind him.
All the dialog in this scene is underscored by this deep emotional mood music which is unnecessary and distracting..
Disappointed...yet again.
I wasn't really looking forward to seeing this latest addition to the "Love" series but curiosity got the better of me.
I wasn't thrilled with this movie at all.
Killing off the character of Willie LaHaye was a really dumb thing to do because his character does not die in the books!
The scene where they show Willie getting killed was really poorly done.
They sure didn't need to be showing that one over and over again.
There was so much of the movie that didn't seem right.
Like Missie and Zachs relationship was pretty much non-existent throughout the whole movie but at the end she ends up marrying him.
They knew one another for what a month?
I know in LCS Clark and Marty knew one another for like two days or whatever when they married but the whole Zach/Missie thing didn't seem right.
He just kept popping up from out of nowhere - like the writers didn't know what to do with him.Missie losing her necklace was another rather stupid part.
I know the necklace was originally given to her by Marty in Love Comes Softly but you'd think she would have treasured and guarded it with her whole heart being it was the last thing that Willie gave to her before he died.
I am saying that because he bought it back for her at the end of LAJ.
You'd think she would have looked a lot harder for the necklace then she did being it meant so much to her.
What happened to Henry and Melinda or Cookie and Scottie?
Where are Jeff and Aaron and Arnie Davis?
The three of them aren't even mentioned once in the movie but are mentioned on hallmarkchannelpress.com as taking over Missie's ranch.
The ranch isn't talked about once or even seen for that matter!
Another annoying thing was Clark and Marty's house.
When Clark, Missie, and Maddie all pulled up in the wagon I was like didn't they just leave there?
The house is Missie and Willie's house with different windows and a porch stuck on the front of it.
I was expecting the house to be like the one from LCS or LEP.
Did they think fans wouldn't notice?
What was up with Marty?
There really was no explanation as to what her "condition" was.
Was she supposed to be sick or pregnant?
We'll probably never really know what was/is wrong with her because the next movie Love's Unfolding Dream takes place quite a few years after Love's Unending Legacy.This movie was a lot better then Love's Abiding Joy but I was still disappointed with it.
There were to many loose ends.
I felt like I was watching an episode of Little House on the Prairie.
I know that some things need to be changed to make the transition from book to movie possible but these movies are getting so out there..
Average but not bad for what it is.
*might contain spoilers*When looking up this movie, I noticed another movie due out later this year.
I wonder if they had to rush this one in some fashion given they had two so close together.
This might explain the somewhat lackluster nature of the film in some respects.Still, I overall appreciated the film, though you saw what was happening a mile away.
Missy was good here, the actress playing the role emotionally true.
The foster daughter also was decent enough, a few very touching scenes.
As to the locket mentioned, I do think that was handled a bit badly ...
like just as a set-up device.
The whole thing did seem a bit rushed/thin at spots, but overall, it still had some true heart.
Given the number of films already out there, it still having such life is impressive.A word on the new mother ...
the original obviously off the bigger things.
She had some illness (maybe it was explained at some point, I didn't see all of the film or series).
She also seemed to have a slight accent (Southern?) that the original didn't have.
But, she did a good job in her role, fairly small, but a few important scenes.As to the hubby dying at the beginning, I didn't mind it ...
as to the flashback bits, I think they did the job adequately enough.
In real life in the late 19th century, life was perilous, and a sheriff is a risky job.
Of course, we have a plot device and parallels to the original film in a fashion.I actually liked parts of this better than the past two, of which I had trouble getting into in some ways.
Overall, a bit thin, surely, but worth a look for fans.
|
tt0854678
|
Taxi to the Dark Side
|
The documentary background to the death of Dilawar, an Afghan peanut farmer, who gave up farming to become a taxi driver, and who died after several days of beating at Bagram detention center.
Dilawar left his home of Yakubi in eastern Afghanistan in the autumn of 2002, investing his family money in a new taxi to make money in a larger city. On 1 December 2002 he and three passengers were handed over to US military officials by a local Afghan warlord, accused of organising an attack on Camp Salerno. The warlord was later found guilty of the attack himself, but had been ingratiating himself (for $1000 per person) by handing over alleged terrorists.
Dilawar was held at the prison at Bagram Air Base, and given the prisoner number BT421. Chained from the ceiling, he received multiple attacks on his thighs, a standard technique viewed as "permissible" and non-life-threatening. It is likely that the severe attack caused a blood clot which then killed him. His official death certificate created by the US military to pass to his family, with his body, was marked "homicide". Medical conclusion stated that Dilawar's legs were "pulpified" and, had he lived, would have required amputation.
The film explores the background of increasingly sanctioned "torture" since 9/11 in contravention of the Geneva Convention and looks at the exposures of Abu Graib.
Interviews include Tim Golden of the New York Times who brought the case into the international spotlight, and Moazzam Begg, a British citizen imprisoned at the same time, and witness to the events. Military interviewees include Damien Corsetti the main interogator, and Sgt Anthony Morden. Cpt Christopher Beiring explains how he was the only person charged (charged with derliction of duty).
The documentary claims that of the over 83,000 people incarcerated by US forces in Afghanistan up to 2007, 93 percent were captured by local militiamen and exchanged for US bounty payments. Also that 105 detainees had died in captivity and that 37 of these deaths had been officially classified as homicides up to 2007.
The film also looks at Guantanamo Bay and how the same techniques were implemented there.
|
violence, cruelty, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Using the case of an innocent Afghan taxi driver who were tortured to death by American interrogators in Bagram prison as the starting point, the film chronicles the atrocities committed by the Bush administration in the name of American people and an ill-defined 'war on terror'.The film is written, directed and narrated by Alex Gibney, son of a high-ranking naval officer who was an interrogator in World War II.
A great American and a true patriot, Frank Gibney's final disappointment of what became of the great nation of the United States in the hands of a few liars is heart-wrenching.There is not a single frame in the film that is not supported by hard evidence.
There is something you need to know about this film: it is not about real insurgents or terrorists or about real soldiers, and it is certainly not an anti-American film.It is about how senior military and civilian officials demand results from their subordinates, even if the results are to be obtained by unconscionable, immoral, and illegal means, up to, and including, torture and murder.
They are mostly low-ranking enlisted men and women, privates and sergeants, almost none of whom speak with any proficiency the language of the detainees they're interrogating.So, imagine the scenario: senior officials demanding intelligence, no matter how it's obtained; unqualified interrogators using whatever means they can think of to satisfy their superiors' demands; and MP prison guards who have the power of life and death over their detainees, with almost no restrictions on what they can do to them.
If your kids are MPs, interrogators, or just in the military, advise them always to watch their backs around those people.This may be a disturbing film for civilians, but it won't include many surprises if you've served in the armed forces, or on a police force, or in a prison.
With this as the starting point, this documentary tells the story of the role of "torture" in the war on terror, from Abu Ghraid to Guantanamo.Having put Gibney's documentary on Enron as one of my ten favourite films of 2005, I eagerly took up the opportunity the UK (and much of Europe) had to catch this on television ahead of the full release in the US in 2008.
As a result this film is about the use of "torture" against terrorist suspects, specifically focusing on the United States.The reader may be wondering why the focus (in the title) on Dilawar.
The morality of the use of torture is not black and white and of course the usual "ticking time bomb" scenario is thrown up; the film does counter this by suggesting that the weekly scenarios in Fox's 24 are not the norm (to say the least) but the best answer to most of the moral questions are simply to refer back to a taxi driver who died after five days in captivity with horrific injuries the film doesn't say he was innocent but it doesn't need to nobody suggests he was evil or a key player either, but yet he is dead.
Certainly a clip of Bush talking about "suspected terrorists" who have died, or as he says "put it this way they're no longer a problem to the United States"; the fact that he acknowledges they are "suspects" rather than convicts but yet sees their death as a good thing says it all.Considering this issue is everywhere in the media, Gibney does very well to structure his film to build it from the ground up.
Not only does he use the words of the Bush administration against them ("the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people") but he also details the wider political picture beyond the blame that was dumped onto Lynndie England, Charles Graner and others.
The biggest challenge with this material is to keep it as a valid piece of work even as the topic grows daily and that many will be tired of hearing about it just this last week or so we have seen more debate and also the CIA deleting old tapes of interrogations (tapes that Bush has "no recollection" of existing); however Gibney brings the film to a close well, making it feel like something that can stand still and still work the personal touch of his late father's comments at the end (himself a WWII Navy interrogator) talking about how "we" should be different than "them", making for a suitable summing up of why the film is important.Another strong documentary from Gibney despite the lack of balance and the challenges with the topic.
Although it reveals nothing new about the torture and degrading techniques we've become accustomed to over the last three years, it puts politician's faces and statements in context with a "real" victim and a name: young Afghan Taxi driver Dilawar, who was arrested at a checkpoint for alleged involvement in a rocket attack.
What's the bigger picture, the one that's usually glossed over, and the reason Discovery deems this documentary "controversial"?Alex Gibney dismantles "Torture the American way" just like he did the Enron scandal in "Enron: The smartest guys in the room", from the inside to the bigger inside, like a Russian doll.
This tells the story of an Afghani taxi driver that is mistakenly picked up as a Taliban supporter, but before they find out he was innocent, he has been beaten to death by his American torturers.This film has interviews from all of the guards that were responsible, JAG officers, FBI people, CIA agents on the ground etc.
While I couldn't be more sympathetic to the bind we've placed our young men and women in, the last thing I wanted to hear from an individual who's been convicted of torture and "wrongful death" (labeled a homicide by the coroner) is "I'm financially ruined." The moral quandary raised by the film isn't nearly answered until the final credits roll.And where is Congress?
Dilawar, an innocent taxi driver from a poor farm in Afghanistan, was swept up by three other Afghan soldiers and sent to Bagram prison, where along with other supposed terrorists or terrorist collaborators was tortured (in his case especially in brutal fashion, as we learn in graphic description from those who participated first-hand), and died from the trauma.His death was a controversy, but not one that ever got the kind of attention it deserved; until this documentary I never even heard of Dilawar or even much about Bagram prison.
It's almost frightening to forget the amount of footage available with these men like Rumsfeld and Gonzalez and Cheney where they not only admit to being fine with torture tactics - and whether or not it's psychological torture or not is besides the point as ALL torture IS torture, albeit a facet that Gibney brilliantly chronicles in the history of the CIA to its 'logical' extension in recent years - but set it up in legal wrangling so as to not get it any trouble for what they've done which is, of course, breaking Geneva conventions and whatnot.If I sound like I'm sounding bias with this, then you should leave this review right now.
Gibney presents all the information with the bluntness that's required, with testimony, footage from press conferences and commissions (i.e. that cringe-inducing bit with Gonzalez where he has a horrible pause when trying to answer a simple question about whether or not to condone torture), and it's presented lucidly, edited for a cumulative effect and with the skill of a filmmaker in total trust with his subject(s) to take all of the pieces into a whole that shakes one to the core.And all of this would be powerful enough to make an impact, but with the recent explosion of news coverage on water-boarding - and that the CIA has admitted to torturing three subjects - Taxi to the Dark Side remains startlingly relevant.
From the tragedy of Dilawar to the tragedy of Abu Gharyb, which was like Salo turned into as shockingly real as could never be imaginable, the Bush administration has put the US into even more danger than ever before by resorting to the lowest form of humanity, condoning acts to the soldiers that sixty years ago would never be committed in the harshest of circumstances on our side.
Dilawar, the Afghan taxi driver, was essentially beaten to death by American soldiers in the Bagram prison.
Gibney, who was responsible previously for the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, presents interviews with some of the American soldiers responsible for Dilawar's death.
Other talking heads clarify the fact that the "gloves are off" policy by US authorities following 9/11/01 goes back to Cheney, approved by Bush, carried out with gusto by Rumsfeld, and sent directly down the line to the low-ranking and inexperienced people whose behavior after the Abu Ghraib scandal emerged was claimed by authorities to be that of people on the "night shift" or "a few bad apples." This film thoroughly disproves that claim.Gibney shows how the US administration has become willing to blatantly disregard the rule of law, domestic as well as international, to fight their "war on terror" in ways that involved extreme cruelty and murder.
Senator McCain is shown in the film as a man who opposes torture for good reason: because he experienced it during his years in a North Vietnam prison.Another issue: American has a developed a culture of guilty-as-charged, of hysterical attacks on imagined enemies.
A Dark Side talking head says that there has never been such a person captured, and suggests that if there were, such a person would have the commitment to die rather than reveal information about his plot.I do not know if torture never gets you information, though the assertion that insinuating oneself into the confidence of a prisoner is more effective makes sense.
What is clear enough from Gibney's powerful and disturbing film (which contains many images not for the squeamish) is that the torture and wrongful imprisonment and lawlessness of the US as a nation post-9/11 indicate a country that has become very cruel and very stupid.Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com recounts that at a post-screening Q&A when Gibney was asked what he would like his film to accomplish, he said "I hope it provokes some rage." "Well," says O'Hehir, "it worked on me." May it work on everyone who sees it..
I am sure these "soldiers" had no intention of killing themselves in the blasts but the objective is clear, cause chaos and bloodshed then blame your enemy.Another "reviewer" that states he served in Iraq had this to say: "It's War The liberals will have you believe that America is and always will be the cause of so much unrest in the world today.
Had the documentary given any attention to what resulted on the battlefield from any intelligence obtained, then HBO's anti-war meaning would have been lost."So America is not "the cause of so much unrest in the world today?" Then who is?With the preemptive and some would say illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, millions have died, mostly civilians and as a result, the credibility of America has suffered considerably.
Did they save American lives on the battlefield or at home?"The documentary did in fact show the yield of torturous interrogations.
As a side note Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 Commission report 211 times.Saving "American lives" is no more important than saving anyone else's and history has proved that information taken under torture is totally unreliable.I find it hard to understand how anyone would not want their armed forces to perform with the highest principles of bravery and honour.
"Taxi to the Dark Side" is an exceptionally meticulous documentary that takes the case of an Afghan taxi driver who was beaten to death by interrogators at Bagram base in 2006, and puts it in the context of American anti-terror policy.
One interview, one document at a time, the fog of legal and moral ambiguity is dispelled, until televised denials by administration officials shrink to nothing next to a stark red pillar of human suffering.Maybe our culture won't let us believe that the good guys can do such things to innocent people.
And such is the case with the Academy Award winner TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.The story starts and ends with the murder of Dilawar, a taxi cab driver in Afghanistan who is mistakenly picked up by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for interrogation.
Winner of the 2008 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, 'Taxi to the dark side' portrays a disturbing; in depth look of highly questionable interrogation practices used by US military guards on prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq & Guantanamo Bay in the aftermath of 9/11.Produced, Directed, Written & Narrated by Alex Gibney, the film begins with the tale of young innocent Dilawar who was working as a taxi driver in Afghanistan.
With shocking photos, footage, expert commentary & interviews with several soldiers stationed at prisons in Afghanistan & Iraq the documentary also shows that how certain bad apples of US military clearly violated the humanitarian rules outlined in Geneva conventions & treated these prisoners in the most savage ways using severe & cruel inhuman techniques such as sodomising, stripping humiliation, sleep deprivation, electrocute the testicles, ceiling handcuffing & many other atrocities in Bagram, Abu Ghraib prisons.
# How to remove this dark side from the minds of chaos stricken military?"Torturing people is not the best way to get information.
This outstanding film, the Oscar winner for Best Documentary this year, is a clear indictment that the Bush Administration should be held accountable for war crimes.Unfortunately, as it is also pointed out in the film, they managed to insert some clause of immunity in a law.
The fact that they did this - for the administration, not the soldiers who actually carried out the prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay - is a clear indication that they knew what they were ordering was inhumane and against the Geneva Convention.The taxi driver that was the starting point of this film lasted only five months in prison before he was dead.
First I will write about how it's constructed and the information it provides, then I will write my own personal response to the film.Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" is a tell-all about how the U.S. government's position on torture really operates.
"Taxi to the Dark Side" is a tad long, but Gibney has a lot to say.Now for my thoughts..."You put people in a crazy situation and people do crazy things."--one of the former interrogators interviewed.Indeed, the times we live in are "crazy," especially for the armed forces fighting overseas.
Second, given the winners get to write history, we have a deluded mindset that war crimes are things other people commit, not us.Alex Gibney has tried to send a message about America's hypocritical sacrifice of longstanding principles by focusing on a single man, a taxi driver tortured to death by American forces in Afghanistan.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield are directly responsible for the official policy allowing torture, increasing the number of people who have never faced war crimes charges but should do so.It is confronting, saddening and maddening to watch.
Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) **** (out of 4) Excellent, Oscar-winning documentary taking a look at the use of torture during the Bush administration.
The documentary takes a look at a couple men who were beaten to death at the Bagram Prison including an Afghan taxi driver who picked up three passengers and was never heard of again until he was murdered inside the prison.
(This film review coincides with John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band 80's hit single "On The Dark Side")"Taxi To The Dark Side" is calling now, everything is real You will know how sick you'll feel From out of the shadows, this documentary feels like a bad dream Makes Americans feel so crazy, makes them look so meanAin't nothing gonna save us from torture that is blind When American brutalize, they have crossed that line Taxi To The Dark Side, oh yeah Taxi To The Dark Side, oh yeah OK, that's enough!
What this wickedly dark musical adaptation is trying to inform you is that documentary filmmaker's Alex Gibney's Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi To The Dark Side" takes a cerebral investigative journey into American soldiers brutalizing innocent Afghani victims through torturous interrogative techniques.
The real-life narrative focus of this documentary though is on the torture and murder of an innocent Afghanistan taxi driver by American military interrogators.
This disturbing documentary follows the case of Dilawar, an Afghani taxi driver, who is captured first by his countrymen and turned over to the United States military for interrogation.
An in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, focusing on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed in 2002.Writing this review in 2015, the material in this film are already a bit dated.
Academy Award winner for Best Documentary Feature, this Alex Gibney film probes into the use of torture by the US as part of their War on Terror.
Bush or the current fighting in the Middle East, TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE is a deliberate and meticulous examination of torture used as a weapon in the war against terror and proof positive that the Bush administration had full knowledge and of it being employed at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons.
Directed by filmmaker Alex Gibney, the film examines the USA's policy on torture and interrogation in general, specifically the CIA's use of torture and their research into sensory deprivation, by showcasing the story of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, whom was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Parwan Detention Facility, during the first years of War in Afghanistan (2001-2014).
|
tt0810784
|
Bright Star
|
In 1818 Hampstead, the fashionable Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is introduced to poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) through the Dilke family. The Dilkes occupy one half of a double house, with Charles Brown (Paul Schneider)—Keats' friend, roommate, and associate in writing—occupying the other half.
Though Fanny's flirtatious personality contrasts with Keats' notably more aloof nature, she begins to pursue him after she has her siblings, Samuel and Toots, obtain his book of poetry "Endymion". Her efforts to interact with the poet are fruitless until he witnesses her grief for the loss of his brother, Tom. While spending Christmas with the Brawne family, Keats begins to open up to Fanny's advances. Keats begins to give poetry lessons to Fanny, and it becomes apparent that their attraction is mutual. Fanny is nevertheless troubled by Keats' reluctance to pursue her, for which her mother (Kerry Fox) surmises, "Mr Keats knows he cannot like you, he has no living and no income."
It is only after Fanny receives a valentine from Brown that Keats passionately confronts them and asks if they are lovers. Brown, who sent the valentine in jest, warns Keats that Fanny is a mere flirt playing a game. Fanny, hurt by Brown's accusations and by Keats' lack of faith in her, ends their lessons and leaves. It is not until after the Dilkes move to Westminster that spring, leaving the Brawne family their half of the house and six months rent, that Fanny and Keats resume their interaction and fall deeply in love. The relationship comes to an abrupt end when Brown departs with Keats for his summer rental, where Keats may earn some money. Though Fanny is heartbroken, she is comforted by Keats' love letters. When the men return in the autumn, Fanny's mother voices her concern that Fanny's attachment to the poet will hinder her from being courted. Fanny and Keats secretly become engaged.
Keats contracts tuberculosis the following winter. He spends several weeks recovering until spring. His friends collect funds so that he may spend the next winter in Italy, where the climate is warmer. After impregnating a maid, Brown is unable to accompany Keats. Keats manages to find residence in London for the summer, but he is taken in by the Brawne family following an attack of his illness. When his book sells with moderate success, Fanny's mother gives Keats her blessing to marry Fanny once he returns from Italy. The night before he leaves, he and Fanny say their tearful goodbyes in privacy. Keats dies in Italy the following February of complications from his illness, just as his brother Tom did earlier in the film.
In the last moments of the film Fanny cuts her hair in an act of mourning, dons black attire, and walks the snowy paths outside that Keats had walked many times in life. It is there that she recites the love sonnet he had written for her, "Bright Star", as she grieves the death of her lover.
|
tragedy, romantic, sentimental
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Using many of the Romantic John Keats' own words--captured for posterity in his poems and love letters to Fanny Brawne, his 'sweet Girl'--Campion has weaved together one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.
Bright Star is a *true story* depicting the love affair of two exceptional souls who lived a life (however brief for Keats) of happiness *in this world*.
But this sadness does not--it cannot-- abide if one recalls Keats' own poetic words to Brawne (from an early love letter), which encapsulate the film's essence: passionate love for this wondrous world and one's 'Bright Star' in it...
Keats's romance with Fanny Brawne and final days are brought to lovely life in Jane Campion's new film, Bright Star.
The house where Keats lived in Hampstead for two years and was in love with Fanny Brawne and wrote some of his has just been restored.Campion's film may not be a deep investigation of poetical genius, but it's delicate and alive and infinitely touching.
You have to love a film over whose final credits the wispy, winsome Whishaw is heard softly reading the whole of the Ode to a Nightingale, right to the end, and you have to respect an audience in an American cineplex when many of its members sit still to hear Keats's masterpiece down to the final words, "Was it a vision, or a waking dream?/ Fled is that music: – Do I wake or sleep?" Can you imagine having known a person with such extravagant gifts?
She just lets it happen, lets the cats wander in and out, and thus captures the sine curve of romantic experience, its extremes of joy and despair that are so poignantly focused in the life of this penniless English boy who died at twenty-five, thinking himself a failure, and left behind some of the finest poetry in the language.Abbie Cornish plays Fanny, Ben Wishaw John Keats, Paul Schneider plays Charles Brown.
She may be considered a feminist, but not the obviously preachy type, because her work flows like good cinema, and not as a heavy-handed gender discussion."Bright Star" is a tragic love story, beautifully directed, acted, photographed and written.
Campion centers on the three-year romance between Keats (a discreet and charming Ben Whishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish, magnificent); their passion and the issues that prevented them from being together.
"Bright Star" tells the story of poor poet John Keats and the passionate love he shared with his muse, Fanny Brawne.
Nothing new there.At the end of the day, the facts of Keats' desperate life and love for Fanny Brawne were just not interesting enough to hang a two hour movie..
More specifically, we examine the relationship between Fanny Brawne and John Keats, one of the major poets of the Romantic movement.Keats, played by Ben Whishaw, is residing with his good friend Charles Brown (Paul Schneider).
Compared to "Sense and Sensibility," for instance, it is missing any interesting/quirky/humorous secondary characters that make you chuckle or saying "Right on." By reducing the story to the minimal number of characters and telling you the minimal amount about each one of them, there simply isn't enough going on.Just because we like to see dramas set in Victorian times with great costumes, etc., doesn't mean we don't want to become engrossed in the movie and to forget about all the stuff going on in the real world.
Now, I enjoy Romantic poetry as much as the next guy (some of Keats' poems are among my favorites), and I don't want to be unkind in my assessment of this film, but I must say that "Bright Star" is by far the dullest and most inert movie that I've seen in quite some time.
Although I have a strong feeling for this kind of movies, in a way that whenever a shot on some English countryside appears, I could lose my sense of reality, I can objectively say that the fore-mentioned risk is totally and thankfully absent in "Bright Star", which on the contrary stands out for its sober and delicate handling of the short life of John Keats and of his deep love for Fanny Brown.
It's through Fanny's eyes we get to know Keats' inner world and poetry, the verbal beauty of his poems, full of pathos, inner longing for life and death, passionate, whereas their love story remains almost platonic, fixed on a perfect level, where nothing can contaminate their deep communion.
Bright Star, well received by critics and audiences - but ignored by the jury - at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, is a welcome return to what the director does best.The film revolves around the last three-four years in the life of Romantic poet John Keats (played in the film by Ben Whishaw), author of such masterpieces as Ode on a Grecian Urn, who met a premature demise at the age of 25, due to tuberculosis.
Like the passion that linked Keats and Brawne, Campion's direction is understated but always present, focusing on small details, both in the love story (the short, casual conversations between the two) and elsewhere (as always in her films, the period rendition is flawless).The only times the movie drags is when Campion resorts to formula, requiring an antagonistic presence in the picture, like Harvey Keitel in The Piano: in this case, it is Keats' friend and colleague Charles Brown (Paul Schneider, with an intermittent Scottish accent), whose constant criticisms towards Fanny and her feelings for the poet are no doubt amusing, but severely devoid of real dramatic meat.
Fortunately, the rest of the supporting cast delivers, with familiar British faces like Kerry Fox and Thomas Sangster (playing Fanny's mother and younger brother respectively) contributing sparingly but effectively.Bright Star is a beautiful film about a beautiful story, wonderfully shot, written and acted.
Certainly, the Romantic poets understood this - and so, too, does Jane Campion, the acclaimed director of "Sweetie" and "The Piano," whose exquisitely understated film "Bright Star" has as its subject one of the giants of Romantic poetry, John Keats.The movie begins in 1818, when Keats, a young and virtually penniless - though already published - writer meets and falls in love with Fanny Brawne, a woman of some means and family background who prides herself on her way with a needle and her willingness to speak her mind in matters of importance in life.
Fanny, we are told, became the inspiration for some of Keats' most beloved works - including "Bright star, would I as steadfast as thou art," a sonnet from which the movie takes its title - and they, along with the letters the lovers wrote to one another over the course of their three-year courtship, provide the main primary sources for Campion's screenplay (a key secondary source is the biography of Keats by Andrew Motion).
In terms of emotional power alone, she clearly knew what she had with this story.Ironically, the most overtly passionate relationship in the film is not the one between the two lovers but the one between Fanny and Charles Armitage Brown, Keats' devoted friend and fellow writer, who jealously guards the poet and his work, and who sees Fanny as a potentially fatal distraction to both the man and his work.
But fear not, for despite its being set in the genteel world of the 19th Century British countryside, this is no tea-and-crumpets, lace-and-doily affair, but rather a profoundly moving glimpse into the intricacies and complexities of the human heart - one where human passions roil just beneath the surface of the drama and where star-crossed lovers cannot be separated even by death itself.Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw are heartbreaking as the two ill-fated lovers, while Paul Schneider, as Brown, fulfils his role of carping naysayer without ever overplaying his hand.The true beauty of "Bright Star" lies in how splendidly Campion matches the lyricism of the subject matter with the lyricism of her film-making.
I thought The Piano by Campion was a much stronger film and am a bit disappointed by her latest drama.The film is based on the romance between 19th century poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne, which was cut short by Keats' death from tuberculosis at age 25.
It is very sad that Keats dies almost unrecognized, poor and indebted, knowing that he then went on to become one of the most beloved and celebrated of Romantic poets.Fanny lives with her family at home and since it is impossible for her to get more involved with John I found it hard to grasp the depth of their passion to the extent that Campion wants us to feel it.
Bright Star depicts the true life 3 year relationship / love story between the now famous 19th Century English poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) with Francis "Fanny" Brawne (Abbie Cornish)
The film was ably written and beautifully directed by Jane Campion (treble Oscar winner for "The Piano")
This is a very moving story straddling a whole roller-coaster of emotions, with pressures of society, hardships, successes
it is really quite a moving film Jane Campion has done a splendid job here of capturing the ambiance of 19th Century Hampstead, and the direction, location sets, costumes, acting, photography and music
are all terrific in their own rights
but ...
what really soars above these
and moves the film onto a higher plain are the spoken words from the poetry of John Keats himself
Apart from the great performances by the two main lead actors
a mention should also be made of the fine roles played by the supporting cast, especially those in the roles of Charles Armitage Brown (Paul Schneider) and Mrs. Brawne (Kerry Fox).There was a very good atmosphere in the cinema, and I would say that most, if not of the audience enjoyed the movie very much
I think that this film was very well received by all This is a film that is very likely to kindle a greater public interest in poetry
I would expect the poetry of John Keats to hit the best sellers lists quite soon!
From writer/director Jane Campion (The Piano), this is beautiful and touching story of unrequited love between the incredible poet John Keats and designer/seamstress Fanny Brawne.Ben Whishaw (Perfume) does a fine job capturing the frailty, sensitivity and many moods of the poet, and give us a peek at his thoughts regarding his own death.
almost to the point of obsession.The real Bright Star of the film is Abbie Cornish (Elizabeth, A Good Year) as Fanny Brawne.
One of only a small number of films that have dealt with the lives of poets, Bright Star, Jane Campion's first film since 2003, revolves around the final years of John Keats (Ben Whishaw) who died of tuberculosis at the age of 25 and his love affair with eighteen-year-old seamstress Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish).Set in 1818 in Hempstead Village in North London, the twenty-three year old Keats and his friend and writing partner Charles Armitage Brown (Paul Schneider) live next door to Fanny, her widowed mother (Kerry Fox), younger brother Samuel (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), and adorable sister Toots (Edie Martin) who always accompanies Fanny on her walks.
When Fanny Brawne and John Keats express their love and devotion, they do so delicately and beautifully, with poetry (exquisite lines written by the great poet and delivered so hauntingly by Whishaw), surreptitious kisses, notes and subtle gestures.
With her poetic period drama Jane Campion makes two hours feel like fifteen minutes in heaven in this story about a secret romance that begins in London 1818 between struggling poet John Keats and the girl next door Fanny Brawne.
Her newest film is based on English author Andrew Motion's "KEATS: A Biography" from 1987 and is a hearty ovation to English romantic poet John Keats (1795-1821), which depicts the last three years in his life and focuses on the relationship between him and 19-year-old Fanny Brawne who would become the love of his life.With sophisticated camera movements Jane Campion visualizes the romance within the characters and nature as she attempts to drag out the essence of Keats' poems.
Neither Fanny or Keats are saints, it is Keats' poems purifies their freckled characteristics, and successfully exerts an immense pathos on their love story.Jane Campion finally recollects her most skillful talent to create an non-contemporary (please forget IN THE CUT 2003), 19th century scroll of a heart-wrenching story with a slow but poignant pace, gracefully shows us a romantic yet sentimental natural settings with costumes filled with relishes of that time (received an Oscar costume nomination this year).
The title is the same as that of perhaps the most famous composition by the English Romantic poet John Keats and it is commonly assumed that the final version of the poem was inspired by his great love Fanny Brawne.
Here the young British actor Ben Wishaw gives a convincing portrait of the aspiring but sick poet, while the beguiling Australian actress Abbie Cornish effects a fine English accent as his muse.The real credit for this unusual and difficult choice of movie subject has to go to New Zealander Jane Campion who - as with the superb "The Piano" - is both writer and director.
We can also say that the movie itself is a beautiful poem, as the real "Bright Star" that Keats wrote to Fanny in the 19th century.
Like a real poem, Bright Star from Campion, shows wonderful landscapes, the natural environment of a deeply love story, and the delicate words which make up the dialogs.
But the thing is nothing about it is really interesting and feels dull at times, and the thing about John Keats not choosing to be without Fanny Brawne cause he doesn't want to take away her happiness thus tearing the relationship apart is touching, but even when the movie ends and the credit starts rolling it just doesn't leave an impact.
Jane Campion directs very competently, with each scene and season moving pretty much seamlessly to the next.Bright Star has a beautiful, moving story, beautifully told and tells the story of Keats, his love and his beautiful poetry lovingly.
But alas, we come to Bright Star (2009) which centers around two lovers Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the muse to poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) who's love affair lasted for three years, starting in 1818.
These Romantic poets are mentioned in Bright Star, and it is this love of poetry that Campion shows as something beautiful in the words of Keats."Bright star, would I were steadfast as thous" was the poem that the title comes from, which is used so effectively to drive the films romantic and undying love themes.
This should appeal to fans of the poet in watching a film regarding his romantic episode with Fanny Brawne, but for the casual movie goer (ahem like myself), Bright Star was anything like the brightness it got touted, and is pretty much an acquired taste.For a film that proclaims to be that of a romance, and what more one would have thought Keats was a romantic at heart to have churned out some of the greatest poems, Jane Campion somehow sucked the romanticism completely out of her film, and the performance by Ben Whishaw as Keats can be summed up in one word - dry.
It didn't help that his character spends a lot of time brooding, while best friend Charles Brown (Paul Schneider) spends a lot of time behaving as the opposite, loud mouthed braggart who thinks the world of himself.It's a period piece, but one which had its plus points drawn from its locales (the Spanish Steps at the end had a lot of significance, and to be filmed on site void of people is simply amazing), and costumes thanks to the plot device of Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) being her own strong-headed fashion designer of sorts who sews and modifies her own clothes.
In fact, I almost felt that the point from this film is not exactly the love between the two main characters, but the methodology of the ancient romance, whose emphasis was on the value from the words to express feelings on an elegant and subtle way, which say very much without betraying the good customs from that time.Anyway, I liked Bright Star pretty much, but I do not think it is a film for every taste.
Bright Star takes place in early 19th century England and focuses on the true love story of poet John Keats and a local woman named Fanny Brawne.
Only really it's a film about a young woman called Fanny Brawn, set during the Regency in England, who fell in love with John Keats and we know this because they wrote a lot of letters, which have survived, to each other, and he wrote an ode to her.
Keats' love for Fanny Brawne is the poetry of this film, a tortured romance never consummated and filled with longing, as appropriate for a young Nature poet whose very breath exudes ultra sensibility.
"Bright Star" is the latest film from director Australian director Jane Campion and is about the final years in the life of Romantic poet John Keats.
The film tells the story of the brief romance shared between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne.
"Bright Star" is a filmed biography of the poet John Keats, concentrating on his romantic relationship with Fanny Brawne during the last three years of his life.
The film is based on the last three years of the life of poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), and charts his romantic relationship with a young woman, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish).Like many of Campion's pictures ("Holy Smoke", "The Piano", "In The Cut"), "Bright Star" is both gorgeously directed and erotically charged.
In 1818, a young woman named Frances 'Fanny' Brawne (Abbie Cornish), designed clothes, while living next door to one of the most celebrated poets of all time, John Keats (Ben Whishaw).
|
tt0045547
|
The Beggar's Opera
|
Peachum, a fence and thief-catcher, justifies his actions. Mrs. Peachum, overhearing her husband's blacklisting of unproductive thieves, protests regarding one of them: Bob Booty (the nickname of Robert Walpole). The Peachums discover that Polly, their daughter, has secretly married Macheath, the famous highwayman, who is Peachum's principal client. Upset to learn they will no longer be able to use Polly in their business, Peachum and his wife ask how Polly will support such a husband "in Gaming, Drinking and Whoring." Nevertheless, they conclude that the match may be more profitable to the Peachums if the husband can be killed for his money. They leave to carry out this errand. However, Polly has hidden Macheath.
Macheath goes to a tavern where he is surrounded by women of dubious virtue who, despite their class, compete in displaying perfect drawing-room manners, although the subject of their conversation is their success in picking pockets and shoplifting. Macheath discovers, too late, that two of them (Jenny Diver, Suky Tawdry) have contracted with Peachum to capture him, and he becomes a prisoner in Newgate prison. The prison is run by Peachum's associate, the corrupt jailer Lockit. His daughter, Lucy Lockit, has the opportunity to scold Macheath for having agreed to marry her and then broken this promise. She tells him that to see him tortured would give her pleasure. Macheath pacifies her, but Polly arrives and claims him as her husband. Macheath tells Lucy that Polly is crazy. Lucy helps Macheath to escape by stealing her father's keys. Her father learns of Macheath's promise to marry her and worries that if Macheath is recaptured and hanged, his fortune might be subject to Peachum's claims. Lockit and Peachum discover Macheath's hiding place. They decide to split his fortune.
Meanwhile, Polly visits Lucy to try to reach an agreement, but Lucy tries to poison her. Polly narrowly avoids the poisoned drink, and the two girls find out that Macheath has been recaptured owing to the inebriated Mrs Diana Trapes. They plead with their fathers for Macheath's life. However, Macheath now finds that four more pregnant women each claim him as their husband. He declares that he is ready to be hanged. The narrator (the Beggar), notes that although in a properly moral ending Macheath and the other villains would be hanged, the audience demands a happy ending, and so Macheath is reprieved, and all are invited to a dance of celebration, to celebrate his wedding to Polly.
=== Selected musical numbers ===
Can Love be control'd by Advice? (Polly, act 1)
Let us take the Road (Chorus of Highwaymen, act 2)
When Gold is at hand (Jenny Diver)
At the Tree I shall suffer (Macheath, act 2)
How cruel are the Traitors (Lucy, act 2)
How happy could I be with either (Macheath, act 2)
In the Days of my Youth (Mrs Diana Trapes, act 3)
The Charge is prepar'd (Macheath, act 3)
|
action, satire
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1117394
|
Transcendent Man
|
Raymond Kurzweil, noted inventor and futurist, is a man who refuses to accept the inevitability of physical death. He proposes that the Law of Accelerating Returns—the exponential increase in the growth of information technology—will result in a "singularity", a point where humanity and machines will merge, allowing one to transcend biological mortality: advances in genetics will provide the knowledge to reprogram biology, eliminate disease and stop the aging process; nanotechnology will keep humans healthy from the inside using robotic "red blood cells" and provide a human-computer interface within the brain; robotics, or artificial intelligence, will make superhuman intelligence possible, including the ability to back up the mind.
Most of the movie has an implication of a religious background, and is applying technology to accomplish the goals with what is considered to be "god like" powers, through interdependent connection. Kurzweil has been criticized as being a modern-day prophet, however the film describes a detailed list of his inventions. Ray's dedication to improving the blind's quality of life is displayed in the climax of the film, with his miniature blind reading tool. Ray speaks of emailing someone a blouse, or printing out a toaster utilizing nanotechnology. Eventually swarms of our nanotechnology will be sent by us into the universe to, as Kurzweil puts it, "wake up the universe".
Against this optimistic backdrop of human and machine evolution, concerns about Kurzweil's predictions are raised by technology experts, philosophers, and commentators. Physician William B. Hurlbut warns of tragedy and views Kurzweil's claims as lacking a more moderate approach necessitated by biological science. AI engineer Ben Goertzel champions the transhumanist vision, but acknowledges the possibility of a dystopian outcome. AI researcher Hugo de Garis warns of a coming "Artilect War", where god-like artificial intellects and those who want to build them, will fight against those who don't. Kevin Warwick, professor of Cybernetics at University of Reading, advocates the benefits of the singularity, but suggests the Terminator scenario could also occur, where humans become subservient to machine and live on a farm, and the singularity is the point where humans lose control to the intelligent machines. Warwick basically spells doom for anyone who is human after the singularity. Dean Kamen observes that advances in technology have finally made immortality a reasonable goal. At the end of the film, Kurzweil states, "if I was asked if god exists, I would say not yet."
|
sci-fi
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0493949
|
Ramona and Beezus
|
The adventurous and creative third-grader Ramona Quimby (Joey King) often finds herself in trouble at school and at home, usually with her friend and neighbor, Howie (Jason Spevack). When her father Robert (John Corbett) loses his job and the family falls into severe debt, Ramona's efforts to earn money end up backfiring in humorous ways. She repeatedly embarrasses her older sister, Beatrice (Selena Gomez), calling her by her family nickname, "Beezus", in front of Beatrice's crush, the paperboy Henry Huggins (Hutch Dano). After working as an executive in a storage company since Beezus's birth, Robert causes quarrels with his wife and the girls' mother Dorothy (Bridget Moynahan) when he decides to pursue a creative career.
Meanwhile, Ramona's visiting aunt Bea (Ginnifer Goodwin) is one of the few people who accept Ramona despite all her eccentricities. After a car-painting accident involving Bea's old flame Hobart (Josh Duhamel), Ramona gives up her money-making schemes. The next day, Ramona ruins her school portrait by cracking a raw egg in her hair and responding with disgust when the photographer asks her to say "Peas" instead of "Cheese." Ramona's worries increase the following day, when her classmate Susan (Sierra McCormick) reveals that after her own father lost his job, her parents divorced and her father moved to Tacoma. The news makes Ramona sick, and Robert has to pick her up early from school, interfering with a sudden job interview. Instead of being angry, Robert decides to spend the rest of his day drawing a mural with Ramona.
Ramona and Beezus attempt to make dinner for their parents, but the pan catches fire while Beezus is on the phone with Henry. During the ensuing argument, Henry overhears that Beezus loves him. Still upset, Ramona goes to feed her cat Picky-Picky but is devastated to find the cat dead. The girls' private funeral for Picky-Picky helps them reconcile. A job offer for Robert in Oregon leads Ramona's parents to decide to sell their house. As the family touches up the garden during an open house, Ramona inadvertently initiates a water fight with the neighbors, which floods the neighbors' backyard and exposes a box that Hobart buried there years ago. The box contains mementos of Bea and Hobart's teenage romance, and in light of their rekindling relationship, he proposes to her. Hesitantly, Bea accepts, and the family begins planning the impromptu wedding. Furious that her aunt broke her promise not to get "reeled in," Ramona rushes home and seeks solace in the attic. The fragile rafters break, leaving Ramona's legs dangling from the ceiling during the open house. After the open house clears out, Robert scolds Ramona for her lack of maturity. He then receives a phone call from her teacher, Mrs. Meachum (Sandra Oh). Feeling unwanted, Ramona decides to run away. Unable to convince Ramona not to leave, her mother helps her pack her suitcase. Opening the heavy suitcase at a bus stop, Ramona discovers that her mother made it heavy on purpose to keep Ramona from traveling far. Inside, her mother has packed a book of Robert's sketches of Ramona. Her family finds her soon afterward and everyone is happily reunited.
At Bea and Hobart's wedding, Ramona saves the day when she finds the wedding ring Howie dropped. During the reception, Beezus and Henry share a kiss and dance together. Robert also receives a job offer from Ramona's school; Mrs. Meachum recommended Robert to the school's board as its new art teacher after she saw the mural that he and Ramona made. Ramona is delighted that the family will not have to move and that Robert and Dorothy reconcile. Before Bea and Hobart leave for their honeymoon in Alaska, Ramona gives Bea a locket with her school picture, and Bea tells Ramona that she's "extraordinary."
|
cute, entertaining
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0110546
|
Mohra
|
Vishal Agnihotri (Sunil Shetty), a convict, is imprisoned for the murder of a group of four criminals who had brutally raped and killed his sister-in-law. Vishal tries to get justice in court but is unsuccessful and the men are let out free with the help of a corrupt lawyer. They then visit Vishal's home for trying to file a case on them, and try to rape Vishal's wife Priya (Poonam Jhawer), but she kills herself with a knife. Angered at all this Vishal decides to take the matter into his own hands and murders the four criminals himself. He is sentenced for life in prison for the crimes.
Journalist Roma Singh (Raveena Tandon) visits the jail for a report she's writing, where a few of the convicts try to rape her. It reminds Vishal of his misfortune. Vishal intervenes and saves Roma. Roma hears Vishal's story and decides to help free him. Her voice is heard out by a blind businessman - Mr Jindal (Naseeruddin Shah) who tries to recruit Vishal as a hitman. He wants Vishal to kill some anti-social elements in the city, mainly the two powerful drug lords Jibran (Raza Murad) and Tyson (Gulshan Grover) and all the people who work for them. He tells Vishal, that these people are responsible for creating people like the group of four men he killed in the first place, by bringing drugs to the streets and corrupting the locals. Vishal refuses at first as he has just got out of prison, and now wants to live a normal life. However, the memories of his murdered family comes back to haunt him as he spends a day alone in his home, and he agrees to work for Jindal. Inspector Sahoo (Paresh Rawal) is very greedy and he becomes informer of Jibraan. He tells all internal matters of police department in return of money.
Police Inspector Amar Saxena (Akshay Kumar) is unhappy about the release of Vishal who he believes deserves to be in prison because of the murders he committed. Things complicate even more when Amar finds Vishal around almost every murder scene of criminals involved in drug-trading, who Amar is trying to catch alive. Vishal goes on a murder spree, until he realizes that even the Commissioner (Sadashiv Amrapurkar) thinks that the unknown murderer is doing more help to the society than police could ever do. Vishal refuses to kill the Commissioner, but Jindal becomes angry. Vishal attacks Jindal with a paper-weight, but Jindal dodges it. Vishal then realizes that Jindal is not blind.
Jindal tells Vishal that Jibran and Tyson were his rivals. He also tells that he murdered his wife Pooja (Priya Tendulkar) & Inspector Karan Saxena (who happens to be Amar's father), to cover up the truth. He pretended to be blind to throw the police off his trail. Jindal, who has now partnered with Jibran, leaves Vishal to die. Vishal escaped, only to be confronted by Amar. Vishal subdues Amar & tells him the truth. Inspector Sahoo, who is brought to Jindal by Jibran to give important information about Vishal, tells him that Vishal is alive and will tell the entire truth to Amar and Commissioner by next morning. Then Jindal kidnaps Roma and kills his sub-editor Siddiqui who tries to save Roma. Amar, Vishal and Commissioner goes to Jindal's home to arrest him but they find the Sub-editor Siddiqui brutally murdered at his home. They come to know that Jindal has kidnapped Roma in order to forcefully marry her. Amar & Vishal find out Jindal's den with the help of Inspector Sahoo & corner him.
After a melee, Jibran is killed. Jindal tries to kill Amar, but Vishal takes the bullet on himself. Vishal dies in Amar's lap, upon which Amar kills Jindal and avenges the death of Vishal & his father.
|
good versus evil, plot twist, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0090670
|
At Close Range
|
Brad Whitewood, Sr. is the leader of an organized crime family. One night, his estranged oldest son, Brad, Jr., contacts him after a fight with his mother's boyfriend and stays with him at his home in Homeville, Pennsylvania. Eventually, he becomes involved with his father's criminal activities, and starts a gang with his half-brother, Tommy. The boys attempt a daring heist, which results in their arrest. All of them are bailed out except Brad, Jr.
During Brad, Jr.'s time in jail, another member of the gang receives a grand jury subpoena. Brad, Sr. believes that they will inform on him, so he rapes Brad's girlfriend, Terry, as a warning. Brad, Sr. feels his only recourse is to eliminate every witness that can connect him with his sons and their gang. He kills Tommy himself and orders a hit against Brad, Jr., who is seriously wounded, Terry is also killed. Brad, Jr. threatens his father with a gun, intending to kill him, but decides that he wants Brad, Sr. to "die every day for the rest of his life," and instead testifies against him in court. His father is sentenced to life in prison.
|
violence, neo noir, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0432637
|
Krrish
|
Five-year-old Krishna Mehra undergoes an intelligence quotient test by a professor, who suspects that he has superpowers. His grandmother Sonia (Rekha) takes the young Krishna to a remote mountain village to conceal his unique abilities. Years later, Krishna (Hrithik Roshan) meets Priya (Priyanka Chopra) and her friend Honey (Manini Mishra) when Krishna's friend Bahadur (Hemant Pandey) takes the girls' camping crew near his home to camp. Krishna saves Priya from a hang glider accident and falls in love with her when spending time with her.
After returning home to Singapore, Priya and Honey are fired by their boss (Archana Puran Singh) for taking a non-permitted extension of 5-days in their vacation. In order to keep their jobs, Honey suggests her boss making a television program about Krishna. Aware of Krishna's love towards her, Priya calls him to join her in Singapore to ask her mother permission to marry her. Krishna's grandmother objects to this, saying that people will want to take advantage of his abilities. She then explains that his father Rohit was hired by Dr. Siddhant Arya (Naseeruddin Shah) to design a computer that could see the future in order to prevent wars and help prepare against natural disasters. However, Rohit later found out that the purpose of the computer was not for good and he destroyed the machine. Rohit reportedly died in a laboratory accident that night, with Krishna's mother dying of a broken heart shortly thereafter. Krishna promises his grandmother that he will never reveal his powers, so she permits him to go. In Singapore, during the program's production, Krishna keeps his word and reveals nothing exceptional about himself much to the disappointment of Honey and Priya, who get fired again.
Krishna later meets with kristian Li (Bin Xia), who attempts to raise funds to pay for his young sister's leg surgery. He invites Krishna and Priya to the Great Bombay Circus, where fire breaks out during the performance. Several children remain trapped in the blaze, and Krishna gets faced with the dilemma of saving the children without revealing his abilities. He dons a broken black mask and puts his jacket on inside-out, creating the persona of Krrish. Later, when Kristian Li sees Krrish fighting some goons and removing his mask, he discovers his friend Krishna as Krrish. As Krrish is being offered a reward for his deeds, Krishna asks Kristian to assume the identity, so that he can pay for his sister's surgery.
Meanwhile, Priya also comes to know that Krishna is Krrish when she sees the footage from her video camera. She and Honey decide to release the footage on TV to make Krishna a star. Krishna arrives and overhears them talking about how Priya had lied to him, and how they will reveal his identity. Just before Priya confesses to Honey that she has genuinely fallen in love with Krishna, he leaves, dejected.
After being confronted by Krishna at his hotel about what she said, Priya realises her mistake and stops her boss from revealing Krrish's identity. She then meets Vikram Sinha (Sharat Saxena), who has been searching for Krishna for years. He informs them that Krishna's father Rohit is still alive, and that after completing the machine, he and Rohit tested it and saw Siddhant holding a gun to Rohit's head. Rohit understood that Siddhant was going to kill him and then use the machine for his own selfish needs. He was able to destroy the machine, before being taken prisoner by Siddhant.
Meanwhile, in the present timeline, Siddhant has rebuilt the computer after many years. He uses it to reveal his future and sees Krrish killing him. Siddhant then kills Kristian, thinking that he is Krrish. Krishna later follows Siddhant to his island lair. When Siddhant looks into the future again, he sees the same thing, and is shocked to see Krrish still alive and on his island.
When Krrish enters the compound, there is a vicious fight with Siddhant's thugs. Krrish eventually defeats them and saves Priya and Rohit. However Vikram gets shot in the head by Siddhant. In the final scene, Krrish wounds Siddhant fatally. Before he dies, Siddhant asks Krrish who he is, and Krishna reveals himself. After revealing to Rohit that he is his son, Krishna takes Priya and his father back to India, reuniting him with Sonia. Rohit then uses his father's special computer to call Jadoo, whose spaceship can be seen from a distance.
|
good versus evil, horror, flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
It is an accomplished blend of Indian popular storytelling , western technology and Asian action and it's historic success in India, proves how successful this fusion is.Surprisingly, unlike most Hollywood film, where technology and action takes precedence, here special effects are minimally and virtuously(often seamlessly) used and most of the emphasis is on the emotional journey of the protagonist, who is reborn as the superhero, only towards the end, shifting to sci-fi action and concluding in a mesmerising ground-air-sea helicopter chase sequence, supported by an awesome and adrenaline-pumping background score.
This is the unique Bollywood identity and film-making heritage and make no mistake about it, Krrish is an all-out Bollywood film, made for mass consumption by Bollywood fans.Krrish is a very commendable and well-made film, an all out-entertainer, with plenty of cool action and special effects, but with it's heart in it's story of Krishna becoming Krrish(played admirably by Hrithik Roshan) It's also a historic milestone in Indian film-making, and will be to Indian cinema, what Superman was to American cinema.
Mil Gaya, also directed by Rakesh Roshan, but no worries if you haven't seen the first movie - you'll be brought up to speed in no time, and Krrish will also work if it stood alone.
It's like a visit to the Kent farm, except that the whole grandmother- son relationship looked more at home vis-a-vis Spiderman's Aunt May and Peter Parker.When Krishna meets Priya (the gorgeous Priyanka Chopra, Miss World 2000) by chance during her adventure holiday camp, and he becomes smitten with her, moving the movie towards a romance.
There's also a showpiece for Hrithik to demonstrate the kung-fu skills picked up, and the fights, if compared with other Bollywood movies, have toned down its cheesy sound effects and credibility issues because of its premise (if a superhero punches you, you'll definitely fly what).And what's a Bollywood flick without song and dance?
Batman this is not.It is, however, an excellent movie that combines the core elements of the super hero genre with romance, comedy, and sci-fi, and does this quite effectively, thanks to the good dialogue, great choreography and effects, and great acting and dancing by Hrithik Roshan and Priyanka Chopra.I was thoroughly entertained and would recommend this film to just about anyone who is willing to suspend disbelief, sit back, and enjoy the show..
I was so eager to see the sequel to "Koi Mil Gaya" which in my opinion was not only a refreshing film, but had a great character written for Hrithik Roshan, and he DID deliver.
People say it is copied and what not (then again we've all come to expect that of most bollywood films), but the fact is that the movie lacked general direction and purpose, thus a lot of the scenes were a drag.
the film solely relies on Hrithik Roshan's shoulders and he delivers but this is certainly not his best as an actor though as krrish i cannot think of anybody else but him playing the role , all the other characters are just passable which include the highly talented "Rekha" who looks uncomfortable in the role of a grand mother.Priyanka Chopra looks good and is camera friendly though not much of the histrionics on her part.
You don't necessarily have to have seen Koi Mil Gaya to understand and appreciate Krrish but it does help with some things.The cinema I saw this in was packed full and everyone in the audience loved it, so much so they were cheering for the good guys and booing at the villains and giving huge applause at the end.
APSingh is the perfect B****yBoss and the Chinese guy Gin Xia for his brief stuntsOverall - Great Entertainer and yes I'd like a sequel to Krrish :-) Some Dings at KRRISH - The first child actor who plays Krishna is quite irritating (thanks to only a 5 min role), Introduciton of the character Krrish could've been a bit sooner in the film, The films length (the last song could've been cut even if it gets under your skin over time due to its softness and awesome picturization)..
god this is the 1000th time they copied holly wood first the picture they copied from daredevil second copied it off paycheck this one has a machine that can look into the future so does paycheck third when krrish was saving the girl he was walking on the damn walls copied it of spider-man this movie is bull-sh*t it's goddamn boring i hate it so much i wish there was no stupid bollywood this is the first bollywood super hero movie made and its crap and so will be the second one and it will be awfuller than this one bollywood thought this was good but it fu*kin sh*t Hollywood is the best ever it's better than that cr*p bollywood if u think u would agree with me vote for me.
First things first I do try to be as objective as possible while reviewing a movies especially movies like Krrish as they draw the maximum opinions most of which on the opposite ends of the spectrum.I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SEE THIS MOVIES FRMM MY OWN EYES AND THE EYES OF THE TARGET AUDIENCE (THE CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WHO SIT IN STALL AND THOSE WHO SEE MOVIES IN SMALL CITIES AND WHISTLE WHEN HRITIK ENTERS THE FILM OR DOES A STUNT ETC).The opposing opinions firstMY OPINIONHritik is a bloody bad actor he range of facial expressions is limited to the smiling face and the puckered modeling face.
I Don't KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING WHEN THEY SAY HE IS A GOOD ACTOR EVEN YOU AND I CAN ACT LIKE A SPASTIC ESPECIALLY BECAUSE SPASTICS BEHAVE IN MANY WAYS AND ALL YOU DO IS TO BEHAVE WEIRDLY AND BAM YOU ARE A SPASTIC, TO ACT AND SPEAK AS NORMAL PEOLE DO IS THE REAL CHALLENGE.Their TAKEWe love Hritik and we don't care if he can't act he looks great and the more we see of him to the better.
THE AUDIENCE IN BHAVANGAR LOVED IT.ANY MOVIE THAT PLEASES IT TARGET AUDIENCE IS A GREAT FILM.Watch it if you love Hritik or if you share the tastes of the small city moviegoer.+'s a few good scenes including romantic ones, best graphics in Indian cinema, Priyanka Chopra, Naseeruddin Shah.+/-'s overdone, overbearing Hritik, overused graphics, inspired even original parts not exciting.-'s to much English including credits (more abusing), bad acting by the rest of the crew even Rekha looked straight out of a 70s film, ordinary songs especially in the second half.Total 3.5/10 for me 10/10 for the public.
Altogther, the father-son duo have set 4 records in Bollywood: the first idea of a sequel, the first sci-fi Bollywood film, the first Bollywood superhero flick and the first-time Bollywood shoot in Singapore, courtesy of the Singapore Tourism Board.Hrithik is undoubted the star of the film, he steals from the very blend Priyanka Chopra but villain Naseerudin Shah and Veteran Rekha hold their own territories.
Hrithik has a great body but I wish he will stop smiling too much throughout the film as he does not exactly have the best smile in Bollywood.Besides heroine Priyanka, the music, of which only 'Ek Ladki' and the theme music stand out, is a buss.For those criticizing fellow Indians out there who lash out at the film 'inoriginality' and the 'imitation of Hollywood', they ought to be proud that India can at least churn out a special effects galore with believable superhero and an original Indian-type sentimental background story, ignoring the superhero stuff..
A runaway hit in India, where its homegrown title superhero "Krrish" will likely out-gross the much-touted "Superman Returns" import, Rakesh Roshan's sequel to his madly successful sci-fi extravaganza "Koi ...
It's only then thatit starts to get entertaining and gripping, although one more song spoils it slightly.However, if these flaws are kept aside, Krrish is a good, entertaining superhero movie that features breathtaking action sequences and an emotionally resonant performance from Hrithik Roshan and Rekha.
The first half is however a bit dragging missing the innocence of "Koi Mil Gaya." Overall, the film is impressive in the technical aspects like photography and special effects which is seldom seen in Hindi movies which makes it Rakesh Roshan's best effort though it contains the ordinary clichés of Hindi Movies like the regular villains and improbabilities.Rating: 3 stars out of 4.
for first half it just a romantic movie hero chases heroine like all other Hindi movie at end filmmaker realize time to end the movie so hero go after villain and take his revenge someone at least tell me what is new in this movie expect is Hrithik Roshan hair style music is worst so please guys beware before u watch this movie.
i was very exicted about this first bollywood "super hero" genre movie,but it disappointed me.it was like other typical bollywood commercial films.the first scene of introduction of hrithik roshan as a superhero looks childish,when he make race with a horse.they make him run in slow motion,showing his muscles,with the typical kind of background music (which is a necessary thing in bollywood).most of the action scenes are in slow motion and physics is not very good.some time when he jumps in air it looks he is hanging with ropes.this movie is good for the people who likes light entertainment.but it is not for the people who are serious about genre,pure action and real physics in movies..
However, judging from filmmaker point of view, it is so bad that I even don't know where to begin.Apart from wonderful music and bollywood-trademark-dance scenes, the film is made out of artistic-wannabe-but-surreal-dialogues, pieces-of-badly-executed-Hollywood-lookalike-actions, some shots were lit in a way that looks like it was superimposed, or maybe they were, plus over-the-top camera angle movements.
This is one of the best movies ever.The movie is wow from beginning to end.The special effects are excellent.THe cinematography is excellent.There is no scence that drags.The story is brilliant.It is the sequel of Koi mil Gaya(2003).Rohit and Nisha are married.One day Rohit goes to Singapore.He goes to a lab.Somee problem happens.At the same time Nisha gives birth to a child.The lab explodes.He(rohit)dies.Nisha too dies.The baby is named Krishna.The film opens when Sonia found out that Krishna has a brilliant Iq.He takes him far away(Possibly to Himachal Pradesh).Years later he grows up.He meets Priya and falls in love.He goes to Singapore.One day on a circus night a few children's are inside the blazing tent.He wants to save them.He takes a mask and becomes KKrish.Dr Arya wants him.The stunts are MINDBLOWING.Hrithik delivers a breathtaking performance.Priyanka looked pretty as usual but sadly she was just about okay.Rekha is okay too.Nasserdun delivers a good performance.The music is faboulous.A Must see Rating-9/10.
Well I seen the movie now.It is good but still not that good.I think some things work and many things not.Main thing is that we cannot see much more action that we expected and see lots of romance and drama that we did not.Main thing is that in first half story moves very slow and in second half very fast.Romance scenes between Hrithik and Priyanka did not work out and that is main problem.
In second half story of Rohit, Krishna becomes Krrish and story between Priayanka and Krishna going together and it confuses sometimes.Rakesh Roshan also did not gives more detail on character of Krrish and his powers.What powers he possess and what are weakness and also no details on character of Rohit and his wife.Why Rohit does not possess that powers which his son gets.Well there are some good points also in movie like twist of rohit is live and also how krishna becomes accidental hero in circus fire.
Action is very less but it is good.Hrithik is main actor in whole movie and he done superb job but Priyanka disappoints and therefore first half seems very slow.
The movie is finely structured so that there is no conflict with its prequel 'Koi Mil Gaya' and runs with a fine pace, barring the songs that are a big dampener compared to earlier two Hrithik films, including the mega one 'Kaho Na Pyar Hai'.
But to give devil his due, watch Krrish because it boasts of great acting, tight screenplay, seductive cinematography, enthralling stunts, effective story telling, bull's-eye direction and because you loved 'Koi Mil Gaya' and Hindi Cinema is ready for sequels!
Hollywood uses its studio power to spend millions on special effects, Indian films don't have that kind of money - exactly the reason why they attempt to tug at your emotions...Yes I loved Krrish.Its the story of the son of Rohit Mehra, the mentally challenged kid in Koi Mil Gaya, who receives powers from an alien called Jadoo.
Whoever said about there being no comic books in India does'nt realise mo one was going out to make a comic book movie but all that the makers were trying to do was to dish out something different for Indian audiences who are sick of all those stupid lovey-dovey movies.Yes,there are a lot of clichés here.Yes there are many scenes in which it is evident that the makers turned towards Hollywood for "Inspiration" but so what .They made a damn good movie .The acting was really good .Mostly the movie focused on Hrithik but the rest of the cast especially Naseer also showed there class .The story had a number of plot holes which I am not going to disclose but you simply had to accept them.But the songs were when it was difficult to watch the movie.All in all a really good movie..
Film: Krrish Cast: Rekha, Hrithik Roshan, Priyanka Chopra, Nasserudin Shah, Puneet Isaar Director: Rakesh RoshanWhen I saw Hrithik dancing like a kangaroo in the song Dekho Pawan bhi...Chori Chori, Chupke- Chupke...I made up my mind that 'I will not watch the film'.
Where Hollywood superhero movies like Batman, Spiderman, and Superman have villains with an odd, powerful physical strength, Krrish's villain has a power of a different dimension--time.
Must say a real change in Bollywood movies really appreciate The Roshan to come out with a new idea rather than just old stupid love stories.But a sequel which gave Hrithik a different start and will be known as "Krrish" .And a role model for every kid and now the sequel continues with "KRRISH" just like "Superman" and "Spiderman" and its a never ending for Hrithik Roshan .
I dreaded going for Krrish not because i don't like the theme but that it may not live up to my expectations.I was astounded by the technical aspects and the details of character Rakesh Roshan gave his son.Any superhero enthusiast will know that all the ingredients in this movies are mandatory for any superhero.Mind you the director did not have a base to build up on for a superhero except his prequel.Its as different from Koi Mil Gaya as Rohit is from Krrish.Introduction scenes are pleasant.It starts off mellowly and keeps changing gears every 15-20 min.Hrithik is the heart and soul of the movie.No other hero in Bollywood or Hollywood can emulate his emotions or his inimitable style.The sequences are reminiscent of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style movies.The scene where the hero heroine descend after the rescue is beautiful.The movie moves predictably as the target audience is such.Moving on to more important stuff.As you would have noticed in trailers the superpowers are given special care to.Rakesh Roshan has made sure that Krrish is no Superman or Batman or Spiderman.He does not fly or use ropes or webs to move from one place to another.He just jumps and bicycles in AIR!!This sole aspect is unnoticed by the many detractors but only hardcore comic fans will notice =>.For a 40 day martial workshop the performance of Hrithik is outstanding by any measure.As usual he is not satisfied by giving his 110% he always gives 200% for any performance.He succeeds too.He gets smitten by the reporter-on-vacation as its his first contact with outsiders.He follows her to Singapore and eventually the movie has many twists and turns(which are predictable for seasoned movie goers)but decent enough as passable.The twist in last 20min is laudable as no one would have seen it coming.The ending was very satisfactory.The movie has some cons too.Some scenes were too comic book like and could have been avoided a.k.a. some kicks,punches and a few multiple attacks within same second could have been avoided.It is a bit long at nearly 180 minutes.Songs are average but a treat to watch as Hrithik delivers effortless dance sequences.The best technical and action effort to ever to grace an Indian screen.Kudos to Rakesh-Hrithik pair.They click together well and they have now been time tested.This genre was an untouched territory but now we have a worthy team to take India into this.Here's wishing them a blockbuster on their hands and hoping desperately to see many more sequels of Krrish..
made me happier than when I saw the Main Hoon Na final fight scene (which is worth a see, it's just so ridiculously bad, it's awesomely good!) Thank you Rakesh Roshan for bringing something different into Bollywood, it may be a crappy movie, but it looks professional, and flashy, and it has just enough plot a nd action to make me happy..
(As always...you get your money's worth with Bollywood films.) It's one of those movies you will want to watch several times.The Roshans just keep getting better and better.
It was only in the scenes that had her in it did I feel like I was not watching a parody of a superhero movie.Roshan couldn't find a nice balance between the superhero aspect of Krrish and the romance aspect of it, plus having to establish the background of the film.
There was also a bullet time type effect which didn't look too bad.Overall it was a good movie and it was a good try from the Roshans, the Indian movie audience will love it, I can already see little kids jumping around like Krrish.
|
tt0476729
|
Aksar
|
Ricky (Emraan Hashmi) is a leading fashion photographer, who carries his heart on his sleeve. He's an absolute womanizer. The film begins with Ricky getting a call from Sheena (Udita Goswami), who asks him to meet her in a gym. Once there, the two have a showdown since Ricky had used and dumped Sheena's friend Nisha (Tara Sharma). A heartbroken Nisha had even contemplated attempting suicide.
Three years later, Ricky is about to hold an exhibition of his creations when a millionaire walks in and buys the entire lot even before the exhibition has begun. The millionaire, Rajveer aka Raj (Dino Morea), has a pre-condition: Ricky should make Raj's wife Sheena fall in love with him (Ricky). Ricky is perplexed, for he fails to understand why a husband would hire someone to have an affair with his wife. But Raj explains that he wants Sheena to divorce him and this would be possible only if she fell in love with another man.
Ricky flies to London, where Raj and Sheena live in a splendid mansion, and starts playing his cards. After some setbacks Sheena and Ricky begin a relationship. The plan seems to be working perfect. Raj catches Ricky and Sheena in bed, but Sheena is unfazed and does not consider this to be an issue. she also refuses to divorce Raj and tells him she is intent on continuing with her relationship with Ricky: Raj is stunned; he feels his game plan has gone kaput.
Realizing that Sheena wouldn't divorce him, Raj turns to Ricky, tells him to pack his bags and return to India. But now Ricky does a somersault. He's enjoying using a rich woman and staying in the lap of luxury. Raj is stunned again. It's a clear case of double crossing. Nisha attends a party in Raj's mansion. After the party is over, Nisha is crying outside claiming that she was raped by Ricky. The next morning, Sheena confronts Ricky and in a fit of rage, she brutally murders Ricky with a sword, cutting his face and by digging the sword through his chest.
The cop investigates the murder and Sheena is the prime suspect. At the time when she was being arrested, Raj stands up and declares that he is the killer and he is taken to jail. When Sheena meets him in jail, he transfers all his property to her name. When the cop comes home with a stress ball which Raj had given to him, he was playing with it. Suddenly something falls and he discovers a camera which recorded the murder scene. Sheena is taken to jail and she transfers all her wealth to Raj's name. This masterstroke was fully planned by Raj. A few years ago, all cameras were removed from the base camp but Raj deliberately left this one.
At the end, Raj is seen sitting in the car with Nisha, his love. He gives her the property papers as a token of his love. The cop stares at Raj and Nisha in car then Raj throws his "Tension Ball" at him and says,"Aisa to aksar hota hai" (This happens often).
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0142241
|
Doragon bôru Z: Kyokugen batoru!! San dai sûpâ saiyajin
|
Dragon Ball Z picks up five years after the end of the Dragon Ball anime, with Son Goku as a young adult and father to his son Gohan. A humanoid alien named Raditz arrives on Earth in a spacecraft and tracks down Goku, revealing to him that he is his long-lost big brother and that they are members of a nearly extinct extraterrestrial race called the Saiyans (サイヤ人, Saiya-jin). The Saiyans had sent Goku (originally named "Kakarrot") to Earth as an infant to conquer the planet for them, but he suffered a severe head injury soon after his arrival and lost all memory of his mission, as well as his blood-thirsty Saiyan nature. Goku refuses to help Raditz continue the mission, which results in Raditz kidnapping Gohan. Goku decides to team up with his former enemy Piccolo in order to defeat Raditz and save his son, while sacrificing his own life in the process. In the afterlife, Goku trains under Kaiō-sama until he is revived by the Dragon Balls a year later in order to save the Earth from Raditz' comrades; Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta. During the battle Piccolo is killed, along with Goku's allies Yamcha, Tenshinhan and Chaozu, and the Dragon Balls cease to exist because of Piccolo's death. Goku arrives at the battlefield late, but avenges his fallen friends by defeating Nappa with his new level of power. Vegeta himself enters into the battle with Goku and after numerous clashes Goku manages to defeat him as well, with the help of Gohan and his best friend Kuririn. At Goku's request, they spare Vegeta's life and allow him to escape Earth. During the battle, Kuririn overhears Vegeta mentioning the original set of Dragon Balls from Piccolo's home planet Namek (ナメック星, Namekku-sei). While Goku recovers from his injuries at the hospital, Gohan, Kuririn and Goku's oldest friend Bulma depart for Namek in order to use these Dragon Balls to revive their dead friends. However, they discover that Vegeta's superior, the galactic tyrant Lord Freeza, is already there, seeking the Dragon Balls to be granted eternal life. A fully healed Vegeta arrives on Namek as well, seeking the Dragon Balls for himself, which leads to several battles between him and Freeza's henchmen. Realizing he is overpowered, Vegeta teams up with Gohan and Kuririn to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries summoned by Freeza. After Goku finally arrives on Namek, the epic battle with Freeza himself comes to a close when Goku transforms into a fabled Super Saiyan (超サイヤ人, Sūpā Saiya-jin) and defeats him.
