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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,825 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 942 | 1,144 |
In & Out made me want to vomit. I have never seen such a shameless film! It seriously wanted to say that being gay is something wonderful and joyous, but has no idea how to say it. To me this was not a comedy, unless cruel,sick jokes are something to laugh at when a victim falls for it.<br /><br /> From what I saw, this film had four (4) major flaws starting with (A) Matt Dillion's character as he announces to the world that is former teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is gay. Never mind how unbelievable it is that Matt Dillion character won an Oscar for what looked like a serious role on the edge of a crack-up. But why would he say such a thing? After all, this was never an issue with Howard's students, his friends, family, nor his finace. Nobody. So why would he say something like it when it wasn't true? More to the point, why doesn't the movie supply us with an answer as to why he said it? The reason is because there is NO answer, and for the convenience of the plot none is provided. The second (B) flaw is with the fact the film seems to have forgotten what homosexuality is--the attraction and sexual relation to members of the same sex. In this movie, being gay is based on liking Barbara Streisand musicals and being passionate about literature. It's all based on stereotypes!<br /><br />Both of these flaws are met up again at that must-be-seen-to-be-believed graduation ceremony. Matt Dillion finds out about the commotion going on in that small town and the film looks poised to let us know what made him say such a thing. When he arrives to the ceremony, he says nothing, and I wondered why in the world he then came there at all. He didn't solve anything. Then when all of the audience stood to announce they were gay, I was so moved I wanted to throw up! Those folks were standing up in defense of Howard being gay by mocking all of those stereotypes. What the film forgot is that it was using those stereotypes to show why Howard was gay. They filmmakers just shot themselves in the foot! But wait there's more!<br /><br />During the ceremony,(C) Howard appeared to be on trial to lose is job as a teacher, because people believed that he would influence his students to be gay. What the film was trying to say is that homosexuals NEVER recruit, and that he wouldn't influence his students. But did we not see Tom Selleck's character endlessly pressure Howard over and over again, even to the point of kissing him unexpectedly, to come out of the closet when, in my mind, there was no closet to come out of? From that, the film clearly show that homosexual are capable of recruiting. The film, again, then shoots itself in the foot.<br /><br />And (D) when Howard came out of the closet, did anyone not notice how the screenplay shut him up for the rest of the film? I counted only three lines he had afterwards: "Yup!" to his parents, "Hi there!" to a student, and "Are you ready?" to Tom Selleck before the last vomitous scene. I might be low by one, but the point is he is not allowed to tell us what made him decide he was gay. I wanted to know what was in his head, because I never for once believed he was gay.<br /><br />As bonuses, the movie also includes several truly offensive scenes. One in which Howard is asking a priest in confession for advice about what to do for a friend (him), who is engaged and has not yet had sex with his fiance. "Does that make him gay?" he asks. The priest responsed "Oh yes, he's definitely gay". Uh-huh. Or what about the scene when all the old ladies are gathered around telling Howard's mother that she doesn't need to be sad about her son's deep, dark secret because, well...everyone has them. Then one the ladies confessed that she's never seen "The Bridges of Madison County". Funny? No! Becuase the film shows that it is insensitive and has no idea how devestating it can be to family to have one of its members announced that he/she is gay. I know. I have several friends that are gay, and none of their families took it well at all. That was a poor way to diffuse the whole situation.<br /><br />The last straw for me was the last scene that gave they appearence that Tom and Kevin were getting married. The camera panned down very slowly to the front of the church when... It wasn't what you thought! I had been thoroughly disgusted by that point, and I never could forgive that sick joke. I have nothing against films about being gay or homosexuality. "Philadelphia" and "Longtime Companion" were very honest and true in what they had to say. "In & Out" is just screaming for political correctness, but has no idea of the corruption at its core. what I gathered from the film is that if you are 99% straight and 1% gay, meaning if you have the slightless doubt, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. It's like gayness is becoming a dominant trait in genetics. In reality if everyone told you over and over that you were worthless and stupid, you would eventually believe it too, wouldn't you? This is what happened to Howard Brackett about being gay. I left the theater sad and angry. Angry the whole weekend, in fact. This was a seriously sick and cruel film, the WORST of 1997.
| 0 |
2,845 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 885 | 1,186 |
I'd have little to add to bowlofsoul23's bull's-eye comment here. But as the first Brazilian (born, raised and living in Rio de Janeiro, in a neighborhood just a few miles away from the favela of Vigário Geral, depicted in the film) to comment on U.S.-financed "Favela Rising" here on IMDb, I get mixed feelings: on the one hand, it's good that the dire situation of Brazilian favelas are getting more attention from filmmakers and the media, both from Brazil and abroad, since local governments seem to have given up a long time ago. One the other hand, it's incredibly frustrating that "Favela Rising" turns out to be such a missed opportunity for enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences on the issue, because first-time directors Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary (who are from the U.S. and, understandably, neophytes on the matter) turn the biography of AfroReggae group leader Anderson Sá into a glamorous canonization in this superficial, one-sided, under-researched and misleading documentary. Good intentions, muddled results. "Favela Rising" looks like a TV-ad, is shallow as a prime-time TV interview, and biased as a promotional video.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" feels uncomfortably phony for a Brazilian viewer, and not only because of its hype visual treatment of a bleak reality, and its misplaced feel-good happy- ending. "City of God" is an obvious reference here, with COG actors Leandro Firmino and Jonathan Haagensen cameoing for no apparent reason other than "hype". "Favela Rising" is, allegedly, a documentary about the AfroReggae group and its leader Anderson Sá, but beware: when you see the scenes shot in favelas overlooking the beautiful Rio shore line, you might as well be warned that Vigário Geral (the home of AfroReggae and Anderson) is located in an area of Rio far away from ANY beach. Strange choice of location, to say the least.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" is probably confusing for non-Brazilians, who won't know many of the interviewees (and the film won't tell them either) and will have to wait for the closing credits to find out that many of the songs on the soundtrack are NOT by the AfroReggae Band (though you'll get suspicious when you start to hear Pink Martini, of all people!). They won't know either that important issues were simply left unmentioned: why does the film push the notion that AfroReggae is a one-man project? Why not acknowledge the many partners who supply it with substantial financial and logistic support, like Rio's City Council, private Brazilian corporations, multinational recording companies and international NGOs, without which AfroReggae might not even subsist? Why not state clearly that Vigário Geral is still plagued by violent drug wars, and that its dwellers still live in constant fear of attacks by traffickers and cops? Why not state clearly that many of the archive footage clips showing police violence and corruption did NOT take place in Vigário Geral? HOW and WHY did the kid Richard Murilo finally join AfroReggae? WHY on freaking earth wasn't he interviewed once again at the end of the film?<br /><br />As for Anderson himself, the film leaves a lot of loose ends for the viewer: what's the story about Anderson having "two" mothers? Is the baby he holds in his arms his son? Why is he inspired by Shiva? Is he a Buddhist? Why does a Candomblé woman appear on the beach when the films mentions Anderson's "miraculous" recovery from the accident? Is he a Candomblé follower? Why not let him explain the contradiction of starting a group that fights drugs and simultaneously praises Bob Marley? If AfroReggae is also a pride-building movement for black people from favelas, why are the girls in the AfroReggae band limited to booty-bouncing routines? No, you won't get any answers to these questions either.<br /><br />Instead, the filmmakers are interested in turning Anderson Sá into a composite mix of pop-star, Malcolm X, Gandhi and Christ (check out that last image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer atop Corcovado hill, immediately after showing Anderson "miraculously" walking after his surgery). And that's the WORST thing the filmmakers could do to Anderson and his cause: turn him into a special CHOSEN one (by the time they show his surgery scar, you're ready to believe it's a mark from God). <br /><br />Because what's remarkable about Anderson -- who's the most ordinary guy you could ever meet -- is that he helped change his environment NOT by being "special" but by copying and adapting winning projects (like the Olodum movement in Bahia, among others) to his own community, with strong support by friends, artists, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and the media. If you're not fluent in Portuguese you probably won't notice that Anderson isn't particularly bright or articulate (unlike his sharply witty partner José Junior), as much as he isn't particularly talented as a singer, lyricist or musician. Yet his "ordinariness" might have been the film's true "inspirational" core: to show that ANYONE with idealism, perseverance and steady support can in fact contribute significantly to his or her community, no need to be Jesus incarnate. Because what really matters is the movement -- AfroReggae -- not the guy, see? Haven't we had enough of personality cult? <br /><br />By the end of "Favela Rising", you probably won't know much more about Rio's favelas than you did when you walked in -- you'll just have SEEN what some of them look like.
| 0 |
2,874 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 901 | 1,188 |
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?
| 0 |
3,535 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 961 | 1,199 |
I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.<br /><br />Part 1: <br /><br />No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.<br /><br />Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.<br /><br />Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.<br /><br />For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY. <br /><br />The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.<br /><br />The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.<br /><br />I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.<br /><br />Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.<br /><br />Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.<br /><br />D- <br /><br />Part 2:<br /><br />The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.<br /><br />Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.<br /><br />The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.<br /><br />Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.<br /><br />The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.<br /><br />The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.<br /><br />Utter waste of my time.<br /><br />First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---
| 0 |
3,830 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 884 | 1,137 |
Although I do not recommend this film, neither do I recommend reading this review without first seeing the movie. Though I have not given away the ending, or most of the plot twists, this movie would be best viewed without any prior information. It's hard to pinpoint the chief problem with the film Donnie Darko, as there are many to deal with. Richard Kelly, in his first feature film, seems to have collected enough scenes of adolescent rage, late-night stoner diatribes, self-righteous justifications and inoffensive, banal philosophy to inspire twenty teen-angst dramas; then mashed them into a single two hour package with a sci-fi twist. The result is deeply distressing-- for all the wrong reasons. The film attempts to lead the audience down convoluted paths without any sense of symbolism or meaning, to make them sympathize with one-dimensional characters, and above all hopes that they will ignore the underdeveloped plot, full of unreconciled loose ends, by hiding it under a veneer of CGI effects and neo-surrealism. The main character, Donnie Darko, is a young man, committed to therapy, misunderstood by his friends, and rendered hostile and disaffected by his suburban life. We are meant to feel that he is more intelligent than his schoolmates, although sometimes that is a difficult assumption to make. For example, when one of his friends comes up with an absurd theory about the Smurfs, and Donnie counters with a theory of his own, his friend complains about Donnie acting "all smart." Donnie's speech, however, is no smarter than that of his friend-- just angrier. The only clear evidence of his intelligence is his principal's description of his standardized test scores as `intimidating;' but given the director's slant against simple categorization of human elements (as shown in the FEAR-LOVE sequence), this is a poor substitute for character development. Donnie takes prescribed drugs to combat mental problems, which are not addressed directly in this film. In fact, the entire issue of the drugs is understated, and one of the first chances the director has to redeem the film is lost. The ambiguity of Donnie's strange destiny, the possibility that all of this may be a product of his imagination, is pushed into the background, making the film 100 percent science fiction. This would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the "science" behind the "fiction" is very shaky. The explanations of time travel are weak, at best sounding like detached, uninformed rambling. We get the idea that the film's writer once read a book about time travel or a few chapters, and can't quite remember how it worked, but was sure that it was really interesting and wanted to work it into the film. The scientific portion, as a result, depends more heavily on expensive computer animations than actual development of the theories involved (at one point, a teacher discussing time travel states that if he continues to speak on the subject, he'd be fired. Apparently no further explanation is needed). Donnie's dealings with a visitor from the future lead him to commit several vicious actions. The justification for these actions is a tricky business. He damages his school, but it's okay, because his school doesn't treat him like a person. His punishment of a creepy self-esteem advocate (somewhat similar to Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia) results in the man's public humiliation. But should the audience believe that Donnie is some sort of avenging angel, striking out against ignorance and debauchery? He himself seems ignorant of the effects of these actions until after the fact. Aside from these flaws, the film is riddled with flat, uninteresting generalizations of humanity. The story is set in 1988, just before the Bush/Dukakis election, and the director touches on this point during the film. The focus, however, extends exactly this far: Donnie's gruff, blue collar father is voting for Bush, while his free-spirited, rebellious daughter plans to vote for Dukakis. There is nothing even remotely resembling a political statement here; simply a statement of the obvious. The former are not necessary to make a good film, but the latter should be left out. Likewise, Donnie's heartfelt speech about not being able to lump all human emotions into the bland categories of "fear and "love;" this doesn't ask the audience to make any great leaps of understanding. Everybody knows that there are more that two human emotions, and particular emphasis on this fact is worthless. Mr. Kelly gives homage to several symbols of 80's pop culture in his film: E.T., Stephen King, the Smurfs, Back to the Future. At it's heart, this film feels like the director's homage to himself, a collection of his own experiences, interests, personal heroes and adversaries, affirmations and disenchantments, roughly stitched together by untrained hands. Entire songs are played in music video format to the characters actions, seemingly because the director likes the songs. Characters who have little to no bearing on the plot (including the archetypal bully, fat girl, and right-wing idiot teacher) are given unnecessary focus, because the director really wanted to pack them in somehow. The awkward mess that is Donnie Darko leaves us wondering if Mr. Kelly has enough ideas left in his head to make another film, or if he has wasted all his creativity in one pointless, cluttered, meandering effort.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10.
