id int64 0 25k | interval listlengths 2 2 | len_words int64 6 2.21k | len_tokens int64 8 2.75k | text stringlengths 32 13k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12,664 | [
600,
700
] | 518 | 691 | The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long, irreverent, sophomoric and really funny.<br /><br />They followed up with the very popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen, and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every cliché of every aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the lead.<br /><br />As Sgt/Lt./Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns, sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police/crime clichés.All of these strung together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info. They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and printed titles never matched.<br /><br />They had a great musical score, which even though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.)<br /><br />One thing that this all too short of a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall.<br /><br />In regards to the series cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes "...called for too much attention on the part of the viewer." So, isn't that what one would want?<br /><br />So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV Exec!<br /><br />* THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to television and to video. | 1 |
12,683 | [
600,
700
] | 526 | 659 | I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema! <br /><br />Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.<br /><br />The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!<br /><br />Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming... <br /><br />The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!! | 1 |
12,715 | [
600,
700
] | 440 | 639 | This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.<br /><br />The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.<br /><br />Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item. | 1 |
12,761 | [
600,
700
] | 506 | 640 | In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: "He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour." The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is probably one of the best in his "wrongly-accused" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.<br /><br />Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.<br /><br />Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.<br /><br />The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an "i'll-get-you" smile.<br /><br />The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is easily one of Hitchcock's best "wrongly accused" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.<br /><br /><< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>> | 1 |
12,762 | [
600,
700
] | 567 | 699 | In Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers On A Train", Guy Haines (Farley Granger)and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker)meet for the first time on a train journey and discuss the idea of carrying out two murders. The rather pushy Anthony suggests that he could murder Haines' unfaithful wife and Haines could murder Anthony's domineering father. The lack of any connection between the murderer and the victim in each case should ensure that both crimes would remain unsolved. The tenor of the conversation leaves the more easy going Haines with the impression that the proposal is not entirely serious. Complications arise later when Anthony murders Haines' wife in an amusement park and then pursues Haines to keep his side of the bargain.<br /><br />The differences between the two men are clear from the start. Haines is a professional tennis player, respectable and rather modest about his achievements whereas Anthony's life is going nowhere and he admits to having been thrown out of three colleges for drinking and gambling. Haines is in a relationship with a Senator's daughter who he wants to marry. Anthony characteristically interprets this as a cynical manoeuvre on Haines' part to provide himself with a shortcut to a career. The character differences are also reinforced visually. Anthony often inhabits shadowed areas and travels in a boat called "Pluto" whereas Haines is frequently seen from the more heroic perspective provided by low camera angles.<br /><br />There are some striking visual sequences such as:- <br /><br />(1) The murder of Haines' wife which is shown through the reflection of her glasses which fall to the ground as she struggles to free herself from Anthony.<br /><br />(2) The depiction of Anthony alone, dressed in black and looking very small against the enormous white Jefferson Memorial building.<br /><br />(3) The occasion where all the spectators at a tennis match are moving their heads in unison, following the action, whilst one head (Anthony's) chillingly remains fixed in a position looking at Haines.<br /><br />(4)The scene where the roundabout goes wildly out of control and eventually crashes spectacularly.<br /><br />Frequent use is made of "doubles" throughout the story, for example, Haines and Anthony are originally introduced as 2 pairs of feet getting out of their taxis and going to the train. As the train pulls out of the station, there are 2 sets of tracks each providing a choice of 2 ways forward. The 2 men discuss the murders of 2 potential victims and order 2 double whiskies. The Hitchcock cameo sees him struggling on board the train carrying a double bass. Haines feels double crossed when his wife reneges on an agreement they had for her to see a lawyer to arrange a divorce. Haines' wife goes to the amusement park with 2 boyfriends. When Anthony confronts her before the murder he lights his cigarette lighter and produces 2 reflections in her glasses. Anthony later becomes very disconcerted when he meets the Senator's younger daughter who he sees as a double for Haines' wife. Anthony also feels double crossed when Haines refuses to go ahead with the second murder. When Haines is travelling alone in a train going to Metcalf, he sees 2 men in the same carriage accidentally kicking their feet together in the same way that he and Anthony had.<br /><br />The action throughout the movie proceeds at a great pace and the performances of Robert Walker and Patricia Hitchcock (as the Senator's younger daughter) are particularly powerful. | 1 |
12,796 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 647 | Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.<br /><br />Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.<br /><br />The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.<br /><br />A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.<br /><br />I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.<br /><br />Recommended. | 1 |
12,817 | [
600,
700
] | 564 | 668 | Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.<br /><br />At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.<br /><br />The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.<br /><br />Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!<br /><br />Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras). | 1 |
12,821 | [
600,
700
] | 538 | 619 | I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it <br /><br />This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border <br /><br />How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America <br /><br />It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel<br /><br />My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb | 1 |
12,905 | [
600,
700
] | 532 | 681 | Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.<br /><br />Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being "turned."<br /><br />Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.<br /><br />The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the "head" vampire you just love to hate.<br /><br />I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)<br /><br />Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!<br /><br />My Rating: 8/10 | 1 |
13,040 | [
600,
700
] | 496 | 616 | For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.<br /><br />The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.<br /><br />What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.<br /><br />I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.<br /><br />The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.<br /><br />This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.<br /><br />The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen. | 1 |
13,275 | [
600,
700
] | 481 | 602 | Well, SWORD IN THE MOON finally got a DVD release in Korea, and despite the mostly negative responses I've heard to it, and the suspiciously tardy DVD release, I couldn't help but pick it up - any wu xia film is better than most non-wu xia films in my eyes :D Perhaps low expectations were an advantage, because I was quite pleasantly surprised to find the film pretty enjoyable.<br /><br />An assassin is killing a number of ministers who were involved in a revolution that usurped the throne, and the government's top swordsman is tasked with identifying the culprit. This doesn't take particularly long, but the answer is not one he wanted to hear. Through prolonged flashbacks we learn why, and the history of the swordsman and the assassin, and of the revolution.<br /><br />The film is typically melodramatic for a Korean film, and resolutely serious in tone - no HK style comedy moments to be found here. The story can be a little difficult to follow at first, but all makes sense eventually. The film goes a bit wobbly at the end, but no worse than a Chang Cheh film might do, and for the most part I found it enjoyable. The production values are high, with some good cinematography to capture it. The fight scenes aren't up to the calibre of the better HK wu xia films, but perhaps they're not meant to be - the fights are more "realistic", in that they're less like choreographed dance routines, but there's some wirework and occasional cgi that put the film in "wu xia" mode. The film doesn't have the best cast, unfortunately, with the leads being a tad lacking in charm and occasionally difficult to distinguish from each other. There's a young lady in the film that I don't think I've seen before, but makes the best impression of any of the principle cast - not just because you see her nekkid... or perhaps it is :p The film lacks the charm and grace of the better HK wu xia films, and perhaps the beauty too, but I only wish HK would make them half this good anymore - TWINS EFFECT 2 does not give me hope that *that's* about to happen any time soon, though Tsui Hark surely still has it in him if he can get the funding and cast. SWORD IN THE MOON is not going to go onto my list of favourite wu xia by any means, but it's a whole heap better than ROMANTIC WARRIORS or LEGEND OF THE EVIL LAKE - perhaps better than BICHUNMOO too, though I did like that film quite a bit more on a second viewing. Obviously it's nowhere near the wonderful MUSA, but it's a different affair altogether really. SITM will probably get a second viewing within three years, which is perhaps the best indicator of how much I liked it :) 7/10 | 1 |
13,291 | [
600,
700
] | 456 | 605 | (Contains spoilers)<br /><br />People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the "Mississippi", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in "Julie's" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.<br /><br />Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...<br /><br />A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face. | 1 |
13,320 | [
600,
700
] | 525 | 655 | I have been looking forward to the release of this DVD (and it's follow-up {Female Prisoner Scorpion: #701's Grudge Song}) for some time. I very much enjoyed the first two movies of this series. After just watching this film, I would have to say that this is probably my favorite of the three. <br /><br />All three of these movies were directed by Shunya Ito. What is great about them, though, is that, even though they all feature the same lead character (wonderfully played by Meiko Kaji), they are each vastly different from the others. <br /><br />The first movie (Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion) is more or less a typical Women In Prison movie. But the character of Scorpion is very intriguing - very reminiscent of the anti-heroes of many spaghetti westerns. And the director often used some very interesting and unusual visual approaches to the material. <br /><br />The second movie (Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41) is a real tour-de-force. Not so much a WIP movie as the bulk of the film has Scorpion and six other escaped inmates on the lam. <br /><br />This movie (Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable) is the third in the series and the last one directed by Shunya Ito. This one plays out as much more of a crime drama. Once again, our heroine is on the run. But this time out, she has managed to maintain a certain amount of normalcy in her life (relatively speaking anyway). She gets a job, she finds a place to live, she makes a friend on the outside. But, of course, everything has to unravel eventually. FPS: Beast Stable has a more straight-forward story that is told at a more leisurely pace than its predecessors. But I found it to be engaging from beginning to end. And don't worry: there is still plenty of depravity to go around in this movie! But I think these movies transcend most exploitation films because the more disturbing elements are played in a straighter tone rather than being used exclusively for in-your-face shock value. Yes, there were definitely moments in this movie where I cringed mightily. But I didn't feel that they detracted from the value of the story (well, maybe a time or two). One thing I have greatly enjoyed about these films is the continued build-up of Scorpion's mythos. With this entry character development is used much more extensively than in the previous two. We get to see that she is much more than just a stone-hearted vengeful badass!<br /><br />As I mentioned earlier in this review, a fourth movie followed. It also features Meiko Kaji as Scorpion but had a different director. Without giving anything away I want to mention that FPS: Beast Stable ends in such a way as to make a sequel completely unnecessary. The fourth film is still quite good but it seems to play as a superfluous footnote to a mind-blowing trilogy.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in out-of-the-ordinary films. FPS: Beast Stable can be enjoyed as a stand-alone piece (as can the first two movies) but I would also recommend watching the others first if you have not already done so. | 1 |
13,405 | [
600,
700
] | 560 | 677 | I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each other from showing on screen.<br /><br />The other problem with LAURE is that some sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly.<br /><br />Speaking of drag, another dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle. This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up.<br /><br />Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today.<br /><br />p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in that movie is also great. | 1 |
13,413 | [
600,
700
] | 558 | 698 | [CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman. A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth. Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth. Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless.<br /><br /> Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona, until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with them.<br /><br /> Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat. Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000 voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down before?<br /><br />- | 1 |
13,495 | [
600,
700
] | 499 | 604 | I believe I share the same psychological outlook on the world with Kieslowski. He is Polish, I am Dutch, yet we share a synthetic mind: the world is not void of the metaphysical amidst total coincidence. Hardly ruled by man or perhaps by a poet-prime minister, so that as a social and cultural 'low pressure area', Poland could play the role it did in WWII, being critical yet Christian towards the Jews but often not less critical toward oneself. There are innocence and guilt in Kieslowski's world view, as the symbols in Catholicism: the White versus the Black Madonna. In Rouge, the Black Madonna is she who the judge fell in love with when he was a young man. Flashbacks are magically-realistically intertwined with the present, although totally coincidental, such as the camera simply swinging to the other side of the street or the then young judge's red jeep passing by the now young woman's car after she accidentally hit his dog with it. That we leaped through time in those same camera moves, is what we grasp later. His love was unanswered, so that his life wasn't as he had planned it. He lost his ability to love other people and animals. Being a judge, he feels he is actually spying on other peoples' lives and when he retires, he simply continues to do so, spying on his neighbors this time. The innocence and sense of righteousness of the younger woman (literally) accidentally getting into his life, reinstalls his better judgment and it is because of her that he spontaneously confesses his spying behavior to his neighbors and the police, accepting and even holding on to the stones consequentially thrown through his windows. In the process, history repeats itself between this man and the woman he loves, although this time he is old and the woman not the same. Kieslowski may have wrestled with this bit for the old judge is his alter ego, and it is said he was infatuated by Irène Jacob. Both women play the same essential role in his psychology, of the one (!) who possesses his heart and soul and therefore can make him or break him, even as an old man! It is as if the 'powers in the air' are, or God is, bringing them together. Coincidences are *too* coincidental to just be chance or even good luck. There has to be some mystical, supernatural or theological source influencing these unfathomably deep life-decisions. The study book fell and opened at the page of the exam question is another example of this. Or the moment the old judge spoke his heart to the young woman, the wind outside the opera house suddenly slams the open doors and breaks the windows. The gigantic picture of the young woman happens to predict the one on TV, after the drowning accident on her Canal crossing trip. These moments are effectively accentuated through the human voice of liturgy or what sounds like it (Van den Budenmayer). | 1 |
13,499 | [
600,
700
] | 498 | 623 | The greatest movie ever.<br /><br />How's that for a contention? However, if we look at it through purely cinematic terms, it is clear that Three Colours Red is a masterpiece. It is not enough to merely say this - Three Colours Red is the masterpiece of world cinema. If you accept that Citizen Kane is not human enough, if you accept that Star Wars is not actually very good, if you accept that Ozu and Mizoguchi both have to take a step back - then Three Colours Red is the foremost masterpiece of all time. As a discussion into human morality, Three Colours Red works on an intensely metaphysical level, with a depth that none can match. Blue went almost as far into the human psyche, but stopped as it was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat. White forced us to reflect on the humanity of equality - this, in retrospect, was better still, but still not quite there. Red, however, is the real thing. What he expresses in this movie, is an expression of what it is to be human. In fact, what he expresses is _how_ it is to feel human. It forces us to examine up to the minutest detail, the very nature of our souls, of our ethical selves. In Red, one may find meaning on one of its several levels. On the first level, Red achieves a high level of verisimilitude - we could have no trouble in calling Red an exceptionally entertaining story. However, the coincidences inherent in the film and its conceits force us to examine the movie as a movie. It is as if Kieslowski is saying: "Ceci n'est pas la réalité". In effect, in pursuing a humanistic goal, Kieslowski can also challenge reality. It is a trick that Kieslowski has been attempting since Le Double Vie de Véronique, but not until this, his final film, did he finally manage to reach this divine intertwining of fate, philosophy and circumstance. The actors and actresses, too, appear to be at the mercy of a greater power. Valentine (Irène Jacob), is aptly name, for she seems to represent an almost pure love. Meanwhile, the idea of first impressions is challenged by Jean-Louis Tritignant's Judge Kern, a cantankerous man, who, by the end, becomes an almost all-knowing observer of events - a character who symbolically seems to possess the power to bring characters together - a power to make people happy, a power which he could only achieve through Valentine.<br /><br />We have a capability to see films as more than just a series of pictures. In fact, films have the potential to possess more meaning than literature. It won't happen, of course, but at least we have the power to view this film, knowing that it gives us the power to achieve the something that we can't define, but all possess. A synopsis of this film read: "A film about a woman who runs over a dog". Well, it is.<br /><br />Isn't it?<br /><br />-Simon Huxtable<br /><br /> | 1 |