Upon his return to Earth a year later, Goku encounters a time traveler named Trunks, the future son of Bulma and Vegeta, who warns Goku that two Artificial Humans (人造人間, Jinzōningen, lit. "Artificial Humans") will appear three years later, seeking revenge against Goku for destroying the Red Ribbon Army when he was a child. During this time, an evil life form called Cell emerges and after absorbing two of the Artificial Humans to achieve his "perfect form," holds his own fighting tournament to decide the fate of the Earth, called the "Cell Games". After Goku sacrifices his own life a second time, to no avail, Gohan avenges his father by defeating Cell after ascending to the second level of Super Saiyan. Seven years later Goku, who has been briefly revived for one day and meets his youngest son Goten, and his allies are drawn into a fight by the Kaioshin against a magical being named Majin Buu. After numerous battles resulting in the destruction and recreation of the Earth, Goku (whose life is permanently restored by the Elder Kaioshin) destroys Majin Buu with a Genki Dama attack containing the energy of everyone on Earth. Goku makes a wish for Buu to be reincarnated as a good person and ten years later, at another martial arts tournament, Goku meets Buu's human reincarnation, Uub. Leaving the match between them unfinished, Goku departs with Uub to train him to become Earth's new defender.
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0043565
|
The Frogmen
|
During World War II, Navy Lt. Cmdr. John Lawrence (Richard Widmark), a strict disciplinarian, is put in charge of Underwater Demolition Team 4 after its former leader, Lt. Cmdr. Jack Cassidy, is killed in action. The unit's men are distrustful of the professionally aloof Lawrence, and the relationship immediately takes a turn for the worse when they brawl with sailors aboard their transport ship. The ship's captain, Lt. Cmdr. Pete Vincent (Gary Merrill), understands the natural resentment the elite UDT men feel over the death of Cassidy, which they have transferred to Lawrence, and offers to go easy on the team at captain's mast. The "by-the-book" Lawrence, however, elects to hold his own mast and disciplines the entire team just before a dangerous reconnaissance mission to ascertain the safest landing beach during an upcoming invasion of a Japanese-held island. Lawrence is scornfully perceived as afraid when he splits up the platoon and puts team executive officer Lt. Klinger in charge of a diversion to the more dangerous beach, where the main landing is scheduled.
During the mission, Lawrence cuts his leg on coral, and the diversionary section's pick-up boat receives a direct hit from artillery during pick-up operations, killing Klinger and most of his men. Lawrence sees that two frogmen, including Chief Jake Flannigan (Dana Andrews), are still in the water, but rather than risk loss of the information already gathered, orders a rescue boat launched and continues back to the transport. The rescue succeeds in recovering the two swimmers, but Lawrence's apparently cowardly action increases the unit's ill will toward him. An embittered Flannigan and some of the others request transfer to another unit, but Lawrence insists that they first complete the next day's mission to clear the new landing site for the invasion.
The next morning, Lawrence, who is sick with coral poisoning, does not reveal his illness when he puts Flannigan in charge of the mission and stays behind. Convinced now that Lawrence is a coward, the men angrily but efficiently complete their task, although "Pappy" Creighton (Jeffrey Hunter), whose brother is a U.S. Marine, sneaks onto the beach with Flannigan to leave a sign "welcoming" the Marines. Creighton is shot after the prank, but Flannigan tows him to the pick-up boat. Back on the ship, Creighton is put in traction because of the bullets in his spine, and Flannigan confesses to Lawrence that the prank caused Creighton's injuries. Lawrence furiously upbraids Flannigan for giving in to the prank, and soon all of the men request transfers.
While Lawrence is discussing the transfer requests with Vincent, a torpedo hits the ship but does not detonate. Lawrence volunteers to disarm the torpedo, which has lodged in the sick bay next to Creighton's bed, and with Flannigan's help, succeeds. Soon after, Lawrence receives orders to blow up a Japanese submarine pen, and tells the men that although it will be their last mission together, he is proud to have served with them. Although Flannigan voices disdain that Lawrence will again dodge dangerous duty, Lawrence leads the mission, which is discovered when one of the men accidentally trips a signal wire. Japanese sentries shoot at the men as they plant the charges, and Lawrence is stabbed in hand-to-hand combat with a Japanese diver. He orders Flannigan to leave him behind, but Flannigan tows him to safety. The mission is a success, and soon Lawrence is recuperating beside Creighton. Finally won over by Lawrence's bravery, the men show their acceptance of him by asking him to sign the portrait they have drawn of Cassidy to present to his widow.
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0116126
|
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
|
Ashtray (Shawn Wayans), Tray for short, is sent to the inner city to live with his father. Tray gets an education about life on the streets from his psychotic, gun-toting cousin Loc Dog (Marlon Wayans), Preach (Chris Spencer), and Crazy Legs (Suli McCullough). At a picnic Tray falls for the infamous Dashiki (Tracey Cherelle Jones) much to the distaste of ex-convict Toothpick (Darrell Heath). While Ashtray and Loc Dog head to buy some snacks, Toothpick and his posse confront Ashtray and hold him at gunpoint, until Loc Dog threatens them and they flee. Loc Dog and Ashtray get harassed in a Korean store by the owners and Loc Dog shoots at the owners when a remark is made about his mother. The two are then confronted by 'The Man' (a mysterious white, government figure) who kills the Koreans and tosses them his gun to frame them and leaves.
Meanwhile, Ashtray and Loc Dog's Grandma ride to church and another elderly woman disses her, resulting in a breakdancing contest that Grandma wins.
Ashtray visits Dashiki where they engage in sexual intercourse and Tray impregnates Dashiki. Feeling like he's not responsible enough to be the father, Dashiki kicks him out. Someone from Toothpicks posse threatens Ashtray, Loc Dog, Preach, and Crazy Legs. Loc Dog knocks him out as he and Preach proceed to stomp him, flattening him (literally). The quartet decides to get protection from their friend Old School (Antonio Fargas). This tactic fails as Toothpick performs another drive-by and Crazy Legs is injured. With Crazy Legs hospitalized, himself and Loc Dog being arrested, and the Korean store shooting, Tray decides to confront Dashiki and be the father. Dashiki agrees to give Tray another try and they decide to leave the hood as planned. Ashtray and Loc Dog talk about Ashtray's departure as Toothpick and his posse prepare for another drive-by and he and Loc Dog clash as Ashtray flees and trips and is knocked out as Loc and Toothpick continue to shoot at each other. They are saved when Grandma pops out of the dumpster and shoots Toothpick's car as Toothpick is flung out and he lands on a cop car. Preach and Dashiki find Ashtray hurt and he regains consciousness and kisses Dashiki. A woman finds Toothpick (who turns out to be his mother) and beats him with his shoe for stealing from her in the past.
Afterwards, everyone goes their separate ways: Ashtray and Dashiki marry and enjoy their lives, Loc Dog becomes a host and introduces himself with extreme profanity, Preach and his crush settle down and perform sexual intercourse, Crazy Legs becomes a dancer as he had dreamed of, and Grandma is, as Ashtray puts it, "still Grandma" (showing her smoking marijuana).
|
comedy, cult, flashback, humor, satire, revenge
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Spoofing practically every "growing up in the hood" movie, "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood" is a laugh a minute.
Following the adventures of Ashtray (Shawn Wayans) and Loc Dog (Marlon Wayans) in LA's black ghetto, it's one joke after another - the way that a Mel Brooks or Leslie Nielsen movie is.
You need to have seen most of the movies being parodied in order to see the true depth of the humor in this movie.Absolutely one of my favorite light comedies with "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" and "Half Baked".
i suppose you have to have seen all of the films which they are making fun of to fully appreciate the comedy but once you have seen Menace II Society, Boyz 'n' the Hood, Friday And Higher Learning you will want to watch this film over and over again.
The main two movies you have to watch first is Menace II Society and Boyz N The Hood.
'Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood' spoofs these two to the max but if you haven't seen these two movies most of this movie will be lost on you.
Shawn and Marlon Wayans, along with director Paris Barclay, have created a very humorous satire of the flood of films recently dealing with African-American life in the ghettos of inner-cities of America.
"Boyz in the Hood" and "Menace II Society" are among the films at which the Wayans brothers poke fun.
"Don't be a Menace..." follows the story of Ashtray(Shawn Wayans) as he wades through a series of episodes in Barclay's "hood." He lives with his father, who is "only a couple of years older than him." Among the lessons his father teaches him are: "No smokin' my shit, no drinkin' my shit, and if you bring any of them hos up in here, make sure I fuck 'em first", and (drinking and driving)"That shit is fun, man!" No stereotype or politically-correct boundary is too sacred for the Wayans brothers to poke fun at.
Some of the jokes hit, some miss, and the fun will definitely be increased by those who have seen the films that "Don't Be A Menace..." frequently jests.
We weren't laughing at the line so much at the performance of it."Don't Be A Menace" is the most obvious collection of predictable gags and bits I have seen in a long time, but it is by far the funniest.
The Wayans are rather stuck - the genres they parody here have very rigid conventions, so much so that there is usually only one or two gags one can use to mock them - e.g., when a young gangsta warns us that many young men in the 'hood don't live to see their 21st birthday, we all know what's coming next.
Thus we laugh with them, appreciating the way they pull it off, and recognizing the gangsta genre limit that's getting parodied, rather than at the bit itself.Just about the whole movie operates on this level, and for this reason has become one of my favorite comedies.
The tempo could have been a little swifter, but the rhythm itself is excellent.Comedy like this is very tricky, and I personally didn't think the Wayans' efforts in the "Scary Movie" films were quite as successful - but here they move it right along.It's rude, it's crude, it's in-yor-face - and it's just a delight to watch..
Besides having a title that is funny in itself, Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood is one of the funniest movies this decade.
It spoofs such black films as Boyz N' Tha Hood, Dead Presidents, Juice, Menace II Society, and South Central with such hilarity that you'll be repeating its many classic lines over and over again for months.
Wayans brothers who started on In Living Clor and made the hilarious 1988 movie I'm Gonn Git U Sucka do it again with this long overdue spoof of movie that are extremely serious.
It feels good you know hmmmmmmmmmm....Well seriously, this film for some reason other than being a spoof and having the same actors as Scary Movie, gets compared to the aforementioned film.
Like most spoof movies, it won't be funny if you don't know what is being made fun of.If either of these things are true, see this movie.
But I got so much more.This parody of movies such as "Menace II Society" Boyz N Da Hood" and "Dead Presidents" was funny as hell.
Great movie, I saw it when i was around 14 it played on Portuguese TV, I didn't knew its name but i kept searching all this years, finally i got it and watched it again, same fun.
I find it a very smart, lively and audacious caricature/satire of hood life, all the stereotypes exaggerated and pointed out in a very straight fashion, straight and real enough to hurt many "sensitive" feelings, not every scene in the movie is hilarious some are not so funny, but it is made in such a relaxed and flowing atmosphere that everything is fine is all good.Music is excellent and it has many quality details from the production creating the right atmosphere.
Well I loved this movie and I wish they would make more of this kind, at the same time it is a surreal or a nonsense comedy it has very deep meaning on it and it can look so real, because reality is so much like this, day to day life is not full of drama, its more full of comedy, and full of crazy and superficial characters somehow similar to the ones on this movie.
They seem to be the only ones who can do what Zucker used to: serve up what are generally called spoofs.I think it is because they start knowing that the target isn't bits of movies, but the bits we use in inventing the stories of who we are.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching..
It probably would have helped if I'd seen all (or at least some) of the movies that this parodies, but as it stands, DON'T BE A MENACE is consistently funny enough on its own.
From the Wayans' Brothers, DON'T BE A MENACE parodies/spoofs just about every "hood" movie from the 90's, like BOYZ N THE HOOD, MENACE 2 SOCIETY, etc.
The most pivotal, gritty, and shocking scenes from hood movies, the ones that defined the genre and changed the way Americans thought about cinema and society, are spoofed mercilessly from the preachy Ice-Cube monologue at the end of Boyz in the Hood to the Asian convenience store in the beginning of Menace II Society...This movie has gotten shockingly bad reviews but I imagine these people have never seen hood films.
it is a film to enjoyFrom the opening comment spoofing the Boyz intro ("one out of every ten black males will be forced to sit through at least one growing up in the hood movie in their lifetimes") to the ending scene, you will be in pain from the laughter this film will ensue if you have grown up watching hood films.This movie is one giant stereotype which people might pick at, but that is ultimately the point.
As long as you've seen "Boyz in the Hood" "Menace to Society" "Dead Presidents" and "Poetic Justice" you will think this movie is one of the best comedy spoofs ever.
It had me laughing inside of a couple of minutes and I kept it up to the end.It's a tremendous spoof of "'Hood films." It takes every cliche in the book and kicks its metaphorical head in!I'd recommend this.
There are also some jabs at "Boyz N the Hood." There are some genuinely funny moments that I will always cherish: Bernie Mac's cameo as the black cop who hates anything and anybody black, Suli McCullough as the wheelchair bound Crazy Legs doing his MC Hammer "U Can't Touch This" number, the "Hurry Up and Buy!" scene at the convenience store, Loc Dog (Marlon Wayans) applying for a job at the DMV.
Even if you haven't seen the movies that it is spoofed from it will still be a good time!.
I thought it was hilarious!The Wayans Brothers take off movies so well.I thought this was a fabulous take off of all the hood movies.All the jokes were very smart, original and funny.The acting was good.
They made a really good parody of all the hood characters.I felt some characters were too over the top though, but nothing that bad.I'm sure anyone will find this funny, but only if they've seen some of the hood movies.
It is a spoof on movies like 'Boyz N the Hood' and 'Menace II Society', two great movies about the hoods in Los Angeles.'Don't Be a Menace' starts pretty nice, although stupid, with some very funny moments.
It is an intensely funny film, very raunchy and one of those silly movies that have no redeeming value except for the laughs, but please people from other lands and cultures please do not take this as a repensenation of the black culture in America, I mean I as a black person would be very unhappy if I went to Russia and someone thought that they could call me a name of get my phone number by holding a gun to my head.
It also helps if you have seen the films 'Don't be a menace to society' 'Juice' and 'Boys in the hood'.
This is THE most hilarious film I have ever seen, the way that the Wayans brothers used spoofs of films such as, Boyz in tha Hood, Menace to Society, Juice, Higher Learning and a few others is complete genius, I personally can't wait for their next film 'Scream if You Know What I Did Last Halloween'.
This movie is one of the funniest I have seen in a long time, with some very memorable quotes and scenes.I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone who wants a good laugh..
This is well worth watching, I laughed all the way through and I have not done that for a long time.I highly recommend it.yes it is a bit borderline between comedy and what is considered acceptable but thats why it was so funny, laugh at the sick jokes, howl at the appropriate sound effects during the 'sex scene' and just enjoy the film for what it is..
The humor is based on how dumb people act, like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, except not as good and dealing with violence and "The 'Hood."It's a silly movie, but if you're a teen, or on that level, and think teens in the 'Hood doing silly things is funny, you have to see it.
makes fun of a lot of movies and pop culture trends, and you don't have to have seen all the movies referred to (including poetic justice, higher learning, Menace II society, boyz 'n the hood, juice, jungle fever).
The other comment under this movie said that it was not funny because he/she was not black and did not come from the hood.
Well, I am not black and I do not come from the hood, and I have not even seen all the movies they are targeting here, but I thought it was hilarious.
This movie may not appeal to many if you havent seen the others that they are spoofs of...i.e. Menace to Society,South Central,Juice or Boyz in the hood.
No doubt as the less talented Wayans brothers starred, wrote and produced the film they were entirely blind to their lack of talent.Menace consists of a series of unfunny, one joke skits.
I thought that a 9 was okay, but I'll stick with 10, and if you haven't seen this movie yet, rent it, buy it, wait 'til television show it, but, see it, you won't be regret.When you see it, you're gonna like it a lot...
Then you'll get back home, then you'll watch the movie again, then you're gonna sleep laughing and all.Lotta funny!See it!.
Movies like BoyZ In Da Hood, Juice,Higher Learning, Menace II Society and other graced the silver screanprompting gang violence all over the country.
It was time to paradythese films.The problem with this movie was NOT the fact that it wasn't funny.
It has to be one of the funniest comedies I have seen, taking a humorous view of life in the 'hood' it is a spoof of the dramas such as 'Boys in the hood' and you may find it to be similar to the 'Friday' series starring Ice Cube (but funnier!).
The famously funny Wayans brothers star in this film as Ash Tray and Loc Dog, both trying to work their way out of the hood.
To give this movie an overall 6.5 is a disgrace both to the wayans bro's and comedy lovers all around the world at least an 8 8.5 minimum I really don't think anyone can name me a movie that is even remotely as funny or as good as this one.
If you love quirky comedy than this movie is definitely for you I recommend it and so does my brother after watching menace 2 society ( which is the movie this movie is based upon) I really did have a true understanding of it but didn't really matter cause it was funny either way.
From Loc Dog's swearing at Grandma, to white cops playing a Rodney King computer game, it keeps the jokes coming.If you haven't seen the films that this one parodies then get them out and watch this one after.
Some people did not like how the writers were toward some of the subject matter but I don't really get into all that when I watch a movie, especially a comedy.
It does just what a good comedy should do and that is it keeps you laughing all the way through the movie..
However, I have seen such movies as "Boyz In The Hood", "South Central", "Higher Learning", and "Juice".
This is a funny, well targeted, affectionate spoof of hood movies and black stereotypes.
The first couple of 'gangsta' films like "Boyz N' the Hood" and "Menace to Society" made a strong, dramatic point about life, but the genre got old with the countless imitators.
The problem is that Wayans and consorts not only try satirize the typical 'ghetto' culture, they also belittle valid statements that are made in urban movies such as Boyz 'n' the Hood or Menace II Society.
I don't know whether this didn't appeal to me because I don't live in "da hood", or if I'm not black, but it's probably one of the two.It tries to spoof a few movies, only coming up with a couple of laughs, but in the long run it fails miserably.
The movie is full of parodistic jokes referring to other, more serious, hood-films (eg.
Boyz N The Hood, Poetic Justice, Menace 2 Society) plus there's a nice amount of good old Wayans-brothers humour.
But (there's always a but), if you haven't seen any hood-films, don't like them or so, you won't probably laugh during this film at all.
This movie, is pure comic genius.Spoofing everything from 'Boyz In The 'Hood' to 'Menace To Society' to 'Juice', 'Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood' is one of the funniest comedies to be invented.Shawn plays a virginal black boy who is sent to live with his only-one-year-older dad in the rough confines of the 'Hood.
There, his cousin (Marlon) shows him the way of life in the 'Hood.The dialogue is quick, funny and over the top that plays off the impressive sight gags.If you loved Scary Movie, Airplane!
Very hilarious ripping on how stupid ghetto life really is.If you are black you probably won't like this movie, but nonetheless it is a great laughter filled story, second to only Friday- for ghetto comedies.
I liked this movie (not as much as the Wayans future project Scary Movie) because of it's funny jokes on past gangsta movies.
I would also like to point out that I've seen boys n the hood, menace II society and juice - that doesn't stop this film being awful.
I had only seen Boyz N the Hood by the time I saw this movie, nonetheless I found the movie hilarious!!
comedy movies ever i'll watch it again and again and will never get tired of it i recommend it for the people who didn't watch it yet you should defintly see it it's a very fun movie and a very good spoof of "Boyz N The Hood".
This is probably the best Spoof i have ever seen it made me laugh soo much, the wayans brothers are absolute geniuses they made a winner with the scary movie films and they made a winner right here unfortunately it wasn't as big as it should've been but one hell of a spoof none the less.
`Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood' is an hilarious take on all the hood type movies and surprising it does come off really funny.
The only thing that helps is if you've seen the movies that this is parodying, and then you should certainly have no problem finding this film hilarious.
`Scary Movie 1 & 2' clearly have borrowed the mold from `Don't Be A Menace
' More films should be as funny as this one.
This film perfectly spoofs all the popular 'hood' movies such as 'Boyz In Tha Hood', 'Menace II Society' and 'Juice'.
Like 'Scary Movie', also starring the Wayans brothers Marlon and Shawn, it's the type of film where you have to watch the films that it is spoofing, so it is understandable why some people don't get some of the jokes.
|
tt0142868
|
Stage Hoax
|
Woody Woodpecker, tired and perspiring, is walking down a dusty road of the old West carrying a heavy suitcase. Hearing a stagecoach approaching, he stands in the road thumbing a ride, but the stage passes him by in a swirl of dust. He opens his suitcase, which contains an assortment of artificial limbs used to display women's stockings, wigs, dresses, etc. Woody transforms himself into a young woman by putting on artificial limbs, a wig and a dress. Wally Walrus, driver of a stagecoach, approaches Woody in the road. Woody coyly lifts his skirt to display the shapely limbs. Wally quickly stops the stage, and Woody enters. Woody, in the coach's dining room, orders a sumptuous meal from Wally, now dresses as a waiter. Woody's wig falls off. Wally realizes his mistake, and he hands Woody a check for $30. Woody and Wally argue over the price, and Wally pulls a lever, which ejects Woody over the stagecoach roof. Woody jumps from the stagecoach and runs away. Woody then drives the stagecoach and meets the real "Buzz Buzzard the Bandit" astride a horse. Buzz forces Woody to drive to his hideout cottage. Woody, again disguised as a woman, causes Buzz's heart to flutter as he hastens to put his house in order, dress in "full dress and silk hat," and get ready to welcome Woody. A giant commotion emanates from the cottage. Woody rushes out the door with Buzz in full chase. Woody jumps into the stage, with Buzz making a close second.
|
revenge, psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Woody, Wally and Buzz in the desert. Was very fond of Woody Woodpecker and his cartoons as a child. Still get much enjoyment out of them now as a young adult, even if there are more interesting in personality cartoon characters and better overall cartoons.That is in no way knocking Woody, because many of his cartoons are a lot of fun to watch and more and also still like him a lot as a character. 'Stage Hoax' to me was a lot of fun and very good as a cartoon, outside of the setting some of the story is a bit typical and it is once Buzz appears that 'Stage Hoax' is particularly colourful and high in entertainment value.While there are more interesting characters, Woody is an amusing character and never too obnoxious even when intentionally annoying. Wally as the stagecoach driver is similarly fun to watch, even if he has been easier to root for in other Woody/Wally outings, but Buzz takes even more of the laughs and has some of the funniest moments even as the villain of the piece. The chemistry between the three of them is great, Woody works better with Wally but the chemistry with Buzz gets stronger with each cartoon.As ever, the animation is great. The characters are well drawn, but even better are the rich colours, meticulously detailed backgrounds and smooth backgrounds.Music is another strength here. It's characterful, lushly orchestrated and is not only dynamic with the action it even enhances it. The whole cartoon goes at a snappy pace, especially in the second half, and there are some very well-timed and extremely funny gags, the climactic melee being the highlight, deliciously wild with some hilarious moments.All in all, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox
|
tt0187251
|
Lovers Lane
|
Thirteen years ago, on Valentine's Day at the local lovers lane, Dee-Dee (Diedre Kilgore) and Jimmy (Carter Roy) are making out in their car when a maniac wielding a steel hook attacks them. The pair escape the car and find another couple, Harriet and Ward, slaughtered in the car next to theirs. Soon after, psychiatrist Jack Grefe (Richard Sanders) arrives, along with Sheriff Tom Anderson (Matt Riedy), who is distraught to find his wife, Harriet, is one of the lovers who has been murdered. The killer, Ray Hennessey (Ed Bailey) is caught, and revealed to be one of Jack's patients who had an obsession with Harriet. Ray is incarcerated in a nearby state institution for the criminally insane and gains the nickname 'The Hook'.
Present day, Jack's popular daughter Chloe (Sarah Lancaster) and Tom's socially awkward daughter Mandy (Erin J. Dean) attend the local high school together. During a class, Chloe hears her boyfriend Michael (Riley Smith) is planning to break up with her. In a fit of anger Chloe attempts to drown Michael in the pool. Jack is quickly called into the school about his daughters actions where he meets with Principal Penny Lamson (Suzanne Bouchard). Chloe is suspended from the school, while Michael is grounded by his mother, Principal Penny. Soon after, 'The Hook', retrieves his weapon and escapes the mental institution. Upon hearing this news, Sheriff Tom warns Penny, as her husband had been having the affair with Harriet and had been murdered along with her.
Later that night, Michael sneaks out of his room to meet his friends, including Chloe, Mandy, Bradley (Ben Indra), cheerleader Janelle (Anna Faris), joker Doug (Billy O'Sullivan) and couple Cathy (Megan Hunt) and Tim (Collin F. Peacock) at the bowling alley. Also there is Deputy David Schwick (Michael Shapiro), whom Sheriff Tom has put in charge of keeping Chloe and Mandy safe. After a while, Chloe, in an attempt to make Michael jealous, leaves with Bradley to go to lovers lane. As the pair travel in their car, Chloe enters a store, not realising the owner is swiftly murdered as she departs. Deputy David also enters the shop, only to be stabbed to death. Meanwhile, Penny discovers Michael is missing and alerts Sheriff Tom.
After some time, Mandy, Michael, Janelle, Doug, Cathy and Tim arrive at lovers lane. The group find Bradley's car, only to discover he and Chloe have been murdered, before the hook arrives and stabs Tim to death. As the others try to escape in their car, Doug crashes into a tree, knocking everyone unconscious. Some time later, Mandy and Michael wake up to find the others gone. They travel to a nearby farmhouse where they arm themselves with a gun and find Janelle and Doug, who has broken his leg. While Janelle tends to Doug's injury, Mandy and Michael go to the barn to retrieve the missing owners car. Back inside, Janelle begins to hear noises before the hook smashes through a window. Janelle runs upstairs and barricades herself in a room, but the hook gets in and stabs her to death. The hook also then kills Doug.
In the barn, Michael and Mandy manage to get the car started, however as Michael begins to drive he accidentally runs over Cathy, killing her. The pair re-enter the house and find Doug and Janelle dead before the hook attacks them. They lock themselves in the kitchen, and turn the gas on, before escaping out a window. As the hook opens the door, a match is sparked and the house blows up. Meanwhile, Sheriff Tom and Penny go to Jack's house where they find a shrine devoted to Mandy, before rushing to lovers lane. At the farmhouse, Michael and Mandy take the owners car and begin to travel into town. On the way, they find Chloe to still be alive, who urges them to return to lovers lane as Bradley has also survived. Upon arrival, Mandy leaves Michael and Chloe in the car, only to find Bradley is in fact dead, before she is dragged away into a bush. In the car, Chloe attacks Michael with a hook, revealing herself to be a killer. Michael escapes, but as Chloe exits she is slaughtered by an unseen figure.
Mandy is forced into a car by her attacker, revealed to be Jack who tells her he was the one that had killed Mandy's mother, Harriet, and had survived the explosion at the farmhouse. Michael saves Mandy, and as a fight breaks out, Tom and Penny arrive and shoot Jack before Mandy eventually kills him with a hook.
The next day at lovers lane, Mandy and Michael are medically checked, before they leave Tom and Penny and enter a police car, that is revealed to be driven by Ray, 'the hook'.
|
violence, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
The thing couldn't even offer decent T & A.The "scary" scenes have all been done better in other movies, the acting was typical "B" grade stuff, and the plot took more effort than was worth to understand.Not frightening, not funny, not worth renting..
never run up the stairs when the front door is just a few feet away).The story relies heavily the classic urban legend about the hook wielding mental patient stalking a couple on Lovers Lane, heck that basically the plot.
Also, all you "Scary Movie" fans should check out Anna Faris (who played the heroine in said movie) in her first slasher appearance.
(You might know her from Scary Movie 1 & 2 and let me just say she looks much better with brown/black hair.) Riley Smith is okay too.
(Cherry Falls, is a great movie, so that's not a bad thing.) Lovers Lane, (It's called, I'm Still Waiting For You, here in the UK) is definitely a good movie, especially one for a straight to DVD/Video - TV Movie and I give it a 7/10..
this movie contains Anna Ferris from Scary Movie fame and is dressed in a cheerleader outfit that she wears on dates and around town (even though if you watch closely, no one else in the school is wearing the uniform, she must be the schools only cheerleader.), and it feature Sarah Lancaster from the new Saved by the Bell as bitchy vamp who likes to wear short skirts (her nude scene is a body-double, it says so in the credits.).
I expected "Lovers Lane" to be pure crap,but I was pleasantly surprised.Of course the plot is pretty stupid and unoriginal and the characters are our usual annoying slasher fodder,but I found here some things to like.Some scenes are actually suspenseful and the film is never dull.Unlike politically correct Hollywood's slasher movies this one contains some nudity,foul-mouthed language and good gore.Worth checking out,if you like slasher movies!.
If that were the case, it could have been named "My Blood Valentine 2: Lover's Lane" and maybe – just maybe – the film would have enjoyed a modest little cult reputation by now.
Instead, "Lover's Lame" came out in 1999, at the end of a decade that is widely considered as a low point in horror, and then still it attempts to rip off the wrong films!
So in other words, "Lover's Lane" attempts to cash in on the two most popular contemporary horror films of that era – "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream" – but actually hasn't got anything to do with either of them.
I was prepared to watch something really dull and irritating, but "Lover's Lane" actually is quite entertaining and definitely a worthwhile little homage/throwback to that glorious decade of slasher-goodness.
The film begins with the discovery of two young people on Valentine's Day butchered in their car on Lover's Lane.
And naturally it's Valentine's Day again and of course he recovers his beloved hook-hand just in time to make it to the kids' sex party on Lover's Lane.
Hook-handed killer is out to slice a bunch of parking teens.Unimaginative and completely lack-luster teen slasher is even less than one would expect it to be!
After BETTER teen thrillers like Scream (1996), I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997), Urban Ledgend (1998), and Cherry Falls (1999) one would think this movie would try a new angle but it only rehashes more of the same and with disappointingly less effect.
I usually like low-budget slashers, if they are fun, scary, and have good gore.
Well, this stupid video pic was very dry, slow, badly-acted, and the ending was sooo confusing and the script was sooo bad...I could go on for hours about how terrible this movie is.
Lovers Lane is a independent horror film that I never knew about until I found out about Anna Faris(Scary Movie,Smiley Face,Emoji Movie)and how she made her film debut in this tiny little slasher film so what did I do;after a while after noticing it,I bought it online and a few days later it came and I watched it.
The film is a complete slasher film that has all of the typical 90's stuff(kids having sex in there car at make out point and then a man brutally murders them).
Now,obviously the film cant avoid its cheesiness but over all it is a very good horror film was a good twist and story and oh as for Anna Faris being in her basically first film,she was very very good like always and I'm excited to see her in The Emoji Movie.
Lovers Lane was an entertaining horror movie.
The acting is surprisingly good for a straight to video slasher flick.
Another great thing is that Anna Faris, Cindy from SCARY MOVIE, makes a really hot blond.
Sure, the plot has been done to death and the hook thing might just remind you of another recent horror movie, but something about this film sticks with you.
It centers around a couple that was murdered on Valentine's Day 'several years before" at Lovers Lane by a killer bearing a hook for a hand.
Surprise endings have become a trademark for modern day slasher films, but this was ridiculous!
At least the filmmakers here are trying to revive that ere-it is certainly better that having no slasher movies at all..
Idiots could write it off as just a low budget slasher but there is so much going on in this movie under the surface that it takes someone with an IQ over 100 to "get it".
Killer escapes from a mental asylum after 13 years and heads out to a small town's local lovers lane with a hook in tow to murder the teenagers who are having sex or drinking.
Due to the success of I Know What You Did Last Supper, my copy of Lover's Lane is actually called I Have Knowledge of a Certain Criminal Incident That You Were Implicated In At Some Point Last Year, and seems to be some sort of take on the old urban myth of the escaped lunatic with the hook creeping out people getting it on at some lane or other.
It's also a post-Scream film, so expect lots of smart arse teenagers and a twist that comes out of nowhere if you haven't seen Scream or just about any Gialli from the seventies.After a brief prologue where two folks (one the sheriff's wife, the other a teacher's husband) are killed in Lover's Avenue, we fast forward to the present (1999) and get to meet a bunch of characters we have seen so often you'll know them all, but I'll describe them anyway.
You've got the jock and his bitchy popular girlfriend, the geeky girl who studies, the new girl who's a cheerleader, the fat jokey one who can't get a date, and some others (I guess this film is too early to add a lesbian goth chick to the proceedings).From what I could gather the bitchy chick gets dumped and starts hitting on the jock's mate while trying to set up some prank at Lover's Lane where everyone ends up.
Plus the guy who was imprisoned for the previous murders escapes and there's a few red herrings and then everyone starts getting wasted by a hook killer type.I'd guess you'd rate a slasher by how creepy it is (like the original Black Christmas), how gory it is (like Pieces) or how off the wall hilariously bad it is (also Pieces, and Don't Open Till Christmas, and Don't Go Into the Woods Alone) or how booby it is (Fatal Games, Slumber Party Massacre, Pieces).
Lover's Lane for the most part seems to pull away when it gets to the killings, but I suppose it's fast paced enough not to become too boring, and there's a few twists to keep you awake a bit longer than usual.Do you think that filmmakers will notice that the youth of today no longer care for slasher films as they are too busy stalking each other on Facebook or watching TV box sets and are therefore probably not the target audience (or for that matter, the main victims in a slasher film)?
my friend and i rented this movie about 2 years ago and when we were done watching it,we started it right over again.
it has a cliched plot, but it pulls off the "killer with a hook" thing better than "i know what you did last summer".
if you havent seen it, do yourself a favor, NEXT TIME YOUR IN THE VIDEO STORE AND WANT TO BE DEEPLY SCARED, RENT "LOVERS LANE".
It was almost an enjoyable though uninspiring slasher film, but the last few minutes make so little sense it's not funny.
Being so cheesy and taking inspired by many other slasher movies, Lovers Lane still managed as fine entertainer, at least to fill your bore times with a lot of laugh.
If truth to be told, Lovers Lane is the most underrated after many direct-to-video-posh-Scream slasher movie, but it still shine because of the cliché it has.
As a movie, despite Cherry Falls are better, they are in the same league, where's there is no explicit gores (most of the kills are off-screen), no intense fright, non atmospherically, the pace is slow, alas fails miserably as a great slasher package, but at least still fun to watch.One thing to bother is the taking more popular slasher as it blatant copy is so annoying, when it seem lack of originality.
Lovers Lane also featuring the pre-Scary Movie, Anna Faris with his blonde hair.
Her appearance unquestionably fun.Well, as little twist, Lovers Lane is still worth watching, but just don't expect it as a winner, because little is a literally concept for this movie.
As my final bashed, Lovers Lane may fail as a slasher, but succeed as laughable movie.2/10.
This movie was pretty good for a low buget film.
Anyway, if you're in the mood for a horror movie Lovers' Lane is worth watching..
He's coming!" "I'm getting the flashlight!" "Leave it!" "It's all we have!" But the acting is surprisingly not bad and there is a hint of a plot, so give this movie a chance if you've got the bucks to spare and you want to rent something that you haven't seen before.
Dean, Riley Smith, Matt Riedy, Suzanne Bouchard, Sarah Lancaster, Anna Faris, Ben Indra, Ed Bailey, Richard Sanders, Carter Roy. Mindless slasher entertainment certainly doesn't score any points for originality, but also goes against the clichéd 90s horror `self-parody' that quickly grew tiresome after SCREAM.
i took a walk to blockbuster and saw Lovers Lane on a rack for 2$ so i was like what the hell i know it's gonna suck but for 2$ i'll give it a chance, and what i got was better then i thought it would be.
Lovers Lane is very much and 80's kind of horror film but not as good as the great days of horror in the 70's and 80's, but close.
Lovers Lane is full of horror movie cliches but still fun to watch, the downfalls to the movie are the twist was so dumb, and the directing was ok at times it looked good others it was sloppy but i see potential, and most of the kills were off camera that was very annoying.
if you're a fan of 70's and 80's horror movies give Lovers Lane a chance, but if you're into the new era of horror films stay away.
Lover's Lane was your typical by-the-book 90's horror film....predictable from start to finish.
Simply facinating work by a deeply skilled actor.I'd just like to add that if any of you are searching for a freaky, over-the-top horror adventure, Lovers Lane is the movie to get!
When i first saw this i saw it with my friend on Austar and thought it was good for a low budget horror flick, with popular actress Anna Farris best known for her roles as Cindy Campbell in Scary Movie 1,2 and 3.
Based on that old urban legend, this low-budget loser features a hook-handed killer who stuck it to a man and woman on Valentine's Day getting it on at Lover's Lane.
13 years later, his escape from the state mental hospital coincides with the murders of a bunch of obnoxious high school kids played by a hand picked cast of no-talent nobodies who resemble your favorite teen dream stars of today!See the Mena Suvari knock-off who keeps her American BEAUTY-style cheerleading uniform on for the entire movie before taking a hook to the most private of personal areas.
Along with a group of friends, including Mandy, Michael heads up to lovers lane for some fun but someone else has other plans for our teenage lovers, someone who has a large hook on his hand...Directed by Jon Steven Ward Lovers Lane is a pretty dull slasher that offers nothing particularly worthwhile in an already over saturated sub-genre.
For a start the character's are annoying teenage stereotypes of the worst kind, the killer & they're eventual motives come as no real surprise & the films only clue to who it might be is far too obvious & gives the game away early on in the proceedings, the exploitation elements are seriously lacking as the murders are very tame & considering it's called Lovers Lane there is virtually no nudity or sex.
It seems to pay homage to, or rip-off whichever you prefer, various other slasher films like My Bloody Valentine (1981) as the opening is set on Valentines day, the whole Friday the 13th (1980) & Scream (1996) feel about it & most blatantly copying I know What You Did Last Summer (1997) as the killer uses a large hook in both films...
The film is also far too slow, has too low a body count & the mystery surrounding the killers identity never grips or engages, Lover Lane also features one of those awful sequel driven endings.Director Ward directs with surprising competence & as a whole the film looks decent enough.
The gore is absolutely minimal, there's a severed dogs head, some dead bodies covered in blood, someone is stabbed in the leg & right at the every end we finally see the hook sink into human flesh, but not for too long as that would actually be quite gory & we can't have that can we...The budget for Lovers Lane couldn't have been that great but as a whole the film looks OK & is reasonably well made.
The babe factor is quite high with some nice looking birds.Lovers Lane isn't the best slasher ever filmed, far from it but on a positive note it isn't the worst I've seen.
All we needed was James Dean mooing in the auditorium....I'd say overall I enjoyed this more than, say, a root-canal operation, but I admit I was a little confused at the end with all those killers with hooks popping up, including whoever was in the cop car at the end (which I would put down to the "requirement" that horror movies have some kind of shock ending or twist ending, which probably goes back to "Carrie" with the hand coming out of the grave at the end).
(But that's another horror movie staple---killers who are harder to kill than Rasputin.) But I liked that not all the adults in the movie were buffoons and not all the teenagers were jerks; when kids and parents said "I love you" to each other, I believed it.
LOVERS LANE is a low rent slasher movie filmed in Washington state and with much in common with the genre circa the 1980s.
The Script was a joke...The acting..well, Riley Smith (michael) is a very talented actor, and is unfortunately stuck in Direct to Video hell....I hope he gets out....Anna Faris (from Scary Movie) is very good in this very weird Jan Brady look alike way....The twist towards the end was dull and not needed....but the end was pretty good...the kids driving off with the killer....Anyway, rent it...I bought for 1.99 that is all it is worth...Check it out though.
The ultimate "B-movie double" film; still bad, though.
LOVERS LANE is truly the ultimate "B-movie double" film, though, as a horror film, it truly fails (blame production values).
Why did the killer brutally murder a young couple (apparently locked in an extramarital affair) on Lovers Lane thirteen years before?
There are only three really good, terrifying scenes, all of which involve the murder of one of the aforementioned teens: one of them, incapacitated on a kitchen table with a broken leg, is tortured by the killer with knives (and the hook, eventually); another one sits terrified on a bed, until the killer makes a surprise appearance from (where else?) underneath the bed; and, lastly, another teen meets a grisly end next to a car window.Bad acting: none really; it's expected of a B-movie anyway.
This is a horror film where the high school principal punches a drunken female student in a bowling alley, where the sheriff meets his daughter in town but doesn't seem truly concerned that a violent killer has escaped from the state institute and is headed their way, where a dimwitted deputy reholsters his weapon BEFORE examining what's behind a curtain, where it is said, in the opening scene, that the sheriff and Dr. Grefe are half-brothers, yet that fact, CRUCIAL to the storyline, is hardly ever developed!
An alternate ending that clears up the confusing one we have watched and adds a terrifying car chase would have made the film TEN TIMES BETTER!
(which doesn't say much)All in all, this film would only be good for those of us who adore SCARY MOVIE's Anna Faris (obviously I am one, since I bought the tape and have written a nearly 800-word review).
|
tt0185211
|
Caddie Woodlawn
|
Set in the 1860s, it is about a lively eleven-year-old tomboy named Caroline Augusta Woodlawn, nicknamed "Caddie", living in the area of Dunnville, Wisconsin. As a young girl she made the journey from Boston to Dunnville with her family, one which nearly cost her life. Sickly and weak, she is allowed to run wild with her brothers, Tom and Warren, to regain her health. They spend much of their time exploring the woods and rivers that surround their farm. The book opens with Caddie, late for dinner after an excursion to visit the local Indian tribe, embarrassing her mother with her antics. She, undaunted, spends the next year having a string of adventures and scares. From a midnight ride through the forest to warn her friend “Indian John” that the settlers are planning an attack, to a prairie fire that brings out the best in Obediah, a schoolhouse bully, to a life-threatening fall through a lake while ice skating, her life is far from boring. Things come to a head when “perfect” Cousin Annabelle from Boston arrives for a visit and Caddie is forced to confront her future. Tom and Warren, always a part of her adventures, come along for the journey. This story is full of practical jokes and touching moments like the long journey home of Nero, a beloved pet. It is the true story of a family’s existence on the frontier during the Civil War, and offers insights into how life was lived in a small Wisconsin village where fear of local Indians was a reality and life and death situations arose with frightening regularity. The sequel, Magical Melons (1939), continues the story of Caddie and her family.
|
prank
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Not bad, but Wonderworks has produced better. This was made a few years after Wonderworks' presentation of the Canadian Broadcast Company's terrific "Anne of Green Gables," and "Caddie" just doesn't compare. Based on a classic children's novel of a tomboy in 1865 Wisconsin who helps avert an Indian massacre, the book is not as well-known as the "Little House" series, the first of which, "Little House in the Big Woods" also takes place in Wisconsin, in 1860. The production design of "Caddie" is too bright and clean for what should be a scraggly, woodsy primitive home in a remote area of the American wilderness. Lawns are trimmed and fenced, house interiors are too bright for oil lamps, and everyone has clean, starched clothes. But the worst thing is the synthesized music score! The best performance in the cast is not the girl playing Caddie, but the actor James Stephens playing her father John Woodlawn. Stephens gives a gentle, understated performance as her patient, understanding Dad. Also good is the Native American actor playing the local Dakota chief. Former "Hardy Boy" Parker Stevenson is just adequate as Caddie's uncle, and the screenwriter had to stretch to give Season Hubley (as Caddie's mom) enough to do. To sum it up, an OK production with a terrible, synthesized soundtrack. You're better off seeing Wonderworks' productions of "Anne of Green Gables" or "Girl of the Limberlost."
|
tt0116905
|
Lone Star
|
Sheriff Sam Deeds is the county sheriff in Frontera, Texas. He was born and raised in Frontera, and returned two years ago to be sheriff. Sam's late father had been the legendary Sheriff Buddy Deeds, who is remembered as fair and just. Sam had problems with his father and the pair routinely fought.
Sam is particularly disapproving of efforts by business leader Mercedes Cruz and Buddy's former deputy, Mayor Hollis Pogue, to enlarge and rename the local courthouse in Buddy's honor; he considers it an unneeded waste of taxpayers' money. As a teenager, Sam had been in love with Mercedes's daughter Pilar, but the courtship was strongly opposed by Buddy and Mercedes. After a chance meeting, Sam and the widowed Pilar, now a local teacher, slowly resume their relationship.
Colonel Delmore Payne has recently arrived in town as the commander of the local U.S. Army base. Delmore is the son of Otis "Big O" Payne, a local nightclub owner and leading figure in the area's African-American community. The two are estranged because of Otis's serial infidelity and abandonment of Delmore's mother when Delmore was a child. Relic hunters discover a human skeleton on an old shooting range along with a Masonic ring, a Rio County sheriff's badge, and a bullet not used by the military. Sam brings in Texas Ranger Ben Wetzel to help with the case. Wetzel tells Sam that forensics identify the skeleton as that of Charlie Wade, the corrupt sheriff who preceded Buddy. Wade had mysteriously disappeared in 1957, taking $10,000 in county funds, after which Buddy became sheriff.
Sam investigates the events leading up to Wade's murder. He learns that Wade terrorized the local African-American and Mexican communities, including numerous murders where he asks his innocent victims to dig out any weapon they might have, to then justify shooting them for "resisting arrest". Wade used this method to murder Cruz's husband, Eladio, in front of Deputy Hollis. Sam visits Wesley Birdsong, a Native American and a roadside tourist stand owner, who reveals that Buddy was a wild young adult who settled down after becoming a deputy sheriff and marrying Sam's mother – though he did have a mistress, whose name Wesley claims to have forgotten. Sam travels to San Antonio, where he visits his marginally mentally ill ex-wife Bunny and searches through his father's things, where he discovers love letters to Buddy's mistress.
Sam confronts Hollis and Otis about Wade's murder. Wade extorted money from a young Otis for running an illegal gambling operation in the bar, then was about to use his "resisting arrest" setup to kill Otis. Buddy arrived just as Hollis shot Wade to prevent Otis's murder. The three buried the body and took the $10,000 from the county and gave it to Mercedes – who was destitute after Eladio's recent death – to buy her restaurant. Hollis reveals that Buddy and Mercedes did not take up until some time later. Sam decides to drop the issue, saying it will remain an unsolved mystery. Hollis voices concern that, when the skeleton is revealed to be Wade, people will assume Buddy killed him to take his job, to which Sam states that Buddy's legend can handle it.
Sam learns that Hollis and Mercedes have recruited his own deputy to run against him in the next election. He decides to not run for re-election.
Sam tells Pilar that Eladio died 18 months, rather than "a few weeks", before she was born. Sam shows Pilar an old photo of Buddy and Mercedes, revealing that Buddy is her father. Both are hurt over the deception but decide that, since she cannot have any more children, they will continue their romantic relationship, despite the knowledge that they are half-siblings.
|
mystery, alternate history, murder, flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
However when Sam begins to ask questions that go deeper than the legends, he finds secrets within the border town that hit very near home.Having just watched The Hi Lo Country (a modern day western with a sprawling story but focused on one thing), I was put in mind to watch Lone Star again.
As director he is great as well, avoiding the washed out desert feel many `Mexico related' films have and instead goes for richer colours that reflect the rich mix of communities that are in his story.The acting is faultless all round.
No one actor stands out regardless of screen time simply because no one goes over the top and everyone realises they are playing part of a story even Cooper (realistically the nearest thing to a lead actor) plays it down rather than taking the film over.
The spine of the film is Sherrif Sam Deed's investigation into a thirty-year-old murder, yet this story is quickly absorbed by many finely scripted subplots and an overall theme on the futility of trying to escape history.
John Sayles' direction of this film reminded me of Hitchcock in that I was always aware of the director's style and I enjoyed it every bit as much as the acting and the story.
Lone Star is an amazing film: characters that are on screen for even a few minutes come of as real people, flesh and blood, no cardboard cut-outs here.
It starts when they discover the remains of racist Sheriff Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson), murdered under mysterious circumstances many years earlier; Sheriff Sam Deeds (Chris Cooper) leads the investigation.
An entrancing yarn that takes place in a small, quiet Texas border town where the memories of two former lawmen, the crooked Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson) and the legendary Buddy Deeds (Matthew McConaughey) are slowly resurrected when the remains of Wade are found on an deserted Army firing range by Deeds' son, Sam (Chris Cooper), who is the current town sheriff.
Writer-director-editor John Sayles serves up an unpredictable gem here with a great cast that includes Joe Morton, Elisabeth Pena, Frances McDormand, etc., and to me, it seems like nearly all the characters here make sense right up to the end..
John Sayles is not only a great director, but he is also a truly great writer, and "Lone Star" is simply one of the best-written films of all time.
This is a character study of the highest order, and there's no point in discussing the actual events of the film further because this is a film that is best seen (or, indeed, read) with fresh eyes, and I'd hate to spoil that for readers who haven't seen the film.It's a sad fact of life that directors like Sayles, who see films as stories that must be told, and direct them well, but without intrusive and obvious stylistic quirks, are less noticed than directors who practically beg for attention.
A film which instead features an involving mystery and an affecting romance, as well as numerous subplots (all beautifully paced and integrated), and in which almost everything proves to be connected.Great works of art shouldn't have to throw their message into the audience's faces.
In Lone Star, everything - the arguments about race and the past, the tangible sense of a real community, the subversiveness of the film's ending - flows from what is at base simply a good story.
John Sayles is one of the best--and certainly among the most interesting--American directors working in film today.
Virtually never does he make the same film twice, and almost all of them are a great pleasure to watch."Lone Star" is Sayles' masterpiece.
Set in a Texas border town, it creates a rich world peopled with characters and situations we understand and identify with.There is plot, mood, color, drama, passion, suspense and even humor, but if pressed to explain what it really is about, I would say that the theme is how the present is a product of the past, and how people are given opportunities to be imprisoned by it or to transcend it."Lone Star" is one of only two American films of this decade (the other is "Schindler's List") to which I would give a '10'.
John Sayles' best film: amazing, epic story; beautifully told in elegant flashbacks, featuring Chris Cooper in one of his best roles.
Look for Frances McDormand late in the movie in a hilarious cameo as the sheriff's ex-wife.It is a real shame that this film was nominated for only one Academy Award in screen writing.
It's the way the film is woven and the atmosphere that is created throughout (a John Sayles specialty.) Granted, it IS a character study with general societal overtones, so it may appear "slow" in comparison to big budget special effects action movies, or kick-in-the-groin comedies (our unfortunate obsessions), but if you stick with it for just a bit, you'll find the beautifully crafted tapestry unfolding through the characters with riveting intrigue.
What may seem like a cut-and-dried attitude, for example, by Buddy Deeds(Matthew McConaughey) towards his son Sam(played as an adult by Chris Cooper) and Pilar(played as an adult by Elizabeth Pena) going out together, is revealed to be something altogether different.Cooper brings to mind another Cooper, Gary, with his performance here.
LONE STAR is absolutely one of the best movies ever made (and, yes, I am including the great, older classics in that, not just the past few decades' lot).
He has made movies of extreme excellence before and since LONE STAR (his worst movies have more worth than most filmmakers' best), but this one is the zenith thus far (well, I haven't seen MATEWAN, about which I've heard raves for years, or SILVER CITY, which was reportedly not top Sayles, but look forward to both of them).
Oh, and the reviewer here who said Chris Cooper and Elizabeth Pena have no chemistry must be numb--the relationship is intense, leading to one of the hottest love scenes in film history..
Around this, writer-director John Sayles spins several human-drama stories, spanning 40 years, each of which deserve a movie of their own.
Even the relationships side is not without intrigue, so the whole movie requires you to piece together the puzzle, like a good drama should.Superb performance by Chris Cooper in the lead role.
Its a set of interwoven stories set in two time periods as Chris Cooper a border town sheriff who has returned to his home town where his father was a legendary Sheriff investigates a 40 year old murder that may have been committed by his own father.
Great acting by Chris Cooper, Elizabeth Pena, Matthew McCounaghy, and Kris Krostofferson help make this movie into the fine viewing experience it is.Chris Cooper, playing Sam Deeds, is seeking to know how a skeleton found on a old firing range is connected to his late father, Buddy Deeds.
You feel like you are there experiencing the tensions and clash of cultures good and bad.The mystery builds and with it a fantastic love story with an unexpected plot twist.Highly recommended.
This movie has a most unusual depth and diversity of characters and cultures that spans many generations (at times back into 19th century history), the only film I can think of that comes close is "Gone with the Wind." The crime scene investigation is only the outermost layer of the onion.
Quite a few other great films come to mind, but Sayles' "Lone Star" is uniquely its vision, its own style.
Set in Texas, the movie slowly unfolds the secrets behind the mythical sheriff, Buddy Deed (Matthew McConaughey) and the actions of the past that have come to play a crucial part in the present.Sam Deed (Chris Cooper) is the new sheriff in town, living under the heavy expectations of his heroic father, who discovers a dead body in the Texan desert.
"Lone Star" opens with the discovery of skeletal remains, and the calling in of local sheriff Sam Deeds (played by Chris Cooper.) The opening leads you to believe that you're in for a murder mystery focusing around the investigation into the identity of both the victim and the killer.
The focus is on the relationship between current sheriff Deeds and his father, a former legendary sheriff in the same town (played in flashbacks by Matthew McConaghey), but there are other families portrayed as well - frankly too many, especially given that I didn't find many of the family issues all that interesting.In fact, I thought the whole movie was rather dry.
I give director John Sayles credit for the seamless way he worked the flashbacks into the main story, and the resolution of the mystery around the killer came as a bit of a surprise to me.
It contains startling revelations, an absolutely sizzling script (full of quotable one-liners) and a great cast, ranging from Matthew McConaughey who has little to do, Joe Morton (who you should recognise from Terminator 2, Executive Decision etc), Frances McDormand as a slightly eccentric woman to Chris Cooper (American Beauty) who is phenomenal as the film's lead.Set deep in Texas, near to the Mexican border, the plot starts when two off duty Sergeants find a skull, a Sheriff's badge and a Masonic ring.
I cannot even begin to explain the rest of the plot, you should just go and watch it and see what I mean.As well as the story-telling, the cinematography was beautiful, especially the seamless transitions from the present into flashbacks and memories and then back again - they are brilliantly choreographed, but again you must watch the film to see what I mean.The ending has a very Oldboy-style twist and although I guessed many of the twists to come they did not take away from the film at all, I guessed what had happened but wanted to know why and how.An absolute peach!.
John Sayles wrote the original screenplay for, and directed, "Lone Star." If his script fails to portray the development and intersection of ethnic relations, marital relations, migration, cultural assimilation, politics, education, big business, and even the army in the southern and western United States, from the Treaty of Payne's Landing and eviction of the Seminoles from Florida in 1832 to the cross-border migration of Mexicans to south Texas in the 1990's, it's not for lack of trying.
In this film, we get a good mix of white, black and Hispanic as the story takes place in border town in Texas.
Lone Star is solidly on my top 10 list.The story is of Sam Deeds (Cooper) the son of a former popular sheriff Buddy Deeds (McConaughey) of a small border town (loosely patterned after Del Rio, Texas) who returns to take the same job his father had.
John Sayles' "Lone Star" is, above all else, a film about the past, personal and historical, and its impact on the citizens of a small Texas town.
In doing so "Lone Star" misses greatness, but it is hardly a bad film.That's because Sayles understands the interaction between temporal ecstasies rather well.
This is also one of the greatest payoffs of John Sayles' superb film, Lone Star.
Intermittent flashbacks from 40 years ago show Buddy Deeds (Matthew McConaughey) as a deputy working under corrupt racist Sheriff Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson).This is a vast wide story of a small corner of the world.
In fact one of the only misleading things about the movie is the poster, which, when I was younger passing by the tape in the store (without, ignorantly of course, looking at the back of the cover) I thought it was some oddball Texas horror movie.Maybe in its way it is sort of a horror movie, but more about the terror of secrets meant to be buried like the skull and badge of the long-gone Sheriff Wade (Kris Kristofferson) who we see in flashbacks as a mean SOB s***-kicker who didn't take no guff from no one, whether it was his fellow officer (Matthew McConaughey in a small but great role), or a black or a Mexican.
It's in this backdrop that the present-day story unfolds as a mix of murder mystery, political scandal and gladhanding, military hiccups, immigration, and interracial romance, with Chris Cooper as the sheriff in present day finding out thing after thing that makes him more disillusioned.It's easy to say the message of the movie, if it has one, can boil down to "It's all BS and it's bad for ya," but what is so engrossing about Lone Star is how Sayles depicts these people as trying to be good as they can be (the ones we're meant to see as good anyway), and that they have to navigate a lifetime full of discrimination and being apart and being told what to do, whether it's someone who is black or Mexican or a white person trying to be with a Mexican (that too, in its way, is a form of racism).
It's a supporting plot line and yet it's not padding, it's not something unnecessary, it like many other scenes that show how characters act and react to the world around them can't help but be shaped by the place they're in - Good ol' Boy land Texas - and how they navigate through being a minority in this place.Acting across the board is solid (even Frances McDormand, who I almost forgot was in the movie by the time she shows up, gets a scene stealer of a performance to give), and the writing is sharp and trusting of its audience that if it takes its time the rewards will be gradual and satisfying.
Chris Cooper and Kris Kristofferson respectively, play two Mexican border sheriffs in John Sayle's excellent movie, but one is dead and the other is very much alive.This is a brooding, simmering and multi-layered drama of the highest order.
A discussion among local teachers about how best to teach the state's history sets up the rich portion of the plot which revolves around issues of ethnicity, while simultaneously (cleverly) misdirecting the viewer's expectations about one of the movie's major mysteries.It is amazing that John Sayles can come in from outside and understand this region so well.
In short, Sayles, who was writer as well as director, superbly did his homework.Pena, McDormand, Chris Cooper, Matthew McConaughey, Kris Kristofferson, Joe Morton, and Clifton James are all great.
Independent film maker John Sayles takes the western for a wild ride through present day Texas in Lone Star.Sayles shows the darker side of the small border town of Fontera, a town where the past haunts its residents, in particular Sheriff Sam Deeds (Chris Cooper).
The film is spectacular thanks to Sayles ingenious work.The story of Lone Star is a combination of a murder mystery and social conflicts.
Lone Star was amazing the first time I saw it, and it gets better with each successive viewing.The film opens with one character's suggestion that if you're going to live in a place, you should learn something about it.
Like the investigation into the meaning of "rosebud" in Citizen Kane, the discovery of a skull and the resulting investigation uncovers the complexities of life in a small community.I can't think of a single theme Sayles doesn't allude to in this film (man v.
Underlying everything is the idea that things are rarely as they appear, that no person's version of history is an absolute, and that it is only through understanding and coming to terms with our past that we can truly embrace the future.While I could wax poetic about the cinematography, camera angles, scene transitions, Sayle's ability to capture the true essence of a small border town in Texas (right down to the Shiner Bock beer - which wasn't widely available when Lone Star was filmed), what I find most remarkable is that in almost twenty viewings of this film, I learn something new about the characters and ultimately discover more about myself with each subsequent viewing..
Must See. What can I say...easily in my Top Ten. Good characters, excellent actors giving great performances, interesting plot but most important a love story that touches the soul.
John Sayles has always made films with many stories intertwined but none are better than this little masterpiece about a Texas bordertown spanning two generations and tons of conflict.
A fine cast helps: Chris Cooper is Sam Deeds; Elizabeth Pena is his main squeeze and then some; and Frances McDormand is memorable in a one-scene role as Sam's ex-wife Bunny, an avid Dallas Cowboys fan accurately described as "highly-strung." In extensive flashbacks, Kris Kristofferson is Charlie Wade and Matthew McConaughey is Buddy Deeds.A sad but absorbing story, "Lone Star" has the ring of truth..
Full of excellent performances, including an inspired turn by Kris Kristofferson as a sadistic local sheriff, and with a plot that contains enough twists and turns to keep any viewer interested, Lone Star comes highly recommended..
"Lone Star" cemented John Sayles' place as the best director working today.
Now that that's out of the way...I think, next to Men With Guns, this is the best John Sayles movie.
I had to watch this through twice to really get it-parts I liked the best were everything with Chris Cooper digging into Kristofferson's past, and Cooper's affair with Elizabeth Pena.(What a twist involving them, too, at the end huh?) I liked the international links in the film, and the way that Sayles showed how all the differing races, cultures and languages intertwine in the town, the plot and in each other's lives.
Without really making any social or political point, it certainly depicts an interesting subplot out of the racial issue, in a community where openness has not totally erased mistrust.The effective portrayal of characters is also to be noted, as well as the overall craftmanship of the film.One more thing: Despite the fact that the story is placed in southern Texas, there is a sheriff present and a lot of characters use cowboy hats, I wouldn't be sure this is enough to make this movie a western..
|
tt0060429
|
Frankie and Johnny
|
Johnny and girlfriend Frankie are performers on a Mississippi River riverboat, which also has a casino. Johnny is a compulsive gambler who is down on his luck and in debt.
Johnny and his friend Cully, a musician and composer, visit a gypsy camp to get his fortune told. A lady reads tea leaves and tells Johnny that he will soon meet a red-haired woman who will bring him luck.
Back on the boat, Johnny and Cully promptly encounter Nellie Bly, their boss Clint Braden's on-again, off-again girlfriend. Nellie has just caught Braden seducing another singer, Mitzi. Since she has red hair, Nellie is persuaded by Johnny to touch his chips for luck. After he wins, Johnny is convinced that the gypsy must be correct.
Frankie finds out and becomes jealous, as does Johnny's boss. In a bit of musical theatre, Frankie shoots Johnny for dancing with Nellie Bly while singing Cully's latest song. A Broadway recruiter sees the riverboat show and buys the rights to this new song, suggesting that Frankie and Johnny should work together with him in New York City.
Landing in New Orleans, the musical cast and riverboat crew attend a masked ball. Frankie, Nellie and Mitzi all rent the same Madame Pompadour costume.
Johnny is eager for the luck of redhead Nellie to win more money, contrary to Frankie's expressed wishes. Being masked and in costume, Frankie and Nellie scheme to switch places to test Johnny's lucky-redhead theory. Johnny wins $10,000 at roulette, but when he kisses the woman he believes to be Nellie, he discovers the switch. Frankie is furious and throws all the winnings out of a window, into the street.
Blackie, a dim-witted stooge who works for the boss, hears Braden drunkenly complain about how he has lost Nellie. Thinking he can be of help, Blackie switches the blank cartridge in Frankie's stage gun for a real bullet.
The boss tries to prevent the impending disaster, but arrives on stage too late and Johnny is shot for real. Frankie forgives his gambling as the love of her life appears to be dying but he stands up, apparently unhurt. Johnny was saved because the bullet struck a lucky medallion he was wearing that Frankie had given him.
|
violence, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Good fun for Elvis fans, Donna Douglas fans.
Romping, colorful Presley vehicle with plenty of songs and good comedy from Harry Morgan and Donna Douglas.
Johnny (Presley) is a riverboat gambler who becomes convinced that a redhead is his good luck charm -- problem is, Frankie (Douglas) is a blonde!
This is an oddity in Elvis’ filmography: a quaint but pleasing musical comedy based on the popular song which had already inspired a similarly-titled film from 1936 starring Helen Morgan – apart from being featured in the Mae West vehicle SHE DONE HIM WRONG (1933) and, again, as recently as Robert Altman’s A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (2006).The star isn’t entirely comfortable amid the 1890s riverboat setting, what with a few of his musical performances (and especially his hairdo) coming off as inextricably modern.
The cast presents three notable female roles: Donna Douglas (as Frankie), Nancy Kovack as Elvis’ red-headed lucky charm and the flame of his jealous boss, and Sue Ane Langdon as a ditzy “blonde” – who, along with Presley’s long-suffering sidekick Harry Morgan, turns out to be the most likable character as well as the purveyor of the film’s comic relief.Elvis’ best ‘new’ number is “Hard Luck”; apart from the title tune, he also gets to sing the standard “When The Saints Go Marching In” (while dressed in full military regalia)!
This one is actually the closest thing that Elvis ever did to a typical Hollywood musical like "Music Man." There's an interesting plot and some good energy that carries through the first half of the movie, but it limps along badly in the second half.
At the end, there is a gem called "Please, Don't Stop Loving Me." It comes at about 80 minutes of the film's 87 minute run and I'm not sure that anybody except Elvis fans will last that long.Apparently Donna Douglas and Elvis had deep philosophical conversations on Paramahansa Yogananda and the Christian religion during the breaks while shooting this movie.
One suspects that if Douglas and Kovack had changed roles, the film would have worked much better.This doesn't fit into the category of Elvis' good movies, but it also doesn't fit into the category of his bad movies.
Elvis plays Johnny, a riverboat entertainer that has a big gambling problem.
Donna Douglas, better known as Elly Mae Clampett, is Johnny's girl, Frankie.
Some of the songs leave a lot to be desired, but there was a pretty good supporting cast in this movie, Donna Douglas (The Beverly Hillbillies) and Harry Morgan (M*A*S*H*) to name a few.
This was a typical Elvis movie, but the fact that it was on a riverboat set in the late 1800's early 1900's makes it interesting.
There were a few good songs in this movie, but they were few and far between.
Frankie and Johnny (1966) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Johnny (Elvis) is a riverboat singer who is also one of the worst gamblers in the world, which gets him into major debt and grief to his partner Frankie (Donna Douglas).
With no where else to turn, Johnny starts going to a gypsy for advice and she tells him that great luck will come in a beautiful redhead (Nancy Kovack) but this starts trouble with his boss as well as Frankie.
What stands this film apart from the others through are the incredibly well done songs, which also feature some great musical numbers.
The highlight is the wonderfully played out title song as well as several other tunes including "What Every Woman Lives For", "Down By the Riverside", "When the Saints Go Marching In" and "Hard Luck".
Elvis doesn't give what I'd call a good performance but he fits his role well as the dumb but entertaining singer.
The biggest credit must go to the supporting cast with Douglas stealing the show and Harry Morgan adding great comedy..
The long shots of the riverboat appear borrowed from "Show Boat," or perhaps "Huckleberry Finn."It's a shame they rarely gave Presley a good vehicle to showcase his talents.
At first this Elvis Presley feature felt like a breath of fresh air, as it's a costume piece set aboard an old-time riverboat where Elvis plays an irresponsible and compulsive gambler named Johnny.
Donna Douglas (best known as Elly May from "The Beverly Hillbillies") is his cutesy girlfriend and singing partner Frankie, and they perform as a duet on the boat (Douglas is unconvincingly dubbed).
Harry Morgan of M*A*S*H fame plays Johnny's older mentor (he gets to sing too - uggghhh) who visits a gypsy fortune teller with Elvis to learn that a redhead (Nancy Kovack) will soon arrive to change his luck.
Frankie and Johnny wasn't half bad as Elvis pictures go- which means it was half- watchable as a movie and not just a typical kitchy vehicle to ogle the King.
The musical performances we're good and the sets and costumes interesting-the high point in the film is the last performance of Frankie and Johnny--Elvis actually comes off pretty suave at times as a river boat gambler and his character played well off a nubile, young Donna Douglas.
Harry Morgan does a good job as Elvis' older, more wary sidekick and the rest of the cast work well and don't detract/subtract from the main action which is of course- Elvis.
"Frankie and Johnny" is one in the long line of musicals which Elvis Presley churned out in the sixties.
Johnny and his girlfriend Frankie are performers on a Mississippi riverboat; Johnny is also a compulsive gambler, and as the boat has a casino on board he has plenty of opportunities to gamble.
The film deals with the complications caused in their relationship by Johnny's gambling habit and Frankie's jealousy of his friendship with an attractive redhead named Nellie Bly. Johnny's interest in Nellie arises from the fact that a gypsy fortune-teller has informed him that a red-haired woman will bring him luck, but the jealous Frankie suspects that their relationship goes much deeper.One of the problems of casting a rock star in a Victorian period drama is that rock didn't actually exist in the Victorian era.
The makers of this film are not really all that concerned with period accuracy- some of the music we hear sounds suspiciously like jazz, which didn't really exist in the 1880s, and even the song "Frankie and Johnny" itself was not published in its modern form until the 1920s.
Somebody, however, obviously realised that rock-and-roll would be anachronistic, so the star gets to sing a series of bland, totally forgettable easy-listening numbers.Elvis was always fairly laid-back as an actor, but in this film he doesn't seem to make much effort as a singer either, being content just to stroll his way through the film.
The rest of the cast are no better; in his film career Elvis played opposite some pretty obscure leading ladies, but Donna Douglas is one of the least memorable of the bunch.
Most Elvis Presley films these days are unlikely to appeal to anyone other than his many devoted admirers, but I suspect that even they will find themselves feeling a bit short-changed by this one.
Frankie & Johnny is in my opinion, not one of the better Elvis movies.
But the star power was out in full force: Donna Doglas, Harry Morgan, Sue Ane Langdon.Elvis is a river boat gambler/hired singing help looking for a luck red head to help him find his fortune.
The saga of Frankie And Johnny gets a lighter telling in this Elvis Presley film.
Elvis plays an entertainer on a Mississippi riverboat circa the turn of the last century with a real gambling problem.
His partner in the act is Donna Douglas late of the Beverly Hillbillies who would only marry him if he gives up his ways.
Want to bet on the chances that that would happen?Donna and the King work for Anthony Eisley whose number one girl Nancy Kovack, the infamous Nellie Bly has returned and an old gypsy said that a redhead would bring Elvis fabulous good luck.
But that causes problems with both Eisley and Douglas.A few new numbers were written for the film, but Frankie And Johnny has mostly traditional ballads of the era such as Down By The Riverside and When The Saints Go Marching In. All done in a New Orleans Dixieland style, most agreeable with Presley.Some others in the cast are Harry Morgan as Elvis's accompanist, Audrey Christie as Morgan's wife, Robert Strauss as Eisley's dimwitted bouncer, and Sue Ane Langdon who spends the entire film absolutely plastered.
Elvis Presley was a hugely influential performer with one of the most distinctive singing voices of anybody.
He embarked on a film career consisting of 33 films from 1956 to 1969, films that did well at the box-office but mostly panned critically (especially his later films) and while he was a highly charismatic performer he was never considered a great actor.This said, a good deal of his earlier efforts (late 50s-early 60s) were actually pretty good and more, his best being 'King Creole', 'Flaming Star', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas' and 'Loving You'.
Those films looked good, had great soundtracks, great supporting casts and showed that Elvis could be a very capable actor when his material allowed it, even when the dialogue and stories were in a few of them were not strong suits ('King Creole' was a notable exception though).
Am of the opinion that Elvis' film career was an uneven film, while there were good films and performances there were also bad films where he looked bored, where the films had not so good soundtracks and looked cheap, a notable example being his previous film 'Harum Scarum' (widely considered one of his worst for good reason).'Frankie & Johnny' is towards the lesser half of his filmography while not quite among his very worst.
It is better than 'Harum Scarum' (then again a lot of things are), but still contains a lot of things that make some of Elvis' mid-60s onwards films not so good.Starting with its good things, most of the songs fare well, especially the title song, "Hard Luck", "Shout it Out" (the most energetically performed of the songs) and "Please Don't Stop Loving Me".