| 0 |
3,902 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 908 | 1,135 |
Hypothetical situations abound, one-time director Harry Ralston gives us the ultimate post-apocalyptic glimpse with the world dead, left in the streets, in the stores, and throughout the landscape, sans in the middle of a forgotten desert. One lone survivor, attempting to rekindle his sanity, takes food from the city to his bungalow in this desert. All alone, he hopes for more, but with nobody around, he is left with white underwear, and a passion for a local Indian tribe until the discovery of a camera which opens up new doors and breaks the barriers of human co-existence. Alan, a man of the book, is left on Earth after an unknown disaster. Thinking he is alone, he begins living life his way until, Jeri Ryan, appears (like she would in any dream) out of the woods, disheveled, and unhappy to find the final man alive to be ... well ... like Alan. Anyway, they try to co-exist, fail, get drunk, and before creating the ultimate dystopia, they run into Redneck Raphael (played by newcomer Dan Montgomery Jr). Bonds are torn, confusion sets in, a couple becomes a third wheel, and the battle between physically inept nerd vs. brainless jock. Even with nobody left on the planet, it becomes a truth that even the darkest of human nature will arise.<br /><br />Using a variable film technique, Ralston gives us a mediocre story based loosely on another film entitled "The Quiet Earth" (which I will be viewing next) oddly which he never gives any credit towards. With a borrowed story, I guess he does a decent job of reinterpreting it. His punch seems to be lacking at the beginning while Ralston tries to find his stride, borrowing yet again from other film director's techniques to attempt to find his own. He opens the film interestingly enough, but fails to answer any direct answers. Sure, the final days have arrived, but could there be a concise answer as to "how" or better yet "why" these select few survived. A spookier beginning would have led us stronger into a comical film. The juxtaposition would have been like "Shawn of the Dead", but instead left us feeling like we were watching a "made-for-TV" program. Listening to the audio commentary, I have respect for Ralston because he worked diligently to get this film made, and his passion nearly sells the film, but you could tell from his interaction with the cast that he wasn't as happy with his overall final product. There were mistakes, ones that he pointed out and others that he was ashamed to point out. While this does make for decent independent film-making, it sometimes feels cheap, and in Ralston's case, it was the latter.<br /><br />I must admit, David Arnott's portrayal of Alan hooked me. He played that wimpy, school nerd, adult role very well. He was funny to both watch and listen to, and thus he became sympathetic to the viewer. He was a key player in keeping the film together, alas, I cannot say the same for the rest. This was Dan Montgomery's first film, and it was obvious I mean really really obvious. There were scenes in which I thought the cue card was about to come out and read the lines for him, perhaps even giving us a more realistic performance, but alas, it wasn't the case. Then there was Jeri Ryan. She pulled into her character near the end of the film, which to me, was the culmination of the entire piece of art. She goes from estranged unknown to bitter cranky insane girlfriend by the end. Confused? Again, she fell into her character by the end, giving us just a glimpse of what she could have probably done as her acting matured. Even as the commentary progressed, all that she contributed was a laugh, giggle, or "ohhh, look at that color" moment. While her beauty may sell tickets, one may want to consider knowledge to be just as beautiful. This was her first film, so can I be too harsh? <br /><br />Overall, this film felt like it was missing something. I though the idea was strong the premise that even with only a peppering of people remaining on the Earth the evil of human nature still exists. Jealousy cannot be killed by bacteria or bombs (maybe because it is consumed by zinc?) and we as a race will always want what we cannot have. Ralston is not a surprising director, his techniques are flawed and pre-used, but he does know how to make a low-budget comedy. I think our idea of "funny" is different, so that is why I couldn't find myself laughing at many of the bits he found "hysterical". His actors provided the level of acting needed for this film, which was lower than average. His film was loose, meaning that there were elements never quite explained or tackled (i.e. anything with wings survived?!?), which overall harmed the intensity of the film. This was a comedy, but it could have been much darker and much much funnier. For those thinking that Roger Avery was a huge element to this film, as we learn from their commentary, all he was there for was money the was in essence, the bank for "The Last Man". Don't get your hopes up for any classic Avery moments.<br /><br />Don't expect more from Ralston and that is how I will end it.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
| 0 |
3,969 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 967 | 1,128 |
I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.<br /><br />The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.<br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.<br /><br />That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).<br /><br />The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.<br /><br />Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.<br /><br />All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****
| 0 |
3,991 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 901 | 1,143 |
This movie is so bad it's worth seeing. This movie will have viewers lapsing in and out of a coma within the first 10 minutes. It all started when a bunch of writers came up with the idea of a jetliner being hijacked and a passenger who can fly a small plane has to land the beast. However, they know it's been done before many times so to make it different, let's do it very badly! Major Masters has his name pirated from 80's movie "To Live and Die in L.A." from character played by Willem Dafoe. That saved 10 minutes in writing and production time. The plane is supposed to be a Boieng 747. That plane has a unique silhouette, even in the dark with its characteristic forward hump on the top. Just ask the late Ronald Reagan who lamented this point when them Ruskies shot down KAL 007 in the eighties. Yet when the plane takes off it's clearly not a 747 looks more like a 767. This well researched film also forgets to include the engineer's seat in the cockpit and replaces it with two comfy rumble seats. No need for a flight engineer on this complex plane! Heroine is played by perpetually pouting Gloria Lynn Berg. After tying up the hijacker, despite several bus-loads of people on this jumbo jet, nobody bothers to watch this guy who almost killed all of them. He's just forced to amuse himself.<br /><br />The crippled plane, leaking fuel from all the hijacking shenanigans won't make it back to Hawaii so Masters will try to land at an Air Force base located on an island. Only the runway's 300 feet too short! Four army guys with little Bobcats (the kind you rent to take all day moving a load of horse manure to the back of your barn), are gonna clear a 200 foot wide and 300 foot long swath through the jungle in 20 minutes! No need for a bulldozer here! Where can you find guys like this? These guys could make a highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 3 hours equipped only with tablespoons, a compass and a duck!<br /><br />After that hellish obstacle is fixed, Masters will try to land the plane as heroine pouts away. Hijacker giggles to himself and unsupervised gets free to make more trouble. He is finally subdued in a most retarded manner that I can't tell you. But, can YOU say Moby Dick?<br /><br />There are so many retarded scenes in this movie. The wounded captain is parked prone on the bar on the plane while Masters, who supposedly can barely fly, puts the plane into 60 degree banks and 20,000 feet per minute drops. The pilot should be french kissing the ceiling during these challenging stunts, but doesn't budge an inch. <br /><br />I think that if they had picked different actors to play the parts, this moving could have been way better. If we need a pouting heroine in the movie, why not pick better known actress Bernadette Peters who seems to be perpetually pouting as well? Besides, she can sing and the busty well aging Peters could feature some gratuitous cleavage shots. Now with the singing angle this could be a Hijacking, Let's Land the Plane Movie MUSICAL! Cast Luciano Pavarotti as the Pilot. They can sing a duet in the cockpit prior to the hijacking and there's no way that tubby tenor would fly up to the ceiling as Masters works his magic on that big bird. In keeping with the musical theme, Masters could then be played by Andrei Bocelli, that Peters Can sing with as he lands the plane. Not only is he totally blind but only knows a couple of words of English. Now that's a plot! Think of the edge of your seat conversation between Masters (Bocelli) and the Air Traffic Controller:<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, please throttle back to 180, flaps set to 25 degrees. maintain 230 heading"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, arm spoilers now, confirm brake pressure at 250 psi. Maintain descent at 500 fpm"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />The hijacker could have been played by the late great Rodney Dangerfield who can spew a plethora of his one liners as he sits tied up and unguarded: "I get no respect. My wife is into group sex. Yeah, she screwed me in front of the judge and jury!" Get the idea?<br /><br />MISSED OPPORTUNITIES The movie has your standard crying and moaning passengers that are never developed. Woody Allen could have been at the back offering one of his neurotic monologues: "She said I was great in bed. I told her I practice myself a lot..." Now THIS is a movie!<br /><br />Also, according to similar movie "Executive Decision" where lazy eyed Steven Segal is mercifully killed at the start giving that movie a chance, 747's have massive attics up top. The plane was introduced in 1969 so who knows what has accumulated in almost 40 years up there? My uncle has old clothes, a sled, magazines and all sorts of stuff in his. WOuldn't it have been cool if Masters opened the trap door and saw a teary eyed Chevy Chase in a woman's housecoat watching old Super 8 movies of his childhood? Just a recommendation.<br /><br />So give it a chance, and as u lapse in and out of consciousness imagine how great this movie could have been if I had my hand in it...
| 0 |
4,331 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 872 | 1,146 |
Throughout the 1950s and into the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, a slew of war films were produced in the former Yugoslavia, glorifying the heroism of the "Partisans" civilians who turned out to fight a guerrilla war against the invading German forces. Hajrudin Krvavac, who's generally only known in Eastern Europe, directed quite a few of these "partisan" stories; unfortunately, only a handful of them were ever exported to the rest of the Europe and the United States. "Battle of the Eagles" is a rare, low-budget look at the formation and exploits of the Partisan Air Force.<br /><br />Marshal Tito decrees that a Partisan Air Force must be formed to combat the German Luftwaffe in the skies over Yugoslavia. A group of former pilots join forces with two small biplanes and begin raiding enemy bases and convoys; over the course of several months, more pilots and planes join the ranks, eventually forming a formidable air force. Maybe it's history, or maybe it's fable whatever it is, it sure isn't convincing, but a cast of great actors sure try to make it work.<br /><br />The film opens strongly with a well-shot German air raid on defenseless partisans. The nuts and bolts of the plot come together almost immediately, and for a short while the audience is treated to a rather patriotic series of scenes. Then the action starts, and this title quickly becomes yet another low-budget, by-the-numbers adventure. All of the characters are familiar clichés: Major Dragan (played by a well-meaning Bekim Fehmiu) is our typical patriotic, heroic leading man. He blasts away at strafing planes with a machine-gun and even has an aerial duel with the villainous Klauberg (Radko Polic), a completely predictable and corny climax with an equally predictable outcome. The rest of the partisans are familiar: Ljubisa Samardzic ("The Battle of Neretva") is a Zare, a hotshot playboy; Bata Zivojinovic ("Hell River") is Voss, a veteran flyer who comes out of the woodwork now that his country needs him; and Rados Bajic ("The Day that Shook the World") is Dalibor, a young messenger boy who moves up through the ranks, eventually becoming a seasoned combat pilot. The characters and their stories are familiar to any war fan, and Krvavac doesn't try to build upon these stereotypes. The cast does a fair job, and despite the two-dimensional script, every player is engaging and fun to watch. Bajic, in particular, has some great moments when he's going to take his first flight as a gunner, and later, when he is forced to land a plane after the pilot is killed. The plot merely consists of a string of air raids against the Germans, and subsequent retaliatory acts.<br /><br />Krvavac handles the action sequences competently with a mix of actual footage and miniature effects. Unfortunately, the miniatures are so cheap and false-looking that the transitions between actual aerial photography and toy planes are jarring and laughable. Some of the strafing and bombing scenes look shockingly real, while dogfights involving scale models, complete with action figure pilots, are just plain pathetic. Sometimes smoke puffs from the "machine-guns" are so big that the smoke engulfs the entire model plane. Worse, the editors often superimpose shots of fighters over real footage. Although the aircraft are usually in proper perspective, they're surrounded by a distracting glow which hinders any attempt at realism. All of this action is set to an incredibly familiar and annoying score by Bojan Adamic.<br /><br />"Battle of the Eagles" also suffers from a very poorly edited English-language release. To begin with, 28 minutes of footage is missing cutting the film from 130 minutes to a mere 102. The missing segments were carelessly excised, and the cutting looks very sloppy. Music cues are abruptly cut off and scenes are abandoned before they are resolved. In the last third of the film, the story falls apart, and only some badly-needed action scenes can try to save it from total incomprehensibility. Then, there's the dubbing
all of the scenes revolving around the Partisans are dubbed in English (rather poorly, however), yet several lengthy scenes remain in German, without the benefit of subtitles. The film might have made much more sense had the German-language sequences been excised instead of crucial scenes revolving around the Partisans.<br /><br />On the plus side, Krvavac handles the outdoor footage quite well. There is never a moment where the audience feels like they're on a soundstage. In particular, the German Luftwaffe bases are expansive, complete with dozens of Messerschmitt fighter planes and extras costumed in leather flying jackets. The scenery is fresh and green, and Krvavac isn't afraid to shoot scenes with extremely wide angles or from far away simply to convey the scope of a battle or long trek. A German ambush of a partisan unit early on in the picture stands out, as does a sequence where Zare and Dalibor escape from an enemy base.<br /><br />As it exists on home video, "Battle of the Eagles" is just another of many stories about the Yugoslav Partisan movement. There is nothing to set it apart from the rest of the crop, and the terrible special effects and drastic editing put it a notch below acceptable. Try to avoid this one unless you can find a full-length copy.
| 0 |
4,425 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 985 | 1,198 |
This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was "I put a spell on you" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.<br /><br />I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words "want to shoot?" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an "advertisement" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.<br /><br />The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the "other" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.<br /><br />Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one "section" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.<br /><br />I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.<br /><br />This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a "good vs bad" cliché scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as "Paradise Now" and "Wedding in the Galilee."
