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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15,481 | [
900,
1000
] | 718 | 988 | COMING on the heels of that 1970's "Blackploitation" Era, CONRACK (20th Century-Fox, 1974) offered audiences a low-key, sincere and everyday people sort of a drama. Offering a far different fair to its audience (which was far more general than those "Gansta" flicks); being a down to earth dose of realism that offered a lonely counterbalance to those shoot-'em-ups'.<br /><br />REPLACING lead characters that were bad-ass detectives, super-flies and megs/macks/pimps (Take your pick in terminology), was a lone, humble and meek teacher. The academian we speak of is the main character, Pat Conroy; who is the one and only lone teacher hired to take on the responsibility of a sort of old time one room school house on an island off the coast of South Carolina.<br /><br />"CONRACK" (Jon Voight), the name that the youngsters dub him finds conditions in the school terribly backward. In addition to the physical properties of this "Little Red Schoolhouse", any systematic and progressively graduated educational system was totally absent.<br /><br />OH yeah, by the way, did we mention that further complications to any successful educational venture were manifested in two incontrovertible facts. Those were that Pat Conroy was both an outsider and he was white; with almost the entire population of this off-shore cay was black and very poor.<br /><br />PERPETUATING these unacceptable and deplorable conditions were the agents of the local board of education; being the school's Principal, Mrs. Scott (Madge Sinclair) and the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington (Mr. Hume Cronyn). Between the two, we are made to understand that the teacher, being the low man on the totem pole, is powerless in most respects to affect any sort of meaningful, long-lasting improvements.<br /><br />BUT don't you tell a 'Young Turk', such as Pat Conroy, that he can't. (Can't anything, that is). "Conrack" spends a year of unorthodox classroom performances and is making real progress; but alas, the strong-headed teacher won't give in and recognize the authority of his superiors. While he is, by law and unbeknownst to him, serving at thee super's pleasure; he disobeys Mr. Skeffington's specific order and prohibition to take his class kids to the mainland of South Carolina on Halloween for some Trick-or-Treating; even going to the brazen act of stopping with them at the Skeffington residence.<br /><br />NEXT we see a Western Union Telegram messenger happily singing as he crosses from the Carolina mainland to the island; where he delivers the telegram to Conroy that bore the news of his dismissal from his position with that school and district.<br /><br />NOT BEING one to take his being fired lying down, Pat files suit against Mr. Skeffington, Principal Mrs. Scott and the Board of Education protesting his dismissal as being unlawful. Impartially reviewing both the "offense" and the law, the Judge asks Skeffington if there are any lesser punishments that could be substituted for Conroy's being separated from the school system; to which he receives a negative response. Fittingly, the Judge dismisses the suit with his gavel pounding down while saying, "It's very simple!" <br /><br />THE story is brought to a bittersweet conclusion as the 'Conrack'students see him off to the mainland bound launch, while a phonograph record provides us with BEETHOVEN'S 5th SYMPHONY; which had played an important part in the Conroy educational agenda, as well as our story.<br /><br />IN THE HUMBLE opinion of this writer, the story (which we believe was at least semi-autobiographical, even giving the main character the name of its author), was much more than a tale of a localized happening. To both me pal Schultz and meself; this is a sort of depiction of a microcosm that represents the overall deplorable conditions that permeate the Government Schools throughout the entire nation. (Just an opinion) <br /><br />AS FOR THIS film, it was just one of many movies portraying the stores of common folk; leading their lives of "quiet desperation" in the great hinterlands of the country, which lie outside the D.C. Beltway and the urban centers of enterprise and communications situated on either the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts.<br /><br />IN ITS OWN small way, this is a fine film, which would soon be joined in the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox by such great works as NORMA RAE and BREAKING AWAY. (both being from TCF in 1979).<br /><br />SEE it if you ain't yet. Recommended by both Schulz and his buddy.*<br /><br />NOTE: * Why, that's me, of course! <br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | 1 |
15,496 | [
900,
1000
] | 698 | 929 | ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** THE CELL / (2000) **** (out of four)<br /><br />"Do you believe there is a part of yourself, deep inside in your mind, with things you don't want other people to see? During a session when I'm inside, I get to see those things."<br /><br />--Catherine Deane<br /><br />And so do we. One of the most visually stimulating films of the year, "The Cell" is a love/hate movie-either you love it or you hate it. I can understand the reasons some people dislike this production. With a story that combines disturbing serial killers with mind-probing, "The Cell" is too much for some viewers; others will not understand the complex actions and emotions of the film. I think it's one of the year's most engrossing films.<br /><br />Making his feature film screenwriting debut, Mark Protosevich creates an imaginative world of rich, colorful images and provocative characters. The filmmakers take advantage of every shot. Protosevich conceived ideas for "The Cell" in 1993 when he decided to combine two of his major interests, mind-probing and serial killers. He was reportedly influenced by such directors as Wes Craven, George Romero and David Cronenberg. They would probably be proud of such an imagination.<br /><br />The film combines two major narratives, one about scientific exploration of the human mind, and the other about a psychopath who murders young women for his own sexual pleasure. Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), a child therapist, is part of a neurological study at the Campbell Center, a research clinic. Because of her empathetic personality, scientists chose Deane to enter the mind of a catatonic preteen in hopes to revive his brain into waking.<br /><br />A sick, demented serial killer roams the streets. Within an abandoned rural farmhouse, Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) locks innocent female victims in a large glass cell where he then drowns them and performs sadistic sexual rituals with their bodies. The killer escapes from the FBI every time they draw near, until now. A violent seizure renders him comatose. The FBI captures his forever unconscious body. Unfortunately, he already prepared the cell with his latest victim. In forty hours, the cell will fill with water, and Stargher is the only man who knows the location of his victim.<br /><br />The FBI takes this situation to Campbell Center, where Catherine enters the mind of Stargher, hoping to discover the location of his latest victim before the cell fills with water, sending the woman to a watery grave.<br /><br />The science fiction portions of the story relied on both real science and theoretical fiction in the creation of the Neurological Cartography and Synaptic Transfer System. The premise takes a long time to develop, but it is worth the wait. It is far fetched, but that doesn't matter. The film makes us believe. Even if you don't suspend disbelief, however, the visual enticement provides an engaging setting to enjoy.<br /><br />According to the film's production notes, Mark Protosevich was thrilled to work with the director, named Tarsem, because they both think visually. Tarsem Singh is known for his attention to detail, stunning art direction, and highly developed abilities to tell a story. "When I wrote 'The Cell'," explains Protosevich, "I surrounded myself with postcards or color copies of painter's paintings or photographs while I was working. So I'm thinking visually, and Tarsem is a highly visual director. Tarsem has a similar frame of visual references which made for a very smooth collaboration."<br /><br />Vincent D'Onofrio provides the film with a backbone, and no actor could have accomplished his character any better. He delivers a mysterious, disturbing, and engaging performance. "I think that my character is, in a way, trapped in himself," D'Onofrio ponders. He also researched the psychology of serial killers to help get him beneath the surface of the character. His in-depth performance preparation pays off beautifully.<br /><br />While the actors, writer, and director do wonders with their material, the real honor goes to the film's behind-the-scenes talent. The director of photography Paul Laufer, production designer Tom Foden, costume designer April Napier, special effects coordinator Clay Pinney, and visual effects supervisor Kevin Tod Haug. They bring the world of "The Cell" to life. It's is an extraordinary world worthy of several viewings. Some movies you watch, others you experience. "The Cell" falls into the later category.<br /><br /> | 1 |
15,559 | [
900,
1000
] | 817 | 969 | The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others. <br /><br />Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times. <br /><br />What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.<br /><br />I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's "Son of Paleface", and I caught it again in 1958's "The Big Country" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.<br /><br />Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson. | 1 |
16,136 | [
900,
1000
] | 798 | 981 | The opening night for the 'South Asian International Film Festival' (SAIFF) in New York was an event a lot of us were waiting for.<br /><br />I would finally get to watch 'Hari Om' I was tired of watching the "promo" on a loop and the lingering taste of the song Angel by Nitin Sawhney in the promo, left me begging to hear the rest of it. I was impressed by the visuals
and tremendously curious about how the rugged looking auto rickshaw driver would win the hearts of the stunning sophisticated looking French tourist! I remember being rather intrigued by the theme, when I'd read a line or two about it in the papers, ages ago! Especially so, since I'd personally been very fascinated a few years ago, by how flamboyant the rickshaws in Jodhpur were! The snow and the crowds outside the theater only set my anxiety rising.<br /><br />Once inside the theater, I found that the SAIFF organizers only presented disaster. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed by how poorly the event was organized and found myself in a difficult spot, trying to explain and offer excuses to my friends (of mixed nationalities) whom I'd invited on the VIP guest list. I was hoping to prove to them that Indian cinema was not always about Bollywood
Eventually and FINALLY, the movie began sending some fresh air our way. Or so I thought
Hari Om
started with chaos and noise. Autorickshaws honking, traffic and a whole lot of chaos. I found myself smiling as I felt a sense of "home" filling up inside me.<br /><br />Thus began the journey of Hari Om
an auto rickshaw driver in Jaipur The director couldn't have made a better casting call with this character. From Monsoon Wedding to Hari Om Vijay Raaz, despite his non-hero looks, carries this movie solely on his acting skills and his take on the character, replete with all the nuances of a rickshaw driver in Rajasthan. He's a winner all the way. But how and where he learnt to speak English even that fluently, is the question! However, his character portrays beautiful shades of humor and sensitivity. I love his innocent portrayal of a simple guy from a village who has big aspirations of being famous some day
and yet knows when to cut away to reality.<br /><br />Camille, on the other hand enters the movie wearing clothes that ANYONE wouldn't dare to wear in a place like that. It's funny however, that no one seems to really care too much about her dressed like that. She looks very very dazzling though! Especially in the latter half of the movie, when she changes to Indian attire. Her relationship with her boyfriend however seems very vague. It probably adds to the touch of reality of certain kinds of relationships.<br /><br />The movie takes us through the most beautiful parts of Rajasthan
The surprising part is that none of the places have been portrayed anything other than what they REALLY are. You see the dirt, you see the primitive houses
you see Rajasthan exactly the way it is!! Yet there's only one adjective that it leaves you with 'beautiful'.<br /><br />This is the first director who probably knows how to portray India exactly the way it is- with the dirt and the noise and all the negatives that India is attached to! Yet making it look like one of the most beautiful places to be in.<br /><br />Kudos! to him for that.<br /><br />The only downside of the movie that I could possibly see, is the pace
I found it rather slow at certain parts but rest assured that you will never be bored.<br /><br />Nitin Sawhney's background scores add a classy international, yet very Indian flavor to the movie. The song "Angel" which plays at a very crucial time in the movie, blends beautifully with the visuals.<br /><br />I've also heard that besides the main characters, all the other actors are actually just normal people who'd never ever faced a camera before!! That's commendable considering, most of our so called established actors still can't portray realistic characters on screen.<br /><br />All in all, watching this movie was a beautiful experience It is a pot pourri of emotions. It's got romance, humour
realism
beautiful visuals and locations... , great music, a great cast A PACKAGE DEAL! When I walked out of the theater - I felt proud to be Indian
A few days later, I asked one of my Bulgarian friends who had watched the movie with me, if he'd want to watch another Indian Movie and his response was " Is it better than Hari Om? If it is, then I'll go
if not, I think I'll pass. From now on, Hari Om will be the benchmark for every Indian Movie that I see." Mr. Bala, are you reading? | 1 |
16,228 | [
900,
1000
] | 732 | 913 | When the new Outer Limits first started, the episodes were quite optimistic and challenging. As the series began to wind down, most of the episodes became just plain ugly and devoid of any entertainment value. The six episodes here reflect the very best, and worst, of the series.<br /><br />Since The Outer Limits always preaches a moral. I would like to offer my own. Starting with the most entertaining to the flops.<br /><br />1. Afterlife: As an institution, The U.S.A. military-industrial complex is both evil and paranoid, not to mention plain stupid. However, individuals with great integrity do serve our country, and they will obey their conscience even at a mind-boggling cost! In the end, the aliens don't need to say a word. Those without a conscience are fools who are to be held in utter contempt!<br /><br />A truly subversive episode! One that should be shown on prime time television for all to see! This might be a revelation for some, but folks without a conscience should not be allowed to serve in our military! Nor do the ends justify the means! <br /><br />2. Relativity Theory: A good person may be forced to make a split-second decision between good or evil in order to save the lives of defenseless intelligent beings, and at great cost to one's self. What makes this decision all the more difficult is the stark choice: Being marooned with exotic alien strangers who you can't even communicate with except through gestures, or going along with a group of people you think will keep you safe from unknown dangers even if they are ruthless, and devoid of compassion! <br /><br />This episode is brilliant! What fuels this depravity is good old fashioned greed. This episode is one of the most scathing indictments of capitalism, transnational corporations and raping the environment, I have ever seen in my lifetime! Unlike real life, justice here is served - and swiftly! <br /><br />One of the most memorable lines is when the ruthless corporate thug said something to the effect, "We did the same thing in the Amazon Rainforest War." Alluding to the killing of Amazonian Indians who were attempting to protect their rain forests from being strip mined, as justification for killing again literally in the name of the "survival of the fittest." Something Darwin never meant to be taken literally! <br /><br />3. Alien Shop: Tremendous power can be used for good, even from an exotic alien. This power can be used to heal instead of destroy. Mere mortals can learn from their mistakes! Even a criminal can see the light if given enough opportunity to do so.<br /><br />Sometimes it takes strong medicine, but we all can wake-up and change our self-destructive ways! <br /><br />4. The Grell: An alien can be a Christ-like figure! In the distant future, slavery can be justified, once again, in the name of expediency! Basically good people can be corrupted. Sometimes a person needs to be experience great shame in order to see the evil he/she is committing. Children are closer to the truth than adults. Those with political power have tremendous responsibility! Another work of genius! As a species, "Do human beings learn from history?" <br /><br />Flop Number 1: Quality of Mercy: Loose Lips, Sinks Ships! When in war kindly keep your mouth shut about important military plans. Gee, did I really need to watch an hour-long soap opera in order to figure this out?!! I wonder, did the makers of The Outer Limits run out of ideas, or did corporate pull the plug? Dark and ugly, serving no purpose, but despair! <br /><br />Flop Number 2: Beyond The Veil: So bad there is no moral but this: When locked-up in a mental hospital, use some common sense, please! This episode is so bad it disgusts. What an X-Files rip-off! Don't waste your time on this one! You'll thank me later! <br /><br />It's a sad commentary that The Outer Limits went down the tubes toward the end of its run. Subversive episodes, like the first four, could not last forever! It was a miracle they were made at all! Hopefully, someday, other brave souls will follow the subversive Outer Limits tradition into new territory! <br /><br />If you happen to be such a daring person, a good place to start is with one unique book: "Anatomy Of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction," edited by Neil Barron! As far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive book ever written on the subject. | 1 |
16,308 | [
900,
1000
] | 772 | 907 | Oh yes! Hollywood does remember how to use the good old formula, and when lightning hits, it's a rather wonderful feeling. Rarely Hollywood creates a masterpiece because lately, there seems to be more concern with hurrying up and getting the most rewards in a hurried manner, or there is the matter of too many cooks in the mix. Usually good screenplays are the result of a talented writer who is in full control of his/her property, understand his material and is a good writer. Then, there is a little important part, often neglected by the marketing geniuses that so often lack creativity and vision: a good actor.<br /><br />A good actor can make the difference between a mediocre, half-cooked try, and a fully realized film that might not be an important and relevant movie, but one that contributes to its genre and might eventually become a classic of its type. We get very few romantic comedies, and we are people who are starved for them. Buried in the sexy humor of "Sex in the City" is the romantic, yet stormy relationship of Big and Carrie, and people flocked to "Mamma Mia" because it had some romance, skillfully played by Streep and Brossnam. It could have a silly musical, but it did touch us because it was played with intensity and conviction. "Nights" offers us more of it, with the amazing talents of a woman who does magnificent work in romantic films, Ms. Diane Lane. Ever since her days as a child actor, we could appreciate how her talent, combined with her appreciative soul allowed us to see into the hearts of the story's protagonists. A few years back, she teamed up with Mr. Gere, giving us a tormented, romantic, and sexy performance as the wife who is not too sure of her actions' consequences in "Unfaithful", work that should have garnered her at least an Academy Award. She is back, doing more formidable work in this romantic gem as a woman who has given up on her romantic prospects, and suddenly she realizes there might be another chance around the corner.<br /><br />Ms. Lane makes this film pulsate with intelligence and passion. Her facial expressions communicate volumes about the different emotions her character undergoes. We can read frustrations, yearnings, desperation, anger, hope, loss, and a range that is way out reach for a lot of the marketable types that Hollywood constantly push down our throats. Here is a mature performer who has the gift to project real emotions and allows us to connect with the material in such a way that we are moved as we become part of the experience.<br /><br />Ms. Lane is such a triumphant joy to watch as she goes through transformations from the first scenes of the film until the very end. Her discoveries become ours as we celebrate with her the power of hope and love. She is able to bring back the unsurpassed joy of a person in love, much like a teenager does, and yet she never lets you think of her character as silly or irresponsible. Her eyes are expressive gems that can move even the cynical in the audience. She is one of the stars that can do wonders with just one look. In her the classic feel of those grand movies of yesterday are back. Her work recalls the passionate and intelligent work of Hepburn, Davis, Garson, women who played everyday types and made them memorable because they created complete characters.<br /><br />We admire those superb actresses who recreate real life legends and are rewarded for it. Half their work is done by the mystique of the figures they impersonate; however as much as anyone might make you think, it is the roles such as Lane's in this movie that are a more impressive achievement because they are created from scratch, given a personal imprint and are able achieve heights without any previous theatrical material support, such as plays, and the background of a famous legend whose life is paid tribute on the silver screen. Lane's character is one woman whose experiences could be any of us. She represents our dreams and emotions with much quality, class, and just the right amount of sentiment. It is quite a remarkable achievement, and we should be grateful that we are still able to find such a remarkable performance nowadays.<br /><br />There are a few adjectives I could use to pay tribute to her work, but I can only say that in my humble opinion every single frame of her work in this film is testament to one of the greatest performances ever put on celluloid by a living performer. Thank you, Ms. Lane. | 1 |
16,612 | [
900,
1000
] | 739 | 915 | ***SPOILERS*** Even though the movie "They Made Me A Criminal" is nowhere as good as the later John Garfield anti-hero classics like "Body & Soul" in 1947 "Force of Evil" in 1948 and his last and very underrated "He Ran All The Way" in 1951 it's the film that defined his career from that point onward until his untimely death on May 21, 1952 at the young age of 39. <br /><br />Garfiled plays the part of light Weight Champion Johnnie Bradfield and later the fugitive from the law Jack Dorney who's innocent of the murder that he's charged with, even though he's been declared officially dead. Jonnie's manager Doc Ward, Robert "Doc" Gleckler, who during a drunken victory party killed reporter Charles McGee,John Ridgely, who was going to expose to the public his fighter Johnnie Bradfield lies about him being a one women guy as well as non drinking momma's boy. Doc Gleckler smashed a bottle over McGee's head killing him as Jonnie was almost dead drunk with a number of women partying in his hotel suite. <br /><br />Doc was later killed in a car crash with Johnnie's girlfriend Goldie, Ann Sheridan, but Doc burned to a crisp and with Johnnie's watch on him was mistaken for Johnnie. Told to stay dead and buried by his lawyer Malvin ,Robert Strange, who took $9,750.00 of the $10,000.00 of Johnnie's money that he had for this great piece of advice. Malvin told Johnnie to take on a new identity and call himself from now on Jack Dorney and get the hell out of the state of New York; talking about sleazy shysters. Johnnie now Jack Dorney travels the rails from New York down to Arizona ending up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm where most of the film takes place.<br /><br />If it wasn't for John Garfield in the lead role as both Jonnie Bradfield & Jack Dorney the movie would have long been lost and forgotten. Garfield who was only 26 at the time brought the best out of everyone in the movie. Even the transported Dead End Kids, I guess we can call them The Arizona Kids here, acting were notches above what you would have expected from them and they came across as real and sensitive persons not a bunch of slap stick clowns like in almost all of their movies. All that due to being on the same stage, or filming location, with John Garfield. <br /><br />"They Made Me a Criminal" is a good story that has the undercover champ acting like anything but not to draw any attention on himself and end up not only behind bars but in the electric chair. In the end Jack showed just what kind of man he is by not fighting the big fight and against all the odds dramatically winning at the last moment but by going four brutal rounds to get the money for his new found family at the date farm including his girl Peggy, Gloria Dickson, to open up a gas station with it. <br /><br />Giving the European champ Gaspar Rutchek, Frank Riggi, the fight of his life and getting $2,000.00, thats $500.00 a round, for doing it Jack showed everyone who looked up to him like the "Arizona Kids" that sometimes taking a punch is far braver and more courageous then throwing one.The fact that Jack could have easily clobbered Rutched but didn't in order not to expose himself to the police, as on the loose killer Johnnie Bradfield. But instead went as far as he could taking everything that Rutchek could throw at him to help out his friends showed more then all the fights that he won in the boxing ring put together. <br /><br />I for one didn't find the ending of the movie contrived at all but fitting right in with the story. The cop Morty Phelam, Claude Rains, who came to Arizona from New York to arrest Jack had to live with for years the fact that he once sent an innocent man to the electric chair. We were told all this right at the start of the movie. Why knowing that Jack/Johnnie was innocent of the murder that he's charged with and not knowing for sure if he'll be found innocent of it in a court of law would he want to make the same terrible mistake again? I can easily see this happening in real life why not then in the movies. | 1 |
16,823 | [
900,
1000
] | 694 | 908 | 1969 was the year. New York City was the place. Putney Swoope was the second Robert Downey film to achieve some recognition. The first was Chaffed Elbows (1966). Putney Swoope achieved a much wider release. Pound (1970) and Greasers Palace (1972) were even more profane and obnoxious. Those 2 films were mean spirited to the point that they actually stalled the Prince's feature film career for several years.<br /><br />The subject at hand is Putney Swoope. And it is a mad farce/satire that has to be seen to be believed. I'm not going to go through the plot here. What Plot?? People looking for a plot are going to be scratching their heads. Keep Scratching!! This film is not about PLOT! One could compare this to a Mel Brooks movie; only without the Hollywood parody party that Mel always threw. I also see a little bit of Monty Python in this. By the way: This film was shot before Monty had debuted on the BBC!!! <br /><br />I notice that the Gags and Lines that are drop dead hilarious DO NOT transfer well by word of mouth. You have to see them within the context of the film. There are some flaws in the film; but even the flaws are unique. For instance: Actors often repeat the SAME LINE over and over again; and somehow it works. How Many Syllables Mario? Putney Says the Borman Six Girl Has Got to Have Soul! etc...<br /><br />The B/W photography is outstanding. The Sound/Score is even better! The editing is only so-so. The acting is above average. The script is priceless. The jokes are as un-PC as you can get: MR. Bad News says "Sonny Williams just got caught in a motel with a 13 year old girl" Putney says "Well at least He's not superstitious" Uptight conservatives beware. The Anti-Establishment mindset of this film will drive you straight out of the room. Nothing is sacred.<br /><br />There are many things in this film that pertain to today: NO SMOKING!!! Reverse Racism; with African Americans treating Caucasions like trash. The manipulation of Mass Media over the masses; Madison Avenue, Deroit, Hollywood intentionally pedaling something that any 8 year old can tell is pure garbage; The Internet, I'm talking about "the drum"; Interracial dating; I could go on and on....<br /><br />I should also mention that there is about 8 min of this film that was shot in 16 mm Color. These are the commercials shot by Putney's agency. The spots work fairly well the first time around. They get tiresome though on repeated viewings. The real magic here is within the B/W sections of the film. It's the non-scenically lines they stay with you: "Rent Yourself A CHORT Schmuck". "I love You, I Love You, I love You... did you take your pill?". "anything that I have to say would just be redundant". And a host of others. I also really like the bit with the mounted minnow up on the wall: "The game warden wanted me to throw it back... I put up such a fight, I decided to have it mounted!" <br /><br />Standouts in the cast include Buddy Buttler as Putney's bodyguard #1. He should have been a much bigger star. Antonio Fargas as the Arab. He did go on to stardom on TV and in Films. Arnold Johnson has the right look as Putney Swoope. Robert Downey used his Own voice instead because Arnold couldn't remember some of his lines. Also Downey realized that He could fill in any additional dialog/jokes later on if he dubbed his Lead actor. <br /><br />The film does have some shortcomings. The short run time is one. I wish the beginning with the White board members would have been extended. Stan Gotlieb and Allen Garfield are outstanding. The ending seams to have been thrown together as if he just couldn't think of any more gags. All in all, this is one of the Best low-budget independent films of it's time. A time when very few indys' played outside of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and L.A. Anyone who loves satire and comedy should see this at least twice. Downey's Putney Swoope is Ahead of and Beyond it's time. | 1 |
16,831 | [
900,
1000
] | 766 | 948 | "Bride of Chucky" is one of the better horror movies to come out in the past ten years and could be one of the best horror films of the 90's.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Chucky's girlfriend, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) manages to find his battered remains after being sucked into the fan at the end of part 3 and brings him to life in her trailer park. Her neighbor, Jessie (Nick Stabile) and his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) are being tormented by her uncle. (John Ritter) Tiffany upsets Chucky when he refuses to marry her, so she buys a doll for him to play with. Chucky kills Tiffany, and then transfers her soul into the doll she got him. In order for them to be placed back into human bodies, they have to travel to New Jersey to retrieve an amulet to do so. Jessie sees this as an opportunity to escape from Ritter, and they set out on the journey, but not before Ritter is killed by Chucky and Tiffany. Along the way, several bizarre incidents force them to stop at a bed and breakfast. When several more people are killed, they call up their best friend (Gordon Woolvett) to straighten out the situation. They convince him neither one of them are the killers, as the police have began to solve the crimes. He finds Ritter's body in a trunk in the back of the van. Thinking he has been set up, he confronts them about it. Chucky and Tiffany then turn real to prove they did it, which gets Woolvett killed. The group steals a motor home and arrives at the cemetery. Jessie and Jade get Chucky and Tiffany to turn on each other, giving them enough to escape. Chucky recaptures Jade and forces her to get his amulet. Chucky and Tiffany restart their feud, which gives Jessie and Jade enough time to kill the both of them as the police arrive and clears them of the crimes.<br /><br />The Good News: I have to give the most amount of props to the FX department, as Chucky and Tiffany as dolls look completely convincing. The scenes with them together are the movies main highlights, including a hilarious conversation where Tiffany advises Chucky on how serial killers in the 90's work. That being said, the amount of one-liners in this movie that are actually funny is incredible. Chucky gets the most of them, but Tiffany cracks a few gems as well. It is actually funnier than what Hollywood calls comedies these days. The gore is plentiful and shockingly realistic. Several deaths in this movie are actually original and creative. Turning Ritter into a new form of Pinhead was a totally brilliant scene. The honeymooning couple was a nice death scene, as well. For teenage love, the pairing of Stabile and Heigl works great. They have a great chemistry together and actually behave like a normal couple. I also have to admit that the first time I saw this movie, I did jump during certain scenes, and that shows what an incredible job director Yu did. He learned enough, apparently, to do the same thing with "Freddy vs. Jason." He knows how to stage set-ups and pay-offs, and here he shows some great skills that have a Hong Kong influenced look and style. He could be the next great horror director if he keeps filling up his resume with films like those two. Nice soundtrack, too, like "Freddy vs. Jason."<br /><br />The Bad News: For fans of cheesy movies, this will be a great find. However, this film has a high cheese factor that may prevent the serious horror movie fan from having a good time enjoying this film. The film knows it is a cheesy movie and revels in it, making a serious fan turned off because of things like the one-liners. It isn't all that bad of a movie, but it has to be watched in the mind frame that it is a cheesy movie, and that the cheesiness of certain scenes add to the movie, not to take it away. Remove yourself from that state of mind and you may find yourself enjoying this movie.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: Fans of cheesy movies and the other "Child's Play" movies will find a lot to like about this movie. For serious horror fans, take a look at it, but keep in mind that it isn't a serious movie and that the cheesiness is supposed to be there and you might find yourself liking it.<br /><br />Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity on a doll, a shadowy puppet sex scene, some drug use, and numerous drug references. | 1 |
16,893 | [
900,
1000
] | 758 | 963 | What a tribute to his father! He set out on a quest to learn more about a man whom he knew little of, and by the end of the journey, I believe Nathaniel Kahn is content with what he learned and personally felt. The film is 5 years in the making, and a quarter of a century after his death, Louis I. Kahn's total commitment in his work - consistent strong desire to build buildings that are meaningful to humanity and timeless to the whole world, with insight into his life is proudly depicted by his son Nathaniel in the documentary "My Architect: A Son's Journey".<br /><br />The film is by no means an anthology of Louis' work. There are plenty of books and archived materials that have records of Louis Kahn's projects and buildings. This documentary works like a mystery, writer-director and co-producer Nathaniel Kahn was searching for the man whom he briefly knew as his father. <br /><br />The film is in chapters. In "Heading West," we're at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies at La Jolla, California. It's a sight worth beholding - Kahn's integral concept of building and environment, optimizing light for the scientists at work is amazing. From a former colleague who worked with 'Lou' 35 years ago, we hear about his meticulous attention to detail, also how 'rambunctious' he could be - certainly didn't mince words in his criticism. A memorable scene is when the camera pulled back wide and we see Nathaniel skating around at the plaza area of the Salk Institute - a tiny figure, like a child happily playing in the bowl of his father's hands. <br /><br />The "Immigrant" segment brought us to meet Anne Tyng, the architect who collaboratively worked with 'Lou' and also bore him a daughter, Alex. Now at 80, Tyng's return with Nathaniel's film crew to the Bath House project at Trenton, New Jersey, was nostalgic. In "Go to sea," we get to see the Barge for American Wind Symphony Orchestra - all made of steel, and meeting Robert Boudreau, who was surprised by Nathaniel when he finally told him he's 'Lou's' son. Boudreau was touched, he said he had seen Nathaniel when he was six, with his Mom (Harriet Pattison), and he was not to tell anyone that Lou had a son. It was a 'chokingly' emotional moment of reunion.<br /><br />Like his father "The Nomad," Nathaniel traveled to Jerusalem, and learned about the Synagogue project that his father began but not realized. He visited the wailing wall, and seeing his yarmulke kept falling off/being 'breezed off' his head gave me a sense that he need not be 'totally' Jewish to be his father's son. We continue with sitting down with his two half-sisters at the "Family Matters" segment. We also hear him conversing with his Mom at Maine, and from talking to previous office personnel at his father's office, we come to know how his father intensely worked and practically lived there, sleeping on a carpet on the office floor, weekends and all. <br /><br />"The End of the Journey" brought us to Ahmedabad, India, to the Indian Institute of Management building. Talking with architect B.V. Doshe was a revelation. In the end, Nathaniel found a very much alive Louis Kahn, his father - his spirits live within him. This documentary is very much a tear-jerker for me. I was teary-eyed most of the time - it was very touching and am in awe of the man, the architect and his son, and the women in his life besides his famous works and buildings. Louis I. Kahn wanted to give his love to the 'whole world,' juggling work and three families (you might say he has three women in his life to keep his inspiration going). As Shamsul Wares, the architect at the Capital of Bangladesh complex (completed 9 years after 'Lou's' death) so poignantly noted: Louis Kahn has given the people of Bangladesh a lot, spending time at Bangladesh, understanding the culture of the place and people - as well as giving them democracy through what he has achieved, and for such a dedicated man, usually the people close to him he'd often miss seeing. It seems the price of being great comes with inevitable personal sacrifices. <br /><br />This film reminds me of King Vidor's "The Fountainhead" 1949 (good dramatic story in B/W with music by Max Steiner), based on Ayn Rand's novel, with Gary Cooper as the uncompromising architect who stands by his own ideals, and Patricia Neal as the parallel supportive woman in his life.<br /><br /> | 1 |
17,022 | [
900,
1000