Audrey Christie is also a lot of fun, and Donna Douglas is a competent leading lady.The riverboat setting has moments where it's attractive enough, and some of the first half is brightly and breezily paced.However, Elvis spends the whole time looking as if he didn't want to be there despite singing beautifully as always, while the chemistry between him and Douglas lacks spark or passion.
Although the soundtrack is mostly good, several of Elvis' 60s films had at least one song that was disposable.
In 'Frankie & Johnny's' case, there are two that in no way pass muster as good songs and don't feel necessary, those being "Chesay" and "Petunia the Gardener's Daughter".Dubbing is also an issue, Elvis' lip synchronisation is sloppy, and it was far too obvious that it wasn't Douglas and Morgan singing their own music, the difference between speaking and singing is blatant and distracting and Douglas doesn't look at ease.
The way the numbers are staged varies, "Hard Luck", "Please Don't Stop Loving Me" and "Shout It Out" are fine but most of the rest are fairly static and seriously repeating footage of the title number in the reprise of the finale was not clever and just screamed of trying and failing to hide running out of time and budget.Apart from the attractive riverboat setting, 'Frankie & Johnny' is another Elvis film that looks like it was made on the cheap and in haste, with a lot of garish and lurid colours, cheap-looking and anachronistic costumes and a flat made for TV-like look to the photography.
It is in the second half too where the story becomes increasingly far-fetched and less easy to follow and the dialogue increasingly groan-worthy (even for those expecting that in the first place).Overall, semi-watchable and okay at best time filler but Elvis was worthy of so much more than this.
The acting and dialogue are stilted, and the songs featured in this flick are far below Elvis' standards.When I first saw the movie in its theatrical run, I got up and walked out of the theater after only about 15 minutes of viewing.When I recently saw the movie again, I changed TV channels after enduring 30 minutes of the movie.
Don't waste your time with this one.It's too bad that Elvis never got the chance to perform as a serious actor..
"Frankie and Johnny" is undoubtedly one of, if not THE, worst of Elvis Presley's films.
Mind you, none of Elvis' films were Academy Award material, but this film looked as if it were a hokey made-for-TV movie rather than a theatrical release.
Donna Douglas' singing voice is obviously dubbed as is Harry Morgan's.
Even the director of the film, Frederick de Cordova, had his roots in TV working with George Burns and Johnny Carson - hardly credential enough to be directing a movie musical at a time when the movie musical was all but dead anyway.I walked away from the movie feeling as if I had wasted my time..
Listless, abysmal Elvis Presley outing, loosely based on a 19th century French folk song, concerns a riverboat entertainer (and luckless gambling addict) in New Orleans told by a gypsy soothsayer that his luck will change once he dumps his blonde steady for a redhead.
Filmed on the cheap, with Presley faking his way through.
Two good EP songs, "Please Don't Stop Loving Me" and "Shout It Out", though the latter number is stolen from the star by a woozy ho-daddy guitarist in the bottom left of the screen.
Donna Douglas, Nancy Kovack, and Sue Ane Langdon are a fun femme trio, but Harry Morgan is a colorless sidekick and Elvis just looks beat.
Even though they have a lousy reputation I've generally been a fan of Elvis Presley films.
Unfortunately, there's precious little entertainment in 'Frankie And Johnny' which is especially frustrating as a lot of the elements are there for a satisfying film such as a workable plot, good supporting cast and colourful sets.But this feels boring and lifeless from the word go.
Elvis deserves some of the blame as - apart from 'The Trouble With Girls' - I can't recall him giving such a dull performance.But the real culprit is Frederick De Cordova who directs the film so lifelessly and lazily that the film never has a chance.Take for example the finale where it's been set up by a supporting character that in their staged musical number Frankie will shoot Johnnie with a real bullet instead of a blank.
All this and the culprit is forgotten 15 seconds later for the upbeat closing musical number!Even amongst his mid to late 1960s work, you can do much better if you're searching for an Elvis film to watch..
Very loosely inspired by the classic title song, it showcases Presley as a riverboat performer and gambling addict.
He has a relationship with his singing partner Douglas, but that is strained to the limit when he encounters Kovack, a redhead who he believes is essential in fulfilling his gypsy fortune to win big money at the roulette wheel.
Unfortunately, Kovack is the one-time love of Presley's boss Eisley and he isn't quite ready to give her up yet, despite his own affair with kooky chorine Langdon.
More direct comedy is provided by Morgan and Christie as Presley and Douglas' married friends.
The shenanigans (including mistaken identity, flirtation, drunkenness and the roller coaster of the roulette wheel) all come to a head during a performance of the title song during which Presley's life is endangered.
The pace of the film borders on stagnant, despite the setting, and the many songs Presley performs are chiefly forgettable and unimaginatively staged.
She is lovely to look at most of the time, but is obviously uncomfortable in the musical sequences in which her voice is dubbed and her movements are lacking in assurance.
Kovack is attractive, but, like Douglas, far from seeming at home in the musical interludes.
Though the film has many colorful costumes and settings, it comes off as pretty cheap-looking.
Which is arguably the case with most Elvis Presley movies, where he plays himself, sings a few songs, and the movie depends on the rest of the cast.
This is a costumer set in the indefinite past, where everyone is first aboard a riverboat and then in New Orleans.Elvis plays a performer in a riverboat musical entertainment show, with a blond girlfriend who acts with him.
It's a period song and dance musical set aboard a show boat seems instantly dated, and Elvis seems way ahead of it in time period.
It's all about the issues between singing gambler Elvis, his long suffering girlfriend Donna Douglas and the threats of a gypsy prediction.
Even the traditional musical films of that time had modern elements; the ones here had been in use in the mid to late 1930's.
The only difference is that when Elvis sings (and shows off his lacquered hair), you're transferred out of the era of the setting of the story and right back into a dress- up party in 1966.
With Audrey Christie as Morgan's nagging wife (making them a copycat version of "Show Boat's" Captain Andy and Party), Nancy Kovack as Nellie Bly (the threatening redhead) and Sue Ann Langdon as ditsy Mitzi, this takes the legend of Frankie and Johnny to cheeky level, with Kovack attractive, but seemingly a bit long in the tooth to be the femme fatale.
As Frankie, Donna Douglas grows some claws every time Kovack is around, almost making you forget that she's the ingenue on a popular sitcom.
The title song is a little nasal for my taste, but a few takes on traditional American music made a huge difference.
|
tt0310357
|
Willard
|
Willard Stiles is a meek social misfit who later develops a strange affinity for rats. He lives in a large Victorian home, with only his cranky and decrepit mother Henrietta for company. On his 27th birthday, he is humiliated to come home to a birthday party thrown by his mother, where all of the attendees are her own aging friends. After having left the party in embarrassment, he notices a rat in his backyard and tosses it pieces of his birthday cake. Later, his mother gets upset with him for leaving the party and she scolds him while also discussing how badly the house is falling apart. The next morning he goes out and feeds another rat (this one has babies with it) while imitating their squeaks. His mother starts telling him that he needs to kill the rats that have been running around their yard, which Willard refuses to do.
When Willard goes to work he is promptly scolded by his boss Al Martin for tardiness and no attempt to get assignments done on time. Later he returns home and sets about killing the rats as his mother ordered. He puts food on a center rock in a large well, placing a wooden plank to act as a bridge for the rats. When the rats have gathered on the rock, he removes the plank, trapping the rats. He then turns on the water, intending to let the well fill up and drown the animals. However, his guilt will not allow Willard to carry through the plan, and he turns off the water and returns the plank to its place, allowing the rats to escape. When his mother asks if he killed the rats, he lies and tells her he did.
That afternoon he begins playing with a rat he names Queenie, and begins teaching the rats words like "food" and "empty". He sees a white rat and immediately takes a liking to it. The white rat becomes his best companion and he names it Socrates for his wisdom. Numerous other rats quickly emerge, one of which is a bigger black specimen whom he names Ben.
At work, Mr. Martin continues to antagonize Willard, telling him he will not give him a raise and then urging him to sell his mother's house. Willard sneaks up to a party Mr. Martin is throwing, opens his suitcase which has rats in it, and then urges them to go get the food and ruin the party. The guests begin screaming and Willard laughs behind the bushes where he is hiding.
The next day Willard's mother dies. He discovers that the house is heavily mortgaged. After this Willard is pressured by the banks to give up the house.
Willard decides to bring Socrates and Ben to the office with him. He sets them on some shelves and tells them to be good. One of his friends at work gives him a cat named Chloe. Chloe constantly claws at the suitcase where Ben and Socrates are hiding. Willard hands her off to a complete stranger and drives away.
The rat population is getting too big, and Willard cannot afford to feed them much longer. He decides to steal money from his boss, using his now-trained rats. He orders the rats to "tear it up" and puts them in front of the office door.
Later, at home, Willard gets mad at Ben and starts putting him outside the bedroom, but Ben persists in sleeping in his room.
The next day he again takes Ben and Socrates to work. One of the workers spots the rats and Mr. Martin bludgeons Socrates to death, leaving Willard devastated. After Mr. Martin confronts Willard over the theft, Willard instructs the rats, led by Ben, to kill Mr. Martin. Unnerved by Martin's gruesome death, Willard then abandons Ben, goes home and begins sealing up any holes through which the rats could gain entry. He also puts as many rats as he can into cages and drowns them in the small pool outside.
Willard has dinner with Joan, a co-worker he likes, but is startled to look up and see Ben back in the house staring at him from a corner shelf. He gets up and notices hordes of rats running up the stairs from the basement. He orders Joan to leave and locks the door before confronting Ben. Willard stalls and begins mixing rat poison, but Ben reads the box and squeals loudly, alerting the others, some of whom attack Willard. In an act of desperation, Willard tries to hit the rats with a broom, but misses. He runs upstairs but the other rats come after him. Shutting the door, he stands there terrified. The rats begin to gnaw at the door and eventually break in to devour him, and he says to Ben, "I was good to you!" The camera zooms in to a close-up of Ben and the credits roll.
|
revenge, cult, comedy, murder, prank
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover) is a lonely and deranged man living in an old mansion with his sick mother Henrietta Stiles (Jackie Burroughs).
Willard is the tale of an extremely introvert middle-aged man (lives with his needy mother, no girlfriend, stuck in a hopeless job) who discover his ability to control and command little rodents
rats in particular.
Crispin Glover the man with the most incomprehensible cult following in the film industry is brilliantly cast as Willard.
People who hated this movie went to see it with the preconceived notion that rats would be doing a lot bloodier leg work for Willard.
What they got was a movie wherein Crispin Glover kisses his best rattie friend and slowly ambles toward insanity.Willard has flaws, and plenty of them, but they rarely detract from what is, at heart, a psychological parable and subtle love story.
Crispin Glover's performance is one of his most genuinely human and believable, evoking ugly emotions rarely seen in Hollywood, while still retaining a manic kind of dignity.You can hardly fault New Line for marketing Willard as a horror flick, since that is what would inevitably sell better.
But Willard is really more of a movie for people who genuinely like rats, not those who fear them.
It is much like the character of Willard, in that sense, and the coincidence is almost admirable.The movie is unquestionably more subtle, evocative, and well-crafted than its predecessor; it is also more faithful to the original novel, Ratman's Notebooks, than the version starring Bruce Davison.
No movies have been up to par in so many different levels.Crispin Glover puts in the best acting performance of the year, and possibly one of the best of all time is the title character.
How time has made that hymn to interspecies love sound creepy!) Writer-director Glen Morgan has crafted a chewy little parable about capitalism, and his sardonic depiction of the real rat race, with a reliably savage Lee Ermey flogging his office employees behind a motivational sign reading "Prudent Aggression," gives the film more than the usual B horror subtext.
The movie centers about Crispin Glover a quirky and lone man about thirty years old .
There are thousand rats and they have been made by animatronics and computer generator specials effects(FX).Acting by Crispin Glover is excellent , interpreting to Willard as a twisted mind is fantastic , likeness to Norman Bates/Anthony Perkins of Psychosis .
R. Lee Ermey as the evil and villain chief is perfect such as his acting in ¨Full metal jacket¨ , Laura Elena Harring (Mulholland drive) is cute .Direction by Glen Morgan is nicely made , cinematography by Robert MacLachlan is first-rate and Shirley Walker's musical score is gorgeous.It's a remake to another 1971 film featured by Bruce Davison who only appears in photography as Willard's father into this 2003 film.Rating 6/10 , average ..
A horror movie none-the-less, Willard is an interesting film that we don't see too often.
I'm sure Crispin Glover would be happy to know that "Willard" makes people think.
I liked it a lot and Crispin Glover is a good actor, although this is the only film I have ever seen him in.
As almost everyone who loved this movie has said, Crispin Glover WAS Willard.
Glen Morgan directs in a very interesting stylized fashion almost as eccentric as David Lynch or Tim Burton, and Crispin Glover gives a knockout performance in the title role.
(Not so far as to have Willard Styles wear a rat mask, though.) The movie does have some awkward elements; the pacing is a bit off, probably because the structure is askew a bit, but overall, it's a fascinating, creepy movie, very well made with fine performances.
He went through a broad range emotions, portraying them mostly to rats, which in my opinion, is a great feat.Willard may be a bit slow, but the pacing of the film actually portrays the character.
WILLARD is one of the best remakes of a horror film I have ever seen.
The film manages to stay just on that right balance of horror and comedy and is able to switch in a way that does catch the viewer off guard, like the scene with the dog barking at Willard while he's walking home.
This film was an emotional experience for me and I applaud Crispin Glover and director Glen Morgan for pulling off such a wonderful film.PROS: -Scary atmosphere -Top notch performance by Crispin Glover -A chilling ending -Successfully a horrifying and disturbing film -cool homages to the original CONS: -The PG-13 rating is misleading.
Crispin Glover does a perfect job as Willard, it's his best performance yet, and R.
It's a fairly predictable movie- you know from his very first scene that Willard's boss is going to get it.
A movie about a guy and a bunch of rats isn't likely to become a world-wide hit, but I think this will be more popular on video.
Crispin Glover plays Willard Stiles, who still lives with his mother and doesn't have a girlfriend or any friends at all.
Crispin Glover is great this this role and i don't know if this is better then the original because i haven't seen it..
Crispin Glover's acting in this movie is very good.
I'm not a big fan of the whole horror remake craze (to say the least), but the original Willard had some good ideas that weren't capitalised on, thus making it ripe for a remake - and Glen Morgan has really capitalised on that fact with this film!
Feeling humiliated at work and at the hands of his mother, Willard turns to the rats in his cellar for friendship...One of my main criticisms of the 1971 original was that Bruce Davison wasn't creepy enough for the role.
Glover fits the role like a glove, and even manages to convince during Willard's outburst scenes, which in fairness are pretty pathetic.
The rats themselves are made much better use of in this film too, and the central pair of Socrates and Ben are almost given a human character.
The style is different from the original, in that it mixes Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Birds" (if "Birds" was actually called "Rats") but also if these movies were directed by Tim Burton.
Crispen Glover is Willard essentially, the fact that he did not get an Oscar nomination for this film is quite disappointing, but he is also very weird like in every movie he has been in.
this is a slightly different reinterpretation of the good 1970 film of the same name, rather than a straight forward remake and apart from the ending, this new version is a little better than the original.
some good creepy scenes and film doesn't overdo the gore.surprisingly crispin glover, one of my least favourite actors is perfect casting here and gives the best performance of his career so far in my opinion and even garners a lot of sympathy.r lee ermy is effective as the hateful boss and even bears a resemblance to ernest borgnine who played the part in the original film.there are nods to the original film with pictures of bruce davison who was the original willard here used as crispin glover's dead father and also use of the michael jackson song "ben" used in the sequel to willard entitled "ben" in 1972.this was a lot better than expected,overall as like most remakes you think "why bother"?
...and in my humble opinion,except for Ernst Borgnine,Glen Morgan outdistances the 1971 original version.It was not a hard task ,mind you,cause that version was rather listless ;it's not the same problem as that of "the haunting" (1963) and its "remake" .I take Crispin Glover any day over Bruce Davison -here represented by an apparition as Willard's father on the photographs-.Davison was too boy-next-door,too good -looking.Glover gives a raw,dirty, over the top performance.The special effects are far superior to the original's and for once it was necessary.The love affair is kept to the very minimum -no intimate dinner for Willard and Cathryn- focusing on the poor lad's humiliations (it is a kind of male "Carrie" )Glen Morgan has a good sense of humor ,often black humor: the nursery rhyme "Three blind mice " (See how they run/They come to take you away)comes back several time ,always at the right moment.I dig this line when the boss is killing Willard's pet : "Hi Disney,this is Mickey Mouse speaking!
We 'll meet again!" Another hilarious sequence: the boss is watching naked women on his computer and realizes that his mouse ...has turned into a rat!The endings of the two versions are different ,but I have my doubts: might they think of "Willard 2"?.
Although it left me with severely negative feelings, the production design was quite good (I enjoyed how everything about Willard himself was anachronistic), the acting was likewise fine, the cinematography was also great, and it DID manage to produce a strong reaction in me, albeit not a positive one.
The scene of Willard taking the 7 train was great!This funny, dark, and sometimes sad story is enhanced by a terrific Crispin Glover, great setting and tone mixing for a unique environment, and good supporting characters.
In this remake of the 1971 Daniel Mann film, Crispin Glover stars as Willard Stiles, a lonely, slightly unhinged, loser who trains an army of rats to do his bidding.
Aside from Glover's excellent acting, other high points include Ermey's in-your-face performance as Willard's abusive boss, stylish direction by Glen Morgan and terrific special effects (the computer-generated rats are surprisingly lifelike), all of which combine to make this one of the best horror films in years.
This version contains just enough homage to the original to satisfy its fans (the portrait of Bruce Davison and the humorous use of the song "Ben" in particular), while bringing enough new dimension on board to create an admirable film in its own right.Special credit goes, of course, to Crispin Glover's performance.
Whether it be the Hitchcock camera shots, Crispen's amazing acting or the sequence using the Jackson 5's song 'Ben', you get to witness a great gothic film played like a Greek tragedy.
Crispin Glover's over the top performance is fantastic, and show stopping .The movie is a lot darker than the original, but it's a lot more imaginative.
Crispin Glover is probably best remembered for his role as "the creepy thin man" in the Charlie's Angels films, his myterious character doesn't say a word in either one.
Crispin Glover played Willard perfectly, managing to be miserable, scared, furious, helpless, vengeful and lonely all at the same time..
Crispin Glover is the perfect person to play Willard.
When Willard first befriends the rats, it would be a ridiculous scene in a horror movie, but it works well in this dark comedy.
It's like seeing a Tarkovsky or Bresson film in Blockbuster's 'recommended' section.I've been a Crispin Glover fan for years and to no surprise he gave another brilliant performance this time.
Crispin Glover, rats and overall decent movie.
Crispin Glover's over the top performance is perfect for a film which is pretty much a parody of the original and its sequel entitled Ben.
While not always a fan of his work, this movie, in many ways, seems to have taken much inspiration from the work of Tim Burton, complete with dark, neo-gothic sets (The Stiles home is a scarier Bates residence, while Willard's workplace sometimes come off like a Dickens as interpreted by Poe), and a score that almost seems cribbed from Danny Elfman's work on Burton's films.The film also has a better resolution.
Whereas Sondra Locke's female lead in the 1971 original seemed to have some legitimate potential interest in Davison's Willard, Laura Harring's Cat just seems to sympathize with him.Combine all of the above with the most darkly clever use of Michael Jackson's "Ben" that could be imagined (I'm sure, if he's seen the film, he probably doesn't appreciate it)..
Lee Ermey as his boss fit well within his character and acting ability.The rats looked remarkably real, and there were a lot of scenes that give you the creeps.There was a lot of allegory in the film, most notably the duality of man with the two main rats, Socrates and Ben.
Crispin Glover is wonderful as Willard and R Lee Emery as Mr. Martin steals the movie.
I felt genuinely sorry for Willard, and I thought Crispin Glover played his part perfectly.
I went to see Willard with my friend Bratic.As soon as the film started at the credits I knew I was going to like the movie.
I didn't know if that was the movie it reminded me of but it seemed like it was Tim Burton no matter what, even though he had nothing to do with this film what so ever.
I mean the acting in this film was superb.What I liked about the movie: I already mentioned above that I thought that acting was great.
I know everybody is going to be calling this Glover's film (which it very much is), but whoever trained the rats for this movie did an amazing job.
Willard was a very interesting film and if it was not for Crispin Glover's performance this movie would have sucked.
Your the only friend I've ever had."-WillardIts too bad the academy never looks at these kind of films for performances, because Glover was insane with this role, (I mean that in a good way,) although some people might consider him to be overacting at some points in the film.Bottom line, Willard was a good movie, and this is coming from a guy who hates these kind of movies.
The rats are creepy, Willard is slimey, the mother is scarey and Mr. Martin is a tyrant.It's a "dumb fun" movie..
There is just a lot of powerful and dramatic scenes in the movie, an outstanding performance by Crispen Glover, his best ever.
Soon, more rats move in, including the wanna-be top-dog Ben, and they follow everything that Willard says.Willard is rather creepy, but the thing that pushes this movie is not the scares, nor all of the rats, but the performance by Crispin Glover.
The first movie I ever saw was the original Willard in 1971, so 32 years later, I couldn't pass up seeing the remake.
I got the impression that there were elements of this film that the original wanted to pull off but couldn't due to the technology of the time.Crispin Glover was brilliantly cast as Willard, and he turns in a memorable performance.
In terms of acting, Glover carries the film, managing to play off the idea of treating people like rats and rats like people quite well.Willard's house, the main setting for the movie, is very well done.
This movie had Crispin Glover in 95% of the scenes and he steals the attention the entire time.
Not the rats, not the suspense - although both come in plentiful supply - but Glover's performance as Willard.
I mean, you're going to see a Crispin Glover movie.
A movie with such a dark atmosphere and appetite for disturbance is perfect for Burton, but first time director Glen Morgan succeeds brilliantly in this beautifully twisted character study.Although Willard is advertised as a horror film, it does not sink to the level of conventional, mainstream horror.
you go to a movie like this to be entertained; and it does entertain, unless you're one of those elitist-snob types that thinks all good horror stopped with [insert obscure european director of choice here].crispin glover's acting was amazing.
Crispin Glover was SO excellent in his performance and should receive an Oscar nomination (although he probably won't as snooty Oscar will shun this movie), he was the perfect casting choice for Willard.
I never saw the original Willard, which probably put me in a disadvantage while watching this sequel-cum-remake starring Crispin Glover in the lead role.
From watching it with a fresh mind, I could see that the film had moments of inspiration, a horror movie that has few real scares but builds a lot of its feel by pure atmosphere, which indeed becomes over-bearing by the third act once the rats take over the Willard estate.
Anyone who decides to see this rather B-film will know that it's best assest is its creepiness, however they may recognize that it doesn't have the shock value that the original probably contained.Glover astonishingly is really effective in the lead, as a lonely freak who looks after his deteriorating mother in a house that slowly reveals itself to be infested with rodent after rodent after rodent, which Willard clings to and controls like a gothic pied-piper.
What remains the same between the films is that Willard is a social misfit who befriends and has a strange connection/control over a massive colony of rodents, led by the rats Socrates and Ben. A major element that separates this film from the original is the casting of perennial oddball Crispin Glover in the title role, who gives a highly entertaining off-kilter performance that is pitch perfect for director/co-writer Morgan's jet black humor.
While Glover looks like an ideal choice to play Willard, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is.
WILLARD finds the remarkable Crispin Glover playing a strange loner who spends a lot of time hanging out in his elderly mother's basement, while being browbeaten by his belligerent boss at work.For those who don't know, this film's all about rats.
All in all Willard was a good film.
He did a wonderful job acting like a modern day Norman Bates and by the end of the movie, you really felt sorry for Willard.
While it may have done poorly in the box office, this stylish remake of the 1971 cult thriller was one of the first films in the horror-remake cycle.Lonely, fragile young man befriends the rats that live in his basement and discovers that they make a good tool for vengeance!As with the original Willard, it's the performance of the actor playing the title character that drives this film to be strangely compelling.
|
tt0110008
|
Heisei tanuki gassen ponpoko
|
The story begins in late 1960s Japan. A group of tanuki are threatened by a gigantic suburban development project called New Tama, in the Tama Hills on the outskirts of Tokyo. The development is cutting into their forest habitat and dividing their land. The story resumes in early 1990s Japan, during the early years of the Heisei era. With limited living space and food decreasing every year, the tanuki begin fighting among themselves for the diminishing resources, but at the urging of the matriarch Oroku ("Old Fireball"), they decide to unify to stop the development.
Several tanuki lead the resistance, including the aggressive chief Gonta, the old guru Seizaemon, the wise-woman Oroku, and the young and resourceful Shoukichi. Using their illusion skills (which they must re-learn after having forgotten them), they stage a number of diversions including industrial sabotage. These attacks injure and even kill people, frightening construction workers into quitting, but more workers immediately replace them. In desperation, the tanuki send out messengers to seek help from various legendary elders from other regions.
After several years, one of the messengers returns bringing a trio of elders from the distant island of Shikoku, where development is not a problem and the tanuki are still worshipped. In an effort at re-establishing respect for the supernatural, the group stages a massive "ghost parade" to make the humans think the town is haunted. The strain of the massive illusion kills one of the elders, and the effort seems wasted when the owner of a nearby theme park takes credit for the parade, claiming it was a publicity stunt.
With this setback, the unity of the tanuki finally fails and they break up into smaller groups, each following a different strategy. One group led by Gonta takes the route of eco-terrorism, holding off workers until they are wiped out in a pitched battle with the police. Another group desperately attempts to gain media attention through television appearances to plead their case against the habitat's destruction. One of the elders becomes senile and starts a Buddhist dancing cult among the tanuki who are unable to transform, eventually sailing away with them in a ship that takes them to their deaths, while the other elder investigates joining the human world as the last of the transforming kitsune (foxes) have already done.
When all else fails, in a last act of defiance, the remaining tanuki stage a grand illusion, temporarily transforming the urbanized land back into its pristine state to remind everyone of what has been lost. Finally, with their strength exhausted, the tanuki most trained in illusion follow the example of the kitsune: They blend into human society one by one, abandoning those who cannot transform. While the media appeal comes too late to stop the construction, the public responds sympathetically to the tanuki, pushing the developers to set aside some areas as parks. However, the parks are too small to accommodate all the non-transforming tanuki. Some try to survive there, dodging traffic to rummage through human scraps for food, while others disperse farther out to the countryside to compete with the tanuki who are already there.
In a touching coda, one day, Shoukichi, who also joined the human world, is coming home from work when he sees a non-transformed tanuki leaping into a gap in a wall. Shoukichi crawls into the gap and follows the path, which leads to a grassy clearing where some of his former companions are gathering. He joyfully transforms back into a tanuki to join them. In an emotional final scene, Shoukichi's friend, Ponkichi addresses the viewer, asking humans to be more considerate of tanuki and other animals less endowed with transformation skills, and not to destroy their living space; as the view pulls out and away, their surroundings are revealed as a golf course within a suburban sprawl.
|
boring, murder, paranormal, allegory, bleak, psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0071221
|
Black Belt Jones
|
The Mafia learns that a new civic center will be built, and they buy all of the land for the site of the building—all except for one place: a karate school owned by Pop Byrd, Black Belt Jones' old friend. Pop Byrd had borrowed money from a local drug dealer, Pinky, in order to open his school. Pinky had been stealing money from the mafia and was forced to pay them $250,000 or get Pop's building for them. Pinky inflated the debt, with the intent of offering Pop the deal of trading his building in exchange for the debt being cleared. However, things do not go as planned, as Pop is accidentally killed by Pinky's men during an intimidation attempt. Before he dies, he states that he couldn't give them the building to settle his debt, because it did not belong to him, but to someone named Sydney. Pinky then decides to send his men to the karate school, to inform them of Pop's debt (inflated yet again) and attempt the same scheme. However, the thugs are beaten up by Black Belt Jones and the students. Meanwhile, a woman arrives to attend Pop's funeral, who is none other than Sydney, the daughter of the late Pop Byrd. After demanding to know what happened to her father, she is informed of the mafia's activities as well as her father's debt, but says she won't sell the building. Angered, she is determined to punish the people who caused her father's death. Informed of Sydney's martial arts prowess by Quincy, Black Belt Jones joins forces with her to "clobber the mob".
This film was followed by the 1976 release Hot Potato.
|
blaxploitation, cult, violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Think "Chinese Connection" (Bruce Lee), but 70's ghetto style!The sound track itself is a reason enough to see BLACK BELT JONES!
The most entertaining b-grade blaxploitation martial arts action movie ever made!.
There's no way on earth I'm gonna argue that 'Black Belt Jones' is a great movie, even a very good one, but no matter how silly and cheesy it gets it's a hell of a ride and lots of fun!
Let's face it this is b-grade exploitation fare deliberately designed to cash in on both the mid-70s blaxploitation boom and the success of Bruce Lee's martial arts classic 'Enter The Dragon'.
Dragon's director Robert Clouse (who also made the hugely enjoyable post-apocalyptic potboiler 'The Ultimate Warrior') took karate champion Jim Kelly, who co-starred with Lee and John Saxon in that film, and tried to start a spin-off franchise with him.
Kelly stars as Black Belt Jones who returns to the inner city karate school where he got his start after the death of his mentor Pop Byrd (the wonderful Scatman Crothers, who yes, kicks some butt before he is killed, a sight you'll never forget!).
It has everything from a bad romantic story to great fighting scenes and even a scene where for no apparent reason "Black Belt" smashes a man's guitar.
My favorite thing about this movie is that Black Belt Jones' job is to watch women jump on a trampoline, for which he seems to receive a hefty sum of money,judging by the size of his house.
If you want to see great fighting scenes and pretty bad acting then see this film..
Black Belt Jones stars Jim Kelly who's best known for his role in Enter the Dragon aside Bruce Lee, but don't expect the same kind of film.
The plot of the movie is simple and never gets in the way of the enjoyment of the film and such great lines as "You won't be back for more!
If you want some more, then come on back!" And if you like this movie, especially Jim Kelly's fighting, I'd suggest watching Three the Hard Way which, while not as amusing of a film, has some great Jim Kelly fight scenes in the same style as Black Belt Jones.
He and his friends, win the first battle, but the Mob and their henchmen are persistent.Jim Kelly Enter the Dragon, Three the Hard Way) is Black Belt Jones, and the action sequences certainly make up for the lack of acting ability.Ah, but it is Florida Seminole Gloria Hendry (Across 110th Street, Black Caesar, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off) that attracts me to the film, and she doesn't disappoint.Malik Carter (Cobra, Pervert!) as Pinky, the tool for the Mob was hilarious.
"Black Belt Jones" is one of the most fun movies to come out of the 1970s.
It's a rousing and funny mixture of martial arts action and blaxploitation as the cool-as-can-be title character (Jim Kelly) takes on all comers.
His long estranged daughter Sydney (Gloria Hendry) comes home to join BBJ and help him fight the good fight.Film director Robert Clouse, who'd worked with Kelly on the martial arts classic "Enter the Dragon", doesn't try to reinvent the wheel here.
Jim Kelly may not be in the class of Bruce Lee, but he does show some impressive martial-arts moves; his co-star, Gloria Hendry, more than holds her own.
After Richard Roundtree did "Shaft", and some others later, Jim Kelly puts his martial arts chops to the test in "Black Belt Jones".
Then of course Black Belt has his gymnast crew at the beach house who he trust very well, help him and Sydney deal with the Mafia who was helping Pinky get the school.
Enjoyed the music score, the choreography, and skills Jim Kelly put to make this movie awesome.
The opening sequence is one of the best ever in film history: great theme music, and Jim Kelly just kicks everyone's ass in sight, sometimes for no reason at all.
And for another a**-kick-a-thon with Afro Lee (Jim Kelly), check out the tour-de-force, "Three the Hard Way" and his time to shine with the mack, B.L., in "Enter the Dragon"..
When Poppa Byrd (Scatman Crothers) gets killed by an increasingly hapless cast of villains spearheaded by a Mafioso named Pinky, Jones enlists the help of his karate school students to clean up the streets and show the bad guys their 'propers'.
You can tell from the start that this cult classic is going to offer more grooves than moves, more day-glow than Tokyo, and hilariously sincere dialogue that will truly make you fall out of your seat laughing.This film does feature good-looking martial arts action.
Jim Kelly was previously best known for his performance in 'Enter the Dragon' as a martial arts champion who, along with Bruce Lee, discovers that there is more to the Invitational Competition than meets the eye.
His girlfriend, Sidney, takes no guff, the bad guys are easy to fool, the fight scenes mimic (exactly!) every Bruce Lee move ever recorded, and the brawls take place (somehow) in the local car wash.One scene to watch for - the amazingly talented lights off / lights on 'Damage At The Dojo' sequence.
Sort of picking up where "Enter the Dragon" left off, "Black Belt Jones" casts Jim Kelly as African-American martial arts expert "Black Belt" Jones trying to stop the mafia from taking over a martial arts training center once owned by friend Pop Byrd (Scatman Crothers).Obviously, the Me Decade was partly known for blaxploitation movies, but that's one of the things that made the decade so great.
Here, Jim Kelly really shows off his kicks (presumably learned by his character in "Enter the Dragon", also directed by Robert Clouse).Well, all that I can say is: fight on, brothers!
Black Belt Jones is a must for aficionados of martial arts films, blaxpoitation films, and cult films in general.
it's difficult to tell in this film; I have an acute feeling that everyone was just joking around and having a lot of fun), in which Jim Kelly aka Black Belt Jones (one of the greatest character names in cinema history, to be sure) ends the thing by shooting a bullet into a man's ass.
The opening scene, when "Belt" helps out the ambassador in the parking lot, sets the stage-the funky music, dopey bad guys, and slow-mo are more than one can ask for.Of course, the classic scene where he fights off La Cosa Nostra with the help of turning the lights on and off is a piece of work...somehow, his hat goes on and off throughout the scene...how's that?The over the top Pinky just completes the whole scene...I highly recommend this to anyone who wants a good laugh..
Over-the-Top and A Lot of Fun. Black Belt Jones (1974) *** (out of 4)Pop Byrd (Scatman Crothers) owes some black men some money and these same black men just happen to owe the Mafia some cash.
When his daughter (Gloria Hendry) refuses to give up the building it's up to her and Black Belt Jones (Jim Kelly) to go after both gangs.BLACK BELT JONES isn't what you'd consider a good movie, technically speaking.
With that said, if you're a fan of the 70's blaxploitation and kung fu movies then there's no question that you'll enjoy this rather silly film that manages to keep a smile on your face from the opening scenes to the very last.
In between all of that are non-stop kung fu scenes as well as countless other bits of violence and silly dialogue.The most memorable thing about this film are the countless fighting scenes, which more times than not have Kelly doing battle against a dozen or so people.
These scenes where one bad guy after another comes out to fight are a lot of fun and it really gives you a chance to see how great Kelly was.
BLACK BELT JONES is certainly one of the better films to come from this mixed genre.
There were better blaxploitation pictures and there were better kung fu movies but this one here perfectly captured the best of both worlds and the end result is a film that's a lot of fun..
i think this film belongs to the genre of 70's blaxploitation/martial arts/action.regardless,i really enjoyed it.i thought it was a real blast.there's plenty of martial arts action.there's also a lot of funny scenes,some i'm sure are intentional,and some that might not be.the acting wasn't that bad,in my opinion.it wasn't Oscar Worthy or anything,but i don't think it was supposed to be.the music was kinda cheesy but it grew on me after awhile.this was actually the first movie i've seen of this genre.i picked it as part of a four pack of movies of the same genre.i'll definitely be checking out the other three very soon.The other three titles are "Black Samson","Hot Potato",and "Three the Hard Way".for me,Black Belt Jones is a 7/10.
The plot is a little messy but, in its basic blocks actually plays fairly straightforwardly since all that matters are that the baddies are trying to get their hands on some land currently housing a martial arts school run by Pop. The mafia and local hoods are behind it all but nobody reckoned on the involvement of one Black Belt Jones.
What follows is a series of fight scenes punctuated by swagger and funky jive talking from our hero and his friends.If you are in the mood for it it is actually pretty enjoyable and sticks in my mind as one of the better "fun" blaxploitation films I have seen mainly because it does enough to make me go with it and accept the genre standards rather than see them as limiting factors.
At times it is clever (I loved the "3 seconds light on/off" fight) while at others it is plain goofy (the car wash at the end) but they are all fun and engaging to watch even if they are not always that impressive.
The direction is pretty good as well and the while film is well put together with the well used and kicking soundtrack that one expects from the genre.Black Belt Jones is not a great film of course – mainly because of all the qualities that mark it out as a blaxploitation film from the 1970's.
Group of mafia people try to take over pops karate shop , with the mafia being big fat italians with cool 70s ,music shouting MAMMA MIA everywhere, and a group of blacks fighting to kick out a group of martial artists.
The main character black belt jones, sports the coolest afro and martial arts movie I have ever seen.Note this is not a serious film, it is based on hilarious performances and fight seens equal to the old batman fight scenes, "pok , pow, kabaoom" without the words.This film is best watched by a group of guys with a few beers as the chuckles will last through the entire film.
"Black Belt Jones" is a rather poor blaxsploitation film, but it does have a couple things going for it.
Because of these factors, it's worth a look if you like the genre or want a good laugh.The plot is a VERY generic and familiar one with Black Belt Jones working for some unnamed government agency out to bring down the mob.
The sum total effect of all this cheese is a fun picture that you like but you also can't take at all seriously--even if Kelly was very good with his kicking and punching.Very silly but actually a bit endearing as well..
If you are like me and thought the Williams character(played by Jim Kelly)did not get enough screeentime in Enter The Dragon then you will love Black Belt Jones!.
After appearing in Bruce Lee's blockbuster hit Enter The Dragon, Jim Kelly(who had a bit part as the ultra cool Williams)returns with ETD director Robert Clouse in Black Belt Jones.
Black Belt Jones is 70's action camp at its best.
Jim Kelly(RIP)was not the most talented actor, but more than made up for it by having a good build, great karate moves and one amazing afro.
Jim Kelly was definitely one cool cat and in this film totally invincible against out of shape Italian mobsters and Pinky's gang of goofballs who are after Papa Byrd's(Scatman Crothers)karate school.
Black Belt Jones is a great blaxsploitation film that turns the camp to eleven.
So do yourself a favor and watch Black Belt Jones and have yourself a great time..
From the super cool Jim Kelly in the main role, the numerous chop-socky fights, car chases and general mayhem to the absolutely side splitting humour throughout this is an absolute gem and a true pleasure to sit through from start to glorious finish.Director Robert Clouse who also directed Kelly in the classic Bruce Lee opus Enter The Dragon takes a far more light hearted approach here and delivers a film that blatantly doesn't take itself at all seriously (which proves to be a most sagacious decision).
Just check out the utterly hilarious scene for instance in which Kelly single handedly beats up a whole room of thugs by having his pal (played by the ever likable Alan Weeks) turn the lights on and off the dialogue from the villains is guaranteed to leave you on the floor with laughter for sure!Other scenes of particular note (every single scene is great in fact!) include a number of funny brawls in Papa Byrd's (played by the welcome face of Scatman Crowthers who actually joins in the fight!) karate dojo, an amazing punch up in a train carriage during which Kelly manages to smash every opponent through separate windows in turn(!) and last but not least the classic soapy finale!A great assemble cast of highly recognisable faces including the aforementioned actors in addition to the likes of the lovely Gloria Hendry (Rosie Carver from the James Bond classic Live and Let Die), (Earl Jolly Brown - Whisper from the same film!), Malik Carter as Pinky (a character of comic genius!) Mel Novak (who also appeared in Bruce Lee's final unfinished Game Of Death as Stick) and keeping in with the Bruce Lee connection a brief appearance by Tang Soo Do champion Bob Wall (O'Hara from Enter The Dragon and Carl Miller from Game Of Death) who also choreographs the fight scenes in this film.What more can I add?
So the best man for the job is called in to clean up the mess with the mob: Black Belt Jones (Kelly)!
Black Belt Jones is classic 70's Blaxploitation all the way.
It's also completely great in its own right, and while it, surprisingly, has never been reissued on CD (as far as we know), there is a reissue LP that's floating around out there.It's easy to forget this, but Jim Kelly's actual name in the movie is Black Belt Jones.
So travel back in time to when Martial Arts was FUN and definitely see Black Belt Jones!
So travel back in time to when Martial Arts was FUN and definitely see Black Belt Jones!
Hip and smooth ace martial artist Black Belt Jones (a supremely affable and charismatic performance by Jim Kelly) takes on a bunch of no-count mobsters who want to take over an inner city karate school in the Watts area of Los Angeles.
While Kelly was no great acting talent, he DID have enough personality to carry a B-movie like this one- provided the director was on his game (which, in this case, he wasn't).
Kelly lucked out when Frazier laughed off the challenge.) (And it's interesting to note that very few of the "point" karate players went on to full-contact careers when full-contact karate became a reality...) The most glaring example of Kelly's limitations comes in BLACK BELT JONES when he faces off against a bunch of bad guys in a car wash: knee-deep in suds (which are very slippery), his kicking is even less impressive than normal; he literally seems afraid to lose his balance (which is understandable)- and the skinny stunt-double with the outrageously ridiculous afro wig is yet another example of Clouse's misdirection.
Following the phenomenonal success of "Enter the Dragon," director Robert Clouse and co-star Jim Kelly teamed up for this more tongue in cheek martial arts flick, "Black Belt Jones." Released in 1974 and distributed by "Warner Bros," Jim Kelly was given his first and best leading role.
In the case of Jim Kelly however, he can certainly put on a good show and he does in "Black Belt Jones." One of the best examples of this, is when he takes on a group of corrupt police officers at a car park.
Robert Clouse does a good enough job in the directing but Bruce Lee is sorely missed when it comes to the fight choreography.
And one of the few people who can help her do both is a student of Papa Byrd named "Black Belt Jones" (Jim Kelly).
First, although I didn't mind the fact that this martial arts movie also doubled as a Blaxploitation film, I thought the romantic scene between Sydney and Black Belt Jones was rather clumsy and the fight scene at the very end was much too long and boring.
In the scene where Black Jones whips up the spaghetti guy named Plaza, he says.
In the last scene the bad guy tries to drop Jones with an iron hand, then his woman screams: "watch out for the hand Jim"!
|
tt0118760
|
The Boxer
|
Former Irish pugilist & Provisional IRA member Danny Flynn (Daniel Day-Lewis) returns home to Belfast from a 14-year stint in prison at the age of 32. Weary of the unbroken cycle of violence in Northern Ireland, he attempts to settle down and live in peace. After meeting his drink-sodden old trainer Ike (Ken Stott), Danny starts up a non-sectarian boxing club for boys in an old gymnasium. While fixing up the old building, however, he runs across a cache of Semtex hidden underneath the stage. He throws the cache into the river.
Danny's action infuriates Harry (Gerard McSorley), a bitter and ruthless IRA lieutenant. Harry feuds with Danny, assassinating the kindly police officer who donates equipment to the boxing club. The murder causes a riot at one of Danny's boxing matches. During the riot, the gymnasium is burned down by Liam, the young son of Maggie, who thinks Danny and his mother are going to elope.
Danny has been reconnecting with an old flame, Maggie (Emily Watson), now married to an imprisoned IRA man and required by IRA code to remain faithful to him. Their relationship dominates much of the film. Harry sees Danny and Maggie's relationship as a way to undermine the authority of her father, Joe Hamill (Brian Cox), the grim but war-weary IRA local commander who is working for peace.
Eventually, Harry and some other IRA men kidnap Danny and take him away to be executed. Then, in a last-minute twist, the IRA gunman shoots Harry instead of Danny, thus eliminating a rogue agent. Maggie with Liam her son in the car pick up Danny and they all drive home together.
|
bleak, realism, violence, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0992993
|
Into the Storm
|
It is night, and four high school students are in a car together in a worsening storm, when they look up ahead and see a tornado forming. A girl begs for them to go, but the boy recording on a camera gets out to video tape the tornado. As it approaches, he gets back in the car, but the tornado picks them up before they can escape, killing them all.
In the town of Silverton, Oklahoma, the local high school senior class is preparing for graduation. The high school's vice-principal, Gary Fuller (Richard Armitage), has asked his two sons, Trey and Donnie, to record messages from the seniors for a time capsule to be opened in 25 years. Elsewhere, Pete (Matt Walsh), a veteran storm chaser, has been attempting to intercept and film tornadoes using a heavily armored Tornado Intercept Vehicle nicknamed Titus, but has come up short all year long. Upon learning of a major line of developing storms, the chasers confer and decide to head for Silverton in hopes of filming tornadoes. After arriving in Silverton, the team discovers that the cell they had been chasing has dissipated, upsetting Pete. As the team reconvenes to determine its next move, the Silverton cell abruptly strengthens, resulting in a hailstorm and tornado. As the team films, the funnel abruptly shifts course and heads for the high school.
At the high school, the senior students are participating in commencement ceremonies when the weather suddenly sours. Moments later, the tornado sirens sound, and the students are subsequently marshaled into the school building by the head principal and his staff. In the aftermath of the tornado, shaken students emerge from the damaged building to view the destruction, while Gary sets out to rescue his eldest son Donnie, who had gone to an abandoned paper mill to help his friend Katlyn (Alycia Debnam-Carey) with a project; both were subsequently trapped when the tornado brought the building down on them.
As Pete's storm chase team stops in a small part of town, a tornado takes shape just as Gary and Trey arrive, destroying several buildings. Before the tornado dissipates Gary must save Pete's meteorologist, Allison Stone (Sarah Wayne Callies), when she fails to make it to safety with the others. Then, after Gary pleads for help, Pete's team agree to help Gary get to the paper mill. While en route, another round of erratic tornadoes forms and encircles Pete's team, in the process destroying a residential neighborhood and a car lot. An explosion turns one of the tornadoes into a firenado, which Jacob the cameraman, (Jeremy Sumpter), tries to film, only to be caught up in the storm and killed. This causes friction between Pete and his team, as Pete's concern seems to be more on collecting data than ensuring his team's safety. After recovering their vehicles, Allison leaves with Gary to continue their trip to the paper mill.
At the mill, the two trapped students attempt to use their phones to call for help, but the storm's devastation has rendered the phones almost useless. To make matters worse, a water pipe abruptly breaks and begins to flood the hole in which the two are trapped. Injured and at risk of drowning, the two record messages for their loved ones, then prepare for the worst. At the last minute, Gary and Allison arrive and successfully free the two students.
In the skies above Silverton, a convergence of two large tornadoes results in a colossal EF5 tornado that threatens to level the town. The town's citizens have taken shelter at the school, but Pete's team determines that the school's storm shelter will be inadequate in the face of the monstrous tornado. Unable to alert the school's staff with mobile devices, Pete's team rushes to the school to notify the citizens that they must evacuate. While citizens rush to board school buses to flee the advancing storm, Pete and his team move to track and follow the storm, but the last school bus and a handful of cars are cut off from the retreat due to a downed transmission tower.
In an attempt to improvise a shelter, the storm chasers and school refugees take cover in a storm drain at a construction site, but debris from the tornado damages one of the storm grates, compromising the shelter. In an attempt to save lives, Pete hands over his research hard drives to Gary, then sacrifices himself by leaving the shelter to move Titus down to the storm grate, where a combination of the vehicle's weight, ground anchors, and winch cable are used to anchor the storm grate to the concrete face. Titus's equipment proves unable to anchor the vehicle to the ground, and the tornado picks up the vehicle. From the camera turret aboard Titus, Pete observes the funnel of the tornado as the vehicle is lifted above the clouds, before then crashing back down to the ground, apparently killing him. Shortly thereafter, the EF5 tornado dissipates.
In the aftermath of the tornado outbreak, the townspeople begin efforts to clean up and rebuild. As Gary's sons move to complete their time capsule film, many of those they interview after the tornadoes express a newfound appreciation for their lives, and a hopeful outlook on life. Allison praises Pete's sacrifice and dedication to science. The last footage shows the two local daredevils Donk and Reevis as they survived the storm.
|
historical
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0041380
|
For Scent-imental Reasons
|
The owner of a perfume shop in Paris is horrified to find a skunk, Pepé Le Pew, testing the wares inside his store. A strong and powerful gendarme, also repelled by the odor, is of no help.
The perfumer notices a black female cat (not named in this short, the black cat character is identified as such in the much later Carrotblanca as Penelope Pussycat), and with rage flings her into the store and demands her to "Remove that skunk, that polecat pole from the premises. Avec!". The cat slides into the shop, hitting a bureau and causing a bottle of white dye to spill and run down her back and tail (a black cat acquiring a white, skunk-like stripe is a running gag in most Pepé Le Pew shorts). Pepé Le Pew sees her and immediately mistakes her for a skunk.
The cat smells Pepé's odor and immediately tries to run away, chased by Pepé. As she attempts to wiggle free from Pepé's embrace, he makes comments like, "it is love at sight first, no?" and "we will make beautiful music together." She breaks free and attempts to wash the stripe and the smell off but is unsuccessful. She runs to a window and tries to open it, but it is stuck. She finally takes refuge inside a locked glass cabinet, much to Pepé's chagrin. Pepé first tries to lure her out sweetly, then demands that she come out of the cabinet. She refuses, indicating that it is due to his odor. Pepé Le Pew becomes saddened, pulls out a gun, walks out of sight and fires the weapon, presumably killing himself. Panicked, the cat rushes out to save him, only to run directly into Pepé's arms. He tells her, "I missed, fortunately for you." The chase continues until Pepé finds the cat on the windowsill. He believes that she is trying to prove her love for him by committing suicide, and declares that he will save her. Pepé grabs for her, but she slips through his arms. Pepé then calls out: "Vive l'amour, we die together" and steps off the window ledge. The cat falls into a barrel of water under a rain-spout, while Pepé lands in a can of blue paint.
The water washes the white stripe off the cat, and also gives her a cold. When Pepé climbs out he is blue. He sees the ragged-looking, sneezing wet cat but does not recognize her. He wanders off to find the "beautiful young lady skunk." The soaked black cat watches his blue form walking away and she falls for him. When Pepé goes back into the perfume shop to look for the female skunk, he hears the door shut and the lock click behind him. When he turns, he sees the drenched female cat leering at him and begins to panic, realizing that he is now the victim of love. She drops the key to the lock down her neckline as the startled Pepé says, "Oh, no!" and runs away. As Pepé runs as fast as he can, the cat follows using Pepé's familiar hopping pace. The short ends with Pepé telling the audience: "You know, it is possible to be too attractive," while continuing to run.
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
One of Pepe's earliest and greatest roles..
Paris, France: A perfume shop owner discovers that the amorous skunk Pepe Le Pew is generously sampling his perfumes.
The distraught shop-owner flings a cat inside to eject the skunk.
The feline femme fatale, of course, has her back dyed white, and when Pepe sees this, he of course tries to woo her (sometimes forcibly), blissfully unaware that she is trying to escape his scent-imental attentions.
"For Scent-imental Reasons" was the first Pepe cartoon I ever saw, having seen it on tape in "The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie".
The ending and beginning are a bit funnier and more unique than usual, and some of the humor comes from sources besides Pepe, which is unusual.
Formed a cartoon legend!.
This was the cartoon that formed Pepe Le Pew as we know and love him.
It was this cartoon that Chuck Jones found the correct formula to make Pepe a true winner.Earlier, producer Eddie Seltzer thought that no one would believe that a French-speaking skunk was funny.
But when this cartoon won an Academy Award in 1949, he was proven wrong, and stepped up to receive the award anyway!According to Chuck, Pepe, like Bugs Bunny, is one of his aspirations.
He held a place in Chuck Jones' heart.
He claimed that he never had much luck with 'les femmes' when in school, and Pepe is a character with so much security in his own sexuality that he contained much will power.
So Pepe's a very personal character to Mr. Jones.In the past, the humorous 'talking-through-the-glass' scene was cut due to the suicide reference.
However-Pepe: I meesed...fortunately for you!"
His name was a spoof of Charles Boyer's character in the French film Algiers, a character named Pepe Le Moko.A truly great for the Warner Bros.
Looney Tunes collection.BTW: I am saddened by the fact that Mr. Charles M.
Jones, the last of the original Looney Tunes directors and creator of such a great Looney Tune, passed away just recently.*sniff* Goodbye, Chuck Jones...
Chuck Jones's 'For Scent-imental Reasons' is a brilliantly witty cartoon for which Pepe Le Pew won a well earned Academy Award on only his fourth outing.
As a child I hated the Pepe Le Pew cartoons for several reasons.
Of course, I thought love was yucky but also the pseudo-French gags and more verbal approach to comedy went completely over my head.
Bearing in mind that these sexually charged cartoons were never meant for young eyes, it's hardly surprising that I have come round to loving Pepe and his straight-to-camera witticisms.
Having said all that, even as a Pepe-hating child I still enjoyed 'For Scent-imental Reasons'.
There was something about it that made it stand out over the other Le Pew shorts and clearly the Academy agreed.Set in and around a perfume shop, 'For Scent-imental Reasons' finds Penelope the cat locked in with the amorous skunk after a bottle of white hair-dye bestows the obligatory deceptive markings down her spine.
There follows a series of great gags, two of which involve aborted suicides!
The best gag in the whole cartoon is when Penelope locks herself in a glass case causing Pepe to go absolutely insane with frustration until finally he pulls out a gun, puts it to his temple and walks out of sight.
Hearing the shot, the guilt-ridden cat unlocks the case and leaps out straight into Pepe's arms.
'For Scent-imental Reasons' is a lovely piece of work and undoubtedly one of the best Pepe Le Pew cartoons.
From its familiar setup through to the table-turning ending, it's a classy and classic short..
Classy and one of Pepe Le Pew's best.
I quite like the Pepe Le Pew cartoons, and I quite like Pepe himself for how unique and how he stands out among the rest.
For Scent-imental Reeasons is a very classy cartoon and one of Pepe Le Pew's best.
From the hilarious beginning and familiar set-up to the classic talking through the class gag and the ending which is a table-turner, For Scent-imental Reasons works so well.
Complete with beautiful, elegant looking animation, lilting and amorous music that couldn't have been more perfect for the cartoon's tone, fresh dialogue, very funny gags and Mel Blanc's infectious vocals particularly as Pepe, you have a near masterpiece.
Pepe is wonderful and gives one of his best performances, and Penelope is not shabby either.
In conclusion, classy and entertaining, perhaps it could have been longer, but so much works you don't necessarily mind.
9/10 Bethany Cox. For Scent-imental Reasons is the Oscar-winning Pepe Le Pew cartoon.
Like just about every Pepe Le Pew cartoon, there's a female cat who's mistaken for a skunk because of white paint that conveniently forms a straight line on the cat's back.
As a result, Pepe falls madly in love with her while she is repelled and tries to escape with her running frantically and he just hopping along without a care in the world.
That's the premise of the nearly whole series in a nutshell but this one has a twist at the end that makes For Scent-imental Reasons somewhat worthy of the Oscar it eventually won.
In fact, I was pretty amused throughout most of the cartoon.
And I always wonder how much of the French was real and how much of it was gibberish!
Zees cartoon eez ze locksmith of greatness!.
Pepe Le Pew chases a female cat through a perfume shop, until an unexpected event reverses their roles.
Sometimes, I interpret Pepe Le Pew as the sort of person whose attitude turns people off without him realizing it, much like Pepe can't help that he smells terrible.
After all, isn't it good enough that he at least tries to strike up relationships with women?
But even ignoring that, "For Scent-imental Reasons" is still a classic cartoon.
But on the other hand, these cartoons weren't really intended as cute entertainment for children; they always had an edge.
Anyway, this one definitely deserved its Oscar win.Le meow.
Pepe Le Pew's only Oscar bid was a winner!.
This cartoon won an Oscar for Pepe Le Pew almost ten years before Bugs Bunny won for Knighty Knight Bugs.
Pepe is one of my favorite characters and this is one of the better cartoons in the series, although not my personal favorite (that's Touche and Go).
Pepe discovers wht it's like to have the shoe on the other foot in this one.
Great fun in this one.
It has been in the past, most notably on the tape A Salute to Chuck Jones from the Golden Jubilee series.
Cartoon Network shows it fairly often.
Not the best, but one of the first and an Oscar winner.
When a French perfume shop owner opens up one morning he finds Pepe Le Pew using the perfumes in his store.
Desperate, he paints his cat like a skunk in order to distract Pepe and get him out of the store.Looking back now it is often difficult to watch these cartoons in the order they were made.
For this reason it is often difficult to know which came first and which were just copies of more original cartoons.
However, this short is famous as it was one of the first Pepe Le Pew cartoons and it won him an Oscar in 1950.
For this reason it is one of my favourite Pepe shorts.
It may not be the best but the others just kept repeating this one gag until it killed it.The plot is the usual deal but it has some nice touches at the start and end that make it different enough to be amusing.
It is unfair to really look back on this short with the knowledge that Pepe just kept doing the same stuff over and over, I don't really like him for this reason, but this short is still good and helped me get over the repeating issues.Overall this is an enjoyable short that is better than it comes across if you try and remember that this was fresh when it was made, as opposed to his other films that generally retread this gag.
Not sure it deserved to be called an Oscar winner but it was funny and the fresh quality of the film has managed to shine through despite the numerous repeats..
Pepe's first truly great role..
Up till this point the few Pepe Le Pew movies were actualy pretty boring.In this one we are introduced to his mate Penelope Cat.Pepe has broken into a perfume shop in France and the owner has the idea to sent her in to chase him away.What an idea.Once she gets a white stripe on her buck Pepe has chosen her as mate.His efforts to persuade her to join him and her own to avoid him are ecxelent comedy material.And one his scent is removed and she finaly notices how does his body look the roles are reversed.The odd couple does belong together.Too bad most of the other Pepe movies repeated this film and made it lost his uniqueness.Because it is one of the best of the Looney Toons..
I was never a big fan of Pepe Le Pew. Every one of his cartoons is the same.
For some silly reason a cat will end up a white stripe on it's back and Pepe, a smelly skunk, falls in love with her.
His foul scent is so strong that when he grabs her and unleashes an endless barrage of kisses, she can only become like butter in his arms with a dazed look on her face.
Occasionally she will try to escape and Pepe will fob it off with something like 'You are play-eeng hard-to-geet'.
Blah, blah, blah, they are all the same.Grant, this one was the first and it won an Oscar.
But that was probably the reason they made so many more.
This one does have a funny twist at the end when Pepe's love falls into a barrel of water and emerges like crack-addicted rat and the tables are turned.
Pepe was only ever a supporting character and never strong enough to carry a whole cartoon.He IS very cute though..
(Pepe Le) "Pew" - This Cartoon Stinks!.
An owner of a French perfume shop enters his store one day and discovers a skunk sampling the merchandise!
A cat then sidles up to the Frenchman, so the latter throws the cat in the building with orders to get that skunk out of there.
The black cat bumps into a can of white paint, which conveniently pours a steak down his back.The skunk - our first look at the character "Pepe Le Pew" - sees the cat and thinks it's a female skunk.
He woos it, using every French cliché of the day and the cat keeps running away, of course.
When the two of them fall out the window, Pepe falls into a vat of blue paint and the cat falls into a vat of water.
Because of their new appearances, the shoe is on the other foot with the cat now "in love" with Pepe!Frankly, I found most of this unfunny, nothing I would watch again unless for "historical" reasons to see the "birth" of Pepe in Merrie Melody cartoons..
Wonderful Le Pew short that, for the most part, follows the formula for the rest of the series: a black cat somehow winds up with a white stripe painted down her back and draws the amorous attentions of everyone's favorite skunk.
Throughout the short, the cat tries to elude her smelly suitor with no luck.
The cartoon ends with a nice role reversal and a hilarious final line.
It's a very funny cartoon, with many great lines and bits.
Love all the Frenchisms, particularly when the cat says things like "le mew, le purr".
The voice work from Mel Blanc is excellent.
It's one of the best of the series.
Notable for being the first Chuck Jones-directed short to win an Oscar and the only Pepé Le Pew cartoon to do so..
Pepe LaPew breaks into a perfume store and a female cat is sent in to get the smelly skunk out, of course the cat finds a way to accidentally get whit paint on herself, thus looking like a female skunk.
I never understood the love for Pepe LePew. He's a rather weak character, he's not that funny and he's French.
It doesn't help that in his cartoon shorts that there's really just one gag that's used over and over again.
This short won an Oscar as well, big deal I can name a good number of things that aren't great at all that have won Oscars through out the years.
This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" It also has an optional commentary as well as a featurette.
Funny cartoon.
This is one of the cartoons I remember watching many times as a kid.
I think it was in one of the Looney Tunes compilation films (possibly the Bugs Bunny-Road Runner movie).
Years later, I can still watch it and enjoy it.Pepe Le Pew finds his way into a perfume shop, much to the shock of the store's owner.
After a local policeman fails to get rid of Pepe, the owner sends a female cat inside to resolve the issue.
However, the cat gets a bottle of white liquid on her back, thus making her look like a skunk.
Once Pepe sees her, it is instant attraction for him.Pepe Le Pew is of course one of the most likable of the Looney Tunes, and his love for the cat leads to several laughs.
The very first Pepe Le Pew!.
STAR: "Pepe Le Pew".Director: CHARLES M.
JONES.
Voice characterisations: Mel Blanc.
Producer: Edward Selzer.Copyright 28 November 1949 by The Vitaphone Corp.
"Merrie Melodies" cartoon.
7 minutes.COMMENT: Although it actually won the 1949 prestigious Hollywood award for Best Cartoon, defeating M-G-M's Hatch Up Your Troubles, UPA's Magic Fluke, and Walt Disney's Toy Tinkers, this, the first Pepe Le Pew cartoon, but not in my opinion (despite its prestigious Hollywood award) one of the very best.Admittedly, it has its ingenious moments.
But in this one, the background (a perfume shop) is too circumscribed, the designs are not as art deco colorful, and Pepe doesn't quite have that jaunty Maurice Chevalier air which makes him so totally endearing in his later films.
"For Scent-imental Reasons" is a 7-minute cartoon from 1949 and among Edward Selzer's five Oscars, one was for this one here.
I must say the comedy throughout the film was okay all in all, but not great, so an Oscar may have been too much.
Anyway, the idea of a skunk falling in love with a cat who got paint on her back is a nice one though and it is not too surprising this worked out nicely in the genre of animation.
Mel Blanc shines again and Jones and Maltese deliver the quality we are used to from them as well.
This may not be the first, but it is probably the most known from Warner Bros' Pepe Le Pew cartoons.
If it is a contender for the best, I will decide once I have watched some more of these.
As for now, I recommend the watch, but not with great enthusiasm..
attractive," a frazzled Henry-the-Skunk (a.k.a., Pepe Le Pew) whines to the camera at the close of his Oscar-winning performance in FOR SCENT-IMENTAL REASONS.
This animated short from Warner Bros.
begins with Henry in his habitual serial rapist "Pepe" mode, wife and kids nowhere to be seen.
As always, the object of his inter-species sexual predation is a hapless animal (in this case, a female cat) who's been accidentally splashed with a white paint stripe along the lines of skunk markings.
(If a similar mishap happened to "transform" a sea gull into a duck, even an amorous Daffy would wait until the painted gull waddled and quacked BEFORE concluding that it WAS a duck!) Pepe\Henry has no such compunctions.
Female Oscar voters probably swung the statuette in favor of this particular Pepe\Henry episode because of its ending.
Through another chance occurrence, Ms. Kitty simultaneously loses her skunk markings AND her sense of smell, just as Mr. Skunk is dyed an attractive shade of blue.
The tables are turned for once, as Ms. Kitty heatedly pursues the now balky skunk.
Hence Pepe's Complaint..
Directed by Chuck Jones and written by Michael Maltese, "For Scent-imental Reasons" is an excellent Pepe Le Pew cartoon.
This time around, Pepe finds his "cherie" inside a perfume shop.Highlights: Mel Blanc's vocal acting is absolutely hilarious at the beginning of this short, as the perfume store owner and the gendarme both react in horror at the sight of Pepe, who of course never realizes that he stinks.
With some appropriate musical accompaniment from Carl Stalling, Pepe bounces merrily after the frightened cat/skunk.
A glass plate separates Pepe and the cat, but their inaudible words are still clear to each other.During the opening titles of "For Scent-imental Reasons", the song we hear is "Every Day I Love You Just a Little Bit More".
How could any other love song be more appropriate for the character Pepe Le Pew?.
An early and wonderful Pepe Le Pew short.
Although I will admit that most of the Pepe Le Pew films are very similar, I have always loved these cartoons.
I particularly loved the Charles Boyer-inspired voice as well as the great romantic dialog.Here, as usual, a poor cat is mistaken by the perennially on the make Pepe as another skunk.
Despite showing no interest in him, Pepe "doggedly" pursues her throughout the film.
However, like some of the better Le Pew cartoons, by the end of the film the tables are turned.
In this case, for a very fitting and funny conclusion.
If you are a fan of the skunk, then this is a must-see film and one of the earliest appearances of this beloved character.PS--This film won the Oscar for Best Cartoon Short--rather surprising, isn't it?
|
tt0984177
|
Amarkalam
|
Vasu (Ajith) is a ruthless rowdy who lives in a cinema theater owned by Vinu Chakravarthy. He had a tortured childhood and wastes his days by drinking, fighting, and sleeping. It all starts when Vasu's friend Dhamu loses a reel of the movie Annamalai to Mohana (Shalini). Vasu and Mohana clash when Vasu attempts to retrieve the reel. Mohana's family are members of the police, headed by Birla Bose (Nasser), Mohana's father.
At this point, an ex-Mafia "Dada" who spent many years in jail because of Birla Bose, Tulasi Das (Raghuvaran), comes to the theater. He doesn't like Bose, and hires Vasu to kidnap Mohana. He cries out his woes in the song "Satham Illatha." Mohana falls in love with him, after hearing his pain.
When Tulasi Das realizes Mohana loves Vasu, he hires Vasu further to pretend he loves her back. At first with Vasu it's just pretend, but then, he too begins to love her. Tulasi Das visits Birla Bose to inform him of his daughters love for a gangster and realizes that Mohana is indeed his daughter. A flashback showing the parted friendship between the two men and Ganga (Raadhika), Tulasi Das' wife, abandons him and their child when she comes to know that her husband is a don. Knowing that Mohana is his daughter, Tulasi Das instructs Vasu to give up his love. When Vasu refuses, Tulasi visits Mohana and tells her about his ploy and that Vasu's love for her was fake.
Eventually Vasu proves to Mohana that his love was true and unites with her after a clash between the cops and some goons of the locality.
|
romantic, flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Turning point in Ajith's Life and career.. This film is a major turning point in Ajith career and which shown Ajith as a action hero. Music was supportive to the movie. And the song in the fort showed the musical intelligence for both Bhartwaj and SPB, also other songs was melodious too. Lawrance danced in the song later developed as good dancer and director. this was one of the mass hit for Ajith career. now in 2008 most of the actors done more roles like this more than two times in their career but Ajith managed to stop with this one even it was a success, this was a good decision for him and this make him to choose more characters like in Godfather, Billa. he has the ability to do the things in his own style. Ajith- silver medal for 25th film. On his 25th film Ajith, put his lot of efforts in the action role compare to Deena movie. This is also a hatrik success after Vaali and Annanda Poongatre. Shalini did made a difference compare to her debut film Kadalkku Mariyadai and given her best shot in this film. The director chosen the best villian and Raghuvaran did not disappointed him.
Little under performance from Nassar, but it coveruped properly by Dhamu, Ramesh, and Ramji with a comedy in corners of the film. Even though Raadhika and Ponnambalam are the best actors, they were give given somuch Lotte role in film as like a cameo appearance.Barathwaj's music took his next level of success after this movie and continued to work for Ajith, future films.Saran did a pretty good job on his second film with Ajith, which was a sore success after the failure of Kadal Mannan. Even though he put enough masala of Action, romance and sentiments, the film horrible climax put the audience a thumbs down.
|
tt0040963
|
Whiplash
|
Andrew Neiman is a first-year jazz student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory in New York. He has been playing drums from a young age and aspires to become like Buddy Rich. Famed conductor Terence Fletcher discovers Andrew practicing in the music room late one night and eventually invites him into his studio band as the alternate for core drummer Carl Tanner. Fletcher is strict and abusive toward his students, mocking and insulting them; when the band rehearses the Hank Levy piece "Whiplash" and Andrew struggles to keep the tempo, Fletcher hurls a chair at him, slaps him, and berates him in front of the class.
At a jazz competition, Andrew misplaces Carl's sheet music. Since Carl cannot play without it, Andrew steps in, telling Fletcher that he can perform "Whiplash" from memory. After a successful performance, Fletcher promotes him to core drummer. Soon after, Fletcher recruits Ryan Connolly, the core drummer from Andrew's former lower-level class. Andrew believes Connolly is the less talented and experienced drummer, and is infuriated when Fletcher promotes him to core. Determined to impress Fletcher, Andrew practices until his hands bleed and breaks up with his new girlfriend Nicole, believing she will hold him back. He endures a grueling 2 A.M. tryout session with Fletcher and the other two drummers in the class, in which Fletcher kicks furniture and screams at him, eventually earning back his core spot.
On the way to another competition, Andrew's bus breaks down. He rents a car but arrives late, and realizes he left his drumsticks at the rental office. After a dressing-down from Fletcher, Andrew races back to the rental office to retrieve the drumsticks, but his car is broadsided by a semi-trailer. He crawls from the wreckage, runs back to the theater and arrives on stage bloody and injured. When he struggles to play "Caravan" due to his injuries, Fletcher halts the performance to tell Andrew he is "done". Enraged, Andrew attacks Fletcher in front of the audience and is dismissed from Shaffer Conservatory.
At his father's request, Andrew meets with a lawyer representing the parents of Sean Casey, a former student of Fletcher's. Contrary to Fletcher's previous claim that Sean had died in a car accident, the lawyer explains that Sean committed suicide, having suffered anxiety and depression during and after his time as Fletcher's student. Sean's parents want to prevent Fletcher from teaching again. Andrew agrees to testify on the condition of anonymity, and Fletcher is fired from Shaffer Conservatory.
Months later, Andrew has abandoned drumming and is working in a restaurant while applying to different colleges. One evening he discovers Fletcher performing at a jazz club. After the performance, Fletcher invites Andrew to drink with him, seeming more hospitable and friendly than before. He explains that he pushed his students beyond the expected so that they might achieve success and become like Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker. Andrew accepts Fletcher's invitation to replace the current drummer in his new band at the upcoming JVC Jazz Festival. He invites Nicole to the performance, but she is in a new relationship.