| 0 |
4,691 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 841 | 1,123 |
Along with his turn in the super-sleazy 'classic' THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), this is considered the ultimate bad Cameron Mitchell horror effort. It's a little too slow-moving for my tastes, has zero likable characters in it and not much action until the very end, but Mitchell's dedicated central psycho performance as vengeance-minded whack-job Vincent Rinard is fun. Not Anthony Perkins good, mind you, but definitely fun enough. As a spoof of the shallow conceit that is Hollywood, it's only so-so; as a horror movie it's also only fair. And even as just a simple vintage exploitation picture, it's just OK. I'm a big fan of the unnecessary gratuitous dance sequence, so I was also thankful for the appearance of the Gazzarri Dancers, who just rule. Five of them do a crazy hair-thrashin', floor-slidin', hip-shaking' go-go dance routine to "Don't Cry, Look For the Rainbow" by the T-Bones. Watching these ladies bounce around with huge smiles on their faces in their fringe-covered bikini top and parachute pants ensemble is a defining reason why I give this a slightly higher rating that usual.<br /><br />Former movie make-up man Vincent Rinard ("The best since Lon Chaney!") goes after people at Paragon Studios. A flashback shows how Max Black (Berry Kroeger), a jealous and drunk studio executive, flung wine in Vinnie's face right when he was about to light a smoke. He's engulfed in flames and dives into a pool, but not before scarring up one side of his face and losing an eyeball (not to mention his sanity). Now employed by the "world-famous" Movieland Wax Museum in Buena Park, California, Vincent uses a special serum (described as a mixture of truth serum, nerve medicine and special "vitamins and minerals"... Watch out Centrum!) to paralyze victims. They disappear and the dense detectives on the case (headed by Scott Brady) act baffled as new 'statues' are put on display in the museum. Vince talks to himself ("I'm a terribly nice man!"), chain-smokes, mumbles, hisses and describes how he gets "excited" by the sound of a woman's scream.<br /><br />He also has to deal with a bunch of back-stabbing scumbags and self-absorbed witches, most of whom will deserve what's coming to them. There is also Nick (Hollis Morrison), a boozy, inept museum tour guide who sees a 'statue' blink, but doesn't go to the cops. Aside from Max (a real Grade-A jerk... who doesn't even die!) and the stupid cops, the other two lead roles are women and both are pretty atrocious. Marie Morgan (Anne Helm) is not your typical innocent heroine; this tramp has been engaged to no less that five different characters in this movie (!), including Vince, Max and two of the wax dummies/missing male stars (I guess she never had time to make a go at the one missing girl). For some reason, she also begs and pleads in her irritating baby-voice for Vince to give her a 'replica' of the head he's designing of the newest missing actor (and fiancé Number 5) Tony Deen (Phillip Baird). She doesn't know that Vince has already jabbed a syringe in the back of his neck, but I love it when Mitchell dryly agrees with her demands "so you can completely retreat for reality." He also wants her to 'pose' for him, which means she's eventually held prisoner in a box. Unfortunately, the box has a hole where her head sticks through so we have to continue getting aurally assaulted by her high-pitched whines.<br /><br />The other "woman" is Theresa (Victoria Carroll), one of the aforementioned go-go girls. She's first seen proving she is thoroughly rhythm-deficient by jiggling on stage in a lime-green fringe bikini. Theresa is tolerable before she talks, but when you realize her grating presence combines the abrasiveness of Lorraine Bracco with the airhead mentality of the Landers sisters, you wish Vincent would inject her with the serum as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we're first subjected to a scene of her making endless demands to the studio head honcho and running around in the museum trying to avoid Mitchell. She and the rest of the characters are completely unsympathetic, but function as a way to poke fun at the Hollywood system in general, I guess. And I'm probably giving this movie more credit than it actually deserves. The pluses are few and far between, but include (other than Mitchell and the dance routine), colorful, slightly stylized lighting and a bizarre ending that seems to suggest that Rinard will be severely punished for his crimes by spending the rest of his life in his own personal hell... Married to Marie!... Yikes, now that is scary.<br /><br />Also in the cast are director John "Bud" Cardos (also the production manager) as a police sergeant, James Forrest as a film director, Virgil Frye as a statue, Rini Martin and Kent Osborne as a bartender. Many of the people who worked on this one (including executive producer and script-writer Rex Carlton) also worked on the Al Adamson movie BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE and other atrocities.<br /><br />My Score: 4 out of 10
| 0 |
4,753 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 953 | 1,124 |
I had never heard of Dead Man's Bounty when I saw it at the DVD store a few weeks ago, and I thought I had stumbled upon an unrecognized gem, since it had Val Kilmer in it in a truly unique role. Sadly, it wasn't more than ten or fifteen minutes into the movie that I realized that this is a disaster of epic proportions. The first clue you will see of how genuinely awful this movie is comes near the beginning, when you have a bunch of dirtbags in an old saloon laughing like a bunch of hyenas in a scene that goes on about five times too long. It's unbelievable how bad it is. And sadly, it doesn't get any better.<br /><br />Val Kilmer is featured prominently on the movie's cover box, maybe to trick you into thinking that he has a role in the film, but unfortunately his bizarre role as a dead man is overlooked in favor of focusing on a bunch of half-wit crooks and the most inept conceptualization of a unique town sheriff that I've ever seen in a movie. He's played by Boguslaw Linda, who is unable to or uninterested in covering his Polish accent, immediately making it impossible that the movie is meant to take place in the American old west. <br /><br />Does Poland have this type of frontier past? I don't know. My knowledge of Polish history is not my strong point, but I can tell you this, The Sheriff, as he is known in the movie, is the worst representation of law enforcement that I can ever remember seeing in a movie. He is introduced in a truly ridiculous scene where he is wearing some kind of blindfold and a roomful of men take turns punching him in the face. Before they start hitting him, he explains that they can each hit him once, and then, after the first round, they will each hit him again, and if he can identify who is throwing the punches, they lose. What the hell is this crap? I am completely at a loss to explain why a scene like this would ever be put into any movie. <br /><br />Throughout the movie, the Sheriff continues to appear more and more beaten and bruised and drunk and battered, until ultimately he does nothing but show up occasionally, stumbling on screen and mumbling "not
without...the law
" You see, there is a lot of talk and preparation for a hanging, the details of which are as meaningless as the rest of the movie. <br /><br />It takes place, by the way, in a town that consists of nothing more than two ramshackle wooden buildings facing each other across a flattened bit of dirt that is more of a path than a road. My understanding is that it is a part of Poland that is supposed to look acceptably enough like the American southwest, where none of the characters, except maybe the dead guy, could possibly have come from.<br /><br />I have heard that Val Kilmer accepted the role because he was intrigued by his unique role, and also by director Uklanski's minimal use of dialogue in favor of a reliance on cleverly timed juxtaposition of images in unique visual montages. <br /><br />Yeah, whatever. <br /><br />Seems to me that Kilimer was unable to overcome what must have been the truly satisfying feeling that he must have gotten when he was offered the role. Personally, I would really feel that I had reached quite some level of success if someone approached me and offered me probably a few hundred thousand dollars to come and lay still for a while. I like to think that he didn't even read the script for this mess, because if he did I am at a total loss to understand why he accepted the role.<br /><br />At any rate, the movie opens with a man bringing in the corpse of a man, played by Kilmer, seeking the reward. Soon he finds himself embroiled in a ludicrous love story involving the town prostitute, the alcoholic Sheriff, and lots of mayhem involving a series of stupid, stupid characters. <br /><br />There is also a extensive and preposterous lack of understanding of American rituals. In one scene, a man cuts a cherry tomato in half and squishes the halves into Kilmer's eyes (for what reason, I can't imagine), and then later, a man makes a short speech over Kilmer's corpse, in which he explains that he was "one of the finest men we ever had," and then he proceeds to lop his head off with a shovel. What the HELL?? <br /><br />Not convinced yet? Here are some more reasons not to watch it. In one scene the Sheriff appears to be covered with ash, except for the perfectly clean areas around his eyes and what can only possibly be described as bright red lipstick. A man gets a head wound that drenches his head and body in blood. In a daze, he cauterizes it with gunpowder. Smart. Near the end, the Sheriff appears to have a broken arm. Sitting at the bar, he puts a rope around his neck and connects it to his injured arm, and uses his good arm to pull on the rope, lifting his shaking beer glass in his bad arm to his mouth, rather than using his good arm to drink. Also smart. <br /><br />Why doesn't he just use his good arm? I have no idea. That, like everything else in the movie, makes no sense whatsoever, like the title. Summer Love? Are you kidding me? Avoid this mess at all costs. <br /><br />In the meantime, here's something for the IMDb Goofs page <br /><br />Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers) : This movie got made. HA!
| 0 |
4,851 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 961 | 1,185 |
With this movie I was really hoping that the idea was to make up for the hashed together ineptitude of the first AVP, and yet to my horror: Requiem is far worse than I could have imagined.<br /><br />My hopes were up in the opening moments of the film inside the Predator ship, and I almost breathed a sigh of relief when we finally saw the Predator home world (a throwaway digital matte painting, but still nice to finally see it) and then of course, the humans (if such poorly written characters can be referred to as such) are introduced...<br /><br />One must wonder why it seems to be impossible for Fox to make a good film out of Aliens and Predators. At the very least the supposed filmmakers could have done their homework.<br /><br />Characters are set up in the same manner in which we would expect from the worst Friday the 13th Sequel. The pizza delivery scene was cringe inducing as was every other scene of character interaction that followed it. Bimbos and teen non actors do not make for a REAL film, they make for a cheap flick, and Alien 1-3 and the Predator movies were good because they were produced above the concept (remember that the 1st Alien is a "B" movie done as an "A" movie) The Strause brothers really missed an opportunity, that could have been rectified by simply knowing their Alien+Predator roots: In both the Alien and Predator films we are introduced to characters that are part of a larger group (Alien: Refinery workers, Aliens: Marines, Alien 3: Convicts and in the Predator films we generally follow a main hero part of a unit; Predator, Arnold--Special forces, Predator 2: Danny Glover, Police) and it's easy to see where the filmmakers of both franchises started to go wrong: in Alien Ressurrection we have pirates...or something, AVP we have...explorers?...with guns?? and of course in AVP-R we have teen slasher clichés. What is there to identify with here? In concept the idea of a convict returning to a small town and a war vet returning seemed a set up for a First Blood type of action hero, but like many things it was never paid off.<br /><br />The Film-making is equally devoid of rhyme of reason. There is no sense of forward momentum to the action, just small sequences that build the most minuscule levels of tension or interest only to cut away just when they're getting interesting...taking the audience out of the movie at every turn. The action scenes themselves, though much ballyhooed in the trailers, are so darkly lit, it is literally impossible to tell what is going on during the fight scenes when they finally occur. Basically, the movie is hindered from many levels. Bad actors combined with poor direction and an atrocious screenplay (which as a screenwriter myself I noticed, seemed to hit every wrong note and cliché that only the most untalented writer devoid of ideas could have hashed together) The WRITING, if it can be called that, is not even direct to video quality, nor does it demonstrate a shred of respect for the established lore of the previous entries in the series. Why does the Predalien all the sudden have the ability to shoot alien embryos down a pregnant woman's throat to use her as an incubator for chestbursters? More than likely because the brain dead screenwriter needed a way to have more aliens for the predator to fight (and given the accelerated growth time even more so than the first AVP: as quickly as possible. Why must meaningless small talk between cardboard cutouts on sticks (meaning the supposed characters)substitute for real character development? (Remember a character is defined by what they DO, not SAY). Why is the Sheriff leading civilians to a cache of guns? (isn't he an officer of the law?) How does the bimbo of all people know where they are? Why does the Predalien wait for the Predator to VERY SLOWLY remove his mask before it attacks? Why are the aliens still falling into that nasty series-post-Alien 3 habit of hissing all the time to let their prey know to run? How on Earth did this series devolve to a character saying "People are dying...we need guns!" (how this writer even works is beyond me, and reflects badly on Fox's already destroyed artistic reputation. It's like everyone involved in the making of this film suffered from a mental impairment or really are that inept at every level of the film-making process. <br /><br />The EFFECTS are pretty lousy this time around. The Aliens look like men in suits and ADI is just getting lazy with their creature design. The Aliens look like modified leftovers from Alien Resurrection, with that same bulky musculature around the arms as if they did not learn from that movie that it was not a good design, nor a good one to recycle. Again, everything is shrouded in such a state of darkness not to create mystery or atmosphere, but simply to hide how bad the creatures look. And just like in AVP, Stan Winston is sorely missed when the fake looking Predator face is revealed.<br /><br />There are too many faults to list so I will just say this: Do not waste your money on this movie. Fox is beyond caring about the fans, as this cheap and trashy film is clearly evidence of. I felt bad having taken my girlfriend to see it (though it was free) and apologized to her profusely after. This is one die-hard fan who is done with the franchise.<br /><br />Note to Fox: What we really wanted wasn't a mindless slasher flick, it was a film adaptation of the original Darkhorse Comicbook, which was better than anything you've produced for this franchise post 1993.<br /><br />Signing off.
| 0 |
4,852 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 986 | 1,172 |
Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien "chestburster" emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to "clean up the mess". Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.<br /><br />Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set "highlights" including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.<br /><br />Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.<br /><br />Also, for a "Verses" movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at mêlée range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called "Alien vs. Predator", as much as it should be "Predator massacres Aliens". I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other? <br /><br />The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most cliché possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.<br /><br />In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work.
