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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14,792 | [
700,
800
] | 608 | 792 | Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles. Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances. Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway staging.<br /><br />There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a "stand and sing" quality, and while both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast.<br /><br />Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients "go to their graves impeccably shaved." The overall cast is quite fine and although the film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In 1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one, however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a 1973 version by Christopher Bond.<br /><br />The story is very Grand Guignol, with a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time, however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music.<br /><br />Like the "concert version" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film version, most particularly the opening "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd," which runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
14,934 | [
700,
800
] | 616 | 765 | Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), called Ale for short, works at an auto-body repair shop in what has come to be known as the Iron Triangle, a deteriorating twenty block stretch of auto junk yards and sleazy car repair dealers close to Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Here customers do not question whether or not parts come from stolen cars or why they are able to receive such large discounts, they simply put down their cash and hope that everything is on the up and up. Sleazy outskirts like these are not highlighted in the tour guides but Iranian-American director Ramin Bahrani puts them on vivid display in Chop Shop, a powerful Indie film that received much affection last year at Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. A follow up to his acclaimed "Man Push Cart", Bahrani spent one and a half years in the location that F. Scott Fitzgerald described as in the Great Gatsby as "the valley of the ashes".<br /><br />For all its depiction of bleakness, Chop Shop is not a work of social criticism but, like Hector Babenco's Pixote, a poignant character study in which a young boy's survival is bought at the price of his innocence. Shot on location at Willets Point in Queens, Bahrani makes you feel as if you are there, sweating in a hot and humid New York summer with all of its noise and chaos. The film's focus is on the charming, street-smart 12-year-old Ale who lives on the edge without any adult support or supervision other than his boss (Rob Sowulski), the real-life proprietor of the Iron Triangle garage. Polanco's performance is raw and slightly ragged yet he fully earned the standing ovation he received at the film's premiere at Cannes along with a hug from great Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami.<br /><br />Cramped into a tiny room above the garage together with his 16-year-old sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who works dispensing food from a lunch wagon, Ale is like one of the interchangeable spare parts he deals with. While he has dreams of owning his own food-service van, in the city that never sleeps, he knows that the only thing that may make the "top of the heap" is another dented fender. In this environment, Ale and Isi use any means necessary to keep their heads above water while their love for each other remains constant and they still laugh and act out the childhood that was never theirs. As Barack Obama says in his book "Dreams From My Father", the change may come later when their eyes stop laughing and they have shut off something inside. In the meantime, Ale supplements his earnings by selling candy bars in the crowded New York subways with his friend Carlos (Carlos Zapata) and pushing bootleg DVDs on the street corners, while Isi does tricks for the truck drivers to save enough money to buy the rusted $4500 van in which they hope to start their own business.<br /><br />Though Ale is a "good boy", he is not above stealing purses and hubcaps in the Shea Stadium parking lot, events that Bahrani's camera observes without judgment. In Chop Shop, Bahrani has provided a compelling antidote to the underdog success stories churned out by the Hollywood dream factory, and has given us a film of stunning naturalism and respect for its characters, similar in many ways to the great Italian neo-realist films and the recent Iranian works of Kiarostami, Panahi, and others. While the outcome of the characters is far from certain, Bahrani makes sure that we notice a giant billboard at Shea Stadium that reads, "Make dreams happen", leaving us with the hint that, in Rumi's phrase, "the drum of the realization of that promise is beating," | 1 |
14,999 | [
700,
800
] | 648 | 756 | My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.<br /><br />The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).<br /><br />The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.<br /><br />I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.<br /><br />As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.<br /><br />I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for. | 1 |
15,010 | [
700,
800
] | 700 | 783 | Set in a California detention camp in an indistinct future, an English film crew capture proceedings as young students and political dissidents are put on trial under a fictional 'Insurrection Act' that allows the United States government to suspend civil liberties for its own citizens in cases of emergency without the right to bail or the necessity of evidence. In such cases the government is authorised to apprehend and detain anyone they believe may engage in future activities of sabotage. The group on trial includes a feminist, a black panther and a folk singer.<br /><br />Those convicted by the a Conservative tribunal have the choice of a lengthy prison sentence or three days in Punishment Park, in which they can attain their freedom by reaching an American flag in the desert. They must accomplish this without food or water. They are also to be pursued by armed National Guards and police who can return them to the camp if captured to face the penal sentence attributed to each person convicted. The reality is different; those that choose Punishment Park are hunted and killed or brutalised with no hope of gaining their freedom after a policeman is found dead in the park. The park seems to be a training ground for the police and guards who need to master these acts of suppression so they can be put to use in open American society.<br /><br />Shot on 16mm and in the documentary style developed by Watkins, in his celebrated Culloden and the controversial The War Game for the BBC; he interacts with the prisoners and guards and observes the unconstitutional trial, inter cutting between them to create a totally convincing political movie that still remains vital and relevant. Using his knowledge of the medium, Watkins has produced a driving, relentless and ultimately frightening film portrayal of an entirely fictional American political detention camp that would not convince if it wasn't for his flawless construction. Many of the actors are amateurs improvising with broad characters. The sparks fly in the trial scenes in which each case is heard, in part to the fact that Watkins kept those on trial away from the jury until the filming of those scenes. Watkins also claims that the actors are often expressing their own opinions which certainly explain the ferocity as well as the believability of their performances.<br /><br />The film has been heavily criticised for polarising the opinions of those that see it. It has been claimed that the film is reactionary and unequivocally represents that conservatism and war are the root of America's social problems. While these criticisms may be valid it is important to consider that the film is working on a fictional, metaphorical level and it is perhaps the realism that the film so cleverly constructs that encourages such a heated opinion on its content. In fact the films most important theme is the problem of polarisation itself. The 'conservative' judges and brutal law officers are on one side and the 'liberal' convicts are clearly on the other with no concessions made on either side. This seems to be what the movie is really about. The new law and the park itself is the outgrowth of a situation where mediation between the two political positions has been lost.<br /><br />Made during and in protest to the Vietnam War and the treatment of those who opposed the war in America the films main themes of Governmental persecution of its own citizens and Conservatism impinging on civil liberties still strike the same chord in the era of the Patriot act and the identity card. It also strikes a disturbing chord with news footage of Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Allied forces.<br /><br />The threat of internal 'terrorism' is such a volatile issue that the film cannot fail to connect with current attitudes to the subject. Not surprisingly the film has had a checkered distribution history, being marginalised to an extreme due to its content but the disturbing fact that this movie is that can still remain so relevant today suggests that the wait has not been for nothing. Punishment Park is a film that has had to fight to be seen anywhere and it demands your attention. | 1 |
15,081 | [
700,
800
] | 571 | 705 | Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience. | 1 |
15,092 | [
700,
800
] | 585 | 745 | 2001: A Space Odyssey <br /><br />Is it a sermon? An account of the history of mankind? An exploration of man's futile attempts to advance technology only to have technology destroy him? Is it about the fragile balance of time and space? A lesson in evolution? Or is it just a spectacular effects show; a film Kubrick made only to show us the limitless possibilities of the motion picture and present to us the truth that images are exceedingly more powerful than words? <br /><br />2001: A Space Odyssey is all of these things. One of the most interpretable films ever created, it's almost more fun to dissect and discuss the ambiguous plot design and events of the film, than it is to actually watch. But it's left open to discussion intentionally; if Kubrick had explained the meaning to his wondrous 1968 classic (ranked #22 on AFI's list of the greatest 100 films ever made, my personal 21st favorite filmcurrently--, and nominated for 4 Academy Awards: Director, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, and Visual Effects which it won for) it would have lost half its fascination, all of its complexity, and a good portion of its cinematic worth. We would only be left with the technical ingenuity; which in itself is worth praising.<br /><br />Because every shot is worth taking the time to look. And there is plenty of time. 2001 is very elegiac, and also coolly distant; detached. The emotional remoteness and slow pace pay perfect tribute however to the unique visual experience; 2001 begins with mankind's ape ancestors, who upgrade from scavengers of the planet to hunters and toolmakers after discovering a giant monolith in the midst of their desert home, then (in one of motion picture history's most inspired jump-cut edits) as a bone is tossed into the air and becomes a satellite, jumping forward a couple thousand years into space, where astronauts have discovered a similar object on the moon, and next the film following a crew of space traveler's mission as they follow the monolith's signal through space, accompanied by their untrustworthy computer HAL, who attempts to sabotage the shuttle and kill the crew, before finally the lone survivor is launched through space and time (in a flurry of drug-induced colors that probably gave hippies an epileptic shock back in the day) to grow old, die, and be reborn a "Star-child". Whew.<br /><br />This pacing and emotional blankness, is also in sharp contrast with the film's most ironic scene; the destruction of HAL. As the crew's final explorer shuts the machine down, bathed in the holy aura of red light Kubrick has always used as a repeat motif, HAL singing a lovely tune, it is a strangely emotional experience. And it's all genius.<br /><br />Other notable aspects of Kubrick's masterpiece is the memorable voice of HAL (a calm, somehow sinister, Douglas Rain), the minimal use of dialogue (Kubrick was wisely trusting of his images to propel the film; giving only banal, unhelpful lines to his actors. The most famous being "Open the pod bay doors HAL"), satellites dancing around in orbit to unorthodox music, and that first, awe-inspiring shot of earth; slowly revealing the glare of the sun in front of it, played to the sound of blasting, triumphant horns.<br /><br />2001 shall always remain a mystery, and will forever be a testament to the cinema's strongest point: visuals are more powerful than writing. It's all from one of film history's most legendary and best directors, whose unique vision, was always his own. 10/10 <br /><br />"Open the pod bay doors HAL"-2001: A Space Odyssey | 1 |
15,094 | [
700,
800
] | 626 | 776 | There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.<br /><br />I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.<br /><br />There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.<br /><br />The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.<br /><br />(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.<br /><br />I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.<br /><br />What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.<br /><br />If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.<br /><br />But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life. | 1 |
15,125 | [
700,
800
] | 561 | 704 | I watched this episode a lot of times because I didn't get how Prue died. This is what happened. Prue, Piper, and Phoebe try and save their innocent,A Doctor, because Shax wants to kill him. Phoebe goes upstairs to look in The Book Of Shadows while Prue and Piper are protecting their innocent. Shax appears while Phoebe is still upstairs, so Shax throw an energy ball at the doctor but Prue pushes him out of the way and Prue get hit in the chest with it and smashes against the wall, same with Piper. So Phoebe comes downstairs and says the spell, since it was only Phoebe who said it and not the power of three Shax only got wounded. Phoebes calls Leo to heal Piper and Prue. So Leo heals them. Phoebe went into the Underworld to find Cole, meanwhile Prue and Piper are looking for Shax in the streets. Piper and Prue see Shax and Piper uses her Power to Blow up Shax, meanwhile a New reporter got it all on tape. So its all over the new about the three powerful Halliwell sisters, meanwhile Phoebe doesn't know anything because she is still in the Underworld. There's Repoters and people all over the Halliwell house. Then a maniac comes in the house and says "Can I be Part Of Your Coven?" and Prue says "No this is our house get out of here!" and Prue uses her powers to throw her out. As the maniac come out of the house crying saying "There Mean Witches". The maniac gets so mad that she shoots Piper right through the stomach. Prue get in her car and trays to go to the hospital but people won't let her through ,so Prue uses her powers to move people out of the way, making people wanna kill her more. They got to the hospital but Piper didn't make it. Meanwhile Phoebe is in the Underworld.Phoebe finds out that they have been exposed, so Phoebe asks Cole to ask the source if he can reverse time.The Source says he will only reverse time if Phoebe promises to stay here in The Underworld, so Cole told Phoebe what the source told him. Phoebe says "What would Make him think i would make a deal like that?" and then Cole says, "So you can save one of your sisters lives." Leo goes to the hospital to find out the Piper really is dead so he tells Phoebe that its true. Then Phoebe agrees to stay only if Cole will go back to warn Piper and Prue about the exposer and death of Piper. Back at the hospital SWAT is about the shoot Prue, but the second before they do time is rewound back when they were at the manor with the doctor but this time Phoebe wasn't there to call Leo to heal Prue and Piper, so the doctor get throw in the wall too. The doctor died and so did Prue. But this is what I didn't get, if Piper was throw against the wall too how come only Prue died? Why did they not show Leo come and heal Piper and Leo trying to heal Prue? If you know the answer please e-mail me at angelpuss924@yahoo.com PS. I miss Prue but I like Paige too and i'm glad the show continued | 1 |
15,167 | [
700,
800
] | 570 | 745 | If ever a potential movie must've sounded like it wouldn't work based on reading the script on paper, it would be this one. Here we have what seemingly looks like a lurid and seedy soft-porn s&m flick, complete with the huge in-theatre poster, depicting a near-naked Christina Ricci chained to none other than Mr. Bad Ass MF himself, Samuel Jackson. But let me tell you, if ever a film springs to life on celluloid major big time with soulful power to spare, it's Craig Brewer's redemptive follow-up to Hustle & Flow, Black Snake Moan.<br /><br />Unashamedly over the top from the get go, this film sucks you in with the opening scenes and proceeds to dig deeper and deeper in with every subsequent frame. It's yer basic story of two deeply damaged characters who find in each other the strength and courage to move on, in more positive ways, with their lives. Been done before, of course, this tale, but as I've always said, it's the manner in which a story is told that gives it heart, depth, meaning and power.<br /><br />Ricci's damaged-by-childhood-abuse wild-child character Rae and Jackson's equally soulsick musician character Lazarus find each other under desperate circumstances, and Laz takes it upon himself to try to help Rae. This in itself is relatively unique: the idea of a man trying to genuinely help a woman who is in serious pain, rather than trying to take further advantage of her, and we know from the onset that Laz's heart, and the film's heart, is in the right place. The movie at its core is about the redemptive, healing power of love (with music as a very close second), and the film resonates profoundly with this truth - soulfully, artfully and brilliantly.<br /><br />A major reason the film succeeds so profoundly is because of the fierce, committed performances from Ricci and Jackson. Scenes that would have come off as laughable and pathetic in lesser artists' hands are, instead, powerful as all get-out. In particular, the film's arc scene, in which Jackson sings and plays the song of the title alone in his house, with Ricci, amidst a serious thunderstorm and the abusive demons from Rae's past running amok inside her head, leading her to crawl to Lazarus and cling to his leg, comes off not ridiculous as technically it should, but rather as gut-wrenchingly cathartic. <br /><br />All the supporting performances are fantastic here too. Justin Timberlake is completely believable as Rae's anxiety-ridden boyfriend Ronnie, and the always-wonderful S. Epatha Merkerson is also perfectly cast as a character who obviously has feelings for Lazarus. John Cothran Jr. is outstanding as well, as Laz's reverend friend R.L. (a nod to blues musician R. L. Burnside, no doubt). Everything works about this movie, let's face it, including the music/soundtrack, which features Burnside, Scott Bomar, Bobby Rush, Son House, and most importantly, Jackson himself, whose fantastic version of Stackolee I am listening to as I compose this review. There's also a really beautiful and moving version of "This Little Light of Mine" featured in the film, sung heart-breakingly tentative and soft by Ricci.<br /><br />Samuel Jackson has said in recent interviews that he believes his performance in this movie is the best of his career thus far; I could not agree with him more. This is work that he can be monumentally proud of, along with everyone else involved in this audacious, supremely wise and deeply heartfelt mother*ucker of a project. | 1 |
15,201 | [
700,
800
] | 598 | 727 | One of the biggest French success of the year 2002, "l'auberge espagnole" was also very well greeted abroad which is quite extraordinary for a French film. It is not difficult to define the reasons of this success. This movie made by one of the most interesting French film-makers of these last years, Cédric Klapisch, presents students coming from all over Europe and gathered all together under the same roof in Barcelona. These students are described like the ones you imagine or you see in everyday life: either untidy, either serious or with a sense of humor. I guess that if the movie worked so well, it is because a lot of students must have recognized themselves in the main characters' portraits and especially Xavier's.<br /><br />We follow the movie and so his experience abroad as an Erasmus student through his eyes. Xavier is really an ordinary student with his qualities, his faults. An intelligent making with quite a lot of ingenious ideas perfectly expresses his lost mind and his anxiety about the world and being an Erasmus student. On that subject, the best examples can be found in two sequences. The first one is when Xavier asks a woman at university for the papers he has to send to prepare his DEA. When the same woman informs him about the different necessary procedures, all the papers appear on the screen when she is naming them! In the next sequence, Xavier's voice-over confides to the spectator his vision of the modern world. Now, where to find the second example? Well, the scene where Xavier has a thorough medical examination during which Klapisch films his visions is widely sufficient to speak of itself.<br /><br />Moreover, the director wasn't really interested by his main character's studies. He left this point low-key. He rather put a lot of effort into Xavier's private life, of course, in his love affair with Anne Sophie but also and especially in his relations with his fellow tenants. It is a real friendship story that Klapisch shows us with its moments of happiness but also its arguments and its tensions. Through Xavier's adventure and at the end of his stay, he will have been initiated into life which will make him more mature. The message that the author wanted to transmit isn't difficult to guess. You naively believe that you live in an untidy and complicated world. You mustn't give up but intensively search to get what you want even if it is difficult.<br /><br />Apart from this, we could also fear that with the topic, Cédric Klapisch wouldn't avoid a trap: the clichés. Let's be frank about it: they are included in the screenplay but the director does his best not to spread them too much in his movie. Then, the screenplay contains convenient and predictable moments: at the airport and before boarding we see Xavier shedding a tear after he left his family. But fortunately the shortcomings of the script stop here. Quite funny dialogs and cool young actors perfectly at ease in their roles make up the whole.<br /><br />In spite of its weaknesses, "l'auberge espagnole" is to be taken for a success in the movie of young people. Besides, the whole atmosphere it brings out lets us think that this movie is directed primarily to a young audience. Ultimately, the end of the movie and its big success let us suggest that Klapisch succumbed to a fashion that goes right for American cinema: the elaboration of sequels. And indeed, the film-maker currently works on a sequel entitled "les poupées russes". Let's hope that it will be as good as "l'auberge espagnole". | 1 |
15,335 | [
700,
800
] | 555 | 768 | Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.<br /><br />The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.<br /><br />The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.<br /><br />In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.<br /><br />This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt. | 1 |
15,398 | [
700,
800
] | 590 | 770 | With Nurse Betty (2000), acclaimed indie film-maker Neil LaBute (In the Company of Men, Your Friends & Neighbors) makes his breakthrough into the big-budgeted (Betty's $24 million as opposed to Company's measly $25,000), mainstream realm -- and yet remains true to his roots. While his cast is now composed of A-list Hollywood names (Renee Zellweger, Morgan Freeman, and stand-up comedian Chris Rock), his material remains just as bizarre and quirky as his first two features, proving that he just may be the next big thing. Nurse Betty is one of the darkest comedies to be advertised towards a mainstream audience in years, and considering its moderate box office and critical success, perhaps moviegoers weren't as dumb and brainwashed as we though they were. The story follows (both figuratively AND literally) a naive waitress (Zellweger) who has fallen in love from afar with a handsome soap star (As Good As It Gets's Greg Kinnear) but is trapped in a loveless marriage to a slimy car dealer (Aaron Eckhart, who made his big-screen debut in Company). When her husband is gruesomely murdered by two hitmen (Freeman and Rock), she's sent into shock and obliviously sets out for Hollywood to meet her object of affection -- unaware that he's only an actor. When Freeman and Rock discover that the car she took contains 10 kilos of cocaine, they hit the road as well and outrageousness ensues. Fans of LaBute's previous work might have a hard time figuring out how this could possibly be the same guy who directed In the Company of Men -- a tragicomedy about two cruel sexist pigs who play a practical joke on a deaf co-worker --, but when you think about it, the connection is rather clear: in Company, a vulnerable woman is unaware that she is being ruthlessly taken advantage of. In Betty, a vulnerable housewife is unaware that the man she's chasing thinks her genuine adoration is nothing more than a joke. Some might begin to wonder if LaBute is really some sort of misogynist himself -- considering that his recurring theme involves the downfall of innocent women. But personally, I think he's coming to the defense of the fair sex and dealing far more harshly with the abusers in his pictures than the abused. One of the many charms of this film is that it's absurdity is full-fledged: most directors, when handling a script such as this one, would leave the story at two hitmen chasing a woman chasing a dream. But LaBute knows better, and has one of the hitmen (Freeman) fall obsessively for Betty as well. This was an interesting role for Freeman to take, because it allowed him to play off of his trademark `this-is-the-last-time' character (see Unforgiven, Se7en, and 1998's stinker Hard Rain); the supporting cast also includes the likes of famed weirdo Crispin Glover (Back to the Future), Allison Janney, and `Mad About You's Kathleen Wilhoite. The script, written by first-timers John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is deliriously over-the-top (honestly: have you ever seen a comedy -- or ANY movie, for that matter -- in which a man is scalped in his own dining room?). You could argue that the ending is a little too perfect, but it's really not worth denying everything that's great about the film for one trivial complaint. If Nurse Betty is any sign of what LaBute has in store for us next, you can bet that I'll be lining up for whatever he decides to follow it up with.<br /><br />Grade: A- | 1 |
15,472 | [
700,
800
] | 581 | 777 | I saw this movie for the first time a little over a year ago. I've seen it 4 more times since. I had never heard of it before and I consider myself knowledgeable of classic cinema. A true, polished, diamond in the rough.<br /><br />This gem of a movie revolves around Jon Voight (lead character "Conrack") as a young schoolteacher assigned to Yamacraw Island to teach the islands' children, all in one school. At first, the students reveal they know very little of the world beyond their island home. The heart of the movie is Conrack finding inspiration to awaken their young minds to the world around them. The students quickly reward their teacher with an eagerness to learn and a remarkable ability to grasp concepts that, only a short time before, had been foreign to them. Conrack uses unconventional and clever teaching techniques that happen to be, oh a little fun! God forbid. Learning AND fun? Together? Can't be, or so says the ones in charge. To avoid a spoiler, I shall just say that Conrack finds resistance with the boss man....and the ending is truly bittersweet.<br /><br />I am a 35 year old white male with some teaching experience, so I should identify with the lead character, Pat Conroy (aka, Conrack, Mr. Petroy). But I don't, I identify with the black kids. As a kid, I was bussed to the school on the other side of town from the 4th to the 6th grade, circa 1979. These kids in the movie remind me of my classmates then. Luckily, in 4th grade as a 8 or 9 year old, one doesn't understand racism. I just remember we were all being kids, playing 4-square, kickball, hide-and-seek, and running relays.<br /><br />This movie is very moving. There are delightful and poignant moments from beginning to end, non-stop. I found myself many times with tears in my eyes, then suddenly laughing out loud. It's a funny movie.<br /><br />"Git away from that winda!!".... "Sir, if you're prepared to accept crap, I should tell you that rabbit just did it in your lap."..... "So, you the white schoolteacher, Mr. Conrack. My grands LOVE Mr. Conrack. You a good looking teacher, you a good looking white man."..... "wind 15 mph from the east. Small boat warning. Small boats beware. Big boats OK, don't gotta worry 'bout nothing.".... "not a fry cook, but Eleanor Roosevelt, not a share-cropper, but (something Latin)...that's Latin..hey wait!".... "Conrack sing like a frog....I sing good, whatcha talkin' 'bout?!".<br /><br />It still mystifies me that I still hear nothing about this movie or that it has very little reputation or following. I intend to seek out more reviews, comments, background, and "making of" tidbits, if they are out there. What amazes me is the acting given from the untrained kids. One of the kids, Mary, I understand was an actress, and you can tell. However, the other kids have plenty of lines and genuine reactions. I wonder how they did it! I'm guessing that Conrack and Mary had precise dialogue to work with while some of the scenes unfold naturally or ad-libbed.<br /><br />Conrack is a special movie. In my opinion, it is one of the very few movies that are so good AND so unknown. Others in that category are King Rat ('65), Dark Passage ('47 with Bogie and Bacall), Gods Must Be Crazy ('80), and Bad Day at Black Rock ('55). I recommend them all. But first, take a seat in the class of Mr. Conrack. | 1 |
15,531 | [
700,
800
] | 603 | 770 | Well.....I wouldn't want to lecture anybody but I do feel the urge to say some things I consider important about this BEAUTIFUL film. I saw it for the first time in 1976 (I was 14) and then one more time a year later. That was it. The rest of it was the pink LP of Elton John's soundtrack getting the music and the story deeper and deeper inside my heart. How deep? A week ago my cousin gave me a VHS copy as a present. (No DVD's yet). Boy....was I surprised!! Poets have always sustained that deep childhood and adolescent experiences of beauty, love, God, idealist pursuits, stay with you forever. Since they occur mostly at the heart's level (no intellect yet!), they define your soul's contours like a sculptor would do with a stone. If sometimes we didn't tend to forget how right they are perhaps we would do better in understanding the meaning of every minute, of every decision, of every turning point of our lives. <br /><br />So, I confess I feel nostalgia. But the fascinating part of this is watching the film again, and through this trip back in time, enriching that understanding of why we, people from the 60's, grew up as we did. The spirit of those times is all here: a Genesis created far from the official world of consuming and economic success, make love not war, the beautiful pop ballads, the poetry of the lyrics, a totally romantic view of adolescent rebellion with the awakening of sexuality carefully wrapped in tender and chaste love, these two lonely spirits still full of childhood innocence growing together as they learn mutual commitment and turning into "adults". <br /><br />I showed the film to a group of school youngsters and they abounded with such simplistic and cynical comments regarding it as naïve and foolish. Guys, be serious!! Cinema is an art and as art it reflects not only human emotions but historical moments. And this is exactly what "Friends" does in a masterly way. It reflects an idyllic idea of rebellion and new beginning we all dreamt about when we were 15. I'm now a musician and I feel some of us, artists for that matter, still dream about it!! How else could we live? That's "Friends", that's "Brother Sun Sister Moon", that's "Hair". Those were the times, still alien to AIDS, alien to explicit and vulgar texts in pop songs with no melody, to pornography presented as "sexuality", to this barbaric new "world order" growing after September 11th. <br /><br />What a heart warming experience to see Paul and Michelle again, timidly and tenderly exploring the new fantasies of their romantic world. What a trip back to the very core of our hearts: to Paris, to Elton John at his best, to that urban scenario surrounded by 2 CV Citroëns and the VW Beetles. What a fresh air from the peaceful cottage in Camargue, surrounded by fishing ponds and wild horses. They made us who we are, as did Serrat in Spain, Brel in France, Peter Paul and Mary, Joan Baez, Luther King, the Beatles, the early Bee Gees, Belafonte's Spirituals, Gandhi, the Gospel of Elvis. <br /><br />People still hoping: get this picture. Start with innocence and grow from there. You'll find out what it's all about. And from there you'll have a solid and more truthful foundation; some ideals to look for in life, a way to handle personal and world affairs. We need so much of this today! Give yourselves the chance and maybe someday the time of cynics will end. (I have an extra VHS copy)<br /><br />Santiago Zuleta. Bogotá, Colombia. | 1 |
15,602 | [
700,
800