] | 706 | 989 | The 1970's saw a rise and fall of what we have come to know as "Blacksploitation" Films. The term is a reference to kind of broad catch-all, rather than a true Genre of Film. In short, any comedy, drama, adventure, western or urban cops & robbers shoot-em-up, that are so constructed and so cast as to appeal to the large Urban Black population of the Mid 20th Century. That indeed could embrace the widest type of films, as long as the had a slant toward the inner-city black population.<br /><br />It appears that the idea of producing these films of particularly keen interest to Black Americans had its genesis with the Eastertime Release of 100 RIFLES (Marvin Schwartz Prod./20th Century-Fox, 1969). In it, former Syracuse University All-American Footballer and Several Times All-Pro Fullback for the Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown, had a Co-Starring Billing. Having appeared in a number of films already, as for example, RIO CONCHOS (1964),THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967), (ICE STTION ZEBRA (1968)* and others, it was beginning to make more sense to the Studios' "Suits" that Jim was a hot property.<br /><br />Now this 100 RIFLES brings record numbers of Black patrons to the Big Cities' central business districts on Easter Sunday to view Mr. Brown. Why not start to film more of these adventure epics and other types of film with more Black Players and Stars? Why not, indeed.** So we saw a succession of Cops & Robbers, Bad-ass Private Detective Films, Comedies, all going the route. Along the way, we eventually got to some more family oriented, wider appealing films. The movie goers were treated to SOUNDER (1972), THE TAKE (1974), CONRACK (1974)and, ultimately, CLAUDINE (1974).<br /><br />In CLAUDINE, we find no stigma nor easy classification as being "Blackploitation", as the story is universal, and could easily have been done as a story about people of any descent, any where, and not just in the 1970's USA.<br /><br />That the story was done of a SINGLE mother, Claudine (Dianne Carroll), struggling to keep a family together after "....two marriages and two almost marriages.", is a far cry from a shoot-em-up Harlem Style. The problems that plague the everyday citizens of our nation are confronted and examined under the ol' sociological microscope.<br /><br />But we also consider Claudine's psychological and physical needs as a female. For "Woman Needs Man and Man Must Have His MATE",***and we do concede this point. (That's S-E-X that we're talking about, Schultz!) Claudine meets up with a very masculine, broad shouldered, athletic type in Private Scavanger Garbage Man, Ruppert B. Marshall (James Earl Jones) and they go on a date.<br /><br />The Great Welfare State intervenes with the Couple as Claudine's Welfare Case Worker, Miss Tayback (Elisa Loti), comes snooping around to see just who is this unattached Male, who is suddenly paying so much attention to Claudine's family.<br /><br />After a humiliating experience with the Welfare Bureau's auditing and "deducting" binge, which would be the norm for the family, the two decide to get married with or without the blessing of Big Brother.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Claudine's elder son has gotten involved with some big talking but little doing Black Activist group. But, with Ruppert's help, he and they all come through it A.O.K.<br /><br />It ends on a Happy, Upbeat and Hopeful note. We know that it may not be exactly "...Happily Ever After!", but rather the'll make it all together! If there is a single criticism that we must state it is that sometimes in a movie like this, a misconception is spread to a large portion of Urban Blacks. And that is, the apparent implied myth that all Whites are wealthy, having none of their kind ever in need of a helping hand, out of work or suffering any disabilities.<br /><br />Well, folks, it just ain't true! NOTE: * At one point, Jim Brown's career was a real hit as a rugged actioner. He was even being tauted as "...The Black John Wayne." NOTE: ** The idea of producing films with All-Black Casts, filmed for All-Black consumption was not a new idea. In the 1920's, '30's and '40's, we saw productions from people like Noble Johnson, Spencer Williams, Jr. and Rex Ingram.<br /><br />NOTE: *** That's "As Time Goes By", you know, Schultz, it's from CASABLANCA (Warner Brothers, 1942). | 1 |
17,143 | [
900,
1000
] | 816 | 996 | "Sister Helen" is a superb documentary about a rigid, intolerant, foul mouthed, bitter, oblate (civilian) nun who runs a shelter for drunks and dopers in a very rundown neighborhood in the south Bronx. All but one of the 21 residents are gutter drunks/addicts. Robert, the only middle class representative he had a real job, house, and even a BMW regrets she died before he could tell her off. Why? <br /><br />Robert, like six of the residents, was on parole. He complained that Helen wielded a huge stick over him and constantly threatened to turn him in if he didn't cow-tow to her. In an "extras" interview he said Helen ran the center to compensate for the deaths of the three men in her life her husband and her two boys. <br /><br />The husband was an alcoholic who died of a heart attack at 55. One boy died of a heroin overdose and the other was stabbed to death at 15. Helen was left with one daughter, who she abandoned to run the center. The daughter was not pleased. She wanted her mom<br /><br />What's fascinating is how little Helen changed. Outwardly it seems she made a huge sea change. But after seeing this riveting and disturbing video a few times -- once with the directors narrating -- it became clear that Helen substituted 21 male addicts to boss around to replace her three dead males. <br /><br />Helen admits she ignored her kids and spent every day in bars. But her bossiness, intolerance, and sharp tongue didn't emerge at age 56. Living with her must have been extremely difficult. Even Robert says he stayed clean in spite of Helen. <br /><br />The film opens with Helen abusively demeaning a man who wants to live at the shelter. Supposedly she is showing off her street savvy. Another time she publicly demeans Mel, her "assistant" for not bathing for a year. Then she waves his filthy pillowcase in the air. The film is viscous with Helen threatening and demeaning people. Her signature song is "My Way." Her favorite phrase is, "I'm going to be totally honest with you." Often, people who use such phrases, turn out o be the opposite. <br /><br />The residents are really down and out. Only Robert has any marketable skills beyond pushing a broom. They all desperately need a roof over their heads, and Helen, since she runs the place on her own, has the power to admit or evict whoever she pleases. She has no governing board to answer to and gets no public funding. It is her show. <br /><br />Helen believes in the cookie approach to sobriety. She stopped drinking cold turkey and that means everyone else can too. She blames substance abuse on the drug or booze, and not the underlying issues that drove the men to drink and drug. She's no therapist, just a landlady who dyes her hair, wears a habit, and wields complete power over her tenants, and stopped drinking. <br /><br />Helen also lords it over her inmates by demanding urine (ureen she calls it) tests on requests. Twice Major, a very solid and respected long term older resident -- who she trusted -- failed his tests. Helen was furious and evicted him. Major stood his ground and said the results were wrong because he never did heroin. Helen didn't yield and failed to consider a mistake could have been made. This was especially troubling since she knew Major for a long time. Yet she discounted her relationship with him, assumed he was a liar, and relied completely on the results. Major eventually discovered the codeine in his cough syrup showed up as an opiate. Helen never apologized publicly, but supposedly made up with major privately.<br /><br />Helen also had a very tainted reputation in her old neighborhood. She tacitly admitted to Robert she once stayed up very late one night to slash someone's tires. The person wronged her and certainly deserved to have his/her tires slashed. She was not a nice woman. So eventually, she decided the only way to keep the Travis name (her last name) alive since the three male Travises died was to start the Travis Center.<br /><br />For some of the residents it was a great deal. They complied with Helen and in exchange received a cheap, safe, sober, and structured place to live. One however, said he preferred jail. Addicts and drunks don't all need to be treated like children. Helen employed "old school" techniques which have been discredited. However, no one was forced to remain at the center and for some, it was definitely a positive experience. The Travis Center is not a treatment center. It is a residence for alcoholics and dopers who what to straighten out their lives. <br /><br />To receive the full Sister Helen experience, see all the extra interviews plus the audio version in which the two directors share their experiences living with Sister Helen and her guests. | 1 |
17,284 | [
900,
1000
] | 726 | 903 | ***SPOILERS*** Well made and interesting film about the alienated youth of America back in the 1950's. Back in those days many parents caught up with making big bucks and living high on the hog forget that their children, especially teen-agers, needed a lot more then a car and and hefty allowance in order to feel part of the family. They also needed love and attention, to their growing up problems, which is what 16 year-old Hal Ditmar, James MacArthur never got from his successful movie producer dad Mr.Tom Ditmar, James Daly.<br /><br />Never really connecting with his dad Hal grows more and more distant from both him and his caring mom Helen Ditmar, Kim Hunter, as well as from society. After his dad put Hal down about him wanting to borrow his car, a late model luxury sedan, he and his friend Jerry, Jeffery Silver, drive in Hal's beat up and barley operational 1930's jalopy to the local treater to catch the latest western flick.<br /><br />Feeling like striking out at the world Hal acts like a real first-class jerk sticking his smelly feet almost into the faces of a couple, Eddie Ryder & Jean Corbett, sitting in front of him and Jerry trying to watch the movie. This leads Hal, as well as his friend Jerry, to not only be kicked out of the theater but with him belting the theater manager Mr. Grebbs, Whit Bissell. It turned out that at least Hal was willing to leave the theater, without even getting his money back, but when Grebbs tries to grab him Hal wheeled around and belted him right in the kisser.<br /><br />Hal now in real hot water, he's charged with assault and battery, put's on his "James Dean" act, at the local police station, making like he's either too cool or just plain stupid to realize what he's done; almost knocked Mr. Grebbs teeth out. It's when Sgt.Shipley, James Gergory, tells Hal that his dad is coming to pick him up when he finally sobers up to the fact of what he's done.<br /><br />The rest of the film has Hal try to straighten himself out but is unable to do that because the low esteem that his dad has of him. Begging his father to understand that what he did, in belting Mr. Grebbs, was in self-defense Hal's father acts as if he's been there, at the theater, and saw the whole incident with his son Hal acting like a street thug instead of of a young man being grabbed and pushed without provocation.<br /><br />Not excusing what Hal did, in laying out Mr. Grebbs, he in fact was willing to admit his hooligan behavior but he wanted both Mr. Grebbs and his dad to at least treat him with an iota of consideration; Gebbs in the fact that he provoked Hal and Mr. Ditmas in not even bothering to hear him out! Feeling like a wanted criminal without anyone, but his mom, to really turn too Hal slowly loses it only to later have both Sgt. Shipley and Mr. Grabbs agree to drop the assault charge. You would think that by now Hal's has finally learned his lesson but the real lesson, more then a stretch behind bars, that Hal's so desperately needed was a lesson that his father totally ignored! Being there when his son needed him most and in that Mr. Ditmar failed with flying colors.<br /><br />Things do in fact straighten out for everyone in the movie only after Mr. Grebbs gets belted, ending up with a butte of a shiner, again by Hal who, going back to Grebbs theater, tries to get him to phone his dad and tell him that Hal was only defending himself when he first, not the second time around, clobbered him. In the end Hal learned a real lesson in getting along with people an not letting his problems become other peoples problems. But most of all Hal's father Mr. Ditmar learned the most valuable lesson of all in how to understand his frustrated and alienated son and act like a father toward him instead of a combination jail-keeper and a sugar daddy. Like the song says "All you need s Love" to get things on the right track and it was both love and understanding for his son Hal that Mr. Ditmar, until the very end of the movie, lacked the most off. | 1 |
17,365 | [
900,
1000
] | 703 | 925 | "Comanche Moon" had everything going for it. For starters, Simon Wincer's back, a man who's name is synonymous with high-quality TV westerns. Unfortunately, the problems with "Moon" are something even the most talented director couldn't solve: A poor script based on a lackluster novel.<br /><br />Forget historical accuracies -- as any reader of the novels can tell you, the biggest travesty in "Moon" is that it's not even consistent with information from the original "Lonesome Dove" masterpiece. So many wonderful, rich moments in the miniseries and, to an even greater degree, the book, are completely missing in "Moon." Considering the fact that most viewers of "Moon" are probably coming with at least some sort of "Dove" background, the lack of character-driven and emotional backstory is downright painful. <br /><br />That said, "Moon" is one instance where the adapted version could and should have been altered to make it more suitable for the screen. For example, the novel "Moon" focuses largely on the Comanches themselves. To its credit, the miniseries tries to service the Comanches, but in the end it gives them just enough that the viewer just gets a sense they're missing out on some important part of the story. Similarly, Val Kilmer's Scull loses out here too -- the role should have either been expanded so Kilmer (and Rachel Griffiths, for that matter) actually had something to do, or the roles should have just been reduced to smaller, supporting parts. Instead, Kilmer gets top billing for a character that just leaves you scratching your head after his appearance in the completely bizarre final act. <br /><br />There's strange moments throughout the film that just make no sense to those who haven't read the book (a killer parrot? what?) -- further, there isn't a single scene that shows us that Call and McCrae are anything near the amazing Texas rangers they claim to be. Not a single one of their expeditions in Moon (or "Dead Man's Walk," for that matter) ends successfully, and Call and McCrae just seem to blunder their way through one pointless mission after another.<br /><br />Frankly, Larry McMurtry should never have been given the job of writing the script, and only did so because of the praise surrounding that other cowboy movie, Brokeback Mountain. McMurtry can write good novels (although there's some dissension over the consistency of that statement), but he's never exactly established himself as a scriptwriter. This production would have benefited from not only bringing back director Wincer, but original screenwriter Bill Wittcliff to adapt the novel to screen. Witcliff doesn't exactly have a mountainload of material to his screen writing credit, but no one can deny he did a fantastic job at whittling down the original "Lonesome Dove." With all this said, "Comanche Moon" is almost a brilliant production, aided by a terrific cast that unfortunately just aren't given enough to do. Steve Zahn's portrayal of Gus McCrae -- or rather, his portrayal of Robert Duvall as Gus McCrae -- is dead-on. And while some have criticized Karl Urban as Woodrow Call, saying his performance doesn't imitate the quiet, stoic Woodrow of the original movie, all I can say is: blame McMurtry, because McMurtry is the one who -- both in the "Moon" novel and now the miniseries -- turned Woodrow from socially inept, awkward, but natural leader, into some emotionless character whose lines are just dull and whose character motivations are only clear if you've seen them portrayed far more adequately in the "sequel".<br /><br />Still, it's the cast that sparkles in "Moon," to the degree that I left the miniseries with that same feeling of melancholy I felt watching the original "Lonesome Dove" -- this time because I realized it's probably the last time we'll see these characters appear on screen for a long, long time to come -- and quite honestly, this cast could have done so well in a well-nurtured, full-blown network TV series.<br /><br />All in all, aside from wasted opportunities with the cast, the biggest travesty is that the original Lonesome Dove novel contained so much rich backstory for the characters that would have been fascinating, utterly fascinating, to see translated on screen. Unfortunately, all that has been tossed aside in favor of McMurtry's tedious, inconsistent and ultimately irrelevant, prequel. | 1 |
17,424 | [
900,
1000
] | 796 | 996 | It is in the opinion of this reviewer that the best time to be a child was in the 1990's, a period when cartoons were not heavily censored and talented and creative minds were responsible for some of the best family entertainment to hit the air-waves. The best producers of Saturday morning animation were at Warner Brothers Television, who experienced a major Golden Age with the dream-team of Steven Spielberg, Tom Ruegger and Paul Dini. Along with serious and dark series like Batman, they also revived zany, outlandish cartoons made famous by the Looney Tunes. Animaniacs was the biggest hitter with its dark adult humour and homages to the celluloid of yesteryear and today, but Tiny Toon Adventures was equally popular by re-inventing the Looney Tunes for a new generation, while still keeping that crazy cartoon violence and intelligent comedy that can hold onto any age group, no matter how old. Even when the Tiny Toons were stretched to a feature-length with How I Spent My Vacation, it did not feel like a longer episode of the television series, a curse that so often plagues other feature-length adaptations of popular animated shows.<br /><br />The Tiny Toon Gang are young off-springs of the classic cartoon characters who made audiences laugh back in the 1940's and 1950's and are currently learning cartoon comedy to "earn their Toon Degree." Summer Vacation has started and each character has their own idea of what to do. Buster Bunny (Charles Adler) and Babs Bunny (Tress MacNeille) start a water gun fight which ultimately leads to Acme Acres getting flooded and them both sailing down the Mississippi. Plucky Duck (Joe Alaskey) joins Hamton Pig (Don Messick) on a cross-country car trip to the Happiest Theme Park in the World, but Hamton's family proves to be more difficult than he imagined. Meanwhile, in other stories scattered throughout, Elmyra Duff (Cree Summer) tries to find a cat to hug and squeeze, Fifi Le Fume (Kath Soucie) attempts to go out on a date with her favourite skunk star and Shirley the Loon (Gail Matthius) goes to the cinema with a loud-mouth Fowlmouth (Rob Paulen).<br /><br />While the premise sounds thin for a feature-length film, the many directors and screenwriters make all the stories work well together. The best of these is Plucky's unfortunate road trip, which utilises a golden comedic opportunity very well: feeling pity for somebody, while also laughing at their predicament. Plucky's annoyed reaction to all the bad things that happen to him are a perfect blend of script and animation, all in the confines of a small car stuffed with pork. Elmyra's story definitely ranks second just to see how a little, almost innocent girl can cause fear into so many jungle animals. The aforementioned cartoon violence definitely comes to the fore-front with Buster and Babs' story, which makes us smile not only due to the hilarity of the outcomes, but also nostalgically, since Ruegger and company would probably not be allowed to show half of what they do in that segment. Practically half of that segment plays as a parody and homage to Deliverance, including a clever twist on the dueling banjos scene, featuring the unforgettable Tiny Toon Adventures theme song.<br /><br />Part of the universal appeal of the Tiny Toons is that the humour proves to be very intelligent as it targets subjects with a ferocity that proves that it does not at all deserve the title of "children's fare" that people seem to slap it with. An entire segment featuring Fowlmouth's poor etiquette at the cinema pokes fun at yappers in a note-perfect way, along with an additional jab at Lucasfilm's THX logo. That scene is done so perfectly that it should be featured before every cinema showing. There are also a couple of moments that poke fun at Disney World, cinematic plot holes and even Warner's legal department. The fact that today's cartoons are bland and un-creative makes those intelligent moments even more treasuring as there probably will not be another animated series that will come close.<br /><br />After watching How I Spent My Vacation for the first time in many years, I can say with all certainty that they do not make cartoons quite like they used to. With the ongoing censorship that today's family entertainment receive, one wonders whether anything like this will ever be made again. This review is not only a recommendation of a truly smart film, but also a plea for Spielberg, Ruegger and Dini to team up again and bring forth a magical creation to our minds once again. Lord knows that the children of the twenty-first century is in need for something with the intelligence of Tiny Toon Adventures. This is not a simple cash-grab, it is a wonderful film with full of spirit, madcap mayhem and hilarity. | 1 |
17,503 | [
900,
1000
] | 737 | 942 | Thirty years after the 1939 classic film won Robert Donat an Oscar and made Greer Garson a star, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" overcame a multitude of problems before stumbling to the screen in this musical version. Original stars Rex Harrison and Samantha Eggar were replaced by Richard Burton and Lee Remick, who in turn were given the heave-ho in favor of - thankfully - Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. Andre Previn's score was rejected, and the one eventually used was composed by - unfortunately - Leslie Bricusse. First-time director Herbert Ross was handed the monumental task of transforming a simple love story - that of a man for both his wife and students - into a big-budget extravaganza. That it succeeds as well as it does despite the many obstacles in its way is a testament to its two stars.<br /><br />Arthur Chipping is a Latin teacher at Brookfield, a boys' school in suburban England where he himself was educated. Introverted and socially inept, he is dedicated to his students but unable to inspire them. Prior to summer holiday, a former student takes him to a London music hall to see an entertainment starring Katharine Bridges, the young lady he hopes to wed. The post-performance meeting is awkward for all, and Chips - as he is commonly known - sets off to explore some of Italy's ancient ruins. Unexpectedly, he runs into Katharine, who has booked a Mediterranean cruise to allow her time to mourn a failed love affair and ponder the direction of her career. In the time they spend together, she discovers a kind and gentle man beneath the befuddled exterior, and upon returning to London pursues him in earnest. When the fall term begins, Chips returns to Brookfield with his young bride, and the two settle into a life of quiet domesticity. Complications arise when aspects of Katharine's past surface, and again when World War II intrudes in their lives, but Chips is bolstered by his wife's support, and his new-found confidence makes him a favorite among the students.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of musical interludes - the delightful music hall production number "London is London" and Katharine's declaration of love, "You and I" - most of Bricusse's songs, some of them performed in voice-over as the characters explore their emotions, are easily forgettable and in no way enhance the film. Eliminate the score entirely, and "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" works quite well as a drama. Terrence Rattigan's script retains elements of the original while expanding upon it and updating it by a couple of decades. He has crafted several scenes between Chips and Katharine that beautifully delineate their devotion to each other, and infused a few with comic relief courtesy of Katharine's friend and cohort, over-the-top actress Ursula Mossbank (delightfully played by Sian Phillips, O'Toole's real-life wife at the time). He also captures life at a British public school - the equivalent of a private academy here in the States - with unerring perfection.<br /><br />Ross does well as a first-time director, liberally sprinkling the film with breathtakingly photographed moments - the opening credits sequence, during which the school anthem echoes in the vast stone hallways of the school, perfectly sets the tone for the film. Costumes and sets are true to the period. The students, portrayed by non-professionals who were enrolled at the school used as Brookfield, handle their various small supporting roles well.<br /><br />Highest praise is reserved for Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark in the lead roles. O'Toole was long-established as a first-class dramatic actor, so his Academy Award-nominated performance here comes as no surprise. Clark, a veteran of some two dozen B-movies in the UK and the previous year's "Finian's Rainbow," is absolutely luminous as the music hall soubrette who forsakes a theatrical career in favor of life as a schoolmaster's wife. Her golden voice enriches her songs and almost allows us to overlook how insipid most of them are, and she more than matches O'Toole in their dramatic scenes together. The chemistry between the two is palpable and leaves us with no doubt that this is a couple very much in love.<br /><br />This version of "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is no classic like its predecessor, but hardly the disaster many critics described when it was released. Ignore the score, concentrate on the performances, and revel in the atmosphere Ross has put on the screen. It's a pleasant way to spend a rainy afternoon with someone you love. | 1 |
17,537 | [
900,
1000
] | 765 | 965 | Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.<br /><br />Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.<br /><br />Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.<br /><br />Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.<br /><br />Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations. <br /><br />Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities. <br /><br />What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)! | 1 |
17,569 | [
900,
1000
] | 756 | 933 | The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, "Fanda laughs at funerals and death." In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed. <br /><br />The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him. <br /><br />It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy. <br /><br />Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, "a living corpse." The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like hera zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing. <br /><br />I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with deathbe it literal or figurativepeople awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others. | 1 |
17,803 | [
900,
1000
] | 770 | 968 | Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not Leland admits to it, straight away but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do not necessarily the easiest ground to till.<br /><br />And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.<br /><br />Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly occasionally too slowly burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.<br /><br />In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.<br /><br />Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.<br /><br />Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing some might find it too slow or too odd but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it with the above caveats if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft. | 1 |
17,839 | [
900,
1000
] | 662 | 911 | Ponyo, written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is a little tale that speaks of respect for the ocean, respect for humans young and old, and respect for cultural differences. It is a new tale of a little goldfish wishing to be a girl, rather than a retelling of Disney's Little Mermaid. Miyazaki has animated by hand, a whimsical, magical film for the young and the young-at- heart. The film begins with a slow undulating blue-green palette of sea anemones, jellyfish, and scores of little fanciful goldfish with childlike faces. There isn't any need for narrative, the motion of the creatures and the music of Jo Hisaiahi tell the beginning. Released last summer in Japan, Ponyo won the Japanese Academy's award for Best Animation Film and Best Score (Jezebel.com). The fanciful little goldfish, Brunhild, leaves her ocean home on a jellyfish. Upon reaching the surface she is caught up in a fishing net full of other fish, garbage, and sludge. She is propelled into a jar, which is rolled to shore where five-year-old Sosuke (voice by Frankie Jonas) retrieves it. He cuts his hand when breaking the jar open to free the little goldfish. Brunhild tastes his blood, which heals Sosuke's cut, and puts in motion her transformation to a human, at the same time throwing nature out of balance. Sosuke puts the little goldfish in a green pail and names her Ponyo (Noah Cyrus), meaning soft and jelly like. Sosuke's mother, Lisa (Tina Fey), lets him take Ponyo to school, which is right next door to the nursing home where she works. Lisa's crazy driving down the picturesque winding road, past a dry dock, through the bustling fishing town, and up a tree-lined road to the nursing home is representative of Miyazaki's wonderful sequence of action and illustrates perfectly a parent's hectic morning. Miyazaki has created another strong, independent, female character in Lisa. Making her a loving, sensible, modern mother both to Sosuke and Ponyo. Lisa's telephone conversation with the not-coming-home-again husband, Kiochi (Matt Damon) because the ship he captains must make another run, is a typical wife's reaction. Later that evening Sosuke intercedes using a signal lamp to speak to his father as the ship passes the cliff their house sits on. Lisa refuses to acknowledge Kiochi's apology and jumps up and signals "Bug-off, Bug-off, Bug-off," it is a hilarious scene. But, when Sosuke takes the signal lamp and tells his dad "Good Luck, Love You," Lisa hugs him and tells him he has a good heart, it is a very poignant scene.<br /><br />My personal favorites are Miyazaki's elderly, granny-type women in wheelchairs at the nursing home, Yochi (Betty White), Noriko (Cloris Leachman) and Toki (Lily Tomlin). Their interchange over Sosuke's little goldfish is wonderful and reminiscent of the bickering between the Witch of the Waste (Lauren Bacall) and Sophie (Jean Simmons) as they trudge up a long flight of stairs in Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo's magical sea-god father, Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) resembling the wizard Howl arrives to take Ponyo back to her ocean home. Fujimoto uses one of his elixirs to try and put nature back in balance, but magical little Ponyo escapes again upsetting more elixir in the process, and causing a tsunami. Running on the backs of giant dolphins to get to Sosuke, this redheaded, little girl reminds the audience of the stubborn, adventurous little Mei in My Neighbor Totoro. Ponyo is just as adventurous and curious as Mei. When Fujimoto realizes what Ponyo has done he calls for Gran Mamare (Kate Blanchett), the Goddess of the ocean, to help with the situation. This wise, calming Goddess arrives in a blue flowing garment that never ends. She has a private talk with Lisa discussing the future of the young children, which helps the audience understand Sosuke and Ponyo's relationship is not that of lovers, but of brother and sister. The life-goes-on quiet simple ending is typical of Miyazaki films leaving the audience full of hope. | 1 |
18,323 | [
900,
1000
] | 849 | 995 | HBO created this show for purposes of making us see the most realistic view of prison possible and they did a hell of a job. Oz was created by the creators of Homicide who wanted to show a raw version of prison. This show is what launched the idea of every other HBO Original Program such as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Arliss, Deadwood, and Six Feet Under amongst others. Oz is the nickname for the Oswald State Penetentiary, a fictional prison in some US state which is never stated (Though with the accents, crime scenes, and racial distribution NY is assumed). The main prison unit looked at on the show is Emerald City, a seemingly ideal prison unit with more privlages than others thought out by a liberal unit manager named Tim McManus. Overall this show shows us what it is really like if one wishes to survive in prison.<br /><br />There are about 10 gangs shown on Oz. First we have the Muslims, a group of blacks who wish to destroy the injustices of the criminal justice system and help improve living conditions for blacks everywhere. They are led by Kareem Said a black militant minister who wishes to destroy everything racist about the judicial system. As a group they are not so much anti-white but rather anti-injustice. Our second group of blacks is the Homeboys who are essentially the street blacks who wish to keep all the bad ghetto behaviors up and run the drug trade. Their leadership varies mainly because they are always losing members due to violence. In this group, one character who is acted terrifically is Simon Adebisi. Adebisi is an African inmate who is essentially the most frighteningly evil character alive. This gang as a whole gets side help from the Irish at times and is always in conflict with the Latinos and Sicilians for drug distribution purposes. Being that Oz is mostly black, the Homeboys have the most soldiers of any gang inside.<br /><br />The Latinos and Sicilians, like the Homeboys have varying leadership due to violent deaths that occur throughout the show. The Sicilians pretty much have the most substantial say in how any illegal activity gets conducted in Oz. The Latinos make their presence known so that they can at least be coasting well if they are not in control. Unlike the Homeboys however, these gangs do not have as much internal battle for power and are usually more stable when it comes to drug usage. The Irish who are mentioned above are a smaller gang led by a manipulative and snakelike Ryan O'Reily. O'Reily always manages to stay in good graces with all the drug powers and manages to manipulate things in his way whenever he wants. They are in no illegal control but they are at least on good terms with all those who are.<br /><br />Amongst the whiter inmates, we have the Bikers and Aryans. The Bikers are merely a bunch of tattooed drug users who help the Aryans out most of the time. The Aryans are the most hated and hateful gang to most any viewer of Oz. They are led by Vern Schillinger who is amongst the most racist, sickest, and sadistic characters one will ever see. Both gangs control nothing illegal, they just merely let the darker skinned inmates see that they are a substantial threat to anyone who thinks all white inmates are soft. We also have the Others. The Others is a gang of outsider prisoners who are not necessarily a problem to any other inmate. In this group we see Tobias Beecher, a lawyer who accidentally killed a young girl whose life is forever altered by prison. We also see Augustus Hill, a black man bound to a wheelchair for killing a police officer who narrates the show and introduces the audience to every inmate. The character's crimes are shown as they are introduced and Augustus lets us know how long they will be in prison. Finally amongst gangs, there are the Christians and Gays. The Christians merely stay religious to keep from going mental and the Gays are a bunch of cross-dressers who are often raped by other inmates.<br /><br />This show gets in depth on a lot of issues dealing with the criminal justice system and is more explicit than any movie about prison. Since language is unedited, we here more racial epithets and cuss words than we would on any other TV show. Augustus Hill's commentary provides a good way for us to truly understand each and every issue involved with Oz. This show as good as it is is not at all for the light to medium hearted. It explicitly shows drug use and distribution by any means possible, prison rape, murders, fatal stabbings, and general gore than anything anyone else has seen. In my opinion it is the most influential and greatest show ever created but I can see at the same time why other people would be disturbed by this show. If you are at all interested by shows and movies about prison, Oz is a must see. | 1 |
18,486 | [
900,
1000
] | 713 | 908 | It's a thoroughly successful example of a 1950s biopic. It has the stalwart and handsome young hero -- well, not so young anymore on screen; superb, if unlikely, direction by Billy Wilder; a stirring fully orchestrated musical score of uplifting scales and, when required, heavenly strings by Franz Waxman; strong supporting players; a gripping story; stunning photography by Hitchcock favorite Robert Burks; and a narrative about a singular historical event.<br /><br />The film begins with Jimmy Stewart as Charles Lindbergh trying to get some sleep in a Long Island hotel before his epic solo flight across the Atlantic, from New York to Paris. And he can't sleep.<br /><br />The flight itself is filled with flashbacks to Lindbergh's personal history and the purchase and construction of his unique high-wing monoplane, The Spirit of St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, is the home of the partnership that sponsored the flight. (Even in 1927, money talked.) Anyway, the movie HAD to have multiple flashbacks and Stewart's narration. What's the alternative. Observing the unities? Thirty-three hours of watching Jimmy Stewart sitting silently at the controls of his noisy airplane while days and nights come and go? I found the script and the direction impressive for their time. Unpleasant things are of course left out, so as not to introduce more ambiguity than the contemporary audience might manage.<br /><br />My bet is that the howling mob that surrounds Lindbergh at Le Bourget ripped the airplane to pieces for souvenirs. And of course nothing about the pilot's relief tube, though it would have added more opportunities for humor. Some of today's viewers will find some incidents corny if they think too much about them. Aloft, Stewart chats with a friendly hitch-hiking fly that, in its own quietly concerned way, wakes him up by landing on his cheek at a critical moment. Later, the St. Christopher's medal that Father Hussman gave him taps gently against the glass crystal of one of the instruments just as Stewart is desperately trying to land. The atheist Stewart is saved twice -- once by a fly and once by God.<br /><br />But never mind that. It's an impressive film. That landing at Le Bourget, with an exhausted Stewart behind the joy stick, confused by searchlights, sweaty with fear and collapsing with fatigue, is really convincing. "I'm going to tear this airplane up," he tells himself, and we can believe him.<br /><br />Flying a light plane is not at all like driving a car. There is no smoothly curving highway to tell you where to go, no lanes to provide guidance. You're busy every second. You must watch the instruments, check each wingtip to see that they touch the horizon, ditto the airplane's nose, and constantly watch up, down, and sideways for other traffic, although that last wouldn't have been much of a problem for Lindbergh. He was all alone over the ocean.<br /><br />Why? In one of the movie's folksier moment, Stewart and Murray Hamilton, two gypsy barnstormers of the 1920s, are lounging near their airplanes in a Midwestern field. "What is it? What makes us love flying so much?", asks Hamilton. (No answer.) Later, his financial backers try to talk him out of the flight. Five other aviators have already died trying it. "But don't you understand? It HAS to be done," says an impassioned Stewart.<br /><br />Well, that's not much of an answer either. Why does it have to be done now, and why by Lindbergh? Why NOT wait ten years and stop wasting lives in the meantime? The answer, dear Socrates, lies partly in our glands. Pilots are a placid and confident lot, given to occasional arousal jags. Their chief problem may be an addiction to an internal rush of adrenalin. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are pilots. Still, Lindbergh must have been quite a guy. He deserved to be treated as a hero. Not just because of the flight itself but because of his later demeanor -- quiet, modest, a family man. We can easily forget his admiration for Hitler, since he more than made up for it by testing Corsair fighters in the Pacific and advising the Navy on how to tweak the airplanes and get the best performance out of them.<br /><br />See it if you have the chance. If nothing else, it's a history lesson told with visual splendor. | 1 |