| 0 |
4,961 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 906 | 1,125 |
"The Ballad of the Sad Café" worked hard at its image, but when it came down to crunch-time, it was left standing in its own self-created dust.<br /><br />One cannot image saying this out loud, but if Vanessa Redgrave's Amelia were to fight John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood, my hard-earned dollars would have to go to Redgrave. Her portrayal of Amelia was as close to perfection and consumed with more detailed dedication than most actors are willing to give to any multi-million dollar contracted persona. Redgrave gave Amelia this soulful drawl that was a blend of her own unique voice and a hard-earned woman from the south. To the average viewer, this could be construed as annoying, but as the film progressed it became her Miss Amelia transforming this stage beauty into a roughneck. It was Redgrave's performance, as well as her interaction with the other characters, that made this film stand tall but not the tallest. The others following her performance were needed, but not stellar. As we moved past the murky cliché image passed on by every set designer hired for the post-Depression South job, the minor characters felt like poster board. The image was needed to set the scene, but the characters of the town had no other purpose. Take for example Rod Steiger's vision of some old, wild spoken preacher. His scenes alone will make any viewer question the validity of this off-the-beaten-path town. The main two players who surrounded Amelia battled with charm for the admirable top scene-stealing moment, but due to the lacking direction it just seemed faded. The most absurd of the two (albeit both rank high among the questionable sanity line) is Cork Hubbard who plays Amelia's "cousin" who shows up randomly one night. His character is never quite defined, he lacks true motive, and his loyalties remain uncertain. He plays no vital role in this film outside of forcing us, the viewers, to question his sanity and honesty. Can you create a character simply by sticking out your tongue, flicking your ears, and punching your chest and head? Finally, there is the other end of the absurd Keith Carradine. Callow's close-ups of this tormented man build character, but our lack of understanding between him and Amelia causes his purpose to flounder. These were the characters, as cliché Southern as they were some stood forward and attempted to create an absurdist period piece, and I cannot argue that they failed.<br /><br />Where "Ballad of the Sad Café" failed to rise above mediocrity was in the cinematography and narrative. This film was about Amelia, and her need for other souls in her life. The audience's level of comfort with the arrival of her midget cousin was entertaining one couldn't help but wonder if he was honest or merely a confidence man attempt to leech off a warm heart. Cork Hubbard's character is never quite understood, but we do accept him with brief shots of him and Amelia doing small things together. It is his idea that transforms from a recluse businesswoman to a bona-fide café owner. The problem is that director Callow never quite takes us to that dramatic take level between Cork and Redgrave is the man crazy or does he represent all of Amelia's family? I needed something from Callow that brought these two out of the David Lynch-esquire relationship that they had. Then our pool gets even deeper with the addition of Carradine as Amelia's "love interest". Using the technique of a flashback within a flashback, we see the two wed, but never consummate their love which Amelia's anger against their love drawing him into the world of madness. Why was Amelia so angry? Why was there no connection between Carradine and Redgrave? Why was this even in the film? With the lack of focus towards these characters's connection, the eventual scenes between the two made no sense throw in Cork's choice and it just gets completely discombobulated. While there were a few beautiful choreographed scenes that Callow created, the inability to transfer his characters from point A to point B. I lost focus, interest, and my care for the characters plummeted when I didn't understand the ultimate question "why"? <br /><br />Overall, "The Ballad of the Sad Café" began with a bang, but ended with a very small crack of a firecracker. My emotional feel of this film swung up and down, up and down, and eventually stayed further down mainly due to the lack of understanding of the motives of the characters. Redgrave did a phenomenal job as Amelia, and while the other characters (outside of the random Steiger) tried their best, I just didn't quite understand who they were. Their motives were so muddled that when the emotional ending finally occurred, I was apathetic. Director Callow seemed to have been lacking importing connecting scenes that would allow us to understand the dynamic relationship between all of our main players. Callow created some beautiful scenes where faces seemed to overlap the scenery, which allowed us to focus on Amelia or Carradine, but nothing was explained or developed. The film played out with anger, discover, happiness, flashback, anger, anger, anger, fade out. Without the comparative connectors, this transformed from distinguished period film to actors playing parts in front of camera. It was a shame, because "Sad Café" had the promise, it just couldn't deliver.<br /><br />Grade: ** ½ out of *****
| 0 |
5,000 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 927 | 1,117 |
When I typed Savage Intruder into the IMDb's search engine one of the options it came up with was Savage Garden: International Video Collection: The Story so Far (1999), the only reason I mention this is because I'm a huge Savage Garden fan & you should do yourself a favour & check some of their music out like Affirmation or To the Moon and Back rather than bother with this average pot-boiler, sorry I just wanted to say that. Anyway, Savage Intruder starts with a bizarre montage of what looks like MGM musical & premiere footage & a few spinning portraits which have no meaning whatsoever in the long run. It's late 60's Hollywood & amid the glitz & glamour a serial killer is at work selecting ageing actresses, killing them & dismembering their bodies. A young man named Vic Valance (David Garfield as John David Garfield) hops off a tour bus looking for employment when it stops at the house of a now retired actress, Katharine Parker (Miriam Hopkins) who was 'one of the biggest stars of the motion picture' but now lives in a big house with an elderly housekeeper named Mildred (Florence Lake), a personal secretary Leslie Blair (Gale Sondergaard) & a young maid named Geta (Virginia Wing). Katharine has recently broken her foot & needs a personal assistant & gives Vic the job. Slowly Vic charms his way into Katharine's affections & more importantly her large wallet. Vic starts to turn Katharine against the other employees, but Vic isn't what he seems. Vic is a drug addicted loon who gets Greta pregnant while still having sex with Katharine. Greta threatens to tell Katharine & spoil Vic's devious plans but she has a close encounter with an axe, no one in the house is safe as Vic brings drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll party's & gardening to the Parker mansion while his sinister plan starts to become more & more apparent...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Donald Wolfe I thought Savage Intruder was a bit of a mess but a mildly entertaining one at the same time. The script is all over the place & it can't really decide what it wants to be, Savage Intruder suffers from an identity crisis! The film starts with the discovery of a severed head & limbs, straight after another woman (Dorothy Kingston) is killed by a mysterious unidentified figure but then it completely ditches the slasher film elements that it has just built up never going back to them. Savage Intruder then becomes a sort of feel good film as Vic befriends Katharine & shows her how to enjoy life again & having an implied sexual relationship with her, it's actually disgusting to think about as she's old enough to be his Grandmother. Katharine stops living the life of a recluse & gives up the alcohol as Vic appears to make her happy as they go to party's together & hold banquets for Katharine's friend like she used too. This part of Savage Intruder wouldn't look out of place in a Disney film! Every so often the tedium of the feel good stuff is interrupted by Vic shooting up & having silly hallucinations about his Mother (Sybelle Guardino) & chopping her hand off with an axe, he has sex with Great at one point as well. Then, after Greta has been murdered, Savage Intruder becomes a bizarre horror film as Vic is revealed for the loony that he is. Savage Intruder just doesn't flow properly as a film in my opinion as it mixes various genres with little success. Similarly the murder mystery elements don't work & are frankly a bit of a puzzle, why go to great lengths to conceal the killers identity during the murder scenes but then make it perfectly clear who is committing them throughout the rest of the film anyway? Vic as a character didn't work for me either, one moment he's a cool, calm, clever & devious con man & then next he's a stark raving loony! Why kill all his other victims but with Katharine try to con her? What makes her so different? If it is because she has money why not go after her to start with? So many questions & so few answers... Some of the 60's dialogue is pretty funny to listen to these days like when Vic offers Greta a painkiller, in reality hard drugs, & Greta says "what do I need a painkiller for?", Vic helpfully replies "because your a pain" wow this guy knows how to charm the ladies! Or when Katharine suggests that Vic do some gardening & ask's "do you have green fingers?" he replies "no, but I'm good at grass!" There isn't much gore in Savage Intruder, some severed limbs & a couple of decapitated heads. There is also a fairly impressive shot when someone has their hand cut off with an axe which is probably why it's repeated three or four times. The silly looking drug hallucination scenes need to be seen to be believed. Technically Savage Intruder is OK, the location filming in the grandiose mansion & Hollywood hills probably give it a better look than it deserves, the acting is average as is the rest of the production. Overall I'd say Savage Intruder feels like it tries to be a murder mystery that unfortunately gives the killer away & as a result just doesn't work. It's a mildly entertaining one-time-watch at best & a complete mess of a film at worse, you decide which!
| 0 |
5,272 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 976 | 1,188 |
I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.<br /><br />"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.<br /><br />The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.<br /><br />Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.<br /><br />The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.<br /><br />And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.<br /><br />Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.<br /><br />But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.<br /><br />In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?<br /><br />This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!
| 0 |
5,502 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 912 | 1,159 |
I am a pretty much a sucker for those Ghost Hunter shows. From the Cheesy mockumentaries like Discovery Channel's "The Haunting" to Scooby Doo Reality shows like "Ghost Hunters". When I saw promos for A&E's "Paranormal State" I knew I was going to watch. Especially when "Paranormal State" was juxtaposed against a weak Monday Night Football game.<br /><br />By the end of the pilot of "Paranormal State" when the main "character" in this reality dance macabre gives a Creepy Kid a bottle of Max Von Sydow Holy Water and reassures him by telling this boy that he, too, had a unspecified bad experience as a child with things that "came out of the closet" and the (Catholic) Church gave him a Holy Water to fend off the Things Coming Out of the Closet I knew I should have given Monday Night Football another shot.<br /><br />The shtick behind "Paranormal State" is a group of Penn State students all got together and started their own Ghost Hunting club. Or Society. Or Super Adventure Club. And they run around Pennsylvania researching the most terrible hauntings and the lost plot to an M. Night Shymalan Movie.<br /><br />The "They" is kind of a misnomer. Really Paranormal State revolves around a Nittany Lion named Ryan Buell who would probably be running Penn State's yearly Anime Convention if it wasn't for this show. He is often accompanied on "investigations" by hot co-eds and some other people seen in the credits but rarely caught on camera. Hey, are they ghosts too? <br /><br />This is Ryan Buell's show. Paranormal State is his "vehicle" as we like to say in the Biz. And, oh, what a dull ride in a vehicle he can be.<br /><br />Did I mention Ryan narrates the entire episode of Paranormal State in a star date-less "director's log" voice over? Almost immediately that gets annoying because the obvious intention is to give Ryan's ghost hunting some gravitas, but his filtered monotone does nothing but provoke grunts and laughs. Seriously, every serious intonation sounds like the radio chatter from a Call of Duty video game.<br /><br />The "investigations" -- the plot that each episode revolves around -- are interesting on the surface. No haunted Inns or Restaurants to be found in "Paranormal State". This is a show about fearing the unknown like a good Catholic Boy and by god they give you stuff to fear. <br /><br />Small children are harassed, things loom in the dark, voices encourage the living to kill, and the Aleister Crowely in me rubs my hands. Of the two episodes I watched each revolved around violent, nasty hauntings tied to violent, nasty deaths. <br /><br />Maybe.<br /><br />Maybe not. <br /><br />Everything in "Paranormal State" is short-handed into half hour, "Dog the Bounty -- er, Ghost Hunter" blocks. Every time there is an interesting, verifiable shred of evidence -- the murder of a family in a farmhouse in the 1800s -- the proof is waved in front of the viewer like a con artist trying to convince you a stack of papers currently under your nose is proof of that ten million coming from Nigeria and then yanked away before you can get a good gander. <br /><br />At least with Sci-Fi Channel's "Ghost Hunters" there is a somewhat over-exhaustive need to trot out every possible shred of evidence and present it to the viewer. EVPs that could be a rat farting, cold spots in a drafty house, and "orbs" that even the Ghost Hunters themselves discount as dust. It is a sort of Scooby Doo like approach that makes "Ghost Hunters" ... almost believable.<br /><br />Whereas "Paranormal State" claims to have EVPs but gives the viewer a ten second video clip of a wave file in Garage Band with no audio. Yep, see, an EVP, right? People are claiming to see dark figures in the basement... Well, we will just go and see about that... while leaving the night vision camera on an enthralling stationary shot of the living room. Ryan, the intrepid leader of this pack of Penn State Graduates, is claiming to see "visions" of a demon's name he knows and that might be involved in a paranormal haunting... But he can't tell us, the audience, or his team of gothed out undergrads, because... He can't. You never say a demon's name out loud, Ryan informs the wide eyed Co-Ed who dare inquires.<br /><br />Well, how very very convenient for you. Especially since this is a Television Show where the audience cannot read your mind.<br /><br />"Paranormal State" is all Turn and no Prestige. The audience gets told what is supposedly happening but you never see an ounce of proof that the creepy kid is seeing Dead People. Not even grainy video of a chair moving, or a black blob running between prison cells. Nothing. You are just told what happened by Ryan in yet another mechanical voice over.<br /><br />If you are going to try and spook me dress it up a little. If you are trying to sway me, show me a orb or a blob and have the fat chick who works days at Hot Topic tell me why that black orb is really the spirit of an ax murderer. And if you want to make me watch a ghost hunting show give me something besides trotting out Lorraine Warren by the second episode.<br /><br />"Paranormal State" is weak sauce. Not really worth watching unless you are hard up for TV time, or just have that thin of a DVD collection. Or unless you want to know what really happened in that closet with the Holy Water.