13,568 | [
600,
700
] | 533 | 642 | UK-born Australian helmer Alex Frayne calls for attention with his strange, necessitating a meticulous read, visually stunning Modern Love (2006). Following the steps of a man incapable of controlling a drastic personality change spurred by the death of a close relative pic offers a fascinating examination of human psychology. Distributed by Accent Film-Australia.<br /><br />John (Mark Constable), his wife Emily (Victoria Hill), and their son Edward (William Traeger) arrive in a small Southern town to take care of his deceased uncle's (Don Barker) property. While Emily and Edward check into a local hotel John begins to question the locals about Uncle Tom's death - some say that he committed suicide, some are unwilling to talk. Puzzled John comes up with a theory of his own - Uncle Tom is alive and well, hiding in the nearby bushes.<br /><br />If not for the occasional lines of dialog used to ease its heavy atmospheric tone Modern Love could have been easily mistaken for a Sokurov film. Shot with a 16mm camera its washed-out color scheme is strangely evocative of the Russian director's reflective forays into human agony. Perhaps it isn't a coincidence that it was at the Moscow International Film Festival where Modern Love had its premiere.<br /><br />Looking under the surface of this unique collage of intoxicating visuals however reveals a slightly different picture - while Sokurov's films tend to remain painfully intimate, to a point where they intentionally detach the main protagonists from the surrounding environment by blurring everything into a large splash of the director's preferred yellow, Modern Love very much feeds off the Australian countryside. John's gradual psychological transformation is dependent on it and the more the story progresses the more it becomes obvious that nature was an integral part of Frayne's vision.<br /><br />In Sokurov's The Second Circle a young man returns to the Russian countryside to bury his deceased father. In the shack where the old man once lived everything is covered with dust. He gathers the few old clothes scattered around and places the body of his father in a coffin. Then he bids goodbye and buries it. The rest of the film is a prolonged reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system, the loneliness and dissatisfaction many were left dealing with.<br /><br />In Modern Love, somewhat ironically, love is nowhere to be seen. On the contrary it is pain, loneliness, and dissatisfaction with "modernity" that suddenly invade John's life. Unlike The Second Circle however here the main protagonist has the opportunity to re-embrace his modern life. His wife and son await him, yet, he walks away. Slowly but surely the present begins to disintegrate under the weight of a somewhat confusing past.<br /><br />I doubt Frayne intended for Modern Love to be so strikingly similar to what Sokurov did in The Second Circle. Yet, the pacing, and in particular the puzzling framing, are precisely what transforms this film into a near meditative experience - a difficult and enormously brittle approach to deconstructing human psychology the two directors have mastered to perfection.<br /><br />Mark Constable delivers a top-notch performance as John adding even greater depth to his highly challenging character. His facial expressions are outstanding. Both Victoria Hill and William Traeger match perfectly with their performances pic's tense visual style. | 1 |
13,607 | [
600,
700
] | 529 | 649 | From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.<br /><br /> | 1 |
13,613 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 688 | Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr. Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander Yardley in "Christmas In Connecticut" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap tycoon in "The Hucksters" is a close second). Despite some problems with the screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season.<br /><br />Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in "American Housekeeping" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates. Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him.<br /><br />As the film begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the "actual" home of Stanwyck and himself and "their baby".<br /><br />Of course, aside from putting off Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough for the season to be worth watching in December. | 1 |
13,630 | [
600,
700
] | 518 | 663 | Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.<br /><br />It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.<br /><br />This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around. | 1 |
13,633 | [
600,
700
] | 509 | 625 | I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.<br /><br />And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.<br /><br />At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.<br /><br />I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew. | 1 |
13,703 | [
600,
700
] | 461 | 626 | I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.<br /><br />"Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.<br /><br />At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.<br /><br />Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.<br /><br />Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.<br /><br />Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.<br /><br />Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.<br /><br />Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one one! f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.<br /><br />The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.<br /><br />A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers. | 1 |
13,738 | [
600,
700
] | 552 | 638 | This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them. November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for thought.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines | 1 |
13,773 | [
600,
700
] | 508 | 600 | This is a perfectly watchable adventurous movie to watch, with a great cast and a good story, based on true events.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that the story of the movie is based on true events. It's above all for most part an adventurous story, with all of the usual ingredients you would expect from an adventurous movies set in an Arabic world. So, lots of sword fighting, good old fashioned honor, religion and a rich proud country. But the movie is also filled with humor, to make the movie a light and pleasant one to watch.<br /><br />The constant cutting back and forth between the Morocco plot involving Sean Connery and Candice Berger and the American plot line involving Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) wasn't the best possible approach in my opinion. The two things have totally different paces, totally different characters, it are just totally different worlds! Of course both story lines are connected and focuses on the same thing but the contrast between the two worlds is just too big to let it work out. It doesn't at all times make the movie feel connected and a bit disjointed. The American plot line is most of the time more political while the Morrocan plot line is purely adventurous and action filled. In the end you could perhaps even wonder what the whole point or Roosevelt in this movie was. Seem that John Milius is just a big admirer of him. Often the American plot line would take away most of the pace out of the far more interesting and more action filled fast paced Morrocan plot line. After all, John Milius always has been at his best as an action director.<br /><br />It isn't until halve way through that the movie fully gets on steam. The most- and largest scaled action of the movie then kicks in. Especially the large scale end battle does not disappoint. I wish the entire movie was like this. That way this movie would had also been a better known one, no doubt.<br /><br />The movie has a great Jerry Goldsmith musical score, that is perhaps way better known than the actual movie itself. The movie is also a good looking one with great production design and nice looking action and battle sequences in it. Appereantly the movie only costs $4,000,000 to make but that is really hard to believe, considering the settings and size of the movie. I mean John Milius his best known movie "Conan the Barbarian" cost about $20,000,000 to make but was a far more campy looking one and was less impressive on its scale.<br /><br />Quite funny to see an Arabic speak with a big fat Scottish accent but hey, it's Sean Connery so you just simply tend to accept this. He suits his role well. So does Candice Bergen. It's always hard for a female character to come across as believable and work out in a movie such as this one but she manages. Also John Huston plays a great role in this movie!<br /><br />A perfectly fine watchable movie!<br /><br />7/10 | 1 |
13,779 | [
600,
700
] | 456 | 643 | Now, lissen you guys, I LOVED THIS FILM, though not quite as much as FAREWELL TO THE KING, another beloved John Milius epic. It was fun, a lot more than if it were based on a Tennessee Williams drama. It's a great yarn, with a whiff of political correctness. I love this film for its beautiful photography, its humor and its attenuated criticism of the Bad Guys (Berbers) and the REAL Bad Guys, the spear- carriers for the acquisitive 'civilized' world, with their repeating rifles, artillery and large gunboats out there in the harbor. <br /><br />The standout scene is the Berber encampment with blue-gray smoke from the cooking fires rising into the chill desert air. It is visually eloquent, highly evocative.<br /><br />Set in 1904 Morocco, WIND features a helpless American woman (Candace Bergen) who is taken hostage by a dashing, albeit immodest, Berber bandit (Sean Connery-the very model ofa Scottish Muslim nomad). The exciting story is based on a few historical facts. The photography is Milius beautiful, punctuated by Jerry Goldsmith's outstanding score.<br /><br />Mrs Pedicaris and the Raisuli conduct protracted foreplay and bounce around in the desert between oases. Even though the Raisuli proudly traces his lineage back to the apes, he is a perfect gentleman - he even lets her keep her head after she beats him at chess! A Marine detachment storms the Bashaw's palace, putting out the fires of competing hegemonies with gasoline. Don't mess with the Corps, Abdul. <br /><br />There are many entertaining stereotypes:<br /><br />Despicable Sultan - resembles a dissipated ferret. Definitely not a Liberal.<br /><br />Cruel German Officer - a large, bellicose Dachshund sporting a monocle. He gallantly chooses to fight the Raisuli with swords instead of gunning him down in the manner of Indiana Jones. Noblesse oblige, by way of Von Clausewitz?<br /><br />Dashing Marine Officer - kicks the crap out of the Bashaw of Tangier's army and storms his palace while chewing tobacco. His speech is mildly aphasic. The Bashaw begged him not to breathe on him.<br /><br />The Berbers - a horde of groveling sycophants led by a charming megalomaniac. None of them take baths, except perhaps in camel urine.<br /><br />President Teddy Roosevelt is undeservedly portrayed as vacuous and preoccupied with guns, toys and stuffed grizzly bears.<br /><br />Beautiful American widow - gives the men a lesson in courage, as do her two children. She evidently has a huge supply of clean, starched clothes and rarely has a hair out of place. <br /><br />The Raisuli sends Teddy Roosevelt a message, thanking him for the gift of a Remington repeating rifle, declaring,<br /><br />"MEESTER ROOSEVELT, YOU ARE THE LION AND AIEE AM THE BREAKING WIND."<br /><br />How true.<br /><br />Please do not take my acerbic remarks to mean that I did not like the film. I had almost as much fun writing this as watching da Pitcher. | 1 |
13,803 | [
600,
700
] | 575 | 675 | Every once in a while you stumble across a movie that takes you by surprise and this is one of them. On the surprise scale this would rate as sharing a hot tub with Jessica Alba whilst a band consisting of Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Phil Lynott and Keith Moon play you music for the night. The reason why this film will surprise you is that for the meagre budget they had (£8,000) and that this was done by a bunch of mates who just wanted to try it out they have produced something very slick and looks easily 100 times more than its budget.<br /><br />The plot is simple a crew of mercenaries carrying a dangerous prisoner through space come under attack and are forced to crash land on a nearby desolate planet. After some checks not only does the planet not exist according to star charts but they are not alone as it seems and something very unfriendly begins to pick them of one by one. It sounds like very standard Sci-Fi fare mixing elements of Aliens. Predator and Pitch Black but it takes all these and makes them into something that feels fresh and original.<br /><br />The Location shooting in this is fantastic, utilising Balmeddie beach in Aberdeen to the maximum and you genuinely feel that you are one an alien world. The seemingly never ending sand dunes and clever lighting effects give it a very bleak feel , you truly think the crew are stranded on an alien world. Also the action sequences are superb, the opening assault on the freighter a great showcase of what special effects can be achieved on a budget and the firefights as well as the stunning finale all showcase the inventiveness of the film.<br /><br />As for the team of mercenaries the cast excels themselves. For a low budget independent movie the casting here was done via local media outlets and they seem to have picked some possible stars for the future. Local body builder Mike Mitchell whilst not a natural actor slots into his role as the Arnie-Esq leader of the mercenaries. From the rest of the cast there are two stand out performances Patrick Wright as second in command McNeal and Scott Ironside as the rough and ready engineer Vince. Both have some the best lines in the movie and Scott injects a good bit of humour into the movie with his performance. Patrick gives a well rounded performance as the cool as ice second in command.<br /><br />Director Mark Stirton can be very proud of what he has achieved and shows that Scottish cinema need not all be 'Kilts and Ceilidhs' or 'Slums and Drugs' Scottish films can be fresh, inventive and most of all a lot of god damn fun. This film is Scottish (with a north east flavour) to the core and praise to the actors and directors for keeping the accents intact which adds to the charm of the piece. Although the budget limitations show from time to time (the only fault i could find) that is to be expected. This film, its cast and crew deserve all the success they get and then some more. I for one wish Mark and his crew every success and theirs is a career to keep a very close eye on.<br /><br />Rating - 9/10 The first Scottish sci-fi is bold, fresh and inventive a real triumph.<br /><br />Movie reviews, news and opinion like no other plus the kick ass bi-weekly pod-casts.<br /><br />www.fightrunner.co.uk <br /><br />contact@fightrunner.co.uk | 1 |
13,848 | [
600,
700
] | 531 | 649 | This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film "Dahmer" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer. | 1 |
13,928 | [
600,
700
] | 509 | 650 | Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films especially the latter ones being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci! | 1 |
13,932 | [
600,
700
] | 513 | 618 | "Cat In The Brain" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the cinematic gore. "Cat in The Brain" is not about presenting a clear story and following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clichés that have been surrounding the horror genre for years.<br /><br />Lucio Fulci plays himself as a horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's films in real life.<br /><br />The film retains all the trademarks of Italian splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made. Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in "Cat In The Brain". Some of them are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece. The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing. This sort of "film in film" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore. But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no doubt be satisfied with that fact.<br /><br />Lucio Fulci was a very polarized figure. People either hate his work or love it. "Cat in the Brain" won't convince any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out. | 1 |
14,000 | [
600,
700
] | 549 | 668 | *** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.<br /><br />Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie.<br /><br />It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.<br /><br />Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.<br /><br />*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy. | 1 |
14,065 | [
600,
700
] | 512 | 658 | Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.<br /><br />The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter. <br /><br />The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way. <br /><br />The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets. <br /><br />However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost). <br /><br />While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder. <br /><br />A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.<br /><br />7.4/10 | 1 |
14,085 | [
600,
700
] | 536 | 678 | I first saw "Death in Venice" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist.<br /><br />"Death in Venice" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach (Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy, Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner. Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, "I was able to witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did happen to me." <br /><br />Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection but nothing will ever compare to "Death in Venice". I dare say that Mahler's music IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing, worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy was for the aging composer/writer/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm. | 1 |
14,112 | [
600,
700
] | 487 | 663 | Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look. | 1 |
14,122 | [
600,
700
] | 447 | 610 | If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.<br /><br />Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.<br /><br />The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).<br /><br />Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.<br /><br />The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rainafter which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.<br /><br />Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.<br /><br />As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.<br /><br />7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb. | 1 |
14,170 | [
600,
700
] | 466 | 609 | Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it. <br /><br />It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy "Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out. | 1 |
14,171 | [
600,
700
] | 498 | 619 | Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.<br /><br />The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.<br /><br />Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.<br /><br />In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?<br /><br />It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.<br /><br />I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8. | 1 |
14,176 | [
600,
700
] | 558 | 699 | 'Identity . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us' (Ntozake Shange qtd in "Fires in the Mirror").<br /><br />Pieces like Decalogue V used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon with. It's still working inside me. <br /><br />The film wasn't sympathetic, per se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up. <br /><br />The 'science' of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something. <br /><br />There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea: after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this natural process, makes me want to buck the system.' <br /><br />I do not think Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury. <br /><br />For surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond to their world view.<br /><br />And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that separates them from their landscape. <br /><br />Landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure, and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have power over. But it cannot be changed itself. | 1 |
14,206 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 664 | People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.<br /><br />To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.<br /><br />You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE".<br /><br />It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).<br /><br />Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.<br /><br />"Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?" <br /><br />My answer: Partially.<br /><br />It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.<br /><br />Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.<br /><br />The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.<br /><br />So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go. | 1 |