On stage at the jazz festival, moments before the performance is about to start, Fletcher reveals that he knows Andrew testified against him, and leads the band with a piece Andrew does not know. Unable to follow the cues without sheet music, Andrew leaves the stage humiliated. After being consoled by his father, he defiantly returns to the drum kit, begins playing "Caravan", and cues the band to follow his lead. As the piece ends and the lights go down, Andrew continues his own solo. Fletcher is taken aback but begins to guide Andrew. As the solo ends they share a smile and Fletcher cues the finale.
|
melodrama
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
"Whiplash" was a routine offering from Warner Brothers in the late forties but routine in those days also meant efficient, entertaining and well worth seeing.
It is only when you see films like this one which are sixty years old and in black and white to realise that the equivalent does not exist in cinema any more.
The Warner Brothers rep company was also a very good one: Davis, Crawford and co were, of course, the front runners at this time, but this cast shows how professional and talented the second string actors were in those days.
Dane Clark was never a star but here he gives a highly efficient and convincing performance, carrying the film with ease and confidence.
Alexis Smith (cruelly underestimated and underused until her later years) is excellent as the unhappy heroine, married to sadistic Zachary Scott but in love with Clark.
Scott plays one of his usual villains but always played them with style and panache.
The divine Eve Arden has a few good scenes but is wasted - and Jeffrey Lynn, usually a somewhat pallid and passive actor, is here very good as Smith's drunken brother who finally resolves the story by his actions.
solid film noir with good cast.
Although the main character planed by Dane Clark is the odd combination of artist/boxer, the movie is fairly involving and exciting.
As he gets swept up by bad girl Alexis Smith -- and with bad guy Zachary Scott (one of the best in the business)luring him to destruction -- his story has some unpredictable ups and downs.
Routine boxing melodrama stars Dane Clark as John Garfield wannabe.
Shake together John Garfield's roles as a violinist in Humoresque and a prizefighter in Body and Soul (hits of the previous couple of years), and out comes Dane Clark's character in Whiplash.
But when reclusive vacationer Alexis Smith buys one of his seascapes, she ignites a torch in him that won't sputter out.
It proves a bad career move.He finds Smith singing in a nightclub, only to discover that she's married to Zachary Scott, its owner and a former middleweight champ now confined to a wheelchair.
Scott, sadistic and embittered, lives the fight game vicariously through the cohort of ex-boxers who keep his wife in place and through new talent he exploits then drops.
Wanting to keep close to Smith (who keeps warning him off), Clark signs up for work on another kind of canvas....In addition to the always welcome Alexis Smith, the movie boasts good supporting work from Eve Arden, a gal pal with a crush on Clark, and from Jeffrey Lynn, as Smith's alcoholic brother, a doctor working in Scott's gym.
Scott himself brings nothing new to the kind of part he found himself typecast in: the effete, insinuating villain.
That leaves Clark, who was plainly being groomed as the second-string Garfield but who never left much of an impression on the movies.The direction, by the undistinguished Lewis Seiler, can only be graded adequate; he keeps things moving along but never tries for anything different or offbeat or striking.
Nonetheless, Whiplash endures as a routine B-movie, with noirish coloration, that reflects the themes and plot-lines of post-war melodrama..
Good, tough noir with an excellent cast.
Watching the film it becomes obvious that it was planned for Joan Crawford so closely does Alexis Smith's character follow the Crawford 40's blueprint.
Dane Clark's tortured painter turned boxer was surely likewise designed with John Garfield in mind as it adheres to his screen persona as well.
For whatever reason those A-listers either passed or were unavailable and the film moved over to the B unit and this cast.
As good as the leads are they were considered up and comers at the time and definitely represented the second string at Warners.
Back to the film it is sharply shot with effective use of the shadowy black and white photography.
Zachary Scott adds another hissable villain to his vast array, Eve Arden pops up from time to time, once in an outfit that looks like she took the cloth off her kitchen table and fashioned it into an ensemble, to add her special brand of spice to the proceedings and many of Warners stock company, Alan Hale, S.Z. Sakall etc.
The thing that surprised me the most about Whiplash is that Warner Brothers actually teamed Alexis Smith and Dane Clark for a film.
Smith had a lot of trouble in her career because she was so tell and trouble finding leading men to appear opposite her.
And Dane Clark was short, James Cagney and Alan Ladd type short.
If you look real carefully he's built up in height somewhat in the scenes where Warner Brothers showed both of them in full figure and those are rare in this film.Clark was Warner Brothers back up for John Garfield and Garfield had left Warner Brothers at this point.
Clark was obviously getting the scripts that Garfield had left or maybe had turned down.In Whiplash Clark is a struggling artist who lives in southern California and a traveling Alexis Smith likes his work and they begin a hot and heavy affair.
He goes east to find her and he does and finds she's married to a wheelchair bound Zachary Scott.
Scott was once a promising fighter and if he can't be champion he wants to manage one.
When Clark knocks out a middleweight contender, Scott is willing to forget the affair with Smith if he'll fight for him.
And Clark proves pretty adept in the ring.Whiplash is the kind of film that would have been far better had the all pervasive Code not been in place.
Scott is incapable and he's a nasty creature and Alexis just isn't getting any.The ending is straight out of one of those Thirties type boxing films and I won't elaborate.
Let's just say what happened no way should have happened.The players are fine and special mention should go to Eve Arden for simply being Eve Arden and Jeffrey Lynn for playing Smith's alcoholic doctor brother who steps up to the plate at the climax.
But Whiplash would have been a better film with a more realistic script and the Code not dictating a lot of pussyfooting around some frank issues..
Florid boxing melodrama from director Lewis Seiler concerns a muscular, moody portrait artist in love with a reluctant band singer from New York City; she's married to a wheelchair-bound boxing manager, and it seems the only way the painter can win her over is by climbing into the ring himself (under the auspices of his new name, "Mike Angelo"!).
Outrageous script was worked on by four writers (Harriet Frank Jr. and Maurice Geraghty adapted Kenneth Earl's story, which was then reworked by Gordon Kahn).
Good for a few laughs, though several of the supporting players are uneasily cast, none more so than Zachary Scott as the invalid villain (he does everything but twist up his mustache at the corners).
Dane Clark fumes and snarls in the lead, spitting out his lines like a rabid dog; one can't imagine him making a living as a boxer--he'd be more persuasive taking bets in a pool-hall.
I would paint over this canvas as Dane Clark's boxing talents were absent.
Although Dane Clark is a decent actor this film was a time waster, nothing more, nothing less.
Dane Clark plays a former boxer named Michael Gordon - aka Mike Angelo, who achieved some level of success in the boxing ring before quitting to fulfill his dream of becoming an artist instead.
Mike Gordon is a painter of ocean view scenes with beautiful women depicted as mermaids.
He unexpectedly sells one of his paintings to a mysterious women who he chases down to find out what drew her to his less than perfect painting and the mysterious woman named Laurie Durant (Alexis Smith) tells Mike she is a lounge singer and she felt the painting was one of a kind.
After a brief romantic liaison Laurie disappears from her hotel room without telling Mike why she abruptly left without leaving him a phone number or forwarding address.Broken hearted Mike attends a lounge one night and out of the blue the songbird on the stage turns out to be his mystery portrait buyer and lover Laurie Durant.
Mike finds out the reason why Laurie left him so abruptly (which I won't spoil for you) and to win her back he agrees to go back into the ring.
Actor Dane Clark was only 36 years old when he made this film, but for him to be playing a tough ring fighter his body actually appeared to look more like he was closer to age 50.
Between Dane Clark's lack of pugilistic talents and Alexis Smith's less than stellar singing voice I felt this film hit the canvas (the boxing ring canvas and not the painter's canvas) with a resounding "thump!"This is one of those films that attempted to imitate some of the much more classier pugilistic three way romantic love triangle films of the day but just could not go even one (1) round let alone 10 or 15 rounds.
Mike (Dane Clark) is a nice guy who loves to paint.
One day, he meets Laurie and they fall in love.
Not surprisingly, Mike is a mess and spends a lot of time looking for her.
Rex (Zachary Scott) is a rich, menacing sort of guy who seems, at times, like a cat playing with mice.
So, when he offers to train Mike and make him a champion boxer, you know that somehow it's all part of Rex's machinations...and you wonder WHAT he has in mind for his wife and Mike.This film has some wonderful and snappy noir-style dialog.
It also helped that although this was more of a 'second-stringer' sort of movie with the lesser stars at Warner, they all are simply terrific.
My only complaint, and it's a problem in most boxing films, is that the matches are unrealistic...with WAY too many punches being thrown and landed throughout the fights.
Still, a hard-hitting film with lots to recommned it.By the way, I was originally going to give this one an 8.
Too bad this promising noir with a solid cast and a Warner Bros.
Certainly Dane Clark gives his central role as a painter turned boxer (!) his sweaty best.
At the same time, the statuesque Alexis Smith looks like a Greek goddess even if her emoting is on the wispy side, while Eve Arden contributes her usual witty asides.
There are echoes in this storyline of Humoresque's (1946) tough guy Garfield turned concert violinist.
But that film had a coherent screenplay, whereas this one has something to do with love- struck painter Clark getting involved with gangsters (Scott) who turn him into an expert boxer, with a wild card doctor (Lynn) thrown in.
Then too, the narrative fails to make much use of the colorful Zachary Scott, who can make any scene compelling when given the chance.
Anyway, the total adds up to a disappointment given the promising cast amidst noir's golden studio era..
The tragedy of an invalidated boxer and his pathetic efforts not to leave the ring.
The most interesting character here is Zachary Scott as Rex Durant, an ex-boxer in a wheel-chair whose passion for boxing only seems to have grown the worse for his invalidity.
Alexis Smith, beautiful, stylish and impressing as ever, is here a mysterious lady with a secret who gets involved with Dane Clark only to suddenly desert him.
Like in all noirs, there is a fashionable night club, where Alexis Smith sings and where things happen involving hoodlums.
The painter Michael Angelo was a part actually written for John Garfield, but he left before the film could be shot.
Dane Clark is not bad, but he is a bit short for Alexis Smith, who is a bit tall.
The story is good, and all the questinoable pieces fall into place towards the end, when the dyspeptic doctor at last decides to do something about a very troublesome situation involving them all.
We never learn what happened to the hoodlums.In spite of the lack of John Garfield, it's an excellent movie, I found nothing wrong with it, but the eyes of Zachary Scott is what will stick in your mind..
Dane Clark plays a moody painter who falls in love with a woman (Alexis Smith) who buys one of his paintings.
She skips out on him so he follows her to New York, where he discovers she is married to evil cripple Zachary Scott.
Then things get weird as Clark decides to become a boxer for Scott.
He decides to box under the name Mike Angelo (get it -- Michaelangelo -- because he's a painter, you see).
Clark is pretty unlikable in a role tailor-made for John Garfield.
Eve Arden is great when she's around, which isn't much.
Portrait of Film Noir.
This haunting film has a great noir premise, and relentlessly builds suspense until it literally comes crashing down in the street.
Dane Clark and Alexis Smith, even though they quickly fall in love, spend most of the movie angry with each other and with the world.
Zachary Scott's gangster character has the his goony hooks into his wife, Smith, as well as her brother, and Clark, her lover.The three of them ultimately bring Scott down; with the brother sacrificed, and Clark nearly killed in the boxing ring.
Despite the gritty tone, rough dialogue, and enough violence for a few films, there's an innocent, civilized world, hinted at with the supporting characters' scenes, that never quite goes away; and that finally replaces the noir atmosphere at the very end.
Scott, though clearly an evil presence, had his humanity blunted by the aftermath of his car accident, which Smith's brother may or may not been responsible for.
The only thing keeping them bound to each other is Scott's emotional blackmail.
His death, though obviously the result of his own murderous intent, is pathetically accidental.Of the main characters, there is just enough goodness to rescue Clark and Smith, but no one else.
***SPOILERS*** Dean Clark as armature painter and professional boxer Michael Gordon aka Mike Angelo does a pretty good imitation of the actor that he very obviously styled himself after, and was in a number of films together with, the great John Garfield in the 1948 film noir boxing movie "Whiplash".
The movie "Whiplash" is very much like Garfield's "Body & Soul" that was released just a year earlier in 1947.Mike gets himself involved with Laurie Durant, Alexis Smith, after she buys one of his paintings that his friend bar owner Sam, S.Z Skall, sold her for $75.00 without his permission.
Mike in fact felt that Lourie was suckered into buying his painting but soon discovered from Laurie that he in fact had talent as a painter, which he felt he didn't, which in turn had him fall heads over heels in love with her.
It was later when Laurie disappeared from sight that Mike tracked her down all the way from California to New York City and found out that she's a nightclub singer and married to big time mobster and former middleweight boxing contender Rex Durant, Zachary Scott.
Durant had lost the use of his legs in a car smash up now wants Mike who proved to him in what a hard puncher he is, by Mike knocking out the fighter he manages Duke Carney played by ex-professional boxer Freddie Steel, to win the middleweight boxing title that his accident preventing Durant from winning in the ring.
At first reluctant to enter the ring Mike dubbed as Mike Angelo "The Battling Artist" by the local sports writers works his way to the top by knocking out a string of worthy opponents to get a title shot at middleweight crown held by the present middleweight champion Duke Carney!
The very person who Mike knocked cold at the start of the movie!
During all this Mike finds out that not only is Laurie married to mobster Rex Durant but that Durant had something over her in the circumstances that lead to him losing his legs.
It was Laurie's doctor brother Arnold Vincent, Jeffery Lynn, who at Laurie's insistence operated on Rex and ended up blotching the operation!***SPOILERS*** Exciting and power packed fight sequence, at the start and end of the movie, with Mike who was suffering from a serious brain concussion slugging it out with Carney in the ring with a drunk and barley conscious Dr. Arnold Vincent trying to prevent or stop the fight before Mike, with a solid punch to the head by Carney, ends up dead from a brain hemorrhage!
It's at the very end of the film that both Rex Durant and his #1 henchman the brutal Mr. Costello, Douglas Kennedy, get exactly what's coming to them not from Mike but from Dr.Arnold Vincent whom they left for dead when he tried to save Mike's life.
In what has to be the most shocking scene in the movie Rex Durant ends up together with his wheelchair smashed to pieces when he loses control of it after the person pushing it, Mr. Costello, gets shot from behind by a dying Arnold Vincent!
That wheelchair scene was far better then the one that's always talked about from the film "Kiss of Death" that made actor Richard Whitmark literally a star overnight!.
I agree with others that the story is not terribly new and that it's a variation on GOLDEN BOY through HUMORESQUE through BODY AND SOUL.
The cast has also done these types of roles before--Alan Hale as the trainer, Alexis Smith as the outspoken, tough-minded, idealized object of the hero's affections, Eve Arden as a wise cracking friend/secretary/whatever, and Zachary Scott as the villain.
But, given these, I have always liked the inventiveness of the writers--the undercurrent of impotence and SPOILER how Zachary Scott's wheelchair leads to his demise.
|
tt0410595
|
Shrek 2
|
Shrek and Fiona return from their honeymoon to find they have been invited by Fiona's parents to a royal ball to celebrate their marriage. Shrek refuses to go at first, but Fiona talks him into it, and along with Donkey, they travel to the kingdom of Far Far Away. They meet Fiona's parents, King Harold and Queen Lillian, who are shocked to see their daughter as an ogre, with Harold particularly repulsed. At dinner, Shrek and Harold get into a heated argument over how Shrek and Fiona will raise their family, and Fiona, disgusted at Shrek and Harold's behavior, locks herself away in her room that evening. Shrek worries that he has lost his true love, particularly after finding her childhood diary and reading that she was once infatuated with Prince Charming.
Harold is reprimanded by the Fairy Godmother and Charming, her son, by reminding Harold that Charming was to marry Fiona in exchange for his own happy ending, and requests that he finds a way of getting rid of Shrek. Harold arranges for Shrek and Donkey to join him on a fictitious hunting trip, which actually is a trap to lure them into the hands of an assassin, Puss in Boots. However, Puss is unable to defeat Shrek and, revealing that he was paid by Harold, requests to come along and make amends. The three sneak into the Fairy Godmother's potion factory and steal a "Happily Ever After" potion that Shrek thinks will restore Fiona's love for him.
Shrek and Donkey both drink the potion and fall into a deep sleep, awakening the next morning to discover its effects: Shrek is now a handsome human, while Donkey has turned into an elegant white stallion. In order "to make the change permanent", Shrek must kiss Fiona "by midnight". Shrek, Donkey and Puss return to the castle to discover that the potion has transformed Fiona back into her former human self as well. However, the Fairy Godmother, having discovered the potion's theft, intercepts Shrek and sends Charming to pose as him and win her love. At the Fairy Godmother's urging, Shrek leaves the castle, thinking that the best way to make Fiona happy is to let her go.
To ensure that Fiona falls in love with Charming, the Fairy Godmother gives Harold a love potion to put into Fiona's tea. This exchange is overheard by Shrek, Donkey and Puss, who are soon later arrested by the royal guards and thrown into a dungeon. While the royal ball begins, several of Shrek's friends band together to free the trio, creating a monster-sized gingerbread man, which breaks through the castle's defences so Shrek can prevent Charming from kissing Fiona. He is too late to stop them; instead of falling in love with Charming, though, Fiona knocks him out with a headbutt. Harold reveals that he never gave Fiona the love potion, whereupon the now enraged Fairy Godmother attacks Shrek. In the ensuing melee, Harold sacrifices himself to save Shrek; Harold's armour ricochets the Fairy Godmother's spell which disintegrates her into bubbles; it also returns Harold to his true form as the Frog Prince. He had used the Happily Ever After potion years before in order to marry Lillian, but she tells him that she loves him regardless of his appearance.
As the clock strikes midnight, Shrek and Fiona let the potion's effects wear off and they revert to their ogre forms, while Donkey changes back to his natural form as well. Harold gives his blessing to the marriage and apologizes for his earlier behavior, and the party resumes. After the party, the Dragon, who had previously romanced Donkey, arrives and reveals that they now have several dragon-donkey hybrid babies.
|
comedy, fantasy
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0099512
|
Ernest Goes to Jail
|
Security guards Chuck and Bobby play a game of Red light/Green light while being night watchmen for Howard County Bank and Trust and are obsessed with elaborate schemes of would-be thieves. They hear a sound coming from a floor polisher that Ernest is trying to turn on for operation - he works as a night custodian at the bank - and dreams that he would be a clerk, but he ends up making a mess in the bank and he becomes magnetic from a mishap with the floor polisher. The next day, bank president Oscar Pendlesmythe's assistant, Charlotte Sparrow requires him to clean up his supernatural mess. Pendlesmythe wants to terminate Ernest's employment at the bank, but Charlotte has a soft heart for misfits and stray dogs, so she argues on his behalf. Ernest takes a bath at home in a tumble dry washing machine and uses a blow dryer with a windtunnel force for his evening dinner with Charlotte in a restaurant. He later receives in the mail a summons to jury duty in court and tells the two watchmen about it. During the trial Dracup Maximum Security Prison convict Rubin Bartlett notices that death row inmate Felix Nash is a dead ringer for Ernest. Rubin's lawyer convinces the jury to tour the prison, where Ernest is kidnapped by Nash and another inmate named Lyle and forced to switch places with Nash. Even though he tries to tell the guards he is not Nash, they refuse to believe him. Ernest also does not know that he has a death sentence which is for Nash.
While having lunch, a guard tells them to stand up and be quiet, when he notices Ernest is making a lot of noise, which almost sends him into the cell. Ernest tries a first attempt to tell one of the prison guards that he is Ernest, not Nash, but the guard calls him "Mr. Funny Man" (which is a mistaken lie) and angrily says that he is not funny and is lying and throws him into the cell right in front of Lyle who pushes him back while the first attempt fails. When he pushes him near the prison bars, he tells a prison guard that he was beaten up (and accidentally slamming the guard's head on the bars). A prison guard tells Ernest that he will be sent to the hole, which makes Ernest realize he is in jail. He has numerous misadventures in prison (especially when trying to escape, e.g., when he attempts to fashion a gun out of soap and his scheme is revealed when the gun goes limp) until he is sent to the electric chair by the prison warden.
The electrocution fails, and he is transformed into a type of superhuman, with the ability to shoot lightning bolts from his hands, which shocks other jail members. Ernest escapes from the prison and makes his way home, only to discover that his Pee-wee Herman-like décor has been replaced by a slick Lounge Lizard style of decorating. He exclaims, "I've been vandalized - by Elvis!" Ernest then goes to the bank, in his old clothes, only to find that Nash has assumed his identity and is in the process of robbing the bank and is holding Chuck and Charlotte hostage. During the ensuing battle between the two of them he gets electrocuted yet again when Nash throws him against an electric cage that the bank had rigged to drop from the ceiling to catch robbers. Now Ernest has become polarized and gained the ability to fly. He uses his super powers to fly through the skylight of the bank with a bomb that Nash had attached to the vault which leads to a spectacular mid-air explosion. Everyone especially Chuck thinks that Ernest has been killed, until he falls through the skylight and lands on Nash, which leads the warden and the guards to find out Ernest was right all along. Ernest tiredly declares, "I came, I saw, I got blowed up" and then passes out.
|
cult
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
"Ernest Goes To Jail" is probably the BEST "Ernest" film ever made out of all of the films.
Jim Varney once again gives us more laughs as he plays the idiotic Ernest P.
In the movie Ernest is assigned jury duty for a murder trial.
Nash (who wants out of prison badly) the man who is on trial looks exactly like Ernest, and switches places with Ernest to escape from prison.
Jim Varney once again does an excellent job as the bumbling fool Ernest P.
Worrell as well as escaped criminal look a like Nash.
I thought it was cool how Varney switched continuosly throughout the movie with the 2 characters.
With that said, "Ernest Goes to Jail" is hilarious.
And, we get to see him play bad-guy, Mr. Felix Nash-quite a difference from Ernest's goofball slap stick.
No one gets electrocuted like Varney, KnoWhutImean?" The beginning of the movie has Ernest trying to start the floor polisher only to have it take on a mind of its own by dragging Ernest all over the floor and up the wall.
Any other jail movie would be loaded with violence and bad language and the fact is, I wouldn't care to watch them.
This is probably the only jail movie that was free of vulgarity and was still a treat to watch.
Varney made his Ernest movies kid friendly-for all ages to enjoy.
When I first saw "Ernest Goes to Jail" at 14 when it first came out, I wanted a house like Ernest's, right down to that cool washer and dryer.
We all know that Jim paved the way for people like Jim Carrey and Larry the Cable Guy, but Varney kept it clean.
Of course, with any Ernest movie, it will receive the highest rating possible..
Ernest Goes To Jail is the 3rd installment in the popular series, and in my humble opinion, the best.
Jim Varney brings so much humor and character to the table in whatever he is in.
So many jokes in the Ernest movies I did not get as a child, however, after viewing them as adults, I find them even more funny.
Varney shines in this movie:doing all the different voices, faces, and characters we have grown to love.
Jim Varney does a complete 180 turn from his bumbling, idiotic Ernest P.
The look, the voice, and the attitude are very different from the other character, which is a what a good actor should do if playing 2 roles.
Also Chuck and Bobby provide great slapstick humor as always, and this film is a comedy classic that can be viewed by all ages.
Jim Varney left this old world way too fast, but he also left us comic treasures in film such as this movie..
This "Ernest film" is a typically silly, stupid-at-times one but still wholesome in its humor and sometimes very funny.The best moments in here, at least the ones that made me laugh hardest, were in the bank with Jim Varney ("Ernest") and a runaway vacuum cleaner.
Yes, there is a lot of juvenile humor in here, but the totally-innocent lightweight humor is fun.Varney also does some imitations in here, and he's quite good at it.
If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters.
"Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies.
This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched.
Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in "Ernest Goes to Jail", most of the gags relate to electricity.
The best of Jim Varney.
The best of Jim Varney.
The last good Ernest movie, and the best at that.
The last line is a classic, as is Ernest's gangster impressions, his best moment on film.
Bank janitor Ernest unwillingly switches place with lookalike convict Felix Nash.
Jim Varney plays both parts, of course.
Let's face it, Ernest movies are about as low-brow as it gets.
This one's no "Ernest Goes to Camp" but it's better than the rest of the dreadful Ernest movies from the '90s.
After a convoluted switch Ernest if behind bars while his evil counterpart Nash is working night security at the bank, planning to rob it and make moves on Ernest's girl.It's a familiar plot, and the production values are not that great (what's with all the pink lighting in jail?) but Jim Varney's mugging and the story's eccentric imagination make it a fun watch.
It's a tighter movie than Camp though, which I felt was a bit of a false start to his big screen adventures.It's hard to believe Varney was only 40 at the time of filming, and that he'd only live another 10 years.
As crass as the Ernest movies might be they are a constant reminder of an actor who's abilities were wide, but never got the recognition he deserved..
Best Ernest movie of the series but have more to watch yet.
Best Ernest movie of the series but have more to watch yet.
I have to be in a special mood to watch this, but it's one of those movies that I watch with my dad, and we end up holding our sides from laughter.'Ernest goes to jail' is the only one of the Ernests that I can watch on a tolerating level.
Somehow though Jim Varney and entertaining story lines makes this series continue to be successful and fun to watch.
This time Bank Janitor Ernest goes to jail, swapping places with a look a like bank robber on death row named Nash.
Great fun for the entire family - Jim Varney has the character of "Ernest" down!.
Sometimes goofy, slapstick movies like this can be great fun.
Jim Varney as Ernest is a hoot.
With the 'Ernest' film series, there are people who get much entertainment out of them and finds a lot of appeal in Ernest.
There are also people who dislike, or even outright hate, the films and find the character annoying.For me, while they are not great films, the 'Ernest' films are mostly silly harmless fun that don't try to be any more than they need to be.
'Ernest Goes to Jail' is the third of the series, after 'Goes to Camp' and 'Saves Christmas' (both uneven but fun too), and is one of the better ones too.'Ernest Goes to Jail' may not be great.
Lastly, the ending is overblown and insultingly dumb, Ernest films are not known for their logic but this ending throws it out the window and urinates on it.Varney however is immensely likable and a lot of fun as Ernest, while also excelling surprisingly well on villain duty and as Auntie Nelda.
The supporting cast are much better than the one in 'Ernest Goes to Camp' (though not on the same page as Douglas Seale in 'Saves Christmas'), with a scene stealing Gailard Sartain and Randall "Tex" Cobb charming in a good guy role.The music is an energetic nostalgic delight, and most of the gags and dialogue while admittedly silly are a range of making one amused to having one in hysterics, all done harmlessly and with no signs of distaste.
Despite being predictable, the story in 'Goes to Jail' feels like there actually is one at least and it goes at a zippy pace, the best paced of the series so far at this point.In summary, guilty pleasure fun.
While saying this is the best Ernest movie is NOT a glowing endorsement, this is a decent film and you could certainly do worse.
PS--if you tolerate or actually love this film, also try watching Ernest Saves Christmas.
You'll have seen all the Ernest movies worth watching..
If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one!
This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages.
The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).In this movie, Ernest P.
The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest.
Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.A great flick!
Though long believed to be Jim Varney's creation, the character Ernest is steeped in literary lore.
This is debatable, though, since there are three specific short stories by expatriate writers using the stock Earnst character: Fitzgerald's "Earnst Isn't Rich," Joyce's "Day in the Life of the Janitor," and Hemingway's "Dead Whore on a Mountain." All of these stories, and an accumulated history on this character that was passed by some of the great writers of the twentieth century, can be found in the forthcoming "The Importance of Being Earnst," edited by Joyce Carol Oates.It was this literary tradition that led director, former ad executive, and "co-creator" John Cherry to take the dare and approach one of the days finest writers, Philip Roth, to tackle a tale of Ernest.
The simean grafted the script onto the other Ernest movies, including a several references to the ever-present anti-holiday-consumerism themes of "Ernest Saves Christmas." Unfortunately the arragutang, Benny, died before he could finish, and his trainer Charlie Cohen ending up getting final credit.But the tale doesn't end there.
He also worked in thinly veiled criticisms of the Ernest movies in between "Goes to Jail" and "Pirate," including a line that went, "I've been scared stupid, I've rode again, I've slam dunked, I've even been in the army, but I've never been a pirate before.
"Ernest Goes to Jail" is one of the best films in the Ernest series, mainly because of the story and the actors.
Of course, Jim Varney as Ernest P.
Worrell, but Charles Napier as the Warden and Gailard Sartan as Ernest's neighbor Chuck (a security guard) all make for good laughs.The story goes that Ernest works for a bank, and he aspires to be a bank teller.
However, when on jury duty for a homicide, the defendant, Lyle, sees a resemblance to his prison buddy Felix Nash (played by Jim Varney).When the jury takes a trip to the prison, Nash and Ernest switch places and no one can tell the difference.
ernest goes to jail is the best of all the ernest movies.
this is the best ernest movie.
this is the best ernest movie.
they should've stopped after this one,because the ernest movies got too unfunny,and dumb.
i give ernest goes to jail *** out of ****.
Blowed Up. Visiting a "maximum security" prison during jury duty, hapless bank janitor Jim Varney (as Ernest P.
Worrell) is switched with a look-alike inmate named "Felix Nash" (also played by Mr. Varney).
Out of jail free, nasty Mr. Nash can't believe his good luck upon discovering he now works in a bank with kissable blonde Barbara Bush (as Charlotte Sparrow).
In this one, Ernest has haphazard magnetic powers, which come in handy during execution.**** Ernest Goes to Jail (4/6/90) John Cherry ~ Jim Varney, Barbara Bush, Gailard Sartain, Bill Byrge.
john cherry is a good director and a funny guy, even though his other earnests weren't so good.Humor 7/10Story 8.5/10Acting 6.5/10Overall 7.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 etc./10.
The Best Ernest film.
Yes, I had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to.
Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl.
So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying.
This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films.
Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one.
I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie..
Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work.
Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc.
All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie?
Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie.
In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well.
I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it.
Was it the fact that Jim Varney played two different people, or was it the fact that there was just something wrong with my sense of humor today.
However, Jim Varney gave one of his better performances by playing Nash, his criminal alter ego.
Jim Varney not only plays Ernest, but doubles as the evil Mr. Nash.
From start to finish this movie has some solid laughs and makes a good family film!
Another great Ernest film.
Jim Varney, Gailard Sartain, Barbara Tyson and Randall 'Tex' Cobb star in this 1990 comedy sequel.
the late, Varney returns as bumbling, nice guy, Ernest who works as a custodian at a Bank.
Soon, he's assigned jury duty and finds himself in jail when switched with a dangerous, look-alike criminal, Nash (Also played by Varney).
Ernest tries to act like Nash to avoid suspicion with help from felon, Lyle (Cobb) and eventually escapes after gaining an electromagnetic ability.
Tyson plays Charlotte, a bank secretary who likes Ernest and Sartain plays Ernest's pal, Chuck who works as the bank's security guard.
This is my favorite of the Ernest films and Varney was great in both roles.
All the staff at the bank think Mr. Nash is Ernest.
Ernest gets zapped at jail but he escapes and burns the whole jailhouse down.
2nd best of the ernest series, great as a b-movie.
**May contain Spoilers** Okay, I just finished watching Ernest goes to Jail.
The movie is not really funny, it's humorous.
Personally, I love Jim Varney, and I enjoy the Ernest character enough that i can sympathize out of a certain nostalgia.
Varney is surprisingly convincing as the "Nash" character of a mean-streaked jail bird.
4. Ernest shares the screen with his other self "Nash" and they ensue in an on screen fight, which is of course varney vs.
varney, sort of like ash vs.
6. Ernest gets electrocuted about 6 or 7 times 7.
And lastly, a bit of dark humor particularly in one scene in the last 20 mins of the movie where Ernest is taken to the electric chair to be executed.
Well here's why, Jim Varney died at the fairly young age of 50.
Okay, this is another Ernest movie and a lot of people just don't like them because they think they are dumb.
In this movie he actually gets to stretch himself by playing not only playing the insipid, bumbling character of Ernest but also the hard case gangster who he is the twin of.
Jim Varney made a career (until his untimely death) out of playing Ernest and he did it well, after all look at how many Ernest movies are out there..
Ernest Goes to Jail (1990): Dir: John R.
Cherry III / Cast: Jim Varney, Gailard Sartain, Barbara Bush, Randall "Tex" Cobb, Bill Byrge: Average comedy that treats its prison theme with contempt.
The next film should be called Ernest Goes to Therapy, which he should seek if he finds the slightest joy in jury duty.
Ernest is a janitor at a bank where a jury duty opportunity has him knocked unconscious and replaced by a criminal look-alike who happens to be on death row.
Jim Varney should be given credit for playing off two very different roles successfully.
Randall "Tex" Cobb plays a prison inmate who is to teach Ernest how to be his look-a-like while becoming fond of his good natured qualities.
My dad and I would always watch the "Ernest Movies" together.
I love all of the "Ernest Movies," but this one is my favorite.Spoiler part!
It's perfect for families (it isn't like a lot of the trash out there) but at the same time adults can laugh too!
|
tt1767272
|
388 Arletta Avenue
|
An unidentified stalker records video of married couple James and Amy Deakin as they hide their spare key outside their home. When the couple leaves to go jogging, he uses the key to enter their home and set up hidden security cameras in each room. He also makes subtle changes, such as setting their alarm to go off earlier and leaving a mix CD in their car. Amy protests when the alarm wakes her up early, and the two argue over who recorded the mix CD. When James finds the audio tracks on his computer, Amy considers the mystery solved, but James insists that he never downloaded them. As they argue, James dismisses Amy's PhD research on Afghan culture as a waste of time, and she refuses to speak to him. The next morning, as James leaves for work, he writes her a brief apology. The stalker enters the house, reads the note, and records video of Amy's reaction to noise that she hears in the house.
When James returns home, he finds a note ostensibly written in Amy's handwriting in which she says that she has left to clear her head. James attempts to contact Amy many times, but she does not answer her calls. Worried, he calls her friends, including Amy's sister Katherine, with whom he has an antagonistic relationship. James refuses to explain the situation to Katherine, and she becomes suspicious that something has happened between Amy and James. James eventually turns to his friend Alex, who suggests that their childhood acquaintance Bill may be involved. James contacts Bill, an Afghanistan veteran who now works nights at an animal shelter, and he apologizes for tormenting Bill mercilessly during their school years. Although Bill accepts both the apology and a gift, a collectable baseball, he says little except that the apology does not negate the bullying.
Later, James comes to believe that his cat has been replaced when he receives taunting e-mails and the cat exhibits uncharacteristic behavior. A police officer files a report but does not take James' claims seriously. When James finds the remains of his decapitated cat and video surveillance evidence that an intruder entered his home, he contacts the police again, but the police remain skeptical, as the cat's remains have gone missing. Convinced that the police will not act, James investigates the matter himself. James receives a brief video that shows Amy bound and gagged before it deletes itself. Frustrated, James demands the unseen antagonist reveal himself; immediately afterward, the collectable baseball is thrown through one of his windows, which initiates a violent confrontation between James and Bill. Hidden video surveillance later depicts James as he digs a shallow grave.
James becomes erratic and paranoid, and, with Alex's help, he illegally purchases a handgun. Katherine becomes increasingly suspicious of James and threatens to call the police, which James laughs off. James attempts to make contact with his unseen stalker, who intentionally reveals himself as being in the house. After a brief chase, James offers a deal: for Amy's safe return, James will stop investigating and not further contact the police. At work the next day, James receives video footage of Amy asleep in their bed. James leaves for his house at the same time that Alex, Katherine, and a policeman arrive. As Katherine discovers Amy's body hidden in the basement, James attempts to confront the stalker, only to realize that he has been framed for her murder. While still holding the pistol, James attempts to explain the situation, and the police officer shoots him dead. In his home, the still-unidentified stalker labels his surveillance tape as "388 Arletta Avenue" and sets it beside several other tapes. He then starts the cycle again with a new family.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0085271
|
Brainstorm
|
A team of scientists invent a brain/computer interface that allows sensations to be recorded from a person's brain and converted to tape so that others may experience them. The team includes estranged husband and wife Michael and Karen Brace, as well as Michael's colleague Lillian Reynolds. At CEO Alex Terson's instruction, the team demonstrates the device to investors in order to gain financing.
Karen dons the recorder while working with Michael and Lillian. When Michael plays the tape back, the group realizes that emotional experiences are also recorded. Michael tapes his memories of times with Karen, which he shares with her, and it leads to their reconciliation.
One team member, Gordy Forbes, has sexual intercourse while wearing the recorder, and he shares the tape with colleagues, including Hal Abramson. Hal splices one section of the tape into a continuous orgasm, which results in sensory overload, leading to his forced retirement. Tensions increase as the possibilities for abuse become clear.
Lillian is pressured by backers to admit in the team a former colleague, Landon Marks, whom she sees as part of the military-industrial complex. She disagrees with their plan to have the invention developed for military use. Already suffering from heart problems and a constant cigarette smoker, Lillian suffers a heart attack while working alone. Realizing that she is about to die, Lillian records her experience.
Following her funeral, Michael decides to experience Lillian's recording, but he nearly dies when the playback causes his body to simulate the sensations and effects of a heart attack. Michael modifies his console to filter the physical output, and he replays the tape. Viewing Lillian's death experience, he sees "memory bubbles" — moments from Lillian's life. Michael experiences Lillian's memories of a humorous exchange with Michael as he plays with an industrial robot, a surprise birthday party, and being devastated when Alex tells her that an earlier project has been cancelled.
A team of scientists wanting to discover the machine's military capabilities is monitoring the equipment as Michael plays Lillian's final tape. They have Gordy also experience the tape, but they neglect to modify the machine as Michael did; Gordy is killed when he experiences the unfiltered tape.
Michael's playback is cut short by Hal, but having witnessed a digital near-death experience makes Michael curious to see the entire tape. Alex has the recording locked away and tells Michael he will not be allowed to view it. When he returns to work, Michael walks in on Landon Marks and a team of outsider technicians going through his research records and protests to Alex who responds by firing Michael and Karen.
Michael attempts to hack into the lab's computers. Hal advises him to look under "Project Brainstorm", a program the military has created to re-develop their invention for torture and brainwashing. Michael and Karen's son Chris, wanting to experience the special device, is inadvertently exposed to one such tape, causing him to have a psychotic experience which results in his hospitalization.
Rather than see his creation perverted, Michael vows to destroy his work and enlists the help of Karen and Hal. Michael and Karen head to the Pinehurst Resort and, realizing they are under surveillance, stage a fight that results in Karen leaving for Hal's house. As the two feign reconciliation over the phone, Michael accesses the Brainstorm computer via another phone line, while Karen hacks into the system and sabotages the robots that manufacture the interface terminals.
Karen shuts down the security system, locking the staff outside and enabling Michael to load Lillian's tape and experience it uninterrupted. With the plant in chaos, Robert Jenkins orders Michael's arrest. Michael escapes their agents and drives to a phone booth at the Wright Brothers National Memorial. He reconnects with the computers and accesses the final part of the tape, beyond the point of Lillian's physical death.
Karen leaves the house to meet with Michael. Hal and his wife, Wendy, send the last of Karen's commands to the company computers, shutting down the plant.
Karen arrives at the Wright Brothers Memorial while the tape is playing. Michael bears witness to the afterlife, experiencing a brief vision of hell before traveling away from Earth and through the universe, even after the tape ends. He ultimately has visions of angels and departed souls flying into a great cosmic Light, which seems to be heaven. Michael then collapses. Karen sobs, believing him dead. She pleads for Michael to stay alive. Awakening from the experience, he weeps with joy and embraces Karen.
|
cult, psychological, flashback
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0299966
|
Slaughter Studios
|
The film begins with an egotistical film student named Steve (Stanovich) recounting to his girlfriend Madigan (Shelton-White) the history of Slaughter Studios. As a child he adored the horror movies that were produced there, but the studio closed down twenty years ago after an actor named Justin Kirkpatric was accidentally killed during a film shoot.
The next day Steve tells Madigan and some of his fellow students that he wants to use the abandoned studio to film one last horror movie. The catch is that the studio is being torn down the next day, meaning that they only have 9 hours to shoot the entire feature-length picture, whose script is titled Naughty Sex Kittens vs. the Giant Praying Mantis. One of Steve's friends, Trish (Frajko), says that some of the girls in her acting class would probably love to do it. Steve selects a young actor named Kevin (Read) to play the monster, and Madigan will be the production assistant, though she would much prefer to act in the movie, though Steve refuses to give her a part.
Later that night Steve and Madigan arrive at the studio, and they are introduced to the cast...snotty Portia (Killian), dim-witted Rebecca (Otis), floozy Darlene (Ellison), airhead Candace (McComas), and Chad (Keefe), who is playing the leading role. Also helping out is Olie (Chulani), who is there to work as the sound department. Steve explains to them that they have to be careful because every hour the security guard will do his rounds. They break into the studio (accidentally disturbing a homeless man in the process) and begin to set up for the shoot. It turns out that Chad is a truly lousy actor, so Steve sends him off to a secluded room to practice his lines so he will not disturb anyone. While going over his lines by himself a shadowy figure sneaks up behind him and kills him with a pick ax.
Believing that Chad decided to leave, Steve casts Olie as the leading man. Steve also improvises a lesbian sex scene to be included in the film, and gets Darlene and Rebecca to agree to it. The two become so excited during the scene that they end up actually having sex. Following this the two women go off to shower to clean themselves up; while finding their way back to the set they are murdered.
Steve is becoming increasingly agitated due to the disappearances and high levels of his stress medications. Madigan is finally able to secure a part in the movie because of the shortage of actors, and she and Kevin become attracted to one another. During this time Candace wanders off by herself to look for the ghost of Justin Kirkpatric (she is obsessed with him) and is killed. While getting ready for her next scene, Trish is strangled to death by the unknown assailant, but unbeknownst to the murderer, her death is recorded by a hidden video camera.
Madigan finds the hidden camera and confronts Steve with it, thinking that he had hidden it in the women's dressing room on purpose. It turns out the camera belongs to Olie, who was hoping to sell the footage to an online porn site for some extra money. Olie decides to leave the studio for fear of facing Madigan's wrath, but on his way out he runs into the security guard, who chases him back into the studio.
Steve has Gary (Roseman), the cameraman, hook up Olie's camera to a television to see if they can use any of its footage, whereupon they stumble across Trish's recorded death. Madigan realizes that there is someone hiding in the studio with them, and that this person has probably butchered everyone who has disappeared. Gary, Kevin, and Madigan all think it is best to leave, but Steve, who by now is half crazed with drugs and fear, is only concerned about completing his film. Meanwhile, Olie has discovered the bodies of Rebecca and Darlene and is being chased by the killer, who dispatches him with a spike through the head.
Portia, who is unaware of the evening's events because she was passed out after taking too much of Steve's stress medication, comes to and is angered when Kevin refuses to sleep with her. She storms off by herself.
Gary, meanwhile, has become separated from the others and is decapitated. Likewise, a delirious Steve has stumbled back to the sound stage and is crushed to death when the killer drops a piece of heavy equipment on him. Kevin and Madigan come across the security guard, who proceeds to chase them throughout the studio. Believing him to be the killer, they escape via car, but the guard gives chase. The two eventually overpower him, and it is discovered that he is not the murderer. In fact, he is the actor who inadvertently killed Justin Kirkpatric twenty years earlier. The three realize that the killer is still inside the studio...and so is Portia.
Back at the set Portia is trying to find the others when the killer impales her. It is then that the murderer is finally revealed to be the homeless man that the students scared off earlier in the evening. He says, "It ain't right to fuck with a man's house." Beside him sits the ghost of Justin Kirkpatric, who shares his sentiment.
=== Unused ending ===
Director Katkin and composer Christopher Farrell state on the DVD commentary that the ending as originally written revealed the night's events were actually part of a film that was being shot at the studio, therefore the whole movie was a film within a film (within a film), and none of the preceding events were real. The film originally ended with a director yelling Cut! and the crew applauding. Katkin filmed this ending but didn't like it and edited it out.
Director Brian Katkin spoke highly of the writers and gave them respectful mention to their work while being interviewed by Fangora Magazine, but sadly, Fangora's editing department had to shorten the interview for print and edited out various parts of the interview including Katkin's 'nod' to the writers.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
While maybe the movie does earn those adjectives, it is not because of the stupidity of it's creators, on the contrary; the cast & crew made it stupid on purpose.
It's a spoof on everything cheesy about horror films.Director Brian Katkin and writers Dan Acre & John Huckert crafted a very funny comedy that parodies the cheesy 80's B-slashers while paying homage to the cheesy 50's sci-fi horrors.
The beginning sequence sets the tone of the story: Young filmmaker Steve discovers that Slaughter Studios, the place where his favorite B-Movies were filmed, is going to be demolished; so he gets a crew and decides to make a cheap horror film like those he loves in the night before the demolition.
Strange things begin to happen and they wonder if the place was cursed after the event that led to it's closure 20 years before: the death of a young star while shooting a scene.Sure, the movie is predictable, but that's the idea.
It follows every rule established by 80's slashers like "Slumber Party Massacre"(1983) or "Sorority House Massacre"(1987): silly jokes, lots of gore, and lots of nudity.
Everything that made those 80's slashers both enjoyable & silly at the same time.The initial sequence and the scene when Steve tells the story of the 70's murder at the Slaughter Studios is very original.
It's the crew's very personal homage to producer Roger Corman(the 70's director is named "Roman") and the names of Steve's favorite films are parodies of those of the likes of Corman's classics like "Attack of the Crab Monsters"(1957), "The Wasp Woman"(1960) or "Humanoids from the Deep"(1980).Also, the character of Steve has that Ed Wood spirit, the director that is so convinced that his movie is good that can't see the HUGE flaws in it.
I'm sure that many aspiring filmmakers will find themselves identified with him.The acting for the most part is OK, they play the slasher stereotypes to the letter.
Lorissa McComas is particularly funny in it's take on the actress obsessed with the 70's murdered star; and Amy Shelton-White steals the show, she could be more than a b-movie queen.Something worth the mention is the very good lighting and camera-work showed in the film.
While the SFX are very very poor, the direction makes good use of them and makes them work in the context of the movie.
Although there were scenes that look as if they had been shot with a DV while in post-production, most of the film is very well done.Overall it is a funny spoof on everything that made lovable those cheesy 80's B-movies.
If "Slaughter Studios" has anything going for it, it is that it is much more bloody than the contemporary teen slasher flicks that we have seen lately.
Overall, I did enjoy the film.
Where the movie lost points is in the incredibly dull and dragging middle.
Yes, the movie also looses points because nobody in can act worth a crap.
Yes, we know you are in a no-name, low budget, direct-to-video horror flick, but at least TRY to act excited.
The plot centers around a group of young filmmakers who go to the legendary but now abandoned Slaughter Studios, where years before a popular actor was killed in a freak accident (or was it?) to finish the film that never was finished.
Of course, a killer shows up and starts mutilating the cast in very bloody ways.
Most of this comes at the end-the middle of the film is basically nothing but these actors trying to make the movie.
The end comes from left field too and I really, really enjoyed the simpleness and cleverness of it, though nobody will ever figure out who the killer is until he is revealed.
Slaughter Studios was left abandoned after an actor dies on the set of a movie decades back.
In the present day, Steve, an aspiring director plans to break into the Studios before it gets demolished.
I just can't help to feel that it would have been better if it were played straighter with less insanely stupid comedy.
As it is, I've seen much worse horror/ comedies then this, trust me.
Some of those said worse movies are used as stock footage in this one, by the way.My Grade: C- DVD Extras: Commentary by Brian Katkin and Christopher Farrell; Original Trailer; Trailers for "Stalled", "Shakedown" and "Lethal Force" Eye Candy: Serra Ellison, Eva Frajko, Lorissa McComas, and Laura Otis get topless; Tara Killian does full body nudity.
Best horror flick I have seen in ages!
There are a few things I look for in campy B-movie flicks: Hot, erotic chicks, violence and gore, and filthy humor.
This film went above and beyond my requisites for a horror movie!
Maybe some people rented it with the expectations of seeing horror similar to The Exorcist?
Anyway, campy B-movie lovers, rent it!
Could have been better as a pure horror film without the comedy.
I can't wait for LalaLand to finally give up on stupid political correctness and make horror movies that don't have to "justify" nudity and gore by appealing to comedy.
The story of this film is good overall.
There are, however, too many annoying characters: the film's director, the Indian guy, the snobby actress.
This is not a horror movie.
Its one of the funniest movies I have ever watched.
The chicks are very good looking, but most of them are washed up porn actresses.
Scary and Funny 'B' movie send up.
Finally, someone has made a send-up of 'b' horror movies that is both hysterically funny and scary at the same time.
The premise is simple: A group of young film makers (think hot, scantilly clad babes) break into a dilapidated movie studio hours from the wrecking ball (the studio was closed years before after the tragic accidental death of a teen idol)to make the last movie ever there.
Through the course of the night, the actors and crew are picked off one by one by a killer.
The fact that this was THE last film ever shot at Roger Corman's famous Venice studio is not lost, in fact the flim makers play up Corman's history with aplomb.
Director Brian Katkin stylishly designs scenes to play off the no-budget elements and raises the bar.
Again, playing off 'b' movie stereotypes, the audience is treated to an enjoyable romp.
The ensemble cast of mostly unknowns create funny, memorable characters that the audience genuinely cares about and their untimely deaths are certainly felt.
Although not quite a horror film and not quite a comedy, it melds the two genres and makes a rather decent film.
Think of Slaughter Studios as kind of a combination of Cover Me Babe starring Robert Forster and Susanne Benton with the off-the-wall zaniness of Re-Animator.This film centers on a group of aspiring filmmakers/actors who sneak into the abandoned Slaughter Studios to film their version of some hokey 1950s monster movie.
Steve (Peter Stanovich) is the dictatorial director who bosses around his girlfriend Madigan (Amy Shelton-White), belittles his clueless actresses and like so many film-school losers, is convinced of his own brilliance.
But everything that can go wrong does for the arrogant twerp, including a deranged murderer picking off his crew one by one.STORY: $$$ (Nothing splendid here but genre fans will like the references to B-Grade filmmaking throughout the picture.
We get lines like "I bet Eric Roberts didn't have to go through this," to a scene from one of the Sorority/Slumber Party Massacre flicks.
The screenplay adds plenty of laughs and guffaws while also giving us that favorite Agatha Christie motif: people trapped at a location with a killer in their midst).ACTING: $$$$ (A heckuva lot better than you'll see in most B-Grade movies.
You won't find any of those "actors" that Troma Studios or Fullmoon pictures employs, but a young, able cast that gives it their all.
Peter Stanovich is effectively arrogant as Steve and Amy Shelton-White is easy to root for as his ever put-upon girlfriend.
She is splendid in the role of the demanding blond actress, calling "cut!" when things don't go her way).NUDITY: $$$$$ (There is plenty of it here.
Almost every female cast member doffs her top in this film with the exception of Shelton-White.
Poking fun at the Sorority House Massacre genre, all the nudity is gratuitous which makes the skin come off more lampoonish in nature rather than sleazy)..
Surprisingly Enjoyable Slasher Flick.
A new generation of filmmakers has snuck into the abandoned Slaughter Studios to make one last film.
and, you know, that's bad.Okay, so I had this DVD sitting on my "to watch" pile for a while, and I thought it would be a pile of trash, coming from New Concorde (who the heck are New Concorde?) and with a cover that seems like a ripoff of "Hell Night".
But, surprise, I actually really loved it and my girlfriend laughed hard.The plot, that this is going to be the last film shot at Slaughter Studios, is sort of true...
it was indeed the last film shot at Roger Corman's studio before it was torn down.
And it started off as a remake off "Slumber Party Massacre" before a script change, which I think saved it...Additionally, the DVD has a director's commentary (I haven't listened yet) and some trailers...
including a trailer for "Lethal Force" that is pretty funny.But not as funny as the film's ending (you really have to wait for it)..
You only care as to who gets naked, so here's the long and short of it: o Goth / Raver Chick: Yes!
Including a shower scene with another chick.o Bitchy Blonde Girl: Yes, however, the least number of times and the least quality of times when it does happen.
Spends most of the movie naked.
It doesn't seem like it at first, but trust ole Zeke on this one.o Flat Blonde With Nice Legs: Yeah, you'll get plenty of her in this.o Director's Girlfriend: No, sadly!
You warm up to her by the end of it, plus she ends up making some quality decisions as to who to really hang around which only increase her worth in this thing.I give this movie a 7 as the girls are nice and spend a lot of time naked, especially for a flick made in 2002.
I'm Surprised I Finished the Movie!.
I am sorry but this movie was so horrible.
First of all, if you want to make a good horror movie, cut down on some of the nudity and sex.
There are some B-Movies that are fun to watch but don't even think about this being one.
The music was so bad it didn't even set the mood for a good horror movie.
If you ask me, I could make a better movie than this..
spoofing horror films is something people think is easy.
throwing a bunch of naked chicks in the flick only makes me think of some porn i'd rather be watching.this is a bad movie that isn't scary.
ok me and my friend rented some movies that looked really stupid just for fun!!
gosh i swear im gonna have bad dreams about how stupid this movie was!
it was like the people who made this movie was trying to make it bad!!
i consider it more of a porno or something than a horror film!!!
I'll give it that it had good quality to it for being such a retarted movie and the ending was kinda a twist but over all it sucked big time!
pllzz go rent this and see how stupid it is ive seen better infomercials that are better than this movie!!!.
Missed attempt to be horror movie.
Slaughter Studios pictured itself a horror movie--it also tried to be campy and funny--unfortunately it missed on all counts.
Slaughter Studios starts as an actor named Justin is shot & killed on the set of his latest film, was it an accident or something more sinister?
Either way Slaughter Studios has remained unused & empty ever since...
Jump forward 20 years & aspiring low budget horror filmmaker Steve (Peter Stanovich) is going to break into Slaughter Studios & use the unused but still intact stages for his latest project.
To help him he has assembled a crew of friends, production assistant Madigan (Amy Shelton-White), Gary (Matthew J.Roseman) the cameraman, Ollie (Anand Chulani) the sound-man, & his cast of actors, Kevin (Nicolas Reed), Chad (Darren Reiher), goth babe Trisha (Eva Frajko), Rebecca (Laura Oatis), Darlene (Serra Ellison), Candace (Lorissa McComas) & Portia (Tara Killian).
Together they break into the abandoned Slaugher Studios & get to work, however it appears that they are not alone as a killer stalks the corridors of the once busy studio...Edited & directed by Brian Katkin I really liked Slaughter Studios.
On paper the script by Dan Acre & John Huckert looks pretty lousy, a horror comedy about a bunch of annoying teenagers being killed by a mysterious killer but in fact Slaughter Studios turned out to be a really likable & decent film.
I hated Ollie but I found the rest of the character's very likable & were quite funny with some nice witty dialogue.
The whole film-within-a-film, Blair Witch Project (1999) anyone?, has been done before but Slaughter Studios incorporates it really well & the whole self referential jokes & mickey taking is done with a certain affection for the genre.
There are a few good laughs here including a pretty funny farting in a tent gag!
I really liked the ending as well, I definitely wasn't expecting it & was both a clever & satisfying way to round the film off.
Slaughter Studios never takes itself seriously, it moves along at a fair pace & is never boring or dull & makes for good entertainment.
Don't get me wrong as it's far from a masterpiece but believe me you could do a hell of a lot worse than Slaughter Studios when you compare it to the straight-to-video crap that litter video shop shelves these days.Director Katkin does an impressive job, the lighting is excellent with bright neon greens, blues & reds along side the dark shadowy corners.
The film looks great throughout & only the cheap looking digital video used to shoot it on gives it's low budget away.
There is plenty of nudity, some lesbianism including a funny exchange of dialogue with the director convincing Portia that going nude & participating in acts if lesbianism would make her a better actress!
The gore isn't so plentiful, a pick-axe in someones stomach, someones throat is cut with some film & someone has a pitchfork stuck through them & there's a decapitated head.With a supposed budget of about $50,000 the filmmakers have worked absolute miracles.
Slaughter Studios went straight-to-video but looks really good from start to finish & they obviously made that $50,000 go a long way.
Frajko as the goth bird Trisha is a bit of a babe & really easy on the eyes.Slaughter Studios surprised me, a lot.
I thought it was a highly entertaining & funny spoof comedy horror slasher.
But once in a while you are rewarded with a bit of an unexpected gem & Slaughter Studios was just such an occasion for me, definitely worth a watch..
It's yet another slasher movie which takes the goofy comedy approach.
The characters act stupid which is all well and good but the comedy was very flat.
It's very bad when a comedies funniest thing is a girl farting!
Slaughter Studios wins 0 points on the comedy scale.
Has a few really nice girls in their underwear and the oldest psycho maniac slasher in history (the guy must have been near 70).
Also the very end is very stupid but this is them trying to be funny again.
Steve Berg, (Peter Stanovich), wants to make his magnum opus, "Naked Sex Kittens meet the Giant Praying Mantis" or something like that.
The only place to film it is at the hallowed grounds of Slaughter Studios.
So much low budget horror was churned out there that Berg's masterpiece has to be a part of that tradition.
That's a wrap.It's very important that you approach this movie as a comedy and not as a horror flick.
If you come in thinking you're going to be scared, you'll be crying.
Weak horror film.However, the first hour or so is a fairly funny comedy about low budget filmmaking.
The shower scene was the sweet cherry on top.Unfortunately, the movie decides to try to be some sort of slasher/action flick in its last twenty minutes.
Get the girls...and some actresses too if you want." Funny stuff..
Slaughter Studios has a legendary reputation as the place where a slew of classic low-budget horror movies were made.
Long since abandoned and now in ruins, a group of aspiring filmmakers led by overzealous writer/director Steve (robustly played with lip-smacking hammy gusto by Peter Stanovich) decide to break into Slaughter Studios to make one last B-grade creature feature on the premises before it meets the wrecking ball.
However, Slaughter Studios proves to be the stalking grounds for a vicious psycho.Director Brian Katkin, working from a witty script by Dan Acre and John Huckert, keeps the entertaining story moving along at a constant snappy pace, pokes infectiously affectionate fun at cheesy dimestore schlock cinema, makes fine use of the cobweb-strewn rundown studio location, stages the murder set pieces with considerable style and flair, and delivers oodles of tasty gratuitous female nudity along with a handy helping of juicy gore.
Moreover, it's acted with tremendous enthusiasm by an eager cast, with especially lively and amusing contributions from Amy Shelton-White as harried production assistant Madigan, Tara Killian as stuck-up bitch Portia, Eva Frajko as foxy make-up girl Trisha, Anand Chulani as the hopelessly geeky Ollie, Matthew Roseman as earnest cinematographer Gary, Darren Keefe as idiotic and untalented wannabe actor Chad Daniels, Laura Otis as the klutzy Rebecca, and Lorissa McComas as the ditsy Candace.
|
tt0112637
|
Carrington
|
The film, starring Emma Thompson in the title role, focuses on her unusual relationship with the author Lytton Strachey, played by Jonathan Pryce, as well as with other members of the Bloomsbury Group.
The film is divided into 6 chapters.
Lytton & Carrington 1915: During the Great War, Lytton Strachey is travelling to the country and staying at Vanessa Bell's house. There he meets Carrington for the first time but confuses her with a boy and does not hide his disappointment. Lytton is due to face a hearing with the military due to his open opposition to the war. While taking a hike through the countryside, he tries to kiss Carrington but she refuses him. Early in the morning, she walks into his bedroom with the intent of cutting his beard off, but stops at the last minute in contemplation of him sleeping and falls in love with him.
Gertler 1916–1918: Mark Gertler tries to have sex with Carrington, but she refuses, since she thinks that he is only interested in her sexually. Gertler turns to Lytton for aid in wooing her, while trying to help him she falls more deeply in love with him and although he does not fully requite her, he does have feelings for her. While on a trip to Wales he proposes that they live together, acting on this, Carrington searches for a house and finds and refurbishes Mill House in Tidmarsh. When Gertler finds out that Carrington and Lytton are moving in together he attacks the couple.
Partridge 1918–1921: Carrington later meets and falls in love with Ralph Partridge, who has come back from the war. On their first dinner together, Ralph expresses his rather one-sided points of view which are contrary to Lytton's, nevertheless the rugged man appeals to him. Lytton goes on vacation to Italy, Ralph has made very clear his intent of marrying Carrington or leaving altogether to Bolivia to run a sheep farm. Knowing that if Ralph is no longer with him, Lytton will move out of Mill House, she marries Ralph and on their honeymoon they meet with Lytton in Venice. Ralph introduces his friend Gerald Brenan to Lytton and Carrington. Brenan is planning to leave for Spain in order to improve his education and takes a liking to Carrington, which is mutual. Lytton is successful in the publication of Eminent Victorians and manages to become a man of means. The war ends.
Brenan 1921–1923: Although he tries to be loyal to his friend Ralph, Gerald and Carrington carry on an affair and have to skulk about to avoid being caught. Gerald leaves for Spain insisting that Carrington run off with him. She refuses but they continue the relationship until they get caught by Ralph, Lytton manages to avoid the break-up and secretly aids the couple to continue their affair until it ends by itself.
Ham Spray House 1924–1931: Lytton buys Ham Spray and Carrington, he and Ralph move in. Ralph now is in a relationship with Frances Marshall and Lytton is in a relationship with Roger, a younger man from Oxford, while Carrington is carrying on an affair with Beacus, a strapping seaman who has little to say and keeps trying to change Carrington to fit his fantasies but later admits that he is not attracted to her sexually. Carrington becomes pregnant by Beacus but has an abortion. Lytton takes an apartment in London where he intends to live with Roger, but it becomes clear that the relationship shall not be long-lived.
Lytton 1931–1932: Roger and Lytton break up. During a tea party Lytton suddenly becomes ill; Carrington initially is optimistic but afterwards it becomes evident that he will not recover. Carrington tries to commit suicide by locking herself in the garage with the car motor running but is rescued by Ralph. When Lytton finally dies, surrounded by Ralph, Carrington and Gerald, he states "If this is dying, I do not think very much of it." Carrington is utterly depressed but manages to keep her spirits up and convinces Ralph that she needs to be alone, once they have left, she burns all of Lytton's personal possessions and takes a gun and finally manages to kill herself.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
This tells an emotionally complete tale of Dora Carrington and her love for Lytton.
Each character is so well drawn and acted (Special credit must go to Emma Thompson and Jonathon Pryce, although the rest of the cast is also good) that you know how they are feeling even when it is not directly said or implemented.
"How do you spell intangible'?" Dora Carrington asks of Lytton Strachey midway through this film as she sits writing at her desk.
Carrington tells the story of people who tried, in their own way, and at a time when society did not encourage such experiments, to acknowledge openly what most of us are aware of but still reluctant to discuss: that a great many differences exist between love and desire.Carrington is one of the great epic romances, but a romance where sexual congress between the two who are passionately in love with each other has nothing whatever to do with the deep wells of feeling they share with each ther.
Like The Unbearable Lightness Of Being and Out of Africa, Carrington is a film that dares to examine the difference between desire and love, and looks at an adult subject in an adult way.
As opposed to Hollywood's usual matter-of-fact insistence that love is a game with a win/lose dialectic simplistically painted in broad stokes, Carrington traces, rather, the fact that love is indeed a mystery which must be acknowledged and honored for the way that it can bring out the best in both people rather than a way of keeping emotional score.Emma Thompson is able to bring out the awkward, self-effacing aspects of Dora Carrington all the way down to the pigeon-toed stance the way the real life Carrington apparently stood.
With all the impatience of a little girl who wishes that one day she'll wake up and finally find herself to be a sophisticated woman, she worships Lytton for his "cold and wise" attitude, his ability to see straight through the conventions of the time, and adopts him as her emotional mentor.She's an artist whom everyone in the Bloomsbury set knew, even though she never really considered herself a part of the circle, unlike Lytton, whom everyone swarmed around for his scorched earth policy of anti-Victorian insights and rapier wit.
Carrington, it would appear, spent her whole life trying to figure herself out, like any true artist, and Thompson very ably transmits that lost quality throughout the film: even as she gains her confidence socially, sexually and artistically, the motivations of her heart she would never let be pressured, no matter how much physical affection and attention she needed.
Which I think is an important distinction to make.A virgin many years past the point of reason, it is as if Carrington bought in to the sexual revolution of the flapper era between the world wars and the way it tried to repeal the oppressiveness of Victorian morals, learning how to cultivate and appreciate the sensual needs of the body, but deep down realized that a healthy, vigorous sex life with a plethora of partners does not necessarily mean more love, but simply more sex.
As Carrington points out in the film, with Lytton she was able to be herself in all her confusion and joy, and without the obligatory pressures of regular sexual performance was able to find in Lytton the only person she ever really felt emotionally comfortable with.
Echoing that great line of TS Eliot's in Four Quartets, of a "love beyond desire."Jonathan Pryce, as Lytton Strachey, has the honor of portraying one of the best screen roles of all-time.
Because Carrington is intelligently written, directed, and acted, however, we do not see the behavior of each of them as simply willful and spoiled, but as part of the contradictions they need to stay individuals in a culture, and at a time, where the conventional notions of love and sex were strictly regimented.Jonathan Pryce plays Lytton with a sort of detachment that is supposed to come from the character's distaste for commitment.What's most surprising about this epic romance is that given the amount of territory it traverses (seventeen years) at an almost leisurely pace, it clocks in at only a hair over two hours, but when those two hours are over, you certainly feel as if you've been somewhere, seen something, been privy to so many more truths and realizations than you'll see in any other standard film about a romance.
Emma Thompson portrays Dora with great sensitivity, depicting her other loves and lovers as genuine yet never enough to supplant her love of Lytton.
(That advice could have been useful to a few of the previous reviewers, in fact.) For those who don't have to be hit over the head, though, this film is a riveting masterpiece about the varied forms human love can assume--and a reminder that subcultures, like the Bloomsbury Group, have always given social norms a wide berth.
Emma Thompson in a period piece--I would bet that's a pretty good movie, and 'Carrington' did not disappoint me.
It concerns the unusual relationship of writer Lytton Strachey (Jonathan Pryce) and painter Dora Carrington (Thompson) in their insular world of upper-class friends and other artists in England between the Great Wars.
I caught it on cable which allowed me to sip on a brandy while the film took its time unfolding in a style that I would describe as a splendidly animated coffee table book.I am moved to comment on Carrington to express my gratitude to its makers..
"Carrington" has Christopher Hampton's great stamp on it and the fine performances of Emma Thompson (as the lead, artist Dora Carrington), and Jonathan Pryce (hilarious as Lytton Strachey).
Also in the cast are Sam West, Jeremy Northam, Steven Waddington and Rufus Sewell, all entangled in some way with Carrington and all the time the love of her life is the one man she can't fully have.Her story is a tragic one and extremely moving, with a lot of twists and turns along the way.
This is how Carrington would see the narrative, and it is a rather clever approach to centering it in her eye, if you can center down and read the pictures.You also see her bias in many of the decisions related to the mechanics of the plot: her appearance changes little in 17 years; her affairs are always seen, but those of Lytton are not; and we are denied fascinating details (her father's death, the famous gatherings of the intelligently eccentric Bloomsbury Group) that she would have considered unimportant.As the presentation is visual, Emma Thompson must dramatize physically, and so she does.
If you don't have any sort of idea who Dora Carrington and Lytton Strachey are, or the avant-garde world in which they moved, then the movie will seem very obscure and disjointed.Regarding the movie, it is odd and melancholic, but richly intelligent and rewarding, particularly with repeated viewings.The cinematography is attractive without being showy.
Michael Nyman's score is haunting and uniquely beautiful.And the casting is perfect, particularly Jonathan Pryce as the ironic Bloomsbury butterfly Strachey, and Emma Thompson as the strangely alluring Carrington, who's heart beats fiercely with love for him, despite the fact that neither of them will ever be able to do anything about it.My personal favorite scene is when they are sitting under the tree, and Carrington tells Lytton how she feels, and he understands.They are both so peaceful and content..
What if everyone followed their heart, and nothing but?Carrington is a buried treasure that depicts the relationship between painter Dora Carrington and author Lytton Strachey in WWI England, a beautiful existence of cottages and countryside.
By the end of the film, one realizes that the true heartbreak is caused by how much they wound up guarding their feelings in spite of following them, and in spite of the nature of their incompatible sexualities.You could never find a better fit to play Dora Carrington.
Thompson understands that that is why Carrington refuses her body to her lover early in the film.
Her impatience for complicated situations causes her to ride roughshod over the feelings of those to whom she finds herself to be closest, and when she finds that in her penchant for the immediate, she learns the harsh truth that she has not been embracing her greatest moments.Her primordial flaws come at the expense of Strachey, played by Jonathan Pryce, who seems to love the breezy theatricality of the role, a clear eccentric from his first moment, who gives the impression of being completely aloof and prissily high-maintenance.
Had the film gone without Nyman's music, it might not have had the moving power behind its unaffectedly real and wise, not to mention true, story, and we might not have loved its two central characters.
Nora Carrington, a painter, loved Lytton Stachey, the famous essayist, with complete devotion.
The first person, outside of Lytton, that Carrington falls for is a man who is only interested in a physical relationship.
If you watch this film closely, you will notice that there is only one point in the movie where Carrington goes outside the circle.
If one approaches this movie from the position of a homophobe or from one who has intolerance of different ways that people choose to conduct their emotional lives, then it will not appeal.The film has faults - it is sometimes too episodic and the motivations of some characters are unclear.
However, it is a different look at the love between a man and a woman - a love that was denied sexual expression.Rather than objecting to the "promiscuity" of the main characters, I was touched by the emotional honesty that existed between them - whether they were having sex or not.The artistic era in England, after the First World War, was a fascinating time.
We might have something to learn about emotional honesty from those in this story.Dora Carrington was a very interesting woman and and Emma Thompson portrayed her unending love for the gay Strachey in the best work I have seen from her.So, do give this film a chance, and try to approach it with that elusive (for some) open mind..
This movie is a wonderful story about an "impossible love affair" between a British Bloomsbury writer and Dora Carrington, a promising painter.
Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce (Best Actor Award, Cannes) are here at their highest performances.
(we all sucked in our breath at the same moment at the end.) it's a film that, if you let it -- and it doesn't hurt to know a bit about lytton and carrington beforehand -- will take you somewhere magical.
Espesially the great acting...Pryce and Thompson are outstanding...and the tragic true story.made me realise that people really take their lives for love .