] | 658 | 786 | For me, the Tempest and its characters (by which I mean the admirable ones) are like old friends. Ever since I first began to experience the play through acting classes (I played Ferdinand) I found myself immediately caught up in the fantastic world that Shakespeare created. I can distinctly remember one student deciding not to play Ferdinand after all, and so I took the stage and had the honor of playing opposite an excellent Miranda.<br /><br />One of the virtues that a great friend has is that you can never fully know them - there is always something you can discover about their character. A film production of the Tempest of quality is thus like a visit to an old friend, dear to one's heart: each visit presents one with new perspective on the memory we had of the work. With Prospero's Books, the ritual and the elegance of the play was emphasized, the exuberant celebration of art within the art. Here, we see a vision as esoteric mysticism, with lovingly crafted interiors full of candles and chalk diagrams on floors, more Aleister Crowley than Naples nobleman. It also made me reconsider - why was it that Prospero was cast out of Naples? His magical power is so palpable in this production that it makes one wonder whether it was just politics that doomed Prospero to exile, but rather the fact of his difference from his peers. So, in the real world, he suffered. Was cast out, powerless to change the wrong to the right. All of the villains in this play, whether they realize it or not, act in accordance to creating a more pain-filled, hell of a world - it is always in the interest of the oppressor to make life on Earth closer to hell. But Prospero manages to bring these terrestrial villains into his island, the realm where he has (absolute) dominion.<br /><br />Shakespeare brings his audience to the theater, the realm where Shakespeare dictates the events, the words, the outcomes. Shakespeare is, of course, Prospero - but what this film adaptation does that really honors the text is to make Prospero so sympathetic such a figure of reason, despite the fact that he is surrounded by what society calls irrational (astrological texts, alchemical symbols, magical diagrams, etc.). Is it more rational to be a man of the cloth and murder, or to be a heretic and work towards the righting of wrongs? Prospero IS a heretic, for the reason he abandons his magic is not because the books will lose their value in Naples, but because they are not necessary anymore - the world itself - has become the magic of the books.<br /><br />In Hamlet, Hamlet presents a play to his peers. The play accuses his fellows of conspiring against others for their own advancement. The reaction of the audience varies: while Ophelia is puzzled, Claudius reacts with stunned shock. This happens within the play, and then Shakespeare has this play performed for the men of his time. Did Shakespeare watch for their reactions? In the tempest, Prospero lives the play he is constructing, and we live it with him. How do we react? Do you react with simple delight at the happy ending? Are you upset and shocked by the strangeness of this production, which is entirely fitting given the source material? Do you feel sad at the fact that this little life, the play, is rounded with a sleep, as transient as it is eternal? The tragedy is that Shakespeare creates a paradise of reason and hope for mankind's life on Earth but man is weak, and unwilling to realize it in favor of petty power struggles. We have Claudiuses.<br /><br />Like a good friend, this film is not without its flaws. I disagree with the choice to paint some scenes entirely in blue. The dance of the mariners is rather tangential. But at the heart this is truly The Tempest, and one of its many faces. | 1 |
15,635 | [
700,
800
] | 593 | 738 | This little picture succeeds where many a big picture fails. Because it was a little picture, John Ford was not harassed by the studio big wigs. He was happier with this film than any other because he was able to do it his way. He was also able to use his repertoire of gifted character actors that had played such an important role in his past successes. Some of them such as Ben Johnson had been discovered by Ford and given opportunity to show their talents. Johnson was recruited by Ford because he was an authentic cowboy from Oklahoma who usually did his own stunt work. Years later he would win the coveted Academy Award for his brilliant performance in "The Last Picture Show." Ward Bond even outshines Ben Johnson in this movie. He is not the wagon master, that role is played by Johnson, but because of this movie he was later given the role of wagon master in the classic television series "Wagon Train." Ironically one of the bad guys in "Wagon Master," James Arness, would star in the hit television series "Gunsmoke" on a rival network to "Wagon Train." Ward Bond plays the leader of the Mormons heading west who often backslides to his sinning days by cussing only to be called down by fellow Mormon Adam Perkins (Russell Simpson). When any bothersome situation arises Elder Wiggs (Ward Bond) yells, "Blow your horn, Sister Ledeyard!" The Mormon sister, played to perfection by Jane Darwell, then blows so hard and loud that even the devil must have been shaken by the sound. Darwell and Simpson were famous for playing Ma and Pa Joad in Ford's classic version of the John Steinbeck novel "The Grapes of Wrath."<br /><br />Another of the great character actors in Ford's company was Hank Worden, who plays one of Uncle Shiloh Clegg's notoriously mean but not too bright outlaw sons. Worden would become famous a few years later for playing Mose in Ford's "The Searchers." Worden lived to be 91. He was still making movies when he died.<br /><br />The wagon master Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and his partner Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) are horse traders who never take their job seriously, having a lot of fun along the way, especially with the local sheriff. They get mixed up with a Mormon wagon train heading west. Ford's beloved Monument Valley is the setting for most of the film. The main reason for the teaming is a redheaded Mormon beauty Prudence Perkins (Kathleen O'Malley) who catches Sandy's eye. Along the way the train picks up a hoochie coochie show which includes a charlatan doctor (Alan Mowbray) and two soiled angels (Joanne Dru and Ruth Clifford). Also joining up along the way is the Clegg family, wanted for murder and armed robbery. Ford shows how arduous a journey west by wagon was in those days. <br /><br />The songs in the film were written by Stan Jones of the legendary Sons of the Pioneers. Jones' writing was almost as good as that of Bob Nolan, who had previously done much of the writing for the group. Jones' most famous song, not in this film, is the much recorded "Ghost Riders In The Sky." The Sons of the Pioneers do the background singing in "Wagon Master." This adds to the overall impact of wagons rolling west.<br /><br />It should also be noted that the acclaimed Native American athlete Jim Thorpe from Oklahoma plays the role of a Navajo leader. This was his last film appearance. He died not long after "Wagon Master" was released. | 1 |
15,680 | [
700,
800
] | 575 | 734 | It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the "creation" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth", images he's been out for his whole career.<br /><br />One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.<br /><br />I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular "art-films" ever made. | 1 |
15,707 | [
700,
800
] | 611 | 781 | Claire Booth Luce's "The Women" shows relationships with men through a woman's point of view in a play, (and 1939 film that also has Joan Crawford playing a bitch: a character who might have been Amanda Farrow 20 years before), that has no male characters. Here we see the male characters and what a bunch they are. They use women like toys and throw them away, leaving the women to suffer. Ironically, the women in "The Women", perhaps because they are all we see, are shown in a less than favorable light, alternately silly and scheming, with the only "nice" one, (Norma Shearer), growing "claws" by the end. In "The Best of Everything" we see the men for the cads they are while the women are largely innocent and vulnerable.<br /><br />This is a film about women leaping from things. Diane Baker leaps from a car, (in perhaps the most absurd scene in cinema history, which is not in the book). Suzy Parker falls from a fire escape. The women in the film are leaping into the workplace, looking for success and love at the same time. Women would leap into the future and leave this type of soap opera behind in the next decade. But they would come back to it in the 80's and 90's through the novels of people like Sidney Sheldon and Judith Krantz, (although their trashier works aren't as good as this).<br /><br />The best thing about this film is the way it looks. I love the glossy cinemascope films of the 50's and 60's. They look so much better than the pixel-challenged home movies we've been making since, especially in the letterboxed version we see on TV, and the DVD, with the picture so clear you could walk into it. The look of the bevy of young beauties in it is also memorable. This film probably has more beautiful women in it than any other. It has a supermodel, (Suzy Parker), a beauty queen, (Myrna Hansen, who was not Miss America 1954 as Rona Jaffe says in the DVD commentary but rather Miss USA 1953, per the IMDb: but so what), and a Playboy playmate, (June Blair, from January 1957). My vote goes to Suzy, one of the astonishing beauties of all time. Her acting here isn't as awful as people pretend: they are just reacting, as people did then, to the sight of a supermodel, (the first, really), trying to act. Nobody seemed to care how well she did. Her role, that of an apparently worldly woman who turns out to be the most vulnerable, is the most complex in the bunch and she does just fine.<br /><br />The most touching thing about the film now is the age of the female leads at the time. Hope Lange was 27 when they filmed this in the spring of 1959. Diane Baker was 20. Suzy Parker was 26. Hope, who looked to be Grace Kelly's heir, never made it really big and wound up being Mrs. Muir on television and, per the IMDb, wound up living in a home with "crates for coffee tables" because she spent her money on causes she believed in before dying at age 72 in 2003. This film must have seemed a very distant and irrelevant memory to her by then. Baker, always a welcome face in 60's TV, (especially to Richard Kimble), and still active as an actress and acting coach, just turned 67. Parker found "the best of everything" with Bradford Dillman for 40 years before dying at age 70 the same year Lange did. But here they are, young, beautiful and ambitious for success and love, just like their characters. | 1 |
15,710 | [
700,
800
] | 543 | 712 | Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) is just killing time getting a job. Her real ambition is to marry Eddie and have a baby. <br /><br />April (Diane Baker) is too innocent to stay that way for long and falls in love too easily, a dangerous combo. <br /><br />Greg (Suzy Parker) is a go-getter and wants to be an actress. <br /><br />All three are doomed for dramatics in 'The Best of Everything', a 1959 soap opera/morality play/sometimes solid movie that is aging by the second.<br /><br />Set in the cut-throat world of paperback publishing, its not as trashy as "Valley of the Dolls" but not as vanilla as "Three Coins in the Fountain."<br /><br />The men in the mix - Brian Aherne, Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan and Robert Evans - are slick, well-dressed and no good, for the most part. Aherne is the resident sexual offender - will pinch anything walking by, and makes unwanted advances right and left. His character is offensive as hell, but its not played seriously at all. Harassment hadn't been discovered yet, I guess. Boyd works there, too, although you never see him actually doing anything. He's too busy being older, wiser and drunker. Evans is abroad just so Diane Baker can suffer in style - he's a rich kid who's gotten her in 'trouble' so instead of marrying her, as promised, he's taking her to get an 'operation.' <br /><br />Jourdan is a director who mistakenly has an affair with Parker. They share a fight scene which is fairly no-holds barred, in a movie like this anyway, but the scene is ultimately ruined by Parker's histronics. She ends up nearly stalking him, and she really didn't deserve such a lousy fate, her bad acting notwithstanding.<br /><br />Joan Crawford breathes fire as Amanda Farrow, the resident 'witch' who is automatically rude and dismissive of any of her legion of secretaries. Well they are younger, aren't they? Isn't that sufficient reason to hate a person? Caroline doesn't think so, as she admirably stands up to Miss Farrow every chance she gets. Crawford only gets to let loose once, when she tells her married boyfriend 'you can your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell' and slams down the phone. You never get to see the poor soul who dare crosses her. <br /><br />Martha Hyer's 'storyline', as it were, is extremely weak, and she is painfully over-the-top as an unmarried mother. Short of wearing a huge "W" (for 'whore') on her cardigan, she walks around like a pathetic mess for most of her screen time. Even worse, she is not given the courtesy of having it all 'tied up', one way or the other, at the end. It won't matter that much, but still..<br /><br />Its painfully obvious this all took place in a totally different world. People were nicer to one another for the most part and work was not a drag but something exciting, for a girl from outside NYC anyway.<br /><br />One unconvincing drunk scene aside, Hope Lange helps it seem reasonably real as Caroline, who at least has more than one side to her character. <br /><br />I admire that women are seen having an opinion, a chance and a choice. Not that its not wrapped in a nice bow, but it makes some points for equality. In 1959 that was probably noteworthy and possibly controversial. 7/10. | 1 |
15,754 | [
700,
800
] | 578 | 787 | spoiler--<br /><br />In 1993, African-American director/actor Mario Van Peebles followed up the tremendously popular urban-action film New Jack City with "Posse". The film was co-written and directed by Van Peebles, who also stars as the main character, Jessie Lee.<br /><br />Plot: The film begins at the turn of the 20th century, when the United States was embroiled in the Spanish-American war. Apparently a time when the U.S. justice system could send convicts into military service, Jessie Lee finds himself an unwilling enlisted man, serving with an all-black cavalry troop in Cuba. Some of his compatriots include Little J (Stephen Baldwin), fast-talking Weezie (Charles Lane) and the towering-but-simple Obobo (Tiny Lister). They find a hidden chest of gold on a reconnaissance run and decide to keep it. However, the ambitious, bigoted Colonel Graham (Zane) finds out about the gold, and is apparently willing to kill Jessie Lee and company for it. A shootout between the Graham's forces and Jessie Lee's leaves the colonel blind in one eye, and his forces retreat. Jessie Lee's ragtag crew manage to smuggle themselves (and the gold) back to New Orleans, but it turns out that Graham isn't far behind. Jessie Lee and his allies are forced to go on the run, heading west, to a town called Freemanville. Apparently, Freemanville was founded by blacks in the years following the Civil War. Jessie Lee's father, "King David", was the charismatic preacher who co-founded the town. However, as is revealed in intermittent flashbacks, King David was soon brutally murdered by a white mob, in a parallel of the Ku Klux Klan terror campaigns that began around the same time. Jessie Lee and company eventually find their way to Freemanville, only to find that the townsfolk aren't exactly glad to see himespecially when Sheriff Bates (Richard Jordan) of a nearby white township makes it clear that he wants Jessie Lee and his partnersdead or alive. Carver (Blair Underwood) is the sheriff and de facto mayor of Freemanvilleand his own agenda may not square with having Jessie Lee around.<br /><br />Analysis The action sequences are all very credible, and Mario Van Peebles turns in a good performance as the brooding hero. In the aftermath of the success of New Jack City, it was almost expected Van Peebles would helm a sequel, or at least a similar urban-action follow-up. Instead, Van Peebles looked 100 years into the past, creating a mostly-black Western (effectively 'updating' the black-themed Westerns of the 1970's), and continuing the legacy of largely-forgotten black-themed cowboy films from the early 20th century. Unlike New Jack City, the film was independently financed, and originally released through Gramercy/Polygram Entertainment. Allegedly, execs at the major studios balked when Van Peebles pitched 'Posse' to them. Some of the more "curious" casting at the time involved rappers Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc as Father Time and Angel, respectively. In certain interviews, Mario Van Peebles has said that he often likes to cast against type; in the years since, the trend of casting rap singers in non-musical films would become almost commonplace. Keen viewers will notice several cameos by various entertainment personalities: Black-action film veterans like Isaac Hayes ("Truck Turner"), Pam Grier ("Foxy Brown") and Larry Cook ("The Spook who Sat by the Door") show up, as does stand-up legend Nipsey Russell, not to mention TV producer Stephen J. Cannell (who hired the junior Van Peebles to star in "Sonny Spoon" years earlier). The film is bookended with Woody Strode ("Spartacus") in a key role. | 1 |
15,767 | [
700,
800
] | 599 | 781 | Many years ago I saw this movie (on television maybe?) and loved it. So I decided to rent it on DVD the other day to see whether it still held up in my estimation. It did. <br /><br />Set in Sydney's notorious King's Cross district (where prostitution, drug abuse and sex stores thrive), it tells the story of "Jimmy" (played by Heath Ledger). Jimmy is a young man...maybe late teens or thereabouts, who hasn't had a stable family background. He is on the fringes of society, and works as a 'tout' for a sex club (encouraging people to enter the store). He is aware of an underworld figure called "Pando", who is a local bigwig in the Cross. It's Jimmy's hope that he will find himself on Pando's radar and get 'in' with him...a short-cut to upward social mobility, he hopes.<br /><br />One night Jimmy meets the beautiful young woman Alex (played by the charming Rose Byrne). You just know that a love story will play out between them. On that night as well, Jimmy is first contacted by Pando (played by Bryan Brown). Pando has a 'job' for Jimmy. It's the 'foot in the door' that Jimmy has been waiting for!<br /><br />To reveal too much more would spoil the many surprises that this movie has in store for the viewer. Stylistically, if you like Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie movies, you should be in tune with what to expect...twists and turns and black comedy.<br /><br />What's so great about this movie is its very 'Australian-ness'. It's no mere knock off of Tarantino or Ritchie, but a genuine Australian contribution to the genre. <br /><br />A fascinating aspect to this movie is how it all hangs together. Sometimes you are introduced to characters who you wonder what the hell they're doing there. In the end, all these 'loose ends' tie together beautifully. It's sort of like a celluloid Moebius strip.<br /><br />A highlight of the movie is Bryan Brown's character of Pando. Pando likes puzzles, and it's fun to see him play games with his cronies. It's the little details revealed about him which are so enjoyable...his taste in music, for starters!<br /><br />Of the Heath Ledger movies I have seen (The Dark Knight, 10 Things I hate about you), this is perhaps his best role. Wasn't taken with "10 things". If you are a Heath Ledger fan (Ledger recently died a tragic, accidental death), this is a chance to see him in his greatest Australian role, I think. There is great chemistry between Ledger and Byrne in this movie-so, on one level, it functions as nice love story.<br /><br />This movie doesn't have some of the horror of Tarantino and Ritchie underworld movies, but it does have some adult themes...scenes that surprise you with their coldness and beauty. In that sense, it's not an ideal movie for very young viewers, but it's not a movie that gore-hounds will get excited about either. <br /><br />Lastly, I have to say that it is great that Australia can make great movies like this. Usually the kind of movies my home country makes can be uniniviting. This movie has strengths where many Australian movies have weaknesses...i.e. it has a great story, great acting and a great script. We need more popular, quality movies like this to be made here in Australia. <br /><br />Highly recommended. Other Australian movies I have loved include:<br /><br />Breaker Morant (10/10) Mad Max 2 (10/10) My Brilliant Career (not reviewed here by me yet) Proof (nr) The Devil's Playground (nr) The Year My Voice Broke (nr) Bad Boy Bubby (nr. A great, dark comedy) The Dish (nr. A great, charming comedy) | 1 |
15,787 | [
700,
800
] | 610 | 793 | I got this movie with my BBC "Jane Austen Collection" (5 DVDs of old BBC adaptations) and didn't like it at first. It's completely different from the others and it lacks, or so I thought, one of the qualities that I enjoy in all other Austen movies: cheerful common sense. The nightmare scene in which Mrs. Richards apparently sews her fingers together was especially upsetting.<br /><br />I still don't like to watch the finger-sewing scene but I do love hearing Mrs. R. saying, dreamily, while she sews, "My only acquaintance...tore my gown." This movie is now my current Austen favorite. I've watched it 7 or 8 times so far. The acting, to my mind, is incredible. The way I notice good acting is when I find myself looking up from whatever I'm doing (sewing, though not my fingers together, hopefully, or boondoggling or whatever) in order to watch the character deliver his lines. It's the turn of expression, the cast of posture, that make the words come alive -- that's what makes good acting, as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Well, I watch almost every part of "Northanger Abbey" because almost all the actors play their roles with such charisma. Peter Firth is amazing as Mr. Tilney, the perfect blend of Bathian fop and real, masculine hero - you're not sure until the end whether he's after Catherine's money or not. I love his touch of (Welsh?) accent. Mr. and Mrs. Richards are charming: the combination of their behaviors - especially Mr. Richards' high voice, lending counterpoint to his wit and wisdom - makes them so real. General Tilney as the hard-hearted father who may possibly be a murderer is fascinating, too. And Captain Tilney, the grinning rake who is so clearly enjoying himself... and the moneygrubbing sister and brother whose names I can't currently remember - the two of them are so perfectly, at once, smart and smarmy.<br /><br />The other reason I love this adaptation is that it is the most romantic of all the Jane Austen adaptations. I know this was one of Austen's weak points (well, it is as far as I am concerned): even though all her novels are love stories, it's hard to feel that her heroes and heroines are really in love at the end. And if they're aren't really in love, then what's the point? All the other adaptations I've seen (other than the early Olivier/Garson one) have pretty cold-fish kisses at the end, if they kiss at all. I don't at all like sex in movies but it really is necessary to have a heartfelt kiss in the end. And the ending kiss in Northanger is a doozy.<br /><br />The over-the-top approach to costumes, music, and lighting work very well as far as I'm concerned. And the script is extremely clever - the way we are educated about Gothic romance, highlife in Bath, Cathy's normal country upbringing, etc., is very well done, as they usually are in BBC productions. Also, I like the part when the little black page does the cartwheels. And the Marchionesse, I think, was an entirely appropriate and very clever expository device.<br /><br />Some people have objected that this version is the opposite of what Jane Austen intended to do in Northanger Abbey - she meant to make fun of Gothic romance, not promote it. But I don't think she meant to put "Mysteries of Udolpho," etc., down. She was just making the point that you need to distinguish between reality and fiction. And this point is made when Mr. Tilney chides Catherine in his mother's room. Besides, General Tilney was a villain, albeit a prosaic one. That point was meant to be made, surely. | 1 |
15,910 | [
700,
800
] | 656 | 756 | Forget about Donnie Darko. I open with this because it seems that a good portion of the reviews I have read on The Box amount to the simple but weak argument that it doesn't hold a candle to Darko. It isn't that I disagree with that necessarily, I just feel that this movie is a different animal altogether and deserves its own analysis. There are points of comparison to be sure, but they are peripheral concerns when you consider that the key to the heart of each movie is different. In Darko, the driving force of the narrative is existential. In The Box, the driving force of the narrative stems from a moral dilemma. Believe me when I say that I understand the inclination to compare an innovative filmmakers'movies by looking for trends and patterns, but for me it is more important to approach each new film as a self contained entity first, and then broaden my gaze afterwards. <br /><br />The Box is one of those films you get mixed feelings about because it seems to be in some sort of identity crisis. It isn't always sure what it wants to be. The twists are numerous, but easy to follow if not to predict. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a relatively believable pair of newlyweds who are in financial straits. A Box containing a "button unit" arrives on their doorstep and they are informed by a horribly burned man that if pushed the button will cause the death of one person whom they don't know, and they will receive one million dollars. One of the things The Box achieves is to conjure up this invisible fear that somewhere out there our actions have moral consequences. Before the button is pushed it has an eerie and seductive quality, alluring yet sinister. Once it has been pushed, events are set in motion that make the two leads question their own morality and deeply regret their fateful decision. <br /><br />The notion that the Box is an experiment is interesting because for me it provides the movie with a paradox. If there are external beings developing an "altruism coefficient" based on data gathered by couples pushing and not pushing the button, then as the conspiracy unravels, we notice that ultimately it is a forced altruism: Be selfless or the species will be wiped out. I suppose the couples don't know the consequences of their actions when they are faced with making the decision, but they have no reason to suspect that The Box can do anything, so why would they choose altruistically? Is altruism devalued by the fact that we only care about it when presented with a problem in our own lives? <br /><br />The psychological hurdles in this movie are everywhere. Push the button or don't, it's likely someone is messing with you. Take the money or don't, no one gives anything away for free. Search for the truth, the answers you find slowly reveal your demise. <br /><br />I propose that The Box is an ironic work because it offers the false choice of free will while revealing that we are trapped in many metaphorical boxes. You can only choose to be free at the expense of another's life, is that freedom? No, it is only another box because then you become trapped in the consequences of your own morality. There is no escape for us because we live on earth and that is another Box. This is precisely why the external beings in the film are ultimately antagonists. They demand we conform to moral standards which rob us of our freedom. We made it to Mars, and we were burned for it and turned into slaves in a sick game. <br /><br />The references to Jean Paul Sartre illustrate this point rather well. "You can only enter the final chamber free, or not free." Sure, but no matter the form in which we enter the chamber, it is a chamber nonetheless. <br /><br />Trevor Nemeth | 1 |
15,986 | [
700,
800
] | 522 | 707 | Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When "Arsène Lupin" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. "Arsène Lupin" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.<br /><br />John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.<br /><br />Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In "Arséne Lupin", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!<br /><br />Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.<br /><br />Don't look for a good plot line here, but "Arsène Lupin" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10. | 1 |
16,216 | [
700,
800
] | 593 | 734 | When the Romulans come, they will not be bearing gifts; no, they bring with them war - war and conquest. As any familiar with this episode know, it is a redux of the war film "The Enemy Below" from the fifties. The obvious difference is that instead of a battleship and a submarine (or an American Destroyer & German U-boat) engaged in lethal war games, it is two starships in outer space. In Trek history, about 100 years before the events here, according to this episode, Earth fought the Romulan Wars. After about 5 years of conflict, a stalemate brought about a treaty and the institution of the Neutral Zone, a boundary between us and the Romulan Empire. Now, on this stardate, the treaty appears to be broken, as our outposts are being attacked and destroyed by some weapon of immense power. Yes, the Romulans are back, testing their new war toy, and Kirk must now earn his pay: he must make decisions that would affect this sector of the galaxy, such as figuring out how to avoid a...oh, I dunno - an interstellar war, maybe? <br /><br />I think what makes this episode so effective is that it doesn't shy away from the grim aspects of war, as one would expect of a mere TV episode from the sixties - especially an episode from a science fiction show. It's all very tense and gripping, like the best war films, such as when Kirk sits down with his key officers for what amounts to a war council. The writers and the actors aren't kidding around here: this is all preparation for a ghastly conflict, potentially the beginning of another years-long battleground. In the final analysis, Kirk's aim is to keep this battleground to just the two ships - but even then it's an endeavor fraught with peril and probable casualties. In fact, I believe this episode holds the record for ship casualties by the end of it. Right at the start of the episode, we see the devastation such battle can produce, in that supposedly well-protected outpost. Then begin the cat-and-mouse war games between the Enterprise and the Romulan ship - it's as exciting as any conflict we've seen on the big screen. Of course, if you're not into war films, you'd have to look for other things to admire in this episode.<br /><br />What elevates this episode even further is the revelation of just what and who the Romulans are - it's an electric shock of a sort. Now we have even further inter-crew conflict on the bridge of the Enterprise - war does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Due to still nasty attitudes about race in this future, the tension is ratcheted up even further - Kirk has his hands full in this one. I suppose the one weakness in the story is the convenient relenting of the bigotry issue by the conclusion. On the Romulan side, actor Lenard makes his first appearance in the Trek universe as the Romulan commander; he's terrific in the role, the flip side of Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pike, take your pick, done up to resemble Spock more than a little. Surprisingly, his character is not war hungry as we would expect, another eye-opener for this episode. The actor would next return to this universe as Sarek, Spock's father, so he's nothing if not versatile. It's also telling how the first appearance of such characters as the Romulans is usually their best shot, as it is here. They showed up in "The Enterprise Incident" next. | 1 |
16,235 | [
700,
800
] | 662 | 769 | This film held my interest enough to watch it several times. The plot has holes, but the lead performers make it work.<br /><br />Catherine Mary Stewart (Julia Kerbridge), does a great job as a woman of 37 who has sacrificed everything else to become a physician. She worked years to earn the money to go to medical school. She is performing brilliantly in her residency and is just about to take her board exam and realize her dream.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Julia's sister and brother-in-law are murdered and as the nearest living relative she is compelled to take in her niece Amanda (Arlen Aguayo-Stewart) to avoid having her become a ward of the state. Amanda is about 7 years old from her appearance. Amanda is so traumatized from her parent's murder that she has become mute. Needless to say, Julia's 16-hour days get longer caring for Amanda.<br /><br />Rob Lowe plays Kevin Finney, a charming neighbor man in their apartment building who works his way into the lives of Julia and Amanda. He is always there with a trick or a joke to help Amanda deal with her distress. Amanda really starts to warm up to Kevin as the film progresses, perhaps more than to her aunt. Julia starts to rely on Kevin to take some of the load of caring for Amanda as she attempts to handle her case load and prepare for her board examination. Kevin is always there whenever some crisis erupts for Julia.<br /><br />The chemistry between Rob and Catherine Mary was great. You keep watching to see them get together before the end of the film. The chemistry between Rob and Arlen was good as well. Arlen managed to convey quite a lot without the benefit of words. The plot had Julia and Amanda gradually warming up to each other. You can see them working out a relationship as the film progresses.<br /><br />We discover that Julia's sister and brother-in-law (the Meyers) were involved in industrial espionage. They stole an extremely valuable prototype microchip from their employer. They had three associates who intended to share the proceeds of the theft. Julia discovers that the Meyers were planning to skip the country under assumed identities. The plot is unclear whether the Meyers intended to double cross their associates or were themselves double crossed.<br /><br />In any case the Meyers are murdered in their home by 2 of their former associates. The killers make no attempt to extract the location of the microchip from the Meyers before killing them. The killers search the home and fail to find their prize. They leave a living witness to their crime, Amanda. The killers then spend the remainder of the film making clumsy attempts to extract the microchip from Julia and Amanda who have no idea where the prize is located. Eventually, the killers kidnap Amanda in hopes she knows something about the microchip's location.<br /><br />Eventually Julia discovers the truth about Kevin. He is an investigator hired to recover the stolen microchip. After some rough moments in the relationship they manage to rescue Amanda and dispatch the bad guys. The predictable ending has the three forming a family and moving happily into a future together.<br /><br />What struck me about the plot were major holes. Kevin moves into the same apartment building as Julia and Amanda the day after the murder of the Meyers. How does he know that the microchip is not already in the hands of the killers? The killers blithely leave fingerprints at the murder scene, with no concern for concealing their identity. The killer that pretends to be a psychiatrist is revealed to Amanda by the remnants of red paint from the murder scene on his shoe soles. He was not shown in the murder scene at the start of the film. There are other weaknesses along these lines too numerous to mention.<br /><br />The film could have been a lot better if the script had been refined more before filming. Filling in the plot holes would have added little expense and greatly improved the effort. | 1 |