18,533 | [
900,
1000
] | 774 | 967 | What's there to say about "Pink Flamingos"? It is beyond criticism or even explanation because it doesn't really aspire to be like any other movie you've seen. You will either get it, or you won't, laugh at it or roll your eyes in disgust (or both). John Waters is an odd filmmaker (putting that mildly), mixing both innocent, childlike humor with shockingly offensive moments intended to...well, who knows what his intentions were. It is like a form of assault, albeit a funny one.<br /><br />The thing that makes Waters's humor so infectious and effective is that his characters inhabit a world that can seem both alien and completely familiar to the viewer, like the petty rivalries that form the plot of "Pink Flamingos". Surely everyone has experienced this kind of thing at some point, but almost certainly the matter at stake was not the title of "The Filthiest Person Alive." What makes the movie compelling viewing for me is the way that Waters creates giddy, self-contained environments and doesn't let you in on the joke right away. The people in his films are completely in tune with one another. For instance, when Cotton tells Babs that she doesn't want to accompany her into town because Crackers is bringing his "lady friend" out to the trailer, Babs reacts with a knowing smirk and says to her, in a conspiratorial aside, "That little shed's just PERFECT..." At this point, we do not know yet that Crackers plans to take his "lady friend" out to the shed to thrust live chickens at her naked body while Cotton watches orgasmically through a window, but this weirdness is totally commonplace and understood by the characters in the fictitiously degenerate world that Waters creates.<br /><br />Another example would be the conversations between the girls in the basement and Channing, the Marbles' deviant butler. The first time we see them, Waters cuts jarringly from a scene in Connie's cozy office to Channing descending into the basement, where we see that there are two women down there, one dead and one very much alive and p***ed off. Susan is not a cowering victim, but is enraged and abusive to Channing, leaping up to launch a full-scale verbal attack on her jailer. They both have a weird understanding of the bizarre situation, and she is not so much intimidated by her kidnapping as she is violently insulted and righteously furious. She does not let up for one second while Channing is in her sight, and the two scenes that feature their delirious banter are two of the comic highlights of the film. Later in the film, when Divine and Crackers break into the Marbles's home and discover their crimes of keeping abducted women in their basement, it represents the total lack of support that Divine and her family have for the brand of depravity that the Marbles are pandering--here is something Divine is unfamiliar with, a corruption devised by her newfound rivals, and she despises it. Furthermore, while kidnapping does not seem like something Divine would think twice about, she is indignant that the girls are being held down there and happily sets them free, relishing the revenge that they take on Channing.<br /><br />At the other end of the filth spectrum, Waters occasionally reminds us of the line between his twisted fantasy world and the "real" world. The first time we see Connie, she is belittling a minor character named Sandy Sandstone, who has never heard of Divine. Cookie, on the other hand, reacts with a hilariously matter-of-fact evaluation of Divine's title as the "filthiest person alive", revealing that she inhabits this world of unspoken and understood lunacy as well.<br /><br />Something also must be said for the way the players are in touch with their respective roles, especially Divine, who doesn't miss a note. Not once does he falter in the ridiculous garb and character he's been given, and it takes "Pink Flamingos" to a new level or weirdness. People actually believed Divine was like this in real life, and it's easy to understand why, because while watching the movie, you're not really thinking about the movie, you're thinking about these people who made it. Since they're really doing the outrageous things in the script, you start to think that maybe this is not a story but a bizarre documentary.<br /><br />But even more so, "Pink Flamingos" is not so much a movie as it is an event, or something that happens to you. Even though its shock value is mostly gone for me now (I say mostly because the a**hole scene and the chicken scene still make me wince), I still find this film to be hilarious and habit-forming. | 1 |
18,566 | [
900,
1000
] | 720 | 902 | 'The English Patient' is a love story set in Europe as World War II ends... It is a wartime romance mystery epic, like 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour,' 'The Sweet Hereafter,' and 'After Life.' Anthony Minghella weaves extravagant beauty around a central character whose condition is grotesque, and puts emotional barriers between the characters and the audience...<br /><br />This adult love story is an intimate portrait in the tradition of 'Casablanca' and 'Dr. Zhivago.' The film sweeps gracefully attaining a level of eroticism and emotional connection that many similar films had missed... Told in flashback, it is a masterpiece of intimate moment and spectacular largesse...<br /><br />Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, Count Laszlo de Almasy, a Hungarian cartographer of few words, who works for the British government, and is stationed in the North African desert...<br /><br />Count Laszlo is the unidentified survivor of a plane crash turned over to the Allies, taken into custody by a medical convoy in Italy, and essentially left to die in peace, in an isolated monastery in Tuscany, under the care of an inspiring pretty nurse who injects him with morphine, and reads to him a book, considered his great treasure, and his one surviving possession...<br /><br />Hana seeks to stimulate his touching memories, wrapped up in his head, released in lost pieces from his disturbed mind...<br /><br />Fiennes gives a haunted, pained performance, playing the young man whose veneer of charm cannot plainly cover his heart's capacity for passion... He makes us sympathize with the character in showing self-doubt and weakness... As a badly burned man, he has only cherished memories... His joy and heartbreak are completely clear and visible in his eyes... He remembers falling under the spell of an attractive English married woman... He remembers the way this turns him from a harsh abrupt wanderer into a man willing to betray everything for love... His tragic love affair forms the heart of the motion picture...<br /><br />Kristin Scott Thomas matches Fiennes' work with a radiant sensuality... She is captivating as the married European woman, conveying the audience with the energy and enthusiasm for life that the Count finds irresistible... Their different world, despairing and hopeful, menacing and resilient, is simply beautiful... With intense passion and intelligence, this attractive blonde burns the screen as the different wife...<br /><br />Juliette Binoche seems to shine as the French-Canadian nurse full of life and energy... This vibrant young woman has a heart of gold, kissing wounded soldiers, but she thinks that she is a curse as anybody she ever loved tends to die on her...<br /><br />Colin Firth is good as Katherine's husband... He is a British spy flying into the tough desert in a yellow biplane to take aerial maps of the whole North African continent... He quickly becomes friend of the Count, yet when he realizes that his wife has committed adultery, his face reflected a peaceful fury...<br /><br />William Dafoe plays a double-agent spy who covers his anger with a strange charm... He is a crippled war veteran who has a hidden agenda... This cunning Canadian man seems to know of some dark secret in Almasy's past... He believes the 'English patient' is partially responsible for the mutilation of his hands, and is busy seeking revenge on everyone even remotely involved...<br /><br />Naveen Andrews is Hana's ardent lover
He is a handsome Sikh, and an explosives expert with a dangerous job
There's a scene that is stuck in my head because it literally had me on the edge of my seat for what seemed an eternity
In this particular scene, the military sapper has to cut the wires on a bomb that has been hidden on a bridge
It's on a timer and he only has a few minutes left
The scene cuts back and forth between his tense face, the wires and his dirty fingers as they try madly to figure out how to untangle and cut the wires without detonating the bomb
<br /><br />All the conventional elements of the genre are at peaks of excellence in "The English Patient." John Seale's cinematography is breathtaking, and Gabriel Yared's majestic music is dreamy, and romantic
This is a rich motion picture with ambition and style, a fever dream, lyrical and complex
We are almost able to feel the heat of the desert, the pain of the burnings, the intimate flush of humanity that becomes the most haunting element of this epic love story... | 1 |
18,574 | [
900,
1000
] | 739 | 982 | Anthony Minghella's 'The English Patient' is a film that takes us back to the golden years of Hollywood. It is grand and impressive in scale, and yet so heartbreakingly intimate in its portrayal of human love and suffering. At the 1997 Academy Awards, the film owned the night, taking home nine awards from twelve nominations, the most decisive cleansweep since Bernardo Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' in 1988. Based on Canadian author Michael Ondaatje's 1992 Booker Prize-winning novel of the same name, 'The English Patient' is a touching meditation on life, love and loss, tracing the history of a critically-burnt man in the aftermath of World War Two.<br /><br />During the war, a man (Ralph Fiennes) is discovered in the burning remnants of a crashed plane. With his face scarred beyond recognition, and with the man seemingly suffering from amnesia, he is assumed to be an Allied soldier, and is simply referred to as "the English patient." After the war, in the mine-ridden hills of Italy, a kind nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), who has apparently lost everybody close to her, remains in a ruined monastery to look after the dying man. Over time, she comes to learn more and more about her "English patient," who is actually revealed to be a Hungarian geographer, Count Laszlo de Almásy. Rather than losing his memory in the plane crash, we learn that this scar-ridden man has perhaps chosen to forget his past, both to protect himself from persecution and to cure himself of the tragic memories of his past love. Via numerous flashbacks, we learn of Almásy's former exploits in the Sahara desert, and his romantic liaison with a married woman, Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas).<br /><br />It's certainly easy to see why 'The English Patient' was so successful at the Oscars. It is such a beautiful film, blending the quiet beauty of the Italian countryside with the endless golden sands of the desert. Cinematographer John Seale captures the landscape to perfection; not since David Lean's magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' has a film shown the desert with such beauty and grandeur, making particularly good use of sweeping aerial shots from Almásy's plane. Even in the film's more intimate moments, excellent use of close-ups and lighting capture the emotion of the scene, coupled, of course, with the brilliant performances from all the cast members.<br /><br />A long-time favourite actor of mine, 'The English Patient' might just contain Ralph Fiennes' finest performance, and, considering his history includes such films as 'Schindler's List' and 'The Constant Gardener,' this is not a complement that is to be taken lightly. His Count Laszlo de Almásy is initially a very sympathetic character, but, as we slowly learn more about his past, his likable qualities are eroded by his less-admirable tendencies towards others. "Ownership" is a major theme of the film. When asked by Katherine what he hates most, Almásy replies with "Ownership. Being owned. When you leave you should forget me." However, as the relationship progresses, and Katherine perhaps tries to distance herself from him, Almásy reveals a hint of arrogance, insisting that his love for her somehow entitles him to have her whenever he likes: "I want to touch you. I want the things which are mine, which belong to me."<br /><br />Juliette Binoche, who received an Oscar for her performance here, is excellent as Hana, the lonesome nurse who fears to love because of the tragedies that have always harmed those close to her. After some time of caring for Almásy alone, she is joined by a dubious Canadian thief, David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who lost his thumbs during the war, and who suspects that it was Almásy who betrayed him to the Germans. Hana also strikes up a tentative romantic relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews), an Indian bomb-diffuser in the British Army. However, due to her past history, Hana is afraid that becoming involved with Kip will doom him to death, particularly considering his very dangerous line of work.<br /><br />At 160 minutes in length, 'The English Patient' wonderfully evokes memories of the classic romantic epics of old, successfully finding a balance of mystery, love, joy and tragedy. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and sorrowful, but also uplifting in its own way. Whilst some romantic relationships are doomed from the very beginning, others have a very good chance of bringing happiness. Nevertheless, in every case, it is always better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. | 1 |
18,577 | [
900,
1000
] | 712 | 915 | One of the most charming and, for me at least, the most powerful elements of Anthony Minghella's enthralling Best Picture-winner "The English Patient" is that, in the mid 90s, when Hollywood was in the initial stage of having lost its nerve for grand new projects, a film was created that brought back tracesvery powerful tracesof the sweeping, wonderful majesty that crafted movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Ten Commandments" (1956). "The English Patient" contains very much of what made those films so powerful. It has that glorious feeling, a stretched running time that hardly seems long at all, and fascinating characters with pasts and stories.<br /><br />"The English Patient", based on a novel by the same name by Michael Ondaatje, is like "The Godfather: Part II" (1974) in the sense of how it's constructed. It's a blending of two stories: the past and the present and it all revolves around the titular character: an English patient in the post years of World War Two. Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, who has been scarred for life by a plane crash, and being taken care of in an isolated church by a single nurse played marvelously by Juliette Binoche. Apart from bonding with her raspy-voiced, troubled patient, Binoche comes to learn about his past when a stranger (Willem Dafoe) arrives and the two men appear to know each other.<br /><br />That's just one of the two beautifully crafted stories that shape this film. The other one, told in flashback, is the patient's past, before he was scarred and dying in a bed. The story of the present mixed with the patient's past and his love affair that tragically changed his life forever.<br /><br />To be blunt, "The English Patient" is a love story blended with a sweeping epic sensation and it blends magnificently. What I really admired about the love story between Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas was how passionate, how obsessive, how enchanting it was shown on screen. Usually in love stories, such as Minghella's later "Cold Mountain" (2003), the romantic elements seem far more lustful than obsessive to me. Some of the love scenes feature elements that may tend to be associated more with lust than love, but still, because it is so well developed and not rushed and not exploited out of proportion, we can believe that there is a sure, true love between these characters. It reminded me a lot of "Vertigo" (1958) in how well the filmmakers and performers convinced us that these were two actual human beings who truly fell in love with each other.<br /><br />Performances all around were great. I was especially enthralled by the performance by Juliette Binoche, who took home the Oscar for her performance the following year. I also liked Willem Dafoe playing the sort of cynical, questionable character that he's always quintessential at playing. And of course I can't leave out Fiennes and Scott Thomas and their portrayals of two very passionate lovers.<br /><br />Despite my enormous enthusiasm for this epic, I would be dishonest if I were to describe it as a perfect film. There are two flaws that I cannot glance over. Number one, it is a little too long and the reason for this is my second complaint, there are a few unnecessary subplots. I was not enchanted or particularly interested with the second love story between Binoche and a bomb specialist played by Naveen Andrews. My research has led me to assume that this plot element comes from the original book and I'm sure it worked perfectly in there, but in the film, it just seems a little
distracting and the relationship between the two characters didn't fascinate me. I was far more interested by Fiennes character and his relationships with his two leading actresses.<br /><br />Nevertheless, these two flaws are easily forgivable even if they do slow things down a bit. Those put aside, "The English Patient" is an extraordinary achievement of film-making. To me, it was sort of like an insane mix up between "Casablanca" (1942) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962), two remarkable and better films, and this effective blend proved to be well worth my time. It is a real shame that Anthony Minghella has left us. For he was a truly gifted filmmaker. This is all the evidence anybody needs. | 1 |
18,603 | [
900,
1000
] | 774 | 901 | Well as you can see, I got to this party quite late but, have the advantage of reading all the previous entries before making my comments. I found this site by happen chance, when I was looking for other Marine Corps films. So, let me start by telling you that I played a Marine Boot in the movie, Pvt. Labarsky, and was stationed at MCRDep, San Diego at the time. Jack Webb and his crew selected 15 Permanent Personnel, of which some of us had the speaking parts, and another 15 Marines that had just completed Boot Camp. That made up the Platoon and the Marines who portrayed the various "DIs". To the best of my recollection, The Capt. and Pvt. Owens (Don Dubbins) were not in the Marines. We spent about three weeks up in Hollywood (Studio City Film Lot), CA shooting the section of the movie that we were involved with, and then they completed the other shots after we left.<br /><br />So as I ramble along here, let me clarify some of what has been questioned in previous entries as best I can. "Cuff Daddy" was commenting about the ability of our Platoon to yell "Yes Sir" without moving and etc,, Yes we did the yelling for the Sound Guys, and it was while shooting the scene. As you fellow Marines remember, when the DI or who ever started to ask a question and before they completed it, you had already taken your breath of air enabling you to yell at the top of your lungs the proper response. That is how it was done.<br /><br />"74Sooner" commented about walking through the same building at Paris Island, however, as I mentioned earlier all the scenes were shot in Studio City, CA . They were built from photos taken at Paris Island and from on site trips and Marine advisers from Paris Island. Sorry, you were in the real buildings, not the sets.<br /><br />"schappe1" brought up many good points, but, about the incident with the platoon at Paris Island at the time all that jack Webb said to us was, "The movie came about because of the accident, and the Marine Corps didn't want to put out anything that would impact any of the family members of the Marines that died that night. Although, the Marine Corps would provide any Marines and assistance needed for a movie answering to the public why a Marine DI does what he does".<br /><br />As mentioned by a few of you, I also at the time we were shooting the scenes caught my self thinking this dialog has been cleaned up to much and obviously isn't how it goes down in real life. Back in the 50's,that is how it had to be done.<br /><br />One story I would like to pass on is about the interaction that occurred between us Marines and the Movie Crew, and between the Movie Crew and Jack Webb. From the start by custom the Marines replied "Yes Sir" to anybody that moved. Going into the second week it was getting more common to hear "Yes Sir" coming from all directions. On stage someone would bark out a request for something to be done with the lighting and from out of nowhere up on a catwalk above the set a reply of "Yes Sir" would sound out. To all of this at one of our informal gatherings, Jack Webb stated. "If I had known that I would have gotten this much respect from this crew, I would have brought you guys up here years ago." There was a Lt. brought up from San Diego to play the role of the DI from the other platoon and the one Jack Webb fights with, but during one shooting secessions He was up to take number 32, and still Webb kept trying to work him through how he wanted it done and didn't show any lack of patience with him. The next day they used the Paris Island adviser who was a DI Sgt. from Paris Island and He worked out fine.<br /><br />At the time I was somewhat of a camera buff and got to know the Still Camera Man to get some pointer from him and as it turned out He would give me still shots and some of the 35mm film of the daily shooting that were not going to be used. Those film strips I cut up and made slides out of them. After the movie came out in VHS tape (The DI, 11706 B&W/106 min.) my kids and the grand kids have a blast when they try to se who can find me the most times on the screen. | 1 |
18,627 | [
900,
1000
] | 787 | 962 | Being a self confessed slasher addict means that it's very rare that I get the chance to review many bigger budgeted movies with creditable casts. Aside from James Mangold's successful box office draw Identity; there have not been any big name entries since the Scream trilogy once again put Wes Craven's name back on the Hollywood map. That's why Mark Malone's The Last Stop a mystery thriller with blatant slasher overtones, instantly intrigued me. With a decent line-up including Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow and an intriguing soundtrack that even finds space for Lynn Anderson's Rose Garden, I must admit that the initial signs were very positive for this claustrophobic feature. To the best of my knowledge there have only ever been three other snow-bound slashers, unless of course you consider Demon Possessed to fit in the category. The first slice and dice on the ice was the bone-dry Satan's Blade, then came the Lisa Loring cheese-feast that was Blizzard of Blood and the enjoyable Shredder followed some fourteen years later.<br /><br />During an extreme blizzard, state trooper Jason (Adam Beach) battles through the snow to reach a remote lodge in the Colorado Mountains. His task is to inform the guests that the road is closed and they must stay for at least one more night until a path can be cleared through the hazardous conditions. This news doesn't go down to well with the suspicious bunch, which includes two troublemaking brothers (Callum Keith Rennie and Peter Flemming), a truck driver that really doesn't want to hang around (William S. Taylor), a randy couple of lovers (Winston Rekert and Amy Adamson) and Jason's ex-girlfriend Nancy (Rose McGowan). The motel owners (Jurgen Prochnow and P. Lynn Johnson) aren't overjoyed by the news either, but they offer rooms to the stranded guests and attempt to calm the tense situation. Things take a turn for the worse when Jason finds a mutilated body and a bag full of stolen cash lying in the snow behind the cafe. Just like a chapter out of an Agatha Christie mystery, the lodgers begin dieing at the hands of a masked assailant that seems intent to re-claim the money. With so many dodgy characters to choose from and no way of leaving the crime scene, Jason has to attempt to stop the maniac before he kills again
<br /><br />A good mystery needs at least a handful of shady suspects who each have a credible motive, a remote location that no one can escape from and a smart protagonist to help unravel the clues. Fortunately The Last Stop provides each of those essential ingredients in a thriller that has its equal moments of brilliance and downright stupidity. The film kicks off superbly as the dubious personalities clash in a claustrophobic environment that manages to keep the tension running high throughout the runtime. Malone keeps the interest levels raised as each character unveils their own reasons to attract some of the suspicion, and to be fair the essential twist isn't one that you'll guess easily. In fact I found myself watching the movie through once again to see if I could pick up on any hints that I missed first time around. Unfortunately when the maniac is revealed to be an over the top psycho that wisecracks like a comic book bad guy, The Last Stop forfeits a huge amount of credibility. Thankfully all is not lost when an unexpected and brilliantly orchestrated plot twist salvages the film's finale.<br /><br />Similarities can be drawn with the excellent Identity, as the two plots are almost interchangeable. James Mangold's effort has to be the better of the two mainly because of the star billing of John Cusack and the ever-reliable Ray Liotta. With that said though Adam Beach does a good enough job in the lead, while Jurgen Prochnow, Amy Adamson and the brilliant Callum Keith Rennie add some credible support. Rose McGowan acts as conceitedly in this role as she probably does from day to day in reality and Winston Rekert started fantastically before going completely overboard with the film's climax. If you're a die-hard slasher fan that's watching this for some bloody killings then you're going to be disappointed. The balaclava-wearing psychopath only pops up once and the rest of the murders are committed off-screen. But as I said earlier Malone's directorial talent means that the suspense is never too far off the boil and you can forgive the few flaws because the positives just about triumph.<br /><br />The Last Stop is well worth a look for slasher addicts and movie fans alike. Yes there are a handful of negatives, but overall this is a solid example of emerging Hollywood talents. If you liked Identity then certainly give this a try
| 1 |
18,680 | [
900,
1000
] | 798 | 965 | Let me just start out by saying that Tourist Trap is a better movie then 99.9% of the horror films that have come out of Hollywood lately. If you don't believe me see Darkness Falls or They. And it is certainly better than any of those crappy direct to video releases like Stab, Bleed, The Pool, and so on. One of the big problems with the film Tourist Trap is that is never really found an audience. When the film opened in 1979 it was given a PG rating by the MPAA. Anyone that knows horror films knows that a PG on a horror film is usually the kiss of death for the film. (Director David Schmoeller talks about this problem on the DVD's commentary track.) There are exceptions though like Poltergeist, which had also received a PG rating. However, there are big differences between Tourist Trap and Poltergeist. Tourist Trap was not a big budget Hollywood film like Poltergeist nor was it produced by Steven Spielberg. That alone was enough to guarantee Poltergeist success. (Still for those of you that have seen Tourist Trap, you will even scratch your head as to why the MPAA rated this film PG. The 'heart burst' scene alone should be enough for the film to be slapped with and R rating. Or how about the pipe in the back with the blood running out of it.) I have to admit though that when I was young I looked at a copy of Poltergeist in the video store shelf, picked it up, saw that it was rated PG and put it back on the shelf in favor of an R rated film instead. Years later, I finally saw Poltergeist and realized what a great film I missed out on for not renting a PG horror film. From then on I would never judge a film based on it's rating again. This is most likely what happened to Tourist Trap. People, like me with Poltergeist, will probably overlook it in favor of the R rated film. Most likely it would be a teenager too, which most of these types of films are targeted at. Friday the 13th was no masterpiece either but did extremely well at the box office due to the fact it was rated R and was heavily advertised by Paramount at the time. It found its audience and made enough money to spawn several sequels. When you look at it folks, Tourist Trap is just as good as Friday The 13th. The same thing could've happened to Tourist Trap. We could have seen Tourist Trap 2, 3, 4, and so on. As far as the film goes, Tourist Trap is an entertaining horror film made on an extremely small budget, but it is well acted, well directed and well made on many levels. Chuck Connors is a riot as Mr. Slausen and gives the best performance in the film. Special credit must be give to composer Pino Donaggio, whose score for this film really is what sets it apart from others and gives it its creepiness. The music in the scenes involving the mannequins is especially creepy. Donaggio worked on the horror film Carrie and many other film scores since Tourist Trap. He has done exceptionally good work in film and continues to score films to this day. The weakness with Tourist Trap is that there really is never any explanation of Davey's powers. Maybe that is how it's supposed to be. He just has them, and we should accept that in order for the movie to work. We do accept it to a point, but then the screenplay has incidents like how Davey makes the phone ring in the store while he's in the basement of the house. In that case, is Davey limited in using his powers? Can he make a phone ring in Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles? What is his range? Those are things that people that didn't care for this movie would most likely to point out as flaws. Others would accept it as a mistake. I accept it. There is not enough of those type of questions generated by this film to make me hate it. This is a horror film. We should not be required to read too much into it. Many people have called this the 'killer mannequin' movie. I assure you that no mannequin kills anyone in this film. The mannequins are controlled by the power of Davey who uses them as a weapon. This is a common misconception about this film. Some people have a problem with the mannequins and some have even said they are just downright silly. I think they add to the overall creepiness of the film. Overall Tourist Trap is a good fun rental.***(out of 5) | 1 |
18,942 | [
900,
1000
] | 641 | 905 | "... the beat is too strong ... we're deaf mutants now--like them", Rex Voorhas Ormine<br /><br />I am surprised that this movie has been uniformly bashed. Let me be the first to actually discuss the virtues of "The Beat" and why YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW.<br /><br />Make no mistake, this movie is cheesy and "bad" in the conventional sense: the story is preposterous, the poetry is silly, and the acting is inconsistent.<br /><br />But these are the film's CHARMS--all of these ingredients form the recipe for one of the most UNDERAPPRECIATED CHEEZY FILMS of the 80's.<br /><br />If the reference to "deaf mutants" didn't pique your interest, then perhaps this will: What kind of name is "Rex Voorhas Ormine", anyway? It is such an unusual name (for North American audiences) that I said to myself, "even the names of the characters in this friggin' movie are firggin' silly."<br /><br />Well, "The Beat" is so fabulously cheezy that the "meaning" and "symbolism" behind "Rex Voorhas Ormine" is revealed not-too-subtly by Bart Waxman (the misguided guidance counselor you love to hate). I won't spoil the revelation behind Rex's name, but please don't get too excited, O.K.?<br /><br />Overall, the acting is inconsistent (John Savage--who plays the "concerned teacher" Mr. Ellsworth is pretty good, as is the fellow playing Bart Waxman, but the rest of the cast are unconvincing). That said, the acting does NOT detract from the film. Why? There is a SINCERITY in each of the actors' performances that makes the characters they play endearing. So although the performances may suck, you are still left with the impression that the actors are really trying to do their best. As a result, the actors' sincerity succeeds where their acting fails (which is quite often).<br /><br />The homage to "beat poetry" in this film is bad, bad, bad. But this is a good, good, good thing when it comes to entertainment. Would you actually enjoy "better quality" or "more respectable" poetry--especially in a film like this?<br /><br />Folks, that would be BORING (think about the droll they made us read in high school--sanitized to avoid "corrupting the youth", politically conservative and devoid of any critical analysis, etc.) Even if you don't like poetry or "arty" movies (with all of the "intellectual" posturing that implies), you most certainly can (and should) appreciate LUDICROUS POETRY in a WANNABE ART FILM!!!! How could you not enjoy the following?<br /><br />"do you remember the roar of the dinosaur? a woman's scotty craps on the floor bad scotty bad, oh the woman's so sad she washes her hands and then waits by the door today, yeah--today!"<br /><br />Yes, that is an example of some of the remarkable poetry liberally sprinkled throughout "The Beat." But what about the story, you ask?<br /><br />Well, the story is preposterous. But then again, that is the beauty of this film. Apart from some cliches, stereotypes, and predictable plot points, there are enough genuinely unique elements to the plot/story to keep things interesting. Who is Rex? Where did he come from? What the heck is he talking about? Deaf mutants? Illiterate angels? Do Billy and Kate REALLY understand what Rex is saying? Is the audience supposed to understand Rex and his poetry posse? (I've seen the movie several times and I still haven't figured everything out.)<br /><br />Will bad poetry and high school talent shows really END GANG VIOLENCE?<br /><br />I guarantee that you have never seen anything quite like "The Beat"--a perfect combination of brilliantly bad poetry, mediocre-yet-sincere acting, and a "mythopoetics conquers gang violence" storyline that has YET TO BE RIVALLED BY ANY FILM EVER MADE.<br /><br />Bonus for fans of classic NYC hardcore: The Cro-Mags make a rare film appearance as the "Iron Skulls" and it's a hoot to see them perform several songs. I wish they included more concert footage, but maybe that will be an "extra" included on the "collector's edition" DVD I fantasize about.<br /><br /> | 1 |
18,954 | [
900,
1000
] | 698 | 932 | Some time ago, we read of the results of a poll taken by some Newspaper Sports Writers. The Questions posed were only two, and were brief and right to the point.<br /><br />The Question Number 1 asked respondent to tell who was his most Beloved college football team. Question Number 2 asked the fan to name his most Hated college football team. The answer to both questions was simply, Notre Dame! ND is tops on both lists! Yeah, love 'em or hate 'em, but you sure don't ignore ,em.<br /><br />The roots of this unique position of this Indepent* College Football Powerhouse are found in the life and career of one, grown-up, little Immigrant Norweigen boy from Chicago named Knute Rockne.<br /><br />As a biopic, the production of KNUTE ROCKNE, ALL-American(1940), came out relatively close to the death of Coach Rockne in a 1930 plane crash. It was about 10 years after that the film was released. That would mean that preliminary work on the project started about 8 years after our Nation's great loss of Mr. Rockne.<br /><br />His likeness and voice were well known from Newspapers, Radio and Motion Picture News Reels. Both Knute's Widow,Bonnie Skiles Rockne, and the University of Notre Dame had approval rights in choosing the Actor to play the Lead and okaying the script. We think that they could not have done the job any better. Pat O'Brien truly looks the part and was himself a footballer in college. Ronald Reagan is cast in the pivotal role of George Gipp**, a free spirited student going to Notre Dame on a Baseball scholarship! He was a "walk-on" football player.<br /><br />The cast runs full of talented players. We have Griffith Veteran,Donald Crisp as Fr. Callaghan, C.S.C., Notre Dame President. Albert Basserman is Fr. Newland, the Chemistry Prof and Rockne mentor. Gail Page appears as the Mrs., Bonnie Skiles Rockne. Owen Davis,Jr. is Rockne cohort, Gus Dorais(the passer in that historic ND vs. ARMY Game at West Point.)<br /><br />The cast is rounded out by Kane Richmond, Nick Lukats, William Marshall and William Byrne as the Four Horsemen. Real life Big Time College Coaches Howard Jones, 'Pop' Warner, Bill Spaulding and Amos Alonzo Stagg appear as themselves in scenes of Congressional Probe into College Sports and add an authentic touch. <br /><br />As for biopic,KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-American!,all one can only say that it hits the ground running, and did not slow down from beginning to end. There is no wasted time either. All the screen time is used to move the story along. <br /><br />Use of Notre Dame Choir, the Campus itself and all that Brass Band rah-rah march music all ad to the feeling of really being there.***<br /><br />* To this day,even though their Basketball Team and other sports teams compete in the Big East Conference, Notre Dame remains an Independent in NCAA Football. What this means, that in effect, The Fighting Irish play a national schedule.<br /><br />** There was no such agreement with the Family of George Gipp. There was a lawsuit some years ago over the scene portraying young Mr. Gipp giving the famous "Win Onr For The Gipper Speech". Television prints of this KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-AMEICAN were minus the speech in the death bed scene.<br /><br />*** Other Notre Dame themed Films were made over the years. THE SPIRIT OF NOTRE DAME (Universal 1931)featured J. Farrell McDonald as a Rockne look-alike coach. It also featured Lew Ayers, Andy Devine Nat Pendleton, as well as the members of the real Notre Dame Championship Teams featuring the real Four Horsemen. Then of course, we have RUDY (Tri-Star 1993)with Sean Astin, Jon Favreau, Ned Beatty and Charles Dutton, among others, in a fine cast. There was also talk of an unauthorized film, critical of Notre Dame called GOLDEN GLORY, but nothing has materialized, has it?(Let me know, Dear Reader, THANX!!)<br /><br />**** Warner Brothers always had great music in their, both in opening themes and in incidental music. In this Rockne Movie, they have incorporated THE NOTRE DAME FIGHT SONG in the score. Along with it were STEP NOTRE DAME and THE NOTRE DAME ALMA MATER, which had its premiere at the Rockne Funeral in 1930 at the Notre Dame Basilica. | 1 |
19,539 | [
900,
1000
] | 729 | 932 | Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.<br /><br />The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.<br /><br />As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.<br /><br />Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.<br /><br />Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.<br /><br />Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. <br /><br />There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.<br /><br />The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively. | 1 |
19,596 | [
900,
1000