The devotion of Ms. Thompson's character for Carrington is quite touching despite the fact that the relationship isn't all she can hope for.
The acting in this movie is remarkable and Emma Thompson gives an amazing and believable performance as Dora Carrington.
Jonathan Pryce, whom I had never heard of before this movie, is wonderful as well as the gay Lynton Stratchy.The plot of the film is quirky and orignal, and the cast of supporting actors is good too.
I thought it was a beautiful and sad story -- and a true one -- about two artists who spent many years living together, and loving one another, despite his attraction only to men.
Emma Thompson's performance in this film about Dora Carrington, a talented painter during the early 1900's, was absolutely incredible.
She only cared about Lytton, her homosexual friend and the subject of her real, passionate love.This film is fantastically acted and is absolutely enthralling.
The characters have great depth and come together to create an intellectually, as well as emotionally, stimulating film.I found the acting to be superb and, despite the distinct lack of action for much of the film, I never felt bored or like the movie was moving too slowly.The movie is perpetually visually stimulating without the kind of technological flare that most mainstream movies contain, nowadays.
Carrington loved the homosexual not for his physical appearance but for his soul, his outlook on life, his comfort.
With talented actors forming the cast, having an interest in fact-based dramas and with a remarkable story of a very interesting platonic romance between Dora Carrington and Lytton Strachey, 'Carrington' had a lot going for it.
Lytton is a gay writer who's type is specifically young men, Dora has had many lovers, but they only love her body and not her personality.
Biopic of Edwardian painter Carrington and her platonic relationship with author Lytton Strachey.
Emma Thompson, as Dora Carrington, is quite good in this.
Sexually they had very progressive attitudes, and generalizing to perhaps a dangerous extent, they viewed personal commitments which had to be preserved as all important, but believed these commitments were made between the individuals concerned and were no business of either the Church or the State.Featured in this film are Emily Carrington and Lytton Strachey.
Both are played (by Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce) with remarkable depth and sincerity.These brief comments may help anyone who has read little of the characters involved to understand why the film is of real interest to so many older viewers; they can do nothing to convey the charm and yet knife sharp precision it shows in displaying the activities of its principal protagonists.
Today I suspect that some will find it boring, but I believe they will be far fewer than might be expected from the subject matter - this is a prime example of one of the very few outstanding film biographies where a viewer almost feels he or she has got to know the actual characters being portrayed...
I never heard of Dora Carrington (Emma Thompson, here) either, the painter around whom this particular story revolves.It's an elegant soap opera.
She was far from that as just two pages reveals in Leon Edel's book, "Bloomsbury A House of Lions" where he analyzes the Carrington/Strachey relationship using the same material that was the basis for this film.To say she was a confused and emotionally odd collection of forces is an understatement.
That is not the sort of character who is nice for a movie but the truth of it is that Carrington was not nice and this film continues to present her in a way that is not honest.Unfortunately mainstream movies cannot show the horrible faults of those that it elevates to biography status.The film as a production is very good and Jonathan Pryce as Strachey holds the work together.
The true story (it says here) of painter Dora Carrington and writer Lytton Strachey (portrayed by Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce).
The film's subject matter is welcome; it's execution is less so.Ms. Thompson is good, albeit unusually cast; distractingly, her appearance changes little during the story's decades.
Much of the film is visually beautiful; perhaps, its greatest strength is Denis Lenoir's photography.***** Carrington (1995) Christopher Hampton ~ Emma Thompson, Jonathan Pryce, Samuel West.
A muted, rather depressing British-French co-production regarding the unconsummated love affair between painter Dora Carrington (Emma Thompson) and writer Lytton Strachey (Jonathan Pryce) in the early 1900's.
Slow-moving film looks nice but never comes to life, despite the perfectly-cast Thompson and Pryce.
Unfortunately this film does not concentrate on the many artistic achievements but on the bizarre sex lives of Dora Carrington and Lytton Strachey.
The story of a young painter Dora Carrington that goes through her various lovers and husbands but focuses on the constant, unusual friendship she shared with the camp writer Lytton Strachey.
However this doesn't mean I wasn't interested in their story as, from the start of the film, the strange nature of their relationship is a constant hook even if the film also draws on Carrington's wider life of lovers and loves.
Support is good and contains quite a few well known faces, but the film is at it's strongest when the lovers etc are to one side and the focus is on Carrington and Strachey.I wasn't totally sure what it make of the film, but I feel confident that I would have enjoyed it more if I had a working knowledge of the work of both artists.
I had never heard of Dora Carrington or Lytton Strachey, and actually, I thought the movie wasn't bad.
The actors aren't given enough to do, and the story wanders off course.A lot of questions are left unanswered; What on earth did Dora Carrington, played beautifully by Emma Thompson, see in that daft old twit Lytton Strachey?
Yes, even in an art film there are reasons for those scenes other than to tell a story.If you're looking for slow-moving character studies set in the Victorian period with some sex thrown in, this is the one for you..
Carrington carried two distinct imbalanced relationships up to the moment she met Lytton Strachey.
As a love story it is intense, very complicated and twisted, as a relationship between man and woman it is as odd as they come.
One of the most heartbreaking love stories ever filmed.
This movie made me love Emma Thompson as an actress even more than before.
This game of musical beds should carry the film, especially given Jonathan Pryce's uncanny impersonation of Lytton Strachey and Emma Thompson's persuasive Carrington.
It was never consummated in a physical sense, although they slept together in the same bed, but their friendship continued until the end of Strachey's life, throughout Carrington's marriage to Partridge and her affairs with other men.
The relationship was further complicated by the fact that Strachey was himself sexually attracted to some of Carrington's other lovers, especially Partridge.
The film's main strength is the quality of the acting, especially from Emma Thompson in the title role and Jonathan Pryce (hidden behind a beard like a quickset hedge) as Strachey.
The film, written and directed by Christopher Hampton, focuses mainly on Carrington's sexual and romantic relationships.
|
tt0118819
|
Carne trémula
|
Madrid, Christmas 1970. The Franco regime has declared a state of emergency curtailing civil liberties. A young prostitute, Isabel Plaza Caballero (Penélope Cruz), gives birth on a bus to a son she names Víctor. Twenty years later, Víctor Plaza (Liberto Rabal) shows up for a date with Elena (Francesca Neri), a junkie with whom he had sex a week earlier. Elena is waiting for her drug dealer to arrive and orders Víctor to leave, eventually threatening him with a gun. Enraged, Víctor wrestles the gun from her; in the process Elena gets knocked out, and the gun goes off. A neighbour hears the shot and calls the police.
Two cops respond to the report. The older cop, Sancho (José Sancho), is an unstable alcoholic who suspects his wife Clara (Angela Molina) of infidelity. The younger cop, David (Javier Bardem), more clean-cut and sober. Through the window they catch sight of Víctor physically struggling with Elena. Sancho is ready to storm the apartment, while David wants to call for a back-up. When they enter, Víctor holds Elena hostage at gunpoint. David tries to calm him down and get him to drop his gun, but Sancho sabotages his efforts by repeatedly threatening Víctor. Finally, David puts his gun to Sancho's head and gets first Sancho and then Víctor to put down their guns. David orders Elena to flee. Sancho then lunges for Víctor, and as they wrestle for the gun it fires.
Two years later, Víctor, in jail, watches a wheelchair basketball match. David, now partially paralyzed from the gunshot two years earlier, is a star player in the 1992 Summer Paralympics. Elena, now his wife, cheers him on from the sidelines. Víctor has made good use of his time in jail, taking a correspondence course in education, working out, and enriching his mind with a variety of subjects, including the Bible. Four years later, he is released. His mother has died, leaving him some money and a house in am area scheduled for demolition.
Víctor visits his mother's grave, where he encounters Elena at her father's burial service. Without identifying himself, he briefly offers her his condolences. Before leaving the cemetery he encounters Sancho's wife Clara, who has arrived too late for Elena's service. They leave together and she visits his apartment. They establish a tentative relationship.
Elena, now off drugs and operating an orphanage, tells David of her encounter with Víctor. David stops by Víctor's house and warns him not to go near his wife. Víctor challenges him to prevent him from doing whatever he wants, but David punches him below the belt. David leaves, but he sees Clara arriving and watches from a distance. Clara, drawn by Víctor's enthusiasm and good looks, agrees to teach him how to make love while pampering him with gifts and affection. She eventually falls in love with him.
Víctor is accepted as a volunteer by the orphanage, which accepts the qualifications he earned in prison and discovers he is very good with the children. Elena objects, but can offer no compelling argument against Víctor.
David continues to trail Víctor and discovers that he works at his wife's orphanage. He confronts Víctor again, and Víctor denies responsibility for firing the shot that put him in a wheelchair. He demonstrates how Sancho made him squeeze the trigger because Sancho knew David was having an affair with Clara. Afterwards, David tells his wife what Víctor said, admitting that he was having an affair with Clara. Elena is disgusted, but still plans to leave the orphanage to get away from Víctor. Víctor tells Elena that his original plan of revenge was to become the world's greatest lover, make love to Elena all night long, and then abandon her, but that he now loves her too much to do so.
Víctor tells Clara that they should stop meeting, and they break up. While Víctor is working overnight at the orphanage, Elena arrives to remove her belongings and offers Víctor a night of passion on condition he never contacts her again. Elena then tells David about this night of infidelity. She tells him she will remain his wife because he needs her more than Víctor does. David is nevertheless intent on avenging himself against Víctor.
Clara, unable to bear Sancho's abuse any longer, leaves him in a violence scene, leaving him bloodied. David arrives and helps Sancho clean his wounds before showing Sancho photographs he has been taking of Víctor and Clara. Sancho and David drive to Víctor's house, arriving just as Clara has finished writing Víctor a farewell letter. Sancho and Clara hold each other at gunpoint and fire. Clara falls dead and Sancho is wounded. Sancho finally kills himself.
At the end, David narrates a letter written to his wife from Miami, where he is spending Christmas with some friends, apologizing for the way everything turned out. At the orphanage, a pregnant Elena goes into labor and on the way to the hospital, she and Víctor get stuck in heavy traffic. Víctor is reminded of the circumstances of his own birth, and tells his unborn child that the Spanish people no longer live in fear as they did at the time of his birth.
|
revenge, psychological, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
One of Almodovar's favourite conceits is the use of old TV and movie images as ironic commentary on our modern lives.
He is the film's real victor, overcoming the misfortune of the shooting and his own sexual imbecility to attain true happiness in America.
The plot is almost literally circular, beginning and ending with childbirth in a wheeled vehicle, and Victor's life-defining moment hinging on the circular bus ride which brings him back to the identical spot where he started, a payphone on the Calle Eduardo Dato.
Voyeurism can be innocent and healthy (young Victor watching Elena in her apartment) but becomes sick when the watcher is impotent and jealous (David filming the Victor-Clara couplings).
Grabbing a solid and original story, Pedro Almodovar creates a movie that revolves around a strange set of characters, and on the process gives an excellent essay on the effect time has on people's lives.
Great music, cinematography and direction give this movie an even more satisfying look, and make this a well-achieved movie that ends up being the first part of an unofficial trilogy of Almodovar's best works..
Sometimes I see Almodovar as a kind of Victor Hugo of cinema because he makes various complicated scenes not coherently inserted in the film that you should put in order step by step.
The Italian actress Francesca Neri is David's wife, and young Liberto Rabal is Victor, the man supposedly spoiling the lives of others, and strong lover.
Almodovar has always been the king of kitsch, the naughty, the pervert (who isn't anyway?), the generator of endless dirty language conversations, the good the bad and the ugly of the movie world.
Almodóvar seems to be following the rule-"Stick to one thing and do it well." As usual he was able to create great characters and involve good symbolism based on a story which is full of ridiculously impossible coincidences and the sometimes predictable, but always irrational behavior of the characters.As in some of his other films, the story involves characters who seem to be completely led by fate and always bound to their destinies.
In the end, noone is innocent and all are victims, but there is a romantic hope for a brighter future and a new start at life.I liked the new set of actors and actresses that were cast, and I would hope to see them cast differently in another film.
Once again, Almodovar doesn not fail to demonstrate his masterful skills in casting intricate webs of human relationships of lust and love and his superb cinematic story-telling.In the very limited timeframe of slightly longer than one and a half hour, the audience is treated to a fast-paced and mysterious love pentagon which stems from one person to another person and which eventually cast a web tangling the five main characters inexplicably.
Pedro Almodóvar changed the way of making cinema in Spain; and doing it, he has impressed movie watchers around the world.
About passion, well, it occupies a place in every person, but is not always shown; Almodóvar takes care of that.He introduces you to the characters in the story, then he starts to develop a plot that you're going to see, even if it is predictable.
I enjoyed the way Almodovar served the story, one bit at a time, allowing for all the events to culminate in a very satisfying ending.
Liberto Rabal gives a fine performance and Javier Bardem (of Jamon, Jamon and Boca a Boca), delivers yet another great acting achievement.I saw this film both in the theater and on video.
Great story, Almodovar style, a different perspective of Madrid, great acting, but Liberto Rabal stands out amongst all of it.
The political statement about the changes in Spain over the 26 years of the movie, the full circle of birth, and the triumph of innocence over evil, were beautifully displayed in this movie.The European filmakers have always done it better and now with the growth of the independents, maybe the Americans are catching on that in this director's medium called film, the actors are really secondary or even tertiary to the script and the director.
Often one or more characters is a generator of public stories; here it is a wounded cop who becomes a wheelchair basketball star.He's not my favorite Spaniard, and this isn't my most valued of his films.
But its hard to better than any visit from Pedro.Its an honestly vaginal world (with the connection among several layers being there) and I suppose therefore most women will actually think the story matters.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching..
OK, some of the acting is bad and the plot is totally unbelievable...but I consider it one of Almodovar's best films.
And this is what this film is all about: a love story, which reaches and overcomes the limits of an impossible dream.Almodovar, based on Ruth Rebel's novel, creates an imposing, intense film in his own, familiar to us, magical way.
The Carne Tremula (Live Flesh in its English translation) appears throughout the film aroused, with powerful hot and warm colours like yellow, orange and red -colours that one feels that they have taken over the whole picture throughout the movie-.
Is it love a desperate voice of fear and loneliness or is it the absolute enosis of the Live Flesh?When Victor says to Clara that their affair should come to an end she cries out `Please, don't leave me, I won't ask you anything, just let me love you.' The language used in the film is an unshameless and graceful manifest to the human eroticism.
This particular modern, everyday language comes in contrast to the non-vulgar and sensual love scenes and even to the traditional erotic Spanish music.Once more, Almodovar highlights the role of the feminine -a characteristic that is present, apparent and obvious to the majority of his films-, as the whole world seems to unfurl around women.
Javier Bardem shows excellent moments of talent which are going to certified on his later role choices (including the magnificent Before the Night Falls of Julian Schanabel, in 2000, which brought him broader recognition and many awards.) Liberto Rabal, from the other hand, represents the typical male, almost iconic model, of an Almodovar film, representing fittingly every woman's ( or man's one could suggest) fantasy.The desperate scream of the protagonists is identified with the tragic lyrics of the main song of the film `Somos un sueòo impossible'.
As the the film progresses, by surprising plot-driven action rather than as the natural reactions of characters whom the viewer 'understands', sex is presented as the source of all love, desire, angst and jealousy.
In this way Almodovar will definitely mess with your mind; by the end of the movie your judgments on the characters will make a total about-face.However, the first time viewer should be warned not to take the circumstances too seriously.
like most of Almodovar's movie, Great music, nice cinematography and strange plot and roles make up this movie.
After leaving jail, Víctor is still in love with Elena, but she's married to the former cop -now basketball player- who became paralysed by a shot from Víctor's gun...(plot), Almodovar is a master story writer--he knows exactly what to tell the viewer and when to tell it, the film was great, the film takes your mind inside the mind of women and men ..
inside the mind of infidelity and relationships, the film really a unique it was a combination of social issues in one line!, the acting was super especially by Javier Bardem, the opening scenes with Penelope Cruz was superb, Overall it's a nice movie to see.don't miss this film!,.
This time around, Almodóvar fabricates a complicated story of revenge, steamy trysts and deadly misunderstandings that hit all the right notes, even if those notes are all sharped and flatted; yet, it's his most mature film.The movie begins in 1970 with a theatrical birth in the back of a city bus; being welcomed into the world is Victor Plaza, the son of a prostitute (Penélope Cruz).
Jump 20 years into the future: Victor (Liberto Rabal) is meeting Elena (Francesca Neri), a drug addict, for an impromptu date after hooking up a week previously.
But when he is released, he finds that David and Elena have married, leading to a series of events that could only be found in a classy telenovela.No matter how breathy and melodramatically enhanced the plot may at first sound, it is surely one of Almodóvar's most toned down films, both in terms of style and personality.
Looking back, the film marked a turn in his career, shifting towards heavyweights like All About My Mother in 1999 and Talk to Her in 2002.Not to suggest that Live Flesh is sapped of any pleasures.
This Pedro Almodovar movie was the second film – after The Flower of My Secret – where he toned things down and went for a more serious approach.
Victor (Liberto Rabal), her son, is infatuated with Elena (Italian beauty Francesca Neri), but she is just a junkie who is more interested in seeing her dealer than him.
Victor is a proletarian guy, born on bus by a mother working as a prostitute (shown in an overlong introduction and pointless to the rest of the movie) who falls for Elena, an upper class junkie.
David gets paralyzed by a gunshot and ends up married to Elena.Victor gets to jail, but he is still obsessed with Elena and continues stalking her once he gets out four years later.
Already unconvincing, the story takes a turn for the absurd when Elena shows a growing interest for Victor, who continues to confuse obsession with love.In the meantime, Victor is also sexually involved with Clara, Sancho's wife (very believable plot twist).
It sounds like a demented plot, but I am not making it up.Probably one of the weakest Almodovar's films, it contains the inevitable steamy sex scene, which are Almodovar trademark and it is disgraced even further by an absurd "happy ending", which sees stalker and prey happily together, while Elena is giving birth to their child on a car (back to the start, in a sort of circular move).P.S. to make the matter worse, throughout the whole movie Victor blames Elena, David and everybody else for his misfortunes, conveniently avoiding to notice that the whole drama arose from his obsession..
Victor gets a job working at the orphanage funded and operated by Elena (but he's not stalking her, no) and begins to romance Clara, the battered wife of Sancho.Each of the five characters, unavoidably intertwined, is complex and morally ambiguous.
All of the actors are fantastic, particularly Francesca Neri, as Elena, and Liberto Rabal, as Victor.
Live Flesh belongs to a trilogy of Almodovar films which also includes Talk to Her & All About My Mother.
But clearly, the groundwork is being laid for Talk to Her, Almodovar's most accomplished film.In general, I liked the performances, but I felt the actor who played Victor was a little too young for the part.
Though he is exceedingly easy on the eyes, he didn't quite have the charisma that Banderas demonstrated in Tie Me Up (a very similar character in an earlier Almodovar film).
Almodovar is the best women director of the actual movie scene.
This film opens in Franco's Spain in the 1970s as baby Victor is born on a bus.
Twenty years later Spain is a different country but Victor's life isn't great and it is about to get worse.
A week after his first sexual encounter he believes he is now in a relationship; unfortunately the woman, Elena, feels differently; when he goes to see her she tells him to leave and threatens him with a gun.
The cast does a fine job; most notably Liberto Rabal, as Victor; Javier Bardem, David; Francesca Neri, as Elena and Angela Molina as Clara; each make their characters feel like real people.
Overall I'd definitely recommend this to fans of other Almodóvar films or people wanting a grown up drama featuring interesting but believable characters.These comments are based on watching the film in Spanish with English subtitles..
In 1990's he was highly appreciated in the world of cinema and in 1997 he brought us a new growth story Live Flesh.In 1970's a woman gives birth to a boy in a vacant bus: at the very same night the boy is named Victor and he is granted the ability of traveling via Spanish buses free of charge.
A series of events and coincidence lead the characters to their own paths, which walk into each other as time goes by.Pedro Almodovar has never been my number one personal favorite, but I've always enjoyed his films: he is a very good storyteller plus his films are hilarious portrayals of the macho-society.
After Live Flesh he made All About My Mother and Talk to Her, both of which are amazing films and I consider the latter to be his true masterpiece.With regards to the philosophy of film in the work of Almodovar, I see existentialism behind it.
Such as David getting into the accident and falling in love with Elena, because of Victor's choice.The existentialism in Almodovar's films is especially from Jean-Paul Sartre.
It is up to you to give life a meaning."Live Flesh is basically a growth story - the growth story of Victor, from his birth to his twenties and the film particularly portrays the growth of his love.
Almodovar's "Live Flesh" (Carne Tremula) is a very solid movie, probably the most solid and mature screenplay of this original Spanish filmmaker.The only thing that may disappoint viewers, specially those familiar with his work, is the fact that "Live Flesh" seems to feed off his previous work.
Very big.Even those who dislike the humorous Almodovar might like some or all of his late films.
Of the Almodovar films I've seen, he applies his themes in the most humorous, but not lighthearted way imaginable, so that the viewer is aware that he is watching something totally ridiculous, but seems inclined to want to believe it.
Four years later Victor is released from prison, David is in a wheelchair and has married a clean Elena while Sancho is still trying to keep his relationship with wife Carla together.
Victor's release brings these individuals back into contact and unleashes the emotions of that night again.Having just watched Volver and found it to be slightly below the standards of many of Almodóvar's other films, I decide to revisit Live Flesh.
Here the film moves quickly from Victor's birth into the fateful event that sees him jailed and we find ourselves in a serious story that is well delivered.
I want to talk about how he turns this story into a tale I believed in but somehow he does; perhaps because he keeps it so raw and intense throughout, infecting even the sex with the emotions that exist within each character so that even those acts are borne of so much more than desire.Almodóvar also draws impressive performances from his cast which is a great help in pulling off the intensity of the tale.
'Carne Trémula' is another good film from Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar.
Sancho got in a struggle with Víctor, a gun goes off.Four years later David, hit by the bullet, is in a wheelchair and married to Elena.
Like most of the Spanish movies I have watched, it has sexuality on it.
Like all Almodovar's movies, this one also features desperate characters who cope with loneliness.
After his jail time Victor returns for Elena, but things have changed.
Victor also becomes involved with the other cop's (Sancho) wife and she (Clara) starts to fall in love with him.
Sancho (after a tip from jealous David) and Clara meet each other at Victor's house, which again leads to a shoot out.
In all of Almodovar's movies the characters are nice to watch (both in acting and appearance).
Live Flesh or Carne Trémula in Espanol is a Spanish romantic drama thriller film that is written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar.It stars Liberto Rabal, Javier Bardem, and Francesca Neri.
The story then makes another leap to four years later: Victor is in prison, while Elena, no longer on drugs, runs a disadvantaged children's shelter and is married to wheelchair-bound David.
Fate interweaves the tangled interrelationships of all into a complex tapestry of destiny and guilt.Live Flesh is definitely enigmatic as this implausible story with unbelievable twists and turns definitely provides nothing more but mystery and entertainment to the viewer.Despite of its great cinematography,the film basically tries to deviate itself from the common films shown in cinema.But nevertheless,Almodóvar triumphs as he manages to amaze the viewer with his so-called "tricks" as outrageous occurrences feels like realistic.Overall,it become a movie that attacks the mainstream by without any elements of a mainstream feature and it succeeds!!!.
Pedro Almodovar has a distinct style of story-telling and character development.
Pedro Aldomovar is seen as a real genius and personally I think that one film is better than the other but this movie from 1997 certainly belong to the best the Spanish infant terrible has made.
It is a film about passion and desire, it is a melodrama that makes more sense than life itself, it presents five characters whom we get to know by the end of the film better than our own family.The story has one prologue, one first chapter taking place twenty years later, more chapters in the contemporaneity (meaning 1997) and a prologue a few months later.
As in many other of his films he makes no moral judgment about the actions of his characters, but we feel that he cares about them all, and would like to make us care too.
Javier Bardem performs here in one of the best roles of his early career, and the rest of the team including Liberto Rabal, Francesca Neri, and Ángela Molina define each their characters, each of them with his or her own passion and aspiration to love.
|
tt0095215
|
Ghost Town
|
The film begins as married New York City businessman Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear) is accidentally killed while trying to buy an apartment for his mistress. Shortly afterward, cynical dentist Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais) has a near-death experience while under general anesthetic during a colonoscopy. When he recovers, he is able to see and communicate with ghosts who populate the area. The ghosts annoy Bertram by asking him to help them with personal business that was left unfinished when they died. Frank promises to keep the other ghosts away if Bertram will break up an engagement between Frank's widow Gwen (Leoni), a professional Egyptologist, and Richard (Billy Campbell), a human-rights lawyer who Frank says is dishonest. Bertram eventually agrees to the deal and tries to woo Gwen away from Richard. Bertram's past rudeness to Gwen makes this difficult, but he attracts her interest by analyzing the teeth of a mummified Egyptian Pharaoh that she has been studying.
When Bertram has dinner with Gwen and Richard, he decides that Richard is not as bad as Frank claimed, but Bertram himself begins to fall in love with Gwen, and she enjoys Bertram's sense of humor. At another dinner, Gwen reveals that she learned of Frank's mistress the day he died, and when Richard visits Bertram for some dental work, Bertram drugs him with laughing gas in order to make him reveal that Gwen has broken their engagement. Frank doesn't understand why he is still on Earth if his "unfinished business" was to break up Richard and Gwen.
Gwen, not being engaged to Richard any longer, says yes to a work proposal that would send her to the Valley of the Kings in Egypt for six months. As a going-away present, Bertram gets her a new key chain from a fancy jeweler's, as she had earlier mentioned that she desperately needed one. But when he mistakenly reveals information about Gwen that only Frank could have known, she demands the truth, and Bertram tells her the whole story about the ghosts. Gwen doesn't believe him and demands to know what Frank's worst nightmare was. Frank lies to Bertram, telling him a fake nightmare, and Gwen, thinking that Bertram has been lying to her and playing some kind of game, walks away and cuts him off. Bertram demands to know why Frank lied to him about the nightmare, and Frank points out that Bertram only cares about his own needs.
Bertram sinks into a depression and asks a fellow dentist (Aasif Mandvi), for medication that will help him forget Gwen. His colleague instead convinces him that his life would be better if he decided to stop being selfish and start helping people. Bertram begins helping the ghosts around him with their "unfinished business" on Earth, bringing comfort to people they left behind and enabling the ghosts to depart. As he does this he realizes that the ghosts were still on Earth not because they had unfinished business, but because the people they were close to were not finished with them. He begins to appreciate life and the people he encounters.
Bertram realizes that the reason Frank cannot leave is that Gwen has not let go of him yet. He confronts Gwen who asks him to ask Frank why she wasn't enough for him, and Frank says he's sorry for hurting her, which Bertram tells Gwen. Gwen is incredulous that after his infidelity, all Frank would have to say was 'sorry' and thinks that Bertram is making it all up. He rushes after her and while trying to persuade her to believe him, gets hit by a bus. Bertram, now a ghost himself, watches with Frank as people crowd around his body and Gwen sobs over him. Richard arrives on his way to the reception and tries to revive Bertram with prayer and CPR. Seeing how distraught Gwen is, Frank gives Bertram 'some advice' that will be useful in case he is resuscitated, and tells him that Gwen's tears are for Bertram, in other words she loves him. After saying this, Frank is finally allowed to leave the earthly plane.
Bertram wakes up alive in the hospital. Later Gwen, who needs dental work, comes in for an appointment with another dentist but finds Bertram's office to say hello. Bertram tells Gwen of Frank's real nightmare—that of losing his way home, which was the advice Frank told him, and then assures her that Frank has 'found his way home.' The movie ends with Gwen saying, "It hurts when I smile", to which Bertram replies "I can fix that for you".
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0032467
|
The Fighting 69th
|
The plot centers on misfit Jerry Plunkett (James Cagney), who displays a mixture of bravado and cowardice. The chaplain, Father Francis P. Duffy (Pat O'Brien) attempts to reform Plunkett. Sgt. "Big Mike" Wynn (Alan Hale, Sr.) loses both his brothers in action due to Plunkett's blunders. Major Donovan ultimately orders Plunkett to be court-martialed. Plunkett is nonetheless returned to duty, as the battalion again goes into the line. Shamed and inspired by Donovan's forbearance, Plunkett redeems himself by fighting bravely. Finally he sacrifices his life to protect his comrades by covering a grenade with his body.
While Jerry Plunkett was a fictional character, Father Duffy, Major Donovan, Lt. Ames, and Sgt. Joyce Kilmer were all real members of the 69th. Many of the events depicted (training at Camp Mills, the Mud March, dugout collapse at Rouge Bouquet, crossing the Ourcq River, Victory Parade, etc.) actually happened.
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0041711
|
Often an Orphan
|
The cartoon opens with a car driving up near a farm for a picnic and a man coming out and the dog Charlie coming out shortly after him. The man throws a stick, and when Charlie is off getting it, the man packs up and leaves in his car, deliberately leaving the dog behind. After Charlie is dumped, he tries various tricks to attract new owners from the people driving along the road. After three failures in various ways, he hears Porky singing and decides to go talk to him. He annoys Porky though as he says he is 50% various dogs but is mostly a Labrador Retriever. He eventually drives Porky crazy and is kicked off his property. A series of gags then ensues with Charlie trying to become Porky's dog, with them all failing until Porky is about to kick Charlie out but is stopped by a nearby humane society worker, who is spying on Porky, who does not want to get in trouble with the law. Porky then sings Rock-a-bye Baby as he carries Charlie back and puts Charlie down. After the Humane Society worker leaves, Porky demands that Charlie leaves, but Charlie sadly and dramatically pleads Porky not to kick him out, as he always wanted to live in the country, and not the city, while Porky finally feels ashamed of himself and his actions:
Charlie Dog: All my life I've dreamed of the day I could go and live in the country. I'm not strong. I need lots of fresh air, and milk, and cream... [Coughs] a-a-and fresh leafy veggie-tables! [Sobs]
Porky: B-b-b-but I -
Charlie Dog: Good, clean, wholesome farm living! [Sobs]
Porky: B-b-b-but I -
Charlie Dog: And now... [Sniffs] Now... Now that I got a chance to regain my health, you wanna send me back to the city. The city! I can see it all now. It's high towers! Cold, cruel, ominous! Closing down on ya! From every side till ya can't breathe! Closer! Closer! [Begins to choke] Ya can't breathe...! The traffic! Ya can't think! BEEP BEEP! BEEP BEEP! LOOK OUT FOR THAT TRUCK! HONK HONK! LOOK OUT FOR THAT TAXI! BOINNNG! BREEP-BREEP! AROOOOGAH! HONK HONK! BEEP BEEP! Ah...! Hark. What's that? Look! It's the towers! THEY'RE FALLING! [Screams, then collapses onto ground]
Porky finally feels sorry for Charlie's traumatic experience in the city and tricks Charlie into accepting him as a pet and puts him in a "sleeping bag" (which is actually a golf bag) which he promptly shuts and, cackling evilly, sends Charlie off to Scotland in it. However, when Porky returns Charlie is there in Scottish attire complete with a bagpipe and he eventually drives Porky into accepting him as a pet with the bagpipe's annoying music.
Porky promptly suggests a picnic afterwards, and he decides to head to the middle of a desert to do it, planning to abandon Charlie there. As Porky unpacks the food and calls Charlie out to catch the stick he has, Charlie comes running out. Porky proceeds to throw the stick, but Charlie, having now learned his lesson from the last master he had, runs to the car instead of going after the stick and drives off, deliberately leaving Porky behind. Porky then becomes angry and starts going crazy, gets the crazy look in his eyes, and starts barking and panting, acting like a dog. He is picked up by the dog catcher, who puts him in the back with the other dogs, where he barks with them as the cartoon irises out.
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0479074
|
The Inner Life of Martin Frost
|
After having completed his fourth novel, successful author Martin Frost (David Thewlis) travels to the vacant country house of his friends Jack and Diane to spend some time alone and "live the life of a stone". Secluded amidst a grove of trees, the quiet cottage filled with wall-lined bookshelves offers Martin the solitude he longs for. After spending time in the surrounding countryside, Martin feels driven to write a new story. Using his friends' old typewriter, he begins the writing process and pledges to himself that he will not leave the cottage until the story is complete.
Martin's writing routine is shaken, however, when he wakes up the next morning and discovers a beautiful woman lying beside him in bed. At first, both are shocked by the other's appearance in the house, but the woman introduces herself as Claire Martin (Irène Jacob) the niece of the owners, and reveals that she's read all of his books and stories. They agree to stay in the house together, but he insists that he wants to be left alone. Over the coming days, he becomes fascinated by this mysterious woman and engages in intimate discussions about philosophy and creativity with her. Eventually he falls in love with Claire, and the two make love.
Thrilled with his new-found romantic relationship, Martin proceeds with writing his new story. As the story nears completion, however, Claire suddenly collapses on the lawn and falls seriously ill. Despite Martin's efforts to care for her, she falls deeper into a feverish state. After completing his new story, he discovers Claire has died. Suddenly realizing the mysterious connection between Claire and the story, Martin quickly throws the type-written pages into the fire, thereby reviving Claire. While the couple celebrate their love for each, Claire is troubled by his act of burning his story.
On their way to the airport to go to Martin's home in New York City, they get a flat tire. Martin walks off to find a service station for assistance, leaving Claire behind with the car. While he's away, she runs off into the woods and disappears. Soon after, the broken-hearted Martin meets a local plumber, Jim Fortunato (Michael Imperioli), who also happens to be a writer of short stories. Jim talks Martin into reading three of his works to get his advice. Sometime later, Jim shows up at the cottage with his orphan niece Anna James (Sophie Auster) and offers her housecleaning services in return for his reading the stories. The shy girl turns out to be a talented singer and actress, and Martin agrees to let her stay with him.
At the cottage, Anna meets Claire hiding in the bedroom and offers her help. Later, Anna directs Martin to put on a blindfold. After the blindfold is secure, Claire emerges and embraces the surprised and grateful Martin. Claire warns him that he cannot look at her or else she will disappear. The next day, as Martin and Anna prepare to drive to the airport, Claire enters the car and sits in the back seat, assuring Martin that he is allowed to look at her in mirrors. The two look at each other lovingly in the rearview mirror, and the three drive off together.
|
romantic, melodrama
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
"Sophisticatedly minimalistic...". He wanted to get back on track after finishing his newest book, but woke up to the sight of a woman who would change his life forever.Writer Martin Frost has recently finished writing his new book. Tired and in need of rest he travels from New York to a small house on the countryside that he has borrowed from some friends. After a few days with uninterrupted silence the writer in Martin begins to awake. An idea to a new book sets Martin's mind in motion and suddenly he is writing again. Martin is back in his right element, but when he wakes up the next morning, he is startled by the sight of a beautiful woman lying next to him. In the start Martin is sceptical to the strange guest, but the woman's strange though charming and attractive personality awakens Martin's passionate feelings. A relationship quickly arises between the two strangers, but Martin is quick to realize that there are many unanswered questions about the woman's identity. Writer of well-known books such as "The New York-Trilogy" (1987) "Moon Palace" (1989) and "The Music of Chance" (1990) is back with a delicate adaptation of one of his own writings. This aesthetic and surreal love fable is told with chronological narrative, a mysterious all-knowing voice-over narration and filmed within restricted frames, quiet pace, close-ups, short takes and varied perspectives. The startling and thought-out screenplay explores themes like solitude, love, fantasy, hope, dreams and passion, and the films atypical universe is created by enchanting characters, colorful and sterling cinematography and strange conversations. Paul Auster's independent film only has four characters and therefore much of the responsibility is laid on the actors' ability to create complementary and interesting character portraits. David Thewlis and Irène Jacob both work splendidly in the films two essential roles, but even though Michael Imperioli and Sophie Auster also delivers fine interpretations, their characters significance is discussable."The Inner Life of Martin Frost" is above all a sensing and atmospheric experience. Paul Auster experiments with the characters embodiment and the narratives versatility in an original and exploring way that creates interest and curiosity. He frequently takes us out of the plot and focuses on the beauty of nature, which gives the viewer's time to reflect. As the title implies this is a movie that lives more inside the main character's mind than in the real world he has drawn himself away from. This movie could probably be somewhat weird to many viewers considering it's unorthodox style, but there is a spark and warmth in this sophisticatedly minimalistic film which makes it a charming movie experience.. hail a film that shut up Manohla Dargis. what motivated me up to the new director's festival to catch 'martin frost' tonight was the brutal review that it got yesterday from the lead critic of the new york times, brutal dismissal, to be more accurate, 'the less said about (it) the better', she said, and i figured that any movie able to teach Ms Dargis the virtue of silence for even a few column inches would be worth the trip. and worth the trip it was. we are brought into a paradise of limpidly beautiful visual textures. the oaken rhythms of a country house ensconced in a springtime parkland of luxuriant trees and luminous skies bestow the soothing natural blessing needed by the main character, martin frost (David Thewlis), a writer rubbed raw by the mechanics of finishing a novel in new york city. (Thewlis makes palpable the casualty of intrapsychic machinery sawed into daemonic reverb against the banausic hive). then paradise morphs into purgatory, leavened comedically, in Dante's sense, by the postmodern angelic visitations of Claire (Irene Jacobs) and Anna (Sophie Auster). unfortunately, to my taste, the verbal dimensions of the film are flaccid, the logic more fanciful than imaginative, the narrative arc crippled by some irredeemably creaky plotting, especially at the crucial initiation of the relationship between martin and Claire where the seeds of common sense are thrown to the magpies of theatricality.but so beguiling is the willful vulnerability of auster's fantasy, and the edgy interplay that it potentiates between Thewlis and Jacobs, and the camera, and later Sophie Auster, and the broad comedy of a rural everyman (Michael Imperioli), that it is very pleasant to be carried along on the visual foam of uncertain sensual delight, eddying into a feeling that this film's oddly louche light touch is uniquely adept at tracing some grave lineaments of the human heart.go innocently.. Embedded ghostly stories. After spending three years writing his latest novel, Martin Frost is ready for some R&R. A friend lends him a country home. Martin settles in to enjoy some solitude. Yet his writer's mind is not quiet and new ideas for novels pop up. He embarks on a forty page short story. What results is the film.The architecture is that of embedded stories: a writer writes about a writer that writes about... The execution is through the conventional trick of dreams. Within dreams, anything goes and the real can be abandoned. And there is where the film began to rub me.Apparitions, spells and ghosts are not my cup of tea. Granted the story has clever elements and some humorous moments provided by the Fortunato character. But overall the film falls flat.The story is supposed to take place somewhere in the US. However I could not square the odd vegetation with any place in North America. The credits solve the mystery. The film was shot in Portugal.The best thing about this film is the music by Petitgand, especially the piano parts. Lovely music!
|
tt0013515
|
The Prisoner of Zenda
|
On his deathbed, the king of Ruritania announces to his two twin sons, Rudolph and Michael, that he must choose one of them to be the future king of Ruritania following their father's death. The king believes that his youngest son Rudolph is more fit to be king than Michael, and so chooses him for the throne. Rudolph is shocked with his father's decision and Michael is outraged and angry. Following his father's death, "Black Michael", as he is known to some of the villagers, gathers his minions and expresses his anger at his father's decision, which he believes to be foolish. He recalls that his father had mentioned that he, Michael, should be king, if and when his brother died; thus, he begins to devise a plan to cause Rudolph's death. Michael's wife, Princess Antoinette, is shocked after hearing her beloved husband speak ill of his dead father, and even more after hearing of his plot to murder Rudolph. When she confronts him, Michael sends Antoinette away and tells her that if he can't count on her loyalty, she is no longer his wife. Antoinette runs to Rudolph and informs him of Michael's plots; thought at first Rudolph refuses to believe her, Antoinette insists. Following one of Rudolph's plans to ensure his own safety, Princess Antoinette travels to London, where he meets another young man, by the name of Rudolph, who looks remarkably and exactly like the king-to-be of Ruritania. Princess Antoinette brings the new Rudolph to Ruritania, hoping that he may help her and Rudolph to be safe from Michael. Rudolph, who still trusts his brother, accepts an invitation from Michael, who offers him a drink. Pretending that his intentions were to congratulate Rudolph stepping up to the throne, Michael drugs his brother causing him to enter a deep coma, only a few days prior to his coronation. The new Rudolph proposes to accept the crown himself, so that Prince Rudolph will step up to the throne as soon as he comes out from his state of unconsciousness. When Michael learns of this, he kidnapps the prince and takes him away to the Castle Zenda, where he intends to murder him. Antoinette and Rudolph come up with a plan to surprise Michael and his minions at Zenda and thus rescue the prince. When they defeat Michael, the young prince Rudolph becomes the king of Ruritania and takes his father's place at last.
|
romantic, action, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Rudolf V, the King of Ruritania, has been kidnapped by Black Michael, his evil half-brother, and locked in the dungeon of the fortress of Zenda on the eve of his coronation.
By a wild twist of fate, it falls upon a look alike distant cousin, the Englishman Rassendyll, to impersonate the king and effect his rescue before either one or both of them are killed by Black Michael or his henchman, Rupert of Hentzau.
With two beautiful women complicating matters, and danger lurking at every turn, how can THE PRISONER OF ZENDA possibly be saved?It is unfortunate that this fine silent film is completely overshadowed by its 1937 talkie remake starring Ronald Colman.
Silent films & talkies are two different art forms and should not be put into competition against each other.
Excitingly produced, with excellent production values & good acting, this movie stands on its own merits and on its own feet.Those familiar with Lewis Stone only as a fine character actor during his talkie career at MGM may be surprised to see him here as a romantic lead, and in a swashbuckler no less.
But he is very good in his dual roles of Rudolf & Rassendyll.
Strangely, at times he closely resembles Colman, but this is a coincidence no one could anticipate.This was also the breakout picture for Ramon Novarro.
Working incredibly hard for years, and largely supporting his family (driven North by Revolution) he finally caught the eye of director Rex Ingram.
In ZENDA, the 22-year old Novarro plays rascally Rupert, who, with his little beard & moustache & face wreathed in constant cigarette smoke, looks quite sardonic.
Playing a mid-European, Novarro begins a career which would have him acting every sort of ethnic role, from Hebrew, to Polynesian, to Chinese.The rest of the cast all lend able support: Stuart Holmes as the wicked Black Michael; Alice Terry as the beautiful Princess Flavia; Barbara La Marr as the lovely Antoinette de Mauban, desperately in love with Michael; and Robert Edeson & Malcolm McGregor as two staunchly loyal officers of the king.
Evil Ramon sparks disappointing Ingram film..
Rex Ingram was one of the great visual stylists of the silent cinema, but his version of "The Prisoner of Zenda" is a little slow and ponderous and visually not as interesting as other Ingram films.
But it's still pretty good with strong performances from Ingram's wife Alice Terry and the marvellous Lewis Stone.
Although Ramon Novarro has top billing, Stone actually has the lead role - Ramon's role is a supporting one - an evil nobleman.
It is interesting to see him before he became type-cast as the energetic sweet boy - he shows here that he had more range as an actor than he was allowed to show.The entire supporting cast is excellent and, although the sets are ordinary, the costumes are very fine.
Ingram was an excellent silent film director.
I've seen both Rex Ingram's "Scaramouche" and "The Prisoner of Zenda" and by far "Scaramouche" the more entertaining film.
Lewis Stone acquits himself well as the hero/drukand king and swordfights quite well.
Ramon Novarro played the monocled villain, somewhat unintentionally funny.
Seeing Valentino's "cousins" from "The Four Horseman of the Acapolyse" in supporting roles was really cool.However, the Colman/Fairbanks Jr. version is far superior..
English traveler and sportsman Lewis Stone (as Rudolf Rassendyll) decides to attend the coronation of distant relative "Rudolf V." of Ruritania (also Lewis Stone, in a dual role), after the recent death of the foreign land's King.
But proposed King Stone has a wicked half-brother, who covets the title.
Receiving most of his help from charismatic Ramon Novarro (as Rupert of Hentzau), treacherous brother Stuart Holmes (as Grand Duke Michael) plots to poison Mr. Stone and take his place on the throne.
One who senses something rotten in Ruritania is beautiful Alice Terry (as Princess Flavia), who is expected to marry one, but falls in love with another..."Towards the end of the day, when the soul is weary and the heart longs for its beloved"...Anthony Hope's classic adventure story gets the MGM treatment, even though the studio mostly called "Metro" by insiders was only M-G- (no Mayer, yet) at the time.
Metro's mega-hit "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (1921) director Rex Ingram and the principle players gathered here stuck with the company; helping set the standard for MGM productions, Metro/MGM competed successfully with older studios.
This film advanced careers, most notably helping propel Mr. Novarro to "superstar" status.
There are also fine impressions made by veteran Robert Edeson (as Colonel Sapt), bewitching Barbara La Marr (as Antoinette de Mauban) and debuting Malcolm McGregor (as Fritz von Tarlenheim)...Notable re-makes in 1937 (all talking, with Ronald Colman) and 1952 (in color, with Stewart Granger) are worth seeking out in a "twofer" package from Warner/Turner.
This non-speaking "The Prisoner of Zenda" was the standard silent film era version.
Rex Ingram, Lewis Stone, Alice Terry and Ramon Novarro received director and acting accolades.
Stone, at his silent best here, essays a small part in the 1952 version; it was one of the last roles for the perennial Metro-contracted actor.******** The Prisoner of Zenda (7/31/22) Rex Ingram ~ Lewis Stone, Alice Terry, Ramon Novarro, Malcolm McGregor.
Rex Ingram was one of the finest directors of the silent era, but unfortunately, he is little remembered today.
This 1922 adaptation of The Prisoner of Zenda is one of his better known films among silent movie geeks, but I would not count it among his most outstanding.There's good scenery and spectacle, and Lewis Stone makes good as the lead.
The standout of the cast is without a doubt a young Ramon Novarro as the roguish Rupert of Hentzau.
The film is also overlong and the comic relief was mildly painful at best.Overall, it's watchable, but you'll be better served by watching the 1937 remake.
"The Prisoner of Zenda" has been filmed about a dozen times.
It's a VERY familiar story to anyone who loves old films.
Regardless, I was thrilled to finally see a silent version of a story I have long loved.
Well, not exactly--but it sure was close.Another surprise about this one is that is starred Lewis Stone--a guy I'd hardly think of as an action hero!
This is the bald Judge Hardy...playing a handsome king!
Looking at Stone's hair in the film, I assume he was wearing a wig, as he had A LOT of hair!
But he was also quite good in the dual roles of King Rupert as well as his English cousin.
Oddly, however, while Stone clearly is THE leading man, Ramon Navarro got top billing--which makes little sense as he's a relatively minor character.
No, this is definitely Stone's film.As far as the plot goes, it's pretty much the familiar story.
The new king, Rudolf, is about to be crowned leader of Ruritania.
However, his evil but popular brother, Michael, has plans of usurping the throne.
However, this won't deter Michael, as he's discovered the real king and has taken him prisoner.
I particularly loved the king's beloved #1 man--he had such wonderful and soulful eyes.
Overall, a great silent--and a film that only barely was eclipsed by the great 1937 version (this film is just perfect).Note: After the FIRST guy gets pulled over the deadly falls, the print's quality degrades VERY quickly.
Expensive silent film of a king who is marked for assassination.
He switches identities with a look alike (both played by Lewis Stone) who takes his place at his coronation.
While his followers try to find him, the fake king falls in love with Princess Flava (Alice Terry).Slow moving but the film looks great.
Seeing Stone (who went on to play Judge Hardy in the Andy Hardy movies) so young and being a romantic lead is interesting.
Ramon Novarro (still an unknown) plays the evil villain.
That's quite a shock--he always played heroes in his later films.
A retiring English country gentleman, Rassendyll, is mistaken for his distant cousin, King Rudolph of Ruritania.
When the king is taken hostage by his jealous brother, Black Michael, Rassendyll agrees to act as the king in the coronation ceremony.It takes a long time for this version of 'The Prisoner of Zenda' to get moving.
The first hour or so is stodgy and less than riveting film-making, and then it gradually picks up momentum, and the last half hour packs a decent punch, especially action-wise.
But all in all, a rather more lackluster, even crude entertainment than I had expected after the exhilarating 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse', also by Rex Ingram.The script is largely at fault, with the scenes so disjointedly put together that it does not in long stretches make a lot of sense.
I would have made more - MUCH more - out of the fact that for a long while Black Michael seems a pretty decent fellow, genuinely in love with Antoinette and understandably preoccupied about leaving the fate of his country to his feeble-minded brother.
But Ingram makes nothing of it and seems curiously uninspired.The youngish Lewis Stone is an earnest Rassendyll/Rudolph, and sort of holds his own in the climactic sword-fight with, among others, Ramon Novarro.
This is Novarro's film.
He was hardly a star when it was made, and his role does not take up a lot of screen time, but Novarro eats up the scenery with his monocled, slick diabolism.
Lewis Stone is too old in his dual role and Alice Terry lacked any real charm.
This picture belongs to its supporting cast- Barbara LaMarr ("too beautiful for her own good") as Antoinette de Mauban, Colonel Zapt, Captain von Tarlenheim and,of course, Rupert of Hentzau, played with relish and humour by Ramon Novarro.
There are some spoilers in my comments, but I find it hard to believe there can be anyone around who hasn't already seen at least one version of Hope's classic adventure story or read the books.
My main points are comparisons between this version and the better-known talkies.The first half of this film is more effective than the 1937-1952 versions in opening out the action: it was scripted for cinema rather than being an adaptation of an 1890s stage version.
They are therefore not historically accurate, but their slightly off-key style heightens the sense that the story is taking place in an imaginary realm, an alternative universe version of late 19C Europe.
The circumstances of the King's rescue and Michael's fate are also altered.The leads are excellent.
Lewis Stone is almost the double of Ronald Colman, but (correctly) lighter-haired.
The Rassendyll/Flavia romantic scenes - especially their parting - are played less soppily than in some of the later versions.
Some supporting characters omitted in other versions make their appearance: Helga, and old Marshal Strackenz.
However, Holmes turns in a creditable performance, more sympathetic than the character has been portrayed in the later versions.
There was little sense in the later versions that he was the more popular of the brothers.The tragic Barbara LaMarr is hauntingly exquisite as Antoinette, although much too young.
As in all the film versions (and, indeed, the books) she is a far more interesting female lead than the sweet Princess Flavia (Alice Terry).
The Antoinette/Michael relationship is established more convincingly, early in the film, than in the later versions.
In this version, Rassendyll gets the three-cornered fight he had feared, versus Michael *and* Rupert!
But I still wish a version would be made which gave Antoinette her great tragic scene, pursuing Rupert like an avenging angel...However, the ending is closer to the book than that of the talkie versions, which wrongly (and quite unbelievably) implied that Rudolf V was going to become a reformed character: perhaps a result of the Hays Code's view of authority?
I hope this version will get the DVD release it clearly deserves: it is a silent swashbuckling gem!.
Monday August 14, 7:00:pm, The Paramount Theater"While you're unhung, Hentzau, hell lacks its master!" On the eve of his coronation, Rudolph Elphberg of Ruritania is poisoned by his jealous half-brother, Duke Michael of Strelsau.
A distant English cousin, and the King's spitting-image, takes his place to save the throne.
Anthony Hope's 1893 tale of romance and swordplay, The Prisoner of Zenda has seen no less than eight adaptations produced for the big screen, including three silent films, an animated Australian version and a television mini-series.
Without a doubt, the 1922 Metro Pictures production, directed by Rex Ingram, is superior in its cinematic style, acting and production values.
Ingram's film stars the exceptionally beautiful Alice Terry as Princess Flavia, and a wonderful newcomer, Ramon Novarro as Rupert of Hentzau.
Lewis Stone stars as the irresponsible, drunken and character deficient King Rudolf, and his dignified, stalwart cousin Rudolf Rassendyll.
Stone is best remembered as the wise old father of a well-known freckle-faced teenager with the voice of a strangled duck, whose character (Andy Hardy) grew up on screen in the thirties and forties.
Ingram achieved significant success for himself and Metro the year before with The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse (1921), starring Terry and Rudolph Valentino.
His charming young replacement was Ramon Samaniegos, who changed his name to Novarro after Zenda's release.
One of four officers loyal to "Black" Michael (Stuart Holmes), Hentzau is a mischievous young fellow, more playboy and prankster than serious villain, who spends much of his time chasing after Michael's mistress Antoinette (Barbara LaMarr).
As Rassendyl arrives at the coronation, he passes a dumbstruck Michael and pauses long enough to deliver a subtle expression of smug satisfaction with a raised eyebrow.
Terry's performance as the future queen is graceful and dignified, a perfect match to Rassendyll, and their final scene is both lovely and heartbreaking.
Snitz Edwards plays the King's butler and John George who worked with Lon Chaney, John Barrymore and nearly everyone else in Hollywood plays a decidedly darker than average role.Adding substantial integrity to the production, Ingram used Belgian Fencing Champion and USC coach Henry Uyttenhove as a trainer and consultant for the spectacular sword fight at the end of the picture.
Uyttenhove also worked on several Douglas Fairbanks films, including Robin Hood (1922), and again with Ingram on Scaramouche (1923).
COMMENT: Selected by The New York Times as one of the best films of the year, the familiar story (re-made with Ronald Colman in 1937 and Stewart Granger in 1952) is given grand treatment here.Some critics have complained of this version's lack of action.
While it's true that Ingram does tend to concentrate more on the romance between Lewis Stone's reluctant Rassendyll and the beautiful princess (charmingly enacted by Alice Terry) and also on a closer examination of Black Michael's political intriguing than do the various remakes, there is nonetheless a fair amount of action-and it is well handled too, particularly the final sword duels between hero and villains with all the players including Stone, Holmes and Novarro doing their own fencing and doing it very ably indeed.
In addition to these excitements, as might be expected, cinema stylist Rex Ingram has a grand time with all the sets, costumes and panoply of Zenda.
Ramon Novarro's fans will be a little disappointed to find their hero playing the villain (especially as he is not quite as charming as in other versions), but everyone cheers when the beautiful Barbara La Marr enters.
There is a prince who will be coronated king the following day.
He has to convince the future king's lovely lady as well as his friends that he is the real guy.
The film does a good job of organizing several characters, has some nice castle shots yet the pacing could have shifted up a couple gears..
Silent version of the Anthony Hope novel.
THE PRISONER OF ZENDA is an early silent version of the classic Anthony Hope novel about a king who is drugged and locked in a tower by some nefarious characters led by his own brother.
The king's lookalike must take the throne temporarily while he attempts to solve the disappearance, rescue the real king, and hold the bad guys to account.Although the budget must have been modest by modern standards, this is a well-mounted version of the tale with an ample amount of sets and locations to give it that authentic look.
The story is entertaining and feels surprisingly modern in places, featuring some classic sword-fighting scenes that wouldn't look out of place in a swashbuckler from the 1940s.The cast are well chosen and look good in their roles too.
Based on the hugely popular late Victorian adventure novel by Anthong Hope, this silent version is very entertaining and moves along at a good pace, especially at the last half of the movie.
King Rudolph V of Ruritania's coronation is but a day away.
The King's brother, the Grand Duke "Black" Michael has a plan to keep the King away from the coronation and have himself crowned King instead.
Michael drugs a bottle of wine that he sends to the King as a gift.
The King gulps down the wine and falls into a stupor which will make it impossible for him to attend the coronation.
As it happens, the King's devoted Chief of Staff, Colonel Sapt, meets a distant cousin of the King's, Rudolph Rassendyll, an English gentleman educated in Heidelberg.
In appearance Rassendyll is the exact double of the King and Sapt convinces him to take the King's place at the coronation.
While impersonating the King, Rassendyll falls in love with the King's intended, Princess Flavia and she with him.
Lewis Stone does an admirable job as Rassendyll.
Oddly, in several scenes, Stone reminds one of Ronald Colman.
Ramon Navarro sparkles as Michael's henchman Hentzau - he is conniving but also has flair.
The actor playing Colonel Sapt is great and his scene late in the movie with Rassendyll and Princess Flavia is wonderfully done and quite touching.
Colonel Sapt has the last word when he says to Rassendyll "God does not always make the right men kings.
|
tt1078885
|
Deep in the Valley
|
Lester Watts (Chris Pratt) works at a liquor store, happily selling alcohol to minors while spending his spare money on his porno collection. His best friend since third grade, Carl (Brendan Hines) works a corporate job at his British fiancee's family's company. He wants to leave the job and work somewhere else, but she angrily tells him he has no choice and that he must stay; it is clear that she is completely in control of the relationship.
That night, the two friends have a beer when a delivery comes in the form of a vintage porn viewer machine which plays the films of Diamond Jim (Christopher McDonald). They step inside and it transports them to a land where everyone acts like they are in a pornographic film. The police arrest them, led by Rod Cannon (Scott Caan) but they escape and are hidden from the police by Bambi Cummings (Rachel Specter) at her sorority house, Tri-Pi.
They elude the police while Bambi and Carl fall in love with each other. Eventually, they go to Diamond Jim's pool party where Carl decides to get transported home and Lester decides to stay. It is revealed that Lester is Diamond Jim's son. Back home, Carl breaks up with his overbearing girlfriend and Bambi is transported to him, reuniting them. Meanwhile, Lester takes over his father's porno empire.
|
fantasy
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Blah.... Alright, first up. This film is intended to be what it is; a soft-core pornography with a storyline. Intended to be watched with a brain-dead mind, whilst lazing around on a Sunday morning. It could be watched with either your spouse, partners, but NEVER with your parents/kids around.This film is okay-ish if you are not too over-analyzing the content. After all, it is not going to be nominated to some film festivals or something.There is no full-frontal nudity; fleshes are being thrown around, but not too much. Should be okay, especially to those who wants to spark the flame, as they say.The premise has been done numerous times, so there is no guessing the ending.Again; I'd say that this is an okay film, nothing to shout about. However, given the circumstances, this is way better than some of the soft-core film Hollywood is churning nowadays.. Surprising fun for such a cheesy concept. Quite liked this, very entertaining and not just in terms of the plentiful softcore cheesecake on display. The porn world is so riven with clichés that it's obviously fit for satire as Boogie Nights so ably proved. Really like Chris Pratt's character and his ideal porn girl is surprisingly sweet, so happy that they end up together in the end. Also liked the porn cop who speaks in nothing but meaningless porn film law enforcement clichés, complete with the 2 hulking, nearly mute cohorts you inevitably find in such films.And Kim Kardashian and Denise Richards as guest stars? Wow! Surprised they didn't have some real porn stars taking part too although maybe I just missed them? Needless to say loads of tasteful nudity from some incredibly beautiful women, actually watched this on YouTube, surprised they allowed it as they don't normally permit any, even if this was a 15 certificate? Perhaps because virtually no one actually has any sex despite the risqué subject matter?Two more things I'd like to have seen, firstly Chris Pratt's porn star girlfriend adapting to the real world, finding out what you can't do in a non-porn reality. Secondly a better ending. Chris Pratt's beautiful but shrewish ex-girlfriend staggering drunkenly into the liquor store and bitchily demanding more tequila after her break up. Shift to Scott Caan's ex-porn star cop who is now the liquor store clerk raising an eyebrow to the camera. Back to some sexy cheerleaders dancing and then finish the film with Scott Caan and the ex-girlfriend coming out of the storeroom breathless, sweaty and putting their clothes back on."Can I have some tequila please?" she asks, now much more subdued. He passes it to her but grips her hand as she receives it."If you ever want some more you know where to come!" he tells her. She raises a saucy eyebrow "Count on it!". Fun To Watch But Not That Funny. Deep in the valley is one of the repeated comedy adult movies. The story is nice, I liked the time traveling to adult world, it was funny. Chris Pratt and Brendan Hines acting was so good, especially Chris Pratt which he now became famous in his career. Scott Caan was good too acting the role of the villain cop. the girls in the movie were extremely beautiful for an adult film. I loved their acting.I think this movie will be good if the director worked hard on it.Moreover, the comedy in Deep in the Valley was above average thats why I rated it 6/10,but it could get more rating if it was more funnier.At the end, I think Deep in the valley is good movie to watch for one time only.. If You've Seen 90s Porn Flicks: This Should Be Hilarious. I saw my first pornographic film when I was eight years old. I found it under my parents bed looking for spare change. I was like, "Why would they hide a movie here?" and I popped in to the VCR (remember those?) and had absolutely no idea what I was watching. When I got to Junior High, kids (boys) were looking at women in their underwear in the back of the Sears and/or JCPenney catalogs. After high school I got invited to this 4-day birthday party for a friend. The guy who's house it was at was a bit of a dweeb but our dweeb and he thought softcore pornography was no different than hardcore pornography. There was a girl there who slept with a lot of the guys at the party (mainly the birthday boy before he got way too drunk) and I asked her if she'd sleep with the guy who's house it was because he had no idea what sex was. The point is: porn is fake. Fake in the sense of the scenarios not the actual sex unless softcore. This film reminded me of 90s pornography. I was a teenager in the early half and in my early 20s in the later half. It was hilarious then as this movie is now and I feel this movie did a great job in poking fun at that. I laughed throughout this entire film. It was hilarious. All I got to say.
|
tt0049843
|
There's Always Tomorrow
|
Toy manufacturer Clifford Groves (Fred MacMurray) is married to Marion (Joan Bennett), with three children, Vinnie (William Reynolds), Ellen (Gigi Perreau) and Frankie (Judy Nugent), but lately life has become drab and routine. A former co-worker, Norma Miller Vale (Barbara Stanwyck), turns up unexpectedly and is now a glamorous fashion designer.
At the last minute before Cliff's frequently mentioned, but long-postponed vacation getaway with Marion to Palm Valley, Frankie injures her ankle and Marion decides to stay home and attend to her. Since it's too late to cancel everything, she urges Cliff to go alone. He reluctantly agrees, scheduling a business appointment at the location, thus giving him at least some additionally justifiable reason for going, but upon arriving and subsequently being informed that the meeting fell through, he suddenly again encounters Norma who, it is now revealed, happens to be a lonely divorcee taking a brief vacation at the same resort. Their succeeding close companionship, in riding horses together and dancing, is spotted by Vinnie, who has also taken a drive to Palm Valley with his girlfriend Ann (Pat Crowley), along with his friend Bob (Race Gentry) and Bob's girlfriend Ruth (Myrna Hansen).
Vinnie confides in Ellen that their father might be having an affair. Norma is invited to dinner, but the evening turns awkward as Vinnie and Ellen display open hostility towards Norma and refuse to speak to their father, while Ann, the most level-headed one among the young people, privately chastises Vinnie for his immature behavior. Marion, however, seems oblivious to any suspicion and when Cliff angrily says that he has had enough of being treated like a wind-up robot, ready to serve everyone's needs, she soothes him with warmly comforting and gently dismissive words that his various overreactions are due to tiredness and misunderstanding, that too much excitement in life would be just that, too much, and then starts getting ready for bed. Cliff, frustrated and sleepless, gets up and leaves the bedroom to call Norma, asking her to meet him the next day, just as Vinnie comes in and overhears the key part of his father's conversation.
During the dinner, Norma invites Marion and Ann to visit her design studio and, while there, Ann tries finding the right way to tell Norma that a rendez-vous with Cliff would cause unhappiness to the family, but Norma is sensitive enough to understand the import of Ann's meaning and, after Marion and Ann leave, calls off the meeting. Cliff, who can no longer control himself, goes to Norma's hotel and declares his love for her, but she tearfully asks him for time to think. In the meantime, Vinnie and Ellen go to Norma and begin with accusations, but as she points out their self-centered neglect of their father, they wind up pleading with her not to break up their parents' marriage. Ultimately, in another tearful confrontation with Cliff, Norma tells him that he would always regret abandoning his family and that she must leave alone. Vinnie reconciles with Ann, admitting that he acted in a way that was immature and selfish, while at home, Cliff looks longingly out a window as a plane carrying Norma flies overhead. In her seat on the plane, Norma has tears in her eyes, while Cliff is left to contemplate what is to become of his and Marion's marriage.
|
melodrama
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0038640
|
The Inner Circle
|
Shortly after his marriage to Anastasia, Ivan Sanchin, who works as a projectionist at the headquarters of the state security service (called KGB in the film), is summoned urgently to the Kremlin. Having proved his skill, he is appointed private projectionist to Stalin and his inner circle, including the head of state security Beria. This makes him proud and happy, for he venerates the dictator as if he were a god.
When a Jewish couple in his cramped apartment house are arrested, their little daughter Katya is left behind. Though Anastasia wants to adopt the child, Ivan forbids it because her parents are "enemies of the people”. However she secretly visits Katya at a state orphanage.
As German troops approach Moscow in 1941, Ivan and Anastasia are put on a train to a safe town. Also on the train is Beria, who gets Anastasia drunk and seduces her, sending Ivan back to Moscow. For a long time he hears nothing of her until she turns up one day, pregnant and abandoned. Her experiences have unhinged her and she commits suicide.
In 1953 the lonely Ivan is visited by Katya, now an attractive teenager, who treasures the memory of Anastasia's affection. Ivan offers help, but she says she wants to go her own way. Then Stalin dies and Ivan, on duty to control the crowds waiting to view the corpse, sees Katya being jostled in the crush. He rushes in to rescue her and, this time, she is ready to accept his protection.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Warren Douglas, with his B-movie leading-man good looks, appeared in a string of low budget murder yarns.
Although regular commercial TV was still a few years away, this film seems to have a 'look' similar to television's detective shows of the 1950's.
In fact, a number of this film's supporting cast members would be commonly seen in supporting roles on television, less than ten years hence.In this particular outing Warren Douglas plays a private eye named 'Johnny Strange' (no kidding), who runs a detective agency called (get ready--) "Action Incorporated".
The story line is somewhat commonplace, starting with the murder of a well known radio personality, and involving a strange "Spanish woman" (that's how the other characters refer to her), some skulking house servants, a missing diamond, a duplicate beautiful blonde, and--of course-- a blustery, mis-guided police detective (William Frawley, who could play these roles in his sleep).This poverty row feature might turn up on TV, but more likely than not, you'll have to rent or buy a copy of this film from a dealer of video obscurities.
Witty fast moving mystery is better than you think it should be thanks to a good cast delivering great lines.
Johnny Strange of Action Incorporated is interrupted by a beautiful woman while placing an ad for a secretary.
When a mysterious call comes in not long after Johnny finds himself knocked out and framed for the murder of a sleazy radio show announcer (ala Walter Winchell).
Johnny must now try to solve the case before he ends up behind bars for the murder.This is a fast moving mystery thriller with a smart ass attitude and a never ending stream of one liners.
Running around 55 minutes this movie starts from the first frame and zips right on by to the last.
The cast which includes William Frawley as a cop, Ricardo Cortez as suspect William Douglas as Johnny and first (?) billed Adele Mara as the secretary is first rate.
The rest of the cast is filled out with many familiar faces and they all come together to make what could have and should have been a less than sterling little mystery into something that is actually quite enjoyable.Definitely worth a bowl of popcorn and a soda (especially on a multi feature evening on a rainy night).
--Contact Johnny Strange, Private Investigator And when the camera pans away from a gloved female finger on this Yellow Pages ad, we see on the floor a dead body.
This is going to be a case that involves Johnny Strange (Warren Douglas), of Action, Inc. It's also going to be a case with three beautiful blondes, gruff police lieutenant Webb (William Frawley), smooth, lethal hood Duke York (Ricardo Cortez) and, of course, the corpse.
For Johnny, it all started when one of those blondes, Gerry Smith (Adele Mara) walks into his office just as he was phoning in an ad for a secretary..."blonde, beautiful, between 22 and 28, and with the skin you love to touch and a heart you can't." Gerry disconnects him, claims the job for herself, and shortly is fielding a call for Johnny to meet a woman with a problem at 7 p.m. The woman turns out to be wearing a heavy veil and sporting a Spanish accent.
It's not long before Johnny is knocked on the head and set up for murder.
It's not long (for a second time; the movie only runs 57 minutes) before we learn Fitch also dabbled in blackmail and that he was just about to blow the lid off some high society secrets.
Johnny figures out why his secretary has been so helpful and who the murderer is.
So he gathers all the suspects, plus Webb, to recreate some key scenes in a live radio broadcast coming from the dead man's home.
Johnny gets some free publicity for Action, Inc. And it looks like Gerry is going to sign up for a permanent job.
It combines light-hearted murder with romance, which almost always is a pleasant way to waste a little time.
The gathering of the suspects for a radio broadcast where they recreate their roles is so odd and awkwardly written that it has a great deal of weird charm.
I wouldn't go out of my way to buy this movie.
Still, one of the pleasures is Will Wright, a grand character actor, who plays the gardener on the dead man's estate.
Fast-moving murder mystery that gives its surprises away in the right places; but the humor is strained and the ending is silly.
Before he can finish placing his help-wanted ad over the phone, the perfect candidate shows up at the office of Johnny Strange and fills the position of secretary without even giving Johnny a chance to say yes.
She immediately takes the call from a new client, a mysterious woman with a Spanish accent.
Webb, who tells him the dead man is a notorious gossip columnist with a popular radio program.
A nightclub manager, a singer, a housekeeper, a hard-of-hearing groundskeeper and two beautiful blondes are among the whos who may have done it."The Inner Circle" moves fast and gives away its surprises in the right places, helping us to ignore the strained humor and a silly twist on the usual gathering-the-suspects-into-a-room ending.
Adele Mara and Warren Douglas are okay as the leads, but they're outshone by the supporting cast, especially William Frawley as the tough but even-tempered lieutenant and Will Wright as the old sneak who is probably pretending to be more deaf than he is..
The inner circle even had a bit of tongue-in-cheek itself, though in much more of a 1940's innocence.William Frawley's in top form andAdele Mara really shines in a part that seems tailor made for herThe cinematography is surprisingly top-notch, though you wouldn't notice if you turned it off after the first 15 minutes.
It gets a bit more impressive as it goes along.Though not finest quality direction, it does move well with some snappy dialogue and interesting staging.Don't expect academy award performances, but it's still worth a watch, just for a few chuckles and to see it's influence on much later noir spoofs..
She works for a private investigator, Johnny Strange.
(Was there another noun that could be added to Johnny to make a name for a movie character in that decade?) Then there's the mysterious veiled woman who calls for his services.
But he is fourth-billed, below William Frawley, who plays a cop.
And Adele Mara gets top billing.It's fun to watch.
The story begins with a pretty blonde lady barging into a PI's office and taking a job before he has a chance to say anything.
His buddy Fred Mertz (I mean William Frawley) probably would have just looked the other way if he had been asked, but he gets steered away.
Republic Pictures gave the movie-going public The Inner Circle back in 1946.
It's a lightweight mystery about a gossip columnist who was shot to death and private detective Warren Douglas is near framed and unframed for the deed.