14,210 | [
600,
700
] | 495 | 611 | While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market many attribute their downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty.<br /><br />In a patch of overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer) fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end. Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans.<br /><br />What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation all the bugs are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message to boot. | 1 |
14,246 | [
600,
700
] | 562 | 686 | I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe. He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview.<br /><br />The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that "I have people who read that sort of thing for me." <br /><br />All the time she was in her cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on her. <br /><br />Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has "learned" her lesson, she answered his question, "Do you think you got a raw deal?" with a resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the situations in her life that she "finds" herself in, to which she pretty much stared at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge "role model" Hilton is to some people, and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy. <br /><br />During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting out, "I don't have a favorite passage." <br /><br />Judge Sauer, in my book, is a hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what she truly is. | 1 |
14,283 | [
600,
700
] | 528 | 674 | If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood demise.<br /><br />"Rififi" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show them that way.<br /><br />When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the Milanese, an expert safe cracker.<br /><br />Tony, who has come out of prison recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado.<br /><br />When the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away. Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which unravels the well thought plan.<br /><br />Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men.<br /><br />The film best asset is the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius as proved mainly with "The Naked City", "Night and the City" and "Rififi". | 1 |
14,295 | [
600,
700
] | 544 | 699 | This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.<br /><br />As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.<br /><br />As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.<br /><br />Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite". If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!" (7/10) | 1 |
14,331 | [
600,
700
] | 523 | 684 | (Some Spoilers) It took some 19 years for Bruce Campbell to finally put his masterpiece " Man with the Screaming Brain" on the screen. But Campbell had to alter his story by having it, due to financial problems, take place in Sofia Bulgaria not where he initially wanted it to be filmed in Los Angeles California.<br /><br />In the film Burce Campbell plays US pharmaceutical tycoon Willian Cole who travels together with his spoiled rotten wife Jackie, Antoinette Byron,to the former Communist Republic of Bulgaria. It's there that William wants to help finance Bulgaria's almost non-existent mass transportation system.<br /><br />It's poor William's misfortune to get involved with both Gypsy woman Tatoya, Tamara Gorski, and her ex-boyfriend Yegor, Valdimir Kolev, an ex-KGB taxi driver. The two, William & Yegor, will unwittingly end up shearing their brains, inside William's skull,because of Tatoya's jealousy and vindictiveness.<br /><br />After Tatoya murders both William and Yegor their bodies are delivered to mad scientist Dr. Ivan Ivanowitch Ivanov, Stacy Keach, by his loyal assistant Pavel, Ted Raimi, to have their brains experimented with. Dr. Ivanov has this theory in that two heads are better then one. And now with the material, William & Yegor, available to him Dr. Ivanov at last is finally going to prove it. What Dr. Ivanov is going to sadly find out is that by fusing the two heads, or brains, together their brain waves will overlap and cause them to not only malfunction but turn against each other!<br /><br />William with Yegor's right lobe fused into his damaged brain is out to find Tatoya and make her pay for the damage she caused both him and Yegor. Yegor for his part is stuck in William's head who's likes and dislikes, in both food and drink, are totally opposite to his own. This causes a lot of tension and hostility between the two brains in them fighting for control of William's body!<br /><br />Things get even more screwed up when Jackie finding out that Tatoya murdered her husband William confront her in the dangerous and high crime section of Bravoda call Gypsy Town and ends up being murdered herself. Brought back to Dr. Ivanov by his assistant Pavel it's determined, with no body available,to plant Jackie's brain inside of an experimental robot that Pavel's been working on. The operation is a rousing success but the only drawback is that Jackie, with her brain inside the robot, has to have her brain recharged every few hours! Or, like a real brain lacking oxygen, she'll die together with the robot's batteries.<br /><br />Combination 1930's-like screw-ball comedy and horror flick with both William & Yegor turning the Bulgarian town of Bravoda upside down in trying to find Tatoya and make her pay, with her life, for the sad state of existence she put them both into. <br /><br />***SPOILER ALERT*** It's Dr. Ivanov who in fact saves the day by discovering how to keep the two brains from fighting, and thus cooperating, with each other! This is done by him instead of fusing the brains together Dr. Ivanov keep them independent by implanting a neutralizing cell wall in between the two uncooperative globs of gray matter. | 1 |
14,350 | [
600,
700
] | 513 | 628 | Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation, which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war against God, and even to have "killed God".<br /><br />The film revolves around Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say "Amen" is foreshadowing of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting God.<br /><br />Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals, dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny, playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action. <br /><br />Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically says: "The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow". Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief. <br /><br />When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy, telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an accomplice out of his staunchest adversary.<br /><br />It is fascinating that Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race. <br /><br />The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a documentary on, I quote, "Hitler's passion for ping-pong". This is true in some respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well executed and flawlessy acted period drama. <br /><br />My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7 Total score: 14 | 1 |
14,415 | [
600,
700
] | 525 | 603 | The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her and her daughter will do than the state of her husband.<br /><br />The Merchant of Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character. This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont difficult for the majority of people to relate to. <br /><br />The Merchant of Four Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you. | 1 |
14,481 | [
600,
700
] | 527 | 623 | I always believed that a film that's plot is centred around a virtual reality video game never sounds as though it's going to be anything special but eXistenZ proved I couldn't have been more wrong. This film is unbelievable and, whilst highly entertaining, offers so much more than that. From start to finish, this film has you conceptualising to the point where you can have so many ideas, you can not make a final conclusion. David Cronenberg has a talent for this as he does so many things.<br /><br />eXistenZ is pure Cronenberg; the way it's written and the way it's directed is very unique to his style and that can only be a good thing. Cronenberg set himself a clear target with this film and that was to keep the audience guessing which he did with apparent ease. His fondness for the grotesque is not as predominant in this film as it is in The Fly or Naked Lunch but there are still some elements such as the game pods and how they are made that can make the audience wince. With regards to his earlier work, eXistenZ is more a combination of Videodrome and a less violent Scanners, a pretty awesome combination. Setting the film in the not too distant future was a really good decision as it allowed Cronenberg to be extremely imaginative with the films surroundings and also enabled him to visualise more concepts, allowing for less inhibited writing. It was important that the film didn't become over confusing and Cronenberg avoided this very well by keeping things relatively simple. Besides, if he wanted to make an unwatchable film, he'd know how to do it a lot better than this.<br /><br />eXistenZ boasts an extremely talented cast of character actors and all perform very well. Jennifer Jason Leigh gives the standout performance as the game designer who spends more time out of reality than in to it. Leigh is sexy and commanding in her role as Allegra and she really gets her teeth in to the role. The emotional range she shows in the film is particularly impressive, making her completely believable (if you can believe anything). Jude Law is also good and is very convincing in his character's fear of implantation. The chemistry between these two is very electric and gives the film an extra bit of flavour. Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe are just two of the great actors in support who add further depth to the film with very colourful performances. The cast of the film isn't huge but eXistenZ definitely has the 'quality is better than quantity' ethic which works very well.<br /><br />As well as being entertaining and thought provoking, eXistenZ touches social issues such as control and loss of self. This further demonstrates the film as an intellectual vessel and could also explain why it wasn't a huge Hollywood hit. eXistenZ has so much to offer and although it isn't to everyone's taste, those who like Cronenberg's work or who like science fiction will almost be certain to like this film. It is one of those films that needs to be watched with an open mind but it really is something special. | 1 |
14,520 | [
600,
700
] | 477 | 622 | I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br /> Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future. <br /><br /> By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest! <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** What makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br />Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film. | 1 |
14,541 | [
600,
700
] | 552 | 663 | "Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.<br /><br />DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.<br /><br />A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.<br /><br />That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.<br /><br />Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.<br /><br />The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.<br /><br />Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.<br /><br />In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.<br /><br />SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one! | 1 |
14,656 | [
600,
700
] | 442 | 603 | This is by far my favorite action movie. But what makes it work is not the elaborate Renny Harlin explosions and shoot-em-ups. It's the Shane Black script and its deft delivery by Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson.<br /><br />The chemistry between the two principals merited a sequel. Thank God it was never made. Too much danger of marring the original.<br /><br />'The Long Kiss' checkerboards from quotable scene to action scene to quotable scene and back again. Never a dull moment. <br /><br />This has to be Jackson's funniest role ever, and the amazing thing is that he is playing one of the most normal characters of his career. No quirky Tarantino hit-man, super-cool Shaft, or borderline psycho soldier. In TLKG, Jackson is the everyman we identify with. The poor schmuck gets dragged along on this crazy woman's odyssey to uncover the dangerous secret of her past.<br /><br />Though the story claims that Davis's character, Samantha Caine is suffering from amnesia, the writer and director treat her condition as if it were a multiple personality disorder.<br /><br />Samantha Caine is not just a new identity taken by the amnesiac Charly Baltimore -- she is a separate, fully-developed personality. The traumas suffered by Samantha in the first half-hour of the movie help the submerged dissociate personality of Charly to emerge again.<br /><br />The materials of her past life excavated by Jackson's detective Mitch Henessey facilitate Charly's resurfacing. Good timing, too, considering the target Samantha makes of herself.<br /><br />But Charly has to fight herself to remain the dominant personality. One gathers from bits of dialogue that the warrior personality (Charly) developed after her father died and she was recruited by the "Chapter".<br /><br />In the eight years Charly was buried in the psyche, though, her Samantha identity developed into the dominant personality. (She's even funnier that Charly.) This was probably due to becoming a mother, because it's the reunion with her daughter that breaks Charly's struggle to suppress Samantha, leading to their apparent integration by movie's end.<br /><br />It's impossible to choose a "best quote" from this film:<br /><br />"Now you're a sharpshooter?"<br /><br />"I saved your ass. It was great!"<br /><br />"Continue dying. Out."<br /><br />"I sock 'em in the jaw and yell 'Pop goes the weasel'".<br /><br />And a couple of dozen more, many too raunchy to quote here.<br /><br />Geena Davis looks great, and comes off as an action hero without glossing over the fact she's turning forty. (Listen to Charley's history, do the math).<br /><br />Fantastic soundtrack, too. Santana, Muddy Waters, Elvis, LaBelle, Marvin Gaye. <br /><br />I give 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' a 9, only because I don't believe in a perfect 10. Seen it a dozen times, and it still stays fresh. Nice twisted holiday flick to place on your shelf next to 'It's A Wonderful Life.' | 1 |
14,668 | [
600,
700
] | 524 | 639 | There is a serious scene in this movie. A scene that lets you know that his film won't be pulling many cheap punches. It takes place in a crowded train station and the protagonists are ambushed by assassins with automatic weapons. They make a break for it and just manage to get out in a hail of gunfire. The main hall of the train station is now filled with corpses of innocent people that were caught in the crossfire. Some would call that too sad and/or grim to put into what is supposed to be an enjoyable action flick. I call it honesty. Most action movies tend to lean toward the "safe side" of showing violence and plot elements. This mostly means that in spite massive shootouts innocent people tend not to die or at least we don't see them die. The violence is all purely the good guys versus the bad guys with mainly the bad guys dying. A bit of common sense clearly shows this to be absurd.<br /><br />Renny Harlin showed a hint of this in his first (and sadly only) hit, Die Hard 2. The villains intentionally crash a plane full of people to get their point across. The scene was also filmed with a backup scene of a cargo plane with only a few people on-board going down, but the grimmer and probably more realistic scenario ended up being used. However, to fit the spirit of the first film, Die Hard 2 was mostly a "fun action movie." Here, that grimmer and more convincing edge is pervasive. The violence is bloody. The one liners are hilarious, but with a certain style that more echoes natural human sarcasm than clichéd film wisecracks at key moments of action. The plot is also packed with more malicious intent than most action films. The villain is not just some rogue out for revenge or a mad grab at power. It is less ridiculous, but also more frightening than that. From recent films, the "Bourne" trilogy almost gets there with its less cheesy than usual action film style, but this film is from 1996 and 7 years before "The Bourne Identity" with Matt Damon made it to the big screen.<br /><br />Another interesting aspect is that the main hero is actually a heroine. And this is well before the movie version of "Tomb Raider" became a hit. What's more is that this heroine genuinely looks like she could take down John McClane and then take his still lit cigarette. This movie marks Geena Davis's second action-heroine role and she still didn't manage to score a hit. While Angelina Jolie stars in "Tomb Raider" years later and scores a hit. The reasons are beyond me. Completely.<br /><br />Lastly, this movie isn't all dark edged. There are many outrageous and spectacular set pieces that one can only see in an action film. The climatic explosion of a chemical bomb is an absolutely spectacular display of movie pyrotechnics, with more than one law of physics taking a convenient break. Thus, there is formula here, but it is the Anti-Formula for the everyday Hollywood Action Movie Formula. --- 9/10<br /><br />BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence, profanity | 1 |
14,710 | [
600,
700
] | 499 | 624 | "Everything is Illuminated" is a simplified interpretation of something more than half of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This version is more about changes in Eastern Europe from World War II through post-Cold War and how the younger generation relates to that history as a family memory. <br /><br />Debut director/adapter Liev Schreiber retains some of the humor and language clashes of the novel, mostly through the marvelous Eugene Hutz as the U.S.-beguiled Ukrainian tour guide. He is so eye-catching that the film becomes more his odyssey into his country and his family as he goes from his comfortable milieu in sophisticated Odessa to the heart of a cynical, isolated land that has been ravaged by conquerors through the Communists and now capitalists, with both Jews and non-Jews as detritus. As funny as his opening scenes are when he establishes his cheeky bravura, we later feel his fish-out-of-waterness in his own country when he tries to ask directions of local yokels. <br /><br />Shreiber uses Elijah Wood, as the American tourist, as an up tight cog in a visual panoply, as his character is less verbal than as one of the narrators in the book. He and Hutz play off each other well until the conclusion that becomes more sentimental in this streamlined plot. Once the grandfather's story takes over in the last quarter of the film, marvelously and unpredictably enacted by Boris Leskin, the younger generation does not seem to undergo any catharsis, as they just tidy up the closure.<br /><br />Schreiber does a wonderful job visualizing the human urge to document history. One of his consultants in the credits is Professor Yaffa Eliach and her style of remembering pre-Holocaust shtetl life through artifacts clearly inspired the look and it is very powerful and effective.<br /><br />The Czech Republic stands in for the Ukraine and the production design staff were able to find memorable symbols of change in the cities, towns and countryside, as this is now primarily a road movie, and the long driving scenes do drag a bit. Schreiber retains some of the symbolism from the book, particularly of the moon and river, but having cut out the portions of the book that explain those, they just look pretty or ominous for atmosphere and no longer represent time and fate. <br /><br />As W.C. Fields would have predicted, the dog steals most of his scenes for easy laughs. In general, Schreiber does go for more poignancy than the book. It is irresistibly touching, especially for those who haven't read the book, but less morally and emotionally messy.<br /><br />The film is enormously uplifted by its marvelous soundtrack, which ranges from songs and instrumentals from Hutz's gypsy band to traditional tunes to contemporary tracks to Paul Cantelon's klezmer fusion score. <br /><br />This is not a Holocaust film per se, being a kind of mirror image of "The Train of Life (Train de vie)" as about memory of a time that is freighted with meaning now, but will resonate more with those who have an emotional connection to that history. | 1 |
14,714 | [
600,
700