] | 718 | 909 | A year after the release of the average "House of Frankenstein", Universal released another Monster Mash where all their famous character would collide once again. "House of Dracula" would reunite Dracula, the Frankenstein's creature and the Wolf Man for what would be their final battle and will finally close an era for the studio. Directed once again by Erle C. Kenton, "House of Dracula" presents a slight but noticeable improvement over the previous film and delivers a better constructed (although still flawed) story that while far from perfect, is a more appropriate closure than the previous film.<br /><br />The story ignores most of the events of the previous entry, "House of Frankenstein", and introduces a new angle to the story. Count Dracula (John Carradine), tired of having to hide during sunlight, asks help to the brilliant scientist, Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens), a physician famous for his research in biology. Edelman becomes fascinated by Dracula, and soon begins an experimental treatment, in the mean time, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), the Wolf Man, visits Edelman with the purpose of get rid of his curse. Soon Edelman realizes that Dracula is a monster that must be destroyed, but his own exposure to Dracula's blood is also developing a disease in him. The discovery of the Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) in a nearby catacombs will bring more turmoil to the mind of the brilliant scientist.<br /><br />After the previous clash of monsters, it is good to see the series going back to the roots and delivering an almost straight-forward Gothic horror returning to the dark pessimistic nature of this kind of films and moving away from the comic relief of the previous entries. The story (by Edward T. Lowe Jr.), has many interesting themes, as the contrast between Dracula and Talbot (both looking for a cure, but with different purposes) and Edelman's increasing madness. Probably among the most interesting themes is the inclusion of the character of Nina, a gorgeous but deformed woman who aids Dr. Edelman hoping to be cured of her condition.<br /><br />Director Erle C. Kenton is back again and this time he finally captures the dark nature of these three characters, a nature that was apparently lost in the previous film. Despite the low-budget, Kenton crafts a Gothic horror that while simple, is quite effective, and even manages to present old partners such a these characters in a fresh way. While it's never on the level of the originals, "House of Dracula" recovers that charm that Universal Studios horror films used to have, and Kenton makes sure that at least for a last time the monsters receive a chance to shine.<br /><br />The cast is very good this time, with Carradine, Chaney and Strange reprising their roles (although Strange's role is considerably smaller) with more enthusiasm than in the previous film. The addition of Onslow Stevens, Jane Adams and Martha O'Driscoll to the cast bring back the tragedy and the drama to the series, with Stevens giving a terrific performance as Dr. Edelman. A small cameo by Lionel Atwill and the presence of Skelton Knaggs as the creepy Steinmuhl complete one of the better cast Universal horror films has had in years.<br /><br />"House of Dracula" is a nice addition to the series, specially after the mediocre "House of Frankenstein". It's nice to see Kenton back in form in a somewhat serious horror film, however, and while the plot is quite original, it suffers not only because of the budget, but because the film attempts to do a lot in a very short runtime with bad results. It's true that the characters have all very inventive story lines, but the film dedicates very few time for each of them to develop, and the film seems very rushed and disjointed.<br /><br />While far from perfect, it's also far from being the worst of the series. "House of Dracula" is a nice closure to one of the best times for the horror genre, a time when ghosts and ghouls roamed the foggy nights, and mad scientists gave life to hideous monsters. Later the monsters would be back in "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), but that would be a whole different context. after the disappointing previous entries, it's easy to dismiss "House of Dracula", but give it a chance, and let the monster roam for a last time. 7/10 | 1 |
19,962 | [
900,
1000
] | 762 | 943 | Patty Chayevsky was years ahead of most successful screenplay and drama writers in tackling sticky subjects. In this 1971 film he followed Sinclair Lewis and A. J. Cronin (in respectively ARROWSMITH and THE CITADEL) in looking critically at the world of medicine, although his target is centered on a special stage: a modern hospital in Manhattan. Chayevsky's point of view is quite direct: are hospital's places for people to go to to get well, or are they money making organizations where people frequently die due to incompetence.<br /><br />As a person who has recently been to a hospital too many times (and will shortly have to return again) I find THE HOSPITAL a very timely and rewarding satire. George C. Scott is Dr. Block, one of the heads of the Manhattan Surgical Center, a major teaching hospital. He has just started his day when he is told that one of the second year residents has died during the night in an apparent mix-up. It seems he was sedated and drugged while sleeping on a bed (he'd been having a tryst with a nurse), and someone tampered with an i.v. that should have contained water with glucose in it (later it turns out he got an overdose of insulin in the i.v.). Soon Scott finds that whenever he turns around some other member of the staff dies of a heart attack or of a botched operation. The key to all this appears to be one patient who came to the hospital ten days before for a regular check-up, and has since lost one kidney, nearly lost his other kidney, and is now in a comatose state (Barnard Hughes). <br /><br />Hughes' daughter (Diana Rigg) wants to bring the comatose dad back to his home on an Apache Indian Reservation in Mexico. Scott is not totally opposed to the idea - after all, hospital errors almost killed Hughes. Also, Scott is suffering a mid-life crisis with the collapse of his marriage and family, and his growing doubts about what his chosen profession really accomplishes. It is not only looking at a case like Hughes'. The hospital is in a constant state of chaos wherein the regular staff (Scott, Stephen Elliot, Nancy Marchand, Stockard Channing) is overworked and overtaxed, and is at war with the business staff (typified by Frances Steenhagen in a really chilly performance). The local community is hostile because of the expansion plans of the hospital - but when they meet to "discuss" matters with Elliot they prove to be as divisive among themselves (militant Black Panthers versus local clergy versus birth control seeking women and pro-abortion clinic types). Rigg (who falls in love with Scott in the course of the film) becomes more and more certain that leaving the insanity of the city makes sense, and Scott also toys with the idea.<br /><br />Scott was at his acting height in this film, what with ANATOMY OF A MURDER, THE HUSTLER, DR. STRANGELOVE, and PATTON under his belt before THE HOSPITAL was made. His angst registered when he and Rigg get to know each other (she prevents him from killing himself due to his despair). He can't tell if anything done in the hospital is worthwhile, and screams out the window the words in the "Summary Line". Though he does later relax a little about how good his teaching has been for doctors studying with him, Scott really never fully is sure about it all - he does, however, fully accept his own sense of responsibility that others just dump. Rigg too was at the height of her international fame (if not her acting abilities) - her stint as Mrs. Peel on THE AVENGERS was a few years old, but she was recognized as a leading stage talent in Britain at the time, as well as one of the sexiest women performers of that period. <br /><br />The supporting actors are good too. Besides the chilling Steenhagen (demanding Medicare/Medicaid/insurance information from comatose patients in the E.R.), there is Hughes as a religious maniac who wins, and Elliot as the fed up head of the hospital. There is also my favorite caricature: Richard Dysart as Dr. Elwell. Elwell is a butcher who has found a real home for himself on the Big Board of the Stock Exchange, having incorporated himself for tax incentives. Anyone recalling his performances as ethical types such as the head of the law firm in L.A.LAW or as the friend and physician to Melvin Douglas in BEING THERE, upon seeing his greedy Dr. Elwell see another facet to this underrated actor's talents. | 1 |
20,009 | [
900,
1000
] | 768 | 900 | I had the honor this evening to see a screening of the movie "These Girls" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. Going into the movie, I knew very little about it and just took a chance on it because the film's plot sounded interesting. So as I entered the theater just hours ago I wondered what the final verdict would be thumbs up or thumbs down.<br /><br />"These Girls" is the story about three best friends from a small town. Keira (Caroline Dhavernas) is the ringleader who basically doesn't know what to do with her life after High School but her father keeps pushing her to go to college which is something she doesn't want to do. Lisa (Holly Lewis) will be going away to a Christian school after the summer. And finally, Glory (Amanda Walsh) who plans on spending her summer babysitting. But this summer is going to be a special one as they all blackmail Keith Clark (David Boreanaz) the sexy older hunk who they baby-sit for. Fun times and a lot of laughs ensue
<br /><br />I normally don't like movies like "These Girls" but there is something about this movie that I really liked. I think the quality I liked most about it was that it seemed rather realistic. Three girls who want to explore their sexuality pick a hunky guy who lets all of them have sex with him only to be blackmailed by them later. It's a pretty funny tale about growing up, friendship and sex but even though it sounds pretty cheesy I can see majority of this film happening in real life.<br /><br />The subject matter here is probably a main reason why this film didn't get a mainstream release in the United States. All the girls in this film are suppose to be under 18 which if I remember correctly two of them are 17 and one is 16. Now in the USA even though underage sex occurs on a daily basis many production or finance companies won't finance a film like this because of the sexual content. This information was actually confirmed by the director himself John Hazlett at the Q&A after the film. The thing that gets me is that the sex scenes in this film aren't graphic and the nudity is minor. Not to mention that all the actresses in this film are way over 18 in real life. Go figure.<br /><br />What the movie does best is it provides a lot of laughs as well as very strong characters. I liked all the characters in this movie and each character seemed to have a "Now & Then" characteristic to them. The jokes were funny because they were cleverly written not because they were dirty or over the top. Everything seemed to flow together nicely both the comedy and the drama. The script was very strong.<br /><br />The acting was very good for the most part. I thought all the three girls were great. Caroline Dhavernas who also starred in one of the most underrated television series of all time "Wonderfalls" was just terrific; as well as Holly Lewis and Amanda Walsh who both did a fine job as well. David Boreanaz did a good job and he looked like he was having fun while shooting most of the scenes. The guy played a pot head so it was funny seeing him play that role.<br /><br />I had the pleasure of meeting John Hazlett tonight who seemed like a very nice guy and was very appreciative of the comments made about the film. I am shocked that this movie didn't go anywhere. I think with a little marketing behind it, it could have taken off. Sadly it's going to be one of these direct to DVD films which so few will ever have the pleasure to see. I think with what little budget Mr. Hazlett had to work with, the film turned out well and I think he did a fine job directing this little gem.<br /><br />For someone who typically hates teen sex comedies I can honestly say I really enjoyed this film. The character development and witty script allowed me to sit there for an hour and a half and be amused. This is a fine comedy because it has heart and spunk to it. I know I will be sure to buy this film when it comes on DVD on May 16, 2006. If you're a fan of coming of age stories, teen sex comedies, or romantic comedies be sure to check this film out because it's one of the funniest films of its kind to be released in years.<br /><br />MovieManMenzel's final rating for "These Girls" is an 8/10. | 1 |
20,016 | [
900,
1000
] | 764 | 912 | I first saw this film by chance when I was visiting my uncle in Arizona about 3 and 1/2 years ago. The VHS print was a little faded looking, but I was very haunted by what I had watched. Did it all make sense? Well, honestly, no it didn't. However, this is a film that requires more than one viewing to understand all of its aspects. The beautifully tragic score haunted me and the bizarre images made quiet an impression.<br /><br />Well, when I found out that Anchor Bay had released this oddity on DVD, I picked it up immediately. I was very pleased by the transfer, though I felt the extras rather lacking. Though the film concerns the "O" and Sir Stephen characters, it really has nothing to do with Pauline Reage's original novel or the 1974 film The Story of O. However, the film does pay attention to artistic detail and symbolism of an almost mystic kind. "O" decides to prostitute herself for Sir Stephen in violent 1920s Hong Kong. Her mission is to prove her unending devotion and love for her master through giving her body to other men. Naturally, Sir Stephen enjoys watching her during her unpleasant sexual escapades and even finds himself a mistress. However, the tables are turned when "O" actually finds a kind of love with a young male admirer. Suddenly, Sir Stephen feels the threat...<br /><br />I feel that the deep meaning behind the film (including the tragic score and artistic direction) really make this film a classic. The viewer is introduced not only to the lives and pasts of "O"'s fellow brothel mates, but the turmoil of 1920s Hong Kong is also explored. Like the political setting, the prostitutes all find themselves in need of belonging. No one is happy in the film, even if they believe that they are. (However, "O" does find a sense of happiness with her young admirer). One prostitute tearfully remembers how her father used to act like a dog when she was drunk, naturally leading to a fetish for having her customers act like a dog. Another older prostitute is obsessed with her past as an actress. She cannot let that vision go. She treats her clients as co-stars and even swears she hears a piano in the river. <br /><br />As for "O", she has a flashback about her father leaving her in a chalk circle. When he leaves, she feels a sense of abandonment. Of course, in that same flashback Kinski suddenly becomes her father. I was very, very disturbed by this image. I truly felt for "O" at this point in the film. She hardly ever smiles and this scene really explains why. Her fear of abandonment is so great that she sees Sir Stephen as her father and caters to his every obscene demand in hopes of proving her love. <br /><br />Another curious aspect of the film is the young child (that ages at the end) that sells fortune in a box. It is a very random character, but somehow it just adds to the sense of loss and emptiness in the film. At one point, the director even uses painted cardboard figures to represent people. Now, if that isn't symbolism for you! (Laugh) <br /><br />All in all, I really love this film. I feel that it is a very deep and somewhat moving experience. It has erotic scenes, but the scenes aren't really meant to arouse. Like the lives of the characters, the sex acts are empty. They are motions, but lack feeling and tenderness. (Once again, the only tender scene is between "O" and the young man). "O" believes she is in love and that lowering herself is an honor, however, she finds in the end that she has choices. She too can be her own person and pursue her own happiness, however, she also has the option to stay in that circle that her father drew. The director leaves a lot of unanswered questions, however, some things don't need answers. The viewer will make the judgment that works for them. <br /><br />I must say that I wish a special edition of this DVD would be released that had director commentary. I think it would be fascinating to hear his opinion of the film and its message years later. It is a shame that the soundtrack was never released. This film has a truly haunting and heart breaking score. There is something about the lingering vocals that send a chill up my spine. I can truly feel the sense of loneliness in the film by just listening to the music. | 1 |
20,025 | [
900,
1000
] | 820 | 965 | Yes I AM a FF7 fan, but how many people who watch this movie are NOT going to be? And so, I'm reviewing this movie from a FF7 fan perspective, and with no regret. (I would not know how to adequately review the movie for someone who has not played the FF7 game.)<br /><br />Visuals - 10/10 I loved Advent Children. It's a sensory delight - a complete audio-video overload. The visuals were breathtaking: some feats were accomplished that I would simply have not quite thought possible with an animated feature. When the action scenes came about, they were, for lack of a more accurate word, a roller-coaster. With dramatic camera movement sweeping across from range to range, to seamlessly integrated bullet-time effects at the crucial moments, to the sheer level of detail - it's all hard to fault. The animation looks big budget, the style and imagery is awesome, and the effects at times made me forget that I was watching animation rather than live action footage. I could ramble on for hours repeating myself on the fantastic quality of the visuals, but it simply wouldn't do it any justice.<br /><br />Sound - 10/10 The sound was fabulous. The voices for all the characters didn't disappoint (no one sounded silly) and the sound effects were bold and sharp. The music - from the game that (in my opinion) had the best game soundtrack EVER, transfered beautifully to the movie. Most of the memorable themes from the game are present in the movie, albeit often using different instruments to fit in better with what's going on. There was some bolder rock and slight thrash metal music over the really intense action scenes from time to time, but it all fitted in well with the movie's situation at the corresponding time.<br /><br />Story - 7/10 The story and characters would be the main flaws of the movie. Both aspects were simply not up to par with the game - but then again, the game could spend 40+ hours developing these points - the movie only has about 90 minutes. As far as the story goes, the plot wasn't bad or anything, but just not as ambitious as was expected from someone who played the game through. In effect, the plot seemed rather weak in comparison. The game was so extravagant with the intricate plot twists and story progression/development, that the movie never really stood a chance to compete in the same league. Instead, the movie took the more sensible approach - to expand on the action and try to place as many inside-jokes and themes into itself instead of trying to impossibly recreate the massive story factor, which was originally such a driving force in the game. The lack of Materia usage also caused me some controversy - the story of the movie chose to use little (though not ZERO) Materia, and instead lots of supernatural fighting ability and skill. I would hope that if a sequel was made it would incorporate Materia much much more extravagantly and importantly into the film. There were also many plot holes in the movie - all which can be forgiven if you think of Advent Children as a random anime, but seem ridiculous when you realise how it was based on a game that executed plot tremendously well.<br /><br />Characters - 7/10 The characters, whilst all being present in one form or another, don't necessarily shine to their true potential. There simply isn't really enough movie-time to spend with all of them. And so, all of their background stories and abilities are not entirely showcased, and in some cases, barely at all (Red and Cait Sith leave absolutely no real lasting impressions). Even Cloud, who is the focal point of the movie, I feel doesn't use enough of his familiar abilities from the game. The Materia issue is a strong reason for this. With that said, it's a joy to see the cast back in action, even if it's in such a role that doesn't utilise them to their fullest. The new characters were the ones that caused me most of the strife however - the Bad Guy Trio and the kid dude Denzel - there was a huge lack of explanation about any of them. Anyone willing to use their imagination can probably fill in the blanks with something reasonable and be done with it, but objectively speaking the issue is still there to be commented on and is therefore a little disappointing.<br /><br />Value - 10/10 The replay value for this movie is excellent - I personally want to watch it again in a more bigger and louder way - bigger screen, louder volume.<br /><br />Enjoyment - 10/10 Whatever the flaws of the movie, they simply weren't big enough to hinder my enjoyment of it, and I honestly think that will be the same case for most people. I enjoyed Advent Children tremendously, and encourage fellow FF7 fans to go see it. | 1 |
20,101 | [
900,
1000
] | 697 | 903 | Prepare to meet your Messiah - they call him Masten Thrust. Male role models have become increasingly difficult to find in today's overexposed society. Every other day an apparent role model is forced to tearfully apologize for a youthful indiscretion or he innocently gets a few youngsters drunk on his ranch. The Last Dinosaur is the story of the last great hunt of Masten Thrust, an old, grizzled, big game hunter who serves as role model supreme. Despite his haggard features and bulbous nose, the females, including Joan Van Ark, are attracted to him like Meatloaf is to cheesy lyrics. Thrust is openly sexist and makes no apologies for his elaborate lifestyle, which includes a red kerchief and a private jet with a working fireplace.<br /><br />Thrust embarks on a mission to find and hunt the last dinosaur on earth when ironically, after a rich full life, he is truly the last dinosaur. Despite his propensity for yelling at everyone in his presence, his employees and lady friends are unwaveringly loyal to him. He may act as though he's perpetually drunk, but make no mistake, if he calls you a 'Ding Dong' you are a 'Ding Dong'.<br /><br />Not to be denied his own ballad, Thrust's song shamelessly praises him and his manliness. A sampling of lyrics includes: "Few men have ever done, what he has done, or even dreamed, what he has dreamed/Few men have even tried, what he has tried, most men have failed, where he's prevailed/The world holds nothing new in store for him, and things that startle you and me, are just a bore to him/Few men have ever lived, as he has lived, or even walked, where he has walked'. Even BMTG banned artist Clay Aiken could belt out those lyrics and become an rump-kicking machine.<br /><br />Thrust and his crew of scientists strap themselves into the 'Polar Borer' wearing mini bike helmets, though Thrust affords himself the luxury of the red kerchief around his neck. The giant human filled drill bit digs through the earth and ice to come popping out into a lagoon. Dinosaurs from the air and land soon descend upon the scientists forcing Thrust and crew to run for their lives. After narrowly escaping a charging dino, Masten lays back and blasts out a hearty laugh, not so much to celebrate life but to acknowledge 'the game is afoot'.<br /><br />Soon after, it is little surprise that we see a few slightly hunched over cavemen sneaking peeks at their visitors. Thrust, not content with simply killing a dinosaur, decides then to make it his mission to bag a cave broad. Throughout the movie, the lone T-Rex contradicts the belief that dinosaurs have a brain the size of a peanut. Despite its enormous size, the local T-Rex is able to sidle up next to its victims virtually unnoticed. With the element of surprise, T-Rex simply crushes a scientist or two and loots the campsite. Every so often the bloated and cagily faced Thrust is seen yelling at someone, shooting at something or flirting with a primitive J-Lo in manly fashion.<br /><br />Thrust is like James Tiberius Kirk, not only in his addiction to love, but also when is comes to making complicated weapons using limited natural resources in a short period of time. Thrust and the remaining crew members construct a highly accurate catapult that flings a large boulder into the skull of the cunning T-Rex. Upon realizing that even he, Masten Thrust, cannot top this addition to his trophy case, Thrust decides to stay in his prehistoric surroundings. The ever-dwindling crew then leaves Thrust to live out his days with his lovely, although a bit gamely, cavewoman and introduce her to his personal collection of STDs. This is only a brief synopsis of a movie so complicated and rich in BMTG tradition that it takes several viewings to absorb its message and realize that Masten Thrust is the answer. The press conference, complete with a yelling Thrust, mumbling reporters, and the introduction of the great Bunta, is a classic moment. Also look for a body, resembling a dead Ricky Schroeder, lying on some logs, and the most powerful use of someone being called a 'Ding-Dong' in cinematic history. | 1 |
20,164 | [
900,
1000
] | 811 | 962 | First of all, despite the low rating on this site, I saw something quite worthy in this film and will gladly defend it. And no, I'm not connected to the crew in any way...<br /><br />I came across the DVD of The Wind by accident, and had this strong feeling that it wasn't going to be quite like the video packaging described. So I took a chance, and was pleasantly surprised by this strange, very different drama. I'm assuming the DVD marketing and summary were the work of MTI Home Video to hook a rental or sale (the tag line "Love comes in many forms" was changed to "Terror comes in many forms"). Sure, smaller films' rentals and sales depend strongly on grabbing a person's attention, especially if they've never heard of the film before (a similar case happened with the film THE ITEM). That's probably what is working against this release, as horror fans read the description of an "ancient wind" carrying with it "omens of the apocalypse." It's easy to think that that is what this film is all about, and will turn some college students in the story into crazy savages that go on a killing spree. Thus, at the time this review was submitted, is most likely the reason for the lower rating on IMDb. I can understand people becoming upset and thinking they were fooled by that summary , seeing the apocalyptic intro but then experiencing a dark drama. I can forgive the marketing choice since I enjoyed The Wind and thought it was a refreshing change of pace from major Hollywood offerings, it's just that if the intended audience was given the attention, more might voice a higher rating.<br /><br />The "wind" in this film is basically just a metaphor for society, and is the story of four friends who make some bad choices and how their lives quickly turn into ones of desperate self-preservation. After going too far in 'teaching a lesson' to one of their own, a death occurs and each person tries to save his/her own standing. Manipulation between them becomes the norm, and by the end we see how self preservation becomes their main motivation over good judgment. Civilized to savage, basically. This is very apparent throughout by noticing that the use of a knife, branches as clubs, fists and kicking are instruments of violence instead of guns. These characters are, in a way, doing all the wrong things for the right reason just to stay on top of the situation since they've already taken things too far. While there are many implied violent images, it's interesting to see that there is an absence of cussing and nudity. <br /><br />What works in favor of The Wind are the "unknown" actors. Bigger stars were originally intended, but I find it works better when you have lesser known, capable actors. This way you can get into the story without sometimes thinking "oh, that's Tom Cruise" for instance, instead of an actual tormented person dealing with an extraordinary situation. Even unusual conversations (like between Mic and Billy in a field, and Mic confronting Claire in her bedroom) hold up well and feel quite natural in the strange universe of Fairview...which has cozy homes,a forest, and wide open fields. I kept thinking of the calm landscapes concealing darker secrets in The Reflecting Skin, which director Michael Mongillo mentions as an inspiration in his commentary. <br /><br />The Wind manages to get messages across without being heavy-handed about it.<br /><br />Sure, if you look carefully you'll see many symbols and dialogue that other directors would just pound you over the head with. I even understood the infamous "kissing scene" between Claire, John, and Billy within the context of the story without being surprised it happened. I am still amazed at how some people (guys, mainly) who complain about two men kissing in a scene would obviously have NO problem if the scene were of two gals kissing instead. All is handled nicely here, and additional viewings will make things more clear without making you groan and say "oh man, how did I miss THAT...." Things sink in gradually and I appreciated that. Or you could listen to the DVD commentary as well for more things revealed!<br /><br />For those of us that "got" the intentions of this film, The Wind is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended) in a time when most films are made in order to JUST make money and be heard knocking other films out of their "box office competition" standing when mentioned on Entertainment Tonight or CNN.<br /><br />Years later, it's always the great little discoveries like The Wind that stay in my mind, not processed star-driven blockbusters.<br /><br />Get past the marketing ploy from MTI Home Video, and you just might find this an engaging story indeed. I strongly recommend it to friends that seek out unusual films like this one. | 1 |
20,186 | [
900,
1000
] | 765 | 995 | Andaz Apna Apna is a movie that I treasure and its one movie, I don't mind seeing at any time... well almost any time! This movie is simply marvelous and according to me, is the funniest movie I've ever seen! And yes, I do put it over Hera Pheri... reason? Hera Pheri has scenes you'll watch out but Andaz Apna Apna? Not possible! Simply because every scene is a scene you got to watch out for! Aamir & Salman share great chemistry and are perfect in their shoes but I'll put the characters in order of favoritism: <br /><br />Rank # 1. Crime Master Gogo (Shakti Kapoor's best performance till date and yes, this happened before the casting couch): Gogo is an innocent character who belongs to well reputed family of Mogambo (Mr. India fame). Crime Master Gogo is actually Mogambo's nephew but for Mogambo, he's more than a responsible, handsome, charismatic charming son. Gogo, makes the biggest mistake of life by lending 36,000 rupees to Teja (who is as Balla had once said, "A Fraud and a Cheat!"). Now, Gogo's only goal is to get back what's his and in his journey of recovering his lost money, Gogo realizes that there is more than 36,000 that he needs to achieve and thus begins... Gogo's struggle against the sinner-world.<br /><br />Rank # 2. Teja (Teja Main Hoon, Mark Idhar Hai!): Teja is an evil character who is Ram Gopal Bajaj's twin. Originally named Shyam Gopal Bajaj, Teja chooses to change his name to suit his personality. Teja, as a child had always envied his brother and then one day, things took a turn for the worse when his father gave his entire wealth to Ram Bajaj. Teja decided to kill his father but in the night's darkness, instead killed Munshi Harish Chandra (Raveena's Dad), though Teja doesn't regret his actions. Teja's sole mission, now, is to get back his property somehow and start his own Poultry & Bakery Farm. Teja also needs to return back the loan to Gogo (but has no intentions whatsoever to do so). In order to achieve his evil goals, Teja employs two people: Robert (Vijay Khote, who is very good at aiming) and Balla (Shahzad Khan, Ajit's clone and son... who is a very very smart boy!) <br /><br />Rank # 3. Amar (Aamir Khan): Wants to marry the rich heiress Raveena, so he sells his father's cheap saloon and heads off for Mumbai. Amar, has no problem taking care of the big business that Raveena's father will hand him over after their wedding and is willing to sacrifice his happiness and shift to London, if needed.<br /><br />Rank # 4. Prem (Salman Khan): After Gogo, Prem is the second most innocent character to appear in the movie and the way Amar tries to take advantage of him in the mask of a friend, is tragic.<br /><br />I won't reveal any more characters because Jesus Christ! I just wouldn't stop typing! The movie is outright stunning! Go and get the DVD now and beware of those cheap VCDs as they have omitted many good scenes out of the movie.<br /><br />The background music is stud and the action is better than the Matrix, especially the final encountered between Prem and Crime Master Gogo (watch out for it), it appears in the climax. Andaz Apna Apna is also a drama with many negative and positive characters and teach us a lot about life and values and ethics. It teaches us about bravery (why else would Amar ask Prem to stay back when they go to meet the kidnapper, even though Prem was complaining that he had to go to the toilet???). Andaz Apna Apna is also a tragedy, especially the scenes where Salman is targeted by Aamir and is given overdose of stomach-upsetting pills, the part where Teja reveals his sad feelings regarding why he couldn't go to London and the part where Gogo is arrested in the ending, without even getting back his 36,000. Andaz Apna Apna is overall a complete package.... sit back and enjoy the ride! Bet there'll be a second ride after that... and then a third!<br /><br />The movie was considered a flop back then and I bet no one liked it but buckle up guys! This movie is a big hit! Even if it didn't have enough people coming to theatres, the movie is one of the highest selling Home DVDs and one of the most frequently movie on most of the channels so the producers have laughed their way to the banks long time back! | 1 |
20,251 | [
900,
1000
] | 667 | 926 | William Shakespeare probably didn't envision Stephanos as a gay doctor, Antonio as a faithless wife, or Caliban as a goatherd with a Trinitron, but the Bard's had worse done to his good work over time, and might even enjoy the sumptuous pageant of life that is his "Tempest" as re-configured by Paul Mazursky and co-writer Leon Capetanos.<br /><br />This time, Prospero is Philip Dimitrius (John Cassevetes), a Manhattan-based architect tired of designing Atlantic City casinos for the amiable Mafioso Alonso (Vittorio Gassman), especially after discovering Alonso is carrying on an affair with Philip's wife Antonia (Gena Rowlands). Along with daughter Miranda (Molly Ringwald), Philip escapes to a remote Greek island with Miranda and his new mistress Aretha (Susan Sarandon), a nice Catholic girl who struggles with Philip's celibate lifestyle. Will a sudden storm bring all right in the end?<br /><br />Here's a thought on the career of Cassevetes: How many other actors could make a film so confused into something so riveting? A darling of film critics for his earlier work, often with his real-life wife Rowlands, he presents a central character who really suffers for his art here, but seems to enjoy himself and makes us enjoy him, too. It's not Prospero, but something rich and strange that makes for a terrific sea change all his own.<br /><br />"It's all here," he tells one of his faithful companions, Aretha's dog Nino. "Beauty, magic, inspiration, and serenity." That it is. "Tempest" transfers 1611 London to 1982 Manhattan and finds some nice resonances in Philip's displaced life. "Show me the magic", he calls out to a storm-tossed city skyscape, and Mazursky's version, augmented by Donald McAlpine's sterling cinematography of purple seascapes and naturally sun-burnished Greek landscapes, does just that.<br /><br />It's not a perfect movie, by any means. In fact, the big finale, which is the only part of the movie that follows Shakespeare's storyline to any faithful extent, is a mess. Rowland's character is hard to care much for in this film, and after meeting Sarandon in all her braless glory, it's hard to understand Philip's continuing concern for his wife, let alone his left-field desire to make an unhappy "sacrifice" in order to restore the natural order of things.<br /><br />But there's a lot to love about "Tempest". In addition to Cassavetes, there's Ringwald's film debut as his loyal but restless daughter, here as in the play an object of desire for the primitive rustic "Kalibanos" (Raul Julia). Ringwald here is very much the same teenaged muse of privileged adolescence that would inspire John Hughes, but with an emotional depth those later Hughes films didn't delve into. Ringwald and Julia never got any Oscar attention, but they both would win Golden Globes for their playful work here. He tries to woo her in her island isolation with his TV reruns of "Gunsmoke" in Greek, tempted by her 15-year-old body.<br /><br />"I want to balonga you with my bonny johnny," Kalibanos declares, getting shoved aside but winning our sympathy anyway, especially after performing "New York, New York" with a chorus of goats. (When "Tempest" hit the screens, Julia was the toast of Broadway as the lead in "Nine".)<br /><br />It's Mazursky's show, even if it feels at times that Cassavetes is running things with improvisational line readings and emotional breakdowns galore. (Philip introduces himself to Aretha by telling her "I'm right in the middle of a nervous breakdown".) He plays his character as an amiable obsessive, seeking to crystallize his happiness by building an theater in his otherwise uninhabited island.<br /><br />Adding to the enjoyment is Gassman's rich performance as the other man, who is as completely amiable as Julia while telling a youth-obsessed Philip: "Boys don't have half as much fund as we have. They're nervous...and they make love in the back of an old sports car." Despite being overlong and pretentious in spots, like so many art films, "Tempest" is entertaining in its excesses and a trip very much like Shakespeare intended, even if his dreams didn't involve smoking pot backstage at a Go-Gos concert. | 1 |
20,308 | [
900,
1000