| 0 |
6,009 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 875 | 1,103 |
We'll never know The Truth about 9/11. And this shoddy movie proves it.<br /><br />I recently watched a YouTube report claiming there were no planes involved in the Twin Towers' destruction; that all the news programs were supposedly provided with same-angle shots of the Towers from a mysterious source (probably the gubmint?), and in that provided footage CGI planes were substituted for real-life MISSILES which actually hit the towers....<br /><br />It's a compelling video, and though I am not a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist per se, I am still not sure myself whether actual planes hit anything that day (the Towers, the Shanksville field, the Pentagon) - because there is no plane wreckage available. (And what about those infamous "black boxes"? None recovered.) A million other theories abound, all of them courting a droplet of Truth awash in an ocean of speculation. But you'll drown in malarkey before you find anything truthful or worth speculating about in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, a no-budget movie that is trying to close the barn door after all the horses and jihadists have escaped.<br /><br />Writer-director Leigh Scott is obviously a concerned American citizen who wanted to enlighten audiences on what the 560-page report might reveal. It would help if his movie had actors, instead of a guy who looks like David Duchovny, a chick who looks like Gina Gershon, a guy who thinks he's Russell Crowe and another guy who I'm pretty sure is trying hard to be Sean Bean. It would help if his camera operator didn't have Parkinson's; if the lighting director wasn't trying to save on electricity; it would help if his editor didn't have Attention Deficit Disorder, or if the soundtrack wasn't some tuneless new world order esoterica; and the looping should have probably been inserted when people were actually moving their mouths.<br /><br />We can't even call this propaganda. It's too funny. And by funny, I mean unwatchable.<br /><br />You can't squeeze an issue this complex into a two-hour film, but Leigh Scott tries anyway, including all those sexy catch-phrases we've grown inured to: bin Laden's intent to attack, purchasing weapons from Somalia, non-aggression agreement with Iraq, Mussawi attending flight school, weapons of mass destruction...<br /><br />The problem is: we know it's all retrospect, so every discussion the concerned intelligence operatives have with each other reeks of fake hindsight all crammed into a neat conversation. Like contrived reverse engineering, everything pertinent is mentioned succinctly so that we can shake our heads in wonder at how incompetently all these branches of government screwed up.<br /><br />There's a ludicrous interrogation scene with a lubricious bimbo beating up on a guy with tomato sauce on his face. Now - that would be considered torture if most guys didn't consider it a turn-on.<br /><br />The tagline is: "What if the attack could have been stopped?" By this movie's account - and, we presume, according to the Commission Report - the CIA and other underground agencies were all set to capture bin Laden and didn't. Everyone involved with the "terrorism" reports (you mean you actually read these reports?) is so concerned we just want to slap them for their bad acting.<br /><br />Yet the whole story goes so much deeper than the banal soundbytes the negligent Ku Bush Klan foisted on the American people after 9/11. We now know that even capturing bin Laden before the 9/11 attack would not have changed or achieved anything - the wheels were in motion with or without that Taliban figurehead whose involvement was the possible figment of someone's fevered imagination to unite America against a common enemy. Contrary to popular belief "they" didn't "attack us." As Ron Paul tried to elucidate, it was a case of Middle Eastern blowback - "they" were so sick of America planting their infidel feet "over there" that they brought the war "over here." So though George W. Death likes to tout the nonsensical, "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," in reality "Because we're Over There, the fight has been brought Over Here." <br /><br />The 9/11 attack was not so much about the intricate planning of terrorists, as it was the gross negligence of the Bush administration, who we know (without the probing of Commissions) had all the intel from the Clinton administration onwards; information about terrorist cells reaching critical mass and their intent to cause chaos. But the Oil Idiot of Texas, who refused to read his Daily Briefings and would rather vacation at his Crawford ranch than spend one extra day at work, abrogated the duty he swore an oath to perform - protect the American public.<br /><br />And then the scum who called himself president used the attacks brought about by his negligence as a political hammer against his own dumbed-down countryfolk to score a second term, shred the American Constitution and take America into a Fake War on the basis of a lie (WMD), with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Strangely enough, the movie never treads near the Ku Bush Klan, offering no opinion or judgment, Leigh Scott wanting to remain neutral. Tell that to the raped and pillaged hundreds of thousands in the Fake War on Terror in Iraq.<br /><br />Out of pure coincidence, I realized I was watching this DVD while wearing my "Bush lied. Thousands Died." t-shirt.
| 0 |
6,351 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 873 | 1,142 |
In the opening sequence of "Where's Poppa?", George Segal rises from his bed one morning, shaves, showers, puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother's bedroom, we realize later, to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. This is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture: insanity, blended with what might be taken as morbid daring.<br /><br />Segal plays a New York attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (Ruth Gordon), whose life is further complicated when, while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag, meets the girl of his dreams, the pleasantly prim Trish Van Devere, decked out like Florence Nightingale. His dilemma: how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother's life.<br /><br />Segal's performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. His frustrations, his reactions, his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy?); where the film fails is in other areas. Ruth Gordon's characterization is dreadful as the mother. At the beginning, you can't figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. By the end, it's clear she's just nuts. When Segal brings Van Devere home to meet her, Gordon's eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean, sinister look. She wants the intruder in her son's life removed; she's calculating. This is not the mode of a senile person. You're not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture, which is probably the director's (Carl Reiner) fault as much as Gordon's. Ruth Gordon's old lady in "Rosemary Baby" is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating, cloying person that Ruth Gordon generally plays, the audience responds to her as annoying. But when Mia Farrow is too timid to fight back, Gordon becomes more cloying, her fangs dig deeper and deeper and we're frightened for Farrow; this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. Here, we're being asked to laugh at what we'd normally find annoying, and if Gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way, we might. But she's selfish and mean as well, and it dampens what little humor there is.<br /><br />There are a few good laughs, though. A courtroom scene with Barnard Hughes as a military officer and Rob Reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious, and Vincent Gardenia does a nice turn as a Lombardiesque football coach. There's also an inspired bit where Segal's brother (Ron Liebman), having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to Segal's place, asks him for something for to wear home- and he gives him the gorilla suit.<br /><br />But of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn't make sense. Why is a New York lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place? Why does Segal, if his mother is senile, try to reason with her logically: "If you spoil this for me, I'll punch your f---ing heart out." Why does Liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he's going to get mugged? Why does he take a taxi after leaving Segal's with gorilla suit? Why wasn't he taking taxis all along? A funnier bit would have been Liebman, as the gorilla, terrorizing the muggers. Why does Van Devere keep coming back- after her first husband was a kook, why does she want to get involved with this bunch? I suppose if I put this to Carl Reiner, he'd say, 'These are crazy people, they don't have to make sense.' Which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that's full of holes. The characters' moment-to-moment behavior may not have to make sense, but their motivations do, and that's where "Where's Poppa?" falls apart; the situations are created just to have the gag, and the gags are mostly one-shots, they don't build to anything.<br /><br />Carl Reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. How he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me; basically, his career has been to hold a microphone in front of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks while they talk in funny voices. His son Rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. In show-biz terms, Reiner pushes buttons; a monkey could do his job. And that is most apparent in his framing of the action. Why is all of New York shot in tight and in close-ups, but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic? That's the mentality of Carl Reiner's direction, claustrophobic for the city, spatial for the country. In the final lunatic scene at the old folks home, the camera is so far off, you can't even make out what's going on. The abrupt ending suggests a resolution that Segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago; it also suggests Reiner couldn't figure out how to end the picture. So he just cut it, as another example of "craziness". Reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness, and craziness without logic is always funny. It isn't, and the creators of "Where's Poppa" are as demented as Ruth Gordon putting Pepsi in her Fruit Loops.
| 0 |
6,819 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 873 | 1,136 |
Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, ("I Know What You Did Last Summer,") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is "Backwater," but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.<br /><br />And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. "Venom" is not this movie.<br /><br />There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie cliché characters...<br /><br />1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. "Eden" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.<br /><br />2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. "Eric" is played by Jonathan Jackson.<br /><br />3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, "Hello? Is there anybody there?" "Tammy" and "Patty," suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.<br /><br />4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. "Sean" is played by D.J. Cotrona.<br /><br />5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. "Rachel" is played by Laura Ramsey.<br /><br />6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. "Ray" is played by Rick Cramer.<br /><br />I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's "The Gay Guy," (Pawel Szajda as "Ricky,") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and "The One Who Knows What's Going On." Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. "Cece" is played by Meagan Good.<br /><br />There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clichés.<br /><br />So, you're probably thinking, "why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.<br /><br />So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.<br /><br />To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.<br /><br />If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.<br /><br />I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.
| 0 |
6,854 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 859 | 1,120 |
Roll up! Roll up! It's Big Gay Bruce and his Big Gay Death Cannon! Plausible plot? Unnecessary! Decent acting? Unnecessary! Respect shown to its mighty progenitor? Unnecessary! Yes it's another offensively stuffed turkey in the Butch Bruce canon.<br /><br />I mean where do you start with this film? Okay, let's begin with the woeful misapprehension people might have that this was, in some way, related to either the book or the original film, The Day of the Jackal. It's not. In fact it's so different (and so bad) that Fredrick Forsyth asked to have his name taken off it. Now I'm not necessarily a stuffy Brit who can't hack Hollywood remaking British films. Well, okay, maybe I am a bit like that, but fortunately it's a redundant point in this case. This film is so different to the original that the name and the odd reference are the only things that survive.<br /><br />Now let's move to the premise. Cheesy Russian gangster gets killed in a Moscow police raid (somehow involving the FBI although no one bothers to explain why). In revenge, brother of gangster decides to wreak vengeance by killing the wife of the US President (although again no one bothers to explain why this is a good move although to be fair it was pre-9-11, so he wasn't to know it would have resulted in the US airforce carpet bombing Eastern Europe). Gangster hires "nasty" killer (Willis). Police hire "cuddly" killer (Gere), "cuddly" killer tracks "nasty" killer. Police fanny around and periodically get killed. "Cuddly" killer kills "nasty" killer. First lady is saved and we all realise that the IRA are just this bunch of real sweet guys y'know, who just happen to want to kill innocent people. Nice.<br /><br />Let's put to one side the distasteful Hollywood habit of playing in the troubles of Northern Ireland like it was a sandpit in a theme park (I deal with this point more extensively on the message boards). If Hollywood directors want to cast the Belfast butchers as hookers with hearts of gold, that's up to them. I, of course, reserve the right to despise them for it. It's a free country.<br /><br />More egregious, however, is the fact that the film manages to patronise and insult the Irish while trying to support them. That's not politically distasteful, it's far worse: it's incompetent. It's no wonder, for instance, that Gere still looks so damn good, given that he slept through the entire six months it took to make this piece of cra*p. The fact that Gere's accent is not only Southern Irish, but an appalling parody of Southern Irish shows that the filmmakers weren't looking much beyond America to make money from this film. Then there is that lovely scene at the end where Sidney Poitier (a complete waste of space in this film) says he's off for a coffee, offers to get our "cuddly" IRA man one, then casually says "Ah, but then you guys drink Guinness don't you". Yeah that's right Sidney; the Irish live on Guinness and potatoes.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Poitier: why? In the original film the detective is the tracker. In Jackal, Gere is the tracker. So what does Poitier do? Well, he just hangs around and looks like a tw*at of course. He's got absolutely nothing to do apart from call in the marines at the end, and he only does this because the nice IRA man tells him to.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Gere: why? I suppose it's only a matter of time before Hollywood remakes Gandhi with Vin Diesel playing ex-Mujahideen Commando Mahatma Gandhi beheading his way through 1940s and 50s India (he is, after all, a bit dark of hue and therefore very likely to be a Muslim fundamentalist). Let's not forget that Gere's character is a killer and therefore a nasty piece of work. And if he's not, why does he know The Jackal? If he's not, why does he know all his moves? And if he is, why is he such a limp biscuit and such a "loveable" person? <br /><br />All this goes to show that the makers of this film couldn't be bothered to (a) think about the plot (b) have the characters making decisions that were in keeping with their character(c) avoid cheesy stereotypes like having the big boss bad guy kill his own friend I honestly thought this had turned into a Bond movie (d) give the "central" characters something to do (e) credit the audience with a modicum of intelligence.<br /><br />This film is an insult to the British and Irish killed at the hands of terrorists, it's an insult to the Irish people, it's an insult to not great, but pretty good film it rips off, and an insult to the intelligence. But most of all and most unforgivable it is an insult to my a*rse for having to sit through the over two hours of run time it took to finish. Honestly, you'd think with no plot, no characters and no dialogue, it would be over in no time. But they didn't even have the decency to quit early.
| 0 |
6,976 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 970 | 1,176 |
and generally speaking, you will eventually have to research this little gem. When describing I Changed My Sex, or Glen Or Glenda as it is better known, I must echo the thoughts of Andrew Smith, who so hit the nail on the head when he wrote "If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering". The film is both hilarious and tragic, yet it moves with a strange rhythm of its own that leaves one in no doubt that its author knows and means every word he is saying during its running length. Wood, bless him, had some of the loftiest ambitions as a director, wanting to promote peace, understanding, and even acceptance, in the 1950s of all times. When Tim Burton recreated a viewing of Glen Or Glenda by studio execs for his biopic, he showed the execs laughing and telling each other that this had to be a put-on. More than fifty years later, there are still people fighting just to be given the kind of respect that the "normal" take for granted, so I say it most certainly is not.<br /><br />No, the real comedy in Glen Or Glenda is the sheer ineptitude Wood displays in composing his message. Directors frequently use stock footage when they can find some that suits their purposes, and can be edited to fit with their own footage. Ed Wood used stock footage indiscriminately, and Tim Burton's biopic celebrated the fact with a scene in which Wood as played by Johnny Depp bets that he could make an entire film out of stock footage. Sadly, the real Ed Wood died before he had a chance, but Glen Or Glenda is the closest he ever came. The IMDb states that twenty percent of this sixty-something minute film is stock footage, and it is never difficult to guess which footage. Footage of busy highways, planes flying overhead, poor lightning effects, soldiers doing their thing, they're all used in a haphazard manner, sometimes repeatedly, and they often only have a loose connection to the story Wood is trying to tell. Had Wood been able to sit back and think about what he is trying to do for a while, there is no telling what kind of heights he could have achieved.<br /><br />Wood himself appears in the film as the titular character, a confused transvestite who imagines himself as a woman named Glenda. Aside from the daring manner in which he attempts to make his point, Wood makes one hideous woman. Having found myself out on the fringe of a society that thinks I am "disabled" and need to be "cured" myself, I honestly found myself hoping for the best outcome for Wood's character. In order to make his point, however, Wood weaves in short stories of two other transvestites. One of them takes the extreme step of enduring a sex change in order to become a woman, the other finds himself so disenfranchised that he fears being arrested again so much he commits suicide. The scary thing about this film is that if you edited out the transvestism and substituted such disenfranchisements as my position on the autistic spectrum or such things as schizophrenia, very little of the film would even need to be changed. That is how little society has learned since Ed Wood was a boy.<br /><br />The other significant personality in Glen Or Glenda is Bela Lugosi, whom Wood shoehorned into the film. Speculation varies upon Wood's motives, but the accepted theory is that Wood wanted to help revive Lugosi's career, and would do anything in order to achieve this. With the exception of taking his time to carefully construct a good film, that is. In Glen Or Glenda, Wood makes usage of Lugosi that was best described in Flying Saucers Over Hollywood as "bizarre". Lugosi plays a character billed as The Scientist, but comes off more as an omnipotent puppet master. People who have not seen Ed Wood films before the biopic will think Tim Burton made up the "beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep" speech. If anything, Burton was being restrained about which bizarre speech to use in depicting Wood-ian dialogue. Nothing can prepare you for seeing the speeches in their original context, not even Criswell's hilarious ranting during Plan 9 From Outer Space.<br /><br />Observant types will also note the presence of Delores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time. Again, Burton dramatises her reaction to seeing the script for the first time, whereas the film portrays her as being accepting and forward-thinking. I cannot help but feel that Burton's portrayal is more accurate, as Fuller looks extremely uncomfortable in her role. She only appears for about fifteen minutes, but her delivery seems so mechanical, so lifeless, that she somehow manages to seem less talented than her cast-mates, if such a thing is possible. Whether Wood's direction was better-focused in this case than usual is hard to determine, but if the ability of the support cast to leave the stars (with the obvious exception of Bela) in the dust is any guide, then it should come as no surprise that Fuller would only appear in a very small role within one other Wood film. That she went on to write a number of hit songs tells you she made the right decision to stay behind the camera. While Wood would appear before the camera again, it was never as more than a cameo, a walk-on, or a bit-part.<br /><br />I gave Glen Or Glenda a one out of ten. I generally only give this rating to films that are so bad they become entertaining as a result. Bold and well-intentioned as it was, Glen Or Glenda fits that description to a T.