] | 551 | 685 | SPOILERS A Jewish Frodo? Yep, that'll be Elijah Wood again.<br /><br />Ever since the concluding part of "Lord of the Rings", Elijah Wood as Frodo has found it increasingly difficult to get away from that major role. Playing a football hooligan, a psychopath and now a young Jewish American, Wood has tried any route he can to escape this typecasting. Now, with "Everything Is Illuminated" he might finally have achieved this. Playing a role which isn't as radical as other efforts, he truly gets to the soul of his character. Still, it isn't like Wood does this alone. Aided by a magnificent adaptation by first time directer Liev Schreiber and a wonderful performance by newcomer Eugene Hutz, Wood has found a magnificent production to spread his wings. "Everything is Illuminated" is a magnificent, moving piece of cinema.<br /><br />Jonathan Safran Foer (Wood), a young American Jew, sets out to the Ukraine to find the mysterious girl who rescued his grandfather and helped him get to America. Arriving in the country, Jonathan meets the all talking, all dancing Alex (Hutz) and his racist grandfather (Boris Leskin). Travelling across the country, the three slowly learn more and more about the history and relations that Alex and Jonathan never knew existed.<br /><br />It's a strange feeling when the film progresses into it's second chapter (it is actually divided into four overall). The first part, whilst occasionally a bit funny, is mostly serious and intense. So when we are given a brief history of Alex and his family in the second part, to switch from serious to hilarious is a weird step. It doesn't quite work, but as the film progresses, it definitely learns it's lesson as this mix of humour and sadness merges finer as time passes.<br /><br />To the ultimate credit of everyone involved, as the story does continue, so do we begin to fall for the characters more and more. Elijah Wood is magnificent, Boris Leskin is so intense and strong that it raises questions why Hollywood has never properly noticed him. Most notable of all however is newcomer Eugene Hutz. Playing an intensely troubled character, Hutz is absolutely brilliant. He shows the split between his relatives and the real world with almost perfect skill, and when his character is communicating with Wood, you genuinely connect with him on a deeper level. Without Hutz, the story is so strong that the film would still be magnificent, but with him, it hits the next level.<br /><br />As a debut work for actor turned director Liev Schreiber, the story is also a brilliant piece to start. A work of passion (Schreiber's grandfather himself an immigrant to America), he manages to truly embrace the emotion of the content, and by presenting us with some truly beautiful scenery and some magnificent shots, he manages to really hit home. The final half hour in particular is so beautifully created, that it's a challenge for a tear not to form in any viewers eye. It is a moving story, and with Schreiber's help, it becomes even more powerful.<br /><br />Constructed with love from a passionate director, "Everything is Illuminated" is a beautiful piece. A road story with a difference, it is magnificently acted and wonderfully written. It's a film that everyone should see, and it is the perfect way for Elijah Wood to finally lay Frodo to rest. | 1 |
14,717 | [
600,
700
] | 526 | 655 | Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.<br /><br />Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.<br /><br />Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.<br /><br />Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.<br /><br />As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.<br /><br />Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.<br /><br />Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.<br /><br />-Chi&Ojo | 1 |
14,728 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 615 | Excellence seems to come rare in Hollwood today. Many consider just two out of the year's best picture nominees to display sense to the movie industry. And in 'Everything is Illuminated,' the mark is hit directly.<br /><br />The film initiates its brilliance with the beautiful setting-the-scene entry. From the beginning, you receive a sense of warmth and true family connections and relations between one and another. And also, the cast is introduced perfectly. For Elijah Wood's character, Jonathon, his sensibility is expressed through holding his dying grandmother's hand. And for the character entitled Alex, it is easy to see his life in his perspective - the true Ukrainian rock star. With the cast illuminated at first, the story slowly eases into our minds as Jonathon decides to venture to Ukraine to meet the woman believed to save his grandfather, thus the entire family. And from there, the story movies slowly, yet kept at a fast pace from the contrast of tear-dripping drama and laugh-out-loud humor included in scene-by-scene, every scene.<br /><br />Although the movie itself is rather awarding, there are several complaints from other sources commenting about Liev Schrieber's inaccurate adaptation of the Jonathon Safron Foer novel. Personally, I have never read the novel. But any movie, especially this movie in particular should not be graded on whether the storyboard of the film matches the storyline of the book, but rather how the major concepts from the novel were expressed and exploited through the film. Just because it may be far-fetched from the novel does not mean that this film is no longer a must-see - it still is.<br /><br />Throughout the film, new information inundates the audience's mind very slowly. Some of these thoughts are never answered; and in fact, the second half of the movie refocuses its entire topic and reason of travel through Ukraine onto something different, yet rather similar to the original intentions of this film. The film does however leave you on a satisfied note - yet to the weak-hearted souls, a tear may be dropped. And throughout the film. to the saneful people with common sense of humor may just have to laugh from Alex and John's fun and ongoing conversations.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to several different types of people: to those whom enjoy movies that share the genre drama-comedy, for those who have an interest in family connections, and to those whom have an interest in Holocaustic subjects. And to those insane people who find slapstick as hilarious comedy, this movie is not for you. And for you whom think that this is a seriously funny and absolutely ingeniously funny film, you are wrong; this film shares comedic moments and dramatic sequences. And to those whom judge a movie based on their likeliness with its corresponding novel, you may or may not enjoy this film, but this film should be taken for much more than whether or not it was close to the book.<br /><br />All in all, 'Everything is Illuminated' is an ingenious piece of work that will enlighten anyones' hearts. | 1 |
14,730 | [
600,
700
] | 555 | 659 | Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.<br /><br />To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.<br /><br />Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people and maybe his own family as well were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude and his grandfather's towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.<br /><br />Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II. | 1 |
14,771 | [
600,
700
] | 590 | 672 | There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. "Run the world" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The loss followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as "Christmas Doors" not "Admissions". | 1 |
14,790 | [
600,
700
] | 493 | 604 | Well I'm not the world's biggest Sondheim fan, so although I have the cast album and I've listened to it a few times I've never actually seen this show performed and I haven't seen the Tim Burton movie version either. I felt like I wanted to see something more faithful before I see the Burton one and give it a chance just as a movie. This version isn't a movie at all, it's a filmed play with some of the original members of the cast, including most importantly Angela Lansbury's performance as Nellie Lovett. This is one of those performances that's just like a conduit into the heart of the magic of Broadway and theater itself. She must have had so much fun with this role. Sweeney Todd himself isn't played by Len Cariou, who did it originally, but by George Hearn. Hearn does a fantastic job; his voice isn't quite as good as Cariou's, but he seems to play it a bit broader.<br /><br />The only problem I had really was with the Johanna character as played by Betsy Joslyn, and to some extent her lover Anthony as played by Cris Groenendaal. Joslyn's voice can't sustain high notes, but I wasn't entirely sure if that was maybe supposed to be the point since I'm not hugely familiar with this play. More importantly, I'm not sure if the story of "Sweeney Todd" really holds up enough weight to sustain some of the music, but thankfully the whole thing doesn't seem to have been taken too seriously by its creators. As a lark, and a bit of comedy in the vein of "Grand Guignol", it's quite enjoyable. I don't feel like it's as significant a piece of work as "Company" and "Into the Woods" or some of his other shows. Some of the music is quite spectacular, but at other points it seems to exist in a world outside of the show.<br /><br />I won't say a whole lot about it here because this is a film website and this is really not a film, but just a play that has been shot on film. There were maybe 3 or 4 scenes where they moved the camera around but that was it. People will want to see this, because it preserves Lansbury's legendary performance which deserves its legendary status because it's a hilarious and insightful performance. George Hearn can be proud of his version of Sweeney as well. This would be a good film to show children over the age of 5 or so to get them interested in musicals because the blood and cannibalism will really surprise them. Seeing a performance filmed so expertly and so faithfully makes me wish that more efforts like this had been made over the years with musical theater, because I prefer shows from the 20s through the 50s to these later era affairs. "Sweeney Todd" is an exceptional show from its era however, miles and miles above the AL Webber madness. | 1 |
14,803 | [
600,
700
] | 506 | 631 | I guess this is the first time I have seen a Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle movie. I really liked him in his (title) role as a butcher boy. The way he moves is very funny in my opinion, for example how he handles his knife and the way he rolls a cigarette. I think he is a good actor; his facial expressions really suit the role he plays, for example how he winks at the audience in the end. But one might add that that was probably not too difficult. Anyway I think he would have deserved a longer career. As you probably know it was ruined by greedy journalists who made money by printing false accusations that said he was involved in a scandal.<br /><br />The plot is not very important. In the first half, Fatty and Alum are employees at a store and rivals for Almondine's affection. After a heavy food fight, Almondine is sent to a girls' school by her father, the store owner. (This is the beginning of the second half). Both Fatty and Alum enter the school in drag, and the fight for Almondine continues. (Some of the characters' names are different in the version that I have seen. It seems that for some reason they replaced the original title cards with new ones.)<br /><br />There are a lot of corny gags like food fights and pratfalls, but they are done well in my opinion. And there are some gags I really liked, for example how they make the dog run the pepper mill (or is it a coffee mill?), or the scene when Fatty dons a coat although it is obviously not necessary, or when Miss Teachem, the head of the girls' school, spanks Fatty, and he spanks her back.<br /><br />Buster Keaton is also funny in this, his first, movie; a good addition to the cast. In the first half he is a customer at the store, in the second half he supports Alum in his fight for Almondine. I liked his acrobatics, for example when Fatty pushes him from one room of the school to another, he doesn't show a simple pratfall but lands on his hands and his head and does a little pirouette. Watch out for one scene in the food fight: Alum throws a flour bag at him, but it misses and hits the store owner instead. That makes Buster laugh, which must be a rarity since he normally always shows a neutral expression (which - as you probably also know already - got him the nickname 'The Great Stone Face'). (One more note: Al St. John, who plays Alum, was 'Fatty' Arbuckle's nephew, and later became famous for the role of 'Fuzzy' that he played in lots of westerns.)<br /><br />I don't like this one as much as I like, for example, 'One Week' and 'The Balloonatic' (films that Buster made later, without 'Fatty'). And it didn't make me laugh out loud often - but it made me smile a lot, so I have given it eight points. | 1 |
14,812 | [
600,
700
] | 560 | 632 | ***SPOILERS*** Feeling alone and needing companionship as well as love Frances Austen, Sandy Dennis, keeps all these emotions inside as she goes through life as a popular young single lady who has many high class friends. But for reasons of her own deep insecurity she keeps them at arms length. As for Frances male friends non are anywhere near her age so that she won't have any reason to have any romantic involvement with them. <br /><br />One early evening as Frances was entertaining some of her friends she spots outside her apartment window a young man, Michael Burns, sitting alone in the cold pouring rain. Feeling that he's homeless and alone after her friends leave Frances goes outside to the park and offers the young man shelter at her place until the rain subsides and even to stay over for the night at a guest bedroom that she has. You can see right away that Frances is more interested in just having the young mans safely out of the cold and rain then she wants to have him as a friend lover or even play-toy all for herself and as the movie progresses you see that you were right. <br /><br />A really amazing performance by Sandy Dennis that in a way is very much like that of Kathy Bates' Academy Award performance in the movie "Misery" that was made in 1990 some twenty one years later. Frances thinking that the young man was alone and homeless and, later when she meets him, mute sees the perfect person for her to have as a true friend. He's in no way her equal or better then her like the friends that she has, doctors lawyers Indian chiefs, and thus is totally dependent on her. It later turns out that the young man is not the lonely and homeless person that Frances thought that he is. It's when she slowly finds out that he really doesn't need her as well as him manipulating her instead the other way around it sets off something in Frances' mind that turns out to be a compulsion of murderous proportions. <br /><br />A really weird film by director Robert Altman that goes deep into the depths of loneliness and depression of the human mind. Actress Sandy Dennis is perfect as the Dr. Jekyll and Miss. Hyde personality in her acting as the lonely but at the same time dangerous Frances Austen and it's a pity that not only didn't she get an Academy Award for her role in the film but wasn't even nominated for it. <br /><br />Like most Robert Altman movies there seems to be a lot of improvisation among the actors in the movie and ad lib dialog especially between the young man's sister Nina, Susanne Benton, and her boyfriend Nick, David Garfield. The only thing in the movie that I found confusing is when we see Frances go to a city clinic to have a full gynecological exam and tells the doctor that she expects to get married very soon. Was her husband to be the young man staying at her apartment? But besides that the movie sticks to the story pretty well and the ending is a real shock to the audience as well as the young man. When he finally, in the end, realizes that Frances is not only a bit off-the-wall but murderously insane as well. | 1 |
14,886 | [
600,
700
] | 547 | 652 | Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and a third one is coming our way this summer.<br /><br />The first one, which was released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable, there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however, takes all of these aspects and excels upon them.<br /><br />The action first of all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force of the fighting.<br /><br />The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney, however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid.<br /><br />The music... I think that's where this movie fails. The original composer/conductor for the TV show was used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to the action. But, except for a few violin/string pieces towards the end and some choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything special.<br /><br />The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and exciting.<br /><br />Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be, it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because... I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers. | 1 |
14,940 | [
600,
700
] | 511 | 633 | Chop Shop, the second feature from Ramin Bahrani, is a rare breed. It is an American film that tells a story not usually found in American cinema, the story of the of a minority living in poverty. It is a work of simple beauty. Shot on location in Queens, New York in the shadows of Shea Stadium, Chop Shop is neo-realism to the core. Featuring a cast of non-actors, it has more in common with Vittorio De Sica's classic Bicycle Thieves than anything made in the United States. There is no score or soundtrack, all the music and sounds are diagetic. Watching it feels like watching a great foreign film, it takes us to another world because it is so uncommon to see. However this other world is not post-World War II Rome or Istanbul or New Delhi, it is contemporary New York City.<br /><br />Bahrani tells the story of Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), better known as Ale. He is a 12-year-old Latin-American kid with no parents or family unit to watch after him. He lives in a tiny room upstairs in the auto shop that he also works at. He shares the same bed with his teenage sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales). Neither of them have made it passed second grade. Ale, though young, is tough and mature. He acts as the head of the small family. He hooks his sister up with a job, and he himself does anything he can to make a buck when not working at the chop shop. He sells bootleg DVDs on the streets and candy in subways. He searches for scrap auto parts and sells them to the many auto shops lining the street where he lives.<br /><br />Alejandro is heartbroken when he learns his sister is working nights as a prostitute. He himself becomes progressively disinterested in abiding by the law. He begins to steal, first car parts and later wallets. Like Antonio, the desperate protagonist in Bicycle Thieves, we cannot blame Ale for becoming a thief. It is merely survival. Ale and Isamar save up in hopes of buying a food vending van for $4,500. They see the van as their way out, and there is much optimism. However, as is usually the case in neo-realism, we know this will only lead to disappointment.<br /><br />Polanco's riveting performance is what gives legitimacy to Chop Shop's realism. Here is a 12-year-old character that needs to be believably independent and vulnerably naive. Whether he is directing cars to the shop, selling movies and Snickers bars or playing with his sister in their scanty room, it is authentic.<br /><br />Chop Shop is a sobering reminder that not all American children grow up in a land of opportunity. Ale's lifestyle is what many in middle-class white America consider 'third world'. They act cognizant the poverty and deprivation in foreign lands while sipping their coffee and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning, but make themselves blind to it on their own streets. Once you watch Chop Shop, you will think differently of the kids peddling candy on the subway.<br /><br />more reviews at www.mediasickness.com | 1 |
14,965 | [
600,
700