] | 735 | 922 | Eisenstein describes his collaboration with Prokeviev as an equal partnership, where they worked together to match image and music, scene by scene. Unfortunately, the sound recording was a disaster, so for once the devotion to authenticity in Criterion DVD's backfires. Fortunately, there is at least one restored version of the film on VHS (BMG Classics) with an excellent re-recording of the music (by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus).<br /><br />It is interesting to compare this film with contemporary propaganda films in England, Germany, and the United States. Eisenstein's film was made in 1938, in response to the fear of a German invasion; and Olivier's in 1943, when a German invasion of England was still expected. Both films are stagey, but in different ways. Olivier begins by showing a staged performance of the play in the Globe Theater by Shakespeare's own company, then takes us out of the theater to a more cinematic (though still stylized) setting. Eisenstein's film is cinematic from the beginning, but the dialog and speeches are still influenced by the melodramatic acting conventions of the old Russian theater. This works very well for Cerkassov's speeches as Alexander, because part of his job as a prince and military leader was to play a role in public.<br /><br />In Nazi Germany, the first major propaganda film was Leni Riefenstahl's tedious Triumph of the Will, which recorded a huge political spectacle - massed crowds cheering Hitler's ranting speeches. The propaganda in her masterpiece, the film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is much subtler, with its worship of the athletic male body carrying disturbing undertones of the Aryan superiority myth. But wartime German propaganda films could also be subtle. Karl Ritter's Urlaub auf Ehrenwort (Furlough on Word of Honor) is typical. It shows a young lieutenant letting the men in his company go on a 24-hour leave before returning to the WWI trenches (and almost certain death). Against the advice of veterans, he accepts their word of honor to return, though he will be courtmartialed and shot if they don't. Naturally, they all return, (though some of them berate themselves for it), presumably inspiring the audiences to similar displays of duty to their country.<br /><br />In the United States, one of the better WWII propaganda films was Howard Hawks' Air Force. In it, we follow the mismatched crew of a bomber as they bond to each other with the experience of battle, and overcome obstacles to continue their part in the war. Typically for Hawks' films, however, their real loyalty is more to each other than to their country.<br /><br />Eisenstein has to reach far back in history to find any Russian military triumphs. Ironically, Alexander (like the other Russian princes) is descended from the Vikings who sailed up the Russian rivers to conquer and rule their own fiefdoms. So he is a conquerer repelling another would-be conquerer. Physically, they are not that different (though the actors portraying the German princes were obviously chosen for their ugliness and smirking stupidity). But the real contrast is between the common soldiers. The Russian peasants are as tall and strong as the nobles; whereas the German peasants who scuttle out of the shield wall to kill wounded Russians are a foot shorter than their masters. There is some historical truth in this contrast. Russian serfs in the Middle Ages were much better off than their European counterparts, because they could always escape into the wilderness and clear their own land.<br /><br />Eisenstein's film also cleverly gives us our first sight of Alexander as a fisherman. In the battle with the Germans, he uses his fisherman's knowledge of the ice as well as his knowledge of their military tactics to defeat them. When Gavrilo breaks the shield wall, they are forced to regroup and mass on the West side of the lake, where the ice is thinner.<br /><br />One of the other pleasures of Eisenstein's film (which most audiences miss) is the historically accurate way that he portrays the politics of medieval Russia. Cities like Pskov and Novgorod owed their growing wealth and prominence largely to trade, which put the merchants into power, and sidelined the princes until their military expertise and feudal levies were needed to repel invaders. In the film, Alexander is shown not only as a military leader, but also as a master politician, who knows how to wait for his time, and how to make the most of his popularity after the victory. | 1 |
20,485 | [
900,
1000
] | 789 | 907 | Therefore it is important to talk about the DVD release instead of just the film. Tales from the Crapper is a film that only one studio in the world could deliver. The one that has brought us innovative and original REAL independent films for 30 plus years now: Troma. This is truly a very special film because it manages to be certainly not my favorite of the Troma-productions, but released on a disc that because of what I just said is one of my most valued and favorite DVD's. Not only counting the countless Troma discs I own, but counting my entire collection of films. The film itself is the result of an ill fated plan to produce a television series to be directed by a director who was trusted with a substantial amount of money (especially for Troma) to make something wonderful and delivered a lot of unfinished and incomprehensible material before quitting (or being fired, I am not sure which at this moment). In order to prevent having to shove a vast investment down the toilet Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz decided to get together a team of directors and actors and use the material as the backbone of one movie. One movie that really consists of two, in the nice old Tales From The Crypt anthology fashion, hosted by the Crapkeeper played by Mr Kaufman himself. But, as I said, not quite my own favorite of all their movies. That is greatly due to a weird sense of discipline at the various sets, forgetting about the hard Troma rule of "no booze on the set" which was discovered by a furious Lloyd and other less respectable employees that Troma had at the time of the filming of the added scenes. All this made it all but impossible for Mr Kaufman to make a worthwhile product in the editing room. But Lloyd Kaufman is a genius, and with the troubled added scenes to an already misshapen start-product he crafted not much less of a masterpiece. The film itself is as good as circumstances would allow the most brilliant filmmaker to slice together and it is certainly highly entertaining, totally confusing, loaded with those elements that made Troma great and certainly unique and one of a kind. As a film itself, though, not as brilliant as many other Troma productions. The genius of Independent Cinema however made the DVD of this film so much more than a release of a film with some extra's. The film is, when push comes to shove, actually only a part of the entire DVD that in its whole is a document of the difficult situation serious filmmakers find themselves in having to survive in a world that is monopolized by the few Very Big Ones who don't really allow any other players on their market turf. A document of the problems one has when trusting people to be on the level, only to find out that freedom sometimes is something that is hard to live up to and realization that access to a Movie Budget when the Boss is not around can corrupt even those who should really know better. The brilliance of this DVD is that the film is not perfect, and that Lloyd KNOWS it, and doesn't want to make anyone think he believes it is. The full-length commentary is a show in itself (as is often the case with Mr. Kaufan's audio commentaries), mixing humor, sneers at those who deserve it and highly interesting information for anyone interested in Independent Film-making in such a fashion that watching the film again with this commentary straight after viewing it on its own merits is so interesting it is hard to stop. The feature-length documentary THE THICK BROWN LINE takes us behind the scenes at the various locations where Lloyd visits the sets only to sometimes take over and make the most of what he finds there. We see him somewhat disillusioned sometimes, different from his appearances in other Making Of Documents such as Fart of Darkness and Apocalypse Soon, both to be found in the must-own MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN MOVIE box set. <br /><br />The added scenes with James Gunn (who started his career at Troma only to find success as a writer an now a director in Hollywood) and Trey Parker (again someone to start out with a Troma-released work, to later be a national hero with his South Park series) are entertaining and probably (as is much else on this release) a reason for obtaining this disc alone for anyone remotely interested in the work of these two characters. Loaded with much more than I could mention here (including a SECOND audio-commentary) this is one of the best Troma-DVD-releases. | 1 |
20,508 | [
900,
1000
] | 702 | 934 | I remember really liking BATMAN RETURNS when it came out in 1992, but now I think that this is the best of all the Batman movies (even over Christopher Nolan's terrific 2005 BATMAN BEGINS and definitely over the seriously over-hyped overrated 2008 THE DARK KNIGHT!). I originally remember thinking that the 1st BATMAN w/ Jack Nicholson was the best (and I still love it). But I think that this movie really hits the nail on the head. The 4 main characters (Batman, Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck) are all vivid and memorable. You really get to see what Batman/Bruce Wayne is all about in Keaton's terrific characterization. Keaton is the best Batman, not Kilmer, Clooney, or even the up-and-coming Bale, who was exceptional in BB and could have stolen top honors from Keaton had his character not been destroyed by Nolan's hack film-making in TDK !. <br /><br />Danny DeVito as The Penguin is disturbing, scary, hilarious, and lethal. DeVito is great and doesn't need scenery-chewing to give great performance like Nicholson's Joker. The viewer can actually sympathize with this disfigured outcast and his plight to fit into normal society. I had never really been big fan of Michelle Pfeiffer until this film, but this is definitely my favorite performance of hers. Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle is goofy and odd at first, then when she is transformed into Catwoman, she is simultaneously sexy and scary, a total deadly sexpot! Also, I feel that Keaton and Pfeiffer have more chemistry than Keaton and Basinger from BATMAN; they form a tragic love story. And Christopher Walken as Shreck is, well, as always, Christopher Walken!<br /><br />BATMAN RETURNS, more so than BATMAN, is more confident and focused. It is assured film-making from beginning to end. The way Burton introduces the Penguin's heartbreaking backstory grabs you from the very beginning. The first 5 minutes are among my favorite beginnings to any film: Danny Elfman's music sets an ominous foreboding tone that defines the rest of the film. It is a modification from the original BATMAN and a great one!<br /><br />Then flash forward 33 years to the present day Gotham and we are introduced to powerful businessman Shreck who wants to build new power plant in Gotham. During same scene we meet Shreck's meek, bullied, under-confident secretary Selina Kyle. And not long after all this is the film's exciting opening action sequence as Batman must battle The Penguin's Red Triangle Gang, a fun yet lethal group of outcasts and circus performers. Penguin sets plan in motion to attack the Gotham Christmas celebration, kidnap Shreck in the chaos, and force him to help re-introduce him to society. Meanwhile, Selina discovers Shreck's criminal plans and so he "kills" her by shoving her out his high-rise office, then she is revived by cats. <br /><br />Sound convoluted? Yes, but Burton never claimed to be posing a realistic story. He has created a world where the viewer can accept that things like this can happen, a dark, noirish world comprised of mistreated, deformed outcasts who deep down only want acceptance and to fit in. Confident storytelling if you ask me!<br /><br />The action scenes are few and far in between, but they are all exciting, entertaining, and nail-biting. They aren't there just for show, the way some in BATMAN are. And they all make sense. The climactic scene with Penguin's "army" marching into the center of Gotham with Batman zoning in on Penguin's hideout and sidekick butler Alfred (Michael Gough in a welcome return from the original!) assisting Batman is succinct, solid, heart-pounding fun!<br /><br />I also love the Christmastime, wintry setting, which adds to the super-dark, cold feel of Burton's Batman world. I also love the way Burton slowly introduces to us the Batman "toys" without shoving them down our throats. Each "toy" is appropriate for that moment in the film and we are compelled to accept them for their purpose. And although dark, RETURNS is still a funny film. DeVito's Penguin has many funny lines. So does Walken's Shreck. The Batman-Catwoman exchanges are extremely stimulating and humor-filled as well! A great ensemble! All in all, BATMAN RETURNS is a tightly woven tale of the dark forces at play in Tim Burton's fun, comic book world. | 1 |
20,877 | [
900,
1000
] | 784 | 975 | It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.<br /><br />Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.<br /><br />So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.<br /><br />Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.<br /><br />Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.<br /><br />What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.<br /><br />Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.<br /><br />That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.<br /><br />All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.<br /><br />It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.<br /><br />The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT. | 1 |
20,994 | [
900,
1000
] | 697 | 917 | The year 1983 saw a strange phenomenon; two rival Bond films. "Octopussy", starring Roger Moore, was part of the official Cubby Broccoli Bond franchise. "Never Say Never Again", made by a rival producer, is, apart from the awful "Casino Royale", the only Bond movie which does not form part of that franchise. Its big attraction was that it brought back the original Bond, Sean Connery; its title reputedly derived from Connery's remark after "Diamonds Are Forever" that he would never again play the role. Some have complained that Connery was, at 53, too old for the role, but he was in fact three years younger than his successor Moore, who not only made "Octopussy" in the same year but went on to make one further Bond film, "A View to a Kill", two years later.<br /><br />The film owes its existence to the settlement of a lawsuit about the film rights to Ian Fleming's work. It is perhaps unfortunate that the terms of the settlement included a clause that the new film had to be a remake of "Thunderball", as that was perhaps not the greatest of the Connery Bonds. (A remake of "Dr No" or "Goldfinger" might have worked better). The plot is much the same as that of the earlier film; the terrorist organisation SPECTRE, acting together with a megalomaniac tycoon named Largo, have stolen two American nuclear warheads and are attempting to hold the world's governments to ransom by threatening to detonate them unless they receive a vast sum of money. It falls to Bond, of course, to save the world by tracking down the missing missiles.<br /><br />The film is fortunate in that it has not just one but two of the most beautiful Bond girls of all, Barbara Carrera as the seductive but lethal Fatima Blush and Kim Basinger as Largo's girlfriend Domino who defects to Bond's side after learning of her lover's evil plans. A number of the Bond films have a plot that hangs upon the hero's ability to win over the villain's mistress or female accomplice- there are similar developments, for example, in "Goldfinger", "Live and Let Die" and "The Living Daylights". In the official series, Bond's ally is normally regarded as the female lead, but here Carrera, playing the villainess, is billed above Basinger, who was a relatively unknown actress at the time. Basinger, of course, has gone on to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars, whereas Carrera is one of a number of Bond girls who have somewhat faded from view.<br /><br />Of the villains, Max von Sydow makes an effective Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE, but Klaus Maria Brandauer seemed too bland and nonthreatening as Largo, except perhaps during the "Domination" game, a more sophisticated variant on those violent computer games such as "Space Invaders" that were so popular in the early eighties. Brandauer can be an excellent actor in his native German, in films such as "Mephisto" and "Oberst Redl", but he does not comes across so expressively in English.<br /><br />One of the film's features is that it both follows the normal Bond formula and, at times, departs from it. There is the standard world-in-peril plot, chase sequences, a series of exotic locations, glamorous women, sinister villains and a specially written theme song based on the film's title. There is, however, no extended pre-credits sequence, and we see some familiar characters in a new light. For example, Bond's boss M becomes a languid, supercilious aristocrat, his American colleague Felix Leiter is shown as black for the only time, and the scientist Q is portrayed by Alec McCowen as a disillusioned cynic with (despite his characteristically upper-class Christian name of Algernon) a distinctly working-class accent. There is also an amusing cameo from Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling British diplomat. Although Connery was perhaps not quite a good here as he was in some of his earlier films in the role, this ringing the changes on the familiar theme makes this one of the more memorable Bonds. 7/10 <br /><br />A goof. Rowan Atkinson's character states that he is from the British Embassy in Nassau. As, however, the Bahamas is a Commonwealth country, Britain would have a High Commission in its capital, not an Embassy. | 1 |
21,002 | [
900,
1000
] | 678 | 947 | As the '70's drew to a close, rumours began to fly in the entertainment industry about the possible return of Sean Connery to the role he had made famous back in 1962 - James Bond.<br /><br />Cubby Broccoli was asked on location in Brazil during the making of 'Moonraker' by the B.B.C.'s Barry Norman how he viewed the prospect. Understandably, the producer was reluctant to commit himself to an opinion.<br /><br />When 'Moonraker' opened, Bond fans were outraged by what they perceived to be a cheapening of the character, and the jumping onto the 'Star Wars' bandwagon much as 'Live & Let Die' had done with the blaxploitation craze a few years earlier. Many publicly vocalised their hope that Connery would return, if only to show Eon how a real Bond movie should look.<br /><br />Years of legal battles followed. The original script, entitled 'James Bond Of The Secret Service' ( later retitled 'Warhead' ) was written by Kevin McClory, Len Deighton, and Connery, was never filmed, and remains one of the great unmade movie blockbusters.<br /><br />A new script, closer to the 'Thunderball' storyline, was commissioned. It was written by Lorenzo Semple Junior, best known as the man who put the camp into 'Batman'. He had also written 'The Parallax View', one of the decade's finest conspiracy thrillers. Feeling the script needed a British touch, Connery brought in Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, writers of hit British sitcoms 'The Likely Lads' and 'Porridge'. The witty title was suggested by Connery's wife Micheline. <br /><br />'Never Say Never Again' opened just before Christmas 1983 to a shower of critical praise; normally sensible critics were so ecstatic at Connery's return they ignored all other aspects of the film. Many used it to viciously attack the Roger Moore series, particularly that year's 'Octopussy'. In truth, 'Octopussy' is superior in every respect. 'Never' lacks the excitement and spectacle one associates with Bond, at times it looks like a made-for-T.V. movie. The story had been done before and better in 1965's 'Thunderball', hence 'Never' was always going to come off second best. It was also hampered by not being part of the official series, meaning that Monty Norman's 'James Bond Theme' and Maurice Binder's gun-barrel logo could not be used. <br /><br />As Bond, Connery is magnificent, effortlessly stepping back into his most famous role. Playing Bond as an older, wiser agent worked. Barbara Carrera landed her best movie role as villainous 'Fatima Blush', a lady whose love for murder is such she dances after ( so she thinks ) killing Bond. Kim Basinger smolders as 'Domino'. As S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent 'Maximillian Largo', Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a chilling performance. A major disappointment though is Max Von Sydow as 'Blofeld'. The posters gave the impression he would be a major character, in fact he appears only in a few scenes. With a stronger script, he could have been one of the all-time great Bond villains. <br /><br />'Never' promised to be a throwback to the early Eon Bonds such as 'From Russia With Love', but did not deliver. The gadgets were there, but were used almost apologetically. Bond's rocket-firing motorcycle was a tired gimmick even in the '60's. The film tried to compete with Eon's Bonds in terms of humour. Bond saving himself by throwing his own urine sample into an assassin's face is a farcical a moment as any you will find in 'Moonraker'. But the nadir comes with the introduction of Rowan Atkinson as bumbling Foreign Office official 'Nigel Small-Fawcett'. He gives a performance so staggeringly awful you wonder if he thought he was in a Footlights revue. <br /><br />Michel Legrand's music is horrible, the man seems to never to have seen a Bond film in his life. <br /><br />Though the film was a financial success, viewed years later it stands as the weakest Bond of the '80's. Connery himself was disappointed with it, and not did act in a movie again for some years.<br /><br />1983 was a good year for 007 maniacs, in addition to the Connery and Moore movies, George Lazenby did a delightful cameo in the made-for-T.V. 'Return Of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair'. | 1 |
21,048 | [
900,
1000
] | 786 | 948 | Recent years have seen a number of biopics of famous singers, and "Ray", the story of Ray Charles, has much in common with "Walk the Line" which was made the following year and told the story of Johnny Cash. Cash and Charles were near-exact contemporaries, both being born in the early thirties and dying in 2003/04. Both grew up in poverty in the American Deep South. Both lost a brother in an accident during childhood. Both achieved success in the 1950s. Both experienced problems in their marriages, and both were addicted to drugs. All these matters are emphasised in both films. There are also similarities with Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind". Although that film was about a mathematician rather than a musician, it, like both "Ray" and "Walk the Line", stressed the part played by its subject's wife in helping her husband to overcome his problems.<br /><br />Ray Charles was born to a single mother in a poor black community in Georgia in 1930. (His original name was Raymond Charles Robinson, but when he was starting his career as a musician he dropped his surname to avoid confusion with the boxer Sugar Ray Robinson). In some ways Charles had an even harder time than did Cash, having to cope with two additional disadvantages in the shape of his blindness and of the racism which affected all black Americans, especially in the South, during his lifetime. Charles had a particularly traumatic childhood, witnessing the death of his younger brother George in a drowning accident and going blind about a year or two later. He appears to have been haunted by nightmares and feelings of guilt over George's death throughout his life.<br /><br />The first half of the film is rather slow moving and is a standard rags-to-riches showbiz biopic, telling the story of how the young Charles is taught to play the piano, becomes a nightclub performer and then rises to fame as a major artist, falling in love along the way with the beautiful Della Bea. The best scenes in this part of the film are the flashbacks to Charles's childhood. There is an effective recurrent image of coloured glass bottles hanging from a tree in front of his house; perhaps this was one of his few visual memories of his life before he went blind. There is also a memorable scene in which the teenaged Charles shames a prejudiced bus driver into letting him on the bus by pretending to have lost his sight on Omaha beach (In reality he would only have been thirteen at the time of the Normandy landings).<br /><br />The second half of the film becomes more interesting as it moves into more controversial territory, focusing on Charles's drug addiction, the problems in his marriage caused by his affair with Margie Hendricks, one of his backing singers, and his battles against racism. In the early sixties Charles caused a sensation by refusing to play in front of a racially segregated audience in Georgia (although, contrary to what is stated in the film, this did not result in his being banned from performing in the state). He also fought against racial divides within the music industry itself, performing not only traditionally "black" styles of music such as gospel and rhythm and blues, but also traditionally "white" ones such as country and western (regarded by many black Americans as the music of choice of the redneck community).<br /><br />As Peter Bradshaw, film critic of "The Guardian", noted "Ray" is a sunny film which diplomatically turns away from the darker side of things. It omits any mention of such matters as the death of Charles's beloved mother Aretha during his teenage years, his brief marriage to Eileen Williams in the early fifties and his eventual divorce from Della Bea in 1977. It also plays down the extent of his womanising and the number of his illegitimate children. There are similarities here with "A Beautiful Mind" which also omitted a number of controversial details about its subject's personal life, including a divorce.<br /><br />Fans of Ray Charles will no doubt enjoy the film for the music, but it is worth watching even for those who do not know much about him, chiefly on account of Jamie Foxx's Oscar-winning performance in the title role, reproducing Charles's mannerisms so exactly that we think we actually are watching a blind man, even though Foxx himself is sighted. (Unlike Joaquin Phoenix in "Walk the Line", however, Foxx did not do his own singing- doubtless Charles's distinctive singing voice was too difficult to reproduce). He receives good support from some of the other performers, particularly Sharon Warren as Aretha and Kerry Washington as Della Bea. The film is uneven and overlong, but nevertheless rewarding. 7/10 | 1 |
21,271 | [
900,
1000
] | 744 | 971 | 'Traffik', despite its title, is not really about drugs. In the best tradition of crusading British TV drama, 'Traffik' analyses and moralises about its ostensible subject, which is not some mythical scourge, but a matrix or process with identifiable social, economic and historical roots, causes and effects. There is something almost scientific in the way the film takes four sets of characters from spectacularly separate global and class backgrounds - a poppy grower forced into the Pakistani underworld by poverty and a cynical government; the English, ex-Olympic swimmer wife of a drugs baron on trial for trafficking; two shambling German policemen whose determination to convict the latter arises as much from class anger as any faith in the law; and a Tory junior minister whose Cambridge-student daughter has become an addict.<br /><br />'Traffik' is unapologetically didactic - from the early scenes of Jack Lithgow in Pakistan, investigating the government's success in eliminating drugs before sanctioning more British aid, we are bombarded with facts about the problem. But these 'facts' come from a variety of sources - dissembling government representatives; left-wing lawyers with vested (ideological and domestic) interest in the corruption; poor farmers who need to grow poppies to survive. <br /><br />Facts, normally reassuring markers on a map, are clearly not enough - the more facts we get, the less controllable the situation seems. It is not until Jack, the film's moral centre, the man who connects all the narrative threads, actually journeys into the heart of the drugs darkness, learns to shed his tory hypocrisy (deploring the use of drugs, but refusing to put any serious money into tackling the problem, and creating the conditions, through various free market initiatives, where drug-traffiking flourishes. Just as the anti-heroes of the old Warners' gangster films were actually model American capitalists, so the traffikers are the ideal being espoused by Thatcher and Reagan) that at least the reality of the problem can be acknowledges. <br /><br />Like I say, 'Traffik' isn't really about drugs. As Jack finally recognises, after being sacked as a Tory minister, drugs isn't really the problem. It's a society dismantled by a woman who said there was no longer any such thing (as proved by Jack's non-existent family life), systematically depriving the vast majority of people of hope and happiness, increasing numbers of whom turn to drugs. <br /><br />What is most frightening about 'Traffik' is not the graphic, numbing depictions of drug abuse (the technical detail of which ironically reflects the presentation of more 'legitimate', verbal factual information), but the dystopian vision of a Britain stripped of any joy, beauty or community, a bleak wasteland of derelict tenements and soulless modernity, a society of defeatists ready for the thatcherite smugglers and barons to ply their trade. <br /><br />This isn't just a contemporary British story - it records the decline of an Empire built on trade reduced to lawless drug traffiking. It is surely significant that the other sites in the programme are Germany and Pakistan, crucial agents in the Empire's decline. Here the old imperial amorality comes home to roost, the formerly enslaved victims, their bodies abused by their masters' power, returning to the Imperial centre, London, the seeds of its decline literally carried in their bodies, embodying the fears of all those late 19th century gothic novels.<br /><br />'Traffik' is one of the great achievements of British TV, and is in many ways superior to the recent Hollywood remake. The political focus is obviously sharper - Jack's decline is much more effective than Wakefield's because he, as agent of government policy, as well as a bad father, is very much part of the problem, whereas the American's only real political flaw is complacency. In almost every case, characterisation is tighter and much more plausible (compare Lindsay Duncan's steely Helen, already bitten by experience and failure, and her risibly superficial counterpart). <br /><br />Unlike the dubious racial undercurrent of 'Traffic' (making Mexico dark and Other; the ultimate WASP horror being sex with a black man), the portrait of Pakistan is richly, tragically drawn, with disconcerting arguments about drug protection punctuated by scenes of gruesome violence. Throughout, the inextricable linking of public and private is expert. Visually, the film is remarkably inventive, without ever being flashy or 'cinematic' - especially in the last episode, where the buildings and decor seem to move as the system closes in. If 'Traffik', like its remake, feels the need to shore fragments, then the prevailing sense of waste and loss is much more damning, Jack's speech bitterly despairing. | 1 |
21,397 | [
900,
1000
] | 698 | 928 | Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role.<br /><br />"Throw Momma From The Train" is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).<br /><br />Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled "Hot Fire") and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: "100 Girls I'd Like To Pork."<br /><br />Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's "star pupil" even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him "lardass" and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but "Throw Momma From The Train" piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.<br /><br />For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, "swapping murders" as seen in Hitchcock's "Strangers On A Train."<br /><br />As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)<br /><br />Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. "You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here." "She's not a woman...She's the Terminator." "One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper." Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.<br /><br />The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.<br /><br />Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it. | 1 |
21,505 | [
900,
1000
] | 745 | 979 | This is easily the best cinematic version of William Faulkner's fiction that I've ever seen, and I've seen several of the most prominent ones. Filmed in Faulkner's hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, it really captures the feeling of Jefferson and Yoknapatawpha County. Intruder in the Dust is not one of Faulkner's best novel, but, even if it is a cliché to say this, it would be the crown jewel in any one else's career. It beats Harper Lee's good but simplistic To Kill a Mockingbird fifty feet into the ground (I read that one in ninth grade, and that's exactly where it belongs). Two of Faulkner's most prominent characters play major parts in the film, Gavin Stevens and Lucas Beauchamp. Stevens is probably the single most common character in all of Faulkner's fiction. He's a lawyer and he works easily as a narrator, because, unlike many of his other characters, Stevens is a man of logic, not emotion (at least when he's older). Lucas Beauchamp may be the most prominent of all of Faulkner's black characters (he plays a major part in one of Faulkner's out-and-out masterpieces, Go Down, Moses); unlike all of the other black folks in Yoknapatawpha, he refuses to bow down to any white man. He has pride, and many in the white population find that an execrable quality in a black man. One day, Lucas is found standing over a dead white man with a recently-fired pistol in his possession. Most of Jefferson and the surrounding areas don't see the need for a trial, and everyone's pretty sure that Beauchamp will be lynched before the evening's over, or at least the next day, as the murder and arrest occurred on a Sunday. Beauchamp, on the other hand, declares his innocence and tries to get Stevens to help him. Stevens refuses; the case seems open and shut. But his young nephew, Chick Mallison, because Lucas had helped him in the past, is willing to help him now.<br /><br />As far as I know, no Hollywood film of this period deals with racism as overtly as this one. Hollywood films rarely persecute the black population, but instead prefer to relegate them to servant roles. If you're an African American actor, you might as well give up and accept that role as either the mammy, the maid, the servant, or the porter, because that's the only way you'll work. In Intruder in the Dust, there is to be found one of the most memorable non-porter roles a black actor ever had, Lucas Beauchamp. And Beauchamp, as I described above, is no stereotypical character, and might have been hard for audiences to accept. Even today, black characters are usually simple, magical, and kind. The recent arthouse hit Far from Heaven is a great example of that. Beauchamp is kind of a jerk, and he's very stubborn. Although he's perhaps a little less so here than he is in the novel, he's not any kind of stereotype. He's a complex human being. Juano Hernandez plays Beauchamp extraordinarily well. I haven't seen the film in a while, but he also appears in Robert Aldrich's 1955 film, Kiss Me Deadly, as well as the cinematic adaptation of Faulkner's final novel, The Reivers.<br /><br />All the actors are great in the film. I should also praise quickly Claude Jarman Jr., who has the great role of Chick Mallison. The novel takes place from his point of view, and he is the conventional hero of the picture. Jarman is quite an actor; he captures the character (who also appears elsewhere in Faulkner's fiction, narrating, for example, events that happened a decade or more before he was born in the 1957 novel The Town) perfectly. He would appear in another great role the next year in the underrated John Ford film Rio Grande. The only other film of Clarence Brown's that I've seen is National Velvet, quite a different picture than Intruder in the Dust. His job here is exceptional; I really have to credit him with capturing Faulkner perfectly. Other famous Faulkner adaptations are too melodramatic (The Long Hot Summer, filmed in 1958, which I really like despite that) or too cold (Tomorrow, filmed in 1972, which I do not like; that coldness is a complete misunderstanding of Faulkner). The only other one that really does well according to its source material is Douglas Sirk's great 1958 filming of Pylon (really a different sort of Faulkner novel altogether), Tarnished Angels. 10/10. | 1 |
21,566 | [
900,
1000
] | 736 | 971 | It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.<br /><br />George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.<br /><br />When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.<br /><br />But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?<br /><br />Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."<br /><br />The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.<br /><br />For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.<br /><br />That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...<br /><br />Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."<br /><br />As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).<br /><br />Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."<br /><br />Again. | 1 |
21,569 | [
900,
1000
] | 740 | 932 | Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.<br /><br />The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's "jailbait" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.<br /><br />Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.<br /><br />During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.<br /><br />With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.<br /><br />- Mike Massie | 1 |
21,896 | [
900,
1000
] | 741 | 913 | A brilliant Sherlock Holmes adventure starring the brilliant Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Despite many other actors brilliantly playing Holmes and Watson and making a great job of it- Rathbone and Bruce will always be the best two.<br /><br />Holmes takes a Professor Tobell from Switzerland to London. Tobell is wanted by the Nazi's. He has a bomb sight that could win the Second World War. His bomb-site has been split into four parts, each hidden in books. Tobell agrees to give his bomb-site to the British government. On the night of his arrival, Tobell goes to the house of his girlfriend. He has drawn some figures of men, if Tobell was to disappear, the lady was to give the drawings to Holmes. On his journey home he is attacked, but a Policeman stops this and the attacker runs away. Tobell is happy for the British government to use his bomb-site but refuses to give it to them, Tobell wants to look after it. The bomb-site is split into four parts, each part completely useless without the other. He gives one part each of this bomb-site to one of his scientist friends. Then Holmes's greatest fear happens, Tobell goes missing. Holmes visits the young lady Tobell was with the night he was attacked. She tells him about the drawings. The drawings have been stolen. She says only one man came in during the time Tobell left, to fix the light-bulb. The man she describes is Professor Moriarty. He is working for the Nazi's. Seen as he has the drawings, Holmes is done for. But he finds the writing pad he used and using Science, he manages to see what Tobell drew by looking at the next page on the pad. He sees it's code. He sees it's the name of four scientists. The first three he works out the code for, but he can't work out the fourth. The three scientists he has worked out have been murdered and the bomb-site has been taken. Holmes can't work out the fourth scientist, but neither can Moriarty. Disguised as a sailor, Holmes manages to get in Moriarty's office. Moriarty sees straight away it's Holmes, puts him in a box and has him thrown in the sea. But Watson and Lestrade insist they search the box and find Holmes in it. It's now obvious Moriarty is at large. Holmes manages to work out the fourth code, a Frederick Hoffner. Holmes gets round to his house straight away and get Hoffner and the decisive fourth part to safety. Holmes now needs to get Moriarty charged for working with the Nazi's. He pretends to be Hoffner. Moriarty works out the fourth code and gets two men to go round and get Hoffner. They take him back and he comes face to face with Moriarty. Meanwhile Tobell is not in a good way, he has been tortured and tortured to get the name of the fourth scientist. Moriarty has had it with Holmes now, he has got him and his death must be a long one for Holmes. The idea is to put him in his hospital, put a needle in his vein and watch him die of blood loss, drop by drop. Watson runs in and saves the day though. Moriarty gets away, but Holmes was only careless enough to leave Moriarty's trap door open. Moriarty plunges sixty feet.<br /><br />So, Moriarty dead. No. He makes his final outing in the film 'The Woman in Green' but in 'Green' he is definitely dead, a suicide, he jumps off his roof. It was Moriarty's second of three appearances in the Rathbone series, a different actor playing him on each occasion. His first appearance in 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' was played by George Zucco, his second in this film he was played by Lionell Atwill and Henry Daniels plays him in his final outing in 'The Woman in Green' The first three Holmes films made by Universal were set in the war as Holmes triumphs over the Nazi's. 'The Voice of Terror' was the first, then this film and then 'Sherlock Holmes In Washington' Then it was back to Victorianish times, with definite relations to Edwardian and Georgian (George the fifth and sixth) times. This film had a close link to the Sherlock Holmes short story 'The Dancing Men' which can be found in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' A great film, though obvious propaganda, it was a brilliant Holmes outing. | 1 |