16,256 | [
700,
800
] | 596 | 729 | Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens ö, spelled almost like "booné aww" is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.<br /><br />Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.<br /><br />The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.<br /><br />All this said, Barnens Ö is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...<br /><br />This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.<br /><br />I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.<br /><br />Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens Ö was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: "Men are Pigs". He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.<br /><br />Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.<br /><br />In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show. | 1 |
16,266 | [
700,
800
] | 561 | 727 | This film as it is now is far shorter than it was when released in 1918. In fact, it is now more available with two other medium sized silent Chaplin features (A DOG'S LIFE, and THE PILGRIM) that Chaplin re-released in the 1950s. In it's day SHOULDER ARMS was a big hit because of it's humor in uniform approach. It still is very funny (Chaplin in disguise as a tree, spying on the Germans, is so ridiculous it's hysterical), but it suffers from being set in it's own age. Charlie's dealing with World War I, a hideous conflict that killed 20 million people, but not the worst war (horrible to say) of the 20th Century. Chaplin would live to see that war too, and would spoof it's main architects in THE GREAT DICTATOR. But the latter is more accessible to modern audiences because that movie is a talking picture. Also, Hitler as a target seems more important to audiences in 2008 than Kaiser Wilhelm II and his general staff.<br /><br />SHOULDER ARMS was to take us through the drafting of the tramp, his training, his getting use to trench warfare, and his actual fighting against the "Huns" on the Western Front. Much of this is now gone - one segment (when Albert Austin is a Doctor examining Chaplin in his office at the draft center) is still in existence and was shown completely in the documentary UNKNOWN CHAPLIN. This is unfortunate, because the film is now roughly forty five minutes long, and there seems to be gaps that these scenes filled out. What remains is first rate but one leaves wanting more...and feeling a trifle cheated.<br /><br />Sydney Chaplin and Henry Bergman do well in supporting parts, especially Sydney as Wilhelm. He had done it before in a short with Charlie for the sale of bonds, giving a militaristic speech before being clobbered by the tramp with a huge hammer labeled "War Bonds"). Here we see the tramp succeed in capturing Wilhelm and the general staff at the conclusion. It was only topped by Stan and Ollie capturing the German army with a tank and barbed wire in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES.<br /><br />The funny thing is that Chaplin actually had a major crisis as a result of his wartime activities. He was not a naturalized American - not in 1917 or in 1952, when Attorney General McGranery publicly announced that Chaplin could not return to the U.S. because he was an enemy alien (Chaplin and his family were in Europe on a trip - in anger Charlie settled in Switzerland for the rest of his life, except when he made A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG and when he went to Hollywood for his special career "Oscar" in the 1970s). Because he was not an American he could not be drafted by the U.S. So he sold (with Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Mary Pickford) U. S. War Bonds. But in Great Britain tens of thousands had perished in World War One battlefields, and the public there was upset at Chaplin, who they considered a "slacker" and a coward. Chaplin eventually did overcome this, but remnants of the resentment followed him until he died. This does not detract from the success of SHOULDER ARMS as a film, but it does suggest why Chaplin did not do another modern war film until 1940, and a worthier target. | 1 |
16,311 | [
700,
800
] | 632 | 758 | Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.<br /><br />Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.<br /><br />Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.<br /><br />Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.<br /><br />By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.<br /><br />Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.<br /><br />Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.<br /><br />It will also ask you to bring some hankies.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
16,422 | [
700,
800
] | 618 | 746 | Has the proliferation of relatively high quality shows on the proliferating TV networks made it possible for people to produce, direct, finance and/or star in their own films who might otherwise not have been able to? Is that a good thing? <br /><br />This film does not answer the latter question either way, but it does appear that without Curb, Jeff Garlin would not have been able to make I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With. <br /><br />Like most new producers/directors, Jeff Garlin's independent piece heaves a heavily more sensitive sigh than the vehicle he is primarily known for (Curb). And yet, is it a sensitive guy film? He isn't really a sensitive guy. Likable, sure. Relatable, indeed. <br /><br />What this film really is about is a bit hard to say, I can only relate what I took away from it. <br /><br />I rented the film because of the trailers, particularly the scene of a counselor portrayed by Amy Sedaris informing James Aaron (Garlin) that a particular woman is interested in him mainly because she is a "chubby chaser." I just about fell out of my seat. Based on that scene alone, I ran to my computer to write a note to myself to rent this movie. The reason - I thought the school counselor (Sedaris) was talking about Beth, portrayed by Sarah Silverman. I imagined a lightish romantic comedy between the foxy Silverman and the fat Garlin. I didn't think the story would be anything original, but that the dialogue would be snappy and the scenes would move along at a satisfying pace. In short, I thought it would be a comedy. <br /><br />It was intriguing that the film started out that way but then took a much much more realistic turn when Beth gives James the heave ho because "I've never really been with a fat guy before." That is how brutally we live life, and it was completely realistic. I applaud the decision. It just meant that Beth has now left the building and with her, the one snappy person in the film.<br /><br />James's relationship with his mother was also interesting. That part made me wonder if the whole concept did not start out as a play. It had that intricate feel to it. (The whole "Marty" movie within a movie thing was utterly lost on me, as I have never seen that film.)<br /><br />There were serious doubts I had about the character of James Aaron, though. Is it really possible that at 39 he had not had a serious relationship? And he is an actor? That did not really square with me. To me, his persona was less actor-y, and more corporate. I could not really buy his ordinariness either. No doubt he was extremely disappointed that things with Beth did not work out. We felt that. But then, did he really care? <br /><br />Another thing - how in the world can both he and his mother afford to move out at the same time? Hasn't he just lost his job? The last one he had? That was one reason he did not seem ordinary to me. Where's the funding for his life coming from? <br /><br />And yet, I have read reviews that talk about the realistic portrayal of urban loneliness, so there is that. Yes, it is very realistic, the way we must be satisfied with what we have because it is all that we have. The way we sort of disappear from ourselves and each other in interactions (James and Stella), some kind of self-effacement that takes place just to move on to the next moment. That, contrasted with the possibility of defining ourselves through our moments, our thoughts the way James had with Beth, it's really crushing.<br /><br />Very well done. | 1 |
16,497 | [
700,
800
] | 565 | 734 | At one time `Buddy Cop' movies ruled the box office. It seemed that every summer flocks of Beverly Hills Cop wannabes descended on our nation's theaters. Not any more. Lately the gusher has dried to barely a trickle. The drought has eased a bit recently with the release of Showtime, a movie that is a genuinely funny and consistently entertaining example of the genre.<br /><br />Mitch Preston is a dedicated cop. He's not a Dirty Harry type by any means. He's just incredibly focused professional who's completely intolerant of anything that gets in the way of the performance of his duties
like, say, a T.V. cameraman. Mitch deals with the cameraman in a socially irresponsible way and so falls into the clutches of Chase Renzi, a producer looking for a killer hook for her `reality T.V.' cop show. She thinks that Mitch will give her the `edgy' boost it needs to be a hit but feels he may be too unlikable to carry the whole show by himself. Enter Trey Sellars, a patrolman-cum-actor who's watched way too many Police Story re-runs. Of course Mitch and Trey mix like oil and water and much merry mayhem ensues.<br /><br />We know that Mitch and Trey are bound to become best buddies by the end of the movie. That's the way buddy-cop movies are suppose to work. In fact, it has to be said that Showtime rarely deviates from the time-honored clichés as writ by Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash. There's a high tech McGuffin to get the ball rolling (in this case an automatic rifle that fires rounds big enough to stop tanks.) There's a slick foreign baddy with an accent of undetermined origin. There are chases, shootouts and explosions. We all know this going in and we have a pretty fair idea how it's all going to turn out. You know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, we know the well-worn bases are going to be touched but the fun here is the trip, not the destination. Showtime doesn't strain to be original. Instead its energies are funneled into its characters and humorous situations. As a result, Showtime does a competent job with the action sequences but really shines in its comedy.<br /><br />Robert De Niro is dryly funny as Mitch. In the past I've thought De Niro to be a cold and unexpressive actor given horribly to mugging when called upon to do comedy. Lately, though, he's grown on me. He seems to be injecting more humanity into his roles. Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Trey. The best way to describe his performance is that Trey is what Murphy would be if Murphy weren't so talented and hadn't hit the big time. Rene Russo has a droll time playing motor-mouthed show biz shark Chase Renzi. She stalks through the movie chasing high Nielson ratings with awe-inspiring determination. In her zeal she re-vamps Mitch's life to make it more camera friendly. She even calls upon T. J. Hooker himself, William Shatner, to show Mitch how be a more `authentic' cop. Shatner is funny, playing himself precisely as we expect him to be, loud, oblivious and slightly obnoxious.<br /><br />I have to admit I was really looking forward to Showtime and I wasn't disappointed. Ten years ago this movie would have been a guaranteed hit. Today it's doing moderate business at best. That's a pity because Showtime is a whole lot of fun. | 1 |
16,592 | [
700,
800
] | 615 | 763 | On the face of it, any teen comedy runs the risk of being sophomoric and obvious, and fair enough, most of them are. There are a few that have risen above the usual banality of the source material (Bring It On, Eurotrip), and they give me hope that others can join that depressingly rare crowd of teen comedies that are actually funny and not just an excuse to flash some starlet's boobs or be a vehicle for some never-was like Tom Green.<br /><br />Enter Accepted, directed by John Cusack pal Steve Pink and led by the likable Justin Long (the smart nerdy kid in Galaxy Quest and more recently featured in Apple computer ads), about a bunch of kids who don't get accepted to college and decide, as disclosed in the trailer, to fake a bogus one to get their parents off their backs. When they go a little too far with the website and other kids end up enrolling, the kids have a few problems to solve.<br /><br />Okay, the set-up is obviously preposterous, but most comedy lives or dies in the execution, and here, Accepted does pretty well. Long's Bartleby Gaines (mostly shortened to 'B') is accompanied by enough well-meaning comically acceptable friends to help him share the load, but probably the best supporting character is 'Dean' Lewis (no doubt named as an homage to Rodney Dangerfield's Dean Martin), aka Uncle Ben, Lewis Black, who is wisely restricted to short spurts where he can rapid fire his unique brand of cranky observational humor. Black is terrific here, frankly telling the kids what life is really like (his expletive-laden final line is hysterical) and providing the adult face to the bogus university for the parents.<br /><br />But Long has to carry most of the film, and he does so, in spades; Bartleby is easily identified with and we take to him almost immediately. A nice twist was provided by Columbus Short's character Hands, an athlete who loses his scholarship due to an injury and ends up becoming the de facto art faculty at the fake college. Also noteworthy as Bartleby's hyper-intelligent and sarcastic little sister is Hannah Marks.<br /><br />Yes, the film does feel familiar in some spots; there's a debt here owed, of all places, to Revenge of the Nerds. Those who are rejected by everyone else find a home with Bartleby and his cohorts, and of course the villains are steroid-enhanced conformist Master Race types who run a fraternity (well, okay, frats are evil) and seek to humiliate and bury the oddballs for the gasp crime of being different. But that aside, Accepted has fun with the material, and even asks a few decent questions about the expectations on college kids and the course of higher education. Not that it's a brain teaser by any means, but Accepted isn't just another mindless teen comedy (or Owen Wilson vehicle). It's a funny, clever 90 minutes that, while not a great departure from its genre, is intelligent and creative enough to be very enjoyable.<br /><br />There is at least one moment of unadulterated brilliance in the film, when Bartleby checks out a nearby college in an attempt to harvest ideas for his own school's curriculum. When he sees that the kids are all stressed out at the other school (several refuse to even talk to him during class for fear of missing something), he shakes his head, thinking that there must be a better way. As he moves to leave he is met by a stream of kids going the other way, one person moving against a human tide, while in the background, the opening lines of Eleanor Rigby play. Perhaps an unplanned moment of brilliance, but brilliance none the less. | 1 |
16,628 | [
700,
800
] | 563 | 702 | This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.<br /><br />They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. <br /><br />For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells "cut!"<br /><br />The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.<br /><br />At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around! <br /><br />In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.<br /><br />This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.<br /><br />Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens. <br /><br />Peter realizes: "It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that "the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is "valid" by some abstract definition.<br /><br />When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the "real" you is just a pointless waste of time.<br /><br />I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just "that geeky, creepy nerd girl" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.<br /><br />For decades, I've watched "Head" and wished I could thank Pete.<br /><br />Was this a good movie?<br /><br />Uhh, how about, like...<br /><br />==< YES >== | 1 |
16,642 | [
700,
800
] | 553 | 737 | Head should have been a proud moment not just for its stars (The Monkees and Victor Mature), or its director/co-writer (Bob Rafelson), but also its other co-writer (and brief cameo) Jack Nicholson. As it stands, most of them seem to shun it, and to outsiders the movie is regarded, at best, as a curio.<br /><br />While the T.V. series was famously based on the antics of the Beatles' 'Help!', this film is also judged by the same accord. Yet far from the trite and painfully overrated Beatles films, and even the dated Monkees T.V. series, Head has a layer of depth. An undercurrent of man's darker nature is at work here, and while that may sound like a bizarre thing to say about a manufactured pop band, the use of certain themes and images (hitting women, laughing at cripples and real-life footage of a Vietcong POW shot dead at point-blank range) give the film an edge that many 'serious' films would not dare to aspire to.<br /><br />There are also the fun moments, which range from James Bond parodies to 'Big Victor' and my personal favourite, Mickey Dolenz under beseige by Arab soldiers on horseback. (One of them turns to Mickey and hisses 'pssst!', only for the 'pssst!' to appear in subtitles!) The group are aware of their manufactured image in the film ('I'm the dummy, Mickey
I'm always the dummy', claims Tork, neatly summing up his one-dimensional foil role of the series), meaning that their characters they play 'themselves' acting and not-acting here are opened out more, and consequently are less generic and irritating than they were in the series. This level of parody and self-awareness even takes on their fab-four origins, with subtler takes on the Maharishi and out-and-out acknowledgements with a waitress who asks: 'Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight-year-olds
are you still paying tribute to Ringo Starr?' Also listen out for Tork whistling 'Strawberry Fields Forever' while in the bathroom.<br /><br />Then there are the songs, of course. Six of them here, slightly more psychedelic than usual, which may have alienated their fanbase, and even a Frank Zappa cameo wouldn't have turned on an adult audience to their charms at this point. Probably the best is the charming 'As We Go Along', though the first, a Carol King-penned 'Porpoise Song', interestingly talks of the desire to live while time is ticking remorselessly away and death gets ever nearer. On a lighter note, its refrain of 'the porpoise is laughing' seems to be a direct mickey-take of 'I am the Walrus'.<br /><br />Constantly inventive with direct references to silent film and drug culture, perhaps Head's finest feature is its narrative structure. Not the only but the most important reason why it improves with multiple viewings, the story goes left, right, forwards, backwards, circular and through several levels of reality. In essence a series of sketches hung loosely together, its cohesion is tightened by the space-time defying plot which hangs its internal logic together by means of flashback, dream sequence, prison of the mind and remote control channel changer.<br /><br />With a perfect beginning and end, this intelligently-written, knowing film was not what The Monkees' pre-teen audience was expecting and subsequently suffered a negative critical reception. Now those expectations have gone, this one is in dire need of serious reappraisal. | 1 |
16,657 | [
700,
800
] | 616 | 751 | Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).<br /><br />Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release "The Golden Door".<br /><br />The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.<br /><br />I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.<br /><br />First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.<br /><br />The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.<br /><br />Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.<br /><br />Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.<br /><br />Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.<br /><br />Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effrontée.<br /><br />Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.<br /><br />The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.<br /><br />Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.<br /><br />Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.<br /><br />And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.<br /><br />All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed! | 1 |
16,660 | [
700,
800
] | 602 | 770 | THE GOLDEN DOOR (NUOVOMONDO) is for this viewer the finest film of the year to date. It is a masterpiece of concept, writing, directing, acting and cinematography. More importantly, this radiantly beautiful film is a much needed reflective mirror for us to view the history of immigration of 'foreigners' into America at a time when the very mention of the word 'borders' is a political fuse. Writer/director Emanuele Crialese has given us not only a deeply moving story, he has also provided a touchstone for viewers to re-visit the history of each of our origins: with the exception of the Native Americans, we all entered America as 'foreigners' at some point in our histories, and it is humbling to view this film with that fact in mind.<br /><br />The film opens in turn of the century Sicily as poverty stricken widower Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his brother Angelo (Francesco Casisa) climb a rocky hill to present their tokens to the cross to ask for a sign as to whether they should continue to struggle for existence on the island or go to America, the land of dreams. Mancuso's deaf mute son Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) runs to the top of the hill with postcards he has found with images of America (money growing on trees, fruits and vegetables larger than people, etc), and Salvatore accepts this as the sign that he should move his family to America. After convincing his reluctant mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) and his sisters Rita (Federica De Cola) and Rosa (Isabella Ragonese) to make the trip, he sells his only possessions (two donkeys, goats, and rabbits) and the man with the boat arranges their trip, giving the family shoes, appropriate clothing, and instructions to board an ocean liner as third class passengers. As the Mancuso family prepares to board they are asked for a photograph, and as they pose behind a painted set, an Englishwoman Lucy/Luce (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walks into the photo as though she were part of this peasant family. Lucy cannot board the boat for America without male escort.<br /><br />The voyage begins and Luce in her gentle way identifies with the Mancuso family, finally solidifying her safe passage by proposing to Salvatore to marry her 'for convenience, not for love' when they arrive in America. Through a violent storm and living conditions that are appalling poor, the multitude of third class passengers survive, bond, and eventually arrive at Ellis Island, believing their dream of America has been fulfilled. But everyone must pass harsh physical tests, de-lousing, and even intelligence testing to determine if they can enter America: the officials let them know that America does not want genetically inferior people entering the new world! Each woman must be selected by a man to marry on Ellis Island before they are allowed admission. The manner in which the Mancuso family remains united until a somewhat surprising ending is the closing of the tale.<br /><br />Few of us understand the strict rules and harsh treatment immigrants face (or at least faced at the turn of the century) on Ellis Island, and if we do we have elected to submerge that information. THE GOLDEN DOOR presents the case for immigrants' struggles in a manner that not only touches our hearts but also challenges our acceptance of current immigration legislation. But all political issues aside, THE GOLDEN DOOR is first and foremost a film of enormous beauty, exquisite photography, deeply felt performances by a huge cast, and a very sensitively written and directed story. The is a film that deserves wide distribution, a movie that is a must see for everyone. Highly recommended. Grady Harp | 1 |
16,662 | [
700,
800
] | 622 | 757 | This film is an impressionistic, poetic take on the immigrant experience, a reflective look at the turmoil and fear which might be associated with emigrating. These are aspects not often considered in movies about emigration to America in particular and to to any country more generally and the film vividly and convincingly depicts the nervousness and enthusiasm, if ignorance, that poor, illiterate Sicilian immigrants have in anticipation of their emigration to the United States. <br /><br />They have some fantastic, unrealistic notions about the United States which are disseminated on the trip over. One is that the rivers run with milk, an image which is depicted in the movie to poetic, impressionistic effect. The film is devoid of sound and the silence seems to reflect the uneasiness of the ignorance the locals have about life in America, or if not ignorance of it, a vision significantly colored with superstition and fantasy. <br /><br />That said, the movie depicts with jolting realism, the boat ride to the United States and the intake process which arrivals at Ellis Island had to undergo. The boat ride is imagined as rather dull which surely it was much of the time. The quarters in which the incoming residents sleep is depicted as extremely crowded with beds spaced four or five inches from one another and lacking much light, which it was surely the case below deck. <br /><br />Again, the film is not supplemented with undue music or excessively bright lighting and the effect is to create a fairly realistic imagining of what it was truly like for people emigrating to the United States. The villagers may not be worldly, but they are quite reasonable, and the interaction with the eldest of the emigrants, Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) with the immigration officer who insists on particular results, are quite bittersweet inasmuch as they are not diluted or softened for the benefit of a syrupy conclusion and one sees the melding of the realism of Sicily with the extensive regulations which guide life in the United States.<br /><br />The immigrants and their story are very interesting and the combination of cold-eyed realism and the magical fantasy of peoples' imaginations make for a persuasive vision of the beliefs held by Sicilians, or any people, with little formal education moving to the United States. The acting is similarly barebones; it is not at all demonstrative or showy, but seems the more realistic for it. That said, all the main performers, in particular Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato), the clear leader of the group is excellent. While never smiling, his character's actions speak much louder and it is clear that (thankfully) the other members of the group, his two sons and the above mentioned elder Fortunata, the boys' grandmother, have faith in his leadership abilities and respect his clear leadership. Amato imbues his character with great decency and forthrightness and it is a testament to his abilities that his character appears so capable and confident while his character betrays very little emotion. <br /><br />One oddness of the film is a chance encounter with a mysterious Englishwoman (the excellent and fittingly mysterious Charlotte Gainsbourg) who speaks Italian and, during the entire film, we wonder why she is going to the United States or what connection she has to the otherwise unanimously Sicilian emigrant group. At the end, this is finally revealed and the revelation is done typically realistically and does not seem particularly melodramatic or showy. <br /><br />The film is directed by Emmanuel Crialese who has a firm grasp on the realistic, if sometimes superstitious world view his characters inhabit and presents it competently and confidently. It is in fact fantastically confident given how awkwardly the realism and superstition might have combined in the film. It is a worthy examination of the immigrant experience. | 1 |
16,736 | [
700,
800
] | 643 | 777 | I had never seen the original Death Wish in the book either Death Wish I (film). However, Death Wish 3 was the very interested film. The well-known vigilante, Paul Kersey tried to visit his friend, Charlie but he only visited him for a couple of minutes before he died, because of Charlie didn't pay the protection to the huge and infamous underground gang leaded by Manny Franker. After some altercation during his time in jail, Kersey learned that Franker, who he fought with in jail had his own agenda to make the New York City in the hellfire (and also his influence) by sending his henchmen to set the crime every time, everywhere and everyday. Due to the chance given by Insp. Richard Shriker who know his profile well and like him very much. Kersey decided to set the war with Franker and his gang.<br /><br />I accepted that Death Wish III was one of the most straightedge and extreme violence action film which I had seen from the past. This movie used the very straightedge way to tell the story. No ponderous story-telling and less unnecessary scenes which was the one merit of the movie. On the next issue, Violence was used pervasively in the film. I believed that many of viewers could like the action scene of Death Wish III because it showed the crude, extreme and blast of action for every minutes of the movie, especially the climax scene of the movie and the death of Manny Franker which I thought that it was the maximum action scene.<br /><br />For about the cast, I think everyone was good and get through their role. Charles Bronson made everybody believe that he still be great as Paul Kersey. He didn't look like the "big old cat", but the great vigilante. Gavan O'Herlihy also did his job very good. His main villain role in the movie made him look nasty and look like the big bad guy. However, the role of Kathryn Davis in this movie was pathetic. She didn't look like the main character. I thought that she was appeared only two or three scene before she was killed by Franker and his follower to make a heat on Paul Kersey. She could have more role to appear.<br /><br />For my comment, the straightedge style and extreme violence made this movie great for extreme action film fans. Fast-paced with back and Forth style made this movie very interested to watch. Nevertheless, this movie had some silly scene and some plot hole. First, the scene when Insp.Shriker faced Paul Kersey for the first time. It was very corny because you attacked your favor guy before you want him to help, it similar to how you punch some guy before you try to borrow him some money. Haha! that's like a joke! Although, I liked the plot twist when Insp.Shriker was shown later that he helped Kersey because at first, Shriker looked like the villain very much due to his act to Kersey, but when the movie went to the climax, everything was cleared that he had no hidden agenda with Kersey.<br /><br />In another case, the ending scene of the movie set back me. It stumble on everyone's feeling because it ended too easy. Franker's gang members looked unbelievable after they found that Franker was dead, before his girlfriend and other followers decided to escape. Finally, Insp.Shriker allowed Paul Kersey to fly out from his town before the police caught him. I thought that this style of ending scene could be found in many Cannon Film's movie, but I dislike it.<br /><br />For the summary, I am OK with Death Wish 3 due to my explanation I typed first. The cast, and the action was very good and so extreme, even it had some scene I don't like. Straightedge and Extreme of Violence could be the best short description of this movie. | 1 |
16,806 | [
700,
800
] | 649 | 799 | where do we go from here? that is the overriding question of this film. And make no mistake, 'mainly ETC.', the 2003 effort from director john jansen, asks far more questions than it answers, but none so poignantly or so powerfully as this one.<br /><br />much of the the film plays like a running conversation between you and your college drinking buddies, and I'm sure many of the questions raised by the main characters you'll recognize from your own evenings of drunken debauchery. however, one of the many beauties of this film is that we are rarely given an answer. Questions are raised everything from the mundane to the profound but jansen skillfully forces his audience to examine and answer these questions ourselves, with little to no help from the characters.<br /><br />side 1 opens with an increasingly complex and beautifully orchestrated arrangement of non-linear segments to introduce us to the main characters. We meet them on the morning of april 8, 1994 the day kurt cobain committed suicide. And it is the death of cobain, and the journey to his wake two days later in seattle, that serve as the backdrop for the film. In exploring cobain's life, music, and death, the characters attempt - with varying degrees of success - to understand and come to terms with their own lives.<br /><br />there are some aspects of the film that are what you might expect from a low-budget indie film: the performances range from decidedly mediocre to outstanding, with the strongest performances coming from jessica scott (holly) and noel wood (daniel); some of the dialogue is admittedly a bit stiff, but never completely strays into the unreal; and there are some minor sound problems, particularly once we get on the road, that make it difficult at times to follow the action on screen.<br /><br />but despite its shortcomings, 'mainly ETC.' is a solid, deeply affecting piece of cinema. amid moments of haunting poignancy, laugh-out-loud humor, and intimate turmoil, jansen deftly weaves all of the character threads together and illuminates their own struggles while at the same time making them accessible and engaging for us. and because we can see reflections of ourselves in one or more of these characters, we can identify with the questions and issues they're struggling with, and we're able to look back and remember where we were on that day in 1994 when for many people the world changed.<br /><br />while jansen takes credit for the writing, editing, and direction of the film, kudos must be given to his photography as well. With an uncanny eye and amazing ability to capture and draw us into each of the characters' worlds, jansen managed to produce shot after shot after shot that stuck with me long after the credits rolled.<br /><br />And no review of this film would be complete without a nod to the amazing soundtrack. the music in this film is used to amazing effect; at times subtly underscoring the action, at other times taking center stage, but never getting in the way or deteriorating into kitschy music video. the soundtrack plays like the ultimate greatest hits, though i suspect that label would probably not sit very well with the director.<br /><br />the new double DVD archive edition offers some deleted scenes, trailers, music videos, and a cobain documentary. the deleted scenes offer some insight into the making of the film through alternate opening and closing sequences, and it's certainly a treat to have the rare and beautiful Raining Kind video. the cobain documentary is fine, if a bit worse for wear, and certainly more extensive documentaries are available for the hardcore fans. conspicuously absent is a director commentary, and i can't help but wonder if jansen has plans to re-release this at some point with that tasty tidbit attached.<br /><br />suffice to say that the next time you're looking for a strong piece of work from a talented filmmaker, I recommend you get on board. | 1 |