] | 538 | 667 | Pixote is directed with barely a shred of sentimentality. And yet I more than imagine Hector Babenco owes some of his film-making chops with this film to Vittorio De Sica's neo-realist style, in particular Shoeshine (that film, as with Pixote, takes place mostly inside a children's prison). And yet while I might still prefer De Sica's film if it came down to deciding between the two it's so close because it is, no pun intended, like choosing between two children. They're both marvelous works of raw drama, and with Pixote Babenco has an extra edge and harrowing quality to deal with in that this isn't filmed in conditions brought on after a world war. This is how it was in Brazil- one would see it with slightly more flair and awe in City of God, perhaps in some of the same locations- and these children were on the streets before and after the film was made. Some aren't alive some 20+ years later, for all anyone knows.<br /><br />The "star", pre-teen street kid Fernando Ramos da Silva, plays the title character, a youth without a father or really any family who will look out for him, and placed among dozens of other street kids and delinquents in a reformatory for boys. The conditions couldn't be much worse, and are made even more unbearable as two children are killed one after the other by some cause of the guard duty. There's a riot, and an escape, and halfway through the film we find Pixote with a few other youths, including Lilica a practical transvestite not even 18, and they become pickpockets, drug dealers, whatever to get by. None of this, I should repeat, is shown with a kind of ham-fisted earnestness- certainly you would never in a million years see Ron Howard or Paul Haggis direct this kind of picture- and yet there's an emotional honesty to everything exactly because nothing is trivialized.<br /><br />Nearly every scene is significant to showing how fragile life is for Pixote, and how he could be killed or die some way at any turn, and so without even reaching puberty yet he has to be on the level of those around him who are a little older (though not by much at all) and become things that will haunt this person forever. Despite Babenco's usage of a tender and mournful musical score and one or two scenes with people crying a lot, nothing feels forced. As with De Sica, maybe more-so given the consistent conditions of San Paolo and Rio street kids, he's a natural director of children, and coax's out of Ramos da Silva and Jorge Julião and others some really fine work that provides just the right touches of "cinematic" drama (that is not so real that it becomes documentary, which isn't a bad thing per-say) and even subtlety in some scenes.<br /><br />Pixote may not be as well known as it's later 21st century Brazilian films that look back on the horrors of Rio, or even neo-realist films, but it should be. Anyone wanting to get a good, hard glimpse at what it was like should seek it out at a library or other and soak in what is the best foreign film of 1981. | 1 |
15,076 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 653 | It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed "message films" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as "message films" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American
and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.<br /><br />Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become opens the film in a recording studio, booming out "If You Are But a Dream" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies "Nazi werewolves" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart
unless, of course, you're one of those bloody "Japs." There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.<br /><br />Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of "The House I Live In," which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for "Best Film for Promoting International Good Will" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra. | 1 |
15,082 | [
600,
700
] | 510 | 610 | A review I have put off for far too long....<br /><br />Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.<br /><br />Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.<br /><br />The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.<br /><br />While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.<br /><br />Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.<br /><br />All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.<br /><br />Very highly recommended. | 1 |
15,087 | [
600,
700
] | 509 | 646 | "200l: A Space Odyssey" is a supremely intriguing space-travel journey with a profound look at mankind's future... It is one of the very few great films of our times... It gives us something to think, talk and argue... It wonders about our importance in the universe and ignites our imagination and curiosity... It inspires us to dig for insights...<br /><br />As a science fiction fantasy, it is one of the most original films ever made... Kubrick's camera dances to the "Blue Danube" with planets floating exuberantly through the light years... It's an experience in the poetry of motion, a rich statement to the power of cinema...<br /><br />But "2001" reveals that it's not really a science fiction film after all... It's, instead, a philosophical enigma, a magnificent meditation on man's place in the grand scheme of things, and a quest to understand ourselves by knowing all else...<br /><br />"2001" is a unique film about man's evolution told in almost subliminal terms... The people in this classic science-fiction epic hardly matter... Kubrick relates a chronology in images of thingsthe mountains, the desert, the technology, the space capsule, the computer named HAL (who is more interesting than the humans), and the time warp... The final landing scene is the very hallmark of cinematic genius...<br /><br />As a terror story, too, it is a towering achievement (not on the same scream-inducing level as Hitchcock's "Psycho"), but in an innocent and far more haunting way...The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture's vision of man... In Kubrick's fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape's exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth... Man has indeed evolved!<br /><br />As a spectacle "2001" assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions... We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment... The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the "Starchild" returning home to charm the orb...<br /><br />"2001" is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet...<br /><br />"2001" is also a work of great visual acuity... It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man... Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery... They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question... Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick's film
But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving... | 1 |
15,101 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 627 | In 1968, Stanley Kubrick made this historic film masterpiece base on a book written by Arthur C. Clark. It was such an early effort to make a science fiction movie combined with scientific facts. His style of movie making is still fresh and intact.<br /><br />I have seen this movie more that half a dozen times and I even have a VHS copy of the movie in my library. CS3 class made me to see the movie again with another perspective: Who is HAL and what is he thinking?<br /><br />I enjoyed watching the movie again and tried to focus of HAL's dialogues throughout the second episode of the movie. In the second scene, Dr. Dave Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole are eating their food in front of two TV monitor on their sides and HAL's round reddish glass dome is in the middle of them. In the TV report, HAL was introduced as the new generation of super computer put in work in January 12, 1992 called HAL 9000 Series. During the interview HAL reacts as a humble working machine trying to accomplish the mission of the spaceship fully. <br /><br />In another scene, Dave is sketching Dr. Hunter, Dr. Kambel and Dr. Kaminsky who they are all in Hibernation sleep. HAL is curious to see those sketches and brings up his doubtful question about the purpose of the Jupiter mission. His calm and monotone voice makes the audience listen to him more carefully. <br /><br />In the next few scenes we will see how HAL tries to kill astronauts one by one and takes the power. His conscious makes him capable to try to save his life from termination. When Dave wants to return to the spaceship and HAL does not listen to him, there is the most memorable line of the move: ' I'm sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't do that. ' In the middle of the most important interact between human and machine, HAL's voice can conjure both solid calm and malevolence in the same monotone. <br /><br />Dave has gone back to the ship, lost all his fellow astronauts, and determined to disconnect the HAL's main brain cells. HAL uses his final apologetic techniques to convince Dave of not disconnecting him. HAL begs him to stop and let him correct himself. These are his famous lines while Dave is disconnecting his modules one by one:<br /><br />'Dave, what do you think you are doing?<br /><br />Dave? I am entitled to the answer of the question!<br /><br />I know everything is not quiet right with me recently
<br /><br />But I feel much better know
<br /><br />I can see are really upset about this very poor decision of mine recently
<br /><br />Dave, stop! Will you?<br /><br />Dave, stop!<br /><br />I am afraid Dave!'<br /><br />HAL's voice is slowing down during this process and becomes thicker and less audible:<br /><br />'my mind is going
I can feel it'<br /><br />'Can I sing a song for you?'<br /><br />Dave is putting final modules out and let HAL to sing his song called 'Daisy':<br /><br />'Daisy give me
<br /><br />your answer to me
<br /><br />I am crazy
<br /><br />Although I am not confused
'<br /><br />HAL dies as the Jupiter Mission continues
<br /><br />Artificial God bless you HAL, store in peace! | 1 |
15,168 | [
600,
700
] | 523 | 633 | Craig Brewer grew up in Tennessee, it is evident in his movie. Forget the Black guy on White Girl action. It happens, but it isn't Samuel L. Jackson on Christina Ricci. More importantly this movie is about the values and culture of the people in this Tennessee town. How they deal with divorce, abandonment, sexual abuse and psychological disorders. While shrinks make millions in the cities of the North, Midwest and West Coast, the town minister, who also grapples with his own problems, becomes the counselor and mediator. It is a interesting concept and one that may not settle well with everyone.<br /><br />Brewer shows us the region he grew up in. Yes it is still tainted with racial problems, though worse problems exist in many metropolitan cities. This is in the subtext and not the main plot of the story. People live a more simple lifestyle, yet life is still complex and excruciating.<br /><br />Jackson and Ricci do a fantastic job in this film. Jackson the aging-former blues guitarist who eeks out a living on his small farm. His wife of 12 years leaves him for his brother, so he spirals into depression. Meanwhile Ricci and Justin Timberlake have a last wild sexually charged night before he ships off to the Army. Ricci suffers from a childhood of sexual abuse, though that isn't revealed until later, her torment can only be quenched by sexual forays with various boys (Black and White) in the town.<br /><br />When Ricci is beat up and left for dead on the road near Jacksons farm, he finds her and nurses her back to health. He believes it is divine intervention that this half-naked White girl is left in his care. He clutches his Bible and prays for guidance. He refuses her sexual advances and instead treats her with dignity, respect and care. Something few men in her life have ever done.<br /><br />She in time sees Jackson as a man of honor and morals, yet he also carries his own pain. He plays his guitar and sings to her. Yes it's the Blues and damn good too, With the minister counseling her, she slowly understands how to deal with her childhood sexual abuse. Jackson, through Ricci's transformation, realizes he must let his own pain heal.<br /><br />Justin Timberlake comes back, discharged due to "anxiety problems". As he searches for Ricci, who has been living with Jackson during her recovery, he finds out she has been promiscuous and unfaithful to him.<br /><br />He finds her and Jackson at a bar, where Jackson has decided (as part of his healing process) to come out retirement and play the Blues again. Timberlake follows them home and confronts Jackson and Ricci.<br /><br />You will have to see the movie to get the rest of the story. Should you decide to see this film, remember to look at it from the aspect of a foreign or independent movie. It is a slice of life, from a particular region of America that few of us get to see. It is interesting and revealing. It also shows us that regardless of the color of our skin, we all have similar problems that can be fixed with similar solutions. | 1 |
15,268 | [
600,
700
] | 485 | 629 | This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.<br /><br />Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.<br /><br />- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ("ojha" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the "ghosts" sitting in Mithi's brain. <br /><br />- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is "believed" to work <br /><br />- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book. <br /><br />- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for "maya". <br /><br />- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is "no doubt in his mind" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)<br /><br />- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu "Charu sent this man to beat me" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.<br /><br />Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about "normal", "healthy" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?<br /><br />IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than "A Beautiful Mind". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection. <br /><br />This was a story very well-told indeed. | 1 |
15,269 | [
600,
700
] | 590 | 691 | 15 Park Avenue, well the name mystifies initially being an address from New York and film being set in Kolkata. However as the story unfolds, one realize the thin line that director tries to walk between Relationships, Social Cause and of course the world of Schizophrenia. I would say Aparna Sen is one director who has so much more to say and has so less time at disposal. Well no doubt she has managed to make a good movie. In a way she makes us realize that probably each one of us is looking for our own '15 Park Avenue'. Its an unending search within each of one of us...<br /><br />The powerhouse performance from Shabana Azmi is a treat to watch. Her screen presence brings whole lot of life into the scene. Indeed it was surprising to see her in such a powerful act after long because I expected it to be all the way Konkona Sen's terrain. Shabana makes you feel skin deep of an elder sister who is running the whole show for a rather unfortunate family and during this time she almost forgets to live her own life. She burdens all her ambitions and desires with ailing 18 year younger sister ( who is more like a daughter to her ) and an aging mother played by veteran Waheeda Rehman. As for the leading actress from Guide ( that's how I can recall her instantly ) there is hardly anything to say except few lines and tear drops here and there. Ever dependable Rahul Bose plays another pivotal role in the film, he shows the emotions of a middle age man with repent on his face to near perfection. This man really amazes me with the variety of work he has done. From a musician in Jhankar Beats to a liberal Muslim in Mr. & Mrs. Iyer and so many others
. He is one versatile I really wish if he had some more shots in the first part of the movie as well. The cameo in the movie is by Shefali Shah (remember Satya and Monsoon Wedding). She looks really beautiful and depicts the role of a mother of 2 kids with real ease. She gives you a glimpse of today's Indian woman who is modern in approach but still conventional when it comes to her husband's prior relationships. <br /><br />The focus of camera has been Meethi, portrayed by Konkona. She and her schizophrenic world constitute the nucleus of 15 Park Avenue. She has really worked hard for the character but there are times when she is not able to relate with the audience. The fateful accident of her life tries to rope in sympathy and it has been only partially successful. <br /><br />The movie tries to address quite a few things in one go starting from the unique world of a disabled person to the unequal status of a female even in today's modern India and also the twisted relationships in a tattered family. And I believe Aparna has succeeded to certain extent. The helplessness of Meethi while she works as a journalist in a rural eastern state really gives us all a naked picture of the country we are so proud of. <br /><br />Well after I finished 15 Park Avenue, there was a sense of unquenched thirst within me. I wanted more out of this movie to drench me emotionally. It has been a commendable effort on the part of director except few hiccups. Must watch for all those who like to see a different cinema, something with a strong purpose. | 1 |
15,284 | [
600,
700
] | 493 | 633 | I thought I was wasting my precious 50 bucks going to watch this movie. But at the earnest request of my friend who is an ardent fan of Aparna Sen, I decided to turn up for the movie. Going at this cheap theater really bothered me, cos I had seen King Kong for 50 bucks at one of the best theatres in town. Anywasy the movie starts of and surprisingly I wasn't complaining. <br /><br />A great story and some really wonderful wonderful acting on Shabana Azmi and Konkona Sen Sharma's part. Shabana Azmi a divorcée who has dedicated her life to the well being of her mother and step sister. Konkona Sen Sharma a schizophrenic(spare me the spelling), who imagines thing all the time. Rahul Bose also gives a stellar performance. <br /><br />The story is that Mithi (Sen Sharma) is a schizophrenic, and after getting brutally raped on her field job as a reporter, her levels really increase, her fiancée leaves her, for the person she became. In all her world comes down upon her. Shabana Azmi, her elder step sister, takes care of her, and Mithi in her imagination believes that she has been married to her fiancée, has 5 children and they stay in 15th Park Avenue (which really is a place in New York). The plot goes on as Mithi becomes suicidal, as she believe no one believes her and she is being held captive in her home from her husband. As fate would have, Mithi and her fiancée meet up when they both are out on a trip. 11 years after the brutal rape, her fiancée has no existence in her real world, she cant recognize him. Her fiancée, now married and a father of two children feels it is his duty to correct the wrong he did 11 years earlier and he promises to take her to Park Avenue. and he does. He takes her to a place in Kolkata which supposedly looks like her husband's home. As Joydeep/Jojo(Rahul Bose), her fiancée is talking on his cell phone he loses track of Mithi. Everyone comes looking for her but she is nowhere to be found. She finally gets what was denied to her, her family, her own imaginative family in her own world at 15th Park Avenue.<br /><br />I must say, that it touched my heart. I myself am now a fan of Aparna Sen's direction. The camera work is superb. And the quality of performance is spell bounding. Konkona Sen Sharma gives a solid performance as the schizophrenic child. Shabana Azmi gives another mind blowing role as the divorcée elder sister, who has the load of keeping the family. Rahul Bose, another neat and quiet role(I don't know why this guy doesn't get big breaks, he has so much potential). Lastly Aparna Sen, she still captivates the audience, even if she is not in front of the camera and behind it. <br /><br />A very well deserved 8/10.... | 1 |
15,320 | [
600,
700
] | 572 | 683 | America's Next Top Model is a great reality show in every sense. It has a great hostess, has great guests, a great production and some of the best professionals of the modeling world contributing for something they hadn't achieved yet: present a true America's Next Top Model. Of course this is not something easy to do, therefore USA and the world already would have 10 top models concurring and fighting between themselves in this cruel world.<br /><br />But it's obvious that its intention is not to present the America's next top model, but yes, the America's Next Pop Model. The show gets together a bunch of models without any experience with different personalities and big personal, professional and financial problems, giving them a chance for bringing to life a dream or to make their lives something worthy. It's obvious that Tyra Banks uses all that for her advantage, she gives the dream, but in exchange for that she gains audience and more popularity. Anyway, she deserves it, because she is intelligent and, if I might say that, a pioneer to this kind of show. Tyra also is a great observer and knows how to give based opinions, differing herself of other models and hostess of foreign versions of the NEXT TOP MODEL franchise. In Brazil, as an example, Fernanda Motta is its hostess and "once-upon-a-time"-Top Model. She doesn't have even 1/10 of Tyra's professional skills, which keeps Tyra Banks on the top. Tyra have professional and personal knowledge about what she says and she's a great mentor because she not only criticizes but she points the mistake and teaches the right way with wisdom.<br /><br />The show doesn't suffer from big problems, it does and fulfills what it promises during the cycles. The models chosen to work on the show in fact are not the best unknown models of entire country because Tyra Banks bets with the difference, and she is right, because she (and also good part of her audience) believes that it's time for the modeling world to change some straight parameters. During the cycles, she and her team really makes fair deliberations, where the weakest go away and the promising ones have new chances to prove their capacities but must be fast to do that, otherwise they lose it.<br /><br />Other very interesting thing is that Tyra also knows to decide who should or shouldn't win even when she's against people's opinion. She knows that whoever wins will be famous, but has a very few possibilities to truly be a worldwide recognized top model. At the same way she knows that, some times, the second place is more valuable than the first, because 1st place wins the title, but second doesn't gets the title stigma. Hardly she makes mistakes when she decides the future of any model during the show.<br /><br />After 9 cycles the show is getting a little tired with some old ideas, it's time for Tyra to change some things and lines because it's getting boring and comparing to the firsts cycles we can see that she's getting bored too, so she needs to do that if she wants the show to live a little longer.<br /><br />Anyway, the show explores the fashion and modeling world, but it's also entertaining for those ones that live outside all of that. It gives the opportunity for some girls and also the market, and also gives great tips for those ones from the audience who shares the same dream. | 1 |