Truth be told not too many people liked the columnist who had a sideline in blackmail.Doing the framing on Douglas is Adele Mara who gets hired as Douglas's secretary, frames him and the alibis Douglas all in a day.
She's beautiful and quite an operator and has a sister in Martha Montgomery who was a victim of the columnist's blackmail.The columnist operated out of Ricardo Cortez's nightclub where he has the sultry Virginia Christine as his regular singer.
Both of them are looking to pocket what they can from an employer neither was crazy about.Trying to figure it all out is homicide detective William Frawley and from the beginning the guilty party was rather obvious.
What took everyone so long?Not the best murder mystery out there..
Breezy detective Mike Strange (Douglas) is set up to take the fall for the murder of a gossip columnist.
Was it his new secretary Gerry (Mara) who set him up.
Mike better figure things out or Detective Webb (Frawley) will have him in the slammer in a flash.
In this edition, being a 1940's private eye is not much fun.This is Mara's movie.
She plays the lively secretary in sparkling style.
Good to see such familiar faces as Will Wright (the gardener) and Dorothy Adams (forever a maid) picking up paydays, along with Fred Mertz, oops!, I mean Bill Frawley in a familiar cop role.
All in all, the movie amounts to a standard 40's programmer and little more..
A Light Mystery - Weird Ending.
The mystery is easy to solve, I'm sure everyone who watched this film knew who the killer was right from the start of movie.
They did try to throw suspicions another way a couple of times but it didn't hold water so it was easy to hold on to your first and correct guess.If I were Johnny Strange: I would have been upset if someone came into my office and started taking it over the way the new secretary did.
I would not have liked her from the start even if she (or he in some cases) had a pretty face.Yea Johnny "Angel" (as I'm calling him) really is Strange, about as strange as his strange secretary.Not a bad film - kinda cute.5/10.
***SPOILERS*** It's handsome and hot shot private eye Johnny Strange, Warren Douglas, who gets to the bottom of this very strange and confusing murder case by having all the suspects, five in all, attend a radio show where he'll expos the killer live and on the air.
It's just that his eventual killer was the last, like in most of these whodunit flicks, person you would have suspected to have murder the guy.
It was more of a reason that the killer finally decided to end this very boring detective movie and finally, for those of us who are condemned to watch or review it, put and end to our suffering.There's of course pretty blond secretary Gerry Smith, Adele Mara, who's boss Johnny Strange at first tries to hit on and later accuse her of murdering Fitch just to draw his real murderer out into the open.
There's also former 1920's and early 1930's Latin lover, who's actually Jewish, Ricardo Cortez as gangster and part time night club owner Duke York who claims throughout the movie that he knows who Fitch's killer is but keeps his mouth shut on his identity.
The hook for me occurred right in the opening scene introducing Johnny Strange of Action Incorporated in unusual fashion utilizing his business ad in the local phone directory.
But it got better, when beautiful blonde Geraldine Smith (Adele Mara) answers a want-ad in progress from Johnny Strange himself (Warren Douglas), hanging up the phone and hiring herself on the spot.
What Miss Smith was soon to learn was that "A secretary to Johnny Strange is no picnic...".For a film coming in at under an hour, this one sure has a lot of characters, understandable given the nature of the story.
You had to spread the murder suspects around to keep the viewer guessing, and it isn't until half way into the picture that we learn that the murder victim, a gossip personality on radio, had a blackmail sideline going for him to supplement his income.
The other likely suspects include a torch singer (Virginia Christine), a housekeeper (Dorothy Adams), the gardener (Will Wright), and secretary extraordinaire, Miss Smith herself.In order to solve the case, Johnny Strange pulls a page out of the Charlie Chan play book, and brings all the suspects together for a live radio broadcast to smoke out the killer.
Even with Johnny's explanation of how he was able to put it all together, it doesn't ring quite true, but beyond that, the flick winds up a nifty little time filler with an entertaining cast of characters.
Oh yeah, can't forget William Frawley as the luckless detective, exhibiting some of the traits that would make him the Ricardo's favorite neighbor a few more years down the road..
Adele Mara had a very healthy career and she was a very lovely adornment to the many movies she appeared in, even if they were only programmers.Johnny Strange (Warren Douglas)of Action Incorporated, is a private investigator, who is thinking of hiring a private secretary, when a mysterious Miss Smith (Adele Mara) breezes in and takes over in a very efficient but nice way.
He accepts a job from another mysterious lady and finds he is set up for the murder of Anthony Fitch, a well known radio personality, who has many enemies.
The mysterious lady and Miss Smith are the same - she is trying to protect her sister, who is wanted for the murder.
William Frawley, long before his "I Love Lucy" days, plays Detective Webb, who is called in to investigate.
Miss Smith, who just happens to be around, concocts a story that is not true but gets Johnny off.Johnny goes back to the scene of the crime to find out the truth and finds a record in the rubbish bin.
When Johnny plays the record, he recognises the singer as Rhoda (Virgina Christine) a girl he used to know when she was a singer south of the border.
Ricardo Cortez makes an always welcome appearance as Duke York, the owner of the Penguin Club and also an old friend of Johnnys.Miss Smith's sister, Anne (Martha Montgomery) enters the scene and tells how she was involved with Fitch - he was blackmailing her.
How the murderer is found out is achieved as a radio broadcast with everyone in the film playing their parts in front of microphones.
It is an interesting ending to a very recommended film..
"Hello, this is Johnny Strange of Action Incorporated.".
This is the ad Johnny Strange (Warren Douglas) places for a secretary: "Wanted: secretary to human dynamo.
Must be blonde, beautiful, between 22 and 28, unmarried, with a skin you love to touch and a heart you can't." Before he can finish, Gerry Smtih (Adele Mara) interrupts and takes the position.
Her first function is to take a call form a mysterious woman looking for help.
Johnny arrives at the appointed place at the appointed time to find a heavily veiled woman with a Spanish accent.
She takes him to a house where Johnny finds a dead man on the floor.
It's fast paced, has some interesting characters played by an above average cast for this kind of movie, an interesting plot, nice cinematography, witty and sharp dialogue, and just about everything else.
Other than the final scene where the mystery is solved, it all works for me.
The Inner Circle looks and feels like much more than the 40s B movie it is.I mentioned the cast and what a cast it is.
Warren Douglas, William Frawley, Ricardo Cortez, Will Wright, and Dorothy Adams are all outstanding.
She's a real delight.Overall, I'm going to give this breezy, fun film a 7/10..
In the case of "The Inner Circle", you'll stick with it just to see how far down the road of absurdity it will go.The plot deals with a private investigator (Warren Douglas) in need of an assistant who gets one that instant when all of a sudden a mysterious blonde (Adele Mara) walks in and announces that he's just hired her.
Then, she takes a mysterious phone call from a "client" whom Douglas agrees to meet which results him stumbling onto a dead body and the veiled brunette client proceeds to conk him over the head.
You won't be surprised to find out who she really is, and then the ridiculousness continues at a break-neck speed with a line-up of other suspects and Mara getting Douglas off for a murder he didn't commit on a self-defense charge.Cantankerous William Frawley plays a police investigator who trails both Mara and Douglas and always shows up at the most inconveniently obvious times.
There's a grizzled old handyman (Will Wright) and housekeeper (Dorothy Adams) who worked for the victim (a radio columnist), as well as a nightclub singer (Virginia Christine, best known for the Folgers commercials years later) and the nightclub owner (veteran actor Ricardo Cortez).
To top off the less than one hour of absurd story-telling, Douglas has Mara named as the killer and re-enacts the crime on a live radio show with everybody present with scripts in hand for the final denouncement.In spite of all the downright atrocious plot twists and developments, you might find yourself engrossed with ironic laughter at it all.
The film begins with Johnny Strange looking to place an ad for Action Incorporated.
He's a fast-talking private eye sort of fellow and I really liked the first ten minutes or so when he met up with a new (and quite bewildering) secretary.
He soon gets a case involving a very mysterious woman—a woman who wants him to dump a body.
The inspector (William Frawley) eventually is ready to arrest Strange when his odd secretary manages to save his skin.
But who is this mysterious lady and how can Strange get to the bottom of this?
Tune in to this B-movie
.if you are interested.This low-budget B-mystery isn't great, but it is enjoyable.
In addition, old movie nuts (like me) will enjoy seeing Ricardo Cortez in one of his last movie roles.
A radio gossip columnist is murdered and Johnny Strange of Action Incorporated (yes, indeed...) eventually solves the crime after being helped and hindered by a new secretary, a police lieutenant , a gangster, a gardener,a housekeeper and a night club singer.
It aspires to be Raymond Chandleresque but falls short.Johnny Strange is played routinely by Warren Douglas.
Adele Mara as the secretary and William Frawley as the cop are much better.
Ricardo Cortez is the gangster and puts in a polished performance but unfortunately isn't in it much.
The ubiquitous Edward Gargan plays 'Parking Ticket Cop.' And why the film is called 'The Inner Circle' certainly escaped me.
|
tt0022557
|
White Renegade
|
As described in a film magazine, Marshall Strong (Lewis) and John Moore (Playter) are partners in a mine and both love school teacher Constance Harvey (Turner). She prefers Strong, but Moore is crafty and she marries him. Moore is killed in a bar fight and Strong, who had come to the rescue, is accused of murder. Constance and Strong might have still found each other, but Lilas Niles (Truax), through a plot, brings about a misunderstanding and marries Strong. Twenty years later Strong, calling himself Mark Smith, is a wealthy mine operator and he and Lilas have a daughter Nancy (Brent). Constance is still a widow and her son David Moore (Greene) gets a job working at the mine and meets Nancy. Mark Smith does not take proper safety precautions for the mine workers and there is discontent. David is a power for good sense and moderation, and the mine owner trusts him. Nancy's mother Lilas has arranged an engagement for her daughter to an English baronet, Sir Horace Seaton (Hyde). There is an explosion at the mine, and David and Sir Horace rush to the burning mine and try to rescue Mark and the other miners. They pass through a long galley in flames, but are not successful. However, Mark and the miners have escaped through a side passage. As a result, Mark becomes more generous in the mining operation, and David and Nancy are later wed.
|
revenge, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0280240
|
The Big O
|
The Big O is set in the fictional city-state of Paradigm City (パラダイム・シティ, Paradaimu Shiti). The city is located on a seacoast and is surrounded by a vast desert wasteland. The partially domed city is wholly controlled by the monopolistic Paradigm Corporation, resulting in a corporate police state. Paradigm is known as "The City of Amnesia" (記憶喪失の街, Kioku soushitsu no Machi) because forty years prior to the story, ""The Event" (何か, Nani ka, lit. "Something") destroyed the world outside the city and left the survivors without any prior memories.
The city is characterized by severe class inequity; the higher-income population resides inside the more pleasant domes, with the remainder left in tenements outside. Androids coexist with the human inhabitants of Paradigm City; while they are rare, they are sufficiently numerous that denizens of the city do not consider them unusual.
Several episodes show inhabitants of Paradigm City practicing some form of Christianity: people congregate in meeting places with crucifixes prominently displayed. The practice appears to be based on custom, because no one clearly remembers any doctrine associated with the practice. A ruined cathedral remains unused, although some elderly people occasionally stand in front of it and sing incompletely remembered hymns. In episode 11, it appears that only Alex Rosewater, CEO of the Paradigm Corporation that runs the city, remembers or observes Christmas. A holiday commemorating the founding of Paradigm City, "Heaven's Day", is observed on December 25. Though citizens decorate with generic Christmas decorations, they are ignorant of their original meaning. Dastun mentions that Rosewater had in his possession fragments of a "Book of Revelation", although neither Dastun nor Roger had heard of it before.
Although the textbook definition of memory is a record stored in the brain of an organism, the citizens of Paradigm City use the term more loosely; "Memories" (メモリー, Memorī) can refer to forgotten knowledge, records or artifacts from before The Event, or partial forms of recollection including hallucinations and recurring dreams.
The first season is episodic. Each episode (referred to as an "Act") relates a separate instance the resurgence of lost "memories" and how the citizens cope with their collective amnesia. The final episodes introduce elements that come into play during season two, like the discovery of people living outside of Paradigm City, the true nature of the Event, and something obliquely described as "the Power of God wielded by the hand of man".
While the majority of the first season's episodes are self-contained stories, the second season comprises a single serialized story arc. Alex Rosewater becomes a direct antagonist to Roger, and a mysterious group known as "The Union" is introduced, containing agents of a foreign power working within the City.
=== Ending ===
The series ends with the awakening of a new megadeus, and the revelation that the world is a simulated reality. A climactic battle ensues between Big O and Big Fau, after which reality is systematically erased by the new megadeus, an incarnation of Angel, recognised as "Big Venus" by Dorothy. Roger implores Angel to "let go of the past" regardless of its existential reality, and focus only on the present and the future. In an isolated control room, the real Angel observes Roger and her past encounters with him on a series of television monitors. On the control panel lies Metropolis, a book featured prominently since the thirteenth episode, with the cover featuring an illustration of angel wings and gives the author's name as "Angel Rosewater". Big Venus and Big O physically merge, causing the virtual reality to reset. A white flash subsides, and the first scenes of the first episode of the series play out. New versions of Dorothy and Angel watch Roger drive down the street as he delivers again his first speech of the series ("My name is Roger Smith. I perform a much needed job here in the City of Amnesia"), although he is a little hesitant this time. The ending title card, "We have come to terms," appears, and the credits roll.
|
suspenseful, neo noir, murder, haunting, sci-fi
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Sweet....
I am a fan of the Cartoon Network anime lineup, and by far this is the best show out of them all.Unlike the other, more 'famous' anime shows (hence the Dragonball series), this show actually has realism in it.
It isn't all action-packed.
The show mostly surrounds negotiator Roger Smith uncovering information related to the jobs that his clients often give him or uncovering deep secrets about the forgotten past, in which an event forty years ago erased everyones' memory.
It's pretty much talk, but it's interesting talk, because the talk that goes on throughout the show really relates to real-life situations--political corruption, the love for lost ones, and the desire to know the truth.
Though this would bore an adrenaline-junkie, it would catch interest to those that I'd like to call 'down-to-Earthers', especially with the most wonderful music that is just too good to be put in a cartoon series.But that doesn't mean that there isn't action.
The battles that premiere in the series have enough action to supply that adrenaline junkie with all the sweat he needs (and all within just about five minutes, too).Big O is by far the most successful amongst the dying robot-themed shows.
Though the Transformers series seems to be long-lasting, it too is dying out as animators grow tired of constantly putting in the details of machinery and head to using computers as a way to 'build' the robots and give them movement.
This type of animation doesn't blend in with the rest of the animation, thus fails (as seen in Transformers Energon).Which brings up another point.
Notice how the animation throughout the entire series remains constant.
Sure the lighting changed, but the animation overall has remained the same.
It shows that the people who drew up the series were determined to have the animation remain constant and nearly flawless (unlike in the Dragonball series when different animators draw separate episodes).
This (especially when having giant robots battling) requires a lot of patience and loyalty.
And let me assure you that they have not gone unappreciated for their loyalty to the animation.
Kudos, animators!Overall: life-like characters that grow throughout the series; life-like situations; incredible animation; dazzling battles; and (most importantly), the most wonderful music for a cartoon ever.Rating: 10 out of 10.
The battle music still makes my neck hair stand up....
Red Balloons and Red Tomatoes.
Big O is not like any other show I have ever seen.
The writers clearly have extensive knowledge concerning Greek mythology and even Christianity.
It is a cartoon sure, but the depth of the show is very subjective.
The show itself gives the viewer just enough clues to allow one to believe that all of the other unending parade of questions will somehow be answered, but apparently, they won't.
The show walks a profound balance of story and probability and divine vagueness.
I saw a few episodes of this show and became hooked like no other show I have ever seen.
The overall themes are far from light.
Two of them being memories and ultimately attempting to define life.
What is the value of one's life without memories?
What separates humans from androids in a futurist world without knowing which actually came first?
And that is assuming who and what each character actually is, which is far from a given.
My obsession with the show did eventually wane, largely because the show itself is rather slow at times.
There are plenty of action scenes with enormous robots, also representing something I'm sure, to balance the pace, but those battles rarely excited me.
The truly strange aspect of this show is that the majority of it for me is window dressing.
It's the symbolism that is scattered throughout each episode that elevates this show to atmospheric levels.
This show is just smart enough and just open ended enough for each little mysterious detail to have some profound meaning.
This show has everything within it to be the basis of a new religion in and of itself, seriously.
The fact that all the answers can plausibly be answered, but aren't, makes Big O that much more life-like in nature..
Anime for beginners or veterans.
The Big O.
An anime series that has appeal to those that don't like anime.
But don't be fooled!
The series can be appreciated by anyone that has half a brain.
I will give you three reasons to see The Big O for yourself: #1: The characters.
Each one unique, and they all interact with each other very well.
The voice actors for the English version are superb.
It is hard to believe that the series was originally in Japanese.#2.
The depth.
The series is as deep as any I have seen which makes it good for second and third viewings.
There are subtle nuances that really set this series apart.
The depth you will find in The Big O is impressive, but it is a show that you can enjoy completely on the surface as well.#3.
The music.
The soundtrack for this series is simply breathtaking.
Of course there are some tracks that are a little silly, but they fit the scenes well.
The main tracks are ones that will rope you into the series even if you don't like the story.
Finding music of this quality is not common at all.The only thing I regret about this series is that more people haven't seen it.
I would love it if this series was one that all people at least tried out.
Then maybe the producers would make additional acts for our viewing pleasure.
The story is left open for additional seasons to be added, let's hope that they do..
The Big O is one of the most creative efforts to ever come out of Japan.
Combining the rather dark style of Batman: The Animated Series in animation, the giant robot action of yesteryear, and combining some really surrealistic elements, it manages to entertain such people.
It is not your fast paced show with action at every minute, but it has rather impressive fight sequences with cleverly designed mechs I might add.
Then you add the rather interesting characters that somehow develop during it's 13 episode run, and you've got a rather impressive series.It's not for everybody, but I'd recommend Big O to even the most avid fan of animation.The only bad part is that it's only 13 episodes and it stops rather abruptly, so let's hope it can get more soon..
Great but Short Series.
This series is extremely well crafted.
They have commented on Cartoon Network that this show is mix of Batman: The Animated Series and Blade Runner.It is, but more.
This show showcases true hardcore Science Fiction world, with mysteries, drama and element of imagination that hasn't been seen in rather long time.
Dark look on the future, what may happen.Also resurrects old Giant Robot theme, which has virtually disappeared from American Television.However, the show as it show now, in April, is lacking in only one thing.
A ending.The show was released without any additional episodes.
Only 13 and blunt and sudden ending.
We can only hope that more episodes will released soon..
Big O, Season II: American Ending.
Thru pure determination, Big O has lived up to its catch phrase...
"Big O, its Showtime!"Second Season of Big O (Which should be considered a second series) has arisen due to the efforts of Cartoon Network in the United States.The series was re-edited to be more a Big Robot show than the more sophisticated show it original was for Japanese audience.However, despite it being changed, it still a winner of series with Season 2 coming out swinging (literally) as first episode of season 2 starts off with the battle which had begun at very end of Season 1's last episode.However, due to Time (1998-99) Now it was redone in (2002) the series has been made bit more clearer for the American audience which is made for.
Sadly the old future or direction of the show which it was going in season 1 is without a doubt has been changed radically.
I believe,this is due to the limitation of 13 additional episodes for Big O.
The series' timeless one off episodes which leaves a clue on what world is about and where series is going has been put into OVERDRIVE, sped up to resolve rest of the series.
(2003) Series, deals with Roger dealing with fact his life maybe not his own but of someone else, elaborate stage to relive the live of original Roger Smith and his giant Robot, Big O.
Whom for some reason has been given to him to resolve the cities biggest problems.Without spoiling anything, the series resolves itself in way that will throw a long time viewer off their rocker or throw away any ideas they've been given on what has been going on for entire 2 seasons.The show is still a fantastic ride, even if its Americanized.
It is a down right well put together.
The series is a nicely done mystery/action series that will suck you in and makes you think.If you are able to get this series on DVD, I'd grab it.
Please don't let the fact original first season being re-done for American Audience scare you off.
Its still down right very good show..
Big O is a big success by this great critic.
Big O 2001 by Sunrise and Bandai Entertainment who brought Gundam Wing, and who made the Macross and Gundam games is one of the greatest cartoons I've seen in the year 2000.This is a great series, one of the newest Japan Anime in 2001 and surely one of the best cartoons out there.American animators cannot emulate the Japan Anime cartoons and Big O is proof.It's gritty, romantic, touching, action packed and full of stories, and that is in every episode!!The star is Roger Smith who is the head negotiator in breaking or sealing criminal cases or any cases where the police or military is afraid to get involved in.He lives in Paradigm city, a dark city that has been torn by crime, military action and corruption.In only his first days on the job, he catches the idea of an attractive and elegant young lady called "Dorothy".Dorothy is not you're average woman, she is a whiz on the piano and has a certain way with people.
Oh yeah Dorothy is a robot.She is virtually indestructible,yet her softness in characters reveals she is not made entirely of metal.Dorothy is cared for by her Grandfather.
The Grandfather knows Dorothy is a robot but he protects her like his own daughter.A hoodlum by the name of Beck Gold plots to steal Dorothy and Smith (having suspicions about Dorothy) tries to intervene.
Dorothy's Grandfather is shot and Beck kidnaps Dorothy .Smith rescues her eventually and they develop a mutual friendship between man and machine.The series works because of it's likeable characters, musical soundtrack which uses the piano to produce a feeling of what's going on in a scene,and above all incredible animation.
The musical scences with the piano also convey a soothing feeling to a long day.Smith controls an undercover machine knows as "Megadeus" which is Big O.The series reminds me of Voltron because Megadeus fights many bosses in every episode in spectacular fashion.The series has been dubbed in English and currently showing in Cartoon Network's lineup.The dubbing is amazingly good.
It's one of the best dubbing jobs, I've seen so far.
David Lucas (Roger Smith), Lia Sargent(Dorothy) lend their great voices to this anime.
Made through Bandai and Sunrise which produced Gundam Wing and Macross, these guys just keep making the hits.Take it from this great critic, Big O is a big success..
The Big O is once again a big success with this great series.
Well 13 new episodes arrived in August and I have to say theyre are the same level or higher than the first 13.Roger and Dorothy combat new enemies including copycats of Big O and Roger must again combat his former enemies and learns that his memories as a child in Paradigm city.The only real complaint is that the son of a bitch, City Executive from last season is now portrayed as this wuzzy, weaking who didnt get along with his dad.
LOL Who the hell cares besides that.
The new episodes are great, they answer some question and leave a couple open..
I love Big O.
I was up watching Cartoon Network late one night and came across this show.
I've been hooked ever since!
It comes on EXTREMELY late where I am, but it is definitely worth me getting up at 5 am to watch, take another 1 hour nap and get up for work.
I'm not a big Anime person, I'm a 33 year old professional female with no kids, yet the characters are extremely engaging and I love the ending credit song.
I've been trying to find out how to actually get it on my Ipod.
I don't know much about the difference between the version from Japan and that in America, yet whatever I have been watching in the US has been excellent!
I hope everyone tunes to Cartoon Network to watch!!!.
This show just seemed to try to hard to make the story surprising..
I liked this show for the most part, the main problem I had with it are the strange ending episodes of both the first and second season as it were.
I was disappointed with the way the first season ended or the series wrapped up as a whole.
I think the show was supposed to have ended after the first season, but Americans wanted more so it came back and was interesting again until it neared the end and once again it got a bit to muddled for my tastes.
The show had it all though, James Bond kind of action and espionage and giant robots duking it out.
Though most shows had a pattern of some sort of little mission for the main character Roger and then some super robot would come and he would summon his own little robot Big O and they would of course clash.
Granted it does seem repetitive written here, however it played out very well and there were certainly some interesting story arcs going on.
I was so interested to see how it all wrapped up, but it in the end did not work as I just thought Dorthy was not involved enough and Angel became this super important character out of nowhere.
Still it looked good and for the most part most of the other episodes was very entertaining, just did not care for the cause of the strange city known as amnesia..
"The Big O" returns with all-new episodes on August 31, 2003.
In the meantime, you can enjoy re-runs of Season 1, now showing on Cartoon Network.
It's gonna be a long, hot summer; let "The Big O" cool you down!
Check your local listings..
Once you filter out the giant robot battles, which although important to the story, are mainly included for commercial considerations, Big O can best be viewed as an allegory for man's search for identity, and an exploration of the relationships between memory, imagination, and knowledge.
As such, it doesn't always make rational sense, which is something we are conditioned to expect by Western cinema.
When watching Big O, focus more on the ideas presented than the events.One of the most remarkable aspects of the series is the character of R.
Dorothy Wayneright.
Rarely is such a fascinating character drawn with so few strokes.
Her interplay with Roger is compelling and at times quite comical.In all, despite the often shoehorned appearance of mecha battles, Big O is a remarkable work of art both stylistically and intellectually..
Cast in the Name of God, Ye Not Guilty.
Cast in the Name of God, Ye Not Guilty.
When I was a little kid I watched this show like crazy.
I picked it up recently and re watched the series.
It was a superb show with a very Gothic and noir feel.
The characters were very interesting and had a good bit of development.
The anime has been loved and ridiculed but for me it will always be my favorite mecha anime ever.
I would say not to watch season 2 it was very strange and I didn't enjoy the ending.
I also found the action was the focal point of the second season and not the mystery of Paradigm City.
The animation however was good and the dubbing was also very well done.
Overall I found this anime to be the best and most nostalgic anime I watched.
I suggest picking it up and watching it.
|
tt0079924
|
Solo Sunny
|
Ingrid "Sunny" Sommer is a singer for an East German band, called the Tornadoes, whose audience is usually senior citizens. For Sunny, performing as a solo pop singer is her dream but singing the same song over and over to a small crowd has not gotten her there yet. When the saxophone player of the band is injured, the musician and philosopher Ralph steps in to substitute for him. Sunny falls for Ralph’s saxophone skills, and soon they become lovers. Sunny asks Ralph to write her a song, and eventually he agrees. After walking off the stage before a performance, Sunny is soon replaced in the band by a new girl. Sunny turns to Ralph for comfort and finds him cheating on her. Finally Sunny has a chance to sing solo on stage with the song Ralph wrote for her, but she does not feel the love that she desires from the audience and gives up. After mixing sleeping pills and alcohol Sunny ends up in a hospital where she stays for rehabilitation. Once Sunny gets back on her feet she goes back to her old factory job, but she quits shortly after starting. The film ends with Sunny being accepted as a singer for another band with a sound different from the Tornadoes.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0035861
|
Falling Hare
|
This cartoon opens with the title credits over the strains of “Down by the Riverside”, then into an extended series of establishing shots of an Army Air Force base, to the brassy strains of “We’re in to Win” (a World War II song also sung by Daffy Duck in Scrap Happy Daffy two months before). The sign at the base reads "U.S. Army Air Field", and below that is shown the location, the number of planes and number of men, all marked "Censored" as a reference to military secrecy. Beneath those categories, the sign reads "What men think of top sergeant", which is shown with a large white-on-black "CENSORED!!", as the language implied would not pass scrutiny by the Hays Office.
Bugs is found reclining on a piece of ordnance next to a bomber plane, idly reading Victory Thru Hare Power (a spoof of the 1942 book) and laughing uproariously at the book’s claim that gremlins wreck American planes through "di-a-bo-lick-al saa-boh-tay-jee." He immediately encounters one of the creatures, who is experimentally striking the unfused nose of a bomb Bugs is sitting on with an oversized mallet to the tune of “I've Been Working on the Railroad”. Bugs casually asks the gremlin what he’s doing. The gremlin replies that blockbuster bombs like the one in question do not detonate unless they’re struck with perfect precision. Noticing the gremlin’s lack of success, Bugs offers to help him. But after taking the mallet and raising it in preparation to strike the bomb, Bugs suddenly comes to his senses and refrains from following through milliseconds from striking it, screaming "WHAT AM I DOING?!" as he does so. He then ponders if the creature in question was a gremlin. The gremlin replies as loud as he could: "It ain’t Vendell Villkie!"
The Gremlin ties up Bugs’s ears leaving him confused and hits his foot with a monkey wrench, further taunting Bugs by "laughing" the first seven notes of Yankee Doodle once aboard the aircraft. Bugs recovers and gives chase, repeatedly getting slighted by the gremlin, which includes repeated strikes with a monkey wrench and the "laughed" musical taunt. Bugs chases the gremlin inside a bomber, and finds himself locked from the outside. Then the gremlin takes the plane to the air, unbeknownst to Bugs. Bugs manages to burst out of the plane’s exit door, narrowly escaping plunging to his death when he realizes the plane is airborne. He manages to get back in, only to slide right out the other door due to strategically placed banana skins; when the gremlin opens the door again, he finds Bugs (who has apparently and humorously aged several years through sheer terror) clinging to it with his heart beating "4F" (Army code for drastically limiting medical condition, hospitalization required). His cat-and-mouse game with the gremlin continues, until Bugs realizes that the Gremlin is flying the plane toward a pair of skyscrapers. Bugs rushes into the cockpit, takes control of the airplane, rolls it vertically and flies through an extremely narrow slot between the towers to avoid what seemed to be an inevitable impact.
The plane goes into a tailspin, its wings ripping off during its descent, with only the fuselage remaining, making Bugs both airsick and terrified. However, the plane sputters to a halt, half a short distance above the ground and hanging in mid-air, defying gravity. Both Bugs and the Gremlin then casually address the audience: the gremlin apologizes for the plane's fuel depletion, while Bugs points to a wartime gas rationing sticker on the plane's windshield and remarks: "Yeah. You know how it is with these A cards!"
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Mega Cartoon Short.
Falling Hare is my favorite cartoon short ever.
What I like the most about it is that Bugs Bunny "gets it good"!
It seems like Bugs gets his way in every one of his cartoons (except for when he races with Cecil the Turtle)!
Watching Falling Hare, however, is way better than watching Bugs lose to Cecil in the races.
In Falling Hare the Gremlin really (and I mean really) lets Bugs have it.
Another reason why I think this animated short is so cool is because it is "fast paced!" Almost all of it takes place in an Airplane!
I could watch this over and over and never get bored of it.
If you are tired of watching Bugs win all of his battles (which I am) I highly recommend that you record Falling Hare..
other gremlins, another Bugs.
Whereas Joe Dante's holiday classic "Gremlins" portrayed its title characters as evil, conniving little monsters, "Falling Hare" shows a (slightly) different side.
In this case, Bugs Bunny is reading "Victory Thru Hare Power" when he reads about gremlins sabotaging the airplanes.
But when a gremlin starts sabotaging the airplane that Bugs is working on, Bugs suddenly changes.
Usually the cool-headed, acerbic type, he becomes an impetuous, accident-prone twerp.
And the gremlin knows exactly how to use Bugs's weaknesses against him.
I guess that you could say that the little guy becomes Bugs, while Bugs becomes most of the other Looney Tunes.So, while the gremlin here is still conniving, he's clearly got his goals laid out.
It's a pretty neat cartoon.
A lot of fun to watch and a great history lesson.
This is a true time capsule of a cartoon in that it gives wonderful insight into what life was like for Americans back in 1943.
There are so many wonderful references to gremlins, Wendell Wilkie and gasoline ration cards that the cartoon could be used as a tool to teach kids about WWII.
Fortunately, while it is jam-packed full of such interesting tidbits, it also is pretty funny and well worth watching over 60 years later!
The film does seem a bit strange, though, as for once, Bugs Bunny is NOT the wise-cracking or annoying jerk he was in most films made of him during the war.
Instead, he is the unlikely voice of reason that tries to thwart the evil but mischievous intentions of the gremlin!
The short abounds with cute jokes, sight gags and a very original script (the only similar cartoon I can think about is GREMLINS FROM THE KREMLIN--another Looney Toons cartoon, but one where a huge swarm of gremlins are working for the allies to destroy the Nazi menace)..
Falling Hare: Inner workings of a Cwazy Wabbit.
Mr. Freeling, Producer of the Bugs cartoons in their most classic era, believed there were two basic dramatic types: Identification Characters (Porky, Elmer Fudd ) and Aspiration Characters ( Bugs, and...Yosemite Sam?
Bugs as we know is a supernatural Being, with powers ordinary rabbits or humans do not have.
In this movie he encounters another such Being, the Gremlin.
But the Gremlin is even more Elemental than Bugs---he's a sort of Primordial Force of Destruction.Its not that he hates anybody; its his job, and he does it well, like James Bond.
Right at the outset of the Bug/Gremlin collaboration the little guy says that you have to hit Blockbusters just right; Bugs, with his typical streetwise sangfroid says, "Yeah?" but instead of the usual blowing off of the other character, the Gremlin even more authoritatively replies "YEAH!" and makes it stick.
From then on, the Gremlin is in charge.For another Bugs-Tables-Turned storyline, see the one with the Lion ( married to Hortense ): "I gotta go Mr. Bunny; sorry I can't stay and Kill you."But for me the most important and intriguing detail of the cartoon is during the sequence with the Blockbuster Bomb, when the music distinctly plays the phrase "I'll Take Manhattan." This was 1943, remember, and the Manhattan Project was top secret..
I love Looney Tunes, and this is one of my favourites.
It has a great and original story.
The animation and settings look great, and don't look dated.
The gags are wonderfully timed and ones not to forget in a hurry.
Bugs' mental breakdown is one of the best in cartoon history, and Bugs himself while different from his normal persona is just great.
The gremlin is for me one of the most memorable foils/support characters in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, he looks cute but his actions suggest otherwise.
And not to mention, this is one of those cartoons where it does a very good job at keeping everything in sync, just hear how the gremlin strikes the bomb with his hammer in tune to the music, hearing that you'll probably agree that bit especially is very cleverly done.
All in all, a classic.
All in all, a classic.
10/10 Bethany Cox. A bit dated now, but entertaining nonetheless.
This short has a lot of topical humor, which is the case with most of the work produced anyway, but this is topical to World War II and to many people alive today, that seems like eons ago.
References to Wendell Wilkie and "A" cards and the like will sail by many in the audience, but sight gags and the overall wackiness will be enjoyable enough.
Check out the title of the book Bugs is reading at the start-it's a great gag!
Well worth watching.
This Certainly Was Not The Bugs Bunny We Know.
Here's another World War II cartoon, this one beginning at a U.S. Army airfield.
The first thing I appreciated was the tremendous artwork regarding those war planes.
Part of that, of course, is due to the tremendous restoration job they have done on these Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs.Bugs in nearby, reading "Victory Through Hare Power." Bugs is laughing at what he's reading.
He clues us in with, "Get this folks: it says 'a constant menace to pilots is are the gremlins who wreck planes with their diabolical sabotage.' Ha ha, what a joke.
Gremlins - what a fairy tale.
ha ha."It doesn't take a genius to figure out that in the next scene, he's going to see one of these little creatures.
He does, but then surprises me by not saying the customary "What's up, doc?" but "What's all the hubbub, bub?"Actually, this wasn't nearly as much fun as the normal Bugs Bunny cartoon because, as his fans know, Bugs is very, very smart guy.
This Bugs Bunny is a dope and the little Gremlin makes a fool of him constantly.
In this cartoon, Bugs literally turns momentarily into a "jackass," and that pretty much describes him in those one - certainly not the Bugs we know.Overall: disappointing..
A Different Kind of Bugs Short.
Falling Hare (1943)*** (out of 4)World War II produced short has Bugs Bunny reading a book warning that there are "gremlins" out there who want to harm America.
Bugs laughs this idea off but before long he's being beaten and abused by a gremlin.FALLING HARE isn't what I'd consider a "classic" short but it's certainly rather unique.
Many of the famous cartoon characters from this era were put into wartime shorts where they battled Germany, Hitler and various others.
This film is certainly unique since we get to see Bugs taking the abuse that he normally hands out to other people.
Obviously there's a "warning" message in the film and it comes across very well.
Overall this is a fun short that has some great animation and a rather good storyline.
The film is missing the laughs that you get with a normal Bugs short but it's still very much worth watching..
Fun Bugs Bunny short with a wartime backdrop.
During WWII, unexplained accidents and mechanical problems aboard aircraft were jokingly blamed on mischievous creatures called gremlins (which were inspiration for the creatures in the Joe Dante movie we all know and love).
In this cartoon, Bugs doesn't believe that gremlins are causing sabotage to airplanes until he catches one in the act.
What follows are a series of funny gags as Bugs tussles with the gremlin on land and in the air.
The music and voicework are great.
Love the animation, especially the airplane crash dive scene.
The gremlin actually gets the best of Bugs throughout the short, something that you didn't see very often..
Good gags but not a normal Bugs.
Bugs Bunny is relaxing on an A-Bomb reading a magazine and laughing at stories of gremlins interfering in the workings of aircraft.
However when one such gremlin starts to mess around with the aircraft and equipment on the base, Bugs overcomes his disbelief to try and stop it.Taking a good idea this film pitches Bugs against a gremlin to reasonable good effect to create an enjoyable, if far from great, cartoon.
The gags are pretty good but parts of it do drag on a little too long without being funny the final punch-line is weak but yet seems to be built up to for at least a minute!
Despite this it still worked quite well, although many of the topical (at the time) references went over my head made me think what watching Shrek will be like in about 50 years time!
The other big weakness it did have was in it's lead character which was a surprising thing to me.
I love Bugs and enjoy seeing him twist things on those who would get him!
I like to se the many ways he gets the upper hand.
However here he was very much the lesser character in terms of scoring points.
He is shown to be easily tricked and fooled and, at times, out of his depth in fact in the plane he is portrayed as terrified for the majority of the time.
This didn't ruin the cartoon for me as it was still funny, but this was not the usual character I expect to see when I watch Bugs Bunny.Overall this was an enjoyable cartoon despite it's weaknesses.
Fans of Bugs (as I am) may struggle to enjoy it simply because our hero is painted as some sort of coward and weakling a far cry from his usual wise-ass self!.
Not my favourite episode, but this had its good parts..
One of many Looney Tunes cartoons set and made during the Second World War, "Falling Hare" does not show any fighting (unlike in some shorts at the time) but has many references to what was happening at the time.
Looney Tunes was at first geared for adults, so cartoons that had references to the time at hand were not disapproved as they usually are today (of course, children would have watched this as well).
I like this short because of the entertaining, quite early Bugs Bunny (he still had a different voice), the animation and some of the gags.
I find the gremlin quite unnecessary, why the makers of this short wanted to include him I do not know, but without the gremlin the jokes would be geared in a much different way.
The humour is slightly similar to that of humour today, but with a more old fashioned note.
The episode starts with Bugs reading a book about creatures called gremlins.
He thinks they are definitely not real, until he sees one trying to make a bomb explode.
Quite a few troubles follow.I recommend this to anyone who likes every Bugs Bunny episode and for people who are interested in watching early episodes.
Enjoy "Falling Hare"!
:-)NOTE: For anyone who watches this cartoon, be aware that Bugs Bunny is a bit (to put it plainly) thick in this short.
This has already been a slight disappointment to Bugs Bunny fans, but as long as you know it, it should be OK.
"Diabolical sabotage".
"Falling Hare", directed by the wacky Robert Clampett, is a Bugs Bunny cartoon with plenty of wildly funny sight gags as Bugs chases an airplane-wrecking gremlin around a U.S. Army air field.
HOWEVER, when I first saw this cartoon during my high school days (late '80s/early '90s), I found it highly disturbing.
Because I didn't like to see Bugs Bunny be the fall guy.
But this was characteristic of Clampett; he didn't follow all the rules.
Bugs Bunny didn't ALWAYS win.Here are my favorite moments from "Falling Hare".
Composer Raymond Scott's familiar "Powerhouse" can be heard as Bugs chases the gremlin directly into the airplane cabin.
Then we hear the familiar strains of "Ochi Tchornya" as Bugs tries to break down the cabin door, after which we hear a familiar jocular melody as Bugs turns into a jackass.
After Bugs saves the plane from crashing into a cavalcade of tall buildings, he becomes out of breath as the gremlin fans him.As I mentioned earlier, I was initially very disturbed by "Falling Hare", but I eventually got over it.
And by the way, the opening shots of the massive air field, accompanied by some wonderfully patriotic music, must have done quite a bit to boost morale for our brave soldiers on combat duty during World War II.
And the drawing of Bugs as he reads "Victory Thru Hare Power" is probably the best drawing of the wascawwy wabbit I've ever seen!.
Bugs as victim makes for a classic and unforgettable cartoon.
Bob Clampett's 'Falling Hare' is one of the greatest Bugs Bunny cartoons ever made.
Part of the fascinating sub-genre of "Bugs as loser" cartoons, 'Falling Hare' sees Bugs being terrorised by a little gremlin for seven minutes.
Far from a gentle needling, the gremlin puts Bugs in genuine fear of his life as he is imprisoned on a plummeting aircraft.
Deceptively cute, the gremlin's nonchalance makes his psychopathic intentions all the more disturbing.
He chuckles to the tune of 'Yankee Doodle' as he sets about destroying a plane in mid-flight and attempting to dispense of Bugs by having him plummet to his death.
Though the gremlin is a fascinating character, 'Falling Hare' is really Bugs's show as he is driven to complete hysteria as he battles for his life.
He goes through fits of screaming desperation, Technicolor nausea and complete collapse.
It's one of the great cartoon breakdowns of all time (for another great animated mental collapse, see Friz Freleng's 'Canned Feud') and the fact that it is the usually cocky and self-assured Bugs going through it makes 'Falling Hare' even more remarkable.
The sight of Bugs screaming at the window of a plane as it goes down has stuck with me ever since the first time I saw 'Falling Hare'.
For anyone who makes the claim that Bugs must always be the winner, 'Falling Hare' is a must-see.
Falling Hare places Bugs Bunny in a unique position for him.
Just watched this Leon Schlesinger cartoon again on the Thank Your Lucky Stars DVD.
When I first watched this on "Buckskin Bill's Storyland" on weekday mornings on WAFB-TV in the late '70s as a child, I did not like it because of Bugs' becoming the fall guy instead of a winner.
However, as I grew up and became aware of the World War II era and the culture of the time, I appreciated the way many icons of the time dealt with whatever fears they had.
And so it's now very enjoyable to see the wabbit have his outs with the gremlin who keeps tricking him in various ways throughout.
And it's always a special treat whenever Raymond Scott's "Powerhouse" plays as part of Carl Stalling's score.
And to paraphrase various cartoon characters, ain't director Bob Clampett a stinker?
So on that note, Falling Hare comes highly recommended..
There's a version of this Looney Tune .
. titled FALLING HARE STORYBOARD REEL, which can be found on Disc 4 of Volume 3 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection.
The extremely crude binary-colored artwork is on static display here for maybe two-thirds of a nine-minute running time, meaning viewers see about one-third of the final cartoon (though they hear all of it).
This narrow focus makes one realize how arcane Great Granddaddy's World War Two Era has become.
For instance, when Bugs crawls back into the plane the second time, his heartbeat is labeled "4F." This was NOT some Fascist version of the 4H Club.
WWII was fought mostly by draftees, led by the physically fit "1A" Class.
At the end, Bugs Bunny refers to his "A Card." This was part of the War-Time civilian gas rationing program (though if John Wayne HAD accepted his movie stunt man-deserving "1A" draft board rating, he'd have smuggled a Civilian Ration Card overseas to keep his jeep 200 miles from the Front Lines).
And, of course, the German Gremlin supports Wayne's Pachyderm Party choice for U.S. President, "Vendell Villke," a.k.a. that Dead Man Walking, Wendell Willke..
One of the earlier film treatments of gremlins .
"Diabolical saboteurs" in times of War, gremlins are as likely as not to undertake suicide attacks.
They are capable of launching pilot-less aircraft, and steering these military drones toward civilian skyscrapers.
In Real Life, gremlins apparently succeeded in ramming a WWII-era bomber through an upper floor of New York City's Empire State Building a few years after FALLING HARE's warning came out.
To keep up morale, such acts are often blamed upon mechanical failure or the weather, as was the case here.
In other episodes, pilots themselves have been deemed to suffer from Gremlin Possession, with the ocean-diving Egypt Air pilot and the more recent German Alps "suicide" jockey just two of many examples.
Statistically, air travel is said to remain the second safest form of transportation, after elevators.
But if you were on "the lift" in the World Trade Center the morning of Sept.
11, 2001, it wasn't so safe, as up to 500 folks "going up" never made it.
Sounds a lot like the work of "diabolical saboteurs," doesn't it?
|
tt0028445
|
Partie de campagne
|
Monsieur Dufour (André Gabriello), a shop-owner from Paris, takes his family for a day of relaxation in the country. When they stop for lunch at the roadside restaurant of Poulain (Jean Renoir), two young men there, Henri (Georges D'Arnoux) and Rodolphe (Jacques B. Brunius), take an interest in Dufour's daughter Henriette (Sylvia Bataille) and wife Madame Dufour (Jane Marken). They scheme to get the two women off alone with them. They offer to row them along the river in their skiffs, while they divert Dufour and his shop assistant and future son-in-law, Anatole (Paul Temps), by lending them some fishing poles. Though Rodolphe had arranged beforehand to take Henriette, Henri maneuvers it so that she gets into his skiff. Rodolphe then good-naturedly settles for Madame Dufour.
Henri rows to a secluded spot on the riverbank which he refers to as his "private office". Though Henriette initially rebuffs his amorous advances, she eventually gives in. He asks her to come see him again, but she says that her father would never permit her to venture into the countryside by herself.
Years pass, and Henriette marries Anatole. One day, they end up at the place where Henri seduced Henriette. While Anatole dozes, his wife takes a walk, and encounters Henri. With tears in her eyes, she reminisces about their brief time together. Then, when Anatole wakes up, Henri hides until they leave.
|
cult
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
There are those, this reviewer included, who believe Renoir originally intended this film as one-half of a double feature of Guy De Maupassant adaptations.
Whatever might have once been planned, however, does nothing to soften the radiant beauty and brilliance of the film.Renoir had collected around himself a group of friends and family in the hope of creating what he later described as a "holiday" atmosphere during the scheduled week of filming.
In accordance with the story on which it is based, long summer days and balmy afternoons by the river banks were called for in Renoir's script.
Eventually, after refusing Sylvia Bataille's request for leave so she might audition for a future project in Paris, the director himself nonchalantly announced he would be abandoning the film to concentrate his efforts on his next film, Les Bas-fonds.Considering all of the above, it is miraculous that the film we see today is such a luminous, sensual masterpiece.Much is made of Renoir's use of deep focus techniques in films such as Le Regle de Jeu and La Grande Illusion, quite rightly so, but it is also used to great effect in this film.
It is an exhilarating moment in cinema, the sudden infusion of life and nature into the film echoes in the viewer's mind throughout the short running time.Renoir is a great film-maker, perhaps the greatest of all, and this is a great film, perhaps his greatest of all..
My prep school could hardly be described as being particularly sophisticated or advanced regarding the arts but at some point I benefited from a projected showing of Renoir's Une Partie de Campagne and the beautiful, romantic, sentimental and sad imagery and story got under my skin and has remained there ever since.
Partie de campagne (Jean Renoir, 1936) is one of the great unfinished films.
It's an often breathtaking pastoral film, creating a fully-realised rural world a la Tol'able David and Louisiana Story into which to throw our protagonists.Sylvia Bataille is Henriette, a Parisian girl who decamps to the countryside for the weekend with her parents, her grandmother and her fiancé.
But this is 19th century France, and the ties that bind won't slacken just because someone's fallen in love.The film is gentle, entertaining and sometimes very funny, benefiting from superb performances by Bataille, Marken and young romeos Georges D'Arnoux and Jacques B.
Perhaps Renoir, adapting Guy de Maupassant's novel, is making a satiric point about the unredeemable unsuitability of the young couple, or the ineptitude of Parisians cast adrift several miles from the big city, but it's a directorial decision that's never really justified.Still, that's the only gripe about this amazing piece of work, which largely hums with brilliance and ultimately stands shoulder-to-shoulder with La grande illusion as the director's greatest achievement.Trivia note: That's Renoir himself as the restaurateur, Poulain..
Unfinished,this is a one of Renoir's most remarkable works.As far as Guy DE Maupassant is concerned,only Max OPhuls's "le plaisir"(1951) and Christian-Jaque's "Boule de Suif" (1950)equal it.This is apparently a very simple story:a couple of bourgeois (Jane Marken and Gabriello) ,their daughter (Sylvia Bataille) and her less-than-handsome husband leave for a day in the country (title).There the young girl meets love ,short-lived happiness.Beneath the placid surface,tragedy emerges.The beautiful landscape,the simmering water,the whispering grass,the swings which seem to reach for a pure sky,the small fish you savor in the guinguettes down by the river,the thrill of it all!The young girl's longing for true love is harder to endure in such a peaceful paradise.This is one of these rare movies in which you experiment happiness tinged with an infinite sadness.A whole sequence is missing:a card explains the events which were not filmed.Sylvia Bataille's last line(to the man she fell in love with) will make you cry out:"I've been thinking of it every day".Woman has always been sacrificed in Maupassant's work.At a running time of 40 minutes,a lot of people claim it for Renoir's best though.I do.Claude Renoir marvelously conveys Maupassant's depictions with his pictures..
Day in the Country, A (1936) **** (out of 4) Incredibly touching and extremely beautiful film from the French master Renoir.
A Parisian father takes his wife, mother-in-law, daughter and future son in law on a trip to the country where they plan to have a picnic.
The film runs a very short 40-minutes but Renoir throws everything into the picture.
The film also features some very beautiful cinematography including a terrific sequence near the end where the river is shown with rain drops hitting it.
All of the performances are great but Sylvia Bataille is the real standout as the daughter who is going to encounter and lose love over the span of a short evening.
It seems Renoir never go to finish the film but to me the running time is perfect and it's amazing what the director does capture and show in the short time..
One such moment is the storm sequence in "Une partie de campagne." I saw this film once, several years ago, and yet the haunting poetry of that scene still sticks in my mind vividly.
Combined with the intense love scene which precedes it, and its contrast to the overall frivolity of the narrative, makes it the most beautiful film of one of film's greatest directors.
This movie is a beautiful looking one and is like a day in the life of of a family on their summer holiday on the countryside, somewhere in early 20th century France.The movie is filled with some unexpected contrasts and metaphors.
It has a summer holiday look and feeling over it, in which the main characters, from the big city, are obviously enjoying the beauty and quietness of the country life.
But perceptions differ, as can be also seen in the final sequence of the movie, in which the events of that one summer day in the country left a big lasting impression on the girl.What Jean Renoir does really well is capturing the right mood and atmosphere of the movie.
Of course the movie gets helped by its country side environments, which gets captured perfectly on camera.Not all of the actors were real experienced professionals, which can be seen back in their performances but overall this shouldn't trouble you to much, since Jean Renoir perfectly knows to tell the story with its images and character behavior, rather than relying completely on the actor's skills.I wouldn't go as far as calling this Renoir's best but it's nevertheless a great, humble, realistic, honest, warm portrayal of life.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
A 40 minute fragment of an unfinished movie which Truffaut describes as a cinematic short story, about a picnic in the country.Renoir movies are always idyllic visually - like beautiful cinematic paintings, but Partie de Campagne is particularly idyllic.
The bottom half of the frame is virtually in the water we're so close to the action.My favourite parts of Renoir movies are when he goes out on location (which he did quite a bit) and shoots wonderful scenes in nature.
I'm not sure that if Renoir continued with this project it would have retained enough interest over a two hour length - most likely its merely the central episode of a movie.
Like Kubrick, Renoir made his movies up from several big, beautiful chunks.
This applies most to Grand Illusion, so perhaps this sequence would never have been intended to supply enough dramatic interest for an entire story, but for lovers of Renoir, here are some of the most beautiful things he ever filmed.
If you've never seen a Renoir film, the first experience is always the best, and it might be spoiling you if you start with this one, but it would be a beautiful introduction to him..
Second, director Renoir himself intended to make a full-length film but only stopped part-way through the project because of time constraints--there was too much rain and he had to wrap up filming!
Although "A Day In The Country" is a lovely, lyrical film I was disappointed to learn that it was never completed.
The daughter (Sylvia Bataille) falls in love with a man (Georges D'Arnoux) at the inn, where they spend the day.This simple film, less than 45 minutes long, is now available thanks to Criterion.
Renoir never finished filming due to weather problems, but producer Pierre Braunberger turned the material into a release in 1946, ten years after it was shot.
Plot: On a day out in the country, a city girl is pursued by two young men.Review: This was a pleasant, short piece, with little moments that almost anyone can relate to.
Though most people know this fact it bears repeating within the context of looking at A Day in the Country, the long-short film (though too short for a feature) that Jean Renoir directed in 1936 and released officially 10 years later, that he had blood-ties to the painter Renoir of the same name.
And so in A Day in the Country, which is simply about two women, a mother and a daughter, who go out to have a picnic and go out on the lake and eat under a cherry tree and meet two men who basically spend their time hitting on them (and before this we see the two men contemplate how to do this), the filmmaker more than any other time I can think of uses the location and actors like a painter would.It may also be because of the time period from the Maupassant story in the mid 19th century, but it's hard for me to shake when watching this how it's kind of like a painting from that time period (or a little after) of Renoir only done here in the flesh.
I saw a lot of deep emotions with these characters and the details that accumulate by the end scene where it cuts ahead years later when things have changed for the daughter it has an impact - she marries another man who we also see here accompanying the two.
There may be a lot of reliance on the music to lift things up with big swells of this or that for scenes, but mostly what makes Day in the Country so appealing is its simplicity and its spirit of gentility.
There are characters who have just mildly varying degrees of sophistication, which may not even be much at all, and so when the mother character is in total delight and exuberation about something, or a character petting a tiny kitten, or how the daughter reacts when being asked by the man she's with if they can go to the shore to 'stretch their legs' (which means something else of course, kissing and getting more intimate), the reactions are totally genuine.This isn't Renoir in satire mode; he's out to use his 40 minutes to bring us to a very pleasant but extraordinary feeling - whether he truly intended to finish this as a longer film or keep it as is is hard to say, as the Renoir of 1960 claims this version is fine the way it is.
This may not mean it has the same rewatchability of a Grand Illusion but that's alright; it's like being along with these characters and experiencing things as pure views: the country IS a nice place to be in, and yet if you want to stay there for good is the question you have to ask yourself.
Wow, this sure is an amazing and epic movie, it is only 40 minutes long but is the best piece of French cinema I have ever seen.
I was also quite surprised at the sexual references, remember, this is an early 20th century movie.Two men from the countryside seduce a French mother and daughter from Paris.It was supposed to be a complete movie but instead, Renoir made it as a short before going to the USA..
Unfortunately, A Day in the Country is an incomplete film that is only approximately forty minutes long.
If things had gone differently, I believe that the film would now be considered Jean Renoir's masterpiece, because within these mere fragments of a work intended to be much larger, one can see a work of genius and beauty.
Although The River is often praised for its stunning imagery, A Day in the Country may just be the most visually appealing of Renoir's work.
Even without context, one cannot help but choke up a little when witnessing such sadness.Dipped in tenderness and humor, A Day in the Country is an elegant work of art that is sadly short in length, but remains just as powerful as films three times as long despite these unfortunate circumstances..
Jean Renoir: a day in the country..
A man, Monsieur Dufour, his wife, Juliette, his daughter, Henriette, her fiancé, Anatole, and the grandmother go the country for some fishing and a picnic.
But maybe she finally had to marry Anatole anyway, for the same reason that Henri feared.The word is that Jean Renoir, who directed this movie, never got to finish it, so maybe that is why we never find out how Rodolphe made out with Juliette.
Adapted from a Guy de Maupassant story, A Day in the Country is a short 40 minutes film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that Director Jean Renoir didn't finish.
For its American distribution, Day in the Country was bundled together with two other short European films -- Joifroi and the controversial The Miracle -- as the portmanteau film The Ways of Love.
Sadly this movie will be more likely seen in film or art school, then at home.
Many people say that Renoir's films mirror his father's art looking at the impeccable riverbank shots in this masterpiece.
A lot of people make a point of calling attention to the fact that "A day in the country" is an unfinished film, cut short by bad weather conditions and a lack of sufficient funds; I feel that these filming disruptions and hastily put together ending, actually contribute more to the film than whatever was originally planned.
While the director took this movie as a chance to show off, the beauty of the French country side, the short length of the film, kept the scenery from overpowering the story line.
This plus the abrupt nature of the films end, really served to show, that the main characters pain at not being able to marry the man she loved, was simply indescribable.
This film was written (adapted from a Guy de Maupassant short story) and directed by Jean Renoir, son of famous painter Auguste, pretty much in the middle of his career and he also played a part in this black-and-white movie.
The 40-minutes may be flawed, but the following is my take on the short's quietly compelling nature.Apparently, moviemaker Renoir was unable to complete the film.
Last week I watched Jean Renoir's 'The Rules of the Game (1939)' for the first time, and, while I quite enjoyed it, I felt rather distanced from the story, as though the film was so preoccupied with snappy characters and dialogue (as in a stage play) that it didn't bother with emotion or atmosphere, the evocation of time and place.
Happily, this wasn't a problem with 'Partie de campagne / A Day in the Country (1936).' Renoir's unfinished adaptation of a short story by Guy de Maupassant gains a wonderful personality through its on-location filming.
However, after Henri (Georges D'Arnoux) and Henriette (Sylvia Bataille) come together for the first time in a reluctant but passionate embrace, the story then jarringly cuts to a years-later epilogue, a wistful conclusion that reflects on events that seemingly never took place.
This is how I feel about 'A Day in the Country.' Everything up until the hasty ending is funny, emotional, glorious, and invigorating, yet we're wrenched from the dream-like clasp of Renoir's hand unexpectedly and disappointingly.
The only reason I saw this film was because it featured in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. It should be said firstly that it is only just under forty minutes because director Jean Renoir cancelled filming, due to incessant rainy days, and they had only two scenes left to complete the film, but the incomplete scenes are filled with captions.
So, anyway it is basically the family of a Parisian shop-owner spending a day in the country, like the title says.
> This short film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that > Jean > Renoir didn't finish.
> This short film is, in fact, just a part of a movie that > Jean > Renoir didn't finish.
At the end of the movie, we > saw > the original finale when the young woman, now marry to > the > old man, came back to the countryside where she once find > true > love.
At the end of the movie, we > saw > the original finale when the young woman, now marry to > the > old man, came back to the countryside where she once find > true > love.
I've been studying cinema in university for more than a year and stumbled across two Jean Renoir films including this one who was particularly painful.It might be my suspension of disbelief being the problem, but i've watched some movies from this era(including Citizen Kane that I loved) and never hated'em with so much passion.
"I assure you, you're making a mistake by not joining me." I was reminded of these prints while watching Jean Renoir's great short film -- it's only 40 minutes long, but every minute is golden -- A Day in the Country.
In it, the Dufour family -- husband, wife, daughter, future son-in-law, and comically deaf grandmother -- find a country inn in a beautiful setting on their day away from the city.
A Day in the Country was in fact never finished -- weather interrupted the shooting and Renoir had to move on to another commitment -- but the existing footage was assembled ten years later under the supervision of the producer, Pierre Braunberger, with two explanatory intertitles, and it stands on its own as a masterwork.
|
tt3198008
|
Criminal
|
After witnessing the unfortunate death of a woman, who was unable to afford hospital treatment, Dr. Ajay Kumar (Akkineni Nagarjuna) cancels his U.S. immigration and instead sets out to work a plan to open a hospital that will be accessible to people who cannot afford treatment in regular hospitals, called "Amma Hospital". This draws quite an attention, and he becomes popular, especially with two young women, Swetha (Manisha Koirala) and Sub-Inspector Ramya (Ramya Krishna). He falls in love with Swetha and both get married, breaking Ramya's heart in the process. Shortly thereafter much to their delight, Swetha becomes pregnant.
When Swetha discovers a frightening organ-smuggling operation in her hospital while going through a friend's diagnostic report, she calls Ramya. Ramya calls the police for help as Swetha is being attacked, and names the attacker as "Ajay". Swetha eventually succumbs to the attack. The police arrive to find her dead body and arrest Ajay for murder. It seems that Ajay's motive for killing Swetha was money, as Swetha was a wealthy heiress. Ajay is convicted and sentenced to death. While being transported to prison, the police van meets with an accident and Ajay escapes. The police launch a manhunt for him but are unable to catch him. Ajay secretly meets with Ramya and tells her that he did not kill Swetha, and he wants her help to catch the real killer. The film ends with Ajay catching the real killer and finding out that he was hired by Ajay's friend Dr. Pratap (Sarath Babu), the man responsible for the organ smuggling operation.
|
revenge
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt0060672
|
Mars Needs Women
|
A U. S. military station in Houston, TX, the United States Decoding Service (U.S.D.S.), NASA Wing, has intercepted a message from outer space. After decoding, the message contains only the cryptic statement:
"Mars ... Needs ... Women"
Martians have developed a genetic deficiency that now produces only male children. A mission to Earth is launched, consisting of five Martian males, led by Dop (Tommy Kirk). Once here their team intends to recruit Earth women to come to Mars in order to mate and produce female offspring, saving their civilization from extinction. Using their sophisticated transponder, Dop attempts to make contact with the U. S. military, who have now tracked the aliens' arrival on Earth.
The military eventually views the Martians as invaders, so the team takes on the guise of Earth men, acquiring human clothes, money, maps, and transportation. They finally select their prospective candidates, setting their sights on four American women: a homecoming queen, a stewardess, a stripper, and, most especially, a Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist, Dr. Bolen (Yvonne Craig), an expert in "space genetics". Resorting to hypnosis, the women are captured, but Dop quickly becomes enamored with Dr. Bolen; soon he is ready to sabotage their mission for her. After the military discover their hideout, the Martians are forced to return home without their female captives.
Mars still needs women.
|
cult
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Went into this movie expecting Tommy Kirk to do a reprise of his Gogo the Teenage Martian role from 1964's 'Pajama Party'.
Instead, we get Dop, a seriously serious 'medical missionary' from the dying red planet, who needs five voluptuous young earth women 'unmarried ...
and possessing the common indicators of fertility and reproduction'.The boys from Mars had tried the usual method of standard alien abduction in the movie's opening scenes, snagging a tennis-playing ingenue, a woman taking a shower, and a girl in a restaurant waiting for her beau to get back from the cigarette machine.
Houston, Texas."For the next few minutes, we get to watch exciting stock footage of the X-15 and fighter jets trying to intercept the Martian craft, while Colonel Bob and his aide stare blankly at a loudspeaker explaining all the action.
Martian operative 'Fellow 3' successfully appropriates the needed currency and map by raiding the nearby Phillips 66 gas station.The boys' criteria for appropriate female specimens is not unlike Dr. Bill Cortner's search for the perfect body on which to attach his fiancé's severed head in "The Brain That Wouldn't Die".
Soon the Pulitzer-Prizewinner and the Invader from Mars are holding hands at a planetarium, where Dop delivers a heartsick soliloquy about his dying planet.This movie is ripe with inadvertently funny lines delivered in dead seriousness, like:"Do not -- repeat -- DO NOT eat any of the earth food.""You are now, for all practical purposes -- earth men.""Our time is short ...
considering that in the next 20 hours, each of us must survey, choose, examine the medical records of, and abduct a female meeting the exacting qualifications of Operation Sleep-Freeze.""Dr. Marjorie Bolen turned out to be a stunning brunette, who found it hard to hide her charm behind her horn-rimmed spectacles.""Tonight: 'Sex and Outer Space' -- A News Conference On Extra-Terrestrial Reproduction by Dr. Marjorie Bolen, One of America's Leading Authorities On Space Medicine, in the Coronado Suite, 10:00 P.M. Only Newsmen with proper press credentials admitted.""The exotic dancer is secured."'Mars Needs Women' owes a lot to other great cheesy movies, like the aforementioned 'Brain That Wouldn't', and especially 'Teenagers From Outer Space', and even anticipates 'Revenge of the Nerds', when the geek geneticist wins the day with LUV.
The actual star (at least for the first 15 minutes) is a white air raid speaker broadcasting a blow-by-blow account of the incredible stock footage scenes!The cameraman does his best to capture the emotions of the speaker, zooming in and out of the speaker during moments of high drama, captured for all time in glorious stock footage.By the time Kirk and Craig show up, you'll miss the speaker and the stock footage.
This wants to be a good movie, an intelligent piece of science fiction, and yet, it is called Mars Needs Women.
There is a striptease scene (apparently strippers are one of the prime candidates for the kind of women that Mars needs) that goes on for minutes and minutes with the stripper taking nothing off.The Martians are just like humans for the most part, sparing the trouble of expensive make-up and sparing having to explain why Earth women would work for the task at hand.
The Martian costumes are just shiny material with something like bathing caps on their heads and big headphone cups on their ears (this aspect is somewhat reminiscent of My Favorite Martian, and was even echoed in later material like Mork & Mindy, but in Mars Needs Women it doesn't have the intentional humor).So why did I give this film a rating as high as 6 out of 10?
The aptly titled "Mars Needs Women" is a rather tepid piece of science-fiction, that feels like you're watching someone on a Sunday afternoon, the movie just kind of loafs around, takes it easy, never tries to over exert itself.
It's got some fine cheesy moments (And Yvonne Craig is about as sexy as they come), but overall, more of a yawn than a laugh riot.Tommy Kirk is one of the Martians desperately in need of women (I guess their bizarre pick-up moves aren't scoring the babes like they used to on Mars), and they come to Houston, TX to try to get them.
Just so you know.At least I don't blame the Martians for wanting these women, they are all rather fetching, especially Yvonne "Call me Batgirl and I break you" Craig as a sex specialist/astronomer/geneticist/librarian (I dunno, she's like the Bionic Woman or something).
Call me crazy, but I love a girl in turtle shell glasses.My own personal tastes aside, there is some good mocking material in "Mars Needs Women" but not as much as a "No Holds Barred" or a "Gymkata." Not for lightweights..
They each hunt down women successfully but Kirk falls in love with his prey Dr. Bolen (Yvonne Craig).
Can he bring her with him or stay on Earth with her?With a title like that you would expect this movie to be pure camp.
Now this movie is terrible--there's tons of stock footage (which easily take up most of the running time); a LOONGGGG strip sequence; dreadful acting (although Kirk and Craig do try); inept direction; bad sound (I couldn't hear some of the dialogue--no loss); hilariously inappropriate music and horrendous "special" effects (wait till you see the Martian spaceship!).
The script is actually OK--it's not stupid just dull.There are plenty of dull spots in this movie but still, there are some moments to treasure--the introduction of Dr. Bolen on TV is hysterical and I got a laugh out of the title of a lecture she was giving--"Sex and Outer Space".
Watchable Fun. Of all the sci-fi movies that I have seen that were filmed in Houston, this is among the best.Mars Needs Women is watchable fun.
Tommy Kirk pilots a spaceship with a crew of 4 Martian males into an abandoned ice making factory, which is spooky and heavy with the fetor of rotting chemical containers.They have 24 hours to acquire 5 women who are both beautiful and healthy which they can use to repopulate their loathsome planet.
I think once a movie hits a bad not early on, the audience is unforgiving of the rest.You must admit the stoic acting style of the Martians didn't really seem that far off from one might expect from such a movie.
There WERE a couple of lines that Tommy Kirk really blew, I have to admit, but for the most part, his acting on this one did grow on you.The story line which was bare thin, and the pacing which was on the sedated side were actually pleasant to watch if you might be in the right mood, which I was (in the middle of the night.) There was just something I can't put my finger on.
With a few subtle re-writes, and perhaps if they hired better actors in some minor roles (that otherwise needed serious acting lessons) this might have been a really good movie.I don't know anything about the director, so I might just be blowing my horn in the wrong direction.
When I first heard that "Mars Needs Women," in the 1967 TV movie of the same name, I must confess that my initial reaction was "Big deal.
The line starts here!" But after seeing how serious and high-minded the quintet of Martian abductors in this film was, how peaceful and desirous of screening their potential victims, how they use hypnosis rather than violence to achieve their ends and save their dying planet...well, I grew a bit more sympathetic.
Rather than trying to pick up women for the fun of it, these Martian dudes (who look just like us, by the way, especially after they steal some suits and ties and remove their antennaed helmets) literally have a world at stake when they go out and try to get lucky.
Anyway, this film tries to be serious, but the dialogue is so stilted, the editing so inept, the acting so wooden, the stock footage so excessive, the FX so lousy and the pacing so draggy that it can't be regarded as anything but camp, and something of a labor to sit through.
Somehow, though, unsatisfactory as the whole thing is, part of me liked it and found it almost touching; probably the part of me that understands how difficult it can be to meet suitable women, and the part that remembers lusting over Yvonne way back when.
I don't understand the reviewers here who say that they deeply enjoyed Mars Needs Women yet give it two stars.
None rise to the heights of Mars Needs Women (and Zontar is more an example of a film that taxes endurance enough to have a certain sublimity of it own).
****SPOILERS**** Far out story about a crew of five very human-looking Martians led by their captain Dop, Tommy Kirk, who land on Earth and gather five very attractive healthy and child-bearing young women.
I was prepared to get a few laughs watching the movie "Mars Needs Women" just by what it's title indicated but was surprised about just how serious and intelligent the movie was.
"Mars Needs Women" is, I think, the first movie to ever even mention much less explain what DNA, Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is: The unique and individual blueprint of every single human and animal that ever lived on Earth.
The Martians abduct a number of women through their use of hypnosis, stewardesses exotic dancers and home-coming queens, to take with them back to Mars.
Dop falls in love with the woman that he's supposed to bring back to Mars with him the pretty as well as brilliant young Dr. Majorie Bolen, Yvonne Craig, who's a Pulitzer Prize winning author in the field of DNA and extra-terrestrial genetics.
Dop has a change of heart at the end of the movie and scuttles the plan "Sleep Freeze" at the expense of his safety and well being back on Mars.
The movie is much like another film about aliens who come to Earth to destroy it.
Then one of them rescues the doomed Earthlings by giving up his life to save them like the plot in the movie "Teenagers from Outer Space".The movie "Mars Needs Women" is not what you might think it is, cheesy and erotic, but very serious and will surprise you in how ahead of it's time it is in the science of human DNA.
The only one of Buchanan's AIP-TV flicks that isn't a remake of an earlier movie, it has all the ingredients of a Z-grade mess: start with former Disney standby Tommy Kirk as the bland leader of a Martian expedition, add Batgirl Yvonne Craig as a scientist who (for some strange reason) falls in love with our favorite Matian, sprinkle in some aggressively-dull footage of a local (Dallas) football game, stir-in enough double-entendres and leering by the male cast to make you gouge your eyes out, and you've got...not much!.