16,822 | [
700,
800
] | 646 | 786 | When someone refers to the independent cinema realm in the United States it's often inferred that it means the filmmaker or people behind the project had much more creative freedom and did what they wanted. This, today, is not really always the case unless someone is a solid "auteur" and creative freedom still comes with the caveat that one has to find distribution with one of the independent divisions of major studios or by getting picked up somehow for some kind of low-level deal at a worthwhile film festival. But Putney Swope, Robert Downey Sr's film about a tough-as-nails African-American accidentally promoted to head advertising guru at a production company, *is* independent cinema, the kind of work that went right along with the likes or Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Cassavetes Faces at the same time of getting no real typical studio distribution but causing waves, kicking ass and taking names in the cinema world. For all its moments that are rough and crude, it's unforgettable.<br /><br />It's also a film that is funny, very and excruciatingly funny. Sometimes the sense of humor is just so ridiculous it's nearly impossible not to laugh, from the mere appearance of the President Mimeo with his wife to lines of dialog from the advertisements Swope's team puts together like "I can't eat an air conditioner" in a real "soul" voice. It is as smart as the audience it is aiming at, which is anyone with two brain cells to put together who can see that this work isn't offensive or *too* shocking because it's meant to rattle the cage, and it does this pretty well in the first five minutes. Once that's past Downey Sr goes on his blitz of sorts as far as being a filmmaker with nothing to lose: his protagonist is part Fidel Castro, part Isaac Hayes circa 1972 (and yes it's 1969 in the film) and part hard-assed ad exec with a firing streak to make Mr. Spacely on the Jetsons look kind. And don't forget those side characters, dear God.<br /><br />There's so many memorable lines and moments that it's hard to keep track. From maybe the most hilarious botched assassination attempt in any movie to the one ad for "Face-Off" skin cream that includes lines that would give South Park a run for its dirty-mouth money, to just little asides with the one guy from Jack Hill's movies playing the Muslim who keeps giving lip to Swope and that one boy with the the nun who curses up a storm and impresses Swope in a swift stroke. It's a pretty direct message about media and advertising, but there's also a lot of powerful moments where it just hits the nail on the head about racism in America, sometimes without having to do more than a gesture and sometimes with doing something HUGE like having black panther types going this way and that around Swope's advertising regime. And for a low-budget production (I mean super low, hence the comparison to Night of the Living Dead and Faces) Downey got some really good actors, all non-union, and it's hard to imagine that some of them might have had their first time on camera here.<br /><br />It should be mentioned that Downey's style doesn't make it perfect: it is crude and sometimes too crazy and dated for its own good, and I'm sure I didn't get some of the underlying humor of a couple of the ads since I'm from a full generation after these ads were aired (albeit the "Miss Redneck Jersey" was definitely not lost on me). In general though this is one of the finest of its time period, a satire that stings and a feature with a predominantly black cast that is all too knowing of what comes from an excess of power, regardless of skin color. It is, as someone might say, "good s***." | 1 |
16,897 | [
700,
800
] | 558 | 701 | On March 17, 1974, a man is found dead in the toilets at Manhattan's Penn Station. Although well-known, he cannot be identified because he scratched out the personal information in his passport and his body lays unclaimed at the city's morgue for three days. It turned out to be the body of what many consider one of the greatest American architects of the twentieth century, Louis I. Kahn. He died at the age of 73, on his way from India, where one of his greatest projects, the Institute for Management in Ahmedabad, was nearing completion.<br /><br />One of the most influential post-war American architects, Louis Kahn's architectural legacy includes the house of parliament in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, the Yale Art Gallery, the Salk Institute in California and a kind of mobile "music boat", designed to give concerts in harbours in various cities around the world.<br /><br />While celebrated as an architect, very little was known about his private life. In addition to his wife Esther, and their daughter, Sue Ann, Kahn was survived by two mistresses, Harriet Pattison and Anne Tyng, and their two children. All three families lived within miles of each other in suburban Philadelphia, but their paths never crossed until the funeral. His son, Nathaniel, the director of this film, was only 11 years old at the time, and had only a few memories of his father's weekly visits at Harriet Patterson, Nathaniel's mother, in Philadelphia. Twenty-five years later, he sets out on a journey to confront his father by visiting Kahn's buildings, talking to relatives and colleagues and visiting the places that played a role in Louis Kahn's life.<br /><br />One of the most moving confrontations is when Nathaniel asks his mother, a landscape architect and mistress of Louis Kahn, why she kept up with playing second fiddle to his wife and never confronted him with this. Tears shed her eyes, but she has no regrets. "It was worth it." It's such an intensely sad moment. She's obviously shattered, treated as an outcast at his funeral, which she was forbidden to attend, it's almost as if she led a substitute life. It all feels strangely unreal. Another interview with Edward Bacon, Kahn's architectural nemesis, who was in charge of the rebuilding of his native Philadelpia in the fifties and sixties, almost suffers a stroke on the spot, when he is reminded of Kahn's unsavoury ideas about architecture. His son, Nathaniel, listens uncomfortably when a very senior Bacon literally screams with anger whenever Kahn's name comes up. The final scene is reserved for Kahn's grandest creation, the Capitol in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It took 23 years to complete, a vast and extraordinary building, of which the Bangladeshi are extremely proud. It's one of the very few national symbols with stature in this impoverished nation. Some of the interviews with the locals brought tears in my eyes, especially when they find out they are talking to - God forbid - the architect's own son!<br /><br />The film is as much a personal journey as it is an account of Kahn's grand architectural legacy and is above all about the fruition of the film itself and film-making in general. Perhaps Louis I. Kahn faltered as a father, but these shortcomings in his personal life make for an all the more interesting portrait in this extraordinary film.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10 | 1 |
16,919 | [
700,
800
] | 612 | 721 | A heap of human flesh lies asleep on a red pillow. This is the hunk of naked meat that is "Little Joe", a New York hustler who lives with his bisexual wife and baby child. The film follows a day in his life, after he's woken from sleep by his wife demanding that he go out and do the traditional male thing - be a breadwinner. But the use she wants to put the bread to is to pay for her new girlfriend's abortion. We certainly aren't in the traditional family unit here...<br /><br />After playing with his child, Joe hits the streets to cruise for johns. The clients come thick and fast: the ordinary gay man who wants to meet him again because they "work well together", the old English classical scholar who pays $100 to see Joe pose like an ancient Greek athlete; the female topless dancer who blows Joe then boasts about being raped; the ageing gym bunny who doesn't think that what he and Joe do together is queer. After a hard day's work, Joe returns home exhausted, only to be put down by his wife and the girlfriend. He goes back to sleep as they harp and undermine him.<br /><br />Flesh is fascinating as it takes what is a traditional classical mainstream structure - it has an inciting incident (the money for the abortion) and set-up, a confrontation and a resolution (albeit a very downbeat one), even a protagonist with a strongly motivated goal, and then proceeds to concentrate on the details of the day to day routine of these people who are perfectly ordinary to themselves but extraordinary to most "mainstream" people. It all seems very authentic and natural - it's hard to see the acting, the actors are so fully being their roles - but yet the whole thing is a piece of cunning artifice - a beautifully drawn portrait or an intricately carved statue. Director Morrissey carefully plants every incident, every encounter around his theme of human flesh become packaged commodity but with such cunning slight of hand that you almost don't notice him doing it. The wife "packages" Joe's sexual organ, the old Englishmen laments a long gone order of classical beauty which created art and poetry from human fleshly beauty, the transvestite friends of the stripper package themselves as women whilst reading a Hollywood magazine in which "real" women are packaged as products; the gym bunny buys Joe's friendship and affection, thinks artificial porn is real and can't tell, as we can't, that Joe is performing his friendship and intimacy for the cash. The film itself presents itself as the ne plus ultra of cinematic realism but what we might as well be dealing with here is fine art or an early example of concept art.<br /><br />The genius - a word not lightly used - of Morrissey was to find a way of taking Warhol's arty pretensions to film-making, which were interesting sure but boring as hell, and making them into saleable products which remain amongst the most intriguing works of cinema art ever made - commercial cans labelled "Flesh" and "Trash" and "Heat" with a product label - "Andy Warhol" - which sells an idea about the product as much as the product itself. Yet just as you reel from Morrissey's cynicism, you are spellbound by his ability to still maintain the highest of standards and depth of meaning. The constant what seem like camera flashes continually draw attention to the filmic nature of what one is witnessing, yet you get drawn into the illusion all the same - Flesh is surely one of the most extraordinary pieces of cinema magic to ever spellbind an audience. | 1 |
16,980 | [
700,
800
] | 566 | 720 | The best thing -- and that's pretty good -- about The Black Castle is that it's a black-and- white Forties' Gothic grabber featuring a murderous mad count which was somehow made in 1952. The star ostensibly is the British actor Richard Greene, a capable leading man who reminds me of an earlier version of Roger Moore. The villain is a mad count played by Stephen McNally, who does a credible job except when he's called on to laugh maniacally. Skulking around in the shadows is a long-gowned Boris Karloff in a decidedly secondary role of an aged doctor who may or may not be the salvation of our hero. <br /><br />It's the middle of the 18th Century in Austria and Sir Ronald Burton (Greene) is determined to find out what happened to two close friends. They disappeared in the vicinity of the castle belonging to Count Karl von Bruno (McNally), deep in the Black Forest. It seems that Sir Ronald and his friends had been instrumental in defeating a brutal plan of von Bruno's in Africa three years previously involving slavery and ivory. The Count was left not only with failure, but with a scar on his face and a black patch he now wears to cover a ruined eye. von Bruno vowed revenge, and it seems he might have been partially successful. So under a false name, Sir Ronald arranges for a hunting invitation from the Count, and off we go by carriage through a dark journey of storm and howling wolves to the Count's castle. It's a hulking mass of stone turrets and corridors, shadowy stairways, huge fireplaces...and creepy passages that lead to dank dungeon cells, a torture chamber and a great pit filled with snapping, thrashing crocodiles. It also is filled by the Count's lovely, blond, sensitive wife, Elga (Paula Corday, who sometimes is billed as Rita Corday), and by the Count's two close friends played by those two actors we know from the Fifties who specialized in being slime in costume, John Hoyt and Michael Ansara. There is a dangerous leopard hunt, forbidden kisses, knuckling servants, wooden signs creaking and swaying in the cold wind and poison in a cup. Not the least, Doctor Meissen (Karloff) has a special vial filled with a drug which will so slow the bodily functions that death will seem to have occurred. The risk is that...well, when the person awakes ten hours later, he'd better hope he's not already nailed shut in his coffin. <br /><br />Surprisingly, for all the clichés, The Black Castle keeps moving merrily along. The movie takes itself seriously, but it's competently enough made to keep our interest, even if we wind up sitting back with a smile while we watch. It's even reassuring in a way to realize there are strong echoes of The Most Dangerous Game. When Burton realizes just how crazy von Bruno is, he becomes even more determined to bring von Bruno to accounts. And, naturally, he has fallen for Elga. von Bruno, crazed by vengeance yet crafty and capable, is a man who loves the hunt and is engorged by the kill. Hollywood's second creative rule has always been, "If you're going to steal, steal from the best." It's first creative rule, of course, is "If you're going to steal, steal from the best and then turn it into liverwurst." The Black Castle is a nice bite of Austrian braunschweiger. | 1 |
17,000 | [
700,
800
] | 581 | 752 | You can read all kinds of references into the world of Idiocracy. A futuristic world populated by pampered, self-indulgent morons spoon-fed by the technology of a bygone era: this idea has its precedent in H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" amongst other satires.<br /><br />Early in the film, a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years, but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. Most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission, and the resulting complaint that the world isn't "realistic". As if "realism" has ever been a necessary quality of satire. Is "Brazil" realistic? How about "Futurama" or "Transmetropolitan"? Hell, how about "Gulliver's Travels"? I thought not. "Idiocracy", while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre, hits the same notes and generally does so successfully.<br /><br />Besides, I didn't find the futuristic technology to be a problem. It is pretty easy to figure out that Mike Judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces, so that even total idiots can use them. As in "Brave New World", the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self-sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now-extinct 'smart people' in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace), leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst, most selfish impulses they can come up with, and grow even stupider. The film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity, as everything begins to fall apart for good. It may still be "unrealistic", but if so, it's a remarkably well-presented brand of unrealism.<br /><br />The stupid people take up most of the screen time, of course, but they're just the victims -- they don't know any better. Mike Judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins, but who are very much alive right now, in the 21st century. People like scientists who chase "hair growth and prolonged erections" for no other reason than the possibility that they'll turn a profit on their snake-oil treatments. People like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the FDA and FCC. People like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity -- who enable the destruction of all culture, morality and health to make a quick buck.<br /><br />After all, who is really to blame, the Morlocks or the Eloi? The Paris Hiltons of the world, or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on TV and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there? This is all implicit in "Idiocracy", though. A line here, a hint there (witness the hilarious auto-doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). It's one of the few aspects of the movie that's NOT pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. It's just there for the viewer to pick up, or not, but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that's much smarter than any other comedy of the year.<br /><br />Pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it's just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. Not that that stuff isn't funny too, and maybe it IS a little pandering. But in "Idiocracy", it's just not as simple as it seems. | 1 |
17,037 | [
700,
800
] | 562 | 729 | I've watched this movie on a fairly regular basis for most of my life, and it never gets old. For all the snide remarks and insults (mostly from David Spade), "Tommy Boy" has a giant heart. And that's what keeps this movie funny after all these years.<br /><br />Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) is the son of Big Tom Callahan (Brian Dennehy), master car parts salesman, and has ridden on that all his life. But after his died dies on his wedding day, Tommy learns that the company is in debt, and about to be bought by Ray Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd), the owner of a huge car parts company. So in order to save the company, Tommy has to go on the road to sell the company's new brake pads. Along for the ride, though not by choice, is Richard Hayden (David Spade) a former classmate of Tommy's who was Big Tom's right-hand man.<br /><br />The movie rides on the chemistry between the two SNL stars (and real-life best friends) Chris Farley and David Spade. The duo has enough comic energy going between them to power the world. It's the big, dumb guy versus the smart little guy. It works, and some of their scenes are unforgettably funny. Farley and Spade are actually decent dramatic actors as well. Although the film is primarily a comedy, it has its fair share of drama, but Spade and especially Farley are just as good there as when they're making the audience laugh.<br /><br />Forgive me, but I have to talk about Chris Farley a little more. I read his biography ("The Chris Farley Show: A Biography in Three Acts," for anyone who cares), and understanding who Chris was in real life made this movie more special to me. Chris Farley was a genuinely good person who struggled, and ultimately failed to conquer his addictions. Although this was the first movie he had a major role in, it is his best film. It really showed who he was, and just how much talent he had. Knowing Chris's story adds another layer to this movie, although it doesn't make it any less funny.<br /><br />Farley and Spade are matched with a good on screen cast. Rob Lowe is suitably slimy as Tommy's "new brother," and Bo Derek is solid as his step-mother. Brian Dennehy is great as Big Tom. Dennehy makes it easy to believe that they're father in son. Big Tom is just as crazy as his son, although he's smarter and more mature. Dan Akroyd gives one of his best performances as Zalinsky, giving Tommy the hard truth behind advertising. Julie Warner is also good as Tommy's love interest, Michelle.<br /><br />For me, Peter Segal is one of the great comedy directors. He keeps the pace quick and energetic, but most importantly, he knows how to make comedy funny. He doesn't belabor the jokes, and he understands that funny actors know what they're doing and he allows them to do it. But Segal goes a step further. He gives "Tommy Boy" a friendly, almost nostalgic tone that both tugs the heartstrings (genuinely) and tickles the funnybone.<br /><br />Critics didn't like "Tommy Boy." Shame on them. A movie doesn't have to be super sophisticated or subversively intellectual to be funny (God forbid Farley and Spade were forced to do muted comedy a la "The Office"). This is a great movie and one of my all-time favorites. | 1 |
17,109 | [
700,
800
] | 633 | 728 | I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.<br /><br />The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.<br /><br />For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.<br /><br />It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the "cult" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.<br /><br />The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the "truth," as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.<br /><br />It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.<br /><br />Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.<br /><br />The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.<br /><br />It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of **** | 1 |
17,146 | [
700,
800
] | 522 | 705 | Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).<br /><br />These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.<br /><br />It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.<br /><br />However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).<br /><br />The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)<br /><br />All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.<br /><br />The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).<br /><br />The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)<br /><br />So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!<br /><br />Alex | 1 |
17,147 | [
700,
800
] | 604 | 732 | This is one of my favorite series, all categories, all time.<br /><br />I was fortunate enough to get a hold of the whole series on VHS a few years ago. I loved it when I saw it back in -91 -92, when I was about 12. I love it as much, or more, today, which is remarkable considering my (hopefully) improved film appreciation and criticism skills. Most of the movies I liked back then I'm not that fond of today, besides for the nostalgia factor. That factor is present here as well, but there's so much more to Robin of Sherwood than nostalgia.<br /><br />There are only a few bad things about this series. First, the picture and sound quality is so-so, at least in the first couple of episodes. Fortunately, it gets better. Secondly, you could have wished for a bit more blood and realism in the fighting scenes, although I know that was not an option in this case.<br /><br />So, on to the good things! And there are a lot of them. First of all, Michael Praed IS Robin Hood. I don't think I have seen him in a single role since then, which only strengthen this fact for me. He delivers such a believable performance as Robin. Jason Connery had an impossible task replacing him. The fact that Michael Praed hasn't become a bigger name as an actor is unbelievable. Or perhaps that was his fate, to do this one role perfectly, then disappear.<br /><br />I love Nickolas Graces Sheriff of Nottingham. He is really not a complex character, but totally rotten. The relation between him and Gisburne is just hilarious. Actually, just looking at de Rainault sitting in his throne, bored, glaring, makes me laugh even before he has said anything. Another actor that deserves extra praise is Ray Winstone as Will Scarlet. You can really feel the sadness inside of him as well as his hate for the soldiers who killed his wife. Winstone is an actor that finally has gotten his well deserved Hollywood breakthrough (in films as The Departed and Beowulf). There are a lot of other great actors here, too.<br /><br />I love the portrayal of the Robin gang. They are having fun, playing, laughing, you really get a feel of the camaraderie between them, the closeness that comes from a tight bound group such as this. Those bonding scenes are so important.<br /><br />I think that it being UK produced with British actors really made it better, compared to for example the -92 feature film version with Kevin Costner, that just feels fake, fake, fake. (Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, come on..) The cast being able to speak English with British accent makes it more believable, and I get the feeling that the actors, as well as the director and writers, behind the series can put themselves much more into the shoes of the Robin Hood gang than an American crew could have. The music is wonderful, Clannad is perfect for the feel of the series. The music is another of those things they just nailed.<br /><br />An exciting addition also is the fantasy and magic spice that is put in there. It's not over the top, but believable and just makes the whole thing better and more interesting. I also love how nicely the mix of comedy, adventure and drama is blended.<br /><br />Those are a few of the things that makes this series so alive and so genuine. It's by far the best Robin Hood version I have ever seen. I won't wrap up with the "Nothing's forgotten" quote. But one thing that never will be forgotten, for me, is this fantastic Robin Hood retelling. See it. | 1 |
17,238 | [
700,
800
] | 599 | 761 | First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.<br /><br />Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945<br /><br />When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.<br /><br />Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of "them." Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered. <br /><br />While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this "oversight" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand. <br /><br />Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about "Fargo") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.<br /><br />Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of "a mistake" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka "Meatloaf") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.<br /><br />The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.<br /><br />"Focus'" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses. | 1 |
17,337 | [
700,
800
] | 570 | 701 | I love the other reviews of this movie. They mirror my attitude. I am a 70's sort of guy, minus disco and "Star Wars" childishness. There was nothing great about this movie, except for a chase scene. That is why it was good, because it was tough, basic and economical. Roy Scheider carried the movie, which was based on the crew, the 7 Ups, that backed up Gene Hackman in the "French Connection". The people in it were believable and average, who burned themselves pouring coffee, showed fear in chase scene and almost lost it after a close call crash.<br /><br />Maybe it would be easier to tell you what it lacked. There was no fancy weapons, just basic revolvers and crude sawed off shotguns. There was no tough guy philosophizing, ala Tarantino. There was no kung fu or samurai nonsense and no fancy trick shooting either. There was no clever guy who carries out some complicated scheme based on hundreds of things going just the way he planned including everyone else's reactions. The criminals were bad guys but they didn't shoot people for the hell of it. As a matter of fact, there was a body count of just three. something that the average movie these days would pass in the opening credits. It could be a G movie today! No bus load of orphan school children were kidnapped nor were terrorists threatening to kill half of the city. There were no high tech hijinks, nor were the crimes themselves very moving or ingenious, the highest tech thing I saw was a touch tone ATT wall phone. It had no subplots or amusing character developments. Also, no sex or women, except for one mobster's wife who did some screaming as the Buddy our hero had her menaced.<br /><br />It was some little undertaker who exploited his connections with the local mob and the police to kidnap local mobsters for some easy payoffs. The undertakers. Vito, was played by Tony Lo Bianco who did a great job, as good as Roy Schneider, Buddy the head of 7 Ups cop, whom he informed and exploited. What ever happened to Tony Lo Bianco, he seemed like a Pacino shoe in, good looking and talented? What it did have was a great NYC backdrop to a simple crime story. Locations that were bleak and dehumanizing without being a sociological study. It had a simple plot that involved this kidnapping scheme where one of Buddy's cop got accidentally involved, literally accidentally dragged in then accidentally shot dead. Since Buddy and his 7 ups are a hot dogs unit, both the NYPD Brass and mobsters thought he was involved, since the kidnappers masqueraded as plain clothes cops to lure the mobsters into compliance. Obviously the mobsters figured they had lawyers and rights to protect them from normal police. Even the mobsters were plain, old and ugly, no Godfather royalty or Soprano hipness here.<br /><br />It is a good basic movie with a standout chase scene between two 70's d Pontiacs. Even the cars were plain and economical, not even a GTO or a Trans Am, like the acting and the story. In the days of Batman uber-hype or "24" levels of intensity doomsday scenarios, this movie reminds us that less is better. It should be shown to movie screen writers and directors as a caveat not to dazzle, amuse then ultimately insult us with stunts, gadgets and clown psychotic behavior galore. | 1 |
17,338 | [
700,
800
] | 596 | 715 | ****SPOILERS**** Buried under a mountain of medical bills and his funeral business not being able to dig him out from under them undertaker Vito Lucia, Tony Lo Bianco, came up with a plan to make a load of cash with the help of his two crooked pals Moon & Bo, Richard Lynch & Bill Hickman. <br /><br />Vito getting close with his boyhood friend Buddy Manucci, Roy Scheider, as a mob informer to win over Buddy's trust and have him tell Vito what's coming down on the streets of New York in regard to mob activities. Buddy is a cop who works in a sub rosa unite of the NYPD, the Seven Ups, that does things "their way" to clean up the streets of New York of criminals. <br /><br />Vito gets information from Buddy and makes it look to Buddy that he's really giving him tips about the mob and what it's up too and uses that information to tip off his hoodlum associates, Moon & Bo, to rip the mobsters off of their weekly take as well as kidnap top mob loan sharks and hold them for ransom.<br /><br />Everything is going well for Vito & Co. until the mob decides to retaliate and mistakenly grabs beats and kidnaps a member of the Seven Ups Ansel, Ken Kercheval,who was working undercover thinking he was one of the hoods who was kidnapping and ripping them off. Later Ansel was accidentally killed by Moon when he blasted out the trunk of the car that Ansel was locked in thinking that there was a suitcase full or cash, ransom, in it.<br /><br />Fast pace and exciting movie with that gritty and grimy photography of New York City that was so effective in the movie "The French Connection" which also stars both Roy Scheider & Tony Lo Bianco who are in this movie too. Incredible car chase that started in downtown Brooklyn and ended up in the wilds of New Jersey some 15 to 20 miles away with Buddy almost ending up decapitated for his heroic efforts. <br /><br />Roy Scheider who is not a big man is as tough and effective as any big action actor I can think off like Clint Eastwood would have been in the same movie. Scheider reminds me a lot of, he even looks a bit like him, former welterweight and middleweight champion Gene Fullmer who beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight championship back in 1957 and acts like him too in the movie : tough durable and destructive. <br /><br />Tony Lo Bianco is very good as Vito the undertaker the lowlife heel who plays off Buddy and the mob to the point that leads to Buddy's partner Ansel getting killed. Even though he's trash you can't in a way not help feeling sorry for Vito since he only wants the money he gets from the ripped offed mobsters to pay his sick wife's Rose's hospital and medical bills. Even the fact that Ansel was killed due to his actions Vito never wanted anybody to get hurt but like they say when you play with fire you end up getting burned. In the end Vito have a lot of explaining to do to the not so sympathetic and caring mobsters. <br /><br />The movie "The Seven Ups" has the late Bill Hickman doing the dangerous stunts with the car chases as well as act in the film. Hickman was also the stunt man in both great movies that had him doing the driving on the roads streets and highways of New York City and San Francisco "The French Connection" and "Bullitt". | 1 |
17,357 | [
700,
800