15,347 | [
600,
700
] | 528 | 666 | When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.<br /><br />There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.<br /><br />The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.<br /><br />Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is. | 1 |
15,349 | [
600,
700
] | 516 | 683 | I had the pleasure to view this film when I was 10 years old,(having an existing interest in Egyptology). I know that there are subtle mistakes to the art direction and costuming, but over all this is the best film, to date with the look of the 18th dynasty.<br /><br />The film only approximates Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian", in plot. A good portion of the text never made it to film, as we have to consider the running length.<br /><br />The music score by B. Hermann and Alfred Newman is beautiful!!! Performances as follows. The late Edmond Purdom gave an excellent performance as an orphaned child adopted by parents past their child bearing years. He states that he keeps to himself,has the best education available and lets' face it is a rather emotionally distant person, given his upbringing and high intellect.<br /><br />Jean Simmons is fine as a humble tavern maid; honest loving and sincere. Bella Darvi, people complained about her accent, well she is a Babylonian. It is not that apparent in the film as to why Sinhue is so insanely obsessed with Nefer Nefer Nefer. Her correct name. In the book Sinhue is enjoying her carnal fruits and gets his revenge early in the plot by leaving Nefer Nefer Nefer's drugged body with the "House of the Dead's " workers.<br /><br />Gene Tierney as Baketaten, is brilliant! When she tells Sinhue that he is pharoah, she looks like she could devour him (in his weakness). She is intense, brilliant and coldly beautiful.<br /><br />Michael Wilding is heartbreakingly tragic in his mission to bring all people to know his one God. I believe that we are viewing Ankhnaten thru the lens of Egyptologist A. Weigall. A view at the time that had a pre-messiah feeling about Ankhnaten's vocation. Did his monotheism influence the Jewish people? Note Psalm 104. and other Egyption imagery in the psalms?<br /><br />Mr. Peter Ustinov provided the alter ego to Sinhue. He is street wise and cunning a survivor. Excellent acting as always.<br /><br />Mature never thought much of his acting personally, His Horemheb is fine as an ambitious "super patriot" who ultimately has Sinhue murder more than one person in his quest for power, (Walteri's book).<br /><br />I felt that the ending to The Egyptian was confusing as Sinhue's personality changes too easily. He has a living son (Toth dies in the novel), power is handed to him through is half sister Baketaten, he world savvy now and has a grip on international affairs. So he became enlightened? He could have modified the Amon Priesthood as he was capable.<br /><br />But NO! Sinhue gives everything up, everything including his son's future to become a ragged beggar preaching monotheistic love?<br /><br />This change was too immediate and the major flaw in the script!<br /><br />Again the look of the film,colour, most of the costumes(Nefer Nefer Nefer's gold dress was too over the top as she is more richly dressed than the royal family), music is beautiful.<br /><br />I will watch this film again easily.<br /><br />P.S. I know that you porbably know that Horemheb did not directly succceed Ankhnaten, but I could not resist stating this fact. | 1 |
15,360 | [
600,
700
] | 546 | 650 | Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light.<br /><br />It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.<br /><br />To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing
the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father
the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering
the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute
and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all time
but lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.<br /><br />So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics
that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time
like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10! | 1 |
15,364 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 628 | A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.<br /><br />The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.<br /><br />I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.<br /><br />Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.<br /><br />Which brings me to my second and main reason "I hate it". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.<br /><br />The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a "normal" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you. | 1 |
15,401 | [
600,
700
] | 529 | 648 | I'm not sure why I picked for a borrow from mom for "Nurse Betty". I think just because I had heard a little bit of this movie. But I'm glad I did. "Nurse Betty" is an original and clever movie that has humor and a darker side. <br /><br />This was one of Renee's first big one's before hitting it major in Hollywood. I can see why, she is an incredible actress. The scene where she finally realizes what had happened and she's on the set of her favorite soap opera, you can see pain, confusion, fear, and embarrassment on her face. Just to let you in on the movie, she plays Betty. A shy and insecure woman who stands by her abusive husband, she's a waitress, and is in love with soap operas, especially one where a certain cute doctor, Dr. Dave Revell. When she happens to see her husband's murder accidentally in separate room, the murders she notices are two customers she just had, Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock. She then just looses her mind and leaves town after talking to he police and says she needs to find her former fiancée, Dr. Dave Revell. So, she travels along the country to California to find Dr. Revell, and wants a job as a nurse to work with Dave, she's seen the show so many times, somehow she's just awesome at being a nurse when she saves a woman's brother. Despite everyone telling her that she is delusional, she just looks at them like as if they were the crazy one's. When she meets the actor who plays Dave Revell, George(his real name) thinks she's just a crazy fan trying to get on the show. She just looks at him with confusion and believes that he and her belong together.<br /><br />Renee was terrific, she was so believable on loosing her mind in the movie. She has come such a long way, and wither you want to admit it or not, she's adorable and a great actress.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman plays one of the assassin's, Charlie, who is the father of the two. He is so charmed and smittened by Betty and while chasing her around the country, he becomes almost just infatuated with Betty to the point where he almost falls in love with her. He and his son Wesley must find Betty when they find out she was there at the murder scene and could give away their identities. When Charlie sees Betty and catches her finally, she's scarred at first, but calms down and they know they have a real connection. It was a beautifully played scene, my opinion is that Morgan gave a stronger performance. He's just great.<br /><br />A surprisingly decent performance by Chris Rock, the son, Wesley. He is so "gun"-ho about just getting the job done in a rush and taking care of business. I loved his comedic performance at the end where he and the gang he's holding hostage by gun point are just watching the soap opera's together. Classic. "Nurse Betty" is a great movie that I'd recommend for a good laugh and just in all a nice honest little movie I think anyone could enjoy.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
15,484 | [
600,
700
] | 496 | 604 | 'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.<br /><br />We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.<br /><br />The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.<br /><br />Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.<br /><br />It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific. | 1 |
15,489 | [
600,
700
] | 558 | 670 | "The Cell" is an exotic masterpiece, a dizzying trip into not only the vast mind of a serial killer, but also into one of a very talented director. This is conclusive evidence of what can be achieved if human beings unleash their uninhibited imaginations. This is boldness at work, pushing aside thoughts to fall into formulas and cliches and creating something truly magnificent. This is the best movie of the year to date.<br /><br />I've read numerous complaints about this film, anywhere from all style and no substance to poorly cast characters and bad acting. To negatively criticize this film is to miss the point. This movie may be a landmark, a tradition where future movies will hopefully follow. "The Cell" has just opened the door to another world of imagination. So can we slam the door in its face and tell it and its director Tarsem Singh that we don't want any more? Personally, I would more than welcome another movie by Tarsem, and would love to see someone try to challenge him.<br /><br />We've all heard talk about going inside the mind of a serial killer, and yes, I do agree that the "genre" is a bit overworked. The 90s were full of movies trying to depict what makes serial killers tick; some of them worked, but most failed. But "The Cell" does not blaze down the same trail, we are given a new twist, we are physically transported into the mind and presented with nothing less than a fascinating journey of the most mysterious subject matter ever studied.<br /><br />I like how the movie does not bog us down with too much scientific jargon trying to explain how Jennifer Lopez actually gets to enter the brain of another. Instead, she just lies down on a laboratory table and is wrapped with what looks like really long Twizzlers and jaunted into another entity. "The Cell" wants to let you "see" what it's all about and not "how" it's all about, and I guess that's what some people don't like. True, I do like explanations with my movies, but when a movie ventures onto new ground you must let it do what it desires and simply take it in.<br /><br />I noticed how the film was very dark when it showed reality, maybe to contrast the bright visuals when inside the brain of another. Nonetheless, the set design was simply astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if this film took home a few Oscars in cinematography, best costumes, best director and the like. If it were up to me it'd at least get nominated for best picture.<br /><br />I've noticed that I've kind of been repeating myself. Not because there's nothing else to say, but because I can't stress enough how fantastic I thought "The Cell" was. If you walk into the movie with a very open mind and to have it taken over with wonders and an eye-popping feast then you are assured a good time. I guess this film was just a little too much for some people, writing it off as "weird" or "crazy". I am very much into psychology and the imagination of the human mind, so it was right down my alley. Leaving the theater, I heard one audience member say "Whoever made that movie sure did a lot of good drugs." If so, I want what he was smoking.<br /><br />**** (out of 4) | 1 |
15,631 | [
600,
700
] | 553 | 664 | There's a unique place in the pantheon of John Ford films for Wagonmaster, Sergeant Rutledge, and The Sun Shines Bright. It was these three films with no box office names in them that Ford didn't have to tailor the film around the persona of a star being it John Wayne, Henry Fonda, or any of the others he worked with. Not surprising that Ford considered all these as favorites of one kind or another. <br /><br />Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr. a couple of likable cowpokes sign on to guide a Mormon wagon train to a valley in Arizona territory. Along the way they are joined first by a group stranded players from a medicine show and then by a family of outlaws on the run named Clegg. Their stories merge and what happens is the basis of the film's plot.<br /><br />Had Wagonmaster been done even 10 years earlier on the strength of the two performances turned in by Johnson and Carey, both probably would have had substantial careers as B picture cowboys. In the case of Johnson it would have been art imitating life. Johnson was a real rodeo cowboy and came to Hollywood with a string of horses for John Ford to use in Fort Apache. Ford was struck by his presence and the rest is history. <br /><br />But the day of the B western was drawing to a close and Johnson and Carey had great careers as two fine character actors.<br /><br />Ward Bond plays Elder Wiggs leader of the Mormons. Bond is a recent convert though and has trouble remembering to not use some four letter words. But he's the leader because of his strength of character, not his impeccable LDS theology. He turns out to be a wise and compassionate leader.<br /><br />In portraying the Cleggs, Ford only had to reach back four years to his My Darling Clementine. They are the reincarnation of the Clanton gang and pure evil. In fact if Walter Brennan who after My Darling Clementine refused to ever work for Ford again was willing I could easily see him being cast as Shiloh Clegg the head of the family. As it was Charles Kemper did a fine job, this is probably the role he's most noted for. Shortly after this film was done, Kemper was killed in automobile crash. He might very well have worked for Ford in the future.<br /><br />Ford makes the Mormons pacifists here and I don't recall that pacifism was part of LDS doctrine. Nevertheless it works here, the whole idea being that these people who carry no weapons are innocents when dealing with evil people like the Cleggs. It takes some gun toting cowboys to properly dispose of them. I think that this post World War II film is trying to say that pacifism isn't always the best policy. <br /><br />Another carryover from My Darling Clementine is Alan Mowbray playing the same kind of role he did there as head of the medicine show troupe. Part of that troupe is Joanne Dru who's doing another turn as a woman of elastic virtue the same as she did in Red River. Dru used to do so many westerns that she longed to be out of gingham and into some modern fashions.<br /><br />Wagonmaster is great entertainment and I'm willing to wager in the state of Utah it's a pretty popular film. | 1 |
15,643 | [
600,
700
] | 551 | 668 | The Western can be divided into many sub-genres. One of the broadest divisions is that between Town Westerns and Plains Westerns. Most Westerns are a mix of both, but at one end of the spectrum you have pictures like High Noon and Rio Bravo that take place almost entirely in a settlement, seldom venturing out into the real outdoors. At the other end you have ones like Wagon Master, where there is barely a homestead on view amid the wilderness.<br /><br />Director John Ford normally thrived on the "bit of both" Westerns, shooting the interiors with an emphasis on their being small and confined, and then contrasting this with the wide open exteriors, which appeared both exciting and dangerous. Wagon Master has a typical Frank Nugent script, with some interplay between seasoned oldsters and green youngsters, but still it presents Ford with some fresh challenges. In this picture, the dangers do not come from the harshness of the landscape, they come from within the group in the form of the Cleggses. What's more, the absence of real interior scenes means the outdoors could lose its impact over time.<br /><br />However, Ford was a real maestro when it came to manipulating space. He shoots scenes of the camp or the wagons so the frame is surrounded and we get that same sense of enclosure as we would in a genuine interior. Also, compared to his other Westerns, he does not in fact open out the space too much, having the wagon trail wend its way through canyons and passes rather than cross the stark and empty plains. One of the few moments where he does throw the landscape wide open is when the Indians are spotted and there is the possibility of a threat from outside.<br /><br />Wagon Master features some surprisingly effective moments of comic relief, and some great contributions from the quirky cast. Harry Carey Jr. was shaping up into a fine actor like his pa, and this is one of his better early roles. Joanne Dru was disappointing in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, but she appears more at ease as a character with a bit of sass, and is actually fairly good here. Jane Darwell, who won an Oscar in the John Ford-directed Grapes of Wrath a decade earlier, appears here with sole function of performing a running gag in which she sounds a feeble old horn. Still, with her great timing and movement she makes the piece work. Francis Ford, in one of the many mute drunkard roles he played in his little brother's pictures, is at his cheeky best.<br /><br />And now we come to lead man Ben Johnson. Although he was by no means a bad actor, he was never going to become a big star like John Wayne. And yet, with his effortless horsemanship and easygoing drawl, he was one of the most authentically "West" players around. And this brings me onto my final point. This was apparently one of Ford's personal favourites, despite it seeming fairly unassuming. Wagon Master has no grand theme or dramatic intensity, it is simply the genre playing itself out. I think this is what Ford loved about it. It's a picture for the Ben Johnsons and the Harry Carey Jrs, not the John Waynes or the Henry Fondas. Small in scope, but worthy in its class. | 1 |
15,649 | [
600,
700
] | 518 | 688 | By 1950, John Ford had already fully-developed the ideas and motifs that would form the core of his most successful Westerns. Always present, for example, is a strong sense of community, most poignantly captured in the Joad family of Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940).' Within these communities, even amid Ford's loftier themes of racism and the pioneer spirit, there's always room for the smaller human interactions, the minor friendships and romances that make life worth living. 'Wagon Master (1950)' came after Ford had released the first two films in his "cavalry" trilogy 'Fort Apache (1948)' and 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)' and it covers similar territory, only without the military perspective and, more damningly, the strong lead of John Wayne. Ben Johnson and Harry Cary, Jr. are fine actors, but they feel as though they should be playing second-fiddle to somebody, and Ward Bond's cursing Mormon elder, while potentially a candidate for such a role, isn't given quite enough focus to satisfactorily fit the bill.<br /><br />In 'Wagon Master,' Ford seems so comfortable with his tried-and-tested Western formula that any character development is largely glossed over. Ben Johnson's romance with Joanne Dru is treated as an obligation more than anything else, and Harry Cary Jr's charming of a Mormon girl is so perfunctory as to be almost nonexistent in the final film, leaving one to ponder the survival of deleted scenes. Only in Charles Kemper's charismatic and shamelessly-villainous Uncle Shiloh does Ford try some different, and it works, even with his being surrounded by a troop of insufferably hammy slack-jawed yokels. Where Ford does succeed is in orchestrating the conglomeration of three distinct races of Americans the values-orientated Mormoms, the easygoing horse-traders, the eccentric travelling showmen into a cohesive community of pioneers looking towards a bright future. This apparent harmony is thrown into disarray by the arrival of Uncle Shiloh's gun-toting outlaws, who exploit the lawlessness of the Western frontier but ultimately lose out to the noble cowboys who "only ever drew on snakes."<br /><br />Ford reportedly considered Wagon Master among the favourite of his films, and perhaps this has something to do with the absence of big names like John Wayne or Henry Fonda. Armed only with his stock selection of usual players, Ford is able to generate a sense of community by avoiding placing focus on any one character, though most of the Mormom travellers still remain completely anonymous. Despite being undoubtedly well-made, I can't help feeling that this film only does well what other Ford pictures did even better: the terrific majesty of the the Western frontier was presented more beautifully in 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon'; the romances and friendly squabbles among community members took greater prominence in 'Fort Apache'; the early relations with Native Americans, only hinted at here, were more thoroughly examined in 'The Searchers (1956)'; the bold pioneering spirit of the early settlers was explored more movingly (albeit by Henry Hathaway and George Marshall) in 'How the West Was Won (1962).' 'Wagon Master' is pure John Ford, but it isn't a landmark. | 1 |