Unfortunately, despite a GREAT title an idea for a plot, this movie is just terrible and not worth your time.
Tommy Kirk and the future Batgirl Yvonne Craig starred in this epic film that is still quite the hoot.
Mars Needs Women, bad as it is, has the good fortune in having a cast that knows how bad it is and plays it for all its worth for some unexpected laughs.The situation is bad on Mars, some genetic experiments have caused an imbalance in the Y chromosomes and boy Martians are being birthed at a rate of 100 to 1 now.
If all goes well, these five will mother a new an improved race of Martians.Just the title alone should tell you Mars needs women is a hoot from the start.
We're talking grade Z actors, script, production values, and direction--and the sell-by date on the package expired a couple of decades ago.The story, such as it: the Martians (who look suspiciously like men with a Spandex fetish) have run out of women, so they nip next door in a spaceship that looks like an over-decorated pie pan to borrow a few.
Whoop-De-Doo.Now, there are bad movies that are fun to watch.
Mars Needs Women is aggressively unwatchable.
Filled with non-acting, bad costumes, and awful writing courtesy of auteur Larry Buchanan, the film also utilises tremendous amounts of (dull) stock footage.
No wonder Mars needs women....
I guess it would be a good movie to watch if you needed something to help you sleep though....
You get a couple skyline shots,a couple scenes at the old White Rock Lake Pump station-where the spaceship was hidden, The Athens Strip-actual name of Striptease Bar where Bubbles Cash performed in reality, Fair Park and even out at Collins Radio in Richardson where the big Radar Telescope dishes can be seen.
There are also some scenes around Southern Methodist University (SMU).It is a campy movie, really hiring an actual Striptease artist to play a stripper?
Silly 60's Mars Flic Needs Story, Script, Action, Direction, and Acting!!.
Dull as dishwater sci-fi movie about "martians" stealing women for breeding purposes is slower than a dead hamster in winter.
Tommy Kirk, that wooden teenage star of such miserable classics as "Old Yeller", "Son of Flubber", "Village of the Giants", and the laughable "Ghost in the Invisible Bikini", plays Dop, a wooden martian who falls in love with Yvonne Kirk.
5 martians follow around and kidnap several "superior" human female specimens because, as the title suggests, Mars Needs Women.
Mr. Kirk spends most of the film in a very conservative blue suit playing a very serious Martian.
He gives a lecture to children at a planetarium about what what was believed about Mars at the time, and he falls in love with Yvonne Craig proving Martians, (who spout no antennas) are in fact humans.
Tommy Kirk plays an martian (you know he's a martian because he's wearing a wetsuit with a duct tape V on the chest, along with antennae taped to the sides of his head) who is seeking earth women to take back to his home planet for breeding.
One of those women happen to be Yvonne "Bat Girl" Craig, which is kind of fun, but overall this is a terrible movie that is only worth watching for so-bad-it's-good camp value, which did entertain me a fair amount..
I picked up "Mars Needs Women" recently but wish I would have checked the negative Amazon reviews before doing so, because this is a REALLY bad movie, and not in the good way.Some movies are technically bad but fun nevertheless and highly entertaining.
"Village of the Giants" possesses a wealth of great scenes highlighted by quite a few cute girls; it is therefore very worthwhile."Mars Needs Women" would seem to be a movie of the same caliber for a few reasons: 1.) The name itself, 2.) the backcover description: "WARNING: Sex-Starved Spacemen on the Prowl for Bodacious Babes!" (which, of course, gives the impression that the flick will be full of bodacious babes), 3.) the casting of Tommy Kirk, who also stars in "Village of the Giants," and particularly 4.) the casting of Yvonne Craig.The fact that Yvonne stars in "Mars" was the clincher for me to pick it up.
A few scenes depict a Martian ogling a cute stripper, but these scenes are certainly not worth buying the movie for (or investing your time).As for the production, sets and directing, you'd see better filmmaking by simply watching an episode of "I Dream of Jeanie." Not to mention that the dialogue is atrocious and the storytelling dreadfully boring -- filled with numerous scenes of stock footage.
Hell no!Therefore the Martians are left with no alternative than to abduct some women, though I daresay a couple of them are charming enough to have a shot at convincing them to volunteer even without the blessings of the patriarchy.Hidden amidst the scenes of wall-mounted speakers, stock footage, college football games, and strip shows, we get a genuinely effective scene wherein Tommy Kirk rescues a planetarium show by musing aloud about Mars and its civilization.
To its credit, his speech accurately reflects what little was known (or believed) about Mars at that time.Finally, this movie features Yvonne Craig, whose appearance makes up for any weaknesses in the special effects..
A scene shot at a service station recalls "Les parapluies de Cherbourg" Apparently, director Larry Buchanan enjoyed making bad movies.
Yvonne Craig almost makes seeing this awful movie worthwhile.
Nerdy looking aliens in bad department store "Star Trek" costumes begin abducting women who simply disappear from where they are (playing tennis, taking a shower), then have the gall to appear in person and demand more.
Really bad acting by top billed Tommy Kirk and Yvonne Craig (plus a ton if unknown non-actors) , photography and sound recording join in with the absurd script that tries hard to be finny but just isn't.
The message coming from space is clear Mars Needs Women!
It was a time when a movie about the abduction and rape of a group of women could be considered "family" entertainment.
It certainly was a very different age.For a movie that stars Tommy Kirk and Yvonne Craig, I was expecting something along the lines of an intergalactic beach movie.
Mars Needs Women couldn't be much further from fun if it tried.
Had they done so, Mars Needs Women might not have been so terribly dull and bad..
The women population is getting low and several martians are sent on a mission to Earth to capture human females to be returned to Mars.
Once on earth, they disguised themselves as humans and began selecting perfect human specimens to be taken back to Mars including a nightclub stripper, an air stewardess, etc.When the martian, Dop, met and develops feelings for Dr. Bolen, he began to change his views about the whole mission.
|
tt0042976
|
The Sleeping City
|
An intern is shot mysteriously on an East River pier adjoining Bellevue Hospital. The chief investigating detective views this as a difficult case, so with the cooperation of the Commissioner of Hospitals he assigns a detective who had been a medical corpsman, Fred Rowan of the Confidential Squad, to go undercover as intern "Fred Gilbert."
Rowan becomes involved with the attractive nurse Ann Sebastian (Coleen Gray), and also becomes friendly with the popular elevator operator, Pop Ware (Richard Taber).
Ware, who works part-time taking bets, seems initially to be a benign character. But it becomes apparent that Ware has been loaning money to the interns, including the slain intern and another intern, Rowan's roommate Steve Anderson (Alex Nicol), who is depressed and commits suicide.
Rowan deliberately loses money betting with Ware, and Ware says that Rowan can pay off his bet by stealing "white stuff"—narcotics. Rowan plays along, encouraged by Ann Sebastian. He stops providing drugs to Ware. Ware tries to kill Rowan, and is shot in a shootout on the roof of the hospital.
Investigators find that the nurse worked as a courier for Ware. The movie ends with Rowan, turning aside pleas from Ann, placing her under arrest.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt3184096
|
Attila
|
The story is set in 450 A.D. The Huns, a horde of barbarians from the distant plains of Asia, move toward the rich western lands of Germania, led by a savage chief, Attila.
Flavius Aetius, a Roman general, is the only person who knows Attila since he was in a continuation of legation with the Huns for years. Aetius and his companion Prisco carry a message from the Roman emperor Valentinian III to the Hun's king Rua. After reaching their palace, Aetius learns that the king died, and that two brothers Bleda and Attila are now ruling the Hun kingdom. Bleda favours peace and tolerance, but Attila is at odds with him, and tensions develop. Yet Aetius knows to make an alliance between the Western Roman Empire and the Huns.
Aetius returns to the Imperial court at Ravenna, where the childish emperor Valentinian III is busy with Roman parties in his palace and enjoying himself, while ignoring the fact that the Empire is beginning to fall apart. Because of this, his mother Galla Placidia is ruling the Empire. Honoria, daughter of Galla Placidia and sister of Valentinian hopes to get rid of them, but needs help to do so. She asks Aetius to join her in a coup d'état, but he has vowed an oath to serve the Empire and refuses, even if he's arrested and stripped of his military rank by Valantinian and Galla Placidia due to his alliance to the Huns.
The two brothers battle, Attila wins by ordering his bodyguard to fire arrows at Bleda and his bodyguard during the hunt, and declares himself the sole leader of the Huns, riling them to support his aspirations of conquering the Roman Empire.
Flavius Aetius returns to Ravenna where emperor Valantinian is distracted by an attempt to poison him. His mother Galla Placidia realizes that the Empire is on the edge of destruction and gives Aetius full military power. Honoria decides to leave the Imperial court and join the Huns. Aetius decides to stop Attila's horde at a river near Italy. The battle starts with a number of Hunnic cavalrymen killed, but when Aetius is in pursuit of the Huns the main cavalry attacks him. His main foot army comes to help, but he is shot in his neck by a Hunnic archer. The entire Roman army loses it's morale to fight on and flee, killing Honoria on the way back. On the eve of victory, Attila takes his son Bleda, (who was named after Atilla's brother) to the battlefield to witness their helpless situation. Aetius, badly injured, fires an arrow at Attila, but misses, and kills Bleda. This traumatizes Attila. Aetius regrets his failed shot, and dies seconds later. Finally on their way to Rome, the Huns face a sacred procession of priests, led by Pope Leo I. Attila is about to kill the Pope, but he says to him calmly, "You can kill everybody...old people, women, children. But remember, Attila, innocent blood won't be washed away. It will come back to you." Attila turns back towards the Alps, leaving Rome untouched.
|
violence, horror
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Crapila is a much more fitting title....
Attila from the get go was always going to be a movie to not take seriously, and despite The Asylum having a mostly terrible track record Attila also deserved a fair chance.
If the execution was at least passable it could have been fun.
Unfortunately Attila was too inept that it was not easy at all to enjoy it, one of those movies where you have to look long and heard to detect a redeeming value.
Attila is a low-budget movie but also an example of one where visually no real effort seems to have been made.
It is very choppily edited and the special effects look rushed and look 10-15 years at least out of date.
The music is too obtrusive, is not sympathetic to what's happening and it sounds generic too, while the sound is on the muddied side.
When the music wasn't drowning out the dialogue, it was really painful to hear how mind-numbingly, inanely corny it sounded and also how it makes no attempt to develop the characters or make the story or the goings on understandable.
The story was a ridiculous one to start with but it is told so messily that it comes across often as incoherent, it's also rather dull with the tension and fun levels next to nil.
The characters are little more than stereotypical ciphers, and there was no point in calling the villain Attila the Hun, because the villain here is the complete opposite to what Attila stood for.
For all we know, he could have been any low-budget creature, acting like a zombie and looking like a mummy, and to make things worse he exudes no personality or sense or threat, completely forgettable.
The acting in Attila is not good at all, in fact it's laughably bad.
Steve Hanks is the best actor in the movie and he still overeggs the pudding, and Chris Conrad when we are eventually introduced to him has the opposite problem in that he's wooden and plays it far too straight.
Lastly, the fight scenes and stunts are very repetitive, tiredly choreographed and clumsily edited.
Summing things up Attila is an ineptly terrible movie all round, one to see once and forget.
1/10 Bethany Cox. Save yourself some time and skip this piece of crap..
Would give this a zero if it was possible.
I knew this was crap in the first 5 minutes when I saw the title sequence.
VFX is amateurish, looks like someone thought by watching Video CoPilot tutorials would be enough to work on a movie.
Blood splatter effects straight out of Action Essentials.
I mess around with After Effects for fun/hobby and I could easily do a more professional job and that's pretty sad.
Fight scenes are repetitive, boring and cheesy.
Story is boring.
Editing is boring with pacing issues.
Boring characters you don't care about.
I can usually find something redeeming in the crappiest movies that I can appreciate, but this didn't have anything.
Just all around bad.
Avoid at all cost..
And just when you thought you had seen everything....
Alright, well what can be said, this is definitely not one of the finest moments in the movie-making history of The Asylum.
When I saw their logo on the screen as the first thing, I sort of lost motivation to watch this movie.
And had I checked IMDb first and seeing how the movie has been rated, I would have stopped dead in my tracks and spent my time on something else.
But then again, from time to time (rare as it might be, though), The Asylum do manage to put out a movie that surprises and turns out to be great.
"Attila", however, was definitely not one of those rare instances.The storyline in the movie was adequate, take it for what it is; supernatural nonsense without any coherency towards realism.
This movie is a no-brainer; the type you could watch during a really bad hangover.The acting in the movie was wooden and rigid, and that really did nothing to help lift up the movie.
But the acting wasn't the main detraction against the enjoyment of the movie.
It was the effects and the stupidity of it all.This movie failed on so many occasions and accounts.
First of all, what scientist with a significant discovery in the staff of Moses, would examine it so carelessly and without protective devices, such as gloves, brushes, etc.
to preserve the found and not contaminate it?
And the scene itself where he cuts his finger on the unnaturally ragged and sharp teeth of the corpse was so forced and staged, it looked like he wasn't even trying to make it look like an accident.
And what happened to those fangs once the corpse resurrected, they just turned into normal teeth, right...As for the subject of the found piece of the staff, sure I can buy into blood resurrecting the long dead Hun warrior, given the supernatural storyline, but where did his pristine outfit come from?
And why was it only his face that was a decayed zombie-like visage, while the rest of his body was ordinary whole and without a trace of decay?Proceeding with the awakened Hun warrior; bullets fired against him produce sparks upon impact with his person.
Wait, what?
Seriously?
So the guy is made of metal?
It was just ridiculous.
And how would a person from the period of Attila know how to roll under a moving car, directly under the chassis to break the car and take it out of commission?
I was laughing so hard when I saw that scene.The movie's cover looks alluring and interesting, but it is so far from the actual contents of the movie as it could almost physically be.
Do not get suckered in by the cover, because you are setting yourself up for a most horrible disappointing.If you enjoy super campy and cheesy movies with horrible story lines and even worse effects, then you might find some perverse enjoyment in watching "Attila".
Otherwise, then I wouldn't really recommend that you spend your time on this particular movie..
Standard Asylum Quality Flick!.
I have never seen anything good come from Asylum.
I gave them at least 20 chances to prove their name to me.
But lets face it, Asylum movies = 1-2 star rated movies.
It's an insult to us to think we would enjoy these.
My question is, even with such poor ratings and name stealing titles how do they stay in business!?
I for one would like to see them gone.
I wish actors would realize that doing an Asylum movie is actually bad for their career.This movie is just another typical Asylum Movie.
Low budget, poor acting and directing.
Boring.
Special effects are a joke.
Maybe if I lived in a state where pot was legal and I was high as a kite, I might find a movie like this or any Asylum movie entertaining?
Probably still not.This movie was their last chance to show me something good.
They failed.
I will no longer watch anything made by Asylum.
I hope others who feel the same way do the same thing and not support them in any way..
Terrible Costumes.
Here's my take on the movie.
Story...okay.
Acting...so-so.
The US Army uniforms are a joke.
They looked like slobs and no one was in the same uniform.
White t-shirts, green t-shirts and black t-shirts on the same base.
Doesn't happen.
If you're going to make a movie with soldiers in it, at least do some research.
It killed me to look at the Army General's uniform.
He had a Navy Achievement Medal and a Combat Action Ribbon (Marines) but no Army medals...
once again do 2 minutes of research to make it a bit more believable.
I started to tune it out when the CPT said, it happened at zero twelve hundred (01200?).
If they would have at least got actors with military haircuts and the right uniforms, I may have watched it all the way through.
I only watched as much as I did because Mikayla Campbell is pretty dang hot..
the poor Attila.
a bad movie ?
not exactly.
small ordinaries tricks, blood and fake history's use.
and a film about nothing with ambition to became a series.
absurd, illogical but useful like each bad movie for a strange form of fun who has not the status of irony but only surprise.
it is not original, only clone of clone of clones of many stupid movies who are not sense, not script, not actors and represents just a small place near hard pornography.
because the source, maybe the purpose are the same.
only problem after its end is the choice of Hun leader.
which is his huge sin for be victim of this form of cultural garbage ?
so, only mercy for the poor Attila saves the film for few days after the meeting.
but it is far to save it in real sense..
"Attila"..reminiscent of movies made in the 1950's..
"Attila" contains action, plot and story-line reminiscent of movies made in the 1950's.
The easy- to-follow story, fast paced action and of course..lots of blood reminded me of my youth sitting in a small-town theatre on a Saturday afternoon.
If "Attila" were done in black and white I would have questioned the filming date.
Under the direction of Emmanuel Itier I believe "Attila" hits it's mark.
Cheik Kongo shows his incredible athleticism as the Nomad and scares the bejesus out of you without the utterance of a single word.
Chris Conrad's portrayal of "Vito" makes him a believable hero and Mikayla Campbell's "McVee" the perfect heroine.
Stunts were all too prevalent and often made you wonder "How'd they do that?".
Xin's martial arts work was true artistry.
Other strong performances came from Hossein Mardani as "Fleetwood" and Poncho Hodges as "Bulldog".
Would like to see more from the screen writing team of Anthony Ferrante and Emmanuel Itier..
awful.
awful.
one of films about nothing.
or only a bad joke, cocktail of popular culture, action scenes, American army and a character who lost his status for become a form of garbage for flies.
so, it is not easy to define it.
sure, it is only an example of films empty of sense, near hard core pornography, who propose only a kind of terror, using a historical character for a crazy game with different crap details.
but , in fact, this is far to be a mistake.
each film has its public and the target of this film is so precise than each stone becomes mud ball.
and this does it useful.
for discover its fans profile.
for amusing and lost the patience.
for be horrified.
or for ignore the film and remain in the refuge of yours thoughts.
so, Attila.
or, more exactly, an awful portrait of him as pretext for blood, terror and great American soldier in cheep package..
Nope.
Nope.
That's all that should have been said when the idea for this movie was pitched.
It is beyond terrible.
I only finished it because I was watching it with a friend.
We kept laughing and thinking it must get better at some point but again, nope.
If you like horrible movies this could be for you but I doubt it even then.
I haven't actually watched "Birdemic" but i can't see how it could honestly be worse than this.
I actually made this account just to warn people about this filth.
The plot make no sense at all, the continuity problems are the only consistent thing, and the action scenes are ridiculous.
The acting is worse than that of an "actual doctor" for an infomercial.
Small spoiler...
if you do watch it, the villain will be your favorite character because he never actually speaks.
All in all, don't watch it sober at least....
Where was the oversight on this film?.
According to IMDb, this picture was shot in Los Angeles, CA, USA.
According to the beginning of the film, the main action occurs in Eastern Europe.
Considering the number of Eastern European and Middle Eastern actors in the film, I was surprised that it was not filmed in Eastern Europe for the cost savings.The Huns, by many accounts, were even shorter than the Romans, were light of weight, and perfectly suited to life on horseback.
In the opening sequence, the Huns were shown with zero horses, traveling and acting only as infantry.
They were depicted in the film as heavily muscled, tall in stature, and reliant on brute strength to win one-on-one battles.
This is in strong opposition to their usual description as light but agile, with exceptional skill in archery and fighting from horseback with swords.The back story of re-assembling the Staff of Moses is just bovine scatology.Given the matters above, the terrible dialog, the stupid acting, and the PC clichés, I was ready to give up on this one at 27 minutes in.
I watched the remaining 58 minutes just to see whether I missed something.So, in this ridiculous setup, part of the Staff has been found in Eastern Europe.
Blood fallen on the case of the Staff re-animates Attila the Hun (well, maybe), who is seven feet tall and stronger than Thor.
This is more nonsense.Will Vito recover the staff segment before Attila really fouls things up?
------Scores------Cinematography: 6/10 Odd filtering was employed that was strong on blue, green, grey, while weak in red, yellow, orange.
Also, among the cast there were way too many faux blondes, and way too much time spent on the art of gum chewing with one's mouth open.
The random distribution of saliva is so attractive and sanitary; I'm surprised it was not spotlighted in slow motion.Sound: 0/10 The actors were miked well enough.
Unfortunately, they spoke.
The incidental sound and music were almost always jarring or inappropriate.Acting: 0/10 All the actors were terrible at acting in this film.Screenplay: 0/10 Absurd, a complete failure.
I really could have done without the vile hallucinations of the 'effective' commander Vito.
Why would General Thadeus trust the Professor?
I would have liked an explanation of that.
The military fights the supernatural without knowing any rules of engagement?
This seems unlikely.
Even better, there seems to be little understanding of chain of command.
During one segment, the number of survivors in Vito's command seems to go up and down like a yo-yo from one scene to the next.
The movie gets stupider and less believable with each passing minute.
The real motivations seem not to be clear until quite late.SFX: 2/10 Pretty poor.
Some 1980s SFX were as good..
Spoiler alert - Total garbage.
First thing that needs to be mentioned is this idiotic American lack of historical knowledge.
You US people do not even know your own history never mind that of other nations and peoples.
Time to wake up a bit and stop with the gratuitous use of historical figures to spin garbage movies on to the masses.
I hope your investors lose every penny for this worthless trash.
Just so you know.
Attila was a great hero to his people who lived in the region that now is predominantly modern Hungary and adjoining regions.
He was also a great freedom fighter for his people in the face of an overwhelming Roman empire.
He was leader of the Hunnic Empire, which stretched from the Ural River to the Rhine River and from the Danube River to the Baltic Sea. A serious guy and not one that should be disrespected in comic book trash.
It is astonishing that a nation like the US which prides itself on the exploits of George Washington and their War of Independence against the British Empire should in the same breath disrespectfully treat a guy who basically did the same for his people.
Balance people.
Balance!
Shame on you.
I suppose that with the advent of American liberalism and all that goes with it like that fruitcake President OBOSO one can not expect much else.
Your education system is a travesty to the name.
The average European high school student makes your system look seriously sick.
What gives?
Lost your glorious way have we.
So please stop producing disingenuous garbage like this and grow the frack up!.
Laughable.
ATTILA is another cheesy and laughable sci-fi/horror movie from The Asylm.
At least this isn't one of their 'mockbusters', but rather an original slice of programming.
After an amusingly poor opening, we cut to the usual bunch of soldiers and scientist types who unearth the body of the evil Attila the Hun and bring it back to the laboratory for experimentation.
What follows is a typical killer-on-the-loose story, with some bad CGI effects and gore and plenty of worse acting and contrived plotting.
The script is the worst thing here, which is always the case in an Asylum movie, and it's a hard film to get any enjoyment from.
|
tt0037501
|
Ain't That Ducky
|
Daffy is taking a bubble-bath in a pond when he hears the sobbing of a small yellow duck carrying a briefcase. When Daffy tries to find out what's wrong with the duck, the little yellow duck stops sobbing long enough to emit a loud "AAH, SHUT UP!". When Daffy tries to find out what's in the briefcase that's causing the yellow duck so much grief, the duck tells Daffy, "AAH, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF, MISTER ANTHONY!" (a reference to the host of the radio advice series The Goodwill Hour; see the ending of Baby Bottleneck). Even the presence of a hunter does not stop the yellow duck from stopping Daffy with a loud, "AAH, LAY OFF, YOU... DUCK!"
The hunter (a caricature of Victor Moore, voiced by the actor, as well) then asks the little yellow duck if he can help, and gets the same obnoxious, "AAH, SHUT UP!". When Daffy confronts the hunter, the hunter decides to go after Daffy instead. The next few minutes follow a typical "Hunter/Prey" cartoon, with some exceptions - when Daffy comes across an empty space, he tells the artist that there's supposed to be a barrel in the scene - "It says so in my script! Someone's been laying down on the job. J.L. will hear of this!" (a hand then draws a barrel for Daffy to hide in, but with the yellow duck inside).
About two-thirds of the way through, Daffy and the hunter team up to try to get the briefcase, but are stopped when they run down the road. The hunter then tries running after Daffy, but runs over a cardboard cutout of Daffy, thinking it's the real thing. When the little yellow duck ruins Daffy's fun at the expense of the hunter, Daffy decides enough is enough and tries grabbing the briefcase away — but is knocked down the side of the mountain, 'melting' down the rocks. When the hunter is also knocked down, he reveals that he was able to swipe the briefcase. The two take a look inside, and soon are just as distressed as the yellow duck — the content is a piece of paper with the words "The End" on it, displayed as the cartoon ends.
|
psychedelic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
I partly agree with Lee Eisenberg..
Sometimes Lee Eisenberg can produce very good reviews.
He has commented on this and has pointed out something in his review that I agree on:Lee Eisenberg: "Ain't That Ducky" seems to me to be a sort of crossroads of three different kinds of Daffy Duck cartoons.I agree!
One road is the older Daffy, one road is the sort of middle Daffy and another road is the much more modern Daffy.
It took me two times of watching this episode to like Daffy in this, but for some reason I found him really likable, mainly because his kind side is stronger than his nasty side.
The plot is fun, anyhow, pretty much a typical "daffy duck runs away from hunter" plot.
I may not know who Victor Moore is (who plays the hunter) but he is good as the hunter in this!
The other new character, well, it depends how you feel once you have watched the whole thing whether you like him or not.
Basically, Daffy is having a lovely, huge bath in a pond.
He hears a new, yellow duck resident crying and goes over to see what is troubling him.
The little yellow duck is upset over a briefcase, but becomes very angry when Daffy wants to have a look inside.
Then the hunter comes along...Good for people who like the muxed ip Daffy Duck and people who are intrigued by the plot mentioned in the previous paragraph, I recommend "Ain't That Ducky".
Enjoy!
Likable and fun short, with a great ending twist.
As a big fan of Daffy Duck, I saw Ain't That Ducky realising it was one of the few cartoons I hadn't yet seen of his.
I liked it, though I may be biased as I love a vast majority of the Looney Tunes shorts.
But is it one of the best?
The story is very simple in concept and is rather routine in spots.
And while the duckling's appearance is cute, he does very little other than cry and shout and while what is shouted is funny the delivery is unsubtle and can grate depending on who you are.
However, the other two characters are great.
The hunter character is amusing, almost like Elmer Fudd gone Rambo, and judging from his vocal performance you do wish that Victor Moore did more voice-overs.
Daffy is as always spot on, I absolutely agree that a mix of his early manic and later greedy personas are here as well as a sympathetic side and I loved that.
The animation is fine as well, there were more fluid character designs later on but the backgrounds are very detailed and the colours are shaded beautifully.
The music is as energetic as you'd expect, while the writing is fresh and witty and the sight gags imaginatively timed and clever.
Mel Blanc's voice work for Daffy is stellar, but rather overdone for the duckling(even his voice work in A Tale of Two Kitties was an unsubtle as this).
The ending twist is just great.
All in all, likable and fun but some may be annoyed by the duckling character.
8/10 Bethany Cox. if Elmer had a stroke.
"Ain't That Ducky" seems to me to be a sort of crossroads of three different kinds of Daffy Duck cartoons.
On the one hand, a not-too-smart hunter (I interpret him as what Elmer Fudd would be after surviving a stroke) is trying to turn Daffy into dinner; apparently, members of the genus Anas* are always among the tastiest animals.
Also, there's a crying duckling with a suitcase; every time that Daffy or the hunter asks the little guy what's up - or what's in the suitcase - the tyke gets very hostile (later, in "The Up-Standing Sitter", Daffy had to watch over a chick, but the chick proved to be one bad mother).
Finally, in one scene Daffy notes the absence of a barrel in which to hide and demands that the animator draw one; after the animator obeys, Daffy exclaims "J.L. is going to hear about this!" (later of course, Daffy's disagreements with the animator formed the plot line for "Duck Amuck").Admittedly, I may be the only person who interpreted the cartoon this way.
Mostly, it is nice, fun entertainment.
You're sure to love it.
I assume that "J.L." refers to Warner Bros.
executive Jack Warner.*Anas is the genus to which ducks belong..
Sometimes it's better not to know.
We meet a couple of ducks.
One is a woeful yellow duckling weeping all over a mysterious suitcase, the other one is Daffy.
Then a Fudd family member (or at least a card carrying member of the same hunting club) steps into the picture.
You know the type: beady eyes, big black eyebrows not matching the brown hair above his ears and carrying a rifle that has an enormous kickback.
'Squinty' decides Daffy is just the right size and sets out to make him suffer like succotash.
Daffy's chase capers are usually even more far out than his rival Bugs.
This Duck knows and accepts his status as a cartoon character and will always try to put this knowledge to good use.
So he forces a forgetful animator to draw a barrel as per the script and threatens his pursuer that 'J.L. will here of this'.
At one time he takes a cardboard cut out of himself (for promotional purposes perhaps?), convincing the hunter he's just run over his prey.
Daffy then dresses up as his own son, saying "you broke his little head", etc.
Unexpectedly, the foolish follower decides to adopt this 'orphan' on the spot, forgetting he was planning to have duck for dinner a minute earlier.Unfortunately that other little duck keeps reappearing and turns out to be far more annoying than good old Daffy D.
Imagine the shock to learn this second stringer is more than just a running gag: the lure of the suitcase proves too much for the two chasers.
They form an uneasy alliance to find out what exactly that yellow belly is crying about.
They won't like the answer inside, it's fantasmagorically awful (or so the Daffster claims).3 out of 10.
"I'll make it up to you; I'll take care of you as long as .
you live," says the fat geezer version of Elmer Fudd toward the close of AIN'T THAT DUCKY to what he takes for Daffy Duck, Jr., (actually, Daffy himself in a juvenile wig) crying profusely over a "dead" road kill plywood cut-out version of Daffy.
One may well wonder to exactly WHOM is this Deplorable Racist Confederate Red State Nazi Fascist Slob Hunter (he misses with every shot!) pledging such an unqualified boon, given the penchant of Warner Bros.' Animated Shorts Seers division (aka, The Looney Tuners) for spot-on prognostication aimed at We Americans of (The Then) Far Future?
Also open to question is WHAT is causing the third character of AIN'T THAT DUCKY--an ill-tempered sobbing duckling--to cry his eyes out?
One of the clearest clues Warner makes available to answer these queries is the "accidents" constantly injuring Daffy and Old Elmer.
Since BOTH the slacker duck and geriatric arms bearer appear to be subsistence hunters, this impoverished pair each qualify for Medicaid (as would the juvenile fowl, most likely).
Warner is warning we of Posterity about Red Commie KGB Chief Vlad "The Mad Russian" Putin's fiendish plot to eliminate Medicaid this week (shortly after Sept.
25, 2017) in order for his White House Sock Puppet Don Juan Rump (of the infamous Rump\Kushner money-laundering Crime Cartel) to more easily loot the U.S. Treasury under the guise of "a tax cut for the Rich" and transfer American Wealth to the Russian Oligarchs who put these Treasonous Thieves in Power in the first place!
As the Duckling's final message spells out, it will be "The End" for all of we Patriotic Loyal True Blue 99 Per Center Normal Average Progressive Union Label Folks UNLESS we fight to TAKE BACK the USA from the Red Commie One Per Center Traitors ASAP By Any and All Means Necessary!
|
tt0244800
|
Sledgehammer
|
In a remote house, an abusive mother locks her young son in a closet, then goes into another room to meet the man she is cheating on her husband with. The man and woman intend to abandon their respective spouses, but their plans are cut short when an unknown killer appears and murders them with a sledgehammer. The bodies were found by the authorities, with the exception of the boy, being missing and is presumed dead.
Ten years later, seven friends acquire the house to party in, and travel to it in a van, which they leave with a mechanic. When night falls, Chuck convinces the others to participate in séance to try and summon the spirits of the couple that died in the house, so they can learn who killed them. The séance is just a means for Chuck and Joey to prank their friends, but it succeeds in bringing forth the ghost of the missing boy, which appears as a towering man in a smiling translucent mask. The spirit hides Joey's body after stabbing him in the neck, and the next day it attacks Jimmy and Carol while they are having sex, bludgeoning the former with a sledgehammer, and snapping the latter's neck.
Discovering the fates of their friends, the remaining four teenagers decide to hold up in the house until morning, at which point they will try to reach the nearest town. When the others fall asleep, John grabs a knife and goes off in search of the killer, and finds the boy's skull in a closet, a newspaper mentioning his disappearance, and Carol and Jimmy's bodies seated at a table, near Satanic imagery painted with blood. John is confronted by the ghost, and tries to fight it off, but is stabbed in the back. The phantom then captures Mary, and is found (as the boy) stabbing her to death by Chuck and Joni. The spirit assumes its adult form, wounds Chuck, and goes after Joni.
Joni fends off the ghost long enough for Chuck to recover, and help her defeat it with its own sledgehammer. As the sun rises, Joni and Chuck flee from the house, unbeknownst that the killer's young form is glaring at them from the house's top window.
|
murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
This is a homemade 80's slasher film that appears to have cost about 14 bucks to make and looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder (I'm not kidding).
The film begins with an abused child being locked in a closet while his mother has a drunken fling with a character referred to in the credits as the "Lover".
A title card (old ass 80's camcorder text) tells us it's 10 years later and we are introduced to seven potential victims as they go for a weekend retreat in the home of the previous murders where they are systematically stalked and killed by the same sledge wielding madman.
OK, I know it all sounds very derivative and there are much better, more professional cheap ass slashers out there, but this movie is "special" in a lot of ways.
First off, the low production value and it's cheap, home video quality cinematography actually enhance the film a lot.
That combined with a simple, yet effective, bass heavy synthesizer score, an amateur cast made up of muscle bound jocks and big hair bimbos, and a freakishly tall killer who wears a clear plastic mask and is genuinely creepy looking make this movie transcend into a weird kinda art piece.
It's like if Pinter made a slasher movie at a friends house one weekend for beer money on his home video camera.
The killer is SO big he barely clears the hallway's ceiling as he chases a victim and he holds his sledgehammer in one hand the way most normal people hold a regular hammer.
Offers some fun for bad movie lovers..
A young boy (Justin Greer) is locked in a closet so his mom (Mary Mendez) - obviously no candidate for mother of the year - can get it on, in peace, with her lover (Michael Shanahan).
Fast forward ten years later, and one of the most obnoxious groups of young adults that you'll ever see makes it to the very same house for some hard partying.
After we're made to watch a great deal of their tomfoolery, our psycho killer makes their appearance, once again putting a sledgehammer to good use.An early credit for "Deadly Prey" director David A.
Prior, this stars Davids' hunky brother Ted in the role of Chuck, one of these merry morons.
Overall, "Sledgehammer" is nothing special, and it may not appeal to slasher fanatics across the board because one, there's no nudity, and two, it's really not that gory until the big finish.
All of that said, it's reasonably enjoyable in typical bad movie fashion.The main problem is that David A.
"Sledgehammer" only runs about 85 minutes, but several minutes easily could have been cut out without affecting the movie.
The inane antics of our intended victims go on for quite a long time, so if one is not amused by these characters right off the bat, just imagine having to put up with them for over 40 minutes or so.The gore might not be that much, but it's fun in a predictably tacky way."Blood Cult" may get erroneously credited as the first shot on video regional horror flick, but this one predates it by a few years.Six out of 10..
Watchable shot on video horror film....
It's very cheap, has acceptable (Sandy Brooke, Ted Prior, Linda McGill) to downright bad (George Eastman, Steven Wright, Tim Aguilar) acting, standard direction, poor screenplay, and okay photography.It is about a woman and her lover who is killed by her young son(looks about seven years old, kinda young to be insane).
Ten years later a group of vacationing teens (they look like their in their 30's, serious!) show up looking to have a weekend full of sex, booze, and fun.
Their fun turns to sheer terror as their weekend is interrupted by the raving maniac's spirit.It was directed by David Prior (KILLER WORKOUT, LOST PLATOON, MARDI GRAS FOR THE DEVIL) who does an okay job with the camera (for being a video movie) and creates a real film feel but when the action starts, he results to too many slo mo shots.
Too bad she was in this movie.It was shot on video before "BLOOD CULT" though and is wwwaaayyy better than W.A.V.E. Exploitation/Horror videos (At least SORORITY SLAUGHTER 1 & 2).
All in all an entertaining if not throughly enjoyable genre piece stricken by poverty ($40,000 U.S. dollars).5/10 (based on shot on video horror features).
A shot-on-video pioneer (is that a good thing?).
Ted Prior was a Playgirl Playmate trying to get into acting, his brother David uhm, just owned a camera I guess, and so a fruitful collaboration started that has been going on for more than thirty years now.
This thing is one of the most boring slasher films I have ever seen, it's clear the dynamic duo still had lots to learn when they made this.
For example, David Prior hadn't figured out yet how to turn off the slo-mo effect on his camcorder.
Occasionally there is some almost-suspense (the clichéd slasher scene where one character tells the killer's legend isn't bad), the opening scene is also quite atmospheric, but as a whole "Sledgehammer" just doesn't bring much to the table to keep you entertained.
Flawed but decent Shot on Video fun.
"Sledgehammer" its an SOV slasher, its the infamous directorial debut of director David A.
Prior and what a film to start with.
When it comes to SOV horror "Sledgehammer" its probably among the most entertaining ones or at least the ones that have the most redeeming qualities, but as a legit horror movie it doesn't work at all.I like just how surreal it is, it doesn't try to ground itself in reality, instead, it creates its own mood and atmosphere, something I really enjoy in horror films, however, its also a severely flawed movie even by SOV standards, mainly because of the obnoxious main characters, all of them are unlikable idiots, they sink the movie really low and make it almost unwatchable.It started pretty decent but never became any more interesting, its predictable, cheesy, slow and dull but the tone its perfect for SOV horror.
We, the audience, are then seemingly beaten over the head with some of the poorest picture quality imaginable, even for shot-on-video flick, during the opening title sequence, while an imitation of the Phantasm theme is played.Obnoxious, amateur actors/ amateur porn stars gather in a farmhouse where, ten hyperbolic years earlier ( because nine years is never enough time, but eleven years is always too much time ) a double murder was committed.
At one point, the filmmakers seemingly forgot they were doing a slasher film, and meander into a food fight, which lasts for nearly eight minutes, before setting up a seance, to contact the spirit of the killer from a decade earlier.
We all have, because at this point, the filmmakers pad out the run time with a lengthy expositional flashback to the first scene from this very movie, in a Friday the 13th part 2- inspired bit, telling the audience what we already know.
Jimmy: looks likes he's killing time until the next Hall and Oates concert, or until he and Mary and Joni go have their hair permed at the same place.
Mother: tolerable, but she and Jimmy and Mary and Joni look like they all have the same hairstylist, who only knowshow to do that same perm.
I'm not saying this is * good *, but there are worse movies out there, like Blood Massacre, for example.
The beautiful outside photography and still close-ups of key symbols throughout the entire movie would make this an art house hit, but the dynamic cast and contemporary dialogue creates a demand from the mainstream.
My friends and I also based an ENTIRE CAMPAIGN ON THIS MOVIE called: "The Fantastical Sledgehammer Wars of 1997"!!!.
"Sledgehammer" is a SOV slasher flick which tells the story about the slowest serial killer in the history of hack'em up genre.The killer uses sledgehammer to murder his victims.He is plagued by traumatic past because he was locked away by his mother during his obviously unhappy childhood."Sledgehammer" oozes machismo.It stars Ted Prior of "Deadly Prey" fame as one of the main characters and is filled with a lot of annoying slow-motion scenes.The pace of "Sledgehammer" is decent and there is some cheap gore.The location sets are laughable:the action takes place inside this barren house.Upretentious in its cheese "Sledgehammer" by David A.Prior is worth checking out for slasher completists.6 sledgehammers out of 10..
Incredibly Awful Slow Motion Kills the Film.
Sledgehammer (1983)1/2 (out of 4) A young boy is being abused by his mother so he brutally kills her and her boyfriend with (you guessed it) a sledgehammer.
Ten years later a group of adults show up at the same house and soon start to get picked off.Director David A.
Prior's SLEDGEHAMMER deserves some credit for being the first shot on video slasher film but sadly there really isn't too many good things to say about it.
The film clocks in at 84-minutes and the reason it runs that long is that so much of it was shot in slow motion.
This here is what really kills anything decent in the film because scenes just drag on for no reason what-so-ever.
I will say that the death scenes were creative enough for such a low-budget movie and there was one creative shot through the killer's eyes.
Sadly that's about all this film has going for it but you have to give credit to Prior for making his own film and this helped give a rather long career off the ground..
"Sledgehammer" is another one of those forgotten 80's slashers and yes this one isn't less cheesy than the others and okay it's not perfect or great but what I found is that this movie was quite fun and has heart, which is very much rare these days.The beginning kept me interested where we have a small boy cruelly locked in a cupboard by his mother so she can carry on with her lover and then things get out of hand and the boy finds a sledgehammer and dispatches his mother and her lover.
Then fast forward 10 years and we get a group of 30 year old teenagers partying at that same house and well you know what's gonna happen next.Sledgehammer doesn't rank as one of the finest slasher movies from this period there are quite a lot of flaws, but despite that this movie is a lot of fun, the killer is very menacing and creepy and the kills are quite effective despite lacklustre effects.
The setting itself was rather dull and tame, too much white and made this movie look dull and this movie holds the distinction for being the first shot on video slasher and it shows, like the shaky camera work and the supernatural angle just didn't work for me and the slow motion scenes were pretty annoying and overused.
But despite these flaws "Sledgehammer" does deliver entertainment in some departments, the acting was pretty bad but I've seen a lot worse, they were still quite likable and the party scenes were quite fun and when the killer shows up ready to dispatch the cast, these scenes are quite tense as the killer does seem quite impossible to get away from as he's literally everywhere which was a definite highlight.
I am a fond lover of the horrible straight to video shot on camera horror movies of the eighties but this one was just UNWATCHABLE.
Well first it starts off with this mother locking her son in the closet so she and this guy can do the naughty but I guess as any normal person would the kid does not like this and comes out and kills his mother and his mothers "friend".
Well over the next years a group moves in and...you can pretty much guess what happens later on....the son is somewhat older and kills the people off.
The worst thing about this movie is that the director shows the same scene for a good 10 minutes and it gets just a tad bit boring.
This is the same director that made the awesome "Killer Workout" so I cant call this movie a complete waste of time but I know for sure I won't take another hour or so to watch it again.
With any slasher movie, you have to understand that it was never intended as the next "Citizen Kane".
For starters, it's obviously shot with a video camera, and probably a hand-held one.
Look, don't make me waste your time trying to explain how awful this movie is.
Prior's debut three years before Killer Workout!.
Sledgehammer was the slasher debut of David A.
I must admit that I expected more of the same from Sledgehammer as it was released three years before the aforementioned throwaway hit the shelves, which could only mean that it was bound to be considerably worse than its follow up.
Its very rare that my initial expectations have failed me throughout the slasher genre, but I must admit that I held a glimmer of hope that Sledgehammer might just be a forgotten gem.We start with a mind numbingly long and equally pointless shot of the outside of a country home.
Finally the camera pans inside where we see a mother struggling to silence a young brat who doesn't look too interested in the fact he's in a movie.
Before you can say 'by the book', the maniac cranks the unsuspecting playboy on the head with a sledgehammer (hence the title.)- Great gore scene by the way!
Bad move, because before you know it a masked sledgehammer-wielding killer has been resurrected from beyond the grave to cause havoc amongst the hapless revellers.Many fans of the eighties slasher craze enjoy watching these back-dated titles mainly for the shameless amount of cheese that's spread thick and fast all over the cheap video tape like butter on a piece of toast.
There are plenty of bad movie moments to be found here, which are mainly supplied by the hilariously daft cast members and their shockingly out-dated eighties fashions.
But the good news is that when the horror starts, David Prior does well to build a creepy atmosphere and the movie manages to switch between moods quite effortlessly.
It's a shame that such a gooey opening gore shot was not bettered as the runtime grew, but instead the effects seemed to dry out as the film drew to its conclusion.
I especially thought that Ted Prior tried his hardest and funnily enough that was proved by the fact that he would continue to work with his brother on many of his later film projects.Shot on video features are not the best quality productions even today, so you can guess how sketchy this looked being released over twenty years ago.
It's true that the camcorder-like cinematography does show its limits at times, but thankfully the sets are competently lighted and Prior makes the most of the minimal budget.
Only problem was that David Prior - like a child with a new toy - irritatingly overused the effect ad nauseum.
With that said though, slasher fans will enjoy the odd gore shot and some of the silliest dialogue ever placed on cheap videotape.
"Sledgehammer" is more than just a lousy and nearly insufferable early 80's slasher flick!
Nearly forty bad films in thirty years, that's what I call perseverance and dedication!
And David doesn't operate all by himself, in fact, since practically his entire repertoire stars his hunky beefcake brother Ted. The two heroic brothers started out with horror flicks ("Sledgehammer" and the equally horrendous "Killer Workout"), but then quickly turned to jungle adventures and Vietnam action vehicles probably because they realized Ted's posture is more fit for that type of movies.
Their absolute highlight inarguably remains the phenomenal 1987 "Deadly Prey", which is – I believe – a movie that everybody in the whole world needs to watch.But back to David & Ted's first venture into the movie industry, entitled "Sledgehammer", which is
a lousy and nearly insufferable early 80's slasher flick!
We're talking horribly weak camera-work, a complete lack of editing, pathetic stereotype characters, limited set-pieces, atrocious acting performances, zero attempt to build up tension and/or atmosphere, insufficient plot material to fill a long feature film (resulting in a dreadful amount of irritating padding footage) and laughable gore effects accomplished with kitchen equipment!
A bunch of idiots invade a countryside mansion for a weekend of booze and childish fun, but during the opening sequences we witnessed already how a woman and her lover were "brutally slain" with a sledgehammer in the same house one decade earlier.
Following the worst amateur-séance in history, the group members are butchered one after the other by
a guy with a sledgehammer!
Although I probably shouldn't waste any further words to this awful stinker, I would still like to highlight two elements in "Sledgehammer": the characters and the padding footage.
Ted Prior is quite embarrassing as the "leader" exposing his muscled torso the entire time, but strangely enough he still is the most authentic masculine character.
There's a dude called John, who looks like a wardrobe closet and doesn't have more than 2 brain cells (1 for beer, 1 for food).
There's a pointless "we are walking in the garden together" collage (in slow-motion!) and the absolute masterwork of stretching time is a pitiable food-fight sequence.
We all know the drill: A young boy murders his abusive mother and her smarmy lover with a sledgehammer just as they are ready to get down to business.
Ten years later a gaggle of obnoxious teenagers crash at the house where the killings occurred and not surprisingly the graphic carnage begins anew.
|
tt0780486
|
Blue State
|
John Logue (Breckin Meyer), a dedicated John Kerry campaigner in the 2004 election, actually follows through on a drunken campaign vow to move to Canada if George W. Bush would be re-elected. When Bush indeed wins again, John finds his employer and his friends took his public vow seriously and he can not help but stay true to his word. He meets Chloe Hamon (Anna Paquin), a reader of his blog, who wants to accompany him to Canada. On his way, they visit John's parents who are upset about his liberal views because his father (Richard Blackburn) is an inveterate Republican supporter. Moreover, John's brother is a soldier who fought in the Iraq War. Later, close to the Canada–United States border, Chloe reveals to John that she is a deserter who was in Iraq as a soldier and is supposed to return there.
John insists on taking Chloe to Canada although he then risks getting in trouble should she get arrested. In Canada, they are welcomed by a community of American expatriates but neither John nor Chloe really fit in there, despite the arrangement of a marriage to allow John to remain. Making a difficult decision to return, John and Chloe head for the border and an uncertain fate. When Chloe is arrested and has to go to prison, John waits for her, and in his return to the United States, has made a determination that he must make a difference. "Logue for State Senate" is the bumper sticker on his car.
|
romantic
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
I really wanted to like this film -- it is a great idea!
However, the comic undertones of the film quickly gave way to a downbeat drama and the portrayal of one of the most dysfunctional families ever seen on film.My enjoyment of the movie dwindled as the film went on and on and on.
The movie makes it look like Winnipeg is a day's drive from Washington state; Canada border guards do not ask Americans to see their passports at the border - they ask for identification (Social Security number, driver's license, etc.); Winnipeg does not enjoy Chinooks (where weather changes 30 degrees in a day) that's Calgary; By 2004 when this film takes place you would have a hard time finding any Canadian boasting of universal health care; and you really don't hear that tall poppy story up here -- that is a story Americans use to describe Canadians, not a story Canadians use to describe themselves.Overall, this was a missed opportunity for a very funny, poignant and timely film that really missed its mark.
Funny movie but some of the dialogue sounds like a political debate.
I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.Funny movie about a political activist John Logue (played by Breckin Meyer) who makes a drunken promise that if George Bush is elected president, he will move to Canada.
After John Kerry is defeated by George Bush, it seems like Logue's life has lost its purpose.
To do so he places an ad for a road partner and chooses the mysterious Chloe (Anna Paquin).In case you didn't notice by the synopsis, this film does rip on President Bush quite often, so don't be upset if you're from a certain political party, you know what was in store before seeing the film.
It's still a good movie, but I wish it would have kept its same charm and comedy that it had in its first half.Breckin Meyer and Anna Paquin were very good together, they were well cast and did a good job acting.
However, there are times where it seemed the film was written by someone the day after the 2004 presidential elections.
It probably would've been a better film if some of the dialogue didn't sound like people debating on CNN.It's a nice film and worth looking out for, but just remember to read what it's about before seeing it because it's not for everyone..
Calling 'Blue State' "anti-Canadian propaganda" is a bit like calling South Park's portrayal of egghead Canadians "anti-Canadian propaganda".And, it may be just me, but I felt that 'Blue State' pokes more fun at the Democrat zealot than of Dubya-- for a considerable portion of the movie, and when he's on tirade-mode, it seems to me that John is portrayed as a sad, almost ridiculous figure.That aside, the leads are believable and exhibit romantic chemistry, and make their characters likable.
Especially Breckin Meyer-- as written, John is a self-important, uptight person for most of the film, but Meyer imbues his character with humanity.Overall a mild political satire and competent, heartfelt romantic road trip..
This is a typical formula romantic comedy in that the couple fight and insult each other for most of the film then suddenly get the hots for each other at the end after getting plastered on home made Canadian beer.
It is an unusual romantic comedy in that I found myself hoping the whole film he would escape from her.
I saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2007.
Not only are the performances spot on (I think this is some of Anna Paquin's best work), but the movie manages the rare feat of being both funny, warm and thought-provoking at the same time.
I would describe it as part road movie, part romantic comedy - with some acute political commentary thrown in for good measure.
A self-mocking indictment against taking life too seriously, as ever the redeeming power of love wins out, with the moral - at the end - being that it is better to act locally than to run away.As for suggestions that the movie is partisan, I think not, this is merely a matter of character portrayal.Excellent acting by the hero and heroine.
Very enjoyable and absorbing to watch.A self-mocking indictment against taking life too seriously, as ever the redeeming power of love wins out, with the moral - at the end - being that it is better to act locally than to run away.As for suggestions that the movie is partisan, I think not, this is merely a matter of character portrayal.Excellent acting by the hero and heroine.
I have no idea was the movie about when I first watch it, it seem like a nice independent production movie but in the end it was way too average propaganda movie with an American point of view of Canada.The main reason I watch it was because I pretty much familiar with the actors Anna Paquin and Breckin Meyer.
The story is so-so; nothing great can be said about it; except it makes Canada look like a really dreadful place and people are very much a freak.Nothing much developed during the course of the movie except we get to learn the reasons why they wanted to move to Canada, and the rest is just gap filler.
The paces of the film never change but keep constantly slow and somehow not one single moment of memorable scene.I say the film might have work a whole lot better with other direction (and better script), cause this is way too simple and boring and nothing much has been added to help to set the mood of the film any better.The best of the film got to be the casting and that what might be the only things that attract people to watch this movie.
Their acting that was kept me watching it and nothing else.Overall it is not a movie I would recommend to anyone, cause it just plain boring and one sided.
There are some potential but the film has been made and it is not up to the par.Reason To Watch: Anna Paquin and Breckin.Reason Not To: Dreadful.Rating: 4/10 (Grade: F).
Worried about disappointing the loyal readers of his internet blog, a political activist decides to make good on a promise he made to move to Canada if George W.
Bush was reelected in this Canada/US co- production starring Breckin Meyer.
The film is overloaded with political debate (and lots of anti-Bush sentiment), however it nevertheless makes Meyer's road trip less a political one and more a journey of self-discovery in which he learns to be proud to be an American while dealing with personal issues that surface after stopping off at his parents' house along the way.
What exactly Anna Paquin's character has to do with his self-discovery journey is less clear.
All in all, 'Blue State' is a film with enough in it to possibly be worth a look, but with a singular protagonist and a tighter story, it may have been a lot more than just that..
Eager to tell a story certain aspects of the plot and characters can take a back seat to a film's desire to push the plot.The film was successful, however, I feel like proper pacing and better character development would have helped.The political rhetoric, name and fact dropping get old after a while mostly because their analysis is only surface deep.
A desire for more thought provoking facts could have helped validate the hero's desire.Overall acting felt tense and awkward which made the craft more noticeable and made it difficult to let go of the actor's fame.It's a unique film in it's story and arguably would have been better in a more independent circuit or with less known actors.
UPDATE- check out "RED STATE"(2011) movie; a great parallel to "BLUE STATE"The feature tries to inoculate the concept that IF you are an activist , you must be so because YOU ARE NOT NORMAL(Anna Paquin is being used as the ROLE MODEL, apparently the ONLY sane American in the feature.) this is targeting young people by trying to confuse their perceptions of anything that IS "white" OR "black".
(warning)first i must say that i am Canadian by assimilation, and while not having an American voting card, i was just as disappointed of George bush re-election as man others were, especially since his actions in oval office DO have a global impact no matter where you live.
"blue state" is exactly about this, more precisely about A disgruntled "democrat" that after the re-elections of 2004 is on his way to Canada, running away from g.w.b because his vote "did not matter".why 2 stars?
because this movie attempts to play on my feelings, from "incentives" such as a pretty woman (by the way god forbid for anyone to have such a girlfriend) to "happy endings"(no matter how unhappy this administration could make you).
I CAN NOT BELIEVE THEY MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE Canadian PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM by implying that IF YOU JOIN THE US ARMY YOU CAN HAVE A BETTER ONE(health care)...WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER MILLIONS Americans THAT HAVE NU SUCH DARK "PASSIONS" or can NOT easily be lied to?
if you are a CONSERVATIVE, you will likely love this movie and i mean that literally, if watch it all..if you are an anti-bush activist you will certainly dislike it (again, must see it entirely.surprisingly, on the feature's artistic merits, i was quiet WELL pleased UNTIL THE LAST 20-30 MINUTES!.
while it is not a "fast" movie per-see, it is VERY rich in ideas and thoughts including self induced criticism.Breckin Meyer plays excellent and seems very comfortable in the character's skin.
the whole production is targeting Americans only since there are MANY "clichés" that could not easily be applied even to Canadian "lifestyles" for example( then think the rest of the non-English world...).
towards Canadians like myself there are plenty of insults (from the the marry-a-Canadian matrimonial agency in its objective or , the Canadian border officer that dislikes American beer because it tastes like "s--t",etc).at times i was not sure if this production took "cheap" shots at me or other Canadians, but regardless, the director did it with "gusto" and i can appreciate that until the twist that makes the whole feature PURE PRO-PRESENT ADMINISTARTION PROPAGANDA.(even the ideas in the movie imply that "bush" OR "kerry" are THE SAME THING) for example i had nor seen or heard of "40 inch" size pizza order, looks hilarious do)).
dead, look at me i am running from my own country like a refugee" and Anna Paquin hears that......she gives this "superior" stance, very irritating, of a superior "moralist" she sees herself as.it gets WORSE after ...i CAN NOT BELIEVE i actually wasted my time to watch this, even if i loved most of the movie until it tried to TWIST everything up!(especially from the comments made by the American loving in Canada for 35 years because he ran away from the draft in Vietnam).
A well written character-driven political road trip film.
"Blue State" is set after the John Kerry versus George Bush election of 2004.
Our hero, John Logue (Breckin Meyer) a staunch democrat vows to move to Canada as a protest if Bush wins.
So the move to Canada begins.The film is predominantly a road trip.
John seeks a driving partner for the trip and finds Chloe (Anna Paquin).
Although John is extremely liberal, the film isn't.
Being liberal myself, I connected to John instantly and his weaknesses just made him that much more endearing to me.The road trip part of the film is extremely well written and moves at a reasonable pace.
I highly recommend "Blue State" to all the John Logues out there..
But getting back to this movie; a "comedy?" Where?
It's a story that I think begged to be told.I'm an American citizen who has lived in Canada many years.
To make their American characters look good and reasoned and noble?
As an American, I was thoroughly embarrassed.This movie was outright offensive to Canadians and informed Americans; in particular, *real* political activists who wouldn't have succumbed to a pretty face, but may have had a more serious agenda in mind.
I would have liked to see a much more thoughtful exploration of the lead characters, living at a time of great political conflict, in a more realistic setting, not this backwards gong show disguised as a politically aware love story.
To be perfectly frank, this movie is a perfect example of why Americans have such a hard time endearing themselves to people outside their borders.
It may have tried to depict the characters returning home as a result of their own political/emotional conflicts, but it ended up looking like a narrow escape from a life in the circus, i.e. Canada.The writer/director completely missed the mark, here.
I originally saw this movie a few years ago off Netflix, but wanted to check it out again the other day since I don't think I really gave it full attention the first time around.
I do remember enjoying what I had seen.Set in 2004, Breckin Myer stars as a very idealistic liberal-minded young American who promises (like such left-wing celebrities as Alec Baldwin and some others did) to move to Canada if George W.
LOL The movie starts out more as a comedy- I was actually laughing quite a lot at the beginning, but be warned- this is NOT a comedy.
Well anyway, we all know the outcome of the 2004 election, so Myer's character (unlike most of those celebrities) decides to go through with his promise, and he looks up a site for Americans who want to marry a Canadian (mostly for healthcare reasons), so he can obtain Canadian citizenship.
On the way, he meets a young woman (Anna Paquin) evading military duties, and they make the rest of the trek together, and form an interesting little budding relationship.I read several comments about this film that it paints liberals (and Canadians LOL) in a not-so-positive light, but I really don't think it does.
Yes, there is some hypocrisy, but overall the film showed the main character as someone who wanted change, but ultimately realized bailing out was not the way to do so-??
A great scene occurs near the end of the film when he meets an older American living in Canada who left to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war.
LOL Well, I highly recommend this little film- I think both liberals and conservatives (and Canadians!
And again, do NOT go into this film as a comedy, as the way it was marketed.
I don't care that this movie pokes fun at Canadians even though they completely over-exaggerated EVERYTHING about Canada; some parts were slightly humorous while most all of it was absolutely ridiculous.
There was somewhat of a plot with the fact that the main character was moving to Canada because he wanted to "escape" from America, but there was no climax, nothing to anticipate really, and rather predictable.
If anyone is looking for a cute romantic comedy to watch, this is not your movie..
This is another road trip movie.
It was filmed in Winnipeg Canada & area for under One Million Dollars.
Let us hope he improves,the script & direction is adequate for this type of film.The stars are Breckin Meyer (from TV), His performance is' not bad, but not that good either, and Anna Paquin who as child actress won a supporting role Oscar (The Piano) has done better adult roles.
When the film started, I was a bit skeptical of using a road trip fueled by political issues as a backdrop for a romantic comedy.
However, the superb acting of Breckin Meyer and Anna Paquin caught my eye and kept me intrigued throughout the film.As the plot continued to get more far-fetched, it became more and more obvious that this film was not realistic by any means.
I was particularly put off when Meyer's character chooses to stay with the Marry A Canadian organization for more than five minutes.
Luckily, the two finally do leave the crazy group in Winnipeg, only about twenty minutes too late in the film.
After this the plot continues to take some obvious and poorly written turns, but fortunately Meyer and Paquin remain believable and likable throughout the film.When their journey begins, the two awkwardly get to know each other through forced questions due to the fact that they were spending hours alone together in a car.
This is a story about a Democratic political activist who tries to make good on a promise to move to Canada if W wins re-election.What's good about this film is that it includes eerie clips from the period which bring back memories of just how creepy it was to live in the US at that time.
Having the advantage of being Canadian already, I did leave, several months later.But what's bad is almost everything else.I totally did not buy the romantic relationship.
There is real work to be done.It would have been nice if the film had contrasted the US events with Canada's Liberal minority of the same time period, and their eventual election loss to Harper in 2005.That said, Breckin looks good in a pair of jeans.
This period film will definitely be one of those.What is really interesting is that now that Bush has left, so have all the war protesters, yet the war continues.
Terrible - I think Bush's team wrote this movie as a double agent.
Oh, the middle age Canadian "lady" who beds down the boy, and all the liberals, or the draft dodging Vietnam vet living in a cabin in the wilderness, brewing beer that they drink - umm - like a case of before finally falling in love - which was the whole premise of this terrible freaking movie.
This reeks of republicans sneaking into liberal agenda and showing what they really think of Canada.
|
tt0059116
|
La donna del lago
|
Scotland under King James V (reigned 1513–1542) was in a state of unrest. Amongst the rebels were Douglas (Elena's father), Rodrigo (to whom she has been betrothed) and Malcolm (whom she loves). The King is in the habit of going about his lands disguised as Uberto. Seeing Elena he instantly falls in love with her, but she repels his advances stating that he is confusing hospitality and friendship for romantic interest. In the meantime he has realised that she is related to his enemies. The clans gather to overthrow the king, and Rodrigo and Douglas discover Elena's secret love for Malcolm. She tries to keep the peace, but the call to arms diverts the soldiers. The battle does not go well, and Rodrigo is killed. Again the king in disguise encounters Elena and gives her a ring to take to the king if she is ever in trouble. She decides to use it and goes to Stirling Castle where she finds that both Malcolm and Douglas are prisoners. She pleads their cases, and the king magnanimously pardons them and blesses the union, now unimpeded by Rodrigo, between Elena and Malcolm.
|
horror
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Having been very impressed by co-director Bazzoni's subsequent "The Fifth Cord", I have been very keen to see "The Lady of the Lake" since I first heard of it four or five years ago when i read Adrian Luther Smith's Excellent "Bloody and Black Lace" - a definitive collection of giallo reviews.
This is the only DVD outing I've ever heard of and there were both pros (a fantastic anamorphic print) and cons (it's Spanish and Italian only, with Spanish subs) - the cons apply as I'm an English speaker, but I was able to manage enough Spanish (with my dictionary at hand) to navigate through this beautiful, atmospheric film in Spanish with subs showing.It's as good as it's advance word suggests - an ice cool, incredibly shot mood piece which emerges as a giallo only in hindsight, as at the time it was filmed, the concept hadn't been formed and we were still four years away from the giallo cycle proper which was initiated by the box office success of Argento's "The Bird with the Crystal Plummage" and Martino's "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" amongst others.
The writer presses on in his investigations, seeking the facts behind her death and finding an awful lot of problems lying beneath the town's impassive surface, but in doing so unleashes the pitch black heart of darkness that lies within this film's conclusion.
I suspect a lot of the time shifts come from co-screenwriter Gulio Questi, who would later return to the editing styles shown here in his own films such as "Django Kill...
It kind of is, in the same way The Girl Who Knew Too Much resembles a giallo, actually it's a 'woman gone missing' mystery shot in black and white where a lot of the usual giallo tropes are absent for the simple reason they had not been mapped down yet; the same movie made ten years later would have probably been shot in garish Technicolor, the murders would take place on screen and we'd be treated to the black-gloved hand of the murderer.
A lot of common giallo themes can be found here though, sexual obsession, distorted memory, a chain of events is unlocked when a character visits a place of his past, the boundaries between reality and fantasy/madness blurred by something that may or may not be a product of the mind, yet I'd place the movie closer to the psychological horror Polanski was yet to do than Mario Bava, or a movie that would influence the gialli of Sergio Martino more than those of Dario Argento.If you take it apart to study the parts it was made of, you'll find a lot of familiar ideas reconfigured together in similar ways in other movies.
This is the type of movie where a fiction writer (who is "dead inside" by his own admission) arrives at a remote town by a lake to look for a girl who presumably committed suicide a year ago, the town streets are empty and there's talk of a family harboring a "terrible secret", the writer stays at an old hotel where according to the suave-creepy owner "he's the only resident" because it's off-season, at some point a photo of the dead woman is presented that throws a new light into the situation, and there's a mysterious slaughterhouse behind the hotel that looks like the abandoned warehouse Nosferatu hauls his coffin to in Murnau's 1922 film.The movie does a lot of something I find annoying: a scene where people behave in odd ways or has a certain kind of offbeat atmosphere plays out and then we cut to a shot of the writer jolted awake in his bed back at the hotel.
Bazzoni is a little too quick to point out "DREAM SCENE!!" to his audience, a little too quick to reassure the viewer that "this part that didn't make sense wasn't really supposed to" so that as the movie begins to morph into something else we're lulled back to the safe environment of the genre picture, where the protagonist can narrate his thoughts in voice-over and where 'dream scene' appears to be the director's way of saying "I want to shoot with the whites washed out".But even that is not what it seems, because at some point we get the flashback of a memory of something that happened in one of the writer's previous stays in the hotel, the writer walks up the stairs and spies on a love scene between the dead woman and a man he can't identify, and we get extreme closeup shots of an eye watching this through a keyhole.
Later this memory is expanded upon in the writer's mind and what we saw at first suddenly takes new meaning so that the love scene may had not been a love scene and the victim may had not been the victim after all, but it doesn't become clear whether this is a repressed memory unlocked by circumstance or a wish fulfillment dream, the writer furnishing a twisty conclusion worthy of one of his pulpy books to an incident that remains unexplained and ambiguous like most real life situations usually are.
Fittingly this new twist feels very film noir, deceit and greed is involved and for a moment the moral universe of the film is turned on its head.This is what I take from the Lady of the Lake, like the blurry photo that is only a magnified detail of a larger frame, the sense of mystery partially revealed to us for a moment then withdrawn from our eyes again.
One morning she's found dead and if only we'd have gone down there to talk to her while there was still time.Near the end the movie shifts from eye-level Shining track shots of hotel corridors to vertical shots of the protagonist going down a spiral staircase, the whole geography is now inverted, and we're invited inside the mysterious slaughterhouse for the big reveal.
It's all a bit like we're seeing the seedy industrial locations of Tetsuo through the wintry viewfinder of Sven Nykvyst, or like fetish filmmaker Maria Beatty had brought her inky blacks to the glowy diffused whites of Funeral Parade of Roses.For the end the movie feels the need to explain itself and provide a definitive conclusion, with the villain recounting the whodunit details to the protagonist, and then in very melodramatic fashion a crazed woman is running down the beach, arms flailing wildly.
This early giallo has the look of Bazzoni's later The Fifth Cord and the mood of his last film Footprints On the Moon, and once again the director impresses with a mix of noir-ish visuals and people thinking a lot.Bernardo is a burned out writer who, following a failed relationship, heads to a hotel on the edge of a lake where he was once infatuated with a maid named Tilde.
First off there's the owner's daughter Irma, who is upset that the family's reputation is shattered, then there's her brother Mario and his weird wife who barely talks and walks around the lake at midnight, then there's the owner himself, whose happy, servile façade begins to slip as Bernardo goes snooping around the place.Although there's not a lot of action in this one the general moodiness of the piece is cranked way up.
Just like the brilliant Fifth Cord, Bazzoni uses light sources a lot here and often has his actors standing in front of harsh lighting, saving the weirdest light tricks for when Bernardo is either fantasising about the suspects motives or having one of many vivid dreams.
There's quite a lot to compare to Footprints on the Moon as well, with one lonely character in a deserted holiday resort trying to figure some strange puzzle out.For a really early giallo, and for Bazzoni's debut, this is a slick, well made film.
However, I would say that the film is closer to a supernatural mystery film than a Giallo and it also shares a lot in common with the popular American film noir style; stemming from it's picture, execution and subject material.
The film is very much of the high quality variety and director Luigi Bazzoni takes time and a lot of care to ensure that the film is haunting and mysterious as possible - which pays dividends as the plot starts to pan out.
However, it would appear that there is more to the apparent suicide as Bernard is shown a picture suggesting she was pregnant...The film is directed by Luigi Bazzoni, who go on to make one of the best seventies Giallo's with the excellent The Fifth Cord as well as one of the oddest genre films with Footsteps in 1975.
Overall, The Lady of the Lake will probably not please all viewers; but it's a very well made mystery and anyone that considers themselves a fan of Italian cinema should check it out!.
A young writer Bernardo (Peter Baldwin) decides to come back to a small town, set nearby a lake, where he had previously stayed and met a attractive maid and waitress – Tilde (Virna Lisi).
He plans to rediscover her and starts searching, after which he is informed by the owner of the hotel about her mysterious death
This is often considered to be one of the earliest examples of giallo genre, along with Blood And Black Lace (1964).
In spite of this fact, this cannot be considered, just like later effort by Bazzoni, masterful Footprints On The Moon (1975), to be a typical mystery that made a pattern for all films of this genre, as it differs drastically.
Owing to this, the viewer is able to follow all the vacillations of the main character and follow all possible ways of Tinde's demise accompanying this mystery envisioned by Bernardo.
Fortunately, on account of tremendous direction by Bazzoni, his visual style, exquisite taste for creating adequate atmosphere of anticipation and ambiguity, The Possessed (1965) (La donna del lago) is a true gem.The cast is nothing special, but all of the actors manage to achieve a satisfying level of acting artistry.
Their roles are rather a minor ones, as Peter Baldwin is the most important character and the action revolves around him.Overall, La donna del lago (1965) might not be as visually striking as gorgeous Footprints On The Moon (1975), nonetheless it's a very impressive little movie that should be more known than actually it is.
Luigi Bazzoni attaches a great importance to a psychological aspect of characters in the film and owing to this outshines many other flicks in its genre.
The film, in fact, can perhaps best be described as an arty semi-giallo; interestingly, it contains several echoes to Bazzoni's later effort: the resort town, the central hotel setting, the strange characters encountered by the hero (in FOOTPRINTS, the bewildered protagonist was a woman), the mystery revolving around a missing person not to mention the deliberate (and deliberately-paced) oblique narrative.What is immediately arresting here (in spite of the somewhat fuzzy quality of the print on display) is the supreme style allotted to the film's look which is wintry, bleak and forbidding by its two directors (incidentally, this was Rossellini's only stint in such capacity!); to this end, they wisely recruited veterans such as cinematographer Leonida Barboni (but who also adopts peculiar framing throughout, none more so that the pan in extreme close-up of a character's face with the gleaming lake for backdrop!) and production designer Luigi Scaccianoce.
was co-written (with Bazzoni and Franco Rossellini) by Giulio Questi; for the record, as a director in his own right, the latter went on to make such idiosyncratic yet haunting revisions of genre convention as the Spaghetti Western DJANGO, KILL
IF YOU LIVE, SHOOT!