] | 669 | 739 | Rules of Engagement is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It is well constructed, superbly pieced together, and provides excellent footage to back up the assertions that it takes on. The movie's best quality is that it is not based on being sympathetic to the Dividians as much as it enlightens the audience to the blatant governmental mistakes and lies that surrounded the entire situation. I'm left with feelings of disturbing anxiety and extreme anger over the way that the government handled and then covered up a tragedy of this magnitude. The cover up is what left me really fuming. It is one thing to make a mistake in an operation and admit guilt, but another to look the American people squarely in the eye and lie to them. I guess it shouldn't surprise me with the history of our beloved country that has seen the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and other significant events that smell so bad of a cover up that you have to hold your nose every time you drive through Washington D.C. The footage from an airplane with special heat sensing technology and the autopsies on some of the bodies clearly show that the FBI is lying to the public. One of the things that I try to stay aware of when watching a documentary such as this is that I am usually only receiving testimony from one point of view. But again, that is without a doubt one of the brilliant successes of Rules of Engagement. It presents its evidence in such a concluding fashion that even if you were presented with statements from the FBI how could you really believe them. I remember clearly when the standoff was taking place the way the media presented the Dividians as this crazed group of cult rebels with David Koresh, the self professed reborn Jesus Christ, as their leader. None of this was truly factual but rather story spun from bits and pieces of facts. They were simply standing up for there rights to bear arms and practice their religion as American Citizens. If you were the ATF and you wanted to search the compound is attacking the building with a unit of men who are armed with rifles and bullet proof suits the way to go about doing it? If you are the FBI why engage in psychological warfare and offer little in actual negotiation to help solve the situation? Why pour gallons of harmful gas if you want to save children? Why open large holes within the compound structure when you know the possibility of starting a fire? Why lie about not firing weapons when it can be clearly shown on video? Unless. Unless you wanted to see the situation end up the way it did. The scene at the end when the Dividians Star of David flag blew off the flagpole into the fire and the ATF's was shortly thereafter raised up was an emotional climatic scene that made my head shake in disgust and my stomach turn uncontrollably. The filmmaker William Gazecki deserves one my highest congratulations. It takes a lot of guts to make a movie like this and I am sure there have been many repercussions from the government for it as well. Because of people like him the public can be shown real truth rather than crap that gets filtered through a media that presents information that can hardly be considered genuine. When I think back to how I felt at the time toward the Dividians because of the media's representation of David Koresh and how I felt after seeing this movie it is truly amazing. It reminds me of the line from the bible of a man who was healed by Jesus and asked by the elders how it happened "before I was blind but now I can see" he kept telling them. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You may have to look for it but it is truly something special. | 1 |
17,374 | [
700,
800
] | 628 | 752 | Extremely entertaining mid-1950's western that packs a whole lot into just a 96-minute running time. Most viewers will quickly get drawn into this story and will find the experience quite enjoyable. More than just a B-Western but not really an epic, the budget was modest and the cast affordable despite several big names. Glenn Ford was the only box office draw at the time. Edward G. Robinson and Barbara Stanwyck were past their primes and looking for work, Stanwyck was 10 years away from a new popularity in "The Big Valley". Brian Keith and Dianne Foster were just starting out.<br /><br />Ford plays John Parrish, a small rancher who decides to sell out when the sympathetic sheriff is murdered by the big rancher's (Robinson) hired gunman. Parrish is a former Confederate officer who only moved out west for health reasons. <br /><br />Robinson plays Lee Wilkison, who already owns most of the valley and intends to acquire the rest, making good on a promise to his wife Martha (Stanwyck). Lee was crippled in a land war he fought 12 years earlier; his brother Cole (Keith) has come up from Texas to help him run the huge spread. Lee has been turning a blind eye to obvious hookups between Stanwyck and Keith but sensitive daughter Judith (Foster) is understandably upset by what is going on in their home. <br /><br />John Parrish has promised his fiancée Caroline (May Winn) that he will move back east. Caroline, who is modeled on Grace Kelly's "High Noon" character, breaks off the engagement at the first sign of trouble and simply disappears from the film. This leaves the way open for a John and Judith romance to develop. <br /><br />The violence starts early and continues throughout the film, with Parrish able to apply military tactics against an enemy who underestimates his ability and determination. He has a very original confrontation with the main gunfighter about midway into the film. Ford plays one of his standard characters; the modest guy who disarms everyone with a self- deprecating manner, who is slow to take offense but brutal when finally provoked (very much like his role in "The Sheepman"). <br /><br />Robinson is likewise excellent as a man who maintains his personal integrity even though physically just a shadow of his former self. And he gets enough lines and screen time to adequately develop his character. <br /><br />Stanwyck has the most difficult role and she is simply not convincing as the classic two-faced woman, a seemingly loyal wife who is scheming to replace her husband with his brother. In part this is because she is not allocated enough time to do anything more than superficially convey either side of the character. That said, a talented actress could have done a much better job even with these limitations.<br /><br />Dianne Foster is a pleasant surprise. She should remind viewers a lot of Carroll Baker, both physically and in acting style. Although required to play Judith according to 1950's convention (she is allowed to be tough but then required to break into hysterics after each major confrontation), Foster shows a nice range. She conveys a growing attraction for Parrish but does it so subtly that it is only in retrospect that the various clues click into place. <br /><br />The real problem with "The Violent Men" is that it tries to be both an action western and a character study morality play. Because so much has to happen on the screen much of the action is rushed and many of the characters get only a cursory treatment. This is neither fatal flaw nor a reason to avoid the film, but it could have been significantly better with another 20 minutes of running time or the absence of unnecessary characters like Caroline.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | 1 |
17,541 | [
700,
800
] | 622 | 746 | Extraordinary Rendition is a frightening practice authorized, surprisingly, under Clinton, that allows the U.S. government to seize and hold anyone suspected, seemingly for any reason, of being a terrorist against the United States. This is a touchy issue, especially after 9/11, because supporters of the practice will always criticize the opposition as withholding vital power from the U.S. that it needs to effectively fight terror. Fanatic supporters will label the opposition as terrorists in themselves. <br /><br />But like a recent film that lent a similar level of humanity to the death penalty, The Life of David Gale, Rendition shows us a story of the misuse of extraordinary rendition, or at least the ease with which it can be exploited and falsely applied. The story involves Anwar El- Abrahimi, an American chemical engineer born in Egypt who is seized on his way back to America from giving a lecture in Egypt. The cause given is that he made phone calls to a known terrorist. No proof is ever given (or needed) that it was Anwar that made the calls, that his phone was never lost of stolen. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Anwar's extremely pregnant wife, Isabella, is back in the states frantically trying to find her husband, who got onto a plane to Chicago but apparently never got off. The flimsy explanation that he was never there evaporates when she discovers that he made an in-flight purchase using his credit card. <br /><br />Lately I have been researching modern Chinese history, particularly that of the astonishingly selfish and brutal dictatorship set up by Mao Tse-tung, and it is more than a little frightening to see the similarities between extraordinary rendition and some of Mao's brutal scare tactics, including his public executions (which the people were forced to watch), and extensive use of torture specifically used to extract "confessions." <br /><br />It is pretty disturbing to notice that Mao specifically did these things to create an environment of fear in order to achieve obedience from the Chinese people. To say that the Bush administration has not created an environment of fear and continues to milk it for everything it's worth would be naïve in the extreme, and although extraordinary rendition was not created under Bush, it is clear that it does more harm than good.<br /><br />Adding to the thickness of the film is Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who works behind a desk for the CIA and has little field experience, until his boss is assassinated and he suddenly finds himself supervising the torture of a man that he quickly comes to doubt has anything to reveal. Fatima's (Freeman's boss) daughter also plays a pivotal role, as does a senatorial aide played by Peter Sarsgaard, who might have the most satisfying role in the movie. Meryl Streep is also suitably cold and clinical as a chilly senator with a dogmatic support of the necessity and practice of rendition. <br /><br />As a political thriller, the movie is remarkably well-crafted and paced. But the scariest thing about it is that this is all real. The movie's goal is to get people to really think about the things done in America's name, especially when they claim to be done to prevent those same things. Conducting terror in the name of preventing terror will win no sympathy for us, nor will extracting confessions through brutal torture, which is the basest form of criminal investigation. <br /><br />Unfortunately, we are gradually heading in that direction, of doing these things more rather than less. The frightening question is what is the event that is going to take place at some point in the future to convince us to stop and head the other way, toward civilization and peace, or will we just keep heading toward a military dictatorship until we finally get there? | 1 |
17,627 | [
700,
800
] | 587 | 728 | I just recently bought "The Big Trail" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation. <br /><br />There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstaclesboth natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.<br /><br />Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life. <br /><br />The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.<br /><br />I've read much criticism of Wayne's performancesome even going so far as to blame his "wooden acting" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in "Stagecoach". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After "The Big Trail", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When "Stagecoach" came he was ready for it and "The Big Trail" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.<br /><br />I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.<br /><br />All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made. | 1 |
17,657 | [
700,
800
] | 610 | 765 | The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to.<br /><br />The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.<br /><br />After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.<br /><br />“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.<br /><br />As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.<br /><br />In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking. | 1 |
17,663 | [
700,
800
] | 649 | 747 | I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.<br /><br />1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.<br /><br />This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians. <br /><br />A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.<br /><br />Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like. | 1 |
17,707 | [
700,
800
] | 620 | 766 | I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.<br /><br />The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's "The Silence" in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform! <br /><br />Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.<br /><br />This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life! <br /><br />From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.<br /><br />The shooting of "You, the Living" is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.<br /><br />Perhaps the best film I've ever seen. | 1 |
17,819 | [
700,
800
] | 613 | 767 | Hayao Miyazaki's magic continues with this absolute crowd pleaser Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, his latest animated film, which turns on the usual sweetness to charm your socks off. I thought that the trailer featured its song which was quietly hypnotic, and I didn't have to wait for an invite to make sure I got my ticket for the sneak preview of the movie, scheduled to open here next week.<br /><br />For fans of Studio Ghibli films, you'll probably know what you're in for, as Miyazaki has yet another winner in his filmography, that will win new fans over. I'm embarrassed to say the least that I've so far watched only My Neighbour Totoro (eyes that pile of Ghibli DVDs) and love it to bits, but I guess this would serve as a final push for me not to continue missing what would likely be animated films that I would enjoy.<br /><br />Ponyo (voiced by Nara Yuria) is a magic goldfish that yearns to know what is life beyond the sea, with her constant forays in a bubble to the surface of the water to sneak a peek. Nonetheless these ambitions do not bode well with her humanoid dad Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji), who harbours some hatred toward the human race for pollution, and briefly touching a subplot on environmental protection / revenge by Mother Nature as well. An accident one day sees Ponyo being washed ashore, and picked up by five year old boy Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) who lives on a house on the said cliff with his mother Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko), while dad Koichi (Nagashima Kazushige) is mostly out to sea since he's a sailor. And you can expect some moments of throwback to the likes of The Little Mermaid, or Splash made for kids. Saying anything more would be to spoil the fun.<br /><br />The artwork here is still simply astounding even though it's in 2D glory, knowing that each cell is painstakingly worked on. There are so many things going on at the same time within the same frame, that you'll probably be game for repeated viewings just to spot them all. This definitely beats any 3D or CG animated production any day given its beauty coming from its simplicity, and not only from the artwork department, but on its story too, despite complaints coming in that it took a leaf from the Hans Christian Andersen classic. While there are avenues to make this film extremely dark, it only suggested certain dark themes, but opted instead for a film with more positive emotions, suitable for both kids and adults alike.<br /><br />At its core, its about love, that between the family members of Koichi, Lisa and Sosuke, and especially between mother and son. More so, it's about the love between the boy and his new pet fish which he christened Ponyo, and I tell you Ponyo herself has enough cuteness in her to beat the likes of Bolt, WallE and Eve all hands down. Characterization here is top notch, and it's hard not to fall in love with Ponyo, in whichever form adopted, especially when she's such a playful being who doesn't hide her emotions - if she's upset with you, either she turns away or you could expect a jet stream come spewing from her mouth into your face!<br /><br />Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is a definite shoo-in to my top films of this year without hesitation. And the next time I go to Tokyo, I'm sure as hell going to make my way to the Ghibli Museum to bask under the magical world brought to us by Hayao Miyazaki. Highly recommended film, so don't you go missing this on the big screen! | 1 |
17,838 | [
700,
800
] | 570 | 707 | Even from the very commencing title of this movie I really love the artwork and canvas layout of one of the national islands of Japan. We see some great rolling green hills and some oriental houses of a coastal town. Instantly we are looking at the Pacific beauty on the widescreen of the theater. And to prove how great this film is, I have to say that Charles Darwin would be proud. Teachers of evolution classes and school sciences such as biology would fantastically favor Hayao Miyazaki's brand new movie entitled "Ponyo". The title character, as you will see, may be the perfect animation icon of media to be represented in all classrooms and auditoriums alike.<br /><br />Besides the scientific aspect of all this, let's dive into the blue waters of this exciting story. We have a skinny, old and powerful sorcerer named Fujimoto who lives in a submersible and is cynical of the urban expansion of mankind and their pollution of industrial waste. He wants to have complete control of the seas and the cute looking peaceful aquatic life including fish and organisms. Fujimoto, whose blood is composed to be half-human and half-amphibious, resembles both an ocean loving anti-hero and antagonist; similar to the James Bond villain Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me who operates an Atlantis-dubbed underwater city. <br /><br />His daughter, whom he treats like an over-cared-for pet, is named Ponyo. She is a large goldfish who already looks like a pretty red-haired girl. The father bans her from the real human world, claiming it to be dangerous and too much for her to handle. But quite frankly, Ponyo's exploratory curiosity is as strong as her amorous nature. Eventually with building strength, similar to wonderful scenes from Nick Park's "Chicken Run", she breaks free of her father's rocky and fossilized aquatic city and swims to the water surface of Japan, and to her luck and joy, falls into the caring hands of a youngster ship tanker captain named Sosuke. <br /><br />Living in an ocean front house at a neat looking beach (or boulder filled beach), Sosuke has two overworking parents, a senior home working mother Lisa and the first mate of a tanker barge Koichi. Lisa seems to be angry at her spouse for being away on a ship and leaving her with all the housework. Even more so, the black magic that is exerted by Ponyo causes an apocalyptic chain of events to occur: the moon approaches the Earth too closely and waves surge from the unbalancing of the tidal interaction forces, and humongous tsunami waves rack the peaceful but evacuated town. However what seems to underestimate this curse and seems literally more powerful than supernatural might is the love and tightly embraced friendship between the childish Captain Sosuke and the adorable red-headed Ponyo, who wants to be a sensitive human than just a preserved fish. Much like the frizzly haired and free-spirited hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, Ponyo grants me a slight reminder of that.<br /><br />I could write on and on about this amazing animated film, the best since "Coraline" which was in theaters in February. And right now, Hayao Miyazaki, feast your eyes on another 10 star grade from your animation fan, Graham Abraham. The year 2009 may be filled with dozens of animated films; however, Ponyo is the most towering film of many environmental beauties and should be dedicated as a new wonder of the world. | 1 |
17,890 | [
700,
800
] | 618 | 786 | Wolfgang Peterson's In the Line of Fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white-knuckled ride, even if once or twice we might feel like we've been down similar roads before. How could one not when Clint Eastwood, right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy, likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (don't count Blood Work in there). But there's more than that because Eastwood's character, here a hard-bitten, demon-ridden and hard as nails secret service agent, has a slightly charming side to him, even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. There is some complexities going on here that don't rely on just the usual swagger, and it's note-worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (didn't save Kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona, which more than likely hides his wounds- most of the time. Eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film, however, and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him.<br /><br />But there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the 'Harry' type scenes of him being smarter- and as smart-ass- over everyone else in the room, and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass, here a chief of staff), including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. Even the romantic sub-plot, which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs, would make the picture a little sub-par if the other quasi-Dirty Harry aspect didn't come into the picture: an indelible villain. This time there's some extra Hollywood suspense, however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves), with the "John Booth" character, played in an Oscar nominated performance by John Malkovich, as someone who's described more as a predator than an assassin. There's ways this could go wrong with the Eastwood character, but Malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un-collected (there's that devastating, cringe-worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate), and as his past is revealed, there's still that element of 'what the hell is with this guy' that keeps the audience and Eastwood's agent guessing and extra paranoid. It's a classic Malkovich performance, quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism.<br /><br />It's also, aside from the conventional points, just a sleekly made picture from Peterson and company, and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of Don Siegel. But Peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times; anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to Vertigo- jumping from rooftop to rooftop, hero dangling from the ledge, the 'twist'- it still provides some shivers down my spine. There's also the phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game, probably another kick in the ribs to Hithcock. But in the end, even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax, it's also a characters picture in some ways throughout, and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over, at least in the suspense-movie sense. Eastwod's a great lead, Russo plays the female possible love-interest sincere and mature, and Malkovich is top of the pops. There's also a few notable supporting roles too, and a fine studio score in there. One of the better films of 1993. | 1 |
17,993 | [
700,
800
] | 524 | 722 | I saw "Heaven-Ship" ("Himmelskibet") at the 2006 Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. What a great movie! This Danish steampunk saga is the stirring tale of the first trip to Mars, in an era when wireless telegraphy hasn't been perfected. The spaceship hasn't got a radio, and the heroes are brought back from the landing field via horsecart. Even the intertitles are delightful ... some of them written in rhymed couplets in the original Danish.<br /><br />The actors' performances are laughable, largely hand-to-brow histrionics. But the sets are astonishing, easily surpassing anything done by Georges Melies a decade earlier (or in "Die Frau im Mond" a decade later). Of course, the plot is simplistic. The spaceship's crew consist of seven thin guys and one fat slob. Guess which one cracks. Interestingly, everyone in this movie (except the dubious Professor Dubius) ardently believes in God. Even the Martians.<br /><br />Impressively, the scenarists have the sense to acknowledge that a trip to Mars is no doddle: the title cards establish that it takes the scientists two years to build their spaceship (which has an airscrew) and six months to reach Mars. During the construction sequence, there's one extremely impressive set-up which must have been choreographed: dozens of workers all hustle through the worksite in different directions, with no hesitations and no collisions. The Danish scientists christen their ship "Excelsior" ("packing materials"?) and set course for Mars, even though the Moon and Venus are closer. When the ship (which flies horizontally, not vertically) lands on Mars, it is greeted by "Marsboerne" -- Martians -- who turn out to be Nordic blondes, all highly-developed pacifists and vegetarians. (As a highly-developed meat-eater, I resented that part.)<br /><br />Conveniently enough, Mars turns out to have an atmosphere just like Earth's, as well as equal gravity. In an exterior shot of the Martian landscape, the Sun's apparent magnitude when seen from Mars is the same as it is when viewed from Earth. I also couldn't help observing that all the wise elder Martians are male. In fact, female elders are thin on the ground here: both the Earth-born hero and the Martian maiden are motherless. The Martians speak a universal language, wear ankhs on their robes, and greet the Earth visitors with a globe of Earth ... which of course they hold with its North Pole upward.<br /><br />That Martian maiden is Marya, played by an ethereally beautiful Danish actress. (Waiter, I'll have some of that Danish!) We see a Martian dance of chastity which might have been twee or ludicrous but is actually quite touching and beautiful. Also, the Martian funeral scene features one shot which reminded me of a sequence in "The Seventh Seal". I wonder if Ingmar Bergman saw this film.<br /><br />"Himmelskibet" has a few flaws, but its production design and its other merits very far outweigh its drawbacks. The Ole Olsen who is named in the credits (and who appears in a brief prologue) is no relation to Chic Johnson's vaudeville partner from "Hellzapoppin". I would give "Himmelskibet" a 12, but the scale tops off at 10 ... so, a full 10 out of 10 for this delightful trip to Mars, the blonde planet! | 1 |
18,041 | [
700,
800
] | 616 | 790 | Yikes! and we all thought Joan Crawford was THE horror Mommy Dearest...well Laura Hope Crewes as Mom in this stinging 4 character film delivers (and cops) the goods in this cracker of a marital Mommy mangle.....THE SILVER CORD is a genuinely sensational pre code drama from RKO made in 1932 released in '33 from a 1929 play. So astonishing, frank and honest is each startling verbal exchange between one son's wife (IreneDunne) along with the other's fiancé as these two younger girls together go to war - gleefully angrily unwrapping the clearly incestuous hankerings of Mom towards her hunky eldest son played by virile Joel MacCrea and her younger 'beau'/son payed by delicate and beautiful 25 year old actor Eric Linden. I would think this film played to many howling appreciative audiences in huge theaters in 1933 and offers viewers even in 2005 a very fruity melodrama enlivened by crackling dialog not afraid to call Mother exactly as she is. This film would have been impossible to make after the censorship code came in after 1934. Other viewer comments on the IMDb support my reaction and you will find almost everyone lucky enough to see (and tape) THE SILVER CORD will agree it is an unforgettable and pungent script in a superbly produced film. It would have played like the VIRGINIA WOLF of 1932. Laura Hope Crewes must have kissed the sound stage at RKO for this role of a lifetime..even more than her fluffy turn in GWTW. Irene Dunne is as gorgeous and casual and believable as ever, fighting for her husband yet again, and it is well worth seeing The Divorcée made in 1929 as a companion piece to THE SILVER CORD. Joel MaCrea is certainly in the same league as Cary Grant and Randolph Scott in the handsome and lovable stakes. I had never seen Eric Linden in a real acting role before (he played the leg amputee in the hospital horror scene in GWTW) and here he is startling and youthful with an excellent role as Robert, the younger and more sensitive son. Some verbal barbs leveled at him again would not get past the Code office if made later. This is a really good film, and if the viewer forgives some of the creakiness of its time and settles in for a sparring match of unequaled pungency for a 1932 movie, you will be well rewarded. At first I thought some of the throat clutching melodrama of Mother was dated until I realized it was a set up of the excellent screenplay to make the viewer laugh at her as though she is a weak little old lady......NOT..... but nor are the other two women in this powerhouse play on film, hence the fantastic retort dialog. That ocean-liner seen in reel one is THE LEVIATHAN the monster ship the US won from the Germans in WW1 that was so huge and unwieldy that crews were nervous wrecks trying to wrestle with it upon the Atlantic. It is infamous for ploughing headfirst up a colossal wave in a storm and shot over the crest at such an angle the spine along the bottom cracked and the ship split vertically between the funnels. It limped to port with rattling steel panels and winking rivet holes...and mentally shattered crew and passengers. It was scuttled in 1935 after being cursed and plagued with horror mechanical problems all its existence. Not such a war prize after all. <br /><br />Anyway, the dialog in THE SILVER CORD is enough excitement for one night: eg: "Mother! the Doctor said there was nothing wrong with you, in fact he said it would take a stick of dynamite to kill you". Whammo! | 1 |
18,098 | [
700,
800
] | 560 | 735 | The only problem with Married to the Mob is that it is not funny. It dresses up exactly like a romantic comedy, but almost nothing that happens is funny. But if you can look at it as a film where almost nothing funny happens, then you'll have a really good time. It's a glitzy mob film, too, as per the title. Extremely glitzy. But the director, Jonathan Demme, is one of the few prevailing cult directors who fully and completely embraced the 1980s in his work from that decade rather than understandably pretending it was still the 1970s.<br /><br />The opening credits combine 1980s animation, Italian-Americanism and mise-en-scene lathered on top of each other at once. From there, despite 1980sness, it feels about right. The lighting by Demme's frequent cinematographer Tak Fujimoto and jukebox soundtrack rife with widely varying pop and alternative jams are gaudy and that is indeed controlled and nuanced as part of the atmosphere. Demme is good at colorful instant characterizations in his visual and sometimes seemingly impetuous composition of a fun mix of styles, a plot that could've gone any which way, where a smooth FBI agent, played by a very bland Matthew Modine, trying to infiltrate a mafia family, sees a chance when a gun moll, played with come-hither allure by Michelle Pfeiffer, tries to leave the criminal lifestyle after her trigger-man husband, in just what you would hope for in an Alec Baldwin performance, is wacked.<br /><br />The way it goes works for awhile, because Demme seems to have a firm hand on the wheel. He knows the significance of showing us the very subjective and relatable life-at-home scenes with Pfeiffer, as well as her cares and longings as a morally conflicted mom, although her relationship with son Joey is taken a bit for granted. What mobster's son is listening to party-pooper mom when dad's boss, played with Dean Stockwell's trademark naturalness and by far the scene-stealing stand-out of the cast, is giving him such awesome gifts? On the whole though, Demme's lathered-on stylizations are easily viewed as a novel take on a fun crime thriller tale.<br /><br />Ultimately, though, we find we've been going the wrong way, because inevitably, Modine and Pfeiffer have to fall in love. That's not inherently bad, and every here and there it actually feels bearable, but as a romantic subplot, it is not handled interestingly, or well, hardly at all because it hopscotches across various sundry clichés, which fulfill the initial expectation of a cheesy 1980s date flick, and for that audience, I think it has just the right impact. But for someone who has found themselves genuinely interested in the story and the aesthetic approach, it is a let-down into state of tedium.<br /><br />So it's a decent movie with huge missteps at certain points, but as a date movie or a nostalgic piece for those who grew up in the '80s, perhaps saw a lot of date movies in the '80s, the entertainment value is not as likely to fluctuate, except for said deficit in true laughs. There maybe a few scoffs, and it's very broadly tongue-in-cheek, but I wouldn't leave the comedy aisle with the high hopes with which I'd have initially entered. Whatever the case anyway, there are additional joys in bit roles by great character actors who have by now begun to fade, like Nancy Travis, Joan Cusack and Oliver Platt. | 1 |
18,104 | [
700,
800
] | 619 | 771 | It is not always certain that by mixing comedians together you will produce laughter. The comics involved have to actually like or admire each other, or be willing to put up with each other's crankiness. GO WEST with the Marx Brothers had Buster Keaton write the script as a gag man. Groucho did not think too highly of Keaton's ideas, and embarrassed him at a script meeting. And though some of Keaton's gems still appear in the finished film (such as the gun that turns into a brush that turns into a gun) the film was one of the weakest the Marx Brothers ever made.<br /><br />A better film, but also affected by dueling comic egos, was W.C. Fields and Mae West in MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, which jettisoned the script for a series of duels of one liners between the leads. But the one liners were equally funny, so the film remains a success.<br /><br />But SIX OF A KIND is an example of six film comics who worked well together. The reason is simple: it is really three comic teams working together: Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland, George Burns and Gracie Allan, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth. Ruggles and Boland were paired in about half a dozen comedies during the 1930s, usually with Boland as a somewhat bossy wife, and Ruggles as a nervous wreck of a husband. Fields (usually a single act) was paired three times with Skipworth (TILLY AND GUS and IF I HAD A MILLION were the other two times). Skippy always figured out how to control or counter the larcenous activities of her man - it the present film she takes action into her own hands with the stolen money that is being searched for (she knows that the local sheriff, Fields, is not the one to trust with this). As for Burns and Allan they manage to effortlessly involve themselves with the put upon Ruggles and Boland on their cross-country trip by car.<br /><br />Ruggles quickly gets to realize what a mistake it was to agree to travel with Gracie - at one point she manages to cause him to fall off a cliff, and dangle from a branch. He is relatively helpless when she insists on 1) photographing him on his perch, and 2) correcting his grammar. The presence of George and Gracie's humongous dog ("Ran Tang Tang" is it's name) does not make travel arrangements easier for Charlie and Mary.<br /><br />Fields has some choice moments. When he insists on shouting at the quartet, he says he's allowed to do so - he's the sheriff! He also explains, during a pool game, the improbable story of how he got his undeserved moniker "Honest John". You have to listen carefully to the tale, as it is interrupted with his attempts to play pool a few times (once getting accidentally beaned by a billiard ball), but it does show that there were items that even Fields would have had no reason to steal.<br /><br />Oh, in the "Summary Line", I mentioned a forgotten actor named Bradley Page - he was the man who is responsible for the trouble that Charley Ruggles is suspected of. Bradley has to have a reason to leave town in order to catch up with the unwary Ruggles and Boland, so he telephones his girl friend. He tells her to call back his job and say that he has to leave town because somebody has died. There is a pause as he apparently hears a question shot back by the girlfriend. "ANYBODY!", he says - clearly annoyed. Although the bulk of the humor in the film is carried by the sextet of performers, Mr.Page happened to have the most amusingly unexpected line in the film. | 1 |