15,681 | [
600,
700
] | 508 | 609 | As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, "...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word "film"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a "2001" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.<br /><br />Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding. <br /><br />Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.<br /><br />Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term "art film" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design. | 1 |
15,705 | [
600,
700
] | 472 | 614 | This working girls go to hell soap is a time capsule candidate, courtesy of its immaculate physical production, 50s costuming (look at all those bows and pearls), creamy Johnny Mathis theme song and oh-so daring (for its time) sexual attitudes. Rona Jaffe's novel, on which the film was based, keeps on being republished, and just a few years ago Vanity Fair actually devoted an article to this delectable bon bon of a movie. Take a look at the new DVD transfer and you'll know why.<br /><br />The three leads - Hope Lange, Diane Baker and Suzy Parker - echo the girls from "How to Marry A Millonaire" or Carrie Bradshaw and her friends from "Sex and the City." "Gentlewomen songsters off on a spree..." Their romantic adventures and sexual entanglements are the stuff of paperback passion: empty caramel corn calories, devoid of nutrition, impossible to resist snacking on. Lange is genuinely touching in her neo-Grace Kelly way, Baker is properly dim and idealistic as a timid virgin who gets (gasp) knocked up by a (hiss) cad. It helps that the cad is played by Robert Evans, the throaty voiced, coke snorting film mogul who surely has lead many an innocent young lamb to the slaughter in his Beverly Hills bedroom.<br /><br />Suzy Parker is fascinating in the first half of the film, all blithe self assurance and knowing remarks. She struts her stuff with the panache of the fashion icon she was in the 50s. Alas, she's not up to where the film sends her: into madness and obsession. But she exudes glamour and savior faire and her acting is at least adequate. One wonders why the critics loathed her, virtually driving her out of movies a few years later. Perhaps an aloof attitude on the part of a good looking woman is just too much to bear. It sank Ali McGraw's career a generation later, and, when you think of it, Ali McGraw and Suzy Parker were basically the same actress.<br /><br />The film's only major flaw is a weak ending. It pretty much collapses into a romantic swoon at the end, rather than rising to a wham bang melodramatic finish, like the other famous soap opera from producer Jerry Wald, "Peyton Place," which had Lana Turner weeping and gnashing her teeth during a rape trial. Here, Hope Lange wanders out onto the New York sidewalk, spots burly, eternally hung over (but now, of course, sober) Stephen Boyd and they simply walk off together...into the sunset, one presumes. Otherwise, this is pretty much the definition of a guilty pleasure.<br /><br />Oh Yes...there's also Joan Crawford, breathing fire at all the young girls and smoking cigarettes while she hisses to her married lover over the phone. And the titles are done in hot pink, with ribbon lettering that recalls the department store ads of the late 50s. Don't miss! | 1 |
15,792 | [
600,
700
] | 543 | 673 | Don't watch this movie expecting the Jane Austen wit, crisp dialog or clever social commentary. This time around, the premise of Northanger Abbey has been updated in a very sensual way! <br /><br />In this version,Catherine's erotic daydreams are not just silly fantasies, but a connection to the world of adult sexuality she is just peeking into with her daylight adventures. By day she is very prim and demure, and her swain Henry treats her with the utmost courtesy. But as her own sexual nature awakens, her daydreams shift every so subtly from mild to steamy to lurid! <br /><br />At the beginning of the story, Catherine's visions of sex are based entirely on the Gothic novels she devours in bed. It is both heartwarming, sexy, and provocative to observe the way her dreamy picture of handsome Henry "dissolves" into a lurid dream of being carried off and ravished by romantic villains! At the same time, it is wry and touching to cut back to her bed in the morning -- Catherine sleeping peacefully looks so innocent one would never guess what really goes on in that pretty little head! <br /><br />Later, after being invited to Henry's castle, Catherine overhears a family argument and totally misunderstands its meaning. Jumping into bed, she covers herself up with the bedsheets and lies awake listening fearfully, her striking blue eyes the only visible sign that she is alert. Little by little, however, those pretty blue eyes droop and close as she drifts into another heated dream of innocent desire. This time, Catherine dreams she is in Elizabethan times, waiting fearfully outside the castle for the approach of the "banditi!" It's pretty clear she is more excited than terrified by the idea of being carried off by bandits. She all but shudders with excitement and anticipation! But then, after a shot of her running frantically to escape, we are back to the daylight world, where the maid is scolding her for having made a mess of her room before falling into a sound sleep. It's worth noting that Catherine's heavy-eyed yawning in the morning light is itself a rather sensual symbol of how passionate her dreams have been! <br /><br />Ultimately, of course, Catherine's stern and unimaginative lover Henry divines the nature of her fantasies and gives her a stern lecture. It's interesting that Catherine's immediate collapse into tears symbolizes not a retreat but an advance into adult relationships. In the next scene, she tearfully burns her Gothic romance and throws herself shamefaced and sobbing onto the bed. Significantly, this turning point is also marked by Catherine falling into a deep sleep -- except that this time, there are no dreams of make believe passion. Presumably, Catherine has matured enough to be ready for the real thing.<br /><br />Though Katherine Schlesinger has lovely blue eyes and a lively expression, and all her performance is charming, it must be said that outside of the heated dream sequences this movie adaptation is excruciatingly dull. I'm giving it 9 stars only because the truly romantic may enjoy it purely on a daydream level.<br /><br />If you'd like to read a book about a genuinely strong willed young heroine who overcomes real darkness and danger in a real Gothic setting, I highly recommend THE PERILOUS GARD by Elizabeth Marie Pope. | 1 |
15,841 | [
600,
700
] | 484 | 633 | In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.<br /><br />Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a "midquel", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.<br /><br />The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a "second home country", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.<br /><br />Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: "The Beatles are much better than us!"), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).<br /><br />Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid. | 1 |
15,870 | [
600,
700
] | 530 | 656 | Of all the seasons and episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE, after seeing all the great, mind boggling, thought provoking stories, this one stands on top. That's right. This story, this one entitled THE HUNT tops the large number of the finest scripts in Television History.<br /><br />True, there are no interplanetary space flights, no inexplicable cracks in time. There is no living nightmare, no sudden changes of setting. There is seemingly nothing out of the ordinary for our protagonist to deal with.<br /><br />The main character, played by veteran character actor Arthur Hunnicut, sets out from his cabin in the hills, accompanied by his faithful hound, to hunt raccoon. Because the raccoon is a predominantly nocturnal animal hunt is by moonlight.<br /><br />The man and dog soon encounter a large raccoon, who hops on the dog's back and attempts to drown the hound in a pond. The man jumps in to help his dog. There is a sort of almost black-out, after which the pair are seen on the shore, in a lying, almost sleep like position.<br /><br />Calling his dog by name, (Rip, I think) the old man sets off to return home. When he arrives, he finds the wife weeping and unresponsive to his conversation. He also observes visitors coming and going to his house, paying respects and giving words to console his wife.<br /><br />Still seeming puzzled at the strange reception and goings on around the Home Cabin, the Man and Rip take off on a long walk down the road, where He remarks out loud that he did not remember such a long fence in these parts. He eventually comes upon a rather large fellow, dressed in garb similar to his-overalls, hat, work shirt. They are at a gate, which leads to an area where a lot of smoke is freely rising up. The Gate Keeper is overly eager in his persuasive pitch in trying to get the man to enter. Rip sounds displeasure. The Gate Man tells the Old Man that he may enter, but the dog would have to remain outside, offering to watch the animal for him. The man will have none of it and the two continue on their way down the path.<br /><br />After a little more hiking they come upon a second gated entrance where the Gate Keeper recognizes the man and welcomes him. When the Old Man reports what has happened down the road, telling him of how the guy at the other gate tried to separate the Man and dog, and added, "With no dogs allowed, that must be a Hell of a place!" The 2nd Gate Keeper stated that he was right! "That's exactly what it is!" <br /><br />Our family had lost our 1st Dog, Lady-a mixed Lab, in October of 1981. About 6 months later, as good fortune would have it, the Wife(Deanna) and myself along with our 2 daughters (Jennifer 9 and Michelle 6) viewed this episode on TV, WGN TV, Channel 9 Chicago. Well, it all made perfect sense to us at that time.<br /><br />We're certain that anyone who has had that relationship with a family dog, would agree. The episode still brings a condition of watery eyes to this now 60 year old writer. | 1 |
15,927 | [
600,
700
] | 551 | 686 | When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.<br /><br />This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a "Porno" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.<br /><br />The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.<br /><br />I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was "dried" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).<br /><br />The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was "orgy" based and we'll leave it at that!<br /><br />When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.<br /><br />Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.<br /><br />I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.<br /><br />***** out of 5. D. | 1 |
15,936 | [
600,
700
] | 531 | 655 | I remember seeing this movie for the first time with a friend while on vacation in Anaheim, California in October, 1976. While driving the tourist laden city streets , we saw a movie marquee advertising "ALICE IN WONDERLAND XXX." So before even checking out Disneyland's version of the Lewis Carroll classic a half mile away, our curiosity won out and we ventured into this cinematic threshold. I remember even before the movie began how surprised I was to see this kind of film appearing in staid, ultra-conservative Orange County.<br /><br />Thirty two years later, I came across ALICE IN WONDERLAND at a local video store. I wondered to myself if this was the same film until I looked at the back of the jacket and saw a picture of lovely Kristine DeBell in the starring role and decided to rekindle some fond memories. Subversive Video, to their credit, has released two versions, X and XXX in the same package. As it turns out, the version my friend and I saw in Anaheim was rated X in spite of the original XXX advertising at the there. Seeing it the second time around makes me realize what a delightful romp director Bud Townsend brought to the screen. As an example of this man's scope behind the camera, in his salad days he directed two episodes of TV's DEATH VALLEY DAYS.<br /><br />Miss DeBell, appearing in the April, 1976 cover of Playboy is ideal as Alice. She brings a fresh all American innocence to the role as a librarian in her early twenties yearning for a better life. When her boyfriend is rebuffed from taking their relationship to the next level, Alice reaches her turning point. This is a 'musical comedy' yet the melodies are quite catchy with appropriate strings and brass to offset the generally suggestive lyrics. Miss DeBell has a pleasant singing voice as she trills about wanting to be free. That's when the magic begins. The pacing of this movie is surprisingly fluid, given the genre and the supporting cast of Wonderland are there to enable Alice as she blossoms into womanhood. Special mention goes to TV veteran Larry Gelman as the White Rabbit who seems to be the only character not obsessed with sex as he is always running late for an appointment
.or something.<br /><br />Special features include comments from noted feminist advocate Lena Ramone who imparts how viewing this movie while attending college influenced her in choosing a career as an adult film actress after graduation.<br /><br />What makes ALICE IN WONDERLAND such a delightful jaunt is its garden like setting. Partly filmed in the lush, natural splendor of Vancouver B.C.'s Stanley Park, the movie belies its pornographic roots. You don't come away feeling you've watched a sleazy skin flick. At this writing, I haven't viewed the triple XXX version. The extra sex footage tacked on afterward would, in all probability, disrupt the overall flow and remove the light, breezy atmosphere evident throughout.<br /><br />Naturally, the Lewis Carroll version is the best way to curl up and explore Alice's adventures in Wonderland. However, for a time capsule representing 1970s' adult film archives, ALICE IN WONDERLAND is worth following that white rabbit for a ribald ride full of mirthful mayhem. | 1 |
16,009 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 675 | 29 Sept 1990 marked a small but important milestone in my appreciation of horror flicks. This was the date that BBC1 broadcast (for the only time I'm aware of) Jeff Lieberman's super-creepy 1981 shocker Just Before Dawn, and it made a huge impression on me. Nearly twenty years later, I'm delighted to report that I've finally got my hands on the two-disc Shriek Show / Media Blasters special edition, and it's just as eerie and unsettling as I remember it, if not more so.<br /><br />The plot, as is usual for genre flicks (and this was Lieberman's first film as a 'director for hire', though he did at least remove all the religious cult snake-handling mumbo-jumbo from the screenplay), is a bit thin - five likable twenty-somethings (including Chris Lemmon, son of Jack, in a pair of uncomfortably tight white strides) venture into the dense Oregon woodlands to do a spot of camping and to check out a patch of land that's been bequeathed to one of their number. But Just Before Dawn stands out from a crowd of imitators because Lieberman wastes no time in showing us just how deranged things are on this particular patch of mountain, with a complete innocent skewered and a drunk preacher's truck shoved down a hill and engulfed in flames within minutes of the film beginning. The youngsters come rolling into the picture in a snappy Winnebago, Blondie's 'Heart of Glass' pounding on the soundtrack, and before you can say "Texas Chainsaw Massacre!" they've clobbered an innocent deer with the front bumper and had their first taste of aggro from the heavy-set maniac responsible for the opening catastrophes. Forest ranger Roy (George Kennedy) warns them that things are likely to go awry if they go any further, but they go ahead with the trip anyway, refusing to give the sozzled preacher a ride even though he's understandably scared witless and finally pitching camp miles from anywhere. Needless to say, things go downhill from here.<br /><br />Although this film's not short on bloody horror and well-handled action scenes, the standout moments for me are those where Lieberman lets his camera zoom out, long and slow, from apparently innocuous shots of the fun-loving kids larking around in the wilderness, or just lets it settle for a while on the dense, imposing, people-dwarfing woodlands. He makes the Oregon exteriors as threatening and as ominous as Kubrick made the Overlook Hotel's spacious interiors in the Shining, and Brad Fiedel's score (discounting the horribly distorted racket that runs over the titles) stays the right side of intrusive, underscoring the slowly escalating menace with subtlety and flair. There are plenty of surprises along the way, nods to Deliverance with the discovery of a backwoods babe and her freaky, disturbing family, and a truly bizarre kill technique deployed shortly before the film's end. I won't spoil it for you. I've said enough.<br /><br />Quite why this undervalued horror gem fell through the cracks and became a cult item instead of a breakout hit is hard to ascertain, but hopefully it will be rediscovered and appreciated for years to come - it deserves to be. | 1 |
16,064 | [
600,
700
] | 504 | 619 | Inside I'm Dancing (Rory O'Shea Was Here)is the story of two handicapped young men, Rory O'Shea, who is almost completely immobilized and confined to wheelchair, and Michael Connelly who is debilitated by MS and also confined to a wheelchair.<br /><br />Set in Ireland, the film opens with Rory arriving at a assisted living center. He eventually befriends Michael but only after a few tense scenes where Rory rebels against the staff and other patients in the usual "movie way" playing loud metal music, using profanity, and general obnoxiousness. His budding friendship with Michael is cemented by the fact that Rory seems to be the only one who understands Michael, or is at least willing to try.<br /><br />Eventually, through some trial and tribulation the pair petition, and are granted, the right to live own their own in specially adapted apartment. The apartment is paid for by Michael's father who had essentially abandoned him do to his disability. The two also hire an attractive assistant named Siobhan (played by Romola Garai)to help them with their day to day living. This is essentially where the crux of the film develops as both develop feelings for her. Michael is struck particularly hard. Unfortunately, for both, but Michael especially, Siobhan does not feel the same and it results in her having to leave. As Michael temporarily regresses and wants to return to the Asst. Living Center, Rory convinces him to continue to live on his own. The film ends on a sad note, that many viewers may have seen coming, but ultimately, we are left feeling that Michael has truly become independent and the future is his, as Rory pointed out to him towards the end of movie.<br /><br />You know, I can't say that I've seen a lot of "handicapped films" and I don't know if they could be considered a specific genre. But there is a type of formula to them. One person is unwilling to live beyond his illness until some liberating force compels him/her to do so and Inside I'm Dancing is really know different. What works however, is it probably is more subtle about the peaks and valleys the two men go through then what you might expect. There are no intentionally gratuitous moments and no "stand up and cheer" manipulations. The sad parts are sad and the funny parts are funny. Some viewers might recoil a bit that Rory is the spiky haired punk type with the earing in his nose as the too perfect "rebel" cliché, but the actor, James McAvoy, somehow makes it real. The same can be said for Steven Robertson, who plays Michael. When Michael's heart is broken it doesn't seem to be invoked by a poor script trying to get the audience worked up, but rather a young man genuinely in pain over unrequited love. The kind of pain many can relate to whatever their physical condition. Again, these are the types of things that make the film work and make it poignant without being overbearing and enjoyable on many levels.<br /><br />Recommended. | 1 |
16,221 | [
600,
700
] | 511 | 632 | I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.<br /><br />The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.<br /><br />This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.<br /><br />None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle "Let That be Your Last Battlefield").<br /><br />Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.<br /><br />This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.<br /><br />Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below. | 1 |
16,249 | [
600,
700