| 0 |
7,247 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 935 | 1,182 |
The original Road House is by no means an award winning film. But it is one of the great guilty pleasures of all time. It shouldn't have been that hard to make a sequel. There's no need for a big budget, big name stars, and spectacular visual effects. Even the story didn't have to be original. All it needed was a good time vibe, and some great fist fights. I don't mean Matrix-style "wire-fu", just some well choreographed barroom brawls. Lots of them. There are a couple of decent fights in the movie, but none of them are memorable, and the focus is more on gun play. Plus, the way it ties in to the original film is laughable, bordering on insulting. Johnathon Schaech plays Shane Tanner, an undercover DEA agent who is good with his hands and feet. But here's the kicker...he's the son of Patrick Swayze's character Dalton!!!! Say what????? Let's see, the original Road House was made in 1989. So for Dalton to have a son in his late 20's (maybe even 30) in 2006...well you get the idea. They give it a cheesy explanation that he lived with his uncle Nate (Will Patton) while his father "travelled around a lot". Oh please. That itself almost warranted shutting this movie off. But I digress. Schaech is completely out of his element. Sure he can throw a couple of kicks, but he's got nothing going on as an actor. Plus, he's referred to in the movie by the bad guys as "pretty boy". I've never scrutinized men that closely, but I don't think this guy is too good looking. He looks sick. His face is way too thin, and his sunken eyes make it look like he's going to pass out at any moment. I'd never heard of him before, but I think he should give up acting and go back to his day job. Jake Busey plays the local drug runner Wild Bill. Busey is not a terrible actor. He was good in Starship Troopers, and even made a menacing villain in Hitcher 2. But here, he just chews the scenery in standard bad guy mode. Even his "threating" dialog is yawn worthy. We're supposed to buy him as the man that has the whole town in his pocket. But why? What does he do? Because he wants to buy a bar from Patton "by any means necessary"? Ellen Hollman has the token girlfriend role. A woman with a secret. Too bad that secret is about as difficult to figure out as 2+2. She's the local elementary school teacher who happens to be a former Army soldier. Guess what that means? It means that while she may quiver with fear for the majority of the movie, she'll be ready to smash heads when the fur starts to fly. Oh well, at least she's hot. Actually the fight between her and Wild Bill's girl is the best one in the movie. It's fast, brutal, and entertaining. Which leads me to my next problem with the movie...the fights. As I said Schaech knows how to throw a punch. The same can't be said for anyone he faces in the movie. Obviously the movie will all come down to Schaech versus Busey. Busey is an actor, not a fighter. He doesn't possess the skills to pull of a movie fight. Swayze may have been a trained dancer, but his athletic ability gave him the means to pull off well choreographed fights. He also faced a couple of worthy opponents, and had one killer (literally) move. None of that here. With a couple of exceptions, the fights are forced, poorly staged, and routine. The punches sound like someone smacking a 2X4 on the concrete, and there's even a couple of parts where the sound doesn't even match up to the punch. It's embarrassing. There isn't even the good southern/redneck music of the original. Road House had the Jeff Healy Band, who were a somewhat popular band at the time. This movie features a singer called John Otto, whose music is tepid, and his acting even worse. He's given one line in the movie, which was probably inserted to appease whatever fans he may have out there. Either that, or someone owed him a favor. My final complaint about the movie is one that comes out of just being picky...the continuity. Movies are shot out of sequence, and then it's the editor's job to piece it all together. Well someone should give the editor of this movie a little shove. The problems range from little things like people not looking the same direction when a shot changes, to RE-USED footage at the end of the movie. In the beginning, we are introduced to the bar, The Black Pellican. As the camera moves through the bar, you see the band, the bouncers, and the people dancing. At the end of the movie, when the bad guys have been defeated, we get another shot of the same bar, with insert shots of our hero sitting at the bar with his girl. The problem is, the footage of the people in the bar is the SAME footage from the beginning of the movie!!! I kid you not. It's the same people, standing (or dancing) in the same places, wearing the same clothes. Want to know the funniest part? You see bouncers in the shot that were KILLED earlier in the movie. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie unless YOU feel the need to go out and punch someone. This movie will make you angry enough to do it.
| 0 |
7,359 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 985 | 1,181 |
This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".<br /><br />First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.<br /><br />Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.<br /><br />The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.<br /><br />Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.<br /><br />The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.<br /><br />So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.<br /><br />Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.<br /><br />The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do.
| 0 |
7,565 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 980 | 1,163 |
The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...<br /><br />Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.<br /><br />Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.<br /><br />The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.<br /><br />The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore.
| 0 |
7,590 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 859 | 1,119 |
... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.<br /><br />Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a "nutcase" could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her "condition" seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a "free spirit"). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.<br /><br />Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the cliché of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our "loveable" "free-spirit" is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.<br /><br />For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Così Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'è. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!).
| 0 |
7,763 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 973 | 1,150 |
When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.<br /><br />The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it Jürgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.<br /><br />Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.<br /><br />The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.<br /><br />Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.<br /><br />For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it.
| 0 |
7,943 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 908 | 1,142 |
I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy "Frisk," the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. "Vacationland," a would-be "teen coming out" film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.<br /><br />First off, our hero, the high school Senior "Joe" is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't "act" any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was "playing young," but it just wasn't working--it was weird.<br /><br />It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a "rite of passage" for our "young" hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is "Andrew," and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.<br /><br />There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from "Gods And Monsters" with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the "hooker with the heart of gold" as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.<br /><br />What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the "score."<br /><br />Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is "film-speak," meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply "stop," we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, "I wanted to play sports, but..." and we cut to a shot revealing his "butt..." ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of "Persona" when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).<br /><br />One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a "naughtier" or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this "sensitive coming of age" story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either.
| 0 |
8,183 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 918 | 1,167 |
Cuore Sacro combines glossy film effects with a story that leaves much to be desired. With a script that the screen-writers for "Touched by an Angel" might have passed up as being too impuissant, Ozpetek still keeps us interested at times. In fact, I wanted to focus on the positives but I found the last act so bafflingly bizarre and awful that I think the couple who jumped to their deaths in the very beginning might have been the fortunate ones.<br /><br />This movie is at heart (pun intended) a story built on a big twist-style ending. This kind of tenuous foundation can result in a tremendous success like Tornatore's Una Pura Formalità or god-awful garbage like the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Cuore Sacro falls somewhat closer to the latter. I found the cinematography in general to be above average. The tracking shots of Irene dutifully doing her quotidian laps in the pool were very impressive as was the atmosphere conjured by the interior of her mother's house. For me, the grotesque parody of Michelangelo's Pieta when Giancarlo comes in from the rain and Irene poses with him was a bit of a stretch. One big issue that I took exception to in this film was Ozpetek's method of simply turning the camera directly into the face of his protagonist and recording the emotions taking place. This worked to fantastic effect in Facing Windows, but when employed here it seems that Bubolova is no Mezzogiorno. In fact besides the ridiculous story, the main problem with this film is the milquetoast performance of it's main character. It made the final breakdown scene even more unconscionably bad. <br /><br />In this movie Ozpetek continues his crusade against our corporate-driven societies by urging us to be more spiritual (not necessarily religious) and more altruistic. And while I'm certainly one who is very sympathetic to this view, I felt as if the audience was being hit over the head with a blunt object. Could the characters have been anymore two-dimensional? I tended to find this movie very enervating and soulless. Was the "evil" aunt Eleonora anything more than a caricature? It goes for the people on the side of "right" too, like the "good" aunt Maria Clara and the elderly doorman Aurelio. And just in case we might have missed Ozpetek's point, he decided to clothe his opposing forces in their own liveries. <br /><br />This brings me to an interesting point about the director's use of color. He clothes the opening couple who briefly take flight in all black, as well as Irene (when we first meet her and after her life-conversion), the evil aunt Eleonora, and of course the good but confused Padre Carras. Black is a color that suggests a definite course, the wearer's mind is set and emotionless. It is the color of choice for that indispensable item of modern day armor, the business suit. It is also the color of mourning, such as the funerary finery sported by the suicidal duo. Finally, black is the color of piety, such as the simple robes of priests and nuns that Irene emulates in the second half of the film. <br /><br />The other main color, and a very appropriate choice for a movie about the sacred heart, is red. It is a color that has an extreme inherent emotional component. The character who wears red is bold, emotional, receptive to new ideas, and indulgent. Red is a risky color in modern times; it challenges our perceptions of the wearer and at the same time makes the wearer vulnerable. Yet red carries an enormous weight of history and mysticism, as the earliest members of Cro-Magnon man buried their dead in red ochre and indeed the first man named in the Torah, Adam, is named after the Hebrew word for red. Red also has an anachronistic flavor, looking back on the past where red (and by association a less self-driven attitude towards life) was more accepted. So when we encounter the red-filled room (the mysterious frieze covered walls complete with a red accented menorah and a red painting of a Whirling Dervish!) of Irene's mother, "good" characters Maria Clara and Aurelio wearing resplendent outfits of red, and finally the painting of Irene's mother in a formal red gown we can see where Ozpetek's sympathies lie.<br /><br />A word or two about the soundtrack, I found the original musical themes to be excellently suited to the story. The quasi-baroque theme that signified Irene was great for it's monotony and feeling of restive malaise (the absolute best use of a constantly repeated baroque theme such a this would have to be in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, with it's masterful repetitions of an 8-bar sarabande attributed to Handel). One absolutely inspired choice was a couple of seconds of an opera aria we hear as the power is flickering while Irene is chasing Benny through the house. It is of the famous aria "Ebben? ... Ne andrò lontano" from Catalani's opera "La Wally". The aria is sung by the lead soprano who is leaving home forever. As Irene's mother was a dramatic soprano, we can guess that this is a recording of her singing and that she is saying a poignant farewell to her daughter, as in the movie Irene is soon destined to never again see Benny alive. I just have one minor question of the soundtrack, why include the famous tango Yo Soy Maria? I love the song and personally could hear it all the time, but it didn't really fit here.
| 0 |
8,679 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 955 | 1,105 |
Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.<br /><br />But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.<br /><br />The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.<br /><br />So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.<br /><br />Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have "No artistic vision just one big mess". I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.
| 0 |
8,704 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 971 | 1,112 |
I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.<br /><br />I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.<br /><br />Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.<br /><br />This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say "that is long" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.<br /><br />I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, "a process of non thinking" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, "bronze age myths" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn " I am right, he is wrong" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.<br /><br />Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish.