18,153 | [
700,
800
] | 579 | 743 | A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.<br /><br />This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clichés, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . "Have you seen Scream 3?", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and/or atmospheric horror.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.<br /><br />- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.<br /><br />- Mystery: None at all, really.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.<br /><br />- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.' <br /><br />Final verdict: 7/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.<br /><br />-AP3- | 1 |
18,165 | [
700,
800
] | 600 | 716 | The Elegant Documentary -<br /><br />Don't watch this movie ... if you're an egotistical know-all student of physics. This much less than one percent (miniscule fraction) of the population may find that this show just tells them what they have already learned and already know.<br /><br />Do watch this movie! - If you're one of the massive majority of people that fall into the greater than 99% of the population that does not study or already have a sound knowledge of the theories of physics including Relativity, Quantum, String and M-theory.<br /><br />What a brilliantly architected documentary. Starting with some helpful historical background you will be lead step by elegant step into a Universe of pure magic - and dimensions beyond. I have always had a huge appreciation of Mathematics. This movie can easily give you an insight into what an exquisitely beautiful language mathematics is without making you feel like you're about to fail the grade.<br /><br />The show is repetitive at times as the original format was a mini-series split over three shows. It therefore makes sense to give us polite little reminders of the principles being presented. I found this immensely helpful as it kept reminding me of the multitude of questions and possible answers that make up this amazing tapestry of our very existence.<br /><br />We are all (and everything around us) is vibrational-energy with a natural tendency towards harmony. This movie may blow your mind - or at least help you realize that the universe is far far bigger than that which we see around us (even with the Hubble Telescope) and far far smaller than the protons and neutrons within the atoms we learned about in high-school. M-theory holds many magnificent magnitudes of 'possibility'.<br /><br />It just seemed so appropriate that all of this elegance should by it's very nature move (by admission by the many brilliant scientists presenting) out of the realm of Science and into the realm of Philisophy.<br /><br />You do not have to be religious at all to feel like this movie brought you one step closer to God.<br /><br />Bravo Brian Greene. Well done indeed.<br /><br />P.S. If you're interested in feeling even more comfortable and at home in your place in the Universe and would like some more insight into the 'possibilities' Quantum mechanics blended with Spirituality (of all things) can bring then I highly recommend that you also watch "What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole". Yes I know they make a few silly mistakes by suggesting a Shaman may not be able to see a boat if he hasn't seen one before (my eyes process light reflections just fine - I see things everyday that I've never seen before) and brain cells are cells in the body that actually don't divide. But if you can get over these little hurdles and put down the things you don't like and hang on to those that you do - there is a lot to like about this film.<br /><br />Then watch "The Secret" (2006 documentary about The Law of Attraction - search for IMDb title "tt0846789"). This information just might change your life profoundly - forever. If you search deeper you might even find the Universe is talking to us with thought (if you'll listen) - and some are - and that is truly incredible. There is a modern day Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha (those, among others, that history suggests have communicated with the non-physical) alive today and she lives in Texas. I know some of you know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />I do not consider myself religious by any traditional definition but I have never felt more at home or as comfortable in the Universe as I do now. | 1 |
18,203 | [
700,
800
] | 587 | 729 | I'd never heard of this Aussie horror prior to Michael Elliott's enthusiastic review; in fact, after having read it, I decided to check if the DVD was available at my local rental outlet and it was (albeit a German edition i.e. sans the R1 extras), so I opted to check the film out immediately.<br /><br />While I wouldn't go so far as to give it full marks only a select few titles get them from me, let alone an obscure modern flick I have to say that I was quite impressed with BLACK WATER. Rather than looking back to previous crocodile movies, such as ALLIGATOR (1980) and LAKE PLACID (1999), it evokes the memory of two which saw a small group of people who go on a trip, get lost and find themselves at the mercy of the elements and the creatures inhabiting the place namely LONG WEEKEND (1978), itself a little-seen but impressive Australian production, and OPEN WATER (2005).<br /><br />The compact, simply-plotted film involves a couple and the woman's younger sister who decide to go fishing in a remote and forbidding part of the Australian wilderness, known as crocodile territory; very soon (in fact, before even 15 minutes have elapsed!), their boat is capsized and the guide killed by an alligator so our luckless adventurers take refuge up a tree. The DVD Talk reviewer believes the film suffers from spending too much time in this one location with the three arguing about what they should do, attempts to retrieve the boat, seeking a way out of the jungle through the trees (only to be met with nothing but water) and the occasional attack by the monster. However, I think the makers take the situation as far as it will go without slipping into tedium: this is due to the palpable suspense and, as Michael said, the believability of the characters (particularly the two women)
but also the fact that the crocodile here makes for one of the scariest and most memorable in recent memory (I wonder how they got it to 'perform')! <br /><br />I also agree with Mike that the film contains some really effective shock moments the alligator leaping out of the water to take a bite at the petrified heroes; its head suddenly emerging in front of the women as they're making for the boat; even though one of them does reach the vehicle, the monster manages to lift its massive weight and get in the boat with her!; towards the end, as the same girl manages to find a gun (on the mangled body of their guide), loads it and lies in wait for the alligator to appear, the latter sneaks up from behind her (incidentally, the creature is bestowed with the craftiness of the shark in JAWS [1975]). With this in mind, the finale is just as crowd-pleasing (though on an obviously smaller scale) as that of the classic Spielberg blockbuster even if it has a downbeat follow-up. Another definite asset is the film's sparse score which is generally rather lovely, but becoming unnerving at just the right moments.<br /><br />At the end of the day, BLACK WATER emerges as a breath of fresh air in the face of the demoralizing slump into which horror cinema has fallen of late; for this reason alone, it deserves greater exposure so as to remind us that there's hope yet for our beloved genre (without the real necessity of resorting to the gimmickry of a CLOVERFIELD [2008] to command attention)
| 1 |
18,235 | [
700,
800
] | 580 | 770 | This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.<br /><br />The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!<br /><br />Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.<br /><br />The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as "monkey meat", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.<br /><br />In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).<br /><br />FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective. | 1 |
18,237 | [
700,
800
] | 598 | 754 | A harrowing masterpiece on the sheer madness and despair of war, Fires on the Plain (Nobi) is not going to be to everybody's taste: this is a war movie in the truest possible sense of the term, one that resorts neither to flag-waving patriotism nor saccharine sentimentality. Nobi cuts deep, it's ugly, tenebrous and bleak as few things ever committed on celluloid will ever be. This is war behind the cannons, with no triumphs or heroes, no moral victories or defeats to be had, just a handful of gaunt and terrible-looking men strewn across a land ravaged by war like penitents fleeing a great disaster. The characters defy moral judgment because they are creatures beset by a great woe, a woe that does not permit questions of a moral nature. War and survival. Pitting one's will against the other's in a battlefield arena. The loser is simply removed from existence.<br /><br />Tamura, soldier in the Japanese Imperial army, is discharged from his platoon and ordered to report in a nearby hospital on account of him coughing blood and being disliked by the rest of the platoon. He's told to never come back and instead commit suicide by hand grenade in case the hospital rejects him. Which it does. The hospital is nothing but a shack made of wooden planks and the hospital surgeon simply tells him that if he's capable of walking he's just fine. It is in that shabby excuse of a hospital that one of the most harrowing scenes of the film takes place. As the area is carpet bombed by American planes the doctors and those who can walk and sustain themselves flee from the hospital and into the woods. Moments before the hospital is blown to pieces, the gaunt and crippled figures of the sick and injured crawl out of it in every manner of posture, dressed in their sickly white robes, as if the building is some kind of beast spewing viscera and filth out upon the earth.<br /><br />That is Nobi's greatest success; the stark and brooding depiction of the suffering of war in simple but evocative images, without melodrama or pseudo-heroism. Soldiers cross a marsh, wading knee-deep in mud, move across the opposite bank and into a field only to discover enemy tanks hiding in the woods, their lights shining like malignant eyes as they scan the dark. A procession of injured soldiers, dirty and half-mad, crossing a road, dropping to the ground on the sound of enemy planes. Buzzards feasting on a pile of dead bodies. An abandoned village. A mad soldier that believes himself to be Buddha sitting under a tree, covered with flies and his own excrement, offering his arm to be eaten by Tamura when he's dead. These are the images Kon Ichikawa conjures for our eyes, merciless and unflinching in their poignancy but honest and raw.<br /><br />Nobi doesn't rush to get somewhere. It is content to follow Tamura's travels through the war-torn land as he tries to reach the regrouping center of Palompa, and observe the madness and obscenities of war. The movie wades through the sludge of the horror of war, slow and brooding, just like the characters it follows. The final thirty minutes with Tamura taking refuge with two deserters who feed on 'monkey meat' are the closest Nobi comes to adhering to conventional narratives and they're no less powerful for that matter. Strikingly photographed in black and white, with great performances from the cast, and Ichikawa's assured direction, Nobi is not only among the best war movies to be made but also among the finest of Japanese cinema. | 1 |
18,272 | [
700,
800
] | 581 | 711 | This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.<br /><br />The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.<br /><br />There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.<br /><br />I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.<br /><br />Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.<br /><br />Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.<br /><br />The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points. | 1 |
18,332 | [
700,
800
] | 585 | 751 | Although it may not be Cassavetes' best work, Minnie and Moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. The plot is whimsical and charming, and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion -- much more drama than comedy, contrary to IMDb's profile. Yes, the story is whimsical, but not arbitrary; it succeeds as believable, albeit a tad forced -- which I will come back to. All of the artistic aspects are of true Cassavetes form: the cinematography and camera-work are delights, and the soundtrack -- albeit barely there -- is complimentary. Plus I believe I noticed some nods to Godard and such in the editing -- as I have in a few of Cassavetes' other films -- (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene), which are interesting.<br /><br />I feel the plot is built up nicely, with the first half being particularly enjoyable. Seymour's conversation with Morgan Morgan (Timothy Carey) in the diner, for example, is wonderfully funny and fascinating, and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. This philosophising -- a tradition in Cassavetes' films -- is what made the film for me. Seymour's amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp -- though his character is curiously similar to that of his in Faces (1968). This tipped me, however, (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against Cassavetes' best work. I gained an affection for this film that I lacked on first viewing.<br /><br />There are, sadly, several aspects that make this film imperfect. I find the plot to be unbalanced. As I said before, it builds up nicely, but it wanes a bit here and there, particularly towards the end. Because of the spontaneous style in which Cassavetes worked, and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise, the quality of his product can easily go either way. In this case it's inconsistent. I assess that most of this film was improvised, and most of it beautifully. But one or two scenes, unfortunately, just don't work. In particular, the scene after Seymour fights with Minnie's work associate outside her house. During what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film, Cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue -- presuming some was planned beforehand. This, I believe, was a mistake. One gets the impression Cassel doesn't quite know what to do, as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech, often not making sense, and overacts; all of this damaging the scene and the character development. I understand Seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool, but Cassel's attempts here are misapplied. Why does he cut his moustache off? These flaws are resulting from: a lack of direction on Cassavetes part; a lack of understanding and forethought on Cassel's part; a lack of rehearsal and preparation; etc. Evidently, Cassavetes didn't learn from his mistakes, as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) -- the committing scene, and ending.<br /><br />The flaws I mention are not minor, but they do not ruin the film. They simply make some scenes cringe-worthy and unrealistic, spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. However, I am very, very fond of Cassavetes and all of his actors, particularly Cassel, in spite of the faults I mentioned. This is a very enjoyable film, although it proves the precariousness of Cassavetes' style. | 1 |
18,366 | [
700,
800
] | 603 | 719 | I have been most fortunate this year to have seen several films at my university's art museum. On occasion, well, more like half of the time, I am unable to watch the films there. I have systematically attempted to view each of the films that I have missed. So far Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea and Who Killed the Electric Car? are the other films that I have had to watch this way. The film covers an intriguing subject matter and is well-theorized (emphasis on this later) but not as successful as Plagues and Pleasures, but far superior to Electric Car. <br /><br />The film's thesis concern's the future of the American concept of suburban living. It questions the feasibility of such a practice as oil prices rise. So, the film discusses the origin of the suburb, and it's evolution until the early 2000s. One theme the film discusses at length is the alienation the suburb creates among its inhabitants. While several people may live together, they do not "know" each other as we define the word. This, to me, represents the strength of the film: its appeal to actual human emotion. We are able to understand the filmmakers' argument so much easier because they do not have to convince us of their argument's legitimacy. This is also one of the reasons Salton Sea is such a wonderful documentary. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Suburbia loses its message in firebrand explanation in support of its central argument. As those interviewed speak, their arguments become progressively more akin to those made by militant environmentalists. We are told that oil production will hit its peak in this decade, but are given no scientific evidence (professional reports, statistics, graphs, etc) in support of this claim. We are given little information as to how this date was calculated. Fortunately, this was the only significant flaw that I was able to detect in the film's argument yet it's a glaring one nevertheless. Another less-important discrepancy I noticed was the liberal (political) bias which could polarize some viewers. However, this bias is revealed thorough clips of various events and not the filmmakers themselves. The clips, especially those from the 1950's, seemed a tad unnecessary to me. The film was no better with their presence, and would have been more concise in their absence. <br /><br />As I thought more of this film before composing this review, I thought about why I found its argument more convincing than other documentaries that I'd recently viewed. Finally, I realized that the filmmakers actually offered analysis to the suburban problem. They propose a decentralized village-system where pockets of people would live together. They posit this practice would lower the necessity for fossil fuels and reduce wasted space. They define wasted space as the long stretches of parking lots between shopping areas, for instance. What is incredible about this supposition is that it's actually conceivable. Most documentaries vaguely state that some problem should be ended but offer no method of doing so. Thinking more about the film, I decided that this analysis is what saved the film for me and why I give it a favorable review. <br /><br />While neither perfectly convincing nor fluid in presentation, The End of Suburbia is a worthwhile investment of one's time. It not only addresses the contemporary problem of sprawl, but it also provides realistic insight on how to amend it. The audience can also enjoy the high production value with various clips from the 1950's spliced with the modern arguers. People living in Atlanta, Georgia or the Triad region of North Carolina will particularly enjoy this documentary as sprawl is the most established there. | 1 |
18,402 | [
700,
800
] | 591 | 797 | Lemuel Gulliver (Ted Danson) is a doctor who goes missing at sea, leaving pregnant wife Mary (Mary Steenburgen) behind. Eight years later, he turns up, disheveled and seemingly mad - babbling about his adventures in the lands of the tiny Lilliputians, the giant Brobdingnags, the floating island of the intellectual Laputa, and the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent, talking horses who have to deal with the Yahoos - a race of bestial humans - among many other adventures. The not-so-good Dr. Bates (James Fox), who has designs on Lemuel's wife, has Gulliver incarcerated in a mental institution, and Lemuel, Mary, and son Thomas (Tom Sturridge) must find a way to prove his sanity.<br /><br />A splendid adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical novel, this film is a magnificent adaptation on so many levels: the story, the satire, the characters, the visuals, the brilliant cast. It's simply a treat to watch, and it's almost amazing considering that it was a made-for-TV film.<br /><br />The film does a brilliant job of capturing Swift's vicious satire, which cuts like a hatchet through British society of the time, but still resonates today. The wise Brobdingnags and the Houyhnhnms are almost perfect individuals who find it virtually impossible to understand why Gulliver speaks with such pride of the vices and corruptions of his society. The scenes where Gulliver struggles to prove himself different from the Yahoos are perhaps the best, with biting satire in describing how they pick their leaders ("they seem to pick the worst among them. . . who rules until they find someone even worse"), go to war ("We only go to war for a very good reason - such as they are weaker than us, or we want all of their land"), etc. The scenes involving Laputa are also effectively done - the intellectuals are so wrapped up in their specialized fields that they have no time for anything else, and really possess little common sense. And the addition of the asylum plot line enhances the story greatly - Dr. Bates is truly nasty character, and when he gives a speech to the inquiry on Gulliver's alleged vices, it's quite clear that he's describing his own faults.<br /><br />The film makes use of beautiful, and fairly convincing CGI effects depicting the very diverse settings of the novel with great effect. The contrast of sizes is done in a very skillful way, and all of the worlds depicted in the story are convincing in their own way. The cinematography (particularly that concerning the asylum) and the costumes are brilliantly done. The editing of the present with Lemuel's memories is a device which could be awkward, but works very well.<br /><br />The cast is truly wonderful; a veritable who's-who of British and American talent. Ted Danson gives an excellent, multi-layered performance as Gulliver, showing effectively his transformation from a person bewildered by his strange surroundings, to the lunatic state he was in when he reappears, to his rational, intellectual personality at the end. Most well-known for his work on sit-com, Danson shows that he's more than just Sam Malone with this wonderful serio-comic performance. Mary Steenburgen is effective as his wife, and James Fox is absolutely repulsive as Bates. The rest of the cast is made up mostly of cameos, with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Warwick Davis, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Chaplin, Alfre Woodward, Edward Fox, and Sir John Gielgud being the most memorable - but even the smallest parts are very well-played.<br /><br />While not 100% faithful to the book, "Gulliver's Travels" is a triumph of story and images. It's not to be missed.<br /><br />9/10 | 1 |
18,438 | [
700,
800
] | 589 | 763 | Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.<br /><br />The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as "Frogland" or "The Frogs Who Wanted a King." A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.<br /><br />Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.<br /><br />Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: "News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom." When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is "Let well enough alone."<br /><br />Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made "Frogland," but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. "Frogland" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke. | 1 |
18,467 | [
700,
800
] | 599 | 722 | The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.<br /><br />It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.<br /><br />The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.<br /><br />Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.<br /><br />The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.<br /><br />The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.<br /><br />And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.<br /><br />So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21. | 1 |
18,509 | [
700,
800
] | 625 | 760 | Blue ribbon banners, stars and stripes forever, decorated generals, and unconditional surrender from the enemies which required tons and tons of radiation, this was the summon substance of the United States victory in World War II!! The celebration on Times Square as well as everywhere else in the United States suggests a national zenith!!! America is on top right!! one thing, one agonizing and painstakingly perverse thing..The period of adjustment!!..The actual celebration ended when the bottle of champagne was finished..Now everyone needs to get on with their lives...only one problem though...they have to get new lives...the old lives are gone forever...Polite and pleasant smiles had a fragile facade with a longevity of ice cubes in boiling water!! Everyone of the characters in the movie is paraded by primal doubts, and unable to masquerade a pretense about how nothing was seriously wrong, for the simple reason that it was not true!!! Once sergeants, and generals, and their wives, and daughters, and sons and virtually all other Americans touched by World War II, were exposed to disabilities, nightmares and recriminations of World War II and what it really accomplished as well as negated, nobody was the same!! For now, social and moral issues had a self serving interest...Frederick March and Myrna Loy had to start over!! Dana Andrews realized that he should never have been married to Virginia Mayo in the first place!!! Theresa Wright has become painfully aware of the fact that she is constructively selfish!! Las but not least, the character, Homer, is about to get married and he thinks that everyone around him is as devastated by his injury as he is, basically in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to cope!!<br /><br />The reason this film is so fabulous is because a happy ending was attained the hard way, once everybody recognized the new beginning of the new United States and the new world overall, tragedy from WWII was recognized, and things that were emotionally torn asunder were taken in stride, and dealt with accordingly!! Frederick March and Myrna Loy need to go back to chapter one in their marriage, Homer has apprised his new bride as to what it takes to be married to him (i.e. half the times, she will feel like a nurse) and Thresa Wright's involvement with Dana Andrews means that her entrance into adulthood has resulted in partial responsibility for breaking up a marriage...This is tantamount to learning how to drive a car to get your driver's license at the Indianapolis 500...The characters in the movie are the typical post WWII Americans in that they are stalemated by the rude awakening of coercive changes to their lives...Happiness no longer is afforded the luxury of the adjective cop-aesthetic...it is now about formidable conditions, and good winning out over evil by way of the less ugly choice!!...World War II did not just happen!! It will henceforth dominate the social patterns of American living!!!<br /><br />The aggregate catastrophe of World War II has mirrored most Americans' feelings of personal human inadequacy as well!!I loved this film and so did AFI, probably for the reason that it brought out issues that were at one time unjustifiably taboo!!..Bottom line, see this movie!! Nightmares about combat, dilemmas about marital unhappiness and/or readjustment, coping with your life when stricken-ed by a disability and just basically acting human are portrayed constantly in movies and television today, HOWEVER!! this is 1946!! Very new to Americans then....REMEMBER THAT!! Director William Wyler has illustrated how Americans feel about the aftermath of WWII in the days when the movie industry has left him with one hand tied behind his back!!! Take that into account and you will probably realize just how sensational this movie really was!! | 1 |
18,514 | [
700,
800
] | 668 | 784 | The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently.<br /><br />I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought.<br /><br />I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington.<br /><br />Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well.<br /><br />No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help.<br /><br />The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens.<br /><br />The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife standard fair for 30's/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems.<br /><br />Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are.<br /><br />All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves.<br /><br />I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege. | 1 |
18,556 | [
700,
800
] | 613 | 709 | (There are Spoilers) Driving down a lonely country road one rainy afternoon Joanna Kndall, Margaret Colin,is distracted for a brief moment and runs down a little girl riding a bicycle on the side of the roadway. Doing what she can to keep the injured youngster comfortable Joanna goes to call for help at a local service station. Before she can give her name Joanna hangs up the phone in order to get back to the girl and see if she's all right; it's then and there when the nightmare begins for Joanna. <br /><br />Heart-wrenching drama that can effect any one of us when you try to do the right thing but are influenced by the words and feelings of those around you. Getting back to the accident site Joanna sees it's cordoned off by the highway police. Before she can tell them what happened, and her involvement in it, Joanna starts to have second thought about turning herself in. <br /><br />What would at first have been a tragic accident turns out to be a hit-and-run with Joanna facing time behind bars, if caught. Even far worse she has to live with herself in what she did seeing almost every day the family of the little girl she ran down Kelly Corey, Dallas Deremer, who goes to the same school as her two daughters Mindy & Holly, Gretchen Esau & Kira Posey. Joanna's life starts to come apart as she tries to keep the truth from her friends and family, not to mention the Eaton Police, of what she was involved with in little Kelly's accident. <br /><br />You can easily see how the words of her friends and neighbors as well as her husband Doug, Drew Phillbury, about the hit and run, effected Joanna. It was those words that had Joanna unable to bring herself to admit what she did not just for her own concern but her two daughters and her husband as well. Feeling that they'll be shunned by the people that they knew as friends as well as neighbors for years. <br /><br />Joanna on the verge of losing her mind tries to implicate her friend Nancy Grayson, Sherry Hursey, in Kelly's hit-and-run accident by trying to plant her earing, that she lost in Joanna house, at the accident site. It's then that she realizes what she's doing and suddenly stops,keeping her from making an already bad situation even worse, not wanting to have Kelly's accident but also innocent Nancy's freedom and reputation on her conscience as well. <br /><br />Margraet Colin gives a stunning performance as the guilt ridden Joanna Kendall and you can really feel for her seeing how she's being eaten up inside and not knowing just what to do. Wanting at first to turn herself in to the police a series of miscalculations causes Joanna to become a fugitive from the law. When she eventually did Joanna became the most hated and despised person in Eaton. <br /><br />Not being herself, when still at large, Joanna's husband starts to feel that she's either back to smoking or even having an affair. Never in a million years would Doug have thought that Joanna was the person who ran down little Kelly and left her to die on that rain soaked road! The look on his face, with his mouth quivering, when he found out the truth said it all.<br /><br />The last few minutes of the movie took a lot out of you knowing what Joanna was going through, not to downplay the suffering of the injured Kelly Corey and her parents, and how she now has to face the music for what she did and have to live with it for the rest of her life. | 1 |
18,622 | [
700,
800
] | 577 | 769 | Alex Benedict (John Cassavetes) is an orchestra conductor having an secret affair with his pianist. When she threatens to expose him and create a scandal if he doesn't leave his wife, he sees he has no choice but to murder her and make it look as if she had committed suicide. Too bad for him our rumpled detective, Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk), is on the case.<br /><br />Stephen Bochco has written another razor-sharp episode for the series, following marvelous detail with marvelous detail. We watch the villain commit his murder and set up his alibi for about twenty-five minutes, and we're completely engrossed. Then when Columbo appears on the scene, it gets even better.<br /><br />We first see Columbo after the murder (as per usual). This time he's at the vet with his new dog. Scenes of purely comic relief are usually the weakest ones in the show (think Columbo's discomfort over the nude model in "Suitable for Framing"). Columbo is hilarious when he's dithering or bumbling deliberately in order to trip up his quarry; but too many writers make the mistake of showing him in a ridiculous light when he's with non-suspects. Bochco, by contrast, shows Columbo a bit awkward with his new pet in a handful of low-key scenes that are funny and artfully integrated into the story. (And I'm grateful he didn't strain for a punchline to Columbo's quest to give the dog a name. As far as we learn, the dog remains nameless.) Bochco gives Columbo some of his best moments in this episode, and Peter Falk makes the most of them. He's particularly good in a monologue where he expresses disbelief that anyone could kill herself, much less this brilliant and beautiful young pianist. And he's even better in his scenes playing cat-and-mouse with Cassavetes. That these two long-time friends and collaborators would play off each other brilliantly is to be expected; and that's what we get. Notice how Alex Benedict can't help but admire the deceptively dimwitted Columbo, even as the brilliant detective is tightening the noose around his neck.<br /><br />Bochco makes the most of every situation in his script. When Columbo goes to question Benedict's snooty mechanic, of course of course! he asks the man to look at his own beat-up heap. And when Benedict finds Columbo at the Hollywood Bowl before rehearsal, of course of course! he's on the piano playing "Chopsticks." And what should our audacious lieutenant bring with him but the victim's typewriter with the phony suicide note still in the roller.<br /><br />Columbo also has good scenes with a precocious little girl (Dawn Frame) and the lovely Blythe Danner, who plays Cassavetes's wife. It's nice to see Myrna Loy show up as Danner's mother, though she does little with her minor role.<br /><br />The director Nicholas Colasanto (who also acted, most notably as Coach in "Cheers") does a perfectly creditable job, though he follows the lead of nearly every other "Columbo" director by adding one or two silly flourishes. Scenes end by going out of focus and begin by coming into focus. Then there's that bit where Cassavetes sees the carnation he dropped at the scene of the crime and we see a zoom-in shot of it reflected in his sunglasses. There's also one scene with Myrna Loy and group of old fogies that is atrociously performed by everyone except Cassavetes.<br /><br />These are quibbles, though. This is a splendidly entertaining episode, the kind that made me a "Columbo" fan. | 1 |