21,944 | [
900,
1000
] | 785 | 939 | **** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT **** This is a very strange film - particularly for its time - in every respect. For six years, American movies had shown American soldiers as everybody's son, brother, father.<br /><br />In movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Til the End of Time, our hearts are tugged by the difficulty that the sweet returning soldiers have in adjusting to peace and their families. Yet in this same year, this film shows soldiers as a mix of people rather worse than the viewer - one message of this film is - "lock up your daughters." <br /><br />Even the good soldiers - with plenty of time on their hands - are gambling all the time, getting stupefyingly drunk, and are wholly indifferent to whether they even have wives any more. And their reaction to the police investigating a murder is -- to conspire against them.<br /><br />Mitchum, the most sympathetic soldier says things like "I don't know if my wife wants to make a go of it now after the War. Haven't seen her in two years. Do I care? Not really. Maybe we'll make a go of it, maybe not." <br /><br />Another soldier is shown as unusually sensitive because after years away, he would like to see his wife again.<br /><br />Later, when this soldier states at the police station that he spent the evening at a whore's home - without knowing his wife is sitting just behind him, there seems to be no question whatever that his wife will be fine. Indeed, she is - I guess it's "Hey, soldiers will be soldiers".<br /><br />The police detective played by Robert Young who is trying to crack a murder case, states convincingly and with infinite weariness about someone's account of their actions on the night in question, <br /><br />"Do I care? No. I don't really care about anything any more. I've done this too long, I guess." <br /><br />A man shows up at the whore's apartment. He says "I'm just a man like you, interested in" the whore. Then he says, "No that's a lie, I'm her husband. I'd like to be in the military, I was turned down before." T<br /><br />hen he says, "No, that's a lie, why would I want to be a soldier?" He goes through another series of lies when the police ask him who he is. To the end of the movie, we haven't a clue who he is or why he is there!He's one of the strangest characters in the history of movies! <br /><br />A man stands with his girlfriend at a bar talking to four soldiers, when a clumsy soldier knocks a drink onto his girlfriend. She leaves to change her dress - and is right back wearing another, no problem. Yet the man doesn't leave with his girlfriend - who simply disappears - but instead follows one of the soldiers when he leaves to go to another area of the bar! The man then extrapolates from the minimal information he's learned about the soldier -- to philosophize grandly about the problems of returning soldiers -- and immediately invites the soldier home because he is drunk and feels sick. This is strange stuff.<br /><br />Similarly, a dance hall girl is irritated by the sentimental soldier who would like to take her out "for a real dance - and dinner maybe". Yet she does dance with him - and immediately gives him the key to her home! <br /><br />Were people in the late 1940s always urging soldiers to come to their homes after they just met them? <br /><br />Robert Ryan kills his host, a stranger, when he's enraged that the Jewish host tries to get the steadily drunker Ryan out of his home. The reason for the murder? "No Jew tells me how to drink". "How to drink?" Huh? What does that mean? <br /><br />This movie is always off-kilter, quite deliberately so - the soldiers act consistently with total complete defiance of the law, and all the characters are as cold and tough as any movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />And yet the movie is utterly gripping! You simply have no idea how these people are going to act - or what new bizarre character is going to pop up - without anyone thinking the person's actions are strange in the least - e.g., the wife's behavior.<br /><br />The acting is about the finest I'e ever seen - from Robert Young, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame (who earned an Oscar nomination), Paul Kelly and other actors I'd never heard of.<br /><br />I'd never heard of this movie - and it's a complete delight that I've discovered one that I shall want to see again and again and again. it's really strange but impossible to look away from because you've no idea what these creatures will do next. | 1 |
22,046 | [
900,
1000
] | 792 | 979 | The Railway Children, at least this 1970 movie version written and directed by that long-time British character actor, Lionel Jeffries, is an unmitigated...classic. It tells a childhood story with great simplicity and charm; the sentimentality is muted; the evocation of childhood adventures is involving; and Jeffries brings cleverness and style to his production. <br /><br />The Waterbury family is leading an idyllic life in Edwardian London. The father is prosperous, the mother is beautiful and loving, the children are well-mannered and affectionate, their home is warm and cozy. Then one night during the Christmas holidays two men appear at the doorstep, talk quietly to the father, and then take him away. In a moment the lives of Mrs Waterbury (Dinah Sheridan) and Bobbie, 14 (Jenny Agutter), Phyllis, 12 (Sally Thomsett) and young Peter (Gary Warren), have been changed. Only their fortitude and good spirits are going to see them through. Now teetering into poverty, Mrs. Waterbury takes her children to live in a musty old brick house in the countryside near a rail-line, not too far from a small village with a train station. The children discover the rail and regularly sit on a small hill to wave at the passengers as the train chugs by. One day an old gentleman, going to his business in the city, looks up from his newspaper and finds himself waving back. It's not long before he will play an important part in the story. <br /><br />As time passes, Mrs. Waterbury brings all her love and intelligence to bear on her children. She begins to write stories to earn money. She teaches them their lessons and provides a home of warmth and security for them. The story, however, is about these three children, especially Bobbie. At 14, she is old enough to want to share her mother's worries, yet young enough to enjoy the adventures she has with her sister and brother. They find a poor man at the station who cannot speak English. They discover he is a Russian refugee who no longer knows where his wife and child are. They insist he must come home with them, and their mother takes him in. Before long the children have written a large sign to the old gentlemen on the train asking for his help. They help a young man taking part in a steeplechase who breaks his leg in a train tunnel. Soon, he is at their home recuperating. They decide to have a birthday party for the station master, a man with few friends and several children who is a stickler for his dignity. It's not long before the children help him realize the difference between friendship and charity. In other words, the three children encounter all sorts of problems in their childhood adventures, and manage to be instrumental in seeing that all the problems have happy endings. <br /><br />But what of their own problems? Bobbie finally learns from her mother that her father was taken away because he had been accused of treason, of giving state secrets to the Russians. Will Bobbie be able to find a way to help? Will the old gentleman be something more than simply an old gentleman on a passing train? Will their father's case be reopened? Will there be a happy ending? <br /><br />Jenny Agutter was almost 18 when she filmed her part; she plays the 14-year-old Bobbie with great naturalness and charm. As important as the other players are, especially Dinah Sheridan as the mother, Agutter is the heart of the story. For me, it is Jenny Agutter's talent and Lionel Jeffries' style and restraint that make this movie so memorable. The story's problems come with no serious doubt but that they will be solved. And Jeffries does not just give us an expertly adapted and directed movie, he adds touches that are barely noticed but which charm us. This might include just a split second of a freeze frame as two people talk; or a slow close-up of a small, yellow wildflower in the grass outside Bobbie's home, then a slow pull-back from a yellow oil lamp being turned up inside; or the realization that a delightful interior shot or a view of the green countryside or a look at the train station from a hill...all suddenly recall those charming Edwardian hand-tinted drawings of a perfect by- gone time. <br /><br />Perhaps this gentle story can't compete for the time kids need nowadays to perfect their Nintendo monster-splatting skills. I'm almost positive it would never capture the attention of most of their parents, especially those weaned on Batman and Leone. Still, it's a perfectly put together movie and shouldn't be forgotten. As an aside, 19 years later the story was retold as a television program. This time, Jenny Agutter played the mother. | 1 |
22,230 | [
900,
1000
] | 787 | 916 | In Sudan, the Arabs rule and are constantly at war with the Christians and Animists who inhabit the southern portion of this East African country. This film follows a group of of Dinka boys, a tribe of cattle herders, whom were left orphaned after their village was destroyed and their families killed in a brutal attack carried out by the Arab forces. Most of these boys are now teenagers and have been dubbed "The Lost Boys".<br /><br />The filmmaker follows a group of the "Lost Boys" on their journey, as they have been accepted as refugees in the US, where they will land in Houston. Those who've been accepted as refugees gain celebrity status, as they feel (from what they've heard) that America is amazing. Making a trip from Sudan to America is like "making a trip to heaven" says the one young man. A huge party is thrown for their departure, and they are told to do Sudan well, and once they have been educated, to return to Sudan so that they can contribute to Dinka society. They are also warned not to be like "those with the baggy pants" whom are responsible for the negative stereotype of Black men, and also, no matter what happens, not to forget the Dinka culture.<br /><br />You watch as the boys come from a third world country into America and how they attempt to integrate into American society, as they have gone from a place with practically nothing to this plentiful world where everything is massively overproduced and overconsumed. They are taught about cleanliness and how to use all the utilities that we take for granted on a daily basis. It is humorous at times, humbling at others.<br /><br />Listening to the comments they make about Black Americans and American society/culture are quite interesting. As the film progresses you see how American culture begins to corrupt their previously humble ways of thinking.<br /><br />One of the boys, Peter, is not content with working and making just enough to survive, so he up and moves from Houston to Kansas City so that he can pursue an education. When the other boys visit him, they talk about how they cannot get into any schools. The main reason they came to America was to get an education and the media is saying that the boys have been brought from Sudan for an education. This is occurring because the boys were given arbitrary ages, making them older than they actually are, preventing them from being able to enroll in high school.<br /><br />The film juxtaposes images from Houston to Kansas. We watch as Peter enrolls in school, where he befriends a group of Christian conservative kids, and as Santiago attempts driving school(even though he drives without his license anyways), and works at Walmart. We see Peter struggle with high school life as he strives to make his schools basketball team, and as Santiago has trouble keeping up with work, the rent, appeasing tensions back home in Sudan, and most of all, coping with loneliness.<br /><br />It comes to the point where the boys want to return to Sudan, and tell them that everything they are taught about America there is lies. "You must make it alone here, do everything alone" one of the boys says. A damning message to a Liberal Capitalist lifestyle, showing how it causes people to become radical individualists (a trend which led to the creation of both the neo-conservative and radical islamist movements). Their biggest beef with America though, is that there is no time; time is money and we don't waste a second! <br /><br />Despite all this, the boys never lose their sense of Dinka culture. They celebrate Southern Sudan Liberation Day, which marks the day which the SPLA began to fight in Sudan, a fight which continues today. They also meet with other "Lost Boys" on the anniversary of their arrival in America, where they discuss their experience in America as compared to back in Sudan. When asked, one boy says that if he were able to make a living he would much prefer to live in Sudan. It is much too lonely in America he adds. They never lose their sense of community, which has been conditioned into them as part of their culture!<br /><br />This film makes us question the way we live, makes us question the artificial happiness that materialism and the nature of our societies has created within us. It will also change the way I look at refugees, I will never again take for granted how hard they must work and what immigrants mean for a country such as my own, Canada. This is a wonderful film. I laughed, I cried..a very emotional journey, and a very well made documentary. 10 out of 10. | 1 |
22,372 | [
900,
1000
] | 790 | 992 | William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.<br /><br />Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian "geto", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.<br /><br />The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.<br /><br />When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.<br /><br />The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.<br /><br />In the monologue, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, "
when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it." He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries. | 1 |
22,397 | [
900,
1000
] | 727 | 900 | Betty is an understudy for the lead in a production of Verdi's Macbeth. When a car mysteriously hits the lead, Betty is thrust into the spotlight. Opening night is a smashing success and Betty decides to leave the after-party to celebrate in private with her boyfriend. But when the boyfriend leaves the room, Betty is grabbed from behind by an unknown black-gloved, masked figure. The unknown assailant ties Betty to a column, gags her, and places needles under her eyes that will cause incredible damage and pain should Betty close them. The boyfriend returns to the room and is stunned to see Betty in such a predicament. He's even more shocked when the killer grabs him and shoves a knife through his lower jaw with such force, the tip of the knife can clearly be seen in his mouth. And Betty has been forced to watch all of this. So begins Betty's terrifying ordeal with a killer not just intent on hurting her, but also on forcing her to watch as he mutilates her friends.<br /><br />Opera gets classified as a Giallo, but to me, it differs in quite a few ways from the model. Less emphasis is placed on the mystery elements of the story than in something like Argento's Tenebre or The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. The black-gloved, masked killer may be omnipresent, but the clues and red herrings normally associated with a good Giallo are absent. Instead, Opera is all about the tension of an unknown killer and making the audience uncomfortable. The focus is on the grisly death scenes, Betty's fear, and the killer's obsession with Betty.<br /><br />Opera features what I think are some of Argento most artistic death scenes. When the killer grabs Betty after her boyfriend leaves the room, you're sure that Betty's had it. But the sadistic killer only wants to force Betty to watch as he brutally stabs her lover in the neck the knife emerging in his mouth. It's a well shot and designed scene. And those needles in the eyes brilliant. Or, take the death of the seamstress. At first her death seems like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill murder. But when the seamstress accidentally swallows the killer's locket, what started out as just another death scene turns it up a notch as the killer uses a pair of scissors to cut the girl's throat open to get his chain. Finally, there's the most famous death scene in Opera that I'm amazed with each time I see it Mira is shot in the eye while peering through a keyhole. That scene displays a lot of what I like about Argento. It's got style to burn. As implausible as it may be, it's creative, memorable, and a blast to watch.<br /><br />Argento certainly wasn't the first Italian director to concentrate on eye mutilation, but in Opera, he's taken eye trauma to a new level. Needles holding eyes open, a bullet in the eye, and ravens pecking out an eye are all part of Argento's vision (pun intended). And these scenes do have the effect that I believe Argento was going for. The first time I saw the killer putting those needles in Betty's eyes, I couldn't stop blinking. It actually had a physical effect on me. What is it about the eyes that make them such a target for abuse in Italian films? <br /><br />To be fair (and not sound like such a fanboy), there are problems I have with Opera that keep me from rating it as Argento's best. One of my problems is with the air duct system running through Betty's apartment building. While I don't doubt there are air duct systems in older apartment buildings that connect the apartments, the ducts in Opera are HUGE. I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt any building like the one in this movie would have had such mammoth air ducts. It doesn't seem practical at all. And don't you think someone would have done something about them long ago to keep criminals and nosey neighbors out of the other apartments? It's convenient for the plot, but it's not very realistic.<br /><br />But I suppose my major problem with the film comes with the finale. What's up with that ending? It feels totally out of place, tacked on, and like a bad afterthought. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's horrible. | 1 |
22,401 | [
900,
1000
] | 765 | 940 | A young theater actress reluctantly accepts her first major part in a staged play as Lady Macbeth thanks to the mishap of the production's diva falling in front of a moving car. A success winning her accolades, Betty(Christina Marsillach)finds instead horror as the one responsible for getting her to this point terrorizes her in cruel ways.<br /><br />First her stage manager boyfriend, Stefano(William McNamara)is viciously stabbed with a knife while she has to watch, rope-tied to a pillar in his uncle's vast mansion, keeping her eyes from closing thanks to needles scotch-taped under her eyes, with pricking a result if she blinks. Allowing her to escape, Betty again finds herself in this unfortunate position, when a specific gold chain is found on her Lady Macbeth wardrobe that had been torn to shreds by the madman after killing a series of crows which escaped from their cage in the equipment room, by the clothing designer who is first knocked to the floor by an iron and subsequently stabbed heinously by a pair of scissors(..to cap off this nasty scene, the chain falls into her throat with the killer having to cut open her throat to find it; while not specifically elaborating this act, Dario uses the ripping sound of the scissors for optimum effect with the camera often retreating back to the victim's dead face). Having nowhere to turn, Inspector Alan Santini(Urbano Barberini, playing him cold and bland at Dario's request)promises to catch the psycho as Betty relies on her few remaining friends for comfort, the theater director Marco(Ian Charleson, of GHANDI & CHARIOTS OF FIRE who would later die of AIDS;A sad footnote, Dario revealed in an interview that Charleson informed him at the end of the shoot that he was HIV positive)attempting the stage after a successful horror movie career despite being rejected by critics, and pal Mira(Daria Nicolodi, Dario's former squeeze), her agent and confident. But, the serial killer is quite driven and a showdown between them will, of course, occur in the theater as Marco has added an interesting change to the production using the crows at his disposal.<br /><br />I think this is Dario at his most savage & nihilistic. Although he has certainly made later gruesome films(..such as his Masters of Horror entries and SLEEPLESS would suggest), this film really ups the ante in pure violence towards the victims of the psychopath. His method of forcing Betty to watch was admittedly a gag by Dario regarding the type of audience who like to look away from the more horrific parts of horror movies. I found myself rubbing my eyes every time she just has to blink(..brilliantly, Dario shoots the pricking from point-of-view achieving a tormenting effect from our perspective as if we were the ones with the scotch taped needles holding our eyes open). I like how Dario will show the widened eyes of Betty, horrified at what she's being forced into watching, as little blood tears down the needles when she has no choice but blink. The photographic work of Ronnie Taylor is impeccable, such as the crow's point-of-view shot in the theater at the end as it searches for the killer. Or, when the camera "travels" through rooms in the theater following the killer who wishes to see his muse from a box seat. Or, the dream sequence where we are taken into Betty's memory of an event regarding her mother's death by a certain killer, donning the same mask and gloves as the one causing her trauma at present. The highlight, in my opinion, is the peephole bullet-fire sequence, masterly staged by all involved as the camera follows a bullet which shoots through the eye of a victim, exploding from the back of her head, going through a telephone Betty planned to use to call for help. We even get a crow pecking the eyeball from the killer(..to add to this vicious scene, the crow is shown with the eyeball rolling around in it's beak). Only aspect I didn't care for, often pointed out by naysayers of the film, is the "final" ending which I personally felt was a bit unnecessary, but I guess Dario wanted to point out that Betty was indeed not like her mother, a woman with sadomasochistic tendencies which, in a twist, relate to why the killer torments our heroine. The rock music used during the violent scenes didn't bother me, because I felt that those moments of wicked graphic attacks needed a jarring thud which heavy metal can often provide. | 1 |
22,420 | [
900,
1000
] | 792 | 957 | Title: Opera (1987) Director: Dario Argento Cast: Cristina Masillach, Ian Charleson, Urbano Barberini, Daria Nicolodi Review: The only other Argento movie I had seen was Suspiria and that one blew me away with its style, colors and spooky story line. I next decided to go with Opera as I had been told it was one of his best. Man, I think I'm discovering what will ultimately be one of my favorite horror directors.<br /><br />Opera is about a young opera singer who gets her big break when the main star of a creepy modern opera take on Mc Beth gets hit by a car. Betty is the understudy so she gets to do the part herself. Too bad for her there's a psycho after her who makes her watch the brutal murders of her friends and co-workers.<br /><br />Wow, Id heard good things about this here flick, but I wasn't prepared for the level of greatness to which this film would take me. Yeah the movie has its shortcomings to which Ill get to later. But for the most part the movie blew me away.<br /><br />First off, this movie is not as filled with lots of colors as Suspiria. I was expecting it to be a bit like suspiria in that department, but no, to my surprise it had its own look and feel. The film is somehow devoid of color. It does have lots in colors in certain scenes (like the masterful kitchen/living room sequence) where Argento fills the screen with lush greens and blues, but for the most part the film has a grayish, black tone to it all through out and I liked that it had its own distinctive look.<br /><br />The real stars of this show are the incredibly well orchestrated death sequences. Wow. Every death scene was like a work of art. Beauty in destruction. These are not just your typical hack and slash death sequences, these deaths were carefully constructed to shock and get the most out of its situations. Loved every second of them, there's plenty of blood and mayhem here, but with style. Not gonna spoil em though.<br /><br />Then there's the direction. Man, there's some really original and beautiful shots on this one. I loved the inventive use of the camera on this one. You thought that Tarantinos shot in Kill Bill vol. 1 where we see the bullet coming out of the chamber of the gun was original? Well this is the movie he lifted it from! I honestly believe that Tarantino was heavily influenced by this specific movie with certain scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Heck in the making of feature he mentions that the whole scene with Beatrix in the hospital and Elle Driver coming to kill her was influenced by Italian Giallos, and here my friends is the proof of that. Anyhows, Tarantino references aside, this movie has some amazing camera shots, like those scenes of the crows flying through the crowd in the opera house...great stuff. And a main reason why Argentos becoming one of my favorites.<br /><br />The acting from most of the cast was alright, but the best by far was Cristina Marsillach as the tortured young opera singer Betty. The looks in her eyes as the murders were being committed were great. The rest of the cast was a little wooden and stiff, but nothing that would deter your enjoyment of the film.<br /><br />There were very few things I didn't like about this movie. First off logic was thrown out the window in certain scenes. Specially those involving Bettys reactions after shes seen the murders. It seem to me that for the longest time, she just went on about her business, not telling anyone about the whole thing. Not even the police. I mean if you see someone brutally murder a loved one in front of your eyes...you don't just walk away from the murder scene and continue with your life. Someone would have connected her to the murders. She might have even become a suspect herself...but no. Also the ending is a bit anti climactic. You'll have to see this to understand, but it seemed a bit unnecessary the way the film ended, it felt like it could have ended earlier. It would not have felt so redundant. But thats about it, not real big problems for me really since I was enjoying the rest of this beautiful film.<br /><br />I've still got a lot of Argento territory to cover...but I'm devouring every step of the way like if I was eating a plate of the most expensive caviar. This guys really good. I think of his films as works of art, and I've only seen two of em! Cant wait to discover the rest of his films. Argento, you the man! <br /><br />Rating: 41/2 out of 5 | 1 |
22,561 | [
900,
1000
] | 718 | 928 | It's true that "They Died With Their Boots On" gives a highly fictionalized account of George Armstrong Custer's (Errol Flynn) life and career, but a remarkable one, especially with regard to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Because it is not a given that a 1941 movie tries to portray both the US-American cavalryman and Native American leader Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) in a favorable light. I'm almost tempted to say that "Little Big Man" in its unqualified anti-Custer stance seems unbalanced by comparison. Further, one should not be mislead by the title of the picture this isn't just a movie about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, it's a movie about that shows the unreliable West Point cadet, the famed Civil War hero, the Indian fighter, and, last but not least, the husband.<br /><br />The movie begins with Custer's time at the West Point military academy, where his recalcitrance and insubordinate behavior lead to frequent demerits. During a punitive military exercise, he meets his future wife, Elizabeth Bacon (Olivia de Havilland), who, like Custer himself, is a native of Monroe, Michigan. Custer intends to court her, but the outbreak of the Civil War calls him away. Custer's legendary bravery is shown in a sequence of battle scenes, the greatest of which is devoted to his engagement with legendary Southern cavalry general Jeb Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg. While on leave, he travels to Monroe and courts Elizabeth, who promises him her hand in matrimony. Immediately after the war, Custer and Elizabeth Bacon are married.<br /><br />With the Civil War over, Custer is demoted, doesn't get a real command, and has to go through the painstakingly slow process of promotion in the small, professional American army. As he starts to drink, his wife intervenes in his behalf with former general-in-chief Winfield Scott. Custer is given the command of the US 7th Cavalry, which he trains to be an elite unit. Neither Custer nor Crazy Horse are desirous of battle, but greedy businessmen and corrupt politicians decide to build a railroad through Indian lands in clear violation to earlier treaties. Custer explicitly acknowledges the justice of Crazy Horse's cause, but rides into battle to do his duty as a soldier, exposing the conspiracy of the moneyed interests in a letter he writes on the eve of battle.<br /><br />"They Died With Their Boots On," though short on historical accuracy, is as good as war movies and Westerns in the 1940s got: Both Custer and Crazy Horse are played by major actors, neither the Indians nor the Southern Confederacy are denigrated, and the courtship scenes with beautiful Livvy de Havilland are just charming. The only minus, and that's why I can't give this picture a full 10, is the undercurrent of racism in the portrayal of African American servants; Elizabeth's servant Callie is the stereotypical, overweight, good-natured, superstitious black mammy.<br /><br />It is also interesting that the movie does not find fault with either Custer or Crazy Horse, but with the greed of the railroad companies pressuring Washington politicians with semi-criminal methods into breaking assurances they had given to the Native Americans. Just a couple of years later, the insinuation that American entrepreneurs could even think of doing anything remotely questionable would probably have been taken as a hint that the film makers were communist sympathizers.<br /><br />Needless to say that "They Died With Their Boots On" omits the fact that Custer's overly aggressive tactics often bordered on the foolhardy, greatly overstates the importance of his engagement with Stuart, and doesn't mention the lack of reconnaissance prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Nevertheless, Custer was seen as a war hero by his contemporaries and had some spectacular exploits to point to in the Battles of Brandy Station, Gettysburg, Trevilian Station and others, though his feats of arms were not as decisive for the Civil War as "They Died With Their Boots On" suggests.<br /><br />In any event, "They Died With Their Boots On" is a well-made war movie with Western elements, three outstanding performers (Flynn, Quinn, and de Havilland), and offers a positive view of Native Americans as well as a negative one on big money, which wouldn't be seen in major Hollywood productions for decades to come. It would deserve a 10 if it weren't for the racist minstrelization of African Americans. | 1 |
22,750 | [
900,
1000
] | 810 | 990 | Brain of Blood starts as Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley) the leader of a country called Kahlid is close to death because of cancer, however if he dies Kahlid will tear itself apart without anyone to lead them so doctor Robert Nigserian (Grant Williams) & one of Amir's devotees Mohammed (Zandor Vorkov) have devised a plan to take Amir's dead body to America where mad scientist Dr. Lloyd Trenton (Kent Taylor) will transplant his brain into a fresh body & with a bit of plastic surgery no-one will ever know he was even dead. Things don't go according to plan though as when the time comes to transplant Amir's brain Trenton's freak assistant Gor (John Bloom) brings a dead body of someone that fell from a balcony, Trenton needed a strong fit living body & since there's no more time he decides to use Gor's body as a temporary stop-gap until another more suitable one can be found. Unfortunately when Amir wakes up in his new body he's not very happy at what he sees, I mean would you be if you found out your brain was inside a badly burned freak?<br /><br />Also known as Brain Damage, The Brain, The Creature's Revenege & The Undying Brain this cheapo exploitation flick was produced & directed by the one & only Al Adamason & quite frankly I'm offended at the pathetic 1.5 rating Brain of Blood has on the IMDb, personally I think it's terrific fun in a so bad it's good sort of way. The highly entertaining script by Kane W. Lynn & Joe Van Rodgers is as loopy & silly as they come from sloppy blood soaked brain transplants to crazed mad scientists, from 7 foot tall acid scarred freaks who play with toy cars to 4 foot tall midget medical assistant's, from basement dungeons to rooftop chases, from car crashes to assassination's, kidnaps to screaming scantily clad women, from Regina Carrol's hair-do which should get it's own mention during the opening credits to teenage girls imprisoned in the basement for blood to a laugh-out-loud hilarious ending which includes some deep meaningful speech! It's all here & Brain of Blood has quality cheese stamped all over it, if your a fan of bad low budget exploitation flicks with a sense of fun then this film should be right at the top of your list of 'must see' films. Despite it's lowly 1.5 rating I am proud to admit that I liked Brain of Blood a lot, I thought it was an absolute hoot to watch, it slows down a bit at the end with a few too many shots of people wandering around doing nothing in particular but until that point it had moved along like a rocket, at only 85 minutes it's relatively short, it's difficult to second guess the barmy plot & I just think it's loads of campy fun.<br /><br />This is director Adamson's masterpiece as far as I'm concerned along with Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971) which he made a year before this. Those who have seen an Adamson film before will know about the none existent production values, cheap special effects & cardboard sets & that all adds to the fun, this film manages that fine between incompetence & seriousness to create a memorable viewing experience. I love the opening shot of Kahlid which is obviously just a photo of the Taj Mahal in India complete with statuesque people in the foreground! Regina Carrol's hair seems to be a separate entity on it's own, it seems to change styles between shots & is frankly horrendous, don't get me started about her make-up job either that she must apply with a a paint sprayer! There is another hilarious moment when we see Amir's body has been transported to America wrapped in what looks like ordinary tin foil, why is the question I asked myself, why!? The effects are variable, there's a terrible looking fake spider, Gor's burned make-up job is pretty bad although there is a surprisingly gory brain removal which is actually quite impressive.<br /><br />The budget for Brain of Blood must have been practically none existent, I must admit I thought Trenton's lab was quite good with various computers & medical instruments although the rest of the film looks cheap & nasty. The production values are low, the music was taken from another film Beast of Blood (1971) & the acting is awful but in a campy fun sort of way.<br /><br />Brain of Blood may have the best title for an exploitation film ever & as far as I'm concerned it's a highly entertaining piece of nonsense that I had a great time watching & laughing at. They just don't/can't/won't make them like this anymore, impossible to recommend to anyone looking for a good film but bad movie lovers should enjoy it. I liked it, but then again I'm just weird. | 1 |
22,863 | [
900,
1000
] | 781 | 974 | I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.<br /><br />And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.<br /><br />While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.<br /><br />Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.<br /><br />The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.<br /><br />It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.<br /><br />Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets. | 1 |
22,875 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 910 | I was unfamiliar with this film, until I saw it included in a list of the Top 20 Spaghetti Westerns I recently came across (following the marathon I made these last few weeks of films from the subgenre); it was auspicious, then, that the film had to turn up almost immediately on late-night Italian TV (for the first time, I'm pretty sure, in a good number of years)! <br /><br />Unfortunately, the cable reception of the channel on which it was broadcast hasn't been great lately: I recorded the film on VHS but I decided not to keep it due to this factor; as it happened, the very next day I watched the film, I found out that it was available on a Region 2 DVD from Italy (featuring an interview with uncredited scriptwriter Ernesto Gastaldi) - and, having been sufficiently impressed, I decided to order it there and then, even if I knew that I wouldn't be getting to the DVD for quite a while as I like to allow some time between one viewing of a film and the next! A brief parenthesis here: when I recently purchased a spate of Spaghetti Westerns on Italian DVD, I opted not to order Sergio Sollima's FACE TO FACE (1967), since I was under the impression that it was a bare-bones affair; however, I've just learned that the disc actually contains an interview with the director (as had been the case with THE BIG GUNDOWN [1966], which I bought). It did seem baffling to me that Sollima wouldn't offer similar contribution to that film's DVD edition when he actually considered FACE TO FACE as his favorite work (as per the director's talent bio included on the Blue Underground Region 1 disc of yet another Sollima Spaghetti Western - RUN, MAN, RUN [1968]); the trouble is that I loved THE BIG GUNDOWN so much that I followed it with a viewing of FACE TO FACE via the recording I owned made off Italian TV! I did order the DVD of that film now - especially since it's still discounted - but as I said with respect to a second look at THE PRICE OF POWER (although I may still check out Sollima's interview when the disc arrives)... <br /><br />O.K., rant over: the film under review is quite an unusual Spaghetti Western and a very interesting, indeed ambitious one at that, being a transposition of the JFK assassination case to an Old West setting! Actually, it's reminiscent of Anthony Mann's terse black-and-white thriller THE TALL TARGET (1951) - which dealt with an assassination attempt on the life of then-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. It features one of the most popular Italian stars from this subgenre, Giuliano Gemma, in what is perhaps his most impressive Western role (many of his other films tended to have a light-hearted bent). The supporting cast includes at least two other notables: Van Johnson (in one of his few and mainly unremarkable Italian films) as the American President killed in post-Civil War Dallas and Fernando Rey as the head of a conspiracy of Southerners - who not only plots his assassination but also conveniently maneuvers the new acting U.S. leader, Johnson's Vice-President, by means of blackmail! <br /><br />Benito Stefanelli also makes a good impression as a corrupt sheriff who pursues Gemma all through the picture, and with whom he's engaged a couple of times in a 'duel in the dark' - with the guns resting on the floor rather than in their respective holsters and the only light in the room provided by the end of the cowboys' cigars! Also involved is Ray Saunders as Gemma's black sidekick whom the narrative eventually turns into the doomed "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure. Stelvio Massi - who later cut his teeth, as director, on a number of poliziotteschi - is behind the film's luminous cinematography; similarly, Luis Enrique Bacalov supplies yet another great "Euro-Cult" score - which is different enough from the style of Ennio Morricone as to be equally distinguishable. Valerii's direction here may mot be as imposing as that in other Spaghetti Westerns but he handles the proceedings efficiently enough (the final gunfight is especially nicely done); the film is certainly one of the more underrated entries in the subgenre and, for those so inclined, the novelty of the plot line alone should make it one to look out for... | 1 |