| 0 |
8,721 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 858 | 1,143 |
I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called "Saw" was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for "characters" and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single "twist" coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his "accomplice(s)" as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had "RED-HERRING" or "ACCOMPLICE" tattooed across their foreheads.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out "Saw" had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found "Napoleon Dynamite" to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought "satire" was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll knock it over and leave what's so frightening about that?).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I own every "Friday the 13th", love my splatter movies, thought "Napoleon Dynamite" was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank "Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers" amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer I appreciate them for what they are quick, easy fun. "Saw" is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.<br /><br />Will I see "Saw II"? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0/10. Avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
8,737 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 914 | 1,171 |
OK, before I get into this, let's go ahead and get the warning out of the way: this movie is the quintessential "cinematic" definition of SLEAZE! There are movies out there that can definitely out-shock or out-disgust this movie that have WAY more artistic validity than can be said for this turd of a film. So what makes it so sleazy?? Let's take a closer look at "Wet Wilderness" for a moment......<br /><br />Made in 1974 for practically nothing, this "roughie" has no real genuine "plot" to speak of other than portraying what would happen if a FAMILY went into the wilderness to relax and spend a day while being accosted by a fat dude in a ski mask wielding a machete looking for kicks.....the kind that end up with everyone being forced to have sex with each other while being systematically murdered by the masked creep. So those sensitive to themes dealing with incest are encouraged to look elsewhere. Then to really either add a level of surrealism or just demonstrate a complete ineptness for the art of film-making, the "daughter" of the group runs away after being forced to have sex with her brother and finds a random black dude (!) tied to a tree branch ("...that fat sum-bitch left me here for 3 days...") with virtually NO explanation whatsoever!! He is saved.....or is he? Of course not!! They are caught before they can escape, where our killer forces them to have sex as well while forcing the mother to join in, ending up with a dead black dude (courtesy of a hatchet through the chest) when all is said and done. Then our killer forces the daughter and mother to give him oral sex when one of the women grabs the machete........and the movie abruptly ends!!! Just like that! No warning, no tied-up loose ends.....it's simply over. Now there MIGHT be a proper ending to this film (I honestly do not know), but I have only seen the extremely crude Alpha Blue Archives version. Their version appears to have the ending either cut out completely or this is how it ends. If this was intentional, then in Film-making 101, I'm sure there is some sort of rule of thumb on HOW to end a film, but it shouldn't be done like THIS! Fans of the film "Psycho" should rejoice upon hearing the soundtrack music, as it's all through the film! I'd be willing to bet no rights were licensed or anything. Also, even though this is a "violent" film, there's not a hell of a lot of it, so gorehounds will find nothing of real use here. None of the violence is graphically shown.....only the results (one of the victims gets stabbed with a machete right above the vagina area). Also, the sex is some of the UGLIEST sex I've ever seen! The interesting thing about this film is it's too ugly a film to work as an effectively erotic porno or turn on anyone but those with a tendency to like things sleazy, nasty, and ugly, but not violent enough to garner any real notoriety with those looking for something really brutal like "Cannibal Holocaust" or other flicks like that. The only "notorious" thing about this steaming pile is that violence was added to an adult film, a fairly new concept at that time, especially when you consider than porn chic was all the rage and the grindhouses that filled 42nd Street played stuff like this to a most jaded group of porn mavens. This wasn't and isn't "mainstream" porn at all.<br /><br />If you were in film-making school and there was a list of movie-making "don'ts", this film would be a shining example of that lesson! This cinematic swill demonstrates what happens when cerebrally challenged filmmakers are given a "budget" (in this case, probably about $142.....cuz it looks it!) and ignore all the "don'ts" and turn them into "do's".....yes, this film is that bad!! One more thing: those who get offended by racial epithets are also encouraged to watch something else. The black man in the film is constantly being verbally abused about his color and the killer is obviously racist, but there was NO political correctness in the early 70's. I'm not sure a film like this could be made today.<br /><br />To be honest, this won't "shock" anyone or titillate anyone but those who get off on ugliness. Actually, I got bored. The sex is so ugly and mundane, it's hard to watch with any sense of eroticism, so if you chance this, you will thank God for the fast forward button! The "acting", if you want to call it that, is amateurish at best (I mean, it's even bad for PORNO!) with not one reason to care about anyone or anything in this!! If you JUST gotta see this anyway, then download it, as you'll really feel like a heel if you buy this. Some things are simply that worthless.....and "Wet Wildernes" is. The only thing more unpleasant than watching this film would be watching this film sitting in a theater and looking around at the others in attendance watching it too and suddenly feeling unsafe. Probably not society's greatest collection of thinkers and intellectuals. But if you're up for some stupid, yet SLEAZY porn garbage, give it a crack. It's 54 minutes and yet, it feels MUCH longer!! Crackheads would LOVE this! Then again, maybe there's something wrong with me for seeking this out in the first place......LOL! Caveat emptor, sleaze-lovers!!
| 0 |
9,014 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 959 | 1,190 |
So Seagal plays a DEA detective named John Hatcher who lost his partner on a drug investigation into, surprise surprise, Colombia! Not to brag or anything, but my father was born and raised in Colombia (hence my last name), and now he's a doctor in California, so no matter what the movies would have you believe, there are some things other than drug dealers and cocaine that come out of Colombia!<br /><br />At any rate, in a drug bust gone bad, Hatcher loses his partner and accidentally kills a naked Colombian prostitute, inspiring him to go to confession, somewhere that I have never seen him go before in any of his movies, before or since. It was actually pretty interesting. Seagal has a tendency to come off as almost asexual the way he never gets much involved with women other than as a plot device and the way the occasional seduction attempt, whether by a stripper or by a lover, never piques the slightest bit of interest from him. He's all get-the- bad-guys all the time. <br /><br />But in the confession booth, he confesses to having lied, sold drugs, falsified evidence, and even slept with informants in order to get the information he needed to put the bad guys behind bars (I hope I'm not getting in trouble with God by telling you this
). The priest tells him to go to his family, so he decides it's time to retire from the force. <br /><br />The next third of the movie is an exercise in the paper-thin characterization characteristic of Seagal's films. Marked For Death is the story of Seagal against a band of mystic Jamaican drug dealers, and these guys have no discretions about pushing their products in broad daylight.<br /><br />Hatcher goes back to visit his old high school coach, Max (a minimal effort by Keith David), and right in the middle of practice there are some of these dread-locked crackheads sitting right there in the bleachers peddling crack to some bookworm-looking high school girls.<br /><br />Maybe I just had a sheltered experience in high school, but I didn't know crack dealers and crackheads hung out AT SCHOOL in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. At any rate, it's not long before Hatcher learns how evil these guys are. They're not just peddling crack to high school kids, but the coach has been losing football players regularly to their drugs, they engage in smartass stare-downs with Max, and since that's not enough, his 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse.<br /><br />Ah, OK. We get the picture. I'm sure they also torture puppies and beat up old women, and maybe steal candy from children too, just for good measure. Is it really this hard to establish who the bad guys are? 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse. Wow.<br /><br />Anyway. Not only does the movie not know how to develop villains without resorting to what basically boils down to movie name-calling, where evil deeds are shallowly assigned to them through dialogue, but they also don't know how they should act. <br /><br />The leader of the drug dealers, is named Screwface, and I suppose that alone should tell you something about the kind of movie this is. Screwface is a cartoonish Jamaican man with these bright, bizarrely green eyes, which I am guess must be an important part of his character because he spends a good majority of his screen time with his eyes half bulging out of his head. His favorite means of intimidation is to scream really loud in his wildly overblown Jamaican accent with his face quite literally less than an inch away from whoever he's yelling at. This guy likes to get so into guys' faces that he has to turn his head to the side so their noses don't touch. All I could think about was how the poor guys would deal with his breath.<br /><br />Man, they do not want you to forget that these guys are Jamaican, by the way. Their accents are so exaggerated and overblown that for most of the movie it's nearly impossible to understand them. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter what they're saying, all you need to know is that everything that comes out of their mouths is some kind of evil drug-related thing, they're just the psychos that peddle drugs and kill people. The movie must have been a huge hit in Jamaica!<br /><br />My biggest problem with the movie is that the theatrics, particularly of the bad guys, as I've described, are spectacularly goofy, even for a Seagal film. They are so cartoonish and weird that it's impossible to take them as anything other than a goofball b-movie creation, something slapped together to provide fodder to whom Seagal can distribute his characteristic brand of smack-down retribution. <br /><br />But there is also a bizarre kind of mysticism in the movie that just makes it all come off as weird. For example, a mystic, I guess you would call her, at one point puts some kind of curse on Screwface by (if I remember correctly) spitting mouthfuls of Bacardi onto a live rooster that's hanging upside down before beheading it and dripping its blood onto a picture of Screwface. Hmm. Interesting. <br /><br />Sadly, it's this same woman that warns Hatcher that his family has been "marked for death" by these people, meaning they've got some voodoo hex on them. Not to belittle anyone, but if I was told that my family had been cursed by people like that, I would just laugh at it. Hatcher doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to take much stock in freaky voodoo curses! <br /><br />But the set-up, as you can see, is pretty standard for a Seagal film. Unique villains, I guess you could say, although not very impressive. Definitely the weirdest film of Seagal's early career
| 0 |
9,180 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 995 | 1,174 |
I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as "More American Graffiti" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of "American Graffiti" and produced basically at the same time as "Star Wars", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.<br /><br />Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical "last big night" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's "Rebel Without a Cause" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. "More American Graffiti" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for "Apocalypse Now" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of "Two-Lane Blacktop" and so many better films.<br /><br />Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of "American Graffiti" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as "American Graffiti" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton.
| 0 |
9,295 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 788 | 1,109 |
Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed. <br /><br />First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot "Maaja Maaja"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the "New York Nagaram" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! "Munbe Vaa" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of "Machakari", "Maaja Maaja", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.<br /><br />Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the "New York Nagaram" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. "Machakari", "Munbe Vaa", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the "Kummi Adi" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.<br /><br />Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.<br /><br />And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.
| 0 |
9,303 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 908 | 1,106 |
Out of all the films I could have chosen, it had to be this. When I was last in New York I went into a Times Square store and out of the hundreds of DVD's they had I chose Joel M. Reeds Bloodsucking Freaks (1976) and this, on a double feature DVD that also included Seeds of Sin (1968), did I regret it? Read on to find out. The film opens on an island (near Milligan's Staten Island home) where two lovers are walking along with a massive parasol seemingly made from paper, at one point he gives her the top of a weed as a gift. Out of nowhere Colin (Hal Borske) a retarded hunchback pops up and kills both of them for no reason at all. After the opening credits which are joined by some of the worst headache inducing music I have ever heard, at least it got me used to it as it's used constantly throughout the film, we are introduced to three couples. The wives are all sisters, Vicky (Ann Linden) and Ricard (Fib LaBlaque), Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams) plus Elizabeth (Carol Vogel) and Donald (Richard Ramos). They each receive a letter from a lawyer, H. Dobbs (Neil Flanagan) that request a meeting so he can read their late father's will. Dobbs informs them that they must spend three days in their childhood home 'Crenshaw House' and fill it with 'sexual harmony and marital love' that it had never known because of the strained relationship between their father and mother. He informs the couples that the will is highly irregular but legal. After three days the inheritance will be settled. The couples are also told about the servants, Martha (Veronica Radburn), Hattie (Maggie Rodgers) and the retarded Colin, who welcomes the couples by killing and biting chunks out of a rabbit in front of them. Later on that night whats left of the dead rabbit is found in one of the couples beds with a note that says 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit'. This starts a series of events which end in gruesome murder and reveals dark family secrets.<br /><br />Co-written, photographed and directed by the talentless Andy Milligan. This is an absolutely horrible film in every way possible. Lets go through just some of it's faults. The music, it's awful and headache inducing. Sound, you can barely hear what characters are saying and certain scenes don't have any sound effects plus at certain points you can hear Milligan shouting out orders to his actors, oh and there's a constant hiss on the soundtrack throughout as well. The acting, probably among the worst I have ever witnessed. The very un-special effects, Colin pokes someones eye out in the opening sequence, it's the size of a tennis ball, the part where someone is tied down and has his stomach opened up with a saw looks really awful as are the various hands and legs that are chopped off. Photography, Milligan has absolutely no idea how to stage or film a scene, he regularly cuts the top, bottom or sides of peoples heads and faces off the screen and his camera jerks and shakes around like it's operated by someone who is constantly tripping over. There is also at least one scene so badly thought out and filmed that a crew member is seen. The film is often so dark you can't see whats happening, too. Editing, again some of the worst I've ever sat through, he seems to cut scenes before they've finished, cutting away while characters are in the middle of a sentence. The script, if there was one, credited to both Milligan and Hal Sherwood (It took two people to write this!?) is all over the place and is incredibly stupid. There is one unbelievably bad sequence where the killer follows a victim down into the basement, the killer walks right behind him, at one point the potential victim turns around. What does the killer do to avoid being spotted? They duck down right in from of him, the killers close enough to give the guy oral sex yet he doesn't notice them, right in front of him. You have to see this sequence to believe it, I still can't believe what I saw. Bizarre sub plots just happen and then totally disappear, check the scene out when Richard has to borrow money from his brother Walter (producer and co-writer Hal Sherwood), who turns out to be a gay priest who has had an incestuous relationship with his brother before he was married! A strange scene that's there for no reason at all. Martha the housekeepers reaction to the first murder, she's more bothered by the fact that it's thrown her dinner schedule out! There's load of insane dialogue as well, Patty and Martha discuss Colin, Patty says "if only I didn't beat him so hard" Martha sympathetically replies "you have to Patty, you have to!", delivered totally straight faced. And don't start me on how ugly the wallpaper looks throughout the house! The only good thing I can think of saying is that the costumes look reasonable, for the time period it's meant to be set in. I could probably go on all day about how amateurish this is, but I think you get the idea. One to avoid unless your a serious masochist! I didn't regret buying or watching it for a second, though!