18,667 | [
700,
800
] | 555 | 729 | Slausen's Lost Oasis. . . a place for food, fun. . . and MURDER! After a guy disappears on his way to a gas station, a group of her friends head out on a trip to search for him. They come across a wax museum where they think their friend might have ended up. Unfortunately for the friends, however, the owner of the roadside attraction possesses the power to control his wax mannequins and use them for evil. One by one, the tourists are stalked down and killed by Slausen and his legion of wax dummies. Can the friends escape or will they fall to the same fate as their lost friend? Following in the footsteps (and twisting them around) of the great classic wax films (House of Wax, Mystery of the Wax Museum), Tourist Trap takes the slasher genre to a whole new level of strange and fascinating with its bizarre story and style. As far as character development, action, dialogue, flow, etc., it seems to be just a basic slasher flick. But, it goes far beyond that as the director takes control of the plot and moves it to the supernatural thriller it is. The acting ranges from acceptable (from the main cast) to very good (from backwoods-showman Mr. Slausen (played by Western-legend Chuck Connors)). The writing moves well and the dialogue is well structured, but there are some flaws in logic as the film moves deeper into the story. Also, some scenes are a bit silly, like the moaning-mannequin attack on Becky. It's nothing, however, that would detract from the effect of the film. As one would expect from a film about wax dummies, it is full of the endless creepiness supplied by the mannequins. It's strange that a (mostly) inanimate object can just sit still and somehow be so unsettling. . . perhaps it's the human likeness, or the blank stare, or the fact that you know it's about to spring an attack. . . whatever it is, the dolls are extremely spooky and that effect is used very well throughout the entirety of the film. As far as slashers go, it's one of the best, and it stands as one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: The film is full of some cool deaths. The gore isn't excessive, but it's done well and leaves it as being realistic.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There is an extended skinny-dipping scene with the very attractive lead females (though 'very attractive' barely begins to describe the ravishing future-angel Tanya Roberts) but it's all a tease as the girls remain mostly underwater. They do remain scantily clad throughout the film, however.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Creepy is just the beginning of Slausen and his mannequins. One of the best killers in the slasher subgenre.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: From the opening scene on, the film maintains a great blend of the creepiness of the mannequins, jump scares from the attacks, and a strong level of suspense in the stranded situation. . . it's all very well done to make for a genuinely scary film.<br /><br />- Mystery: Well, mystery wasn't really the point of the film. . . just the meaning behind all of it is what matters.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: All these cute girls and not a single dance. Shame.<br /><br />Final verdict: 8/10. See this creepy slasher!<br /><br />-AP3- | 1 |
18,691 | [
700,
800
] | 643 | 741 | I suppose it depends on when one actually sees the movie for the first time that their impression is formed the way it is.<br /><br />I saw it as a child on TV back in 1973, when it was "The Stranger" and I loved it. Such was the time when the space program to the moon was a reality, when shows like "Search", "UFO", and "6M$ Man" were showing a child of 12 of what the world could hold in their future. Adventure and technology.<br /><br />You got to see shows only once and that was when the network aired them. The only way people could slash your shows was by making their own parody of it; they didn't get to take your show and add in their own comments over it.<br /><br />I did not know what this concept of a "pilot" was. I saw the movie and was hoping thru out that Stryker would get home; did not know that there was a possibility of it continuing beyond two hours.<br /><br />Back then, would I understood what so many people hate about the movie now? I doubt it because I don't remember it as such. Do I understand now? Not really for to understand the story, one must not see it from their perspective but rather from that of the characters in the movie.<br /><br />If one is watching as an American, it might be humorous about the lack of security in a police state.....but if one is a subject in that state, then compliance could be expected and security can be less. When things are suppose to be perfect, perfect to an extreme degree, perfect that one is not suppose to doubt, then one is not likely to question as quickly when things are out of order.<br /><br />The subplots of the movie are interesting such as the old man who remembers the time before but watches his words since he suspects that there are spies everywhere. Or that the police state values knowledge to some extent for they are careful about how they control or harm their brain power.<br /><br />These days, one is likely to know exactly what the movie is about before they see it, so much of the suspense, surprise is lost. But the duet between the astronaut and his doctor at the beginning of the movie is a perfect exchange if one considers that this movie was made well into the Cold War and the astronaut's biggest fear is that he has crashed in the USSR. One gets quite a distance into the movie before it becomes apparent that such a possibility is the least of his concerns.<br /><br />This is the primary difference between "The Stranger" and "Doppelganger". The latter can be considered timeless since any comments it has about the USSR are comparatively minor and lost early on in the movie. In the former, those links are through out the movie, supposedly directly in the beginning and then as a theme variation after wards.<br /><br />All that said, despite my fond memory for the movie, it is rather easy to see that it would not have made it as a series. Each week, Stryker would make friends, Benedict would chase, Stryker would get away. Eventually, Benedict's society would get rid of him. Someone else would pick up the chase. A rut would develop. There might be a jab at something new such as perhaps another crew member from Stryker's mission showing up, but it probably would not be enough to keep the show going.<br /><br />If one goes in with the knives that others have used to slash the movie, odds are they will slash it as well. But if one remembers that this was made during the Cold War and what fears and estimations of the other side were during that time, of what the popular environment contained for the viewer, then they may find some entertaining and intellectual themes in it. | 1 |
18,727 | [
700,
800
] | 563 | 733 | <br /><br />There is something about seeing a movie in a good, old-fashioned movie house that adds enormous appeal to every picture. I, fortunately enough, was able to see at Film Forum in New York City a pair of Ernst Lubitsch comedies during their three week tribute to the legendary director. The double feature I attended was a screening of Lubitsch's 1938 comedy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife and the pre-Code classic Design for Living, neither of which I had seen before. Everything I read of Design for Living praised the film, but I could not find a good review anywhere for Bluebeard's Eighth Wife. Leonard Maltin disliked it.VideoHound, too, gave the comedy a low rating.its IMDB score was not complimentary.and Pauline Kael (not a great surprise) blasted the film in her scathing review. So, when I went into the city that day I was expecting to enjoy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife only slightly and love Design for Living completely. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (which was showing first) began, as the eccentrics who populate the cinema took their seats and the thirties music subsided. `Adolph Zukor presents Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper in Ernst Lubitsch's Bluebeard's Eighth Wife,' the title card read. Then the picture opened with a hilarious scene: Cooper wants to buy a pair of pajama tops, but he doesn't want any part of the bottoms! He gets into a squabble with the clerk, who seeks the help of his higher bosses, and their seems to be no end to the argument. Enter Claudette Colbert, one of thirties cinema's most beautiful, charming, and talented personalities. `I'll take the bottom,' she kindly intercedes. And there you have perhaps screwball comedies finest `meet cute' ever. The film kept my interest wonderfully.I found myself laughing almost constantly. When Colbert discovers, just before a family portrait is taken, that her groom-to-be has been married seven times, the entire theatre broke into histerics. When she bargains for money immediately after she gets over her shock, the laughs (which still haven't ceased) intensify. And Edward Everett Horton milked some hilarious reactions out of the script as well. When Cooper takes inspiration from Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in disciplining his wife by slapping her in the face, I could not control my laughter when she slapped him back. And the drunk scene with the scallions is one of Claudette Colbert's funniest comic scenes. The greatest comic moment of the film came when Colbert highers a boxer to `teach her husband a lesson.' In pure screwball fashion, he knocks out the wrong man, instead putting her friend David Niven into a cold sleep. He awakes as Cooper is arriving. In order to cover up the situation, Colbert herself, in a moment of strong sexiness, puts her fist up to Niven, asks: `Where did that man hit you? Here? Right here? Right here?' and then BAM! knocks him out again! The film was wonderful, from beginning to end it was a perfect delight. I loved Design for Living, too, though I dare say I think for sheer laughs and entertainment Bluebeard's Eighth Wife was the better and more enjoyable film. There is some charm of seeing a vintage film on the large screen. And in the presence of others laughing, one feels more comfortable doing so himself. That is, perhaps, why I felt the way I did about Bluebeard's Eighth Wife. | 1 |
18,747 | [
700,
800
] | 521 | 724 | I came out of "Dark Blue World" feeling (sigh) 'so sad' yet it was definitely a film needed to be made, and it's truly well done from Czech Republic. It's entertaining in spite of the 'sad' premise. It is full of feelings, the bonding and undeniably true friendship between the two lead characters - one mature lieutenant pilot (Ondrej Vetchý as Franta) and the young & ever-so-eager budding pilot (Krystof Hádek as Karel), the inevitable love triangle, and the now and then reminders of the grim prison situations in Czechoslovakia in the '50s. It's all in one film put together, by the father screenwriter and son director team Zdenek and Jan Sverák (previous achievement being the lovable "Kolya").<br /><br />It's not as long as "East-West" (French "Est-Ouest") 1999, which was heart wrenching, multi-layered story about a returning Russian doctor and French wife's ill-fates after WWII in Russia. The plot of "Tmavomodrý svet" (title in Czech) is quite straightforward and has sprinkles of light humor. Music, songs of WWII England sung in Czech, modest special effects of pilots and air crafts in the sky - not elaborate like Hollywood - there's no need to be bing, bang, boom all the time when showing air battle scenes. The sadness was explained up front in the beginning (two paragraphs in English) and wrap up with follow up paragraphs. The film is not totally subtitled, only when translating the Czech conversations - the rest are in English, be it very British or in Czech accents. (So it's a foreign film with English language and includes British actors.) <br /><br />The three lead performances, especially of the two Czech pilots, were wonderfully delivered. There are nuances between the two of them, even though it's the steadily mature vs. the eagerly young. I always appreciate Tara Fitzgerald: yes, there's "Brassed Off" 1996 opposite Ewan McGregor and Pete Postlethwaite; remembered her from "Hear My Song" 1991 opposite Adrian Dunbar and Ned Beatty; opposite Hugh Grant in "Sirens" 1994 and "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain" 1995, besides her appearances in PBS Masterpiece Theatre mini-series. <br /><br />'So sad' - the fact that heroes defending one's country can be so ill fatedly treated and for so long (40 years). Thank goodness for worthwhile memories and the imprints of friendship unforgettable. Hence the pause for a ray of sunshine through a stain glass window (ironic or coincidental that it's of a church where the hard labor took place) - symbolic of hope, never give up
<br /><br />Other recent films that have stories needed to be told: "Kandahar" (with Nelofer Pazira as Nafas the Canadian from Afghanistan taking a journey to Kandahar with a personal 'mission' in mind) more than meets the eye behind a burqa by Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. "Everything Put Together" (with Radha Mitchell as a new mother facing SID - sudden infant death) insightful film by Swiss director Marc Forster, and his much talked about controversial film "Monster's Ball" (I've yet to catch) with Halle Berry, Billy Bob Thornton and Peter Boyle. See the films without prior expectations or comparisons to films before. Just see it. | 1 |
18,809 | [
700,
800
] | 588 | 750 | To say I wasn't expecting much sitting down to watch "The Couch Trip" is an understatement. I had no idea what it was about - I thought it was going to be a journey into the realm of sexuality when I heard Chevy Chase played a condom man and the movie's title involves the word "couch trip," *wink, wink.* Then I figured out that it had something to do with a mental institute and a patient escaping. My expectations dropped even lower.<br /><br />I was literally expecting a grin movie - the type where you grin once and walk out feeling a bit cheated. And in a way, this is cheap comedy - it doesn't have the greatest gags, the plot is ludicrous, but you know what? I had a big dumb smile on my face the entire time I was watching it.<br /><br />Dan Aykroyd plays John Burns, a patient at a mental hospital who may or may not actually be mental. He gives the psychiatrist, Lawrence Baird (David Clennon), plenty of grief and misery, which leads us to believe he is a sane person after all.<br /><br />Following a little bit of a riot in the mental institute's cafeteria, Burns is awaiting a tongue-lashing from Baird in his office when the phone rings. Burns picks it up, pretends to be Baird, and finds out the caller on the other line, Harvey Michaels (Richard Romanus), wants the real Dr. Baird to come fill in for a radio shrink named George Maitlin (Charles Grodin), who is taking a vacation with his wife, Vera (Mary Gross). Michaels wants Baird so bad he has even booked him a ticket on an airplane.<br /><br />Burns escapes the institute with the help of a receptionist, and drives to O'Hare. He gets Dr. Baird's ticket, gets on the plane, and eventually poses on the air as Dr. Baird. His show is a phenomenal success. "People love him!" one man says, and the other man replies, "It's because he actually cares about them."<br /><br />Donald Becker (the late, great Walter Matthau) is an ex-mental patient who recognizes Burns' clothes to be confinement-issued pants and shirts. To keep him quiet, Burns promises Becker a percentage of his income. The secret is kept closed.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Maitlin and his wife get in an argument. He flies home to end his vacation short and realizes that the man on his talk show is not, in fact, Dr. Baird after all, but no one believes him. He gets the real Dr. Baird, but unfortunately he has lost his ID so the police take them as nutcases and don't listen to their story.<br /><br />Let me name just a few of the plot holes I noticed while watching this film: Burns poses as Dr. Baird, but is never asked for his ID, even when claiming his plane ticket (he was robbed, he says, but they would still make sure he is Baird). If Burns becomes so very famous, how come the real Dr. Baird in Chicago never heard people talking about him? Word travels. And finally, why would the police ever arrest Maitlin and Baird (the real Baird, that is) without following up on their stories?<br /><br />To be frankly honest, I couldn't care less. I went into this movie with a closed mind and it surprised me - I really liked it. It entertained me. Its ideas are essentially ludicrous and not at all realistic, but Dan Aykroyd gives a truly spirited performance as a half-a-loon that makes "The Couch Trip" a trip worth taking. <br /><br />3.5/5 stars -<br /><br />John Ulmer | 1 |
18,844 | [
700,
800
] | 583 | 758 | Barely three and a half years after just scraping out a month's run (7-31 Oct. 1953) at Broadway's Coronet Theatre (on west 49th Street; since renamed the O'Neill), MGM relied on the earlier solid London success of the play to lavish a wonderful cast and - for the most part - carefully "opened up" production on a sadly trimmed down screenplay of this slyly subversive boulevard comedy and were rewarded with a modest hit.<br /><br />Ava Gardner is the increasingly frustrated wife of Stewart Granger, an internationally successful and entirely complacent "workaholic" (before the term had been coined) using the perpetually frustrated David Niven to attempt to rekindle passion in her spouse. When the "second honeymoon" cruise Gardner inveigles Granger into leaves the trio (and Granger's dog) marooned on a south sea island (were there other survivors? That's for later plot developments), Granger continues right on managing the world around him - building a big hut for himself and his wife and a little one of the title for Niven - or the unattached male.<br /><br />The core of the actual plot of the play only gets going about half way through the film when Niven proposes that Granger and he alternate as tenants of the Little Hut - sharing the only female on the island as Granger has been willing to share the only pair of shoes (his).<br /><br />Reason (which Granger considers his strong point) reigns and frustration reigns supreme - for a while.<br /><br />David Niven and Ava Gardner are superb in their appointed roles of suave would-be seducer and seductress, and Stuart Granger - usually called upon merely to be handsome and virile in action roles and the odd miscast specialty (a crowing pretty-boy as Apollodorus in Shaw's CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA in 1945) - gives one of the better acting performances of his film career as the husband who may actually be as smart as he thinks he is. 33 years later he would again show this suave urbanity opposite Rex Harrison in Granger's first (and BOTH their last) Broadway engagements in a hit revival of Somerset Maugham's THE CIRCLE which only ended with Harrison's death. We'd be far richer if Granger had used these skills more often.<br /><br />As promising as the menage is, this is, after all, a very British Boulevard Comedy AND Hollywood in the 1950's which is to say that (unlike the source play) very little sex actually goes on. To be frank, if you don't give yourself over to the ideas driving the contrivances it does get a bit silly (the same basic plot is far more satisfyingly developed three years later in the Cary Grant/Deborah Kerr/Robert Mitchum/Jean Simmons (Stewart Granger's actual wife) THE GRASS IS GREENER, based on an even less successful play, but for some reason that superior trifle failed at the box office).<br /><br />As lavishly as MGM set the piece, there were unfortunate lapses - the silliness which ends the stay on the island is cartoonishly presaged in what should have been a moment of genuine excitement - the sinking of the yacht that PUTS them on the island. Ultimately we only get about three quarters of an hour of the real Little Hut, but ninety good minutes of David Niven, Ava Gardner and Stewart Granger that make the film a fun diversion. Not high culture, but a worthy guilty pleasure.<br /><br />We even get some very nice garnish in Walter Chiari (reputed to be Ava's actual lover at the time). As one of his better speeches goes: "Boola, boola!" | 1 |
18,859 | [
700,
800
] | 594 | 746 | This is a very visual film. By that I mean that the dialog is sparse, almost to the point of being a silent movie for some very long takes, beginning with the opening shot.<br /><br />The silences, however, are broken by a stunning sound track that ranges from discordant, staccato beats to a haunting mix of violins, and interspersed with vocals that sound like dreams. It's a feast for the ears as much as for the eyes, one of the early visuals being a man walking along a street, so preoccupied with his interest in a shapely woman, that he walks into a lamppost: one of the consequences of love and a metaphor for what lies in store...<br /><br />A long time ago, another movie Love Story (1970) -- said that love is never having to say you're sorry. This narrative turns that idea on its head in a number of ways, beginning with the main character, Titta (Toni Sevillo), a seemingly innocuous long-term resident in a plush hotel somewhere in Switzerland. Everyday, week in, week out, he sits at the same coffee table, enjoying the passing world, his cigarettes, his coffee, his solitude and he's been doing it for ten years. He sits, he observes, and once a week he engages in three very surprising activities that you'll find out about when you see this little masterpiece...<br /><br />Love is explored in another way, in a direct counterpoint to Titta's solitude and reserved nature: two older residents of the hotel are still much in love, but the man wants to die in a spectacular manner when his time comes, while his long suffering wife berates him for cheating at cards with the other guests, one of whom is Titta. Now, Titta knows about their squabbles, their love, the man's cheating, his apologies to his wife, and his whining. How? In a surprising and black-comedic manner...one of those surprise activities I mentioned.<br /><br />But, this is no comedy, in reality, although it does touch upon the idea of the human comedy in a Balzacian sense: the irony of life and what to do with it. That decision had been made for Titta ten years earlier when he left his wife and began to live in the hotel. He keeps in touch occasionally, and it is clear that he still loves his children (now grown up) and the sorrow in his voice speaks volumes. But, there's something more than just sorrow...<br /><br />Such a life as Titta's would obviously seem to be utterly boring, and it actually is from many perspectives. It is only when we learn what lies beneath his almost death-like countenance, however, that the horror of his situation hits the viewer between the eyes. But not before we know that the female bartender, Sofia (Olivia Magnani), is very interested in Titta and goes out of her way to pique Titta's interest in her.<br /><br />And that's when things start to unravel for Titta: he eventually succumbs to her femininity and in doing so discovers, once again, the consequences of love. Ironically, in doing so, he finally realizes what he must finally do with his life, and in a most spectacular fashion.<br /><br />I know that all of the above is somewhat cryptic; but, to say more would spoil the film and story for you. If you like Italian cinema I love it! I urge you to see this one. The acting is superb; the sound track chills the spine; the camera work is truly innovative; the direction shows the maturity of a true artist.<br /><br />I know I'll see this movie again, and again... | 1 |
19,030 | [
700,
800
] | 604 | 756 | Watching "Cold Mountain" gave me the impression that its director, Anthony Minghella, was deliberately trying to outdo himself and the own film of his' that he was trying to beat was the virtually impeccable "The English Patient" from 1996. Comparing the two movies, the premise is quite similar. We have a passionate love affair between two people set in a turbulent time of war and they end up treating the war more or less as a disturbance in the background while trying to find themselves back in each other's arms again. The primary plot differences are that Nicole Kidman's character is not married, Jude Law's is a deserter, and the conflict is the American Civil War.<br /><br />"Cold Mountain" is, story-wise, more watered down and mellow than say "The English Patient" and it's more on the level for people who want a simple love story with some kind of an exterior turbulence causing a problem. It is a shorter film, which is a plus for people with less patience. However, it's not as spectacular or original or genuinely gripping as "The English Patient." My *only* big complaint about "Cold Mountain" is, astonishingly, the love affair between the characters of Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). Amazingly, their love was the least interesting thing in the picture. They don't have a real relationship; we don't feel any real passion coming from them and the passion that we do see is more physical than emotional. I was more fascinated by the friendship between Nicole Kidman and Oscar-winner Renee Zellwegger and also Jude Law's travels across country dodging vigilantes and enemy soldiers. If Minghella had strengthened the importance of the love story, then he would have had, I feel, a better picture.<br /><br />Of course, the movie is entertaining even if the love story is uninteresting. The Civil War sequences are absolutely great; they are of the modern tradition that show war as horrible and dehumanizing. The re-enactment of the Petersburg campaign, in which tons of explosives was detonated from underground and then followed by a hand-to-hand battle is horrifying. Minghella does not shy from showing blood and gore in an artistic and sensible manner, and he's not afraid to show casualties of innocence and life in these scenes. There are moments where women as well as men are killed, oftentimes by crossfire. And there's more to it. Just the sound design of the movie generates tension. There's a scene where Inman and another deserter make themselves a meal by sawing off the head of a dead cow. We don't see the slicing, but the sound effects of blade going through bone are sickening.<br /><br />Lastly, I must congratulate the cast for the performances. Jude Law was terrific in the movie and deserved the Academy Award nomination he received. I feel that Nicole Kidman deserved one as well, even though her character was a bit shallow. Renee Zellwegger had the most personality and screen-stealing atmosphere. And then there's just the bit parts that also really work to complete this stylistic world recreating a horrible time in America's past.<br /><br />Maybe "Cold Mountain" would have been better as a war picture, but it most certainly would have been spectacular like "The English Patient" if its love story had been powered up and made more passionate by the screenwriters and director Anthony Minghella. As it is, it's a most enjoyable picture, I wasn't bored by it, and I recommend it. I just say that its love story - though a central plot point - is a little more mellow than it needs to be and all the stuff around it was what really worked. | 1 |
19,038 | [
700,
800
] | 604 | 735 | First of all the story is not so simple as many earlier reviewers tend to emphasize, it is actually a very complex story, unlike Bergman's other movies that are more bend towards character study. In Skammen we have two main characters but as we are thrown from the start in the middle of a war we have no idea who is fighting and why, everything is open for any resolution. This creates a huge tension and makes every event meaningful. As the story unfolds we are introduced to numerous characters, that are turned into symbols of humanity, both its dark and luminous sides. We have the example of the innocent bystanders who try to get by during an absurd war, the cynical doctor who makes fun of his patients and provides the only bitter humor of the whole movie, the perverse opportunists who try to make the best of an atrocious event (Bjornstrand's character), the innocent dead children, the nameless figures almost turned into animals from the boat etc. All of them are somehow seen through the eyes of Jan (von Sydow) and Eva (Ulmann), their characters are more restrained then in other Begrman films (En Passion) and this is exactly because what is important here is the story, the way exterior events have the capacity to radically change human nature.<br /><br />Bergman made this film two years after Persona where the main conclusion expressed by the only word uttered by Liv Ulmann's character is INGENTING, nothing. That's it: the meaning of art and the meaning of life, the latter being nothing more than a play that includes all plays. But what about war? And especially the annihilating ones of the XX'th century. In Persona, the only real emotion suffered by Ulmann's character is when she sees a victim of the Vietnam war turned into a human torch. In Skammen that idea is extended to a complex analysis of the dehumanizing nature of war. In a nameless region of a nameless country (we only assume it's Sweeden) two factions speaking the same language fight an absurd war. Jan and Eva are two dreamers caught in the middle but their dreams are woven in a sort of counterpoint. Jan is at first an idealist, unable to react properly to the world and a subject to his wife's will. Towards the end he turns into a radically different personality, capable of unmotivated murder, strong-willed, pitiless (watch carefully the suicidal on the boat..the simplicity of the act is harrowing). On the other hand Eva progressively looses touch with reality and at the end she is completely suffused in her own unfulfilled dream.<br /><br />From a technical point of view the whole movie delivers its message in a very effective way. Bergman places the viewer alongside the character, putting the camera in the car with the actors, or in an extreme close-up behind the actor. Nykvist manages an extraordinary control of the camera, there are some masterful "hand-held" effects, very good in making everything seem "real". The shots when the characters are captured by the army look remarkably documentary-like. The screenplay is minimalist but the story is quite complex for that matter. Actually the whole movie is paradoxical, it has an intensity in the subject that is in a sharp contrast to the coldness and lack of emotional involvement with which it is directed and filmed. Nothing is melodramatic here, there is no compassion, no hope and no apparent redemption. But, as in Liv Ulmann's dream at the end it is all so beautiful one cannot help but being amazed at it...It was not so awful since it was so beautiful! | 1 |
19,227 | [
700,
800
] | 558 | 714 | To the guy who hatched the idea for Lifeforce I have one thing to say: Thank you, sir! Lifeforce combines the big-budget sci-fi pomp of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with the cheap horror thrills of Phantasm and tops it all off with t-ts-- and some real meaty hangers at that..And best of all, it's actually a good movie! It amazes me that someone actually justified a mainstream movie that is a vehicle for a hot chick to appear naked on screen for an hour and a half to producers. God bless you, all of you who were involved.<br /><br />Steve Railsback (Helter Skelter) plays Col. Carlson, the American commander of an international space mission sent to investigate Halley's Comet. Carlson's crew finds an alien vessel inside the comet and inside that they find three naked people in suspended animation--two guys and a hot broad (Mathilda May). Well, to make a long story short, they're "space vampires"...naked "space vampires." They trash the crew except for Col. Blueballs who decided that he had to let the hot chick out of her lucite display case because the part of his brain that controls his nut fluids told him it was the right thing to do. The Col. wings it back to our big blue ball in an escape pod. Meanwhile, another space shuttle crew has discovered his ship floating dead in space and has brought the three space coffins of the Living Dead Martians back to London. And that's when people start turning into pork rinds and s--t in general just starts getting' way out of hand too damn fast.<br /><br />Carlson teams up with the unflappable Col. Caine (Peter Firth) of the British S.A.S. to track down our naked cutie--who is having one hell of a time sucking guys off left and right. Carlson's discovered that he has a mental link with Vampira that allows them to track her down, with the ultimate goal being to blow her ass away and wreck her and her pals' big space umbrella that sucks up the energy of the people that the vamps attack. Will they succeed in time? MINOR SPOILER: Yes.<br /><br />Wow. What can I say but "Wow"? This damn movie really works. I can't believe they got actual British actors like Aubrey Morris (A Clockwork Orange) and Patrick Stewart (Sexiest Man Alive or some such title) to appear in this film. All the actors are good. Direction is good and really shines during the last half where we see the fantastic devastation of London. Special effects are no slouch either. For 1985, this movie must've been the s--t as far as fx goes. All the effects are fairly impressive and there's a wide range of talent on display here in animotronics, makeup effects, light shows, and very nice space scenes with some good old-fashioned modeling and matte painting--very nicely done. There's even some gore and bloody squib shots for all the horror fanboys out there.<br /><br />Lifeforce is a great film for anyone who has nostalgia for when popular films on the bigsceen were made with 100% love from start to finish. The creators of the movie really made sure all the bases were covered and the end result is a phenomenally fun affair that doesn't let you turn away because the proceedings are just too good-looking. Real solid entertainment here: 8 1/2 out of 10. | 1 |