22,895 | [
900,
1000
] | 786 | 998 | I don't know whether this film hits my heart the way it does because of the feelings of friendship, love, closeness to others or the warmth of that transformation Babette's cooking creates, but when the feast starts and for the rest of the movie, I choke up often. <br /><br />Yes, this is a feel-good movie, but without a speck of mawkishness or facile sentimentality. Please note that elements of the plot are discussed. Babette's Feast tells its story with restraint and care, and it lets us discover for ourselves the values of grace and love. All we need to know is that Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) was a French refugee who was given shelter by two aging sisters in a tiny community on the coast of Jutland. The sisters lead what remains of their father's flock. He was a pastor of conviction who taught that salvation comes through self-denial. The sisters made their sacrifices to duty and faith. Those who still remain honor the now long dead pastor's teachings and his spiritual guidance. Still, as they have grown older the tiny community has become querulous and argumentative. The sisters do what they can. For the pastor's 100th birthday, Babette wishes to cook the dinner for the small group the sisters will invite. The sisters reluctantly agree, but when they see the supplies Babette has ordered, they and their guests become uneasy. They are used to the community's usual fare of dried cod, boiled, and a soup made of bread, water and a little ale. Even though Babette over time has made improvements, what they are seeing now seems close to godlessness. At the dinner also will be a visitor, General Lorens Lowenhielm, who years earlier had chosen ambition over his love for one of the sisters. <br /><br />What do we experience? There is the austerity of the aging community's faith and the stone, wind-swept cottages they live in. There is the warmth by candlelight of the sisters' small, crowded dining room. And then there is the transforming power of Babette's artistry as we watch her cook, watch Erik, a young boy helping her, serve and pour, and watch the old parishioners, with the help of fine wine and exquisite cooking, gradually rediscover their community and love and friendship. The General serves as our unexpected guide because he is the only one who knows what extraordinary dishes they are eating. The General tells a story to his uncomprehending dinner companions, a story about a famed woman who was the exemplary chef at the famed Café Anglais in Paris. "...this woman, this head chef, had the ability to transform a dinner into a kind of love affair...a love affair that made no distinction between bodily appetite and spiritual appetite." He, too, is being transformed into a man who will accept what he has become and yet will always know the value and the love of what long ago he chose not to accept. An old couple kiss. Two old men remember past friendships. And Babette, who spent all that she had won in a lottery on this dinner, has had an opportunity to be the artist she once was in France, an opportunity she accepted with love and friendship. <br /><br />Babette, now as poor as she was when she arrived penniless years earlier, will continue with the sisters. The general in a carriage with his aunt returns to her estate. And the elderly guests leave the sisters' home to return to their own cottages. They pause and look at the clear night sky and the stars overhead. They spontaneously hold hands in a circle and dance and sing this hymn... <br /><br />"The clock strikes and time goes by Eternity is nigh. Let us use this time to try To serve the Lord with heart and mind. So that our true home we shall find. So that our true home we shall find." <br /><br />They smile at each other. All has been reconciled. <br /><br />Babette's Feast is a wonderful movie, full of restrained emotion, unspoken understandings, wisdom...and, of course, a meal that will leave you with a growling stomach as you exit the theater. If you win a lottery so you could afford what Babette created and have her skill and artistry, here's what she served: <br /><br />Potage a la Tortue (a rich turtle soup), served with amontillado sherry Blinis Demidoff au Caviar (small buckwheat pancakes with sour cream and caviar), served with Veuve Clicquot champagne Cailles en Sarcophage with Sauce Perigourdine (boned quail stuffed with foie gras and truffle in puff pastry with truffle sauce enriched with Madeira), served with Clos de Vougeot, a fine burgundy Salade Cheese and fresh fruit Baba au Rhum with glacee fruit and fresh figs Coffee and a fine brandy | 1 |
23,008 | [
900,
1000
] | 777 | 948 | I saw Marigold at a preview showing a few days ago, and found it to be a thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable film. The film is about a not-so-successful American actress who goes to India to act in a low budget film, only to find herself stranded there when she finds on arrival that the film's financing has vanished, along with the producers and investors. A chance encounter with an Indian film shooting nearby leads her to be hired for a small dancer role in that. Since Indian films incorporate a significant amount of singing and dancing, this is a problem for Marigold, who has two left feet, not to mention a personality so tightly wound-up and thorny that she can hardly hear the music, let alone feel it, as Prem, the choreographer of the film, advices her to do.<br /><br />But "prem" -- the word, not the person -- means "love", and Prem -- the person, not the word -- seems to embody that emotion in the way he deals with all around him, whether it be his production assistant friends who introduced Marigold to the shoot, the narcissistic and arrogant leads of the film, or the bitchy and uptight Marigold herself. Soon, under his expert tutelage and endearing treatment, Marigold finds her feet -- literally and figuratively.<br /><br />I must say a word for those not familiar with the use of song and dance in Indian films. Unlike American musicals, the story progresses through these dance numbers, as plot developments unfold, and character transformations occur in parallel with the dancing. It should also be pointed out that Indian dance is about a lot more than mere movement. An essential part of it is the enactment of the dancer's feelings and emotions while telling the story of the dance. This is the main purpose of the dance and the dancer.<br /><br />That Marigold reaches this stage of accomplishment is demonstrated in a stunning dance number about midway through, when Marigold, while performing the dance she is required to do for the film-within-the-film, also expresses her love for Prem. It is an amazing performance by Ali Larter, especially when one considers that she is not used to dancing in her films, or emoting her character's feelings via dance. It shows her skill as an actress, as well as how much hard work she has put into the role.<br /><br />Of course no romantic film can work without a credible Prince Charming. Salman Khan, who plays the role of Prem, fits the role to a T. Even when it turns out that he is a Prince not so charming, he does not lose the audience's sympathy. Salman has been ruling Hindi cinema (sometimes called Bollywood) for many years now, and it is worth remembering that his first leading role was also as Prem. He is completely charming, sweet, adorable, sexy, and vulnerable. For those who have never encountered him on screen before, be prepared to be hit with mega doses of sheer magnetism! He and Ali Larter make a lovely pair, and are as well matched in their acting as in their appearance.<br /><br />Will they manage to work out their problems? It doesn't seem possible as we hear the last song of the film, a lovely blending of fact and fantasy, reality and metaphor. The ending certainly took some of the audience I saw it with by surprise, but they were left satisfied. The songs are used very cleverly. They are in Hindi, unsubtitled, for the film-within-the-film sequences, and in English for other occasions. But their meaning is always clear from the context and choreography.<br /><br />Marigold is a very satisfying romantic comedy -- yes, there is quite a bit of humor as well in it. The Indian locations and costumes give it a fairy tale quality, befitting a story which can be likened to a modern fairy tale.<br /><br />If you are or have been curious about Indian cinema, but were hesitant to try it, this is an excellent introduction. It captures the color and vibrancy of Indian films, not only in the costumes and jewelry (which are quite impressive), but also in the lively dances and world sound music.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Ali Larter, you should watch it for her excellent acting in portraying a selfish, demanding, "high-maintanance" woman who nevertheless has an inner attraction that inspires the love of two men. If you are a girl, you will enjoy admiring Ali's lovely costumes and ogling her hunk of a leading man. If you are a guy, you can not only admire Ali in her sexy costumes, but learn from Salman Khan what it takes to bring out the loving heart even from someone as edgy as Marigold. | 1 |
23,009 | [
900,
1000
] | 800 | 976 | Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.<br /><br />It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.<br /><br />You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre the female star singing and dancing among a line of women but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.<br /><br />Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.<br /><br />As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.<br /><br />Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.<br /><br />With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore. | 1 |
23,212 | [
900,
1000
] | 738 | 920 | Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron.<br /><br />Eisenstein was a revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers.<br /><br />Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W. Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein.<br /><br />The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice.<br /><br />Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of a plate bearing the words "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread" signifies the beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging. It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era.<br /><br />The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer forever.<br /><br />The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting impression of the horror of the czarist regime.<br /><br />The death of a young mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event.<br /><br />Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago. | 1 |
23,332 | [
900,
1000
] | 737 | 967 | From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!"<br /><br />The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!<br /><br />The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!<br /><br />The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!! <br /><br />This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America" | 1 |
23,364 | [
900,
1000
] | 777 | 995 | I attended a screening of "Fierce People" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I hesitate to label it a "premiere" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of 2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was announced. Perhaps one can call it a "re-premiere?" It certainly felt as if I was witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was.<br /><br />I suppose one could characterize "Fierce People" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in. In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label. So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been "lost." It defies categorization.<br /><br />Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the Yanomani, the tribe of "Fierce People" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All their activities are built around those two "tasks," and Finn is captivated by it. Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little solitary world with his reels of film.<br /><br />One summer, Mom decides to drag Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his palatial estate. Osborne's "tribe" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids, servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider, concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this magnificent story.<br /><br />With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family.<br /><br />This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder.<br /><br />This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is breathtaking. But more than anything, "Fierce People" is Anton Yelchin's film. He has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the little-known "House of D" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's "Huff." In January, he will be seen in "Alpha Dog" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the "heart and soul"). His performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and is nothing short of spectacular.<br /><br />This complex, quirky film has remained out of sight long enough. "Fierce People" is a treasure filled with light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder. | 1 |
23,376 | [
900,
1000
] | 720 | 951 | What is often neglected about Harold Lloyd is that he was an actor. Unlike Chaplin and Keaton, Lloyd didn't have the Vaudeville/Music Hall background and he wasn't a natural comedian. He came to Hollywood to act; and he discovered he had a knack for acting funny -- first in shorts, then in features. He made a name for himself as "Lonesome Luke", a Chaplin knock-off; with the "glasses character" that made him the all-American boy rather than a grotesque, Lloyd found his stride and his movies became some of the best produced during the silent era.<br /><br />He developed a reputation as a "daredevil" in some shorts, and retained this in some of his best movies ("Safety Last", "For Heaven's Sake", "Girl Shy"). He was more popular than either Chaplin or Keaton during the twenties and he became very rich before the advent of sound.<br /><br />The first sound movies were often disasters. To get the most out of their "sound", too much dialog was used in many movies.<br /><br />Lloyd's acting skills were, after two decades, geared for silents. He didn't have a bad voice; its high pitch suited his "glasses" character. And his sound films weren't the unqualified disasters of legend. Yet silent movies had been raised to a high art (especially Lloyd's, which did not stint on budget and were extremely well-crafted); with the introduction of talkies movies had to learn to walk again and they made some missteps.<br /><br />Though he tried to move with the times and embraced sound, Lloyd's best bits from his early (overly talky) talkies were still visual -- such as the scene in "Movie Crazy" where he appears to be riding in a swank car, but actually "hitched a ride" on his bicycle.<br /><br />Trying to recapture the daredevil antics that made him famous, as he did in "Feet First", was misstep. (In "Safety Last", his best movie and the one that, deservedly or not, shoved Lloyd in the box as a "daredevil comic", he played a determined young man, climbing to the top. "Safety Last" had a natural structure that ascended to his character's scaling the side of the building. He was obviously afraid, but his fear added to the humor. In "Feet First", he arrived in a precarious building-scaling position by accident; his frantic cries for help detracted from the humor. His character was pathetic and cringing, aspiration to save his neck -- possibly an accurate statement of the 1930s, but not amusing).<br /><br />Harold Lloyd was not mired in the past, like some wacky Norma Desmond. He embraced sound and tried to take his movies in different directions, growing and changing with the industry. When "Feet First" failed he left the daredevil business and made a satire on the talking movie industry, "Movie Crazy". Just as he had to flounder through many movies as "Lonesome Luke" before carving his place in movie history with the glasses character, he had tried several directions in sound movies before hitting his stride in sound, which he did with "The Catspaw".<br /><br />In "The Catspaw" he plays a missionary's son reared in China who unwittingly gets elected mayor as a front for corrupt political interests. When he finds out the truth, he sets himself the task of cleaning up the town. Only in his early forties, Lloyd could still act the brash young man.<br /><br />Yet "The Catspaw" was another box-office failure, and Lloyd made only three more movies, including "The Milky Way". Of his chief competitors, Chaplin still had silent movies in him and Keaton was hopelessly mismanaged. "The Catspaw" and "The Milky Way" suggest Lloyd might have mastered sound comedy if he had been a little younger, or if audiences had given him the benefit of the doubt after his early sound fiascoes.<br /><br />Though the movie has been unfairly maligned about the way Lloyd's character cleaned up the town, it suits him. From his days in "shorts" Lloyd wanted to scare his audience, and the climax of "The Catspaw" achieved it yet again, in a surprising way; until the trick is revealed it appears gruesome, and then come the laughs.<br /><br />Viewed as a product of its time, "The Catspaw" is charming and funny. A very well-written sound comedy, well-acted by Lloyd. Directed by Sam Taylor, its curious blend of drama and sly humor make it look almost like a Frank Capra or Preston Sturges comedy. | 1 |
23,423 | [
900,
1000
] | 716 | 942 | In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.<br /><br />One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.<br /><br />In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs
. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.<br /><br />The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives. | 1 |
23,446 | [
900,
1000
] | 736 | 907 | The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)<br /><br />This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.<br /><br />And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices. <br /><br />In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close. <br /><br />I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.<br /><br />This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire).<br /><br />All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this ENTERTAINMENT that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.<br /><br />In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.<br /><br />Rating = 5/5 stars <br /><br />P.S. The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version. | 1 |
23,607 | [
900,
1000
] | 646 | 900 | THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league.<br /><br />THESE are the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's "acceptable" language, mores and general "standards" of "proper" behavior.<br /><br />SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films.<br /><br />COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy, feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these "Thought Police" have foisted down upon us.<br /><br />WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer & Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like. Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney, Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer.<br /><br />YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP (Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what we're talking about.<br /><br />BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941 business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of "Famous" Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula short movie.<br /><br />WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and invariably blurts out, "Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?" At this point we hear "Help! Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky.<br /><br />OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any "Great Metropolitan Newspaper". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations, have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability.<br /><br />OUR liberal stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners.<br /><br />PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past happenings that is both Historical and Humorous.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | 1 |
23,669 | [
900,
1000
] | 752 | 923 | "It all depends on how you look at it we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.<br /><br />The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goerthe most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the filmif you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.<br /><br />What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.<br /><br />At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.<br /><br />At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spiritand therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.<br /><br />At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.<br /><br />The final layer is the social commentary"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.<br /><br />To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).<br /><br />The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences. | 1 |
23,694 | [
900,
1000
] | 745 | 939 | This is a film about loneliness and how the distance physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.<br /><br />The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...<br /><br />Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.<br /><br />There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.<br /><br />Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.<br /><br />Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew
Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.<br /><br />But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.<br /><br />All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very limited conversation.<br /><br />I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him
And, I guess I was, in a sense.<br /><br />I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...<br /><br />Highly recommended for serious movie buffs. | 1 |
23,894 | [
900,
1000
] | 797 | 979 | Lights of New York was the first all-talking feature film. There had been, of course, The Jazz Singer, released in Oct. 1927 as the first feature film incorporating synchronized dialog. However, this film released in July 1928 is virtually unremembered for its place in film history. It had started out as a short, but gradually more was tacked on until - clocking in at 58 minutes - it accidentally became the first all-talking feature film. It opened to a grind house run and to Warner Bros. surprise, made over a million dollars. That was good money back in 1928.<br /><br />The plot is quite simple. Two country barbers naively buy into a barber shop on Broadway that fronts as a speak-easy for "The Hawk", a gangster. When they learn the truth they can't afford to get out, because the younger barber, Eddie, has all of his mother's money tied up in the place. Kitty is the younger barber's girlfriend, and gangster Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) has an eye for turning in his older girlfriend (Gladys Brockwell) for a newer model - chorus girl Kitty(Helene Costello). A cop is killed while trying to stop the Hawk's men from unloading a shipment of bootleg liquor, and the Hawk sees it as an opportunity to frame Eddie, thus getting Kitty for himself.<br /><br />This early talkie is loads of fun for the enthusiast of these pioneering works. Sure, the plot is elementary and the dialog stilted, but there is something you don't see much of in early talkies - background musical scoring. Vitaphone had originally been used for this very purpose, and here they are still using it for musical accompaniment along with the dialog. And there are singing and dancing numbers! The scenes in Hawk's nightclub are used as an opportunity to show off what films could never do before - musical numbers. There is even a wild-eyed emcee with some heavy makeup left over from the silent era that is a hoot to watch.<br /><br />Vitaphone could not go outdoors at this point due to the static camera booths, so the scene in the park between the two lovers Eddie and Kitty is simulated - and cheaply. The greenery looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie or perhaps a high school production of "Our Town". <br /><br />Gladys Brockwell, as the Hawk's castoff girlfriend, delivers her lines with punch. She's a real trooper considering what lines she has to deliver. To the Hawk - "So you think you can have any chicken you want and throw me back in the deck!". Huh? mixed metaphors anyone? And then there are her final lines "I've lived, and I've loved, and I've lost!" Did someone get paid to write this dialog? Brockwell was making a good success of her talkie career after scoring some triumphs in silent films (the evil sister in "Seventh Heaven"), when a fatal car accident cut her career short.<br /><br />Then there is Eugene Palette - the older of the two barbers in our story. His frog voice, natural delivery of lines, and cuddly appearance gave him a long career as a character actor usually appearing as a put-upon family man/businessman with a gruff exterior and heart of gold. In fact, Mr. Palette is the only member of this cast who still has a notable career in films just three years after this movie is released.<br /><br />Finally there is the question of "where is that microphone hidden?" Microphones were still stationary at this point, and it's fun to figure out where they've hidden it. There is one famous scene, though, where everybody can pretty much figure it out. Hawk is in his office talking to his two henchman - who seem to comprehend as slowly as they talk - about "taking Eddie for a ride". If you watch this scene you'd swear the phone on the desk is a character in this film. It's front and center during the whole conversation. The microphone is likely planted in the phone.<br /><br />There is something heroic about these pioneers flying blind in the face of the new technology of sound. You have silent actors who are accustomed to using pantomime for expression, vaudevillians who know how to play to a live audience but don't know how to make the same impression on a Vitaphone camera booth, and you have dialog writers either trying to write conversation as compactly as they did title cards or filling up films with endless chatter. <br /><br />Check this one out. It is not boring, moves fast, and is loads of fun if you know what to look for. And no, I don't expect this one to ever be out on Blu-Ray, but I hope that the folks at Warner Brothers add it to the Warner Archive soon so everyone can see it. | 1 |
24,048 | [
900,
1000
] | 736 | 981 | First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...<br /><br />First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs. restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each "chapter":<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick. <br /><br />The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.<br /><br />REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...<br /><br />And RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole feature...<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive", "violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5/10 | 1 |
24,059 | [
900,
1000
] | 687 | 959 | Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.<br /><br />As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.<br /><br />I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.<br /><br />*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.<br /><br />The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).<br /><br />The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.<br /><br />The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.<br /><br />Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction. | 1 |
24,076 | [
900,
1000
] | 844 | 997 | I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident. <br /><br />Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as "Into the Sea" and not as some suggest "Out to sea", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.<br /><br />However, before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.<br /><br />I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting "Mar adentro", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.<br /><br />Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die "legally", which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around. | 1 |
24,077 | [
900,
1000
] | 730 | 918 | Alejandro Amenabar, the young and talented Spanish director, clearly shows us he is a serious film maker. Anyone doubting it, should have a look at his latest film "The Sea Inside". This is a movie that has been rewarded with numerous accolades, not only in Spain, but throughout the world, wherever this wonderful movie has been shown.<br /><br />If you have not seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.<br /><br />Ramon Sampedro is a man confined to bed. Being quadriplegic, he depends on the kindness of strangers for everything. Since his accident, Ramon only thinks in one thing alone: how to end his life! This is the moral issue at the center of the story, based on the real Ramon Sampedro's life.<br /><br />Mr. Amenabar tells the story from Ramon's point of view. There is nothing here that is false or manipulative on his part. After all, he relies on facts that were well known in his country as this case became a "cause celebre" in favor of euthanasia, a theme that no one in that country wanted to deal with in Spain.<br /><br />With its background of being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, Spain has evolved into one of the most democratic societies in Europe, a distinction that is more notable because of its long years dominated by a dictator. Yet, in spite of the advances in that society, the idea of taking one's own life, is something not clearly understood by the majority of its citizens, who still considered this subject as something that could not be done in their country.<br /><br />Ramon Sampedro was a man that loved life. He lived an intense life as a young man when he enlisted as a sailor to discover the world. Having no money, this was the only way for him to see other lands, experience other cultures. Ramon's love affair with the sea, is something that people in Galicia learn to love from their childhood. Imagine how that same friendly sea is the one that takes away Ramon's life, as he knew it! In a second, Ramon goes from a vibrant young man into a vegetable!<br /><br />Ramon's family is shattered by the experience. Suddenly they must leave everything aside to take care of him at home. His brother and sister-in-law, are stoic people that deal with the situation as a matter of fact. Their lives become something of an afterthought, because Ramon's life comes first. They tend to the sick man without protesting, or blaming Ramon for the sacrifices they must make to keep him alive.<br /><br />That is why, in their minds, the Sampedros can't comprehend Ramon's wishes to end it all. Haven't they given up having a normal life to take care of him? This moral issue weighs heavily on these uncomplicated and simple people because in their minds, they are doing what came naturally.<br /><br />The second subject of the movie is the legal issue of the euthanasia and the well meaning people that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their desire to help him put an end to his suffering. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare malady. There is Rosa, the fish cannery worker who becomes infatuated with Ramon. <br /><br />Javier Bardem, makes a brilliant Ramon Sampedro. His transformation is total. We don't doubt from one moment he is no one else but the paralyzed man on that bed. Mr. Bardem can only use his face in order to convey all the emotions trapped inside Ramon. Mr. Bardem makes this man real. This is perhaps Javier Bardem's best role of his career. He surpasses his own award winning performance as Reynaldo Arenas, the late Cuban poet he portrayed in "Before Night Falls". <br /><br />In the supporting roles, Belen Rueda, makes an impressive appearance as Julia, the woman fighting her own physical problems. Lola Duenas is also effective as Rosa, the kindred soul that loves Ramon deeply. Celso Bugallo, as Ramon's brother shows a man at a crossroads of his own life. Mabel Rivera makes a compassionate Manuela, the sister-in-law that never asks anything of life, but tends to Ramon without questioning why she has to do it, at all.<br /><br />Mr. Amenabar also has composed the haunting music score for the film. He is a man that never cease to surprise. One wonders what his next project will be, but one wishes him success in whatever he might decide to do in the future. | 1 |
24,183 | [
900,
1000
] | 785 | 955 | After many, many years I saw again this beautiful love story, thinking about how would I, half a century after, react to a film which made so many girls cry and sigh at that time, when I was just an male adolescent trying to understand women's behaviors, in a small city in Brazil.<br /><br />This time, however, what caught my attention in the film was something very different, namely the insistence with which the physician Dr. Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) makes clear to the journalist Mark Elliott (William Holden) her special ethically condition as an Eurasian. In fact, she is constantly putting emphasis on this point in their relationship, repeating she is willing to assume her love for him and carry it on in a "occidental way", provided that, by doing so, she is not betraying her Chinese side. Its seems to the spectator that Suyin is eagerly making efforts to establish a very subtle conciliation between those two unstable and opposite aspects of her culture, for they will immediately engage in overt conflict in her mind at a minimum failure in her attempts to control them.<br /><br />Therefore, Suyin's attitudes always leave poor Elliott a determined, brave and extremely practical man anxious and perplexed, without knowing how much importance to give to her words. For him, whose love for her is plain and simple, the situation is totally clear: if we love each other, let us make a couple and begin immediately a life together. "Not so fast", is what she seems, verbally and non-verbally, to answer him all the time.<br /><br />In fact, Suyin's Chinese portion would never allow her such a level of pragmatism. And, as she goes on and on reinforcing this much aimed equilibrium between those two worlds inside herself, she also frequently signals to him that also a very peculiar trait of Chinese culture is deeply rooted in her mind, namely the constant "raids" on the real world by invisible beings from an spiritual or non-physical world. For Suyin is always alerting Elliott about how dangerous is life, not because of any objective and concrete threat (as would be the perpetuation of the English colonialism or the eminence of a Japanese invasion), but due to the threats of plenty of cruel and harmful gods and other mystical and mythical beings over the poor, fearful and vulnerable human beings.<br /><br />In fact, it looks like a whole bunch of Chinese deities are permanently on the watch to make people's life totally miserable. Because of that, mothers must dress their precious male babies in girls clothes, so that they are not taken away by jealous gods; everyone should always be ready to make loud noises to send the clouds away, in order to avoid their covering the sight of the moon; peasants are advised that they should shout loudly "The rice is bad! The rice is bad!" to protect their crops from being stolen by deities; and, in a funeral, it is recommended that the dead's family be isolated from the other people by curtains, so that the gods don't take advantage of their sorrow and fragility.<br /><br />In other words, Suyin introduces us to a culture in which the supernatural has a real existence, as if a rather disturbing pantheon of malign and sadistic gods are always on the verge of negatively interfering with the most banal acts in anyone's daily life.<br /><br />As the story takes place in Hong Kong in 1949, it should be clear that China really was, at that time, almost a semi-feudal society, while the country from which Elliott had come from was not yet dominated by the fierce capitalism that, launched by the USA after the first oil shock in 1973, took charge of the whole world. Therefore, at least in one aspect, both sides of Suyin's Eurasian personality were still much more innocent than they would be today.<br /><br />A lot of History came into being since those old days. As to China, the main fact is that, after several phases of a communist regime, the country finally reached, in the last two decades, the condition of a very aggressive economy much more properly described as State capitalism. And, what happened to that old spirituality that so much enthralled Suyin in Hong Kong, in 1949, and with which she used to impress so much an impassioned Elliott, under that tree on the hill behind the hospital? It is gone, completely gone! In brief, if that story took place today, Elliott would not find it necessary to go to China to propose to Suyin in the presence of the Third Uncle and her entire family. In fact, both men would now be incomparably closer to one another, in their huge pragmatism, talking business as usual! | 1 |
24,209 | [
900,
1000