(1967) and the giallo DEATH LAID AN EGG (1968).The cast is compact but exceptionally noteworthy: Peter Baldwin (very good in Dino Risi's LOVE IN ROME [1960] here, in what I assume to be his most significant role, he's downright excellent!), Salvo Randone (as the owner of the hotel whom the hero suspects of both lechery and murder, he manages to alternate between a genial and sinister countenance throughout), Valentina Cortese (a typically fine performance, though her weather-beaten looks make it hard to convince us she's Randone's daughter
even if a reasonable age gap separates the two actors!), Philippe Leroy (having appeared in so many films from the 1960s and 1970s that I've watched in recent years and, thanks also to his remarkable versatility, the French actor has become a firm favorite of mine!), Virna Lisi (while undeniably sensual, her contribution basically amounts to an extended cameo since her character, who seems to have turned the heads of virtually the entire male cast at some point, is already dead when the film opens and we only see the girl in flashback/fantasy sequences!) and Pia Lindstrom (a rare cinematic appearance by Ingrid Bergman's elder daughter being similarly steeped in mystery, alas, she too is barely given time to create a flesh-and-blood character
but, then, her resultant fragile performance emerges to be all the more moving for it!).The plot concerns an author (Baldwin) arriving off-season at a resort town he habitually retired to in order to work, hoping to meet again a servant-girl (Lisi) he's enamored of employed at the hotel run by Randone; however, he's told she's no longer there
but notices that her cloak is still hanging in the closet, follows a woman in the streets he sees wearing it (and is eventually disappointed to learn the outfit now belongs to Lisi's replacement).
At one point, Lindstrom makes a weak attempt to communicate with Baldwin but, before they can meet (he had previously noticed the girl walking aimlessly by the lake at night a number of times, but never quite mustered the nerve to confront her), she too is found dead!
Eventually, the hero starts to think he may have gotten it all wrong: perhaps Lisi wasn't so much a victim of circumstance (periodically abused by both father and son!) as a femme fatale who got killed simply because she was too greedy.The final revelation then, takes things in another direction altogether; while certainly effectively handled, the scene does perhaps constitute a slight let-down as it won't surprise anyone familiar with Mario Bava's THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1963), actually the film credited with originating the giallo tradition, in which Cortese also features.
This movie is about a writer that takes on a trip to the place where he use to go to write in hope of meeting the girl that was maid in the hotel last time he was there.He finds out she is dead and that it possibly is murder and not suicide as the official explanation is.
I think it is most for people that enjoy some certain style of black and white movies..
'Lady of The Lake' (aka) 'The Possessed is an enigmatic, almost impenetrable quasi-giallo by the excellent, Luigi Bazzoni, the talented, intellectual auteur behind the equally idiosyncratic, almost anti-gialli 'Footsteps On The Moon'(1975).
The difining moment for a man looking for something in the past took him in a cold resort try to find a mystery woman that disappeared without a trace, a rare picture that to fill up more a mystery than a giallo, whatever be the genre don't really matter at all, the freeze atmosphere hook the anxious audience who knows what's coming to next, two false step is cleary noticed, a lack of more acting of Virna and the scene in the shore of lake, the last one specifically, a priceless fine moment to see Valentina Cortese once again who was a great italian actress in near past, above average mystery!!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
It seems like a giallo, but it's way closer to a film noir.
Often, people say that a movie feels like it's inside a dream, but so much of this movie feels like one long evening of interconnected night terrors.Also known as The Lady of the Lake, this films was written by Giulio Questi (Death Laid an Egg) and co-directed by Franco Rossellini (who would later produce Caligula) and Luigi Bazzoni (The Fifth Cord, Footprints on the Moon).Bernard (Peter Baldwin) is a novelist who has given up on life, despite his growing fame.
And she may not have been the perfect woman that his creativity made her out to be.Much like the giallo protagonist -- a stranger on a strange who is often an untrustworthy narrator who must now investigate a crime that they themselves are implicated in -- Bernard learns more about how his vacation getaway also isn't the heaven that he dreamed that it was.Thanks to the recent Arrow Video releases, I've done a deep dive on the films Bazzoni and wish that he had made more than the three giallo-esque films on his resume.
Many consider the first real giallo film to be Mario Bava's EVIL EYE (aka THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) made in 1963.
What some fail to note is that the genre did indeed begin in the sixties and this film, THE POSSESSED, was one of those earlier titles.The story revolves around a writer named Bernard (Peter Baldwin) who feels compelled to return to a small village where he vacationed previously.
There is also the Tilde's father who gets drunk and rants at the hotel from the street.The movie combines elements of the whodunit with a ghost like quality though it involves no spirits.
Much like her meeting with the writer influenced his decision to return looking for her, her presence hovers over the entire town as the true fate she befell gets closer with each passing minute of film.Shot in black and white the movie does possess a certain haunting quality to it.
It's an entertaining movie that fans of giallo will certainly enjoy.Arrow Video is releasing this version of the film in pristine fashion with a 2k restoration made from the original camera negative.
|
tt0433963
|
Dark Ride
|
Twin teenage girls, Sam and Colleen, enter the mysterious Dark Ride. Sam, who is tough and competitive, gets annoyed at Colleen because she is anxious and scared. The killer kidnaps Sam and slices her stomach, then brutally kills Colleen.
Ten years later, Cathy (Jamie-Lynn Sigler) and Liz (Jennifer Tisdale) are getting ready for spring break. They decide to take a road trip along with three of their male friends, Bill (Patrick Renna), Steve (David Clayton Rogers), and Jim (Alex Solowitz). The friends embark together in Jim's van, and meet Jen (Andrea Bogart). While at a gas station, Bill wanders around trying to find the bathroom. When he joins the others, he claims to have found a pamphlet about the Dark Ride re-opening after many years of being closed. The group decides to make a detour to the amusement park and spend the night in the Dark Ride attraction. Once they arrive, Cathy decides to stay in the van while the others go into the ride.
Liz, Steve, Jim, and Jen find a door inside. Jim switches on the power, which illuminates the lights and launches the ride, as well as its scary theatrical effects. The four then sit and smoke marijuana. Bill tells them about the two girls that were killed ten years earlier, and reveals that they were his cousins. After some initial skepticism, the others eventually believe him. Jen and Steve wander into the hallway to fool around. Jen sees something and notices Cathy's fake corpse sitting in a chair with her throat slashed. The prank was meant to be pulled on Steve, who is livid due to the trauma. Cathy argues with him and they both stop fighting when Bill breaks it up. Steve, angry about the prank, wanders off by himself.
The others are moving along when the power goes out. Jim goes to the basement to fix it, since he had first turned it on. Jen wanders into the basement and starts flirting with Jim, kissing and fellating him. The killer slides through a hidden entrance on the floor and cuts through Jen's neck. Jim, unaware of what has happened, tries to kiss Jen and pulls her severed head off her body. He tries to run, but hits his head on a pipe and knocks himself out. The killer then takes Jen's head upstairs.
While Jim and the now deceased Jen are in the basement, Liz, Cathy, and Bill start trying to find their way out of the ride. They stumble upon a body hanging from the ceiling, which Cathy realizes is Steve's. The killer has apparently used Steve's body as an attraction in the Dark Ride. Frightened, the girls go one way and Bill goes another.
Cathy is in the vehicle and screams, but no one hears her. Once she finds Liz's corpse the police detective arrives and insists everything will be all right. Cathy sees the killer behind the detective and tries telling him to back away. The killer slashes the officer's head in half using a machete, revealing his brain. Cathy screams and the killer looks at her with a brief smile. Cathy runs up the stairs, finds an opening, jumps out to safety, and gets into the van.
Using her cellphone, Cathy tries calling her friends but can't get service. Meanwhile, the killer attempts to murder Jim with his hook scraping through the concrete. Cathy drives the van into the building, impaling the killer on a wall of spikes. This causes Cathy to pass out, and Jim goes to check on her. Bill appears and tells Jim that the killer is actually his brother and that he has been committing the murders for him, and stabs Jim. Bill thanks Cathy, who runs out of the Dark Ride and falls to her knees as she hears sirens approaching. The film ends showing what appears to be Bill wearing the killer's mask.
|
violence, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
| null |
tt1107835
|
Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe
|
After Shao Kahn's invasion of Earthrealm is halted by Raiden's forces of light, Raiden blasts and sends Kahn through a portal. At exactly the same time on Earth, Superman stops Darkseid's Apokoliptian invasion by blasting Darkseid with his heat vision as he enters a boom tube. These acts do not destroy either of them, but merge them into Dark Kahn, and causes the DC and Mortal Kombat universes to merge. As this happens, the characters' abilities fluctuate, causing violent "rage" outbreaks that are actually the feelings of Dark Kahn being infused in the characters from afar. Because of this, certain characters gain either strength or vulnerability. This allows for such things as the possibility of Superman being defeated due to his vulnerability to magic, and giving the Joker the ability to fight skilled martial artists such as his nemesis Batman and Deathstroke. With each world thinking that the other is responsible for the merger, they fight each other until only one fighter from each side remains: Raiden and Superman. In the final battle, the two fight while Dark Kahn feeds on their rage. Both realizing that the other is not working with Dark Kahn, they overcome their rage for each other and defeat their fused enemy, restoring the two worlds to their normal separation. While everyone else has been sent to their original universe, Darkseid and Shao Kahn have been switched and are both rendered powerless. In the end, they both face eternal imprisonment in the other's universe; Darkseid is restrained in the Netherealm, while Shao Kahn is trapped in the Phantom Zone.
=== Characters ===
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
Don't know why there's so much hate.
Mk vs DC is one of those kind of games that got a lot of negative reviews over a very stupid reason.The final verdict for it was "it was not gory enough." Well, guess what, despite that, this it's a really good game!
and not every single MK game has to have five torsos flying around when you make a fatality, in my perspective it is more realistic than any other MK game since the fighting mechanics look more like a real fight, plus having dc heroes doing heroic brutalities is more in line with the nature of the characters other than just having batman ripping someone's head off, they're HEROES people!!!
not killers.The attention to detail on behalf of the character moves is outstanding, you will get to see Superman's fighting style just as you would've imagined and the same goes for Flash, Green lantern and all dc characters.MK characters have their signature moves plus a few new ones and they are done to precision so that no character in the entire game is alike.Being a long time DC and MK fan, this title eluded me for a while because of all the negative feedback I heard about it, but when I finally got the chance to play it I only wanted to master it, learn all moves, combos and fatalities, no matter what, which is the same feeling I got for MK3 and UMK3.Yes, it's not gory but it's still pretty violent, don't let the reviews fool you.This was made with love, you can tell from the very beginning, also the story...
I guess most people haven't picked up a crossover comic in their lives, but the story feels like one of those old comics like Marvel vs DC.And yes, I'm both a huge MK fan as well as DC and this game delivers on both ends.Don't believe me?
play it for a while with an open mind and judge for yourself, you will finish both sides of the story just to see where it ends and then you will try your best to complete the kombo challenges and the just keep playing it over and over again.I don't know what most people are complaining about, maybe they just wanted guts and blood to soar through the air with a little punch or something like that, but since I'm not the kind of guy who goes with what the crowd says but more that kind of guy who makes up his own mind I will give this game a 10/10 just to compensate.
(although in reality I would've given it a 9 because there could've been more characters and something like alternate suits, a making of video or just extras in general) Don't let anyone fool you, this is a good game, challenging but still playable, fun and gorgeous to look at..
This Mortal Kombat game has some of the best fighting in the series..
The other Mortal Kombat games I have played have really lacked in the fighting category, this one the fighting was really good and fluid.
The finishers are not quite as deadly and bloody as earlier incarnations, but I did not mind all that much.
I just enjoy the opportunity to do a finishing move, I do not really care if it is ultra bloody.
This one includes DC comic characters, hence the reason it is less violent, and I rather enjoyed their inclusion.
It was fun and they actually explain during story mode that all the things that were happening were affecting the powers of say Superman and Captain Marvel, hence why they simply did not dominate all the other characters as they probably should have.
I hate fighting games where everyone can face everyone and have an equal chance at winning with no explanation as to why.
This one is also a lot more fun than an earlier game featuring Marvel characters called Rise of the Imperfects.
This one trumps that game in that it has multiple endings in the arcade mode and a lot better fighting.
Which sucks as I love the Marvel characters and enjoy them better than those of DC, yet Marvel seems to have complete boneheads doing their writing and such these days.
The main problems I had with this one is that in the two story modes every character that is playable does not have a chapter.
In the DC side of things Catwoman and Deathstroke get left off and three or four are left off the Mortal Kombat side.
That and you can not use finishers in the story mode, though I guess it would be strange to kill someone and then have them return for a later segment, still it is a game so who cares?
All in all though it was fun, it has a lot of replay value in it..
this crossover sucks, marvel vs capcom is better than this.
First, i would like to express my angry about this game, this mortal kombat looks like for children, because in mortal kombat there are intense violence, blood, gore, etc.
it was a terrible idea to put mk with dc, dc is very imaginative and mk not.
The history is too short and boring, besides the mortal kombat games is for adults no for children, i don't know what ed boon was thinking, the fans of mk as me, will hate this game, but don't worry because ed boon finally listen us, and there will be another mk game more dark, violent as the other mk games, i repeat and i insist that put mk with dc was a terrible idea and that's the reason that I put this game 1 star of 4..
Another great comic book/video game crossover since Marvel vs.
Capcom 2.
Mortal Kombat first hit the arcade back in 1992.
This arcade game changed the face of fighting games with excessive use of blood and gore and over the top finishing moves.
The game also had digi-sprites that gave it a sense of photorealism.
Mortal Kombat would later on become one of the most popular and legendary fighting game series in video game history.
Jump ahead almost sixteen years and we would be given a very interesting game in this franchise since Marvel vs.
Capcom 2, Mortal Kombat vs.
Here's a review of the game.Story: Mortal Kombat vs.
DC Universe has no set continuity in either the Mortal Kombat series or the DC comic books but it is given a cheesy yet clever plot by two well known comic book writers, Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray.
In the MK universe, Shao Kahn was defeated by Raiden and his Earthrealm warriors in Outworld while at the same time in the DC Universe, Superman has defeated Darkseid in a failed invasion of Earth.
The two heroes blasted the villains of their respective universes through portals in an attempt to destroy them but instead of destroying them, both Shao Kahn and Darkseid merged into a demonic being with powers of apocalyptic proportions called Dark Kahn.
The appearance of Dark Kahn resulted in the two universes to fuse together and causing outbreaks of violent combat rage.
When the Mortal Kombat fighters and the DC superheroes and supervillains meet for the first time, they see each other as otherworldly invaders and minions of Dark Kahn.
They must put aside their differences to stop Dark Kahn before it's too late.
3/5Graphics: The graphics look pretty cool thanks to the Unreal 3 engine.
The character models look great and the backgrounds look stunning.
There some minor clipping issues with the some of the characters but it's not enough to take off any points.
5/5 Sound: The voice actors are mixed bag, Richard Epcar was pretty good as Raiden and wasn't too bad as the Joker but he's no Mark Hamill while the same time, the voice actor of Catwoman could've been better.
The announcer sounds really great.
I love the sound of objects breaking when slamming the opponent into something.
The sounds of punches and kicks are arcade quality.
4/5Gameplay: There is a pretty good variety of gameplay in Mortal Kombat vs.
DC Universe.
DC Universe.
Midway has added some pretty good mechanics such as Free Fall Kombat where you can beat your opponent while the both of you fall then perform a special move, Klose Kombat where you hit your opponent up close with the camera moved close to you and your opponent, and lastly, Test Your Might where you can throw your opponent to the wall, tackle him/her through the wall and into a series of rooms to another part of the stage.
DCU goes back to the 2D style controls while retaining the 3D controls which I think is a plus for the game.
Another thing that is a plus are the absence of mini-games which the last three Mortal Kombat installments had.
Also the the gimmicky finishers such as the animalities, babalities, and friendships weren't put into the game which is a good thing but that's my opinion.
Speaking of finishers, the fatalities were toned down since DC put some understandable restrictions on Midway.
The Mortal Kombat fighters and the DC supervillians can do the fatalities while the DC superheroes can do heroic brutalities, that's pretty understandable because everyone knows superheroes don't kill.
Midway was pretty smart with the Unreal 3 engine unlike their god awful first person shooter game, Black Site: Area 51.
5/5 Mortal Kombat vs.
DC Universe is a pretty interesting game for both MK fans and comic book fans to check out, however if you are a hardcore MK fan, then this game isn't for you.
DCU is a pretty good crossover game since Marvel vs.
Capcom 2 and perhaps would hold you over until Street Fighter IV comes out.Final Score: 3.5/5.
Good but completely overshadowed by MK9.
Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe- 2008 At least they tried to incorporate some cinematic exchanges between the 2 universes, where as Marvel vs Capcom never did, albeit a poor story.
The story is that both Superman and Raiden messed up with their following villains and these 2 merged creating a new creature that merged the realms.
The merging of the realms creates the new gaming mechanic, Rage, which is a plot device for characters to start fighting and gives the excuse for the Rage meter.
The gameplay is classic Mortal Kombat with some sidestepping, but unlike Soul Calibur the sidestepping in MK vs DC is slow, so almost no one uses it.
The fatalities are more like special moves, nothing really special, but do not hurt the game since the main attraction is the fighting mechanics.
More characters could have been welcome, especially since some DLC was planned for this game before Midway got absorbed by WB Games and Netherrealm Studios took over Mortal Kombat.
DLC characters such as Quan-Chi and Harley Quinn were prospects but later discarded.
The game overall is OK, and was the Mortal Kombat that you wanted to play before MK9, but now compared to that game you are better off playing the best fighting game ever made, MK9!
Touching upon the Free Fall, Klose Kombat, and Rage Meter gameplay mechanics, the previous 2 get old real fast since it's just guess work, although Klose Kombat is kind of fun to guess but is countered too easily before it starts and the Rage is too easily avoided since the opponent only needs to block downward like a coward or keep jumping away like a grasshopper until the Rage wears down.
I'd say buy only if you are a hardcore Mortal Kombat fan for your collection and can look past the Fatalities, since there are none here is rated T, or give it a rent.
As a side note, the Fatalities are present, but they are so toned town they come off as special moves instead and some are even censored (Deathstroke and Joker).
The UK uncensored versions are not that great either by the way..
Two Worlds One Epic Battle.
Two worlds collide in Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe with a original story that will surprise comic book and video game fans a like.While it does get some heat for being a T rated video game once you sit down and actually play it you find it more fun then one is lead to believe.The game features 22 playable characters with two of them being unlockable.
For Mortal Kombat you get to play as Sonya Blade, Sub- Zero, Scorpion, Liu Kang, Raiden, Kano, Kitana, Baraka, Jax, and Shang Tsung For DC Universe you get Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Catwoman, The Joker, Captain Marvel, Deathstroke, Green Lantern, and The Flash.
The two characters you get once you beat both sides of the story mode will be Darkseid and Shao Khan.The game story mode plot has you playing on both sides where in the Mortal Kombat story line Shao Khan after his defeat is confronted by Raiden as Quan Chi created a portal to escape he is attacked by Shao Khan only for Raiden to use his attack to send Shao Khan into the portal unaware that at the same time Superman who had just defeated Darkseid use his heat ray on him as he try to escape causing both to merges into a new being which is causing both the DC and Mortal Kombat universes to cross paths.Blinded by the rage the two sides see each other as the enemy.
The rage is something used where the characters get a increase boost of energy during fights.The new free fall is where a character can slam the other through a breakable wall giving them the chance to perform attacks or the other fighter will do a counter attack.The graphics are very well done with the characters looking almost life like and they took the time to detail every thing about the characters The level designs and very impress as well with the stages being inspired from DC and Mortal Kombat characters.The controls do take a good time to get used to and some of the combos can be hard to perform so this is not for the avenge gamer so you will need to do a lot of game play to do better.The voice acting is impressive with the actors actually taking the time to help sell the story of the game.The game play is the strong point of the game where you may enjoy fighting your favorite characters from the two sides.The game does have some problems such as the fact that it is not M mature and the fatalities are not what a Mortal Kombat fan would want to see since they kept it less.
Also Batman and Wonder Woman and the others DC Superheroes have Heroic Brutalities where they beat their opponent badly.But some of the finishing moves are pretty good so no worries on that.Well the game did get blasted for not being M mature the game play makes it worth your while.Overall if you're a fan of DC Comics or Mortal Kombat or just looking for a good crossover fighting game then I suggest picking this up since most stores have it for low price.I give Mortal Kombat Vs DC Universe an 8 out of 10
|
tt0072855
|
The Death Collector
|
Jerry Bolanti, a Mafia-connected hoodlum, is released from jail and is looking for a job. During this very uncertain and stressful transitional period, he plays the field to help stay relaxed. He discovers almost by accident that he has a talent for debt collecting and intimidation. He then decides to pay a visit to a mid-level wiseguy acquaintance and offer up his services.
His first task is to collect from a certain Bernie Feldshuh. Before he can deliver the swag to his capo, he is intercepted by Bernie's henchmen, who take back the money and leave him for dead. Jerry returns to Bernie's home while still healing from his gunshot wounds and extracts a moderate amount of retribution. Bernie's response is to hire a top-notch assassin named Marley to take down Jerry as well as the lawyer named Herb Greene who commissioned him to collect on the debt in the first place. An unfortunate secretary becomes collateral damage. Jerry's boss Anthony learns of the deed and sends a man of his own to even the score. An unfortunate bodyguard becomes collateral damage, and Jerry never does recover the $28,000.
His next assignment is to team up with enforcers Joe and Serge to conduct a raid on a shop manager for $40,000 that he may or may not have "owed" to somebody. But Bernie's newly hired hitman Marley is watching and waiting for an opportunity to take Jerry down. This proves disastrous for the entire operation. After the heist, the trio of gangsters heads over to a hotel room to count out the profits and celebrate a little.
While Jerry is downstairs in the hotel restaurant their secret adversary, Marley assassinates both Serge and Joe. He makes off with the money as well. At this point, Jerry's handler Tony begins accusing him of keeping the loot for himself. He refuses to believe that Jerry could make off with so much money, only to immediately lose it all again. Nobody could possibly be that incompetent. Jerry manages to tease out the contractor's identity from a restaurateur named Spinoza. He hunts Marley down and terminates his career in a field of tall grass.
Later, he receives a call from Gus at the local junk yard. A camper comes in to tell that Jerry might be able to salvage for himself and his live-in girlfriend Paula. Just as things begin looking rosy for Jerry and Paula, he is bushwhacked right in front of the battered red camper by three gun-toting villains. He dies as a result. The movie ends exactly the same way it began by showing the same two hoodlums in the same automobile dumping yet another body into the same ravine. Only this time, instead of an anonymous corpse, it's young Jerry Bolanti. The mastermind behind this particular hit is then shown to be none other than his former boss, Tony.
|
violence, murder
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made!
It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey.
For us mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and wise guys acting like "gafones".
While violence dominated the movie, I found myself laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas.
Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy character like we seen him do so many times over the years.
Surprisingly good "Mean Streets"-type crime drama.
Joe Pesci's first big role.
I can only guess no one actually bothered to watch it.Saw this at Tarantino's film fest and he said Scorsese used a number of these actors in Raging Bull..
A diamond in the rough among mob movies.
It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching.
I was glad to see cast members of such highly acclaimed movies as "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" in this movie A great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing..
I bought the DVD after not having seen it for a while on cable (like 20 years), but having seen "Goodfellas" and the entire "Sopranos" run to date.
In retrospect, both guys must have seen Death Collector/Family Enforcer and absorbed the flavor ,perhaps inspiring the tone for their masterworks, both of which the polar opposite of the romanticized Godfather trilogy.
This film is neither good, or bad, but is an interesting look at Joe Pesci before he became a star.
As it comes on a budget DVD with two other B pictures (one of them a C actually) I don't recommend renting it.
I thought Joe Cortese was great.
as a crazy mob cowboy type, and pesci and Vincent were great also.
i think the director Ralph devito was on his way to great things , but was cut down too early , maybe because he knew too much.
I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film.
The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters.
This is not the best movie in the world, however, it does come in handy when one is looking for a way to waste time.
The guy becomes an enforcer for the mob, crosses his boss and his boss comes after him.
I would love to get more films like this.
I agree with Vince, this movie paved the way for Goodfellas.
The scene where Pesci was throwing peanuts at the piano player reminded me of his "How am I funny?" routine in Goodfellas.
This is a highly underrated film and deserves some attention.
As with many other mob films, the theme of The Death Collector rings true: Always respect the Don..
A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey.
The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball.
Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese.
Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story..
THE DEATH COLLECTOR is truly a wonderful film.
A lot of the stuff in this movie would later be used by Scorsese himself, including the actors - Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, etc..
Not Perfect, But A Decent Low Budget Mob Movie.
Its probably a safe bet to say that "Family Enforcer" or "The Death Collector" (origianl title) won't go down as one of the best mob/gangster movies ever made.
Never the less, even with the obvious low budget, if you're fascinated by mobsters and gangsters, "Family Enforcer" definitely has something to offer.
The movie follows the style of such films as "Goodfellas" and "Mean Streets" by following the lower level guys in the criminal ladder, the main one here being Jerry Bolanti (played by Joe Cortese).
Fresh out of prison, Jerry visits the local mob boss in his Jersey neighborhood (a completely unknown Lou Criscuolo) for some "work".
If I had to guess what makes the movie effective, it would probably be the gritty atmosphere that the movie is able to create that seems all too real, from the shady clubs where the guys hang out to the shots of the Jersey meadows where the bodies are dumped.
Of course, what is most likely to draw people to this movie-if they've heard of it-is probably the chance of seeing Joe Pesci before he became a star, though I must empathize, Pesci is not the star, despite what the jacket cover on IMDb might show.
The film is helped by the good acting of all involved, including another future mob movie fixture, Frank Vincent.
The film is not perfect, but never the less, I can't help but wonder why the director, Ralph De Vito, never directed another movie again (I've heard from others on this site that he was actually murdered in a shooting.
If that's true, then maybe Mr. De Vito got a little too close to reality for his own good).
So, while I can't say this is a great movie, its not a bad one to catch when you have nothing to do..
Despite the obvious low budget on this movie, the acting is overall good and you can already see why Pesci was to become on of the greatest actors ever.
I'm not sure how authentic this movie is, but it sure is a good contribution to the mob genre......
This is a great movie that started Joe Pesci's career.
Without The Death Collector (Family Enforcer), Pesci would not have been the academy award winning actor he is today.
Originally Pesci was going to play the supporting role it was originally to be played by Pesci's childhood friend and De Vito's brother-in-law, who would been a fine actor in The Death Collector however it was not to be because fortunately for Pesci his friend moved to Florida with his family and in a need of good actor De Vito cast Pesci in the supporting role as Joe. This in turn lead Robert De Niro and Martian Scorsese discovering the young Pesci and his talents in acting, which lead him to be cast in Raging Bull, then Goodfellas, Home Alone and many more.
So if Pesci had not been cast in The Death Collector then he could not be playing 36 holes of golf a day and the 1980's and 1990's might have been very, very different..
After being away for a couple of years, Jerry Bolanti is back in his tough, North Jersey neighborhood, close to swampy meadowlands where bodies get pulled from the trunks of cars and dumped.
He's short on cash, so a local boss, Anthony Iadavia, throws him some work - as a collector and a holdup man.
Not sure if it was that way originally or something happened over the years.It's an interesting little low budget film but no where near as violent as you'd expect from a mobster movie made in the mid-70s.It's definitely worth a look, but be warned, its' rather slow..
One of the best Mafia movies EVER.
Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many reasons.
The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent.
The story is one of the best ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic.
This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good.
This movie also launched the careers of Pesci and Vincent.
If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were.
Story 10/10 Acting 9/10 Realism 10/10OVERALL 10/10My fave Mafia movies are1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer (The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie).
First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72.
Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act..
I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time.
i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets.
this movie is a great drama with great actors in it.
I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers.
When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them.
I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious.
I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies.
Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey.
When a "maverick" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny.
His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this "B" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction.
However, the acting is good.
Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work.
And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one.
Too bad; she did a good job!Moral of the story: Don't get your "Don" upset with you.If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD.
It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store..
***Just saw this on DVD last night (from a mafia movie compilation) and it wasn't too shabby.
I was hoping that the sound and picture would be enhanced but it wasn't, the film was grainy but I enjoy that.
Overall, a good picture although some of the acting was poor.
Then again, you don't really watch this type of film for the acting.
The plot is simple and to the point: a guy wants to earn some money making collections for a local hood.
*** MAJOR SPOILER *** I felt bad for the guy getting whacked at the end.
Joseph Cortese played an excellent lead role in this film.
Joe Pesci's role is a nice bonus to the film although his character is not as 3 dimensional as viewer's would like it to be.
This is an excellent film for its time and holds a vital place in the anthologies of mob flicks.
While the film looks old and cheesy in places (like watching Starsky & Hutch reruns), the violence is right in your face and some of the dialogue is perfect.
Any fan of mob movies will NOT be disappointed..
***SPOILERS*** Getting hired as a strong arm collector for the local Jersey Mob where he feels his talents will be much appreciated tough guy Jerry Bolanti, Joseph Cortese,is given the job by his boss Tony Ladavia, Lou Criscuola, to collect a debt of $28,000.00 from businessman Bernie Feldshun, Frank Vincent, for services rendered.
Bernie in giving Jerry a snow job in claiming him that he'll pay him later which he doesn't and ends up getting worked over by Jerry.
Who by his rough actions instead of just getting the money peacefully is berated by his boss Tony for being too rough on him.Tony as it turned out knew what he was talking about in that soon started the slow motion collapses and downfall of Jerry as well as his fellow mobster friends Joe & Serge, Joe Pesci & Bobby Alto, who were foolish enough to work for him.
***SPOILERS*** Now all this killing on Jerry & Matley's part has become very personal with Joe & Bobby iced Jerry finds out by strong arming restaurant owner, by interrupting his pasta dinner, Spinoza-played by Frank Ammirati-who in fact contracted Matley to do a hit-job on them and where to find his secret hideout in the Meadowlands swamps and eventually setting him up in an ambush and whacking him.
With what seems like his job as a collector on hold Jerry plans to take a trip to the Poconos with his live in girl friend Paula, Ann Jones, to chill out.
Only to end up getting whacked himself when picking up the trailer that his good friend, who set him up, junk yard owner Gus, Sal Lapera, fixed up for him.
P.S Joe Pesci movie debut, in a credited role, that had him picked by both actor Robert De Niro and director Martin Scorscse to play a major role, Jack LaMatta's abused brother, in the movie "Raging Bull" and the rest is motion picture history..
this movie was brilliant fantastic acting, great script.
The only reason no-one noticed it was because of the low budget everyone will agree with me that its a cult just like "Donnie Brasco" it shows a young Joe Pesci once again as a mobster, this film is up their with the cults.
its got some sopranos and some goodfellas chase got his idea for the sopranos when he watched this and Scorsese found Joe Pesci while watching it, that proves it must be a great am i right or am i wrong 'eh ?.
So I think I discovered a movie sub-genre here that I'll call the 'bada-bing' film.
Released four years after "The Godfather", arguably one of the best films of all time, someone would consider it a good idea to come up with an Italian mobster flick called "The Death Collector".
Jerry Bolanti (Joseph Cortese) figures muscle is more important than brains and alliances, and goes calling on a twenty seven thousand dollar debt from Bernie Feldshuh (Frank Vincent).
Jerry gets semi-whacked (doesn't die), while Bernie hires Spinoza (Frank Amirrati) who then hires Sam (?) to knock off Greene and the secretary who would have been a witness.
To keep the mean streets from boiling over, Jerry's benefactor Anthony (Lou Criscuolo) the pizza shop guy, knocks off Bernie and his bodyguard for all the trouble they were causing.
Upon recuperating from his injuries, Jerry teams up with mobster Joey Ubanz (Joe Pesci) and his partner Serge (Bobby Alto), both of whom get knocked off by Sam. A confrontation between Jerry and Sam in the shadow of the Twin Towers and the New Jersey Meadowlands might have been the end of the story, except for what follows.
I could give it away, and you could probably figure it out, but to be absolutely sure of the ending, you'll have to catch the film.Notwithstanding the convoluted story line, here's what else I learned - room service doesn't have hookers, and you don't throw peanuts at lounge singers.
As for Joe Pesci, yeah, he's in the picture.
But don't take it on faith that he makes the picture like other reviewers on this board have stated.
I mean, really, he got whacked like everybody else..
Good but could have been better with a different lead.
Low level mafia connected guy from New Jersey wanders back into town and asks to be set up with some work.
The guy he asks the favor of is reluctant because he doesn't like his ethic of making a lot of money and then disappearing until he needs more.
Eventually coming around our hero gets work and hooks up with another mob guy played by Joe Pesci.
Good mob movie was apparently a one shot deal from its director who died in the early 80's.
If there is anything wrong with the film it's with our hero who is a nice guy, but clearly has a death wish since he is constantly doing things that tick people off starting with beating up a mafia don's nephew for the hell of it.
This doesn't mean the film is bad, its not, its just that it could have been better.
(Perhaps if they had cast Joe Pesci in the lead, since he's infinitely more charismatic then the guy who was cast..
***1 Spoiler ahead***I recently saw this movie on a DVD, which was obviously produced to capitalize on Joe Pesci's stardom (he's all over the packaging, yet is a central but relatively secondary character in the film).
That said, it's well worth the time to watch Joe in it.
The film print quality would have to be characterized as fair/poor, but it's a decent story, and it's fun to see Joe P.
Look for "Billy Batts" from Goodfellas...he gets it again, only this time on the toilet..
They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character.
The DVD I watched states "this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war" etc.
Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked).
So much for the movie revolving around Pesci.
If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you.
|
tt0816671
|
Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo
|
Jump City is attacked by a Japanese ninja called Saico-Tek. The Teen Titans manage to capture him, having their tower damaged in the process. Under interrogation, Saico-Tek reveals the identity of the one who sent him - Brushogun - then he ruptures the room's fire extinguisher system and mysteriously vanishes. Subsequently, the Titans head to Tokyo, Japan, to search for his master.
Upon arriving Tokyo, after overcoming the language barrier (Starfire kisses a Japanese boy and learns how to speak Japanese, much to Robin's shock and jealousy) and fighting a Gorgo-like giant reptile, the Titans meet Tokyo's own supernatural defense force - the Tokyo Troopers - led by Commander Uehara Daizo. He shows the Titans around the Tokyo Troopers headquarters, and when Robin questions him on Brushogun, Daizo claims that Brushogun is nothing more than an urban legend.
Left with no villains to pursue, the Titans can do nothing else than to enjoy Tokyo as tourists. Beast Boy follows a girl around and is eventually lured to a karaoke bar, while Cyborg goes to an "all-you-can-eat" restaurant. Raven searches for book stores to read and incidentally finds a book describing the origins of Brushogun. Robin and Starfire explore Tokyo, then while sitting on Tokyo Tower they finally start to express their feelings for each other. They are about to share a kiss together, when suddenly Robin starts to focus on Brushogun again, and tells Starfire that they are heroes and can't be anything more. Upset, Starfire flies away with tears in her eyes.
Investigating alone, Robin is attacked once again by Saico-Tek and they get into a violent fight, which ends with Robin pummeling the ninja into the ground. When Saico-Tek does not rise, the crowd watching believes Robin has killed him. Despite his protestations of innocence, Robin is apprehended by Daizo. Elsewhere, Beast Boy and Cyborg are being chased by Beast Boy's fangirls from the karaoke bar (because they're infatuated with his performance) and the chefs from the restaurant (because Cyborg's bottomless appetite aroused their ire). Starfire, alone by herself, when a little girl manages to help her overcome her depression as she finally realizes that Robin does in fact have feelings for her.
The Mayor of Tokyo announces Robin's arrest and orders that the other Teen Titans must either turn themselves in or leave Tokyo at once. Starfire calls the other Titans for emergency. They are about to regroup when Brushogun sends out his minions to destroy each of the Titans. Cyborg is beset by a giant yellow robot who keeps trying to eat him, Beast Boy is attacked by a pink cat girl who turns out to be the girl he was following earlier, Raven is pursued by a ghostly figure in a graveyard, and Starfire is attacked by a small blue robot boy in the sky.
Robin is transferred, but during the ride a slip of paper bearing the name "Brushogun" fits into the armored car carrying him and turns into a bomb and explodes, freeing him. Now on the run, Robin co-opts the identity of a Shinjuku mugger to collect information that Brushogun is in fact real. He is eventually found by the Tokyo Troopers, which leads to a car chase. Robin is surrounded front to back when Starfire comes to his rescue. Starfire takes Robin to a shrine hideout, where they try to kiss again when suddenly Cyborg, Raven, and Beast Boy, who have come back safely, barge in on them.
As Raven relates from the book she found, Brushogun was an artist who dreamed of bringing his beloved drawings to life using Japanese dark magic. The spell ultimately turned against the young artist, and he was transformed into Tokyo's first super villain, Brushogun, a being of paper and ink - capable to bring any creation he could imagine to life - until he suddenly disappeared. With this knowledge, Robin deduces Brushogun's hideout: the comic book publishing factory that they encountered earlier in the film. Breaking in, the Titans discover the withered form of Brushogun, trap-wired into a cursed printing press that taps into his powers to create the enemies the Titans have faced. He reveals that he had sent the first Saico-Tek to the Titans to lure them to Tokyo in order to stop the real culprit who had enslaved him: Daizo himself, who used Brushogun's power to create both his Tokyo Troopers and the monsters that they captured in order to gain a reputation as a hero.
However, Daizo drops in on the heroes and forces Brushogun to create an army of animated ink minions. A mass battle ensues, culminating in Robin facing Daizo. With no options of escape left, Daizo hurls himself from a catwalk into the ink reservoir of the press, taking control of Brushogun's magic and transforming himself into a giant, hulking mass of ink and machinery, with Brushogun at the center. As the other Titans battle the creatures Daizo hurls at them, Robin frees Brushogun. As the old man peacefully fades away in his arms into the afterlife, his powers disappear and Daizo is left defeated and exposed. With the battle concluded, Robin tries to explain his true feelings for Starfire, but getting the message, she silences him. The two romantically share their first real kiss as the other three Titans look on, with Cyborg stating, "Well, it's about time".
Later on, with Robin's name cleared, and Daizo sent to prison, the Titans are awarded medals of honor by the mayor for their actions of unlocking the truth, and the inhabitants of Tokyo welcome their new heroes. Robin and Starfire are seen as a romantic couple, Cyborg earns his own "all-you-can-eat" meal, Beast Boy remains popular among the girls from the karaoke bar, and Raven has been made a mascot for Japanese confections. Robin remarks that even superheroes need a vacation once in a while, to which Beast Boy declares that he wants to go to Mexico on their next vacation. This prompts Raven to slap him on the back of the head (albeit offscreen).
The end credits roll as each of the Titans sing the karaoke version of their theme song.
|
comedy, violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
The Skibz has always been a major fan of 'Teen Titans' (mainly the series; I've never even read the old 60's DC series, but maybe because I'm just a young punk); he's seen all the episodes, read all the 'Teen Titans Go!' comics, collects a couple of little figures (purely for decorative purposes to impress the nonexistent ladies that visit his "pad")...even to the point of writing fanfic.
The point *is* is that he's a fan.After five awesome seasons, 'Teen Titans' has been cancelled, and since it never really received a proper series finale, what better time than to make full-length movie, even if said movie does take place between seasons four and five?
But, despite what he believed, he lined up 90 minutes early on July 22nd in order to see the world premiere of 'Teen Titans: Trouble In Tokyo', with about 2,500 other rabid fans.
After a brief introduction by Glen Murakami, David Slack, and the obviously stoned Greg Cipes, the film began.Standing...ovation.Yes, 'Teen Titans: Trouble In Tokyo' meets every expectation that one would have towards an awesome 'Teen Titans' movie.
Having captured him, the gang learns that it is, in fact, a *Japanese* ninja (who'd-a thunkit?), who confesses that he was sent by a figure known as 'Brushogun', right before he vanishes into thin air.
The Titans decide to take matters into their own hands and take a trip to Tokyo and find this 'Brushogun', much to the dismay of Beast Boy and Cyborg, who wish the trip to be nothing more than a much-needed vacation.
But the Titans are not to be brushed off that easily, so they go their separate ways to find out more about the mysterious villain known as 'Brushogun'; a quest that just might cost them their lives.
The *real* plot of this movie is the relationship between Robin and Starfire, and what exactly is to become of said relationship.
I'm not going to give a definitive answer, because The Skibz ain't no stoolie, but I will definitely state that the immortal question 'Will Robin and Starfire ever get together' is finally answered.Anyhoo, this film is more than just a longer version of an episode.
Well, it's just simply pure 'Teen Titans'; a perfect ending to an amazing show.
The first half-hour is particularly heavy with the comedy and the wacky animation, it puts off the actual plot for too long (however, it also happens to have some of the funniest moments the show's ever had; for instance, Starfire striking a 'Sailor Moon' pose, Beast Boy singing a badly translated karaoke version of the theme song, and "Super Twinkle Donkey Gum").
Another flaw, although I don't think anyone would mind, is that parts of it are really predictable; you know who the bad guy is from the first couple minutes, but it didn't really distract me or take me out of the movie.
A strong point of 'Teen Titans' has always been the characters and their development.
In 'Trouble In Tokyo', Robin and Starfire are really the only touched upon and the only ones to show any emotion.
Cyborg and Beast Boy are really only there for comic relief, and Raven probably has the least amount of screen time, but I'm trying not to complain...it was a very entertaining movie.
This is a magnificent addition to the 'Teen Titans' franchise, and will definitely not disappoint fans of the series..
Although I missed the first five minutes or so of "Trouble in Tokyo" because I was out getting myself some dinner, I greatly loved it!
Right from the beginning, when you see each of the Titans packing (It was especially funny to see the ways that Cyborg and Starfire packed), the movie kept me entertained all the way to the ending.
I'll now list what I liked and disliked about it, starting with what I disliked (That way, I'll save the good stuff for last):1.
I especially liked Cyborg pigging out at that restaurant (Let's just say he looked like he'd make a good contestant on "Fear Factor"), Starfire at the arcade playing a game which looked like a bizarre combination of "Dance Dance Revolution," "Guitar Hero," and Whack- A- Mole, and of course, Beast Boy singing karaoke.
3. Great character development for Robin and Starfire.
I'd have to salute Hynden Walch for her job as the voice of Starfire, as in this movie, she's able to display a vast range of emotions and does so in a very believable manner.All in all, "Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo" was a great film, a great addition (And conclusion) to the series, and a definite must- have for my DVD collection, whenever it comes out..
The Titans are back, and this time they're headed to Tokyo on the trail of a villain called Brushogun.
Beast Boy runs off after a cute Japanese school girl, Cyborg goes to the All-You-Can-Eat buffet, Raven wanders off to find something to read, and Robin and Starfire go off and do stuff.
Alls well until they're attacked by Brushogun's henchmen (each resembling a character from another show, like Kaonashi from Spirited Away and AstroBoy) and Robin ends up in jail!
Anyway, so now he's a fugitive and he has to steal this guy's clothes for a disguise (and might I add he looks VERY hot in this new getup :D) and off he goes to seek out information about Brushogun.
After a very exciting motorcycle chase, a close shave with the Tokyo Troopers, and a romantic moment with Starfire, Robin meets up with his friends to track down Brushogun and take him out!I was overjoyed that this movie finally answered the number one question that I wanted it to: "Will Starfire and Robin ever get together?" The answer: WATCH THE MOVIE AND SEE!
:) Apart from that, the music score was awesome and I loved the beginning credits when they're packing and when they're flying to Tokyo (Aqualad appears briefly!
^-^) Some fans may not appreciate it because of some of the weaker aspects, but if you overlook those you've got a great movie.
I laughed through most of it, especially at the parts where the characters turn chibi :) Packed with action, adventure, humor, and romance all set in the beautiful and colorful city of Tokyo, Japan, this movie is almost certain to please any die-hard Teen Titans fan.
Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo takes the Teen Titans into their first movie, with a new and challenging villain, and based in the world famous Japanese city of Tokyo, this movie is a very well designed movie for Teen Titans.
Although since the shows final episode left us on a cliffhanger, this movie does not resolve the plot in the TV show that it should have.
The movie is also designed to be a finale for the show, taking on-going plots from the show and resolving them (Robin & Starfire), but not finishing the cliffhanger many fans would have wanted it to.
After Slade, Brotherblood, Trigon, and The Brain, the Teen Titans are opposing a new and equally evil villain in this movie.
I also think the Teen Titans fit into Tokyo very well, with the shows anime-ish style/animation.
I am a big fan of Teen Titans as a series, and I generally love the DC animated movies.
Apart from the ending being the predictable side, Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo is great.
The writing is snappy, funny and smart, with some intelligent intensity also when needed, and the story is peppered with amusing moments like Beastboy singing karaoke and exciting action sequences as well as a sense of conflict.
In conclusion, a great movie, just as good as the series and perfect to go with it too.
Teen Titans: Trouble in TokyoSuper-heroes travelling to Japan need to be aware that speed lines will accompany all of their movements.Mind you, the super-team trekking to Tokyo in this animated adventure is familiar with Manga motifs.When a ninja attacks their base at the behest of Japanese super-villain: Brushogun, The Teen Titans – Robin, Raven, Cyborg, Star-fire and Beast Boy – head to Tokyo to retaliate.When they arrive, Commander Daizo of the Tokyo Troopers explains Brushogun does not exist.Opting to sightsee instead, the team separates.
But when Robin is accused of murder, the team must locate the real Brushogun if they hope to clear their leader's name.Based on the DC Comics television show, Trouble in Tokyo is a standalone feature film that maintains the lively pace and puerile comedy of the cartoon while paying homage to the culture that inspired its aesthetic.Incidentally, Japan's worst super-villain is still Used Women's Underwear Man.Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
This movie is really good,i finally know the relationship between Robin and Starfire is on.Beastboy get's kissed by a lot of Japanese girls,and Cyborg eats a lot!The good thing about this movie is that it had a good plot,and a very shocking ending.The bad thing is when Robin was punching that guy the cops saw him do that,the cops thought that Robin had blood on his hands.It was PINK ink!That confused me.I wanna see Beastboy and Raven kiss,but that's not gonna happen.I know,i might be telling the whole movie,but after they destroy the NOT brushogun,but the power of brushogun,I give you a hint: Robin and Starfire have a symbolic relationship together.Then at the very ending,the Teen Titans have a celebration with Tokyo and Robin and Starfire hold hands..
Teen Titans Trouble in Tokyo: Hard pass.
Initially I expected to hate Teen Titans stuff, when I finally got round to watching something it surprised me.
It was darker than I thought it'd be and considerably funnier.Therefore going into Trouble In Tokyo I had high hopes but within the first quarter realised they were to be dashed.Make no mistake this has its moments, in fact some of gags are downright hilarious but they are far too few.It tells the story of our heroes venturing to Tokyo in search of a villian who sent a lackey to destroy their home.
Once they arrive they become embroiled in a sinister plot.The whole thing looks and plays out like an anime, with those stupid over the top facial expressions that I detest and animated backgrounds during fight scenes.
This doesn't work in it's favour, in fact it was detrimental.I wanted to like this but simply couldn't, besides a couple of chuckles this was a brainless purile animated effort and taking me back to my original fears regarding the Teen Titans.The Good:Some jokes are on pointGreat villianThe Bad:Why is Starfire so young?Some parts are beyond juvenileAnimation is plain goofy Plot is pretty lameThings I Learnt From This Movie:Beast Boy is Stan Marsh painted green.
Well, Batman isn't the only masked man/boy/creature than can do movies.
Though this isn't your traditional Robin character.
But that is beside the point.The Titans go to Tokyo believing something is up, and for while think it was an excuse for a vacation.
I honestly like this movie.
It has a great story, great action, great plots, and the main characters are great.
Anyways, I love Teen Titans and the original series that it seems like it's unfair that a horrible reboot gets a theatrical release and this movie doesn't.
I don't like how they are treating Teen Superheroes nowadays, which they are making the Teen Superheroes become Supernoobs, and the creators of the original are working for Sony or Disney can't stop the Teen Titans Go train wreck.
Anyways, this movie is well thought out that it could be a little bit better in theaters..
As a fan of the Titans series since it first came on the air, it was great to see the gang get their own full-length movie.
Instead, I want to give props to WB for continuing the anime flavor that has pervaded this American series.
Starfire's demonic enemy looked a lot like an evil version of Astro Boy. 2.
The motorcycle Robin stole from the crook's club looked similar to Kaneda's bike from "Akira", and the sideways skid at the police blockade was taken right from the movie.
3. The commander of the Tokyo Troopers was dressed exactly like Inspector Zenegada from the Lupin III series.(Dark suit, with brown trench coat & fedora)Did you also notice that at the karaoke club, one of girls in the audience was a Ganguro girl?
If I hadn't learned about it in other anime info web sites, I wouldn't have appreciated it in the film.It would have been nice to show subtitles during some of the Japanese dialog (what did the cat girl say to Beast Boy?), but that is a minor complaint.
I didn't consider the last episode of the series the best way to end it, though even though this movie has nothing to with the last season it really is a treat for fans, comic fans and newcomers to the series alike.After an attack on there town and Tower by a new villain named Psychotech with the power to regenerate himself, the Titans only lead is the criminals talk of a man known as Brushogun and then shortly he vanishes.
There the Titans meet a detective with an elite force who's capable of capturing the worst criminals who laughs at Robin's question of Brushogun saying he's just myth and tells them to leave the criminals to the adults.
Robin however ignores him and looks more into it and during a fight with the same criminal from back at home and after a long struggle, winds up charged for murder.
Now, certain that Brushogun is more than just made up, Robin and the others must get to the bottom of this mystery, clear their names, and deal with some new fighters with powers similar to Psychotech.
And Beast Boy thought this would be a vacation....The story, though not as dark as that of Batman vs Dracula, is still one of the darker plots in the Teen Titan series.
And the Teen Titans theme no less!).
I won't say anything about their powers (exept the regeneration thing) but its interesting.If I had to have a complaint, it would have to be the ending was rather predictable in some points and the fact when the Titans are wanted only Robin goes under cover (I was expecting to see the Titans out of uniform for once, though at least there was Robin).
Though those complaints are not worth knocking down the score.Simpley put, a must see for all Teen Titans fans and before I finish, best black and white credits I've ever seen (or in this case, heard).
The plot was great, the story was great, always funny and has a little romance.Well it starts with a guy driving a car who stops because some person is in the road.
They stop him and of course he's says he must get back to Tokyo.
This is where the Titans need to go to find out what attacked them.The movie begins.
An Hour and a half later, Robin and Starfire are kissing and everything is great.
Beast Boy sings and is so-so, but Japanese girls love him and kiss kiss kiss.
The first time, Robin says they are just hero's, and shouldn't be "This way".
Starfire explains about kissing a Japanese boy, and she says why she kissed Robin in episode "Go".
Then when Robin is saved by Starfire, they attempt it again, but the other titans interrupt.
Again, Robin is attacked by the Ninja, and by the way, he's not a robot.
But we never get to see him without his mask in the movie :(.Anyway, he defeats him, and Robin's hands are covered in red.
Robin is put in jail, where they eventually drive him, and is attacked by the ninja's bomb.
Robin says if there looking for him, then he'll have to be someone else.
Cyborg is eating most of the movie.Broshogon isn't the main villain.
They find him in the most obvious spot too.Anyway, Beast boy says he wants to go to Mexico, and Raven slaps him and the movie ends.Anyway, it was fun to watch, and since I'm a big fan, I'd have to give this movie a 10 out of 10.
Teen Titans Go!.
Teen Titans Go!.
The finale "Teen Titans" deserved.
It might not be a perfect finale like "Lost Heroes: Part Two", but it has enough charm, humor, and action to hold it's own.
I'll cover this more when I review the series as a whole, but you can really tell how the Titans have grown.
The plot's pretty simple, it's not challenging like "Haunted", but it's kind of for the best that they played it safe.
IT.Being a Teen Titans junkie I was naturally thrilled with the prospect of the movie.
And I can say with confidence that it did not disappoint.From the opening packing scene to the Titans singing a nonsensical version of their theme song during the credits, this movie moved me.I have four good things to say about this movie.
There was an air of seriousness about it, especially when (*spoiler ahead*) Robin got arrested.
Same with the final climax, which was also one of greatest Teen Titans battle sequences EVER!
Two; In spite of it's occasional seriousness, it had some of the funniest Teen Titans moments I've ever seen!
Beast Boy singing karaoke!
Four; My Robin was the hero du jour and looked totally hot in civilian clothing!
*cough!* And Star and Robin finally kissed!
A true Teen Titans movie.
If you like Teen Titans you will love this movie.When I first discovered this movie I cringed at a scene where Starfire saves Robin they are in a hut, Starfire tries to talk to Robin by handing him his costume, Robin reaches out and grabs her arm and they were nearly about to kiss and then got interrupted by Raven, Beast Boy, and Cyborg.
But at the time I was 12 when I saw this, I decided to watch this movie when I was 15 and I was more into the show.
|
tt0109965
|
Guyver: Dark Hero
|
One year after bonding with the Guyver unit and destroying the Cronos Corporation, the company responsible for the Guyver and the creatures called the Zoanoids, in Los Angeles, Sean Barker has been using his powers to fight crime. Unfortunately, the Guyver unit’s desire to kill has left Sean emotionally exhausted. Learning of cave drawings discovered in the mountains of Utah that resemble the images he has been seeing in his dreams, Sean makes his way to the archeological dig taking place there. Along the way, Sean encounters Cori Edwards, daughter of Marcus Edwards, the lead archeologist at the archaeological site.
Arriving at the archeological site, Sean discovers a skull resembling Lisker, a Zoanoid that he fought a year ago. Later that night, Sean battles another Zoanoid, called Volker, which has been terrorizing the mountains of Utah. Their battle is cut short by the arrival of Cori and her team which lets Volker escape. Sean is questioned by a suspicious Commander Atkins, revealing that the Guyver only destroyed the Los Angeles branch of the Cronos Corporation and that another branch of Cronos is behind the Zoanoid attacks in the mountains of Utah.
The very next day, the team of archaeologists unearths an extraterrestrial ship. After several unsuccessful attempts to breach it, the ship mysteriously opens up a hatch for the archaeologists to enter. Inside, Sean communicates with the ship and demands that it removes the Guyver unit from within him. Meanwhile, Cori discovers another Guyver unit that has been damaged, but Arlen Crane confiscates it from her. Attempting to confront Crane, Cori instead learns that Arlen Crane actually works for the Cronos Corporation and plans to terminate all non-Cronos personnel at the site. Cori is captured by Volker eavesdropping and is escorted in a jeep. The jeep is attacked by Marcus, revealed to be a Zoanoid, who battles both Monk and Volker Zoanoids but is eventually overwhelmed. At the camp, Crane reveals himself to be a Zoanoid to Sean who rejects his offer of an alliance to activate the ship and turn himself and the Zoanoids back to normal. Crane has his chief of security, Brandi, sedate and bind Sean. Atkins frees Sean who rushes to save Cori as the Guyver. After killing both Monk and Volker Zoanoids, the Guyver spares Marcus and reveals his identity to Cori.
At the camp, Atkins and his commandos prevent Crane from executing the archaeological team and safely evacuate them. However, Atkins is captured and his commandos brutally murdered when one of the Zoanoids manages to escape.
Sean reveals to Cori that he plans to destroy the ship. Whilst Sean communicates with the ship, seeing images of prehistoric times with the creation of Zoanoids and the Guyver units, Cori plants dynamites in the dig site but is captured by Crane and his Zoanoids. With Cori as a hostage, Crane demands Sean to deactivate the Guyver unit and surrender. Marcus intervenes and a battle ensues: Marcus battles Crane but is killed in the process, Atkins manage to kill Brandi, a Zoanoid as well, after electrocuting her and finally shooting her dead. Sean kills the Corben and Stenzoanoids Zoanoids before confronting Crane. Crane reveals that he merged with the second Guyver unit and transforms into a Guyver Zoanoid. Faster and stronger, Crane overwhelms Sean, stabbing him in the chest but Cori shoots Crane’s Control Metal. Sean removes the damaged Control Metal which causes the Guyver suit to begin consuming Crane. Sean uses his Mega Smasher to put Crane out of his misery.
Following the events, Sean reveals to Cori that the Guyvers were a failed experiment: in prehistoric times, aliens had attempted to turn primitive humans into Guyvers to fight their wars, but the humans rebelled, forcing the aliens to leave earth. Using his Control Metal, Sean instructs the ship to return to its home planet. With the battle won, Atkins attempts to recruit Sean to aid the government in fighting an underground war against the Cronos Corporation, but Sean drives off with Cori instead.
|
violence
|
train
|
wikipedia
|
It has been a year(Or three depending how you look at it) Since Sean Barker first became the Guyver and destroyed the Cronos Corperation and their shape changing killers the Zionoids.As he struggles to find the purpose of the thing living inside him he is drawn to the caves of Utah where he will dicier the Guyver's true purpose.It had been three years since the world had been exposed to the Americanization of a manga classic, some loved it,other despised it.
The only redeeming feature where the really cool creature effects helmed by Co-Director Steve Wang.Then came Guyver 2 this time helmed by Wang and it has to be one of the best sequels ever made.
It stays more true to the comic,featuring some very cool monsters and some brilliant fight scenes choreographed by Drive action director Koichi Sakamoto which Steve Wang also directed.It seems Wang wanted to be as faithful as possible to the original comic and he does it very well.
One thing worth mentioning is a good acting turn by the voice of Solid Snake David Hayter who plays the role of Sean Barker, a role horribly done by Jack Armstrong(who?) in the original.The story is better written in which Sean struggles with his curse that is the Guyver.Although the acting is very hammy at times(What do you expect for a sci-fi b-movie) I recommend that people wanting to find out about The Guyver best watch the original anime show then view this live action version before viewing the first movie.I also recommend you pick up the Region 1 uncut DVD as it presents the film in all its gory glory..
The first movie was pretty decent, except for the acting and the way the costumes look, but the sequel was better.
Some fight scenes could of been done a little better, with fast movements and stunts like in Jet Li movies.
Three years after the dismal joke of a movie "Guyver", we are greeted with a second attempt at bringing the mildly popular manga to into live action with the movie "Guyver: Dark Hero", a loose sequel of the first guyver movie.
Gone is the campy feel and laughable story of the first film, replaced with a more competent script and a serious science fiction/action feel that still threads the line of B movie-ness but is careful to not fall headlong into the category of "silly".Needless to say, Guyver: Dark Hero is a highly enjoyable and entertaining adaptation of the beloved manga series, and is easily one of the better live action adaptations of manga in existence today.
All that would have just confused the heck out of the audience who already would have trouble following the single backstory of the Guyver units' origins in this movie.
In Guyver Dark Hero, the plot sees Chronos organization dispatch a team of Zoanoids to infiltrate an archaeological dig and excavate an ancient alien space craft which contains technology related to the Guyver.
The main character of Sean Barker is played very close to his manga counterpart "Sho Fukamachi" with only some Slight differences in his name, age and more realistic and mature approach in dealing with the responsibilities that come with possessing the violent power of the Guyver unit.
That and his constant obsession with taking down the Chronos organization (which was thought to have been destroyed in the first Guyver movie, but Sean believes otherwise)has left Sean Barker without any friends, all alone in the world.
Despite the low budget of the film (I heard it was barely $900,000), he still manages to make the most of it and delivers one hell of a viewing experience (this show manages to look better than some other movies with more than 10 times the budget.)The high point of this movie is definitely the fights.
Do not let the low budget of this movie put you off watching it; of Guyver: Dark Hero is proof that a low budget movie can still be a highly entertaining piece of work when left in competent hands with a little fanboy dedication thrown in(Steve Wang is a huge fan of tokusatsu movies like Ultraman ) .
Though this film is by no means perfect and would not stand up to being compared to more recent big screen comic book adaptations, it is quite good considering its age, technology and budgetary constraints(and seriously deserves more than its current IMDb rating).
It keeps very faithful to the look, feel and spirit of the original (something so many other live action adaptations lack) while presenting a fresh perspective on the Guyver mythos..
Guyver stars David Hayter(voice of solid snake and wrote x-men)who has to fight off these monsters called zoinoids in order to save mankind.
after seeing the first movie and then moving backwards onto the original anime, i had lost a little bit of respect for the live action guyver movie, i had to eat my words after i watched this.Lots more fighting stunts with the guyver in this film as he had learned to master other aspects of his suit, including a pretty awesome ability in the final battle, only clue is that the guyver really gets a lot off his chest.
If you have already seen the legendary "Guyver" manga (Japanese animation) series and enjoyed them, you are bound to love the second outing in the live action version of the cartoon.
If you are considering seeing this, I believe it would be a better idea to hire the original 1-12 manga series and the first live-action movie, The Guyver (aka Mutronics)..
The suit looks better, the zoanoids are mor scarier, there is more of a story to it, and the fight scenes are so well choreographed it will blow your mind.
The transition between animation and motion picture is also somewhat impressive depsite the lack of special FX's in the film and the storyline despite being poorly acted, is commendable for its sheer effort in maintaining any serious sense of sci-fi/action between the slow moving plot scenes..
It has a great plot and action scenes, despite a cheap looking Bee-like alien.
"Guyver 2-dark hero" is a huge improvment to the original but unfortunatly still fails to live up to the manga series.
Saying this, the Special FX and Guyver and zoanoid suites, and the ancient alien space ship look really good!
When you compare it to the manga and comics.this movie has FX, action, Guyver,Zoanoids and an ancient alien space ship.
And as a follow-up to the generally disastrous 1991 release "The Guyver", "Dark Hero" is most definitely a substantial improvement, eschewing the comedic stylings and slapstick humor that plagued that film and replacing it with darker imagery and a more violent tone.
And this movie delivers on that kitschy promise for the most part, despite a clunky and sometimes unsatisfying storyline.It's been one year since Sean Barker (David Hayter) bonded with the alien Guyver unit and destroyed the vile Cronos Corporation.
waiting to strike back.What makes this film work in comparison to the previous effort is the dedication returning director Steve Wang has to craft a tale true to the darker and more adult tone of the original manga and its earlier anime adaptations.
Wang clearly listened to the fan-base and its general dismissal of that 1991 original and decided to reward those who stuck around with a proper "Guyver" story.
"Guyver: Dark Hero" is not a great film.
But if you're just looking for a halfway decent time and a pretty entertaining little film to enjoy, you could do far worse.
This movie was directed by prop maker Steve Wang, and the fights and stunts were done by a Japanese stunt team that used to do stunt work for the power rangers japan.So the fight sequences look a lot like a power rangers episode, but imagine it to be more like a Rated R power rangers.
I have to say that I really liked this movie for it being made in 1994 and being somewhat unknown to the general public.It was well made, really impressive 1994 visual effects, the Guyver and Zoinoids were believable and obviously well made.
This movie is almost like a ultra violent Power Rangers movie, but a good film nevertheless.
As a long time fan of "The Guyver," the Japanese Manga series character who is born when an alien armor invades the body of a high school student and transforms him into a bionic superhero, I feel the live American adaptations to be lacking, but this one is worth the while.
An evil corporation called Chronos wants the Guyver and will do anything to get it, including using their army of "Zoanoids," human mutants who change form into grotesque monsters at will.If you are a fan of Yoshiki Takaya's Manga series (but are unable to buy the comics or Anime series), it's best you see this live American adaptation first, not Screaming Mad George's first film which was released in 1991.
This film, directed by Steve Wang, is less comical and focuses a lot more on the character, getting to the center of his dilemma and how he feels that the Guyver armor is pushing him to kill.But like I said, it's best you see this one first (it's not the best) but you might still want to check this one out if you're curious about Japan's most powerful superhero..
Simply put, this movie does a better job of capturing the feel of the original manga/anime.
I've been hearing for quite a while that if you want to watch Guyver you should see the orgional anime and ignore the crappy US live action movie.
Guyver: Dark Hero, the second movie, was surprisingly better however.
Both Guyver and the zoanoids look a lot better in this movie, the fight scence are actually pretty cool (mostly because the zoanoids actually have mobility now).
Steve Wang also uses his talents in this film to create some exceptional creature effects, especially for a low budget production.David Hayter, who plays the Guyver, went onto voice Solid Snake in the critically acclaimed video game series Metal Gear Solid.
Despite Guyver II Dark Hero having its fair share of bad acting and slow moments, it also has plenty of monsters, bloody moments and cool fight choreography to make it a worthwhile viewing..
Everything about this film is improved, the creature design is heightened, the fight scenes are shorter and to the point, the acting is miles better, the stakes are higher and the tone is fixed on a darker more serious style that makes the film great to watch.
Director Steve Wang was planning on following this film up with another one but the rights reverted back to their original owners who were not interested in another movie, a crying shame in my opinion..
Why better than the first live action film and a bit more closer to the Manga.
Being a huge fan of the original manga and a big fan of the first American film, Guyver Dark Hero is one of those rare exceptions when the sequel is better than the first installment.
Steve Wang and Screaming Mad George directed the first movie and as awesome it was seeing the Guyver done in live action, the tone and the pace of the movie vie was all over the place.
They replaced the lead by casting David Hayter ( voice of Solid Snake in the Metal Gear video game franchise, screenplay writer of the X-Men movies ) who did a far better job than Jack Armstrong.
David Hayter played the character of Sean Barker aka the Guyver very straight and very cool.
The Guyver suit looked awesome on screen and was an exact adaption of the manga.
The the action and special effects for a 900,000 dollar movie are very good.
If you like the Guyver than this movie is for you..
And for the people who did get to see this sequel, they were in for a surprise.The Guyver: Dark Hero, partially continues what was finished in the first movie.
But weighing this against all the good things in this sequel, I can overlook it.Director Steve Wang's second take on the "guyver" unit is all around a better film.
The second reason is because this one not only has NOTHING to do with the first movie, but has a decent B Movie Sci Fi story line, and absolutely amazing fight scenes.Guyver 2, along with G Saviour (a live actor version from the pages of the Gundam universe), are both decent B movies fit for Saturday nights with geeky friends who enjoy slightly cheesy Sci Fi, have watched too much MST3K and who know how to not take things so seriously that everything out of their mouths start with, "Yes, well actually...." Guyver 2 is fun.
As a fan of the anime, and its far better comic book source material, the first live-action Guyver was a painful experience.
Surely any "Power Rangers" criticism is more applicable to that first film, with its campy dialogue and fight scenes, silly-looking creature designs, and overblown ending battle.
Guyver 2 is a much improved film with some solid cult film qualities and enough substance to bring in fans of the Japanese original as well as the folks who stumble into decent B-movies channel surfing through evening cable.6/10.
Guy with Techno-genic armor parasite meets girl whose a researcher on the SAME archaeological dig he's MYSTICALLY drawn to, throw in some rather nicely done suits, neat plot twist pulling from other Guyver Units (shown in the anime) found, evil bad guy 2nd in command whose ALWAYS last when it comes to the free donuts the office brings in (makes him cranky), slight case of love interest and an ending dripping in altruism, stir till slightly buzzed (cuz it's a great drinking movie) and you've got some great B-Entertainment..
Well I saw this movie when I was about seven or eight and I thought it was good, the monsters looked tacky and the fights was not that special.
You can't have a lot of expectations when watching a "Guyver" movie, where a hapless young adult has some alien suit that forces him to be a vigilante, complete with the fancy and useless moves, and when the idea is clearly Japanese, with the rubber suit monsters fighting each other with incredible ineptitude.
So whether or not "Guyver: Dark Hero" picks up and stays true to the first movie (much less the comic book), well I wouldn't be able to say that actually."Guyver: Dark Hero" was fun to watch, just bear in mind that it was made back in 1994, so the effects here are somewhat, well let's just say out of date, in lack of better.
Despite it being rubber and all, then they actually put a lot of work and effort into it and it looked really, really nice - even today.The story in "Guyver: Dark Hero" was pretty straight forward and easy to follow, even if you haven't seen the first movie or like me can't fully remember it.
There wasn't really any big twists or turn of events, so you know what you are in for here, be it predictable and all.Actually they had some fairly impressive people on the cast list, I mean, you have David Hayter (playing Sean Baker/Guyver) and Christopher Michael (playing Atkins).I must say that I found the fighting scenes to actually be nice, but also funny to behold at the same time, because there just was something comical about the Zoinoids when they were fighting.If you enjoy Sci-Fi of the older type, then "Guyver: Dark Hero" is well worth watching, and I am pretty sure that the kids will enjoy the movie as well because of the story and because of the Zoinoids.
It's basically a good movie, besides the whole "dark hero" thing.
Though a lot of it is actually quite cheesy, especially the dialogue, there's nothing like a good old sci-fi movie with martial arts.People can't deny that some of the fighting in the movie is quite cool.
However the DVD I had lost about 10 - 15 minutes from the original film, so some of the better fight scenes and gore was removed.That's what probably did the worst for the movie.
As low budget sci-fi movies go this is quite a interesting flick, with some excellent fight scenes.
As for the creature effects, the Guyver/Zoanoid costumes are excellent and overall go to make the movie one of my personal sci-fi favourites.
Despite the quite bad acting, Guyver: Dark hero is good fun, is a vast improvement on it's predecessor (Mutronics) and is much more in line with the great story depicted in the manga comics/cartoons!.
Now he must fight Kronos again before they discover the secrets of the Guyver's origin.ACTING: 3/10- Not especially impressive.
SPECIAL EFFECTS: 7/10- The creature suits are fun, the monster designs are cool and original.MUSIC: Uneven.
Nothing special or memorable.Final verdict- The story is good, the creature effects are fun and film showed consistant effort but the poor acting and weak direction hammer it.
Steve Wang's second outing with The Guyver accept this time there was a change in casting for the lead role, no big star names, a low budget...but an all new adult rating!
Admittedly Wang stays closer to the source material this time and includes the fact that the Guyver suit is virtually corrupting Barker by wanting (and making) him kill.
The slow motion jiggery-pokery might look cool but in fact it makes things look worse when Guyver and Zoanoid suits clash in real time.
Of course I could be grasping the wrong end of the stick but I'm not sure, the movie isn't exact to the source.The Guyver suit looks much better in this sequel even though it looked great in the first movie.
The main Zoanoid bad guy actually gets a Guyver suit this time which gives us a chance to see a more badass version (in black naturally).
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.