19,275 | [
700,
800
] | 608 | 770 | 'War movie' is a Hollywood genre that has been done and redone so many times that clichéd dialogue, rehashed plot and over-the-top action sequences seem unavoidable for any conflict dealing with large-scale combat. Once in a while, however, a war movie comes along that goes against the grain and brings a truly original and compelling story to life on the silver screen. The Civil War-era "Cold Mountain," starring Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renée Zellweger is such a film.<br /><br />Then again, calling Cold Mountain" a war movie is not entirely accurate. True enough, the film opens with a (quite literally) quick-and-dirty battle sequence that puts "Glory" director Edward Zwick shame. However, "Cold Mountain" is not so much about the Civil War itself as it is about the period and the people of the times. The story centers around disgruntled Confederate soldier Inman, played by Jude Law, who becomes disgusted with the gruesome war and homesick for the beautiful hamlet of Cold Mountain, North Carolina and the equally beautiful southern belle he left behind, Ada Monroe, played by Nicole Kidman. At first glance, this setup appears formulaic as the romantic interest back home gives the audience enough sympathy to root for the reluctant soldier's tribulations on the battlefield. Indeed, the earlier segments of the film are relatively unimpressive and even somewhat contrived.<br /><br />"Cold Mountain" soon takes a drastic turn, though, as the intrepid hero Inman turns out to be a deserter (incidentally saving the audience from the potentially confusing scenario of wanting to root for the Confederates) and begins a long odyssey homeward. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Ada's cultured ways prove of little use in the fields; soon she is transformed into something of a wilderbeast. Coming to Ada's rescue is the course, tough-as-nails Ruby Thewes, played by Renée Zellweger, who helps Ada put the farm back together and, perhaps more importantly, cope with the loneliness and isolation the war seems to have brought upon Ada.<br /><br />Within these two settings, a vivid, compelling and, at times, very disturbing portrait of the war-torn South unfolds. The characters with whom Inman and Ada interact are surprisingly complex, enhanced by wonderful performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ruby's deadbeat father, Ray Winstone as an unrepentant southern "lawman," and Natalie Portman as a deeply troubled and isolated young mother. All have been greatly affected and changed by "the war of Northern aggression," mostly for the worse. The dark, pervading anti-war message, accented by an effective, haunting score and chillingly beautiful shots of Virginia and North Carolina, is communicated to the audience not so much by gruesome battle scenes as by the scarred land and traumatized people for which the war was fought. Though the weapons and tactics of war itself have changed much in the past century, it's hellish effect on the land is timelessly relevant.<br /><br />Director Anthony Minghella manages to maintain this gloomy mood for most of the film, but the atmosphere is unfortunately denigrated by a rather tepid climax that does little justice to the wonderfully formed characters. The love story between Inman and Ada is awkwardly tacked onto the beginning and end of the film, though the inherently distant, abstracted and even absurd nature of their relationship in a way fits the dismal nature of the rest of the plot.<br /><br />Make no mistake, "Cold Mountain" has neither the traits of a feel-good romance nor an inspiring war drama. It is a unique vision of an era that is sure not only to entertain but also to truly absorb the audience into the lives of a people torn apart by a war and entirely desperate to be rid of its terrible repercussions altogether. | 1 |
19,277 | [
700,
800
] | 646 | 788 | Anthony Minghela's (writer/director) Cold Mountain is a carefully constructed, sensitive, and intelligent drama set in the social context of the confederacy during the civil war, which deals with the politics of the war in a very subtle and realistic manner. While it accurately depicts the brutality and inhumanity of that war, it also does something that many films related to this period to not handle as effectively - Cold Mountain studies the southern context from the inside out, and portrays changes among the non-slave owning common people wrought by the war. And, almost uniquely, Cold Mountain does not over-generalize southerners, northerners or anybody else.<br /><br />The film surfs through genres as needed - never presenting a dull moment. It is a romance, a war story, an action-adventure and historical fiction, all nicely woven into one.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), who are smitten with each other for very simple reasons. As this young romance begins to bud, Inman enlists in the confederate army, taking with him a book Ada has given him and a photograph of her. Ada's character is one of the most brilliant aspects of the film, which is important because the audience experiences this film from a third person perspective, but the story is clearly hers from the beginning to the end. Ada is an intelligent southern belle and daughter of a liberal minister. She begins the film as a daddy's girl skilled in many of the arts that southern women who have been surrounded by servants most of their lives were expected to learn. In other words, as she admits to Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger), she is a master of everything useless.<br /><br />Ada's father passes on, and she is left to manage his modest estate by herself. With no experience of this sort, she struggles, and survives by holding the memory of Inman close to her heart. Ruby enters the picture as a tough young woman who has been raised by a drunk and negligent father. Ruby has all the skills and abilities Ada lacks, and as they become inseparable business partners, they grow to love one another as best friends. Inman's experience is radically different, but something of a mirror image. During his participation in the war, he sees many friends killed for causes they don't really believe in, and decides to desert. Nobody he meets comes to his rescue as he begins the thousand mile walk back to Cold Mountain and Ada, and most of those he meets die.<br /><br />The bulk of the film takes place during Inman's long walk, following both of the protagonists as they live, learn, grow and change. An on-going act of will borne of desperation preserves their intense passionate love. For Inman, it is his only source of hope in a world of pure desperation. For Ada, it is very much the same thing, but also a symbol and remnant of the old south - a world which is rapidly passing.<br /><br />The cinematography is powerful and breathtaking. There are beautiful shots of Appalachian landscapes which give the film a strong sense of history. The script and editing are also extremely strong - emphasizing the broad class and educational differences reflected in the ante bellum southern dialects of the middle and lower classes. With the cast of this film, nothing short of perfection should be expected. And the cast, mostly, rises to the occasion. My one criticism, however, relates to the accents adopted by Kidman and Law's characters. An Australian and a Brit probably should not be expected to accurately reproduce southern American speech, but there are a few occasions where these two exceptionally gifted actors produce distracting vocal slips. I admit my oversensitivity to this, and can say with some confidence that it won't bother most people. Zellweger's performance is outstanding and she creates a character I will remember into my senescence.<br /><br />Very highly recommended. | 1 |
19,447 | [
700,
800
] | 578 | 742 | I must say that I didn't expect much sitting down to watch "Pitch Black," but I got a lot back, in terms of excitement and pure fun. It's the type of flick where you can just lean back, relax, and have a great time just being entertained. This isn't a deep film by any means. Everything that it offers is either recycled or ripped off of other movies such as "Alien," "Predator" or such. But when I watch a rip-off, I want it to be good, and this rip-off is great. <br /><br />It opens with a galaxy of stars. Some of the greatest films of all time open with this type of scene - "2001," "Star Wars," "Alien," "Predator." A ship is cruising through space when inside the entire cryogenically frozen crew is awoken. The ship has been hit by something. They crash land on a nasty little planet with three suns. Everyone flocks out of the ship when they find that their prisoner transport, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), has escaped confinement. They scan the desert planet in search of him and eventually find him, but they have no way of getting their ship to fly again. They search the planet for water and civilization but it seems that everyone suddenly disappeared from the planet not too long ago.<br /><br />Then they find out that every 22 years the planets line up in a solar eclipse and the entire planet turns pitch black. There also happen to be hoards of aliens that thrive in darkness living on the planet - what are the chances? They happen to be on the planet right as the eclipse happens - what are the chances? And Riddick has a rare talent - he can see in the dark - again, what are the chances?<br /><br />There seems to be a lot of coincedence in this movie, but a film like this isn't out to get Oscars for originality or believability. It's there to entertain the audience - it does so with ease. Vin Diesel is a big gorilla of a man with no acting talent whatsoever. But I've got to say if there's anyone who can fit the part of a trashy, homicidal felon it is Diesel. Listen to him mutter, "He did not know who he was fu**ing with." Great stuff.<br /><br />The aliens in this movie are a mix between hammerhead sharks, those from "Alien" and Predators. They've got long, horizontal heads like a hammerhead, the quick-moving agility of the aliens, and the stealth of a Predator. I assume David Twohy (director and writer of the movie) didn't expect audiences to believe his creatures were truly something never seen before. At least I hope not.<br /><br />"Aliens Redux" might be a better name for this movie, but then again, it is better than both the second and third "Alien" films put together. In a time when apparently ended series are getting revived - "Terminator 3," "Alien 5," "Predator 3," "Alien vs. Predator" - "Pitch Black" stands out as a new series altogether. Two more sequels are planned. Let's just hope they don't get carried away. I can just picture it twenty-five years from now: "Aliens vs. Predator vs. Pitch Black Aliens: *The Fight of the Year."<br /><br />*Fight of the Year title may be shared with the upcoming film "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael vs. Leatherface vs. Norman Bates vs. Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator vs. James Cameron vs. Barny the Dinosaur."<br /><br />4/5. | 1 |
19,475 | [
700,
800
] | 638 | 777 | In some scenes in the Rain People, Francis Ford Coppola's precursor to his hey-day of the seventies, there is the mark of a similar situation to 1969's Easy Rider, but not exactly in the same reference frame. Here we have a drama about disconnected people from society, in some ways alienated by the choices or by limits imposed by one mean or another. It's one of those rare original dramas where some scenes stand alone as total knockouts. Even with such a low-string budget and a very freewheeling, so to speak, attitude about filming the movie, Coppola is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters and the curved, unexpected degrees of one character versus the helplessness of another, or vice versa, or both. And, as one might be inclined seeing as how it is very much about the cutaways of suburban life of the 1960s, it has that escapism of the film mentioned before, but of a more concrete, near timeless quality with the drama and the underlying issues. In a way, if Bergman were on route as a quasi-guerrilla 20-something filmmaker out to get the strange truths of everyday outsiders, this might be it.<br /><br />But along with all of the very direct and sometimes self-conscious photography (though also with a more documentary approach at times, akin with its indeterminable characters), the actors all fit into place. Shirley Knight, an actress I'm not too familiar with, has a complex, diverging role as a pregnant wife running off in a sort of existentialist conundrum of what life is there to have. There are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her, and one of my favorites (if not my favorite) is when she is on the telephone calling her husband the first time. Such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word so much about her is spoken with so little. It's extraordinary in ways that mirror others in Coppola's films. Then comes in the character of 'killer' played by James Caan. This, too, is a dangerous character to take on, as it is a mix of childish bewilderment and amusement with scarred memories. Think Forrest Gump if he didn't make it past the football and wit. It's one of his best, actually, by being the most minimalist- for a guy who's usually playing tough guys in movies, here's one that also is part of the crux of the story and of Knight's character. Also very good in a supporting role is Robert Duvall as a cop with a rough side and rather checkered past; kind of an early sample of other defected characters he would play later on in his career.<br /><br />So the characters, and what Coppola risks in having an uneasiness running in them, are really what make up the film, as whatever story there is it is definitely not resolved in the usual way you might think or expect. The last ten or so minutes are like others in Coppola's work, where the specific tragedies on all sides are undercut by the emotional- and psychological- implications this will leave on the principles are amplified to the sublime and sad. This is, for its time, brave on the part of what is trying to be represented (in both the freedom as well as the flaws and ambiguities) in the subject matter. And the style of the picture adds a fragmented kind of view onto it all with quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained in a contrast with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. It's a road movie of its period, but its also got a lot more working than it would under another filmmaker with less chances to take on the nature of these outcast characters. One of the best films of 1969. | 1 |
19,514 | [
700,
800
] | 587 | 771 | "you can't take it realistically." -sheets<br /><br />Zombie Bloodbath 2 (ZB2) is a world all of its own. I've really never seen anything like it. The only thing I can think to compare it to is psychedelic drugs. Forgive the clichéI don't simply mean that it's incoherent and absurd, though occasionally it is. I mean that it takes you through such a broad range of intense experiences and unexpected emotions so quickly as to overwhelm you, and when it's over, you find that it's all happened while you were sitting on the couch.<br /><br />It is worth noting that it's extremely low-budget, as a disclaimer to those who, after seeing "Shaun of the Dead," consider themselves fans of underground zombie films. Also of note is that it is much more "brutal" than you'd expect. Children get disemboweled, and someone taunts a teenage girl before shooting her in the groin. Her corpse is subsequently "raped." These are certainly not flaws, and indeed I feel it is to the film's credit. But if it doesn't sound like your kind of movie, don't waste your time.<br /><br />(I don't mean to over-hype it, regarding brutality. Don't go in expecting "Inside" or something.) I hesitate to give away any of the plot, because it's really full of surprises. Even the opening scene, which has nothing to do with zombies, is at once a classic horror scene and something quite original.<br /><br />Man, I'm three paragraphs in and I've hardly said anything at all. Here's why I thought the movie was awesome: 1. It's big, and it keeps moving. At one point, you expect it to turn into another NotLD clone, a board-up-the-windows movie where everyone stays in a farmhouse and argues with one another. By the end of the film, however, the farmhouse scenes will seem like a distant dream. There are also a number of outdoor, urban scenes. These are rare in low-budget zombie films.<br /><br />2. The makeup/gore is much better than ZB1. More convincing and more creative. Something kind of funny: the early zombies look really lame. Then, halfway through, they suddenly look really good, with prosthetics and everything. Some of them look like Fulci zombies, some are reminiscent of Mr. Tongue from "Day of the Dead." And it's got big scenes of dozens of zombies shuffling around. Never gets old.<br /><br />3. There's something oddly emotional about it. One character asserts that heaven exists, and that our dead/undead protagonists are now in heaven. In the context of the film, we believe it to be true. Though the characters behave with typical horror film stupidity, they genuinely seem to care about each other, and accordingly, I found myself caring about them.<br /><br />4. The pacing is great. There's hardly a dull moment.<br /><br />My only observation that borders on criticism is that Todd Sheets comes up with the most bizarre dialog I've ever heard. I personally feel it adds to the experience, but I don't think he does it on purpose, so I can't fairly give the film a perfect rating. (Example: when a car breaks down, the owner yells at the passengers. Then he says something to the effect of, "Sorry I yelled at you guys. You don't know what it's like to have your dad standing over you with a straight razor when you're five years old." wtf?) At the very end, it gets to be more than I can handle. Involves a montage with Bill Clinton, and then some preachy end credits explaining the zombie metaphor. Really, by this point, I was firmly re-living my drug experiences.<br /><br />Highly recommended. 7/10. | 1 |
19,516 | [
700,
800
] | 675 | 769 | Just finished with Zombie Bloodbath part one on the amazing Zombie Bloodbath Trilogy DVD from CAMP Motion Pictures. Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead is next. Now this one left me a bit puzzled due to a few plot holes and some confusing twists here and there, but it is a better film on many levels. Director Todd Sheets truly shows a major leap in style and talent between the two films. Again, this is not for people who want gloss and Hollywood style Horror films, this is for people who like their zombies bloody, raw and grainy. The story as far as I could tell, was basically about two robbers who in 1945 try and steal from an elderly couple only to find that the couple are members of a cult. One guy is simply killed and the other, the one in charge, is basically turned into a scarecrow and crucified and they stand him in the nearby field, still alive but dying. Cut to present day and a van full of college kids break down near a farmhouse. At the same time a group of convicts escape from a nearby jail. Both groups end up at the same house. The house was the one the elderly coupled used to live in and when one of the convicts knocks down the scarecrow and takes it's jacket, it causes the scarecrow to wake up and he in turn brings the cult members back from the dead. Wow. And this is all in the first half hour. There is another plot also going on in town where a couple of serial killer types have taken some workers at a deli hostage. This actually works though, as the people trapped in the house finally escape and end up in the same Deli. Most of the twists work out pretty good, but it is obvious that the film was just too complex in some spots for it's own good. It all ends in a huge showdown with the remaining heroes finding a delivery truck or something full of flesh eating bacteria vials. Of course they throw it at the undead and cause some major melting and a few heads to explode and then we get an odd, thought provoking ending. First, let me say, that while it was not always easy to follow, I still had a major good time with this movie. It was fun and the acting was pretty darn good for a low budget effort. It was obvious that Todd Sheets was truly trying to bring more to the table than a typical zombie film, and in that regard, he has succeeded. It had better special effects than the first film, great pacing and some cool music and visuals, plus there is a true show-stopper of a shot from INSIDE a mouth as a knife is jammed through it. Care was taken here and it shows. The weakness lies in the scripting and in a few of the lazier performances. Again, I recommend listening to the commentary track. It was even better than the first one and I learned a lot. Like finding out that some of the scenes were shot on Super 8 film for effect and that the film came back ruined from the lab and they could nit use it. And they had already been editing the film by the time they got the film back, so some of the confusion is from a few scenes not being in the film. Also, I learned that Todd Sheets truly has a passion and love for making Horror movies. It shows. The film is a good example of no budget cinema that could have used one more rewrite, but still shines with more style than most DV films I see. Not quite as fun as the first film, though a better movie technically. I really admire Sheets as one of the true innovators and trailblazers in the area of DV cinema... and this one is a great addition to the cheapo zombie genre! | 1 |
19,559 | [
700,
800
] | 550 | 714 | This is a wonderful movie...it's funny, dark, poignant, thought-provoking, innocently naughty and generally entertaining all around. I don't know that I've seen the like before..."The Rapture,"or maybe one of Todd Solondz's black-as-night "comedies" or even the recent movie "Teeth" come to mind...but those are all bitter, nasty little gems. "Franklins," despite the darkness around the edges, manages to have a thoroughly sincere and pure heart.<br /><br />The story is similar to John Waters' "Low Down Dirty Shame," only this film differs in that it actually HAS a story, and something to say as well, beyond Waters' juvenile "Sex isn't dirty (snicker, nudge-nudge)" message. A conservative, repressed family undergoes a drastic change as a result of a car accident and suddenly aren't so conservative anymore...in fact, they're finally actually happy, probably the only people in their town (or maybe the entire world) who are. To talk about why this is the case would be to spoil the film; simply put, everyone should see it, though of course only people who are already sold on what the movie's upbeat, hopeful philosophy is ever would.<br /><br />The acting is great--just this side of realistic enough to keep the proceedings from getting too heavy...Teresa Willis gives an especially memorable and brave performance as an uptight mother who emerges like a butterfly when she's freed up. Both she and Robertson Dean deserve kudos for their unflinchingly sincere performances (not to mention frequent and extensive nudity and sex scenes); they turn what could have been a salacious joke involving a "deviant sex practice" into a touching, believable and endearing moment. Aviva as the daughter is a standout and someone to watch, perfectly capturing the attitude, angst and speech patterns of a girl her age. Vince Pavia as the "himbo" brother with a secret is good looking and functional although his storyline and how everyone reacts to it is more rewarding than his actual acting. Mari Blackwell as the conflicted best friend to mother Franklin is wonderfully cold, confused and even compassionate in a role that could have gone over-the-top.<br /><br />Technically the film looks fantastic, all bright colors and wide-open locales...it looks like it may have been shot Hi-def...if so, the line has gotten very thin, it looks very much like film. There is a great deal of talking and a lot of it philosophical, which gets a bit preachy (moreso, I'd imagine to a viewer who disagrees with the film's politics), but this film says a lot of things that need saying...if only people wouldn't be afraid to listen and think. The arguments that take place are smart and well thought out, first and foremost refusing to demonize either the religious OR non-religious parties.<br /><br />The ending is on the ambiguous side, which I found a bit of a disappointment somehow...I think it would've worked better had the author (as Jay Floyd is, since he produced, wrote and directed) given a more workable denouement, some sort of solution, but then again, there probably isn't one when it comes to pitting people with different faiths against one another. All the same, it was a moving, memorable final image that left me choked up--a success. Meanwhile, I'm awfully glad Mr. Floyd got this film made and look forward to sharing it with as many people as possible. Check it out. | 1 |
19,733 | [
700,
800
] | 643 | 791 | TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION<br /><br />William Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films. Sometimes literally following the original text (which is, at times, vague in stage directions), sometimes in new interpretations where directors chose to show their own view on the piece. Some are good, many are mediocre. Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort. Kaufman wrote the script with his co-director on the film James Gunn, who is now famous for writing two successful Scooby Doo movies, doing the impossible by making a perfect remake of an already perfect film with his script for Dawn of the Dead and directing one of the best horror-films of the year: Slither. Lloyd Kaufmans innovative directorial view alongside with James Gunns original and unrestricted writing make for an interpretation of Shakespeare's play that maybe not everyone will "get" immediately, but will certainly be recognized by a truly unique and highly important view on a classic play. With a script that is written entirely in iambic meter, appearances of Motorhead's Lemmy and an outrageous forceful soundtrack watching Tromeo & Juliet is something no one will ever forget. Apart from it's historical significance, Tromeo & Juliet is a treasure for film-lovers of all kind. Not only for the script by James Gunn, now a good influence on Hollywood while working from the inside, but also because it features an early part of legendary actress Debbie Rochon. Well known by everyone familiar with films that are made on lower budgets. The 10th anniversary edition on DVD adds to all that by including so many as-yet undiscovered gems that not only all the information one could wish for about the film itself and the experience of making it is presented in ways that make it impossible to turn off the DVD, but also a very honest (and disturbing) look is given into the ways independent cinema has to surviver these days. In many ways the extra's on the disc are an invaluable addition to the already impressive amount given on Kaufman's film-school "Make Your Own Damn Movie". Furtermore historical items from the Troma vaults which include James Gunn, Debbie Rochon and all other contributors to this masterpiece are included, and the film itself is, apart from looking better then ever, accompanied by no less than four audio-commentaries, each and everyone informative, excruciatingly funny and all done for serious addition to the film instead of the boring and nonsensical commentaries that are so common these days. There are new commentaries (one with Kaufman and Gunn together), but also the one James Gunn did for the original release of the DVD but couldn't be included there for some of honesty he displays about some other people is present on this disc. With fan-recreations of a few of the scenes from the film, a video diary of Lloyd Kaufman's visit to the set of James Gunn's Slither and a visit the two brought together to Eli Roth's Hostel Birthday party and much more, this is the ultimate set everyone must own. Weather you are a film historian, someone interested in interpretations of the great Bard's work, a fan of great cinema, a fighter for independent cinema, a fan of James Gunn, interested in learning more on making films on a low budget, a fan of Lloyd Kaufman or whatever: this is the most important DVD-release of this millennium! | 1 |
19,848 | [
700,
800
] | 597 | 728 | This was on the Saturday before Halloween this year (today, at the time of this writing) and it has to be the best horror anthology out there. I am normally not a fan of horror movies - largely due to the volume of crap that's been recently released. However, the director of Campfire Tales has the Hitchcock-esquire gift of suspense - unlike other contemporary films, it doesn't take every opportunity to scare you silly, instead using foreshadowing and 'near-misses' - incidents that seem like the instant that the climax will occur in the instant before, but turn out not to be.<br /><br />I didn't catch 'The Hook' or the first main segment, but from what I have read here, they were the two you could afford to miss.<br /><br />'People Can Lick Too' was full of suspense - this short keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something to happen to the little girl as she wanders about her yard and house looking for her soccer ball and later her dog. She encounters so many near-misses that the suspense reaches heart-stopping proportions before the climax of the short, when the girl gives up and goes to bed, thinking her dog is underneath it. She reaches her hand down to let him lick it, and she feels the touch of a tongue on her hand...before noticing that on her mirror, written in blood, is 'People can lick too'. I'll leave the last few seconds for you to find out, my reader, for at this point the short could have taken any number of turns.<br /><br />'The Locket', however, was the unarguable masterpiece of this film. It begins with a man on a motorcycle, simply driving...towards what he does not know, but he can feel himself getting closer. As he's driving along, a storm breaks out, and he's forced to find shelter in the house of a mute girl. The two quickly cozy up to each other, but before they can do anything besides kiss, the girl reveals through writing that ghosts inhabit her house. They quickly begin packing up to leave, but they are caught in the middle of a reenactment of a scene decades past - a father, coming home to his daughter and her boyfriend preparing to elope, murders the both of them and then commits suicide. I'll have to leave you to discover the ending here as well - I couldn't hope to do the story justice in any case, and what I've said so far is just a brief summary of the story - I couldn't hope to convey the nuances and sensory details that add to it.<br /><br />'The Campfire', being the connecting thread between all of the stories, is a fairly interesting rehash of the car accident theme, and the girls are very much attractive - in fact, most of the girls in this film are good-looking. Anyway, despite the fact that it's chopped up, the story is given justice, and the ending is difficult to predict if you're preoccupied with the other stories. However, if you pay enough attention to the segments of The Campfire spread through the film, it's certainly possible to predict the ending, especially if you've seen movies based on the same premise. (MST3k fans, remember Soultaker? Same premise, but without the god awful writing of Vivian Schilling, and the bulk of the movie. If you've seen the first 30 minutes of that you should be able to predict the ending.) All in all, the best horror movie I've seen in a LONG time, and the only horror anthology worthy of a buy. | 1 |
19,927 | [
700,
800
] | 574 | 706 | So Udo Kier earned like nine bucks and free food for this so that is a victory in and of itself. <br /><br />More importantly this movie tells a very interesting tale about a group of salvage guys coming across the broken down Demeter. I should warn you, i'm gunna bounce around through this review real quick so buckle up. First thing's first. Coolio plays a guy named 187. 187 likes drugs. 187 finds a bunch of caskets on board and... now i don't know anything about the future but maybe they smuggle drugs in caskets. Not gunna say that was the craziest thing in this movie. Later on the vampire gets out of his mist filled coffin and then the real hilarity begins. First, although this movie has the word Dracula in it he is actually not in this movie. I have a theory though. Out of the blue you see the salvage crew's ship leave without them. My theory is that Dracula was on board with his retarded brother Orlock. Dracula told Orlock he'll be right back. Dracula got the hell out of this movie before he could be seen leaving Orlock to play the vampire for the six or so minutes he is in the movie. The best part of this film, and for those of you that have seen this you know what i'm gunna say, is after 187 gets sired, embraced whatever. He has this huge monologue about ejaculating on various parts of erika Elaniak's body and... other super cool stuff. Coolio, seriously you are the best thing EVER. <br /><br />Some other stuff happens in this movie too. Like Casper Van Dean gets some work. Orlock screams a lot and loses his arm and then we kinda lose track of him FOR THE REST OF THE MOVIE. And thank god really. We find out Erika's character is a police bot. As the movie comes to a close we find out that the ship is on a course to ram into the sun. The police bot and one other surviving character are doomed. Rather then avoid certain death Erika's police bot reveals she's also a whore bot and they decide to screw each other and die. Before they die in the sun they die for no reason, yep that's right... their ship blows up for no real reason. <br /><br />This movie got the amazing rating for one reason, Coolio. My god, if they gave academy awards to black rappers then he'd be the first to get one. The only reason this didn't get a perfect ten is because there was not a drop of nudity. Now i know what your thinking, how can you judge a film by whether ladies show their goods or not. Well easy. A movie like this pretty much requires it. Its part of the process. Gore, gore, monsters, nudity, gore, end of movie final shock at the end. Its the formula. This had some gore, the monster was awesome because he sucked so hard he actually did us the favor of staying off camera. That was considerate of him and i respect that. Nudity, not a drop even though there was a length conversation about... well see the above statement and as for the shock/twist... i certainly didn't see the end coming. That counts. <br /><br />I hope Hollywood doesn't think Coolio gave this film his all and has nothing left. He deserves more work. Well, until Dracula 4000, i'm out. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.