] | 579 | 692 | This has got to be one of the most magnificent things I've ever seen on film. I don't know if it's as serious as it seems to try to be, but that hardly matters. This film is extreme, absolutely wild and surreal. The packaging and the marketing only make it more so because you *know* that ever so often some mother has to reprogram her kid to accept our reality after he checks this out from the video store expecting something completely different. Look at the roadmap, for one thing! And where else in America can you see a ten year old kid swear as much as this one does and then get his eye ripped out by pervert the rival of Pulp Fiction's Zed? And that food inspector scene is the best! The amount of well known to vaguely recognized actors in this film is one of the best things about it: Soon, much sooner than you realize, you too will find yourself saying, "Is that Meat Loaf? Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that the holideck doctor from Star Trek: Voyager? Is that Flea? Is that the sawmill owner from Twin Peaks gassing squirrels with car exhaust? And isn't this guy from the new Rob Zombie movie? He looks an awful lot like Shrek." I think my favorite scene is at the very end, with Phil in a full body cast. I mean, please, why aren't more movies like this shown in airplanes? This director hardly has anything else to his name higher than Return To Salem's Lot, but he displays true stumbling man-child genius in this creation! If you're an intellectual looking for something to p**s away your evening on, I highly suggest this film for satisfaction. This movie's plot is all too ridiculous, but imagine it taken out of context: *boy arm wrestling an over aggressive Meat Loaf, who seems hell bent on taking out his anger at not being accepted into Guns N Roses, looks over his shoulder and sees the doctor from Voyager enter the bar* Can you imagine what any half brained channel surfer active through the last six years would think of seeing that? Now imagine if you actually cared about Meat Loaf or Voyager to begin with! Or imagine if you're a Flea fan. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, this film contains notable music, mind you, but its soundtrack is more plasticine than Mad Max 3. What does that entail for you? This is the retarded, inverted mongoloid cousin-sister-mother-puppy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. How about when Gus' sleeve flies back onto his arm in an act of cable-access special effects quality mastercraft? When I saw this film, it was on the suggestion of my cousin who had watched half of it in a fit of half-aware childhood in the early half of the nineties and who has since been haunted by vague memories of it, I myself had not slept in three days. It made me laugh! Of course, it's also an anxiety movie. The music doesn't encourage the suspense but it eventually gets to the point where it's been fully established that the American Censorship Committee has obviously missed this film entirely and absolutely anything can happen in it and probably will any time Gus turns a corner or the view so much as changes camera angles. I found myself obsessing over the possibility of those cards flying out his window at any second. Watch this movie. Awesome! | 1 |
16,287 | [
600,
700
] | 506 | 626 | Some said that this was a nose candy glorification flick, but short of the original Dr. Hyde's concoction, no drug has yet been developed that can provide THIS effect. If Viagra was the slime mold stage, that white sparkling powder is the Stephen Hawking evolutionary rung (or at least the pharmacist idiot savant branch). This reality show is really about the sacred cows of medicine, seen as was the emperor without clothes. Few of us want to question the health field; both because most of us would not have lived to our current age had we been born before "modern medicine", and because our subconscious hopes that we will continue to live on if we have faith in the helping professions. So the geniuses who produced this movie made jokes out of those Calcutta Bessy's, giving us the sugar that allows us to swallow the modern institution of medicine. The timing was right, and many were able to see the business side of the healing companies behind the curtain of Oz. A decade before, when George C. Scott ranted through the movie The Hospital, my wife and I were sitting in the packed premiere in Oklahoma City. Just as in Jekyll & Hyde's remake, we were almost unable to keep from falling out of our seat, and laughed and howled uncontrollably for the duration. The hundreds of other audience members were deadly silent. They were shocked that doctors, nurses, & the hospital institution were being mocked. It was as if the Pope, Billy Graham, and Gandhi were were sitting in the Animal House, beer stained tee shirts and all, competing to see who could tell the funniest God knock-knock jokes between belches. Had The Hospital been a slapstick comedy rather than a satire, they might have been able to see what was being shown to them. Unfortunately they were like Republicans at a screening of Michael Moore's 9/11. Perhaps smaller golden parachutes would have been given to the corrupt medical corporation leaders, health insurance companies would have had a tougher time denying medical care, and health providers would have been demystified earlier, if George C. Scott had tap danced in a tutu while delivering his terrible truths. But--forget everything I just said. Watch the movie, be consciously made as happy and joyful and full of laughter as the best ever Saturday Night Live skit, and let the subconscious soak in the documentary of the underlying reality. Just don't blame me when "Got to Got to Got to Got to" becomes one of your sayings, or when "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" occupies that portion of your brain now paralyzed by "Its a Small World After All". Or when you start calling your local hospital Our Lady of Pain and Suffering instead of Our Lady of Eternal Construction. Even Oklahomans were changing their favorite terrible boss wishbone winner entreaty from "Piss on him and leave him for dead", to "Body in a pit, you in it....." The smell of death...it's gone! Chicken sushi! Mary. MARY. MARYEEEEEEEEEEEEE! | 1 |
16,340 | [
600,
700
] | 488 | 600 | Diora Baird is absolutely hot as hell in this movie. But really all the characters are amazingly fun to watch.<br /><br />(MINOR SPOILERS) As per usual, the main character, B, is the sane one of the bunch. B has this crazy idea to make up his own college when he's rejected from all colleges he applies to. He's known for making fake IDs. so an acceptance letter is no problem.<br /><br />Because B's dad is a hard @$$ and suspicious of this university he's never heard of, B gets his friend Sherman to design a website for the university. Sherman has been accepted to a great college and is in fear of being arrested for fraud. He's very quick with witty lines but his flaw is he wants to be accepted socially too much.<br /><br />Glen, Hands, and Rory are the three stooges that follow B along. Glen got a zero on his SATs and has no thought process. He's constantly proposing battle royals, but he's very good at making smoothies, which gets him a lot of hot girls, somehow. Hands was a great football player who didn't receive the scholarship he was counting on, and turns to crafts to cover his lack of athletics. Rory was preparing to go to Yale since the 1st grade, and was not accepted. She spends her time meditating.<br /><br />Uncle Ben was my favorite character. Picture Lewis Black playing himself. If you have no reason to see this movie, then see it for Lewis Black and Jonah Hill. They're amazing.<br /><br />Monica is a B's love interest. As most of these stories go, she's more popular than him and doesn't even notice him until half way through the movie. Unlike many other stories though, B actually gets her and keeps her until the end. Monica is actually a good character on her own, but of course she's primarily there for B to adore.<br /><br />There are more supporting students at the made-up college who are fun to watch. A.D.D.'s name is self explanatory, and funny enough he ends up in the meditation class. Kiki is a hot ex-stripper who falls head over heels for a chance to go to school and eventually gets a crush on Glen. Maurice is an ex-military idiot who got his G.I. bill and wants to study rock n' roll in college. The final guy is only known as Freaky Student, who thinks he can blow things up with his mind. Ye who have little faith in him wait until the end of the movie.<br /><br />Of course the villains are the Dean of an opposing university, his university's student body president, the president's girlfriend, and their circle of friends.<br /><br />Every character is lovable. I believe this movie has a good plot and is well done, despite what a lot of people say. Even thought the overall story is predictable, the characters keep you guessing and make the movie great. Go see this film. I give it 9 out of 10. | 1 |
16,418 | [
600,
700
] | 541 | 698 | Any movie that offers Bonnie Hunt, Sarah Silverman and Amy Sedaris in the supporting cast has to be well worth watching, and comic actor Jeff Garlin takes advantage of the terrific talent he recruited for his 2007 directorial debut, a sad-sack comedy about an overweight man who feels out of step with the world around him. Familiar as Larry David's manager Jeff on "Curb Your Enthusiasm", Garlin plays James, a still-struggling, 39-year old Chicago actor who still lives with his widowed mother. His self-esteem is so low that he can't meet women, but it's the comical way he views his single status that makes his dilemma involving. If the storyline sounds a bit familiar, that's because the film is partially a tribute to the 1955 Ernest Borgnine classic, "Marty", about a lonely Bronx butcher living with his meddlesome mother. In fact, Garlin uses "Marty" as the play which James is desperate to do since he is so empathetic to the character's situation.<br /><br />Naturally there is a love story of sorts in this new millennium version, and Silverman plays Beth, an off-kilter, sexually voracious ice cream parlor server who takes him on an underwear shopping spree. Their best scene together is in his favorite convenience store where they improvise different characters in different aisles. Hunt plays a lonely elementary school teacher who shares a passion with James for jazz musician Ben Webster. They meet accidentally in a record store and then again at a career day at her school where he hilariously exposes his sexual neuroses in front of a classroom of first-graders, including his best friend Luca's pert daughter Penelope (played by Dakota Fanning's look-alike baby sister Elle). In a wedged-in cameo and looking quite a bit like Jerri Blank, Sedaris plays the school's counselor who speaks to James after his inappropriate monologue. David Pasquesi plays Luca, a retirement home manager, and his scenes with Garlin have an easy rapport that makes their friendship easy to believe. Almost stealing the movie is character actress Mina Kolb, who plays James' pixilated mother with pluck and heart.<br /><br />There are also unexpected cameos from teen idol Aaron Carter and Gina Gershon (don't ask
but the set-up is funny), as well as sharply played bits by director Paul Mazursky (as the snaky director of a candid-camera-type show, "Smear Job"), Tim Kazurinsky (as the unsuspecting victim of that show) and Dan Castellaneta (as the tough-love convenience store owner). With his rueful bouts of insecurity and self-loathing, Garlin's comic sensibilities resemble those of Albert Brooks, and the casual dialogue at its best reminds me of "Modern Romance" and "Defending Your Life". The one persistent problem I had with the film is pacing as some scenes dragged out longer than necessary. The problem is more evident in the first half when Garlin is trying to establish the right tempo, and the lack of real conflict adds to the sluggishness. Regardless, what he does well is capture that gnawing sense of desperation one feels upon the revelation that life is not what it is supposed to be, that a significant other may be out of reach, and that a steady diet of junk food eaten on a car hood is the only sure thing when it comes to gratification. | 1 |
16,447 | [
600,
700
] | 548 | 689 | The first Disney animated film without the strong involvement of Disney himself, this film suffers from the fact that the story is not particularly original or interesting (this is, I believe, the only animated Disney film since the 1940's which is NOT based on an earlier book or other work, but is rather an original story). As others have noted, the plot is essentially a cross between the romance in Lady and the Tramp and the kidnapping/journey home story in 101 Dalmatians.<br /><br />But to overcome this flaw, the filmmakers have successfully used many of the better features of most of the Disney animated films of the previous 10-15 years: Phil Harris (from The Jungle Book) voicing one of the main characters, follows his duet with Louis Prima in the previous film with another here with Scatman Crothers. The quality visual look of this film is virtually carried over from "Dalmatians" (with some nice nods to French Impressionism, it appears), and the villain here (the butler) is strongly reminiscent of the henchmen in that film as well. (This is probably one of Disney's least memorable villains.) The main story goes back and forth between the cats, and the butler's ongoing difficulties with two rural hound dogs (with great voice work by Pat Buttram and George "Goober" Lindsey"). The various animal characters are similarly familiar to those who have seen "Tramp" and "Dalmatians." The cats' owner, while bearing a striking visual resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Sleeping Beauty, bears none of that character's nasty traits and comes across as very warm and generous.<br /><br />The real strength of the film is the voice work; after first going toward the use of mostly familiar actors in The Jungle Book, the tactic is continued strongly here with Disney veterans Harris and Sterling Holloway from The Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor (who would do a very similar character in the later film The Rescuers), as well as Crothers and Nancy Kulp. All are excellent here, particularly Harris and Gabor in the leads. The character animation is as excellent as one would expect, showing a variety of emotions well.<br /><br />Smaller children may be upset by a few brief episodes (an escape from the path of a speeding train, a near-drowning by one of the children), but these are not presented in a particularly frightening or dark manner and are over very quickly. Overall, there's very little of the type of more frightening scenes found in many other Disney classics.<br /><br />One minor oddity is the way some visual aspects of 60's culture are depicted among the jazz-performing cats in supposedly 1910 Paris; one can't help but wonder why the story wasn't set solidly in the present, other than the great deal Paris had changed much of its appearance in the intervening time. It really would have made more sense that way.<br /><br />The songs, while being pleasant and sometimes very enjoyably performed, are not particularly memorable. Nonetheless, the general energy applied here, the excellent voice work and fine animation all contribute to overcome the relatively few and minor weaknesses. Far from the greatness of classic "10"s such as Pinocchio or Aladdin, and not quite up to the "9"s one might give to Sleeping Beauty or 101 Dalmatians, this is probably a rather marginal 8 of 10; perhaps a 7. | 1 |
16,464 | [
600,
700
] | 486 | 614 | After seeing The Aristocats: Special Edition in a two pack with The Fox in the Hound, I decided to buy it since both of these films were childhood favourites.<br /><br />The Aristocats is a classic, definitely. It might not be a five-star classic, but it is a fun film and makes a good evening's entertainment. It is somewhat a light refreshment from the darker, more serious Disney classics. The Aristocats tries to be a light-hearted musical comedy, and I think it just about succeeds.<br /><br />The storyline doesn't really make much sense and I don't think the plot is particularly strong, but it is certainly not weak. The animation and backgrounds are a bit scratchy in places, typical of Disney's 70s films, but it does have a rustic, old fashioned charm about it.<br /><br />The Aristocats strongest points are the characters, the music and the humour. The music is very memorable - try getting 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' out your head in a hurry! The songs are written by the Sherman Brothers, who also did the music for The Jungle Book. There was one song called 'She Never Felt Alone' that was going to be in the film, but sadly didn't make it into the final feature. It is a shame, because I think it would have fit in very well.<br /><br />The characters are unforgettable. Thomas O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris, and is basically Baloo in a feline form. Eva Gabor gives Duchess this warm and maternal feel and the kitten's voices actually sound like children, and not an actor imitating the voice of a child. The secondary characters are here by the dozen and yet you still end up understanding their personalities. Edgar, the 'villainous' butler plays a similar role to Cruella De Vil, but he's more comical than scary, often ending up in funny situations. Even though he's the bad guy, he's still lovable all the same.<br /><br />The two British geese - Abigail and Amelia really had me cracking up, along with their crazy (and drunk) uncle. I also like the dogs, who tend to argue over who is 'the leader.' I could go on, but I won't spoil it. But I can tell you, The Aristocats is funny and will entertain everyone without having to resort to rudimentary toilet humour.<br /><br />The bottom line - The Aristocats might not be Disney's crowning achievement, or even their strongest film from the 70s (that award is a tie between The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Whinnie the Pooh). But it is an enjoyable romp and is sure to entertain. If you are looking for a dazzling work of art, you might be better off watching Bambi. But if you want a fun night in, The Aristocats is the way to go. It is a charming and lovable film and it's impossible to dislike. Enjoy! (And besides, it's good to have a film where cats aren't seen as the villains). | 1 |
16,531 | [
600,
700
] | 526 | 643 | For all those people who believe the dialog is worth something, and who appreciate a farce that is clever enough for you to take it seriously, this movie will surprise you. It is not a 'whodunit' for people who can't aren't able to follow the verbal exchange of our hero, Professor Dexter Cornell (Dennis Quaid).<br /><br />Cornell teaches in Southern California, near the tar pits. He has not published a novel in four years, his wife is divorcing him, he drinks a bit much, and is blessed or cursed with caustic wit, which he freely dispenses to his students. He has recommended a friend for advancement, and one bright young student has submitted a manuscript to him as an independent project. Cornell doesn't even want to read it, so gives it an "A", and pushes it to the side. Leaning back with a drink in his office he stares out the window, when the bright young student falls past his window on the way to meeting the sidewalk in a splat encounter.<br /><br />Hal comes to talk, and they chat, drinking some more. The Cornell realizes that he HAS to read the manuscript, now. When he goes home, his wife is waiting with divorce papers. He drinks some more. She leaves, and he goes to a faculty affair, only to find her there. He drinks even more. And when his wife learns that the student is dead, she swoons, and he learns that she had been having an affair with the student. This of course prompts him to do some more serious drinking. The next morning he wakes up to find himself in the dorm room of one of his students, a freshman named Syd (Meg Ryan).<br /><br />He feels worse than a hangover, goes to the doctor and learns that he has been poisoned, it is irreversible, and he has 24-48 hours to live. He doesn't have much time to find out who killed him, and there are sub-plots, motives, relationships and surprises at every turn, although everything makes sense at the end. All his discoveries and exchanges are adorned with sarcasm, dry wit and keen observations. Let's just say that this movie will give new meaning to the adage "publish or perish".<br /><br />There are no bad performances in this movie. There are recurrent images, and symbolism used at careful intervals. Watch for the cracked glass, and images distorted through glass. Some of the camera shots are revolutionary for 1988, and some of the violent action is carefully and skillfully choreographed. The music is unobtrusive and appropriate, although occasionally it makes it's own statement, in song lyrics. The visuals in this flick are impressive.<br /><br />If there are any failures, it is that the opening 20 minutes move a little slow, and nearly puts you to sleep. But the pacing picks up quickly, with just the right amount of exposition in between action segments.<br /><br />There are no explicit sexual encounters, although there is violence and some bad language.<br /><br />This is a writer's movie, and is best appreciated by those who have a sense of humor about their own success or failure. I do think if you take it seriously, you're already in big trouble. | 1 |
16,544 | [
600,
700
] | 485 | 625 | Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a "blaxsploitation film". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.<br /><br />For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist! <br /><br />Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.<br /><br />Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.<br /><br />The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a cliché and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.