] | 707 | 932 | "Sharky's Machine" is clearly a Burt Reynolds vehicle designed to allow the star room to strut his talents and he spray-paints the machine, the film plot, with colors from other films and other styles, offering a variety of moods within a nourish story.<br /><br />Made in 1981 at 119 minutes (lengthy for the time period), the film did well, with box office grosses at $37,800,000. It had a lot going for it: Burt Reynolds actor and director, a solid one-two punch; a William Diel novel adaptation, and the south land of Atlanta Georgia, at this time, a land of opportunity for film production out of Hollywood.<br /><br />Reynolds' Tom Sharky falling in love with Rachel Ward's Dominoe the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold is here echoed as it was in "Hustle" when he played opposite Catherine Deneuve, and that film also had a corrupt politician at its core, but with downbeat ending not the Hollywood happiness in "Sharky's Machine".<br /><br />The story is pure Detective procedure/actioner. Sharky a narcotics detective mismanages up a bust of a drug dealer, causing the killing of some innocent bystanders, and gets demoted, literally transferred downstairs to vice, to deal with perverts, and other m misdemeanors that 'upstanding' cops consider latrine duty. His new digs offers him the chance to meet many equally upstanding officers who are doing the dirty jobs no one else wants. When some attention is pointed toward a certain pimp Sharky looks over some evidence and discovers that one particular prostitute Dominoe (Rachel Ward) - Dominoe is being shielded by police forces and political forces and Sharky sets himself up a 24-hour surveillance force to watch her. During the time he watches he learns that the current Governor-elect Hotchkins (Earl Holliman) is visiting Dominoe, as is a slick Italian gangster Victor (Vittorio Gassman). Before the police can build a case with the evidence, Billy, Victor's brother, a coke-snorting gunman (Henry Silva) shoots through the door of Dominoe's apartment seemingly killing the beautiful Dominoe, but when Sharky discovers that the murdered victim was actually a roommate Tiffany (Aarika Wells) Sharky confronts Victor and tells him that he is going to have him arrested. Sharky is captured by some Ninja killers lead by Smiley (Darryl Hickman) and is tortured for information to lead to Dominoe, but Sharky overpowers them and arrests the Governor and in a heated chase kills Billy after he has killed Victor.<br /><br />Reynolds wants to exhibit the inner workings of a hardened policemen falling in love, but the police-story plot, flavored with noir element, and Reynolds ability at cinematic development tends to slick over the dynamics of the relationships.<br /><br />We come to learn something about some of the men and this leads us to reason why they are working towards their pensions in vice, instead of fighting real crime- this element of the film seems sketchy under Reynolds' off-handed direction and performance.<br /><br />There is always uniqueness to a Reynolds film. He likes to hire stars, either character actors or others and then allow them to improvise, sometimes with varying results.<br /><br />With his crew in "Sharky's Machine" he gets some fine moments, and sometimes some overblown grandstanding but always a sense of ensemble and good-natured-ness. With Reynolds as auteur it works.<br /><br />Reynolds, the actor/auteur always seems to be smirking at himself and the viewer as if to say it's all fake, but good fun.<br /><br />Great line: In the scene with Victor when Sharky throws down the gauntlet "You're walkin' all over people like you own 'em ,and you wanna know the worst part? You're from out of state." This seems to be the greatest insult the officer can throw at a criminal.<br /><br />Reynolds made the film in Atlanta at his career point have shot himself reading the phone book and would have surely targeted and demographic.<br /><br />The film did mark the appearance of Rachel Ward who was nominated as New Star of the Year in 1981 by the Golden Globe.<br /><br />Reynolds has always had presence and star power and has chosen to make films close to home, Georgia.<br /><br />I got my DVD from half.com for $7.99 and unfortunately it doesn't contain any commentary or making-of features, which is a shame. Maybe the next generation will have them.<br /><br />The movie is still a lot of fun and both Reynolds and Ward are great-looking actors in their prime. | 1 |
24,358 | [
900,
1000
] | 745 | 915 | I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.<br /><br />This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.<br /><br />Right, you say. Another one of "those". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way "hollywoody". It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his "tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.<br /><br />The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.<br /><br />I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the "official" after-school specials put together.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.<br /><br />All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see. | 1 |
24,460 | [
900,
1000
] | 738 | 943 | When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with unusual intelligence. The other is an "Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal", or "OXCOM". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track them down.<br /><br />Many comments are made about Watchers being very different than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book. Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is (that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork. It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your preconceptions/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read Koontz' novel.<br /><br />So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not excellent. Good enough to earn a "B", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile. Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey.<br /><br />Veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist.<br /><br />The biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the "attack" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and/or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature costume/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9.<br /><br />Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect, if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception. | 1 |
24,654 | [
900,
1000
] | 747 | 949 | The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.<br /><br />Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).<br /><br />There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.<br /><br />The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.<br /><br />One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador. | 1 |
24,725 | [
900,
1000
] | 805 | 979 | This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of "Surface", a television show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects. <br /><br />Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a disappointment. "Surface" was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging. <br /><br />It is basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a television blend of "Jurassic Park" and "ET". The story begins as a puzzle as a crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be seen again). <br /><br />Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it hatches into an "ET" type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent, extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect their origin it all gets very tired and predictable. <br /><br />Jay R. Ferguson (a staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the Richard Dreyfuss character from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", so you know that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode. Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff "Jason Bourne" gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-day actuarial conference. <br /><br />Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent "Gossip Girl" fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance of this to their "teenage boy" target audience and the one positive thing they did with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a "first love" interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is gradually phased in. <br /><br />In retrospect they needed a third storyline to keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | 1 |
24,995 | [
900,
1000
] | 739 | 906 | Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth, former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that right now... so just watch the damn movie.<br /><br />Second thing I love was the humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the "corpse burrito" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair..<br /><br />The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing, but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a lot of replay.<br /><br />The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the 80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions Gate. | 1 |
117 | [
1200,
1300
] | 980 | 1,242 | Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release. | 0 |
387 | [
1200,
1300
] | 981 | 1,214 | The recent death of Stephen Bach, one of the producers of HEAVEN'S GATE, has raised the specter of at least a partial resurrection of the reputation of the cursed film. Moreover the original release, the "long version" was recently shown on TCM exposing the film, in ail probability, to its largest audience ever. <br /><br />I saw the film when it first came out at a packed screening in a 3rd Avenue cinema across the street from Bloomingdales. I think it was released on a Friday and withdrawn on the following Wednesday. Maybe that wasn't a fair release but it was and is a terrible film. Seeing the full-length version recently confirmed that judgment and with some thirty years more experience watching and writing about films I am better able to articulate why.<br /><br />First there is the dreaded phrase "mise-en-scene" whose definition is at the same time so simple yet so amorphous that it puzzles even after being defined. Basically it's everything that happens in front of a camera. For example, a crowd extra will be given a piece of action, say just walking by on the sidewalk and a spot to start from. When the assistant director yells action the extra will go through their action. If there's another take the extra will return to the start spot and go again on "action". All of the extras do this. Then say a cab drives up to the sidewalk and the star gets out and embraces another principal while all the while the crowd extras are doing their thing. This is mise-en-scene. In the theatre they call it blocking but cinema is far more multi-dimensional.<br /><br />The importance of defining mise-en-scene is because when the French critics developed their theory of the auteur the opposite of an auteur was a métier-en-scene, even more derogatorily referred to as a "traffic cop". An auteur was intimately involved in the meaning of a film and through the director's body of work a theme or themes discerned. The metier-en-scene was basically a company man rendering in film what had been handed to him on paper. It is the difference between say John Ford and Sam Wood.<br /><br />The second point is how the director, Michael Cimino, got into the position of directing films. Cimino first gained prominence directing the first million-dollar TV commercial. This depicted a Chevrolet floating down the Grand Canal in Venice. This commercial never appears on any lists of greatest TV commercials of all time and is notable solely because of how expensive it was and how utterly exaggerated it was. The effect is like that of a three year old girl brought out to entertain company who gets her biggest response when she flings her dress over her head. Cute for a three year old, embarrassing for a thirty year old. So Cimino was praised early on for spending a huge amount of money for some over-the-top image and so he learned.<br /><br />His first film, THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT (1974) has a scene where Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are passengers in a lunatic's car that drives back and forth, back and forth, until it drives off the road and the driver opens the trunk full of rabbits which he proceeds to shoot one by one. I had the feeling that if the producer, Eastwood, hadn't stepped in, that the scene would have lasted until every rabbit had been killed.<br /><br />Which brings us to HEAVEN'S GATE. I guess if one watches the film on a DVD in snatches like a mini-series it can be impressive. This is because scenes are directed with such a dense mise-en-scene that each scene is like an encyclopedia it's just plain exhausting to sit through nearly four hours of this. Its like sex, at some point it just becomes a whipping. There is the opening 40 minutes, which takes place at Harvard. Brilliantly photographed at Oxford, it is something of a non-sequitur. I personally favor the artistic way of unfolding a story as opposed to the more commercial _"Now I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna tell you" of most films. However the whole preface adds up to only one line- Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt went to Harvard together. Now twenty years later
All of that time, money and effort, not to mention all of the audiences' attention and energy just to deliver this almost useless piece of information.<br /><br />Then there's the scene in the street between Kristofferson and Masur which just goes on and on with a populated city of background extras and horse drawn vehicles in the background in continuous motion to deliver a tiny bit of expositional information. It's just so exhausting. There is just one scene after another like this. It's like trying to eat a thirty- pound pizza. Then there are these long conversations of inconsequential details and unintelligible, witless dialogue, which go on and on and are exhausting and boring. <br /><br />Of course any single scene excerpted looks brilliant. Overall it's a rich piece to spin praiseworthy articles about. Seen in snatches with the possibility of fast-forwarding through the boring bits or turning it off if feeling mise-en-scene whipped, it's basically painless. But don't let anybody tell you it's a good film. When I saw it in 1980 there was a guy sitting in front of me who commented on the scene where Kris Kristofferson is on his horse and he turns one way and then the other and does this about six times. "That's symbolic," he said, "of he doesn't know which way to go." That is basically, at its kernel, the basis of every pro- Heaven's Gate critique.<br /><br />Watch it, if you must, but be forewarned, this is not a film whose time has come, this is a stinker which will smell for all time. <br /><br />HEAVEN'S GATE is historically inaccurate in the extreme. I recommend the book BANDITTI OF THE PLAINS by Asa Mercer on the Johnson County War. | 0 |
443 | [
1200,
1300
] | 979 | 1,263 | Rose Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?<br /><br />The End of the World A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.<br /><br />The Unquiet Dead Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.<br /><br />Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.<br /><br />Dalek Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.<br /><br />The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.<br /><br />Father's Day The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.<br /><br />The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing. <br /><br />Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.<br /><br />Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.<br /><br />The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.<br /><br />So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?<br /><br />Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.<br /><br />Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre. | 0 |
722 | [
1200,
1300
] | 984 | 1,208 | Last fall (of 2001), I took a film class that was taught by the director of this movie (Mark Hoeger). His vast knowledge of filmmaking, his ability to dissect any scene of a film, and his winning of an Academy Award in some obscure category seemed to give him more credibility than your average independent film director. When he mentioned during one of his classes that he had just finished directing a film called "Full Ride" and was in the post-production stages, my interest was piqued. However, that would be the last I would ever hear of that film project. Until last week...<br /><br />Last week, I saw in a TV listing that "Full Ride" was going to be showing on the WB network. This immediately raised a red flag, as I can't help but associate WB with teensploitation shows such as Dawson's Creek, Charmed, etc. PLUS, the fact that Full Ride was going to be released straight to TV wasn't too flattering in itself. But, nevertheless, I set aside that time and sat down to watch my former film teacher's creation.<br /><br />After two hours passed and the end credits began to roll, I thought long and hard about what I had just seen. What I had just seen was a typical WB-quality show stretched out to the length of two hours. In fact, it almost seemed as if this movie was made with the sole intent of only showing on the WB network. Critiquing this movie will basically be like critiquing a typical WB show.<br /><br />Where to begin? The characters are shallow, the story is cliche in every sense of the word, the scenes are completely contrived, and the character development is forced and unbelievable. This movie just screams `unoriginal.'<br /><br />The main character, Matt Sabo, is some hot shot from the wrong side of the tracks (literally) who plays solid high school football as a fullback, but then fizzles off into a life of crime. He is then offered a chance at a full ride scholarship instead of going to jail. Obviously, without much of a choice, he agrees to play football with an all-star football team, but is not excepted among his peers because of his poor team spirit and bad attitude.<br /><br />Then comes the love interest. Of course! Where would this predictable fanfare be without a love interest? She comes in the form of Amy Lear (played by the beautiful Meredith Monroe). She is actually a likable character, as opposed to the ever-so-abrasive Matt Sabo, so we almost applaud her when she rejects him at first. But, of course, the inevitable comes to pass. She falls for him, changes his attitude towards everything, and all seems good and happy. But now it's time for conflict!<br /><br />Earlier in the movie, Amy makes it clear to Matt that she doesn't want to score with him, because it would be `shameful' to her and her mother. This is much to Matt's dismay, and his football buddies (yes, they eventually warm up to him) who bet him he wouldn't get any. But, of course, Matt eventually comes to accept these terms and decides he's not all about the nookie. Here's where the exciting plot thickens. If you don't want me to ruin this surprise, then skip ahead.<br /><br />[BEGIN SPOILER]<br /><br />Matt finds out from some local guys that apparently Amy Lear always tries to score with a guy each year from the All-Star team so that she can try to use him to escape her small town life of working in a cafeteria (which is baffling in the first place) and make it to the big city. Suddenly realizing he's been used and that his love was a sham, Matt it tempted to turn back to a life of crime and leave the football camp before `the big game.' Amy tries to reassure him that she was really in love this time, but he's too hot-headed to buy it. So what will Matt do? Will he take her back? Or will he go back to robbing gas stations and being an all-round jerk? I won't ruin the super-ultra-surprising ending for you.<br /><br />[END SPOILER]<br /><br />So, if I somehow got you pumped up for this movie, please realize that that was my sarcasm and not genuine enthusiasm. This movie is an uninspired version of `Varsity Blues' or `Summer Catch.' And that's not saying much. There's hardly any comedy to save it and the characters are too shallow to care about. So what do you have left? Not a whole lot.<br /><br />What I most disliked about the movie was how much of an unflattering picture Hoeger painted of Nebraska through this film. It seems like he was trying to capture the essence of rural Nebraska and teenage life in the small towns, but his approach is all too stereotypical and shallow. The characters' high hopes for making in `the big city' and the actions they take to do so are greatly exaggerated, and it only further cements the stereotype of Nebraskans being a bunch of hicks living in farm communities. I am unsure of whether or not Hoeger's intentions were good in trying to put his home state in the spotlight, but I think he ended up with a very shameful product. If Hoeger wanted to portray Nebraska in a favorable light, he should have taken a note or two from Alexander Payne. While Payne simply chooses to use Nebraska as a backdrop for his films, Hoeger integrates it into the plot of Full Ride and becomes so entangled in his awareness of where he's shooting, that he ends up churning out superficial garbage that would seem to come from an outsider. If Hoeger actually lived here, you'd think he'd know better than that.<br /><br />All in all, I am completely disappointed in Hoeger's first big film, and I hope that next time he can combine his knowledge with a little bit of originality to create something different and thought-provoking. | 0 |
862 | [
1200,
1300
] | 960 | 1,223 | Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).<br /><br />One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.<br /><br />The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.<br /><br />Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.<br /><br />Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. "You've already pushed the button," he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).<br /><br />At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.<br /><br />Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.<br /><br />It's confusing, I know.<br /><br />We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.<br /><br />And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.<br /><br />'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.<br /><br />There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.<br /><br />Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels. | 0 |
1,414 | [
1200,
1300
] | 974 | 1,203 | First of all, season 1 is intolerably bad. The prison is ridiculously unrealistic, the characters are so two dimensional they're nearly transparent, and the direction is terrible. It runs like a bad video of a junior high school play, characters wandering past the camera and uttering highly timed and rehearsed lines, passing off as random prison talk. Soon the show gets better, but not by much. The return from the commercial break is always accompanied by some ridiculous monologue by wheelchair-bound Augustus Hill, who is played impressively by Harold Perrineau. The only time his character is consistently bad is during the bad performance art monologues, most of which take place in an inexplicable rotating glass cube and generally have nothing to do with what's taking place in the show.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the bad ideas in Oz could fill an encyclopedia of several volumes. Consider the whole situation, first of all. Prisoners are able to hang out in plain sight getting drunk, doing drugs, and they not only have CD players (CDs?? They might as well pass out steak knives), but all incoming mail is thoroughly examined by PRISONERS. Christ, the place is like a men's club with guards. Guards that don't do much. <br /><br />Near the end of season two, an older prisoner's grandson is diagnosed with leukemia, and all of the prisoners pitch in thick wads of $20 and $50 bills to help send him to Disneyworld to fulfill his dying wish. These have to be the richest prisoners in the world. Every single prisoner in Oz all of a sudden became caring, loving guys except Kenny Wangler, an irritating character but one of the only ones who is consistently convincing. Even Adibisi wanted to be nice. But that's okay, because there is no order or sense in the show, so even this is not much of a distraction.<br /><br />Later, shockingly, there is a boxing scene in which one inmate is wearing an "I Love Cops" t- shirt. In prison!! Can you imagine?? I have a cousin who was in prison a few years ago. I sent him an old picture of us with some friends in high school, and in the picture, one of my friends was holding an "I Love Cops" bumper sticker, and one of "the woods" (guys who have been in prison for years and years) saw the picture but just grabbed it and ripped it to shreds. My cousin got lucky. <br /><br />Kenny Wangler also constantly berates the guards and even more senior officers for not calling him Bricks. One of them even tried to bribe him to go to an English class. You may lose track of who is in charge, the prisoners or the guards. More than one investigator, for example, goes into the prison undercover and gets killed trying to stop the drug trade. Personally I would just stop letting prisoners inspect incoming mail rather than risk the lives of investigators. <br /><br />Let's see, what else? Shillinger's son OD's in solitary and no one thinks to ask the guard how he got the drugs. He just...got them, I guess. And make sure to pay attention, otherwise you'll miss the reason why the prisoners have enough money to be able to afford ascellular dermal grafts when they get bad gums. I didn't know guests in maximum security prisons were afforded such luxurious treatment options. How about this, when Robson asks about Dr. Faraj's schedule so he can ask what race of gums he was given, Faraj is so terrified that he goes to the warden and quits his job on the spot. Do doctors and dentists not have the right to request not to see certain prisoners? After Poet and O'Reilly make the announcement to the entire prison, Robson asks to see Dr. Faraj, and is escorted to his office, brought in without knocking, and the guard promptly leaves without a word. They might as well give him a gun.<br /><br />I shouldn't go on about stupid ideas in this show, but it's like a flood, I can't stop it. Who thought of the Chinese refugees who can't speak Chinese and who disappear en masse from sight unless they're needed? Who thought of the goofy religious wars and all the reverend prisoners? Who though of Robson's gum transplant? What's the deal with Busmalis and Agamemnon? Agamemnon because he clearly doesn't belong in prison and Busmalis because of the whole thing with his grandson. Macbeth, because it was nothing but a ridiculous means to an end, as it were. <br /><br />But what are the worst ideas? Things that go nowhere, which are constant. An Irish man comes to the prison and builds a bomb. He threatens to blow up the entire prison, the bomb turns out to be a dud, and the episode ends with him being led away by the bomb squad after the entire prison is evacuated. Nothing is ever heard from him or about the whole situation again. It's like it never happened. In one episode, prisoners are given dogs to train. What the hell?? If that wasn't bad enough, during one training session, a guard fires his gun inside the prison walls as a training exercise. No one seems to mind.<br /><br />I also like how anytime some kind of altercation breaks out, the culprits are pulled aside, they don't say anything, and the guards or warden or sister Pete or whoever always says, "I hope you don't think I'm gonna let this go!!" And then they walk away and let it go. The audience won't remember. <br /><br />Maybe I'm spoiled by Prison Break, but Oz is just a goofy prison drama that might be better as a play. A short one. At least a low-budget movie. There is just not enough here to sustain a multi-season TV show. Then again, I watched six seasons of it on DVD. Sometimes I don't understand myself... | 0 |
1,614 | [
1200,
1300
] | 944 | 1,207 | This is the dreary tale of the self absorbed affair between two unlikable people, one of whom is married to someone else. It ranks high on my list of most boring movies ever, and I'm a die hard romantic. My husband opted out after the first hour of its three, by which time little had transpired. The desert scenery is spectacular, with the endless sand and the sunshine on Katharine's golden hair. However, cinematography does not a brilliant film make, unless it's a National Geographic travelogue. The magnificent Saharan scenery in this ill conceived tale is like putting perfume on a pig.<br /><br />The movie revolves around a badly burned, dying pilot named Count Laszlo de Almasy, who is left in the care of a Canadian army nurse, Hana, during World War II Italy. He appears to remember little of his life but through a book in his possession, his story is VERY SLOWLY revealed, with the help of a man from his past named Caravaggio, who mysteriously appears at his deathbed. Almasy was a Hungarian cartographer employed by the Royal Geographical Society to chart the Sahara Desert. He entered into an affair with the wife, Katherine, of a fellow explorer who proved to be a British spy. Meanwhile in the present, Laszlo's nurse has her own affair with a Sikh nicknamed Kip, who is involved in the dangerous work of disarming mines.<br /><br />My quarrels with this movie are many, length and tedium for starters. I don't fault the acting in particular, it simply isn't a good story. Caravaggio seems unnecessary, his connection to Almasy sketchy. He provides a torture scene but appears to serve no essential purpose in the film.<br /><br />The core problem is that the two parties of this affair, Almasy and Katharine, are woefully unsympathetic characters, shallow and dull. They simply aren't very nice, thus there is no one to cheer for. Almasy is cool, aloof, haughty, and eventually disgustingly possessive of another man's wife. Katharine is likewise detached and nasty, not to mention having a deplorable lack of guilt or feeling whatsoever for her imperfect but loving husband...apart from managing one minuscule tear at the corner of her eye when he dies. <br /><br />This is a tale of LUST rather than love, with such pearls as 'I can still taste you'. Almasy ridiculously vocalizes to a colleague his erotic obsession with the indentation in his beloved's neck, surely more indicative of a focus on Katharine's body. The victim of this unrepentant adultery is the hapless husband, Geoffrey, who is treated as little more than an unpleasant nuisance. It's all quite sordid and disgusting, Katharine's charade of feeling faint so that these lovers can indulge in their much vaunted unbridled passion, all as Silent Night is being sung in the background. I'm not sure whether the intent was to contrast the carol's purity with their selfish lust, but I definitely was not impressed by the sacrilegious undertone. We have full frontal nudity with Katharine, but their sex scenes come across as cold, selfish, lustful, and sometimes downright hateful...not warm, loving, giving, nor even truly passionate. If either of these two feels any emotion for the other, it is a totally selfish one and definitely NOT love, as I define the word.<br /><br />Almasy's return to the Cave of the Swimmers to retrieve the body of his beloved comes across as contrived rather than moving. Katharine must have expired only moments earlier as she shows excellent colour and barely appears dozing, not at all corpse like. Of course this is all for dramatic effect, as the romantics watching this tale (normally I'd be one of them) would not appreciate a decaying, putrid corpse. In order to retrieve his adulterous lover's body, he has betrayed his comrades & the Allies by giving his maps to the Nazis, the English being cast as the villains of the piece. Regardless of whether or not he's keeping his final promise to Katharine, his traitorous act is not something I admire much. <br /><br />Kip seems a pleasant fellow and Hana generally likable, but their romance is not in the least engaging, merely a brief wartime fling with the parties indicating little trauma upon parting. Moving back and forth between the two settings (past Sahara Desert and present Italy) proved distracting and unpleasant but really, both stories were dull as dishwater. The only spark of interest in the whole picture was Kip's tense mine disarming scene.<br /><br />Not being totally heartless, I did have some sympathy for the current Almasy's severely burned and dying state. However, perhaps my major complaint with this film is the euthanasia at the end when Hana obliges her patient by giving him a morphine overdose. We are supposed to feel that this is justified and morally acceptable because she obviously has affection for Almasy, cries while she is preparing the deadly syringe, and reads aloud from his allegedly passionate Herodotus book to console him as he's dying. <br /><br />The amazing director David Lean's masterpieces should not be insulted by comparison with this pathetic, immoral tale. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia also has a desert, but in Lean films (Doctor Zhivago, Brief Encounter), those engaging in affairs are sympathetic characters exhibiting admirable restraint, guilt, and some regard for the betrayed spouse, as opposed to the total self absorption of this pair. In Ryan's Daughter, the cuckold husband displays touching loyalty and forgiveness. <br /><br />This movie is a supposedly intellectual, enormously over rated bit of boring and disgusting drivel that unfortunately passes itself off as a great love story. Its Best Picture Oscar does not speak well for the Academy. For those who wonder why people are so hard on this movie, the answer is simple. It's awful. | 0 |
1,933 | [
1200,
1300
] | 976 | 1,250 | It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching "The Wind." Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting "ad peliculam" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.<br /><br />To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked "Cold Hearts", "Midnight Mass," "Jugular Wine," etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated "The Wind."<br /><br />The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. <br /><br />Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the "lambent sex goddess," or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.<br /><br />Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the "atrocities" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.<br /><br />The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either. <br /><br />As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure "shock" and/or "dangerous art" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from "mediocrity warranting criticism" to "film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue."<br /><br />So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition. | 0 |
1,951 | [
1200,
1300
] | 953 | 1,238 | A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.<br /><br />Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.<br /><br />Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.<br /><br />This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.<br /><br />So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.<br /><br />I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well
.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.<br /><br />This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.<br /><br />There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.<br /><br />Poor Udo Kier. | 0 |
1,953 | [
1200,
1300
] | 995 | 1,260 | Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing "Dracula's Revenge" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship "The Demeter" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.<br /><br />****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word "ass" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a "from DA hood" accent (this is the year 3000, does "DA hood" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.<br /><br />The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.<br /><br />During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) "this is disconcerting". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting "bugger", and "We're all going to die" X 100, follows.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, "don't eye me up unless I tell you too", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.<br /><br />After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for "crimes against fashion" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours "holodeck"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was. | 0 |
2,045 | [
1200,
1300
] | 962 | 1,205 | ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** HERE ON EARTH / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)<br /><br />Mark Piznarski's "Here on Earth" holds the record for a movie containing the most recycled material in 96 minutes. Literally every contrivance, cliché, and familiar plot element are somewhere in here; there is simply nothing unique, original, or fresh about it. God, what an agonizing motion picture to sit through; I wish I saw the film during its theatrical release last year so it could have earned on my year's worst list. This is the kind of movie where the story makes itself instantly obvious, and goes downhill from the opening credits, and worst of all, takes itself seriously. "Here on Earth" is clearly one of the most horrible, painful movies to come down the pike in some time.<br /><br />"Here on Earth" is a teen heartthrob film, so it must contain some of Hollywood's most prized young men who are attractive and inexperienced enough to accept a role in a movie as bad as this. Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett fit that vary description, and take the lead roles by storm. Klein plays Kelley, an arrogant and insolent student with a wealthy father (cliché number one). He is to graduate as the valedictorian and attend Ivy league college following in the footsteps of his father (Stuart Wilson). This sets up the "I don't want your life," cliché in which the father tries to control his son's life, while the son resists rebelliously. Throw in Kelley's deceased mother who committed suicide a while back. When his father brings home another woman, he brutally questions his intentions (the "no one can replace mom" cliché counts as number two).<br /><br />Josh Hartnett plays Jasper, a character on the opposite side of society to Kelley. His family owns a local diner. Enter his long-time love interest, Samantha Cavanaugh (Leelee Sobieski) a waitress at the diner who covers for her sister (who has no purpose whatsoever rather than controlling the following scene) when Jasper and Kelley act like childish morons by racing their cars and (oh no) crashing into the diner, causing it to erupt into flames. (Conflicts between the rich and poor will count as cliché number three.)<br /><br />The bungled car chase sets both Kelley and Jasper up for a contrived and plausible conflict. They get in trouble with the law, but because this movie feels the need to exist, the local judge orders them an alternative to serving time: they must work together to help rebuild the diner.<br /><br />The two boys work hard during the summer growing strong and getting a nice tan. Samantha's eye catches Kelley, and romantic sparks fly. Jasper is jealous, but wants what is best for his true love (cliché number four). Her parents (Annette O'Toole and Bruce Greenwood) disapprove of her little romantic triangle (cliché number five), but she continues two timing Jasper without a second thought. Her father also happens to be the local sheriff, how surprising (lets count that melodramatic nugget cliché number six).<br /><br />The contrived romantic feelings between Kelley and Samantha count as cliché number seven. But Samantha's relationship with Jasper is never defined, so how can there any romantic tension? If the film is going to induce involvement in Samantha's choice between the two young men, then we need to see both characters from both sides. The movie depicts Jasper as a distraction to her "rightful love," Kelley. It's clear Jasper truly loves her, but it is also clear she does not love him back. This absolutely slaughters the romantic tension early in the story.<br /><br />Leelee Sobieski does no harm here; however, her charm and kind performance do not fit a two-timing character like Samantha. John Hartnett is also right for the role of Jasper, but the movie gives him nothing to do except bicker with Kelley. Chris Klein gets to make a hunk name for himself here; he spends much of the movie shirtless, sweaty and overworked. Unfortunately he does not show off his acting ability, maybe because he has very little. The supporting cast is much more talented. Bruce Greenwood supplies the best performance in the film, but does not have near enough screen time to save anything but a few brief moments. I also enjoyed the performance by Stuart Wilson, who perfectly fits the role of a rich, controlling father of high social status.<br /><br />Then we lean about Samantha's knee problem exactly one hour and ten minutes into the movie (another spoiler ahead). What is this, she has a serious incurable illness (yet another contrivance into the picture, approximately number eight). Her terminal disease brings the two competing young men together as friends, well, at least I think that is what the movie intended to show, that the loss of one loved by two nemeses can bring both together (cliché number nine).<br /><br />Klein rehearses his valedictorian speech to demonstrate his character is more than a shallow stereotype, but we have seen this so many times before I would prefer a rich character rather than a deeply sentimental who hides actual feelings (cliché number, um, was it ten)?. The conflicts between Kelley and Jasper are desperate and inane; a "your mom" comment triggers a fist fight while they rebuild the establishment. There is a retread from "Armageddon," as Samantha and Kelley sprawl out in an open field, horny as hell, as he slowly moves his fingers around her body, naming areas after US cities (why not call that number eleven). The movie uses alcohol as a means to increase the romantic tension: an intoxicated Kelley makes a fool of himself after getting in a fight with Samantha's date, Jasper, but the following day he recites desires only to dance (cliché number, oh no, I am losing count). | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.