| 0 |
9,525 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 957 | 1,117 |
The Bone Collector is set in New York City & starts as one of the world's foremost criminologist's & crime scene experts Lincoln Rhyme (Denzel Washington) is involved in an accident which leaves him a bedridden quadriplegic. Jump forward four years & Alan (Gary Swanson) & his wife Lindsay Rubin (Olivia Birkelund) are kidnapped, soon after New York cop Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie) is called to a crime scene & finds the buried & mutilated body of Alan. Amelia notices some unusual crime scene evidence & makes a note of it which impresses Rhyme when he is asked to work on the case, he quickly realises the evidence are in fact cryptic clues to the whereabouts of Lindsay. Having cracked the clues the cops get there too late to save her but this is just the beginning as a sadistic serial killer continues to kill & leave forensic clues for Rhyme & the police...<br /><br />Directed by Phillip Noyce I watched The Bone Collector last night & I have to say it's one of the worst big budget post The Silence of the Lambs (1991) & Se7en (1995) serial killer thrillers I have seen, in fact it makes Friday the 13th (1980) look sophisticated & realistic! The script by Jeremy Iacone was based on the book by Jeffery Deaver & is so poor on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. For a start it takes itself deadly seriously & that makes all the other flaws seem twice as bad. The character's are truly awful & I didn't believe any of them were actual human beings. First we have Lincoln Rhyme who is paralysed from the neck down & there's just not a lot the script can do with him, in fact he quite literally can't do anything but lie in bed for the whole film. He is seemingly impressed with Amelia because she stopped a train & thought a fresh footprint near a murdered person might be of relevance, I'm not being funny here but wouldn't any cop realise a footprint near a murder victim might be of some relevance? Why is he so impressed with her? Then there's Capatin Cheney who is not only unlikable & shouts at everyone for no apparent reason but is so incompetent that he failed to connect several murders committed in a short space of time where each victim had sections of flesh & skin surgically removed from their bodies, how exactly did this guy get to be a police Captain? Then there's the killer whose motives are less than plausible, are you trying to tell me they devised an intricate plan to murder at least seven people because they spent six years in jail for something they actually did? If they wanted revenge on Rhyme why did they kill all those other people who had no connection to anything, I could maybe just about buy someone wanting revenge against the guy who put them away but not to kill several other people who have no connection to themselves, the intended target Rhyme anything else. Also after devising an intricate plan to kill these people & get away with it they suddenly turn into the most stupid person in history as despite holding a large knife & being able to walk & use their arms they are actually defeated & nearly killed by a quadriplegic who has no movement in his body below his neck! How did that happen? I should also mention Amelia who is a terrible character, she actually buys her own camera to take crime scene photo's & shoots rats for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Besides some of the worst written character's ever the story & plot isn't much better We never find out why the killer is using The Bone Collector book as inspiration We never find out why the killer was taking strips of flesh from his victims. It's never explained why a rookie cop like Amelia is allowed to enter crime scenes even before the proper forensic teams. There is no reason given for why the killer chooses his victims. Also the killers clues are a little obscure aren't they? I mean a bloody animal bone & shaved rat hair? Logically how does someone go from a bone & rat hair to the exact pinpoint location of the next victim & has the whole of New York to choose from? There's some nonsense about a bird that sits on Rhymes window ledge which is just totally random & at almost two hours The Bone Collector is really slow going. There is so much wrong with The Bone Collector & it all comes down to one of the worst scripts ever, it's atrocious on all levels & has zero credibility. Apparently Angelina Jolie has stated that she shot nude scenes for this film but they were cut because they were felt to be too distracting.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $48,000,000 The Bone Collector is well made with good production values & that Hollywood gloss about it. I also must add right now that I think Angelina Jolie gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen, I think she is absolutely terrible in this. Denzel Washington just sort of lies there really, Queen Latifah is awful & even Michael Rooker can't do much as he is stuck with a clichéd & one dimensional character.<br /><br />The Bone Collector has to be one of the worst Hollywood films I have seen in a while, I saw it for free on telly last night & I still feel cheated & ripped-off. There are just so many things to poke holes at it's silly, embarrassingly awful or should that be awfully embarrassing? Works either way to be honest...
| 0 |
9,619 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 953 | 1,168 |
Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.<br /><br />Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.<br /><br />Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.<br /><br />MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.<br /><br />Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.<br /><br />And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.<br /><br />From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.<br /><br />And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.<br /><br />The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).<br /><br />I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.<br /><br />Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.<br /><br />The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.<br /><br />It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.<br /><br />What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.<br /><br />Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.
| 0 |
9,698 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 864 | 1,144 |
So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.<br /><br />Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.<br /><br />Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.<br /><br />In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.<br /><br />What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.<br /><br />What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.<br /><br />What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.<br /><br />My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.<br /><br />Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.<br /><br />I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.
| 0 |
9,952 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 948 | 1,180 |
I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.<br /><br />To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.<br /><br />In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.<br /><br />In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.<br /><br />At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.<br /><br />But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.<br /><br />There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.<br /><br />But no.
| 0 |
9,977 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 919 | 1,174 |
I'm writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. I watched the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue games on the Internet. I know something about the issues that were raised. Other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing/buying, and I'm talking largely to them. However, I'll try not to ignore those who aren't "into chess".<br /><br />This movie is about the 1997 match between Garry Kasparov and the custom-built computer "Deep Blue". However, the first image you see in the movie is not of Kasparov, or of the computer, but of "THE TURK". This is an "automaton" which was built in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th century and played winning chess against all comers. I put the word "automaton" in quotes because it was, as everyone now knows, a fake. There was a man inside it.<br /><br />If you don't like seeing "THE TURK", then you won't be able to stand the movie, because "THE TURK" has as much screen time as Kasparov, maybe more, both in modern footage and in b/w footage from some old movie. The reappearance of "THE TURK" every few seconds underscores Kasparov's charge that "Deep Blue" had human assistance - that it was (to some degree) a fake computer, that IBM cheated, that there was "a man inside it" working behind the scenes to help it win. Not only does Kasparov believe this, but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. And so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. It is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. Really it is a lot like a "negative campaign ad", as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos ("we never found out what was behind that locked door") and the ever-present "TURK".<br /><br />Now, most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that IBM did not cheat and that this was Garry's paranoia at work. To start with, in order for a human to help "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, it would seem that you would need a human who was better than "Deep Blue" AND better than Kasparov. Since there was no such person, the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. Furthermore, by the time this movie was made, there were computer programs that could run on your PC that could beat strong grandmasters. Today, much more than in 1997, we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. And we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (And in fact, the bottom line is that Kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes, including resigning game 2 in a drawn position.) <br /><br />As for the chess games, you actually see very little of them. There are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went, but really you don't get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. Naturally as a chess player I take this as a major shortcoming, but I think that non-players are being cheated too. Imagine a baseball movie, for example, where you don't hardly get to see any of the game - just a commentator telling you that "in Game Four, the White Sox defeated the Astros with such and such a score." Nobody would make a movie like that. But here, for example, we are told that Kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6, but we aren't shown the position on the screen, or told why it was a blunder, or what he should have done instead, or anything. We just see a few seconds of Kasparov holding his head in his hands, and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work.<br /><br />(Since I saw this on DVD, let me warn chess players about the DVD as well. The jacket promises you that the Extras include the games "with analysis". Is this grandmaster analysis, which people like us might find interesting? NO! It is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of Chessmaster, that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the "Caro-Kann Defense, Main Line". Blahhhh.) <br /><br />Someone might then come along and say, "Well, clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non-player, and so it's unfair to be impatient with it." But actually it doesn't do a very good job of reaching out to the non-player either - it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. For example it says that Kasparov could have gotten "perpetual check" in the second game, but it doesn't explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board, which would have been interesting). It flashes back to the Kasparov-Karpov matches but doesn't explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. I didn't need this information myself, but I'm familiar with it. If you don't already have chess experience, there are places where you are going to be confused, and this is just a defect in the film.<br /><br />Ultimately I can't recommend the movie, which, like "THE TURK" itself, is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion.
| 0 |
10,107 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 931 | 1,125 |
I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.<br /><br />My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.<br /><br />Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.<br /><br />This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.
| 0 |
10,315 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 964 | 1,145 |
Significant Spoilers! <br /><br />This is a sick, disturbing movie... just like the sick, twisted director, Jennifer Chambers Lynch who also wrote it. I don't even know why I gave this movie a rating of 2. It is not the fault of the actors for sure. The cast certainly portrayed their roles well. It is the way this movie was written and the way the characters were written which was the benchmark of a truly sick mind.<br /><br />I do know that I will never, ever watch another movie which has been written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch. She is a sick, twisted, foul-mouthed, foul-thinking deviant. She looks, speaks and sounds like some biker chick with her brain fried on drugs, who spent 20 years doing hard time. You can clearly see what kind of person she is by watching her on the DVD special features section of "Surveillance: The Watched are Watching." You can see and hear her for yourself. She was every bit as bad as I had envisioned from the writing of this movie.<br /><br />I'm not shocked by bad language, although this director certainly talks like a sailor. This goes far beyond simple bad language; worse than any p0rn film. The level of implied sado-violence and perversion she incorporates into every character she writes are of the genre which is even illegal by p0rn standards. This perverse, disturbing thinking is clearly apparent in her own personality and things she says. Another reviewer found the description I was seeking. This is a snuff film.<br /><br />Be sure to listen to her narration on the deleted scenes and alternate ending. This director/writer is truly a sick person. I can't believe anyone would put her in charge of a movie, much less pay her for it. You can be assured that I will never, ever watch another movie she has been affiliated with. In the thousands of movies I have watched and collected, there are only a couple directors and writers which have merited this kind of boycott. She is offensive beyond anyone I have ever seen connected with filming a movie before. There have been some bad directors and writers, but none could compare to her sick, twisted mind.<br /><br />When I saw this movie, which was just one murder rampage after another. Once it got past the hotel murder... then the sick cops shooting at and brutalizing drivers for kicks... the vacation family with the bad parents (who had no business being in the presence of children)... followed by the drug addicts.... the movie then proceeded to the (even more) twisted, deviant serial killers.<br /><br />As I saw the serial killers reveal themselves, I began to wonder what kind of truly sick mind wrote this movie. Those were my actual thoughts as I watched this movie. I fully intended to find out what writer had such a sick mind... because that writer seriously needs to be committed for long-term psychiatric treatment. To my surprise, it turned out to be the director. When I saw and heard what she had to say on the DVD, I realized my assessment of the writer was right on the nose. On the DVD, she was indeed the sick, twisted person I had envisioned writing such a disturbing film.<br /><br />While the little girl, (Stephanie) Ryan Simpkins, truly stole the show... I can't believe that her real-life parents would have tolerated this sick, foul-mouthed, director to be anywhere near their daughter.<br /><br />This movie is disturbing, sick, offensive, twisted and the director-writer needs some serious treatment in a mental facility.<br /><br />As far as the ending of the movie goes... the alternate ending, should have been the outcome of this horrific ordeal. There was no point and no benefit to the film or the story or the flow of the film by the death of the other character. I'm stunned that any studio actually distributed the movie. The trailer was completely misleading. The only reason the movie got the audience it did was due to the clever wordsmithing and creative depiction on the trailer. That trailer is not representative of the movie you will see.<br /><br />Other than the child... every character in this movie was a sick, murderous, twisted, perverse, violent sex freak and their characters are mirrored the mind of the writer-director who created them. But if you watch it carefully, even the parents of the vacationing family; the sick cops taking pot shots; the serial killers posing in alternate roles; cops in the station; and even the station dispatcher... every single one of these character roles incorporated a sexually, twisted, violent pervert. I'm not too sure about some of the actors after watching them talk about the filming of the movie and the Canadian town in the Special Features section of the DVD.<br /><br />This writer-director has such a personal mental deviation that no matter what she writes, every character role contains those same carbon copy stamps. The only character which did not have these deviant tendencies was the child. Watch closely and you will see this in every character. Then listen to the director-writer talk on the DVD Special Features section and you will understand what I'm telling you about her mental state and psychological issues. She wouldn't be tolerated in too many decent homes if she were not from a Hollywood film making family.<br /><br />Fortunately, Jennifer Chambers Lynch does not have much of a filmography... less than a handful of things. Since she carbon copies those disturbing traits in all of her character roles, I don't think we'll have to see many movies written or directed by her unless her dad, director David Lynch helps her out. I'd recommend staying away from any movie she is involved with... and I'm not too sure her dad's films would be any better.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Avoid anything written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch.
| 0 |
10,993 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 988 | 1,176 |
This movie is about a young couple running away to start a new life in LA, who end up being stalked by a psycho at a deserted rest stop. Actually, it's really just about the girl (Nicole), since her boyfriend literally disappears within a few minutes. The movie gets going extremely fast, and early on you wonder how it could possibly stretch its story out to feature length. It isn't long before you realize that the movie does this by simply wasting time with unnecessary scenes that go nowhere.<br /><br />The story is not only paper-thin, but unstructured, stupid, and incoherent. Minutes after the disappearance of her boyfriend and car, Nicole finds a mobile home at the rest stop. She sees the flashing of a camera, and KNOWS that people are inside, but she easily gives up on trying to get their help when no one answers her door knocks. After she is informed by the killer that her boyfriend is in danger, she walks around the rest stop, doing all sorts of stupid and unnecessary things. This includes turning on a TV (and even looking amused when she thinks she's stumbled onto a porno movie, even in this dire situation), sitting around, wandering, and drinking from a bottle of liquor for hours on end. She does all this KNOWING that her boyfriend has been abducted, that the killer is still on the loose and stalking her, and without taking any actions to ensure her immediate safety (she doesn't bother to lock the doors or remain alert). Oh yeah, she tries using a radio to call for help, but why even bother when there's a mobile home with people inside RIGHT THERE at the rest stop? It really seems like the script writer forgot about this important fact while writing this part of the story.<br /><br />There's no sense of entrapment or ever-present danger in this story. The heroine freely wanders in and around the various buildings at the rest stop, and the killer only drives in occasionally to scare her, before driving off again. There's NOTHING stopping Nicole from simply taking off (even if the rest stop is a long way from anywhere else, that's better than sitting around), but she chooses to stay anyway. At one point in the movie, the main character even ACKNOWLEDGES that she can run off, but doesn't.<br /><br />The story doesn't go anywhere, and instead just jumps from pointless segment to pointless segment. Nicole finally gets inside the mobile home, and it turns out that the inhabitants are a family of sheltered, presumably inbred or psychotic religious fanatics. They seem willfully ignorant or uncaring about the killer's actions (but there's no indication that they're connected to him in any way), and then kick Nicole out after several minutes.<br /><br />In the next irrelevant segment, the main character wanders into the bathroom building. She discovers one of the killer's previous victims (a young woman named Tracy), who is still alive and locked in a closet. For some strange reason, Tracy starts vomiting ridiculous amounts of blood. Nicole goes off to fetch a crowbar to pry open the closet door, and when she returns a minute later, both Tracy and her pool of blood have disappeared without any explanation. What was the point? Nicole finds a bulletin board showing many missing persons, and sees that Tracy had disappeared in 1971. So, was Tracy a ghost or something? The writer never bothers explaining.<br /><br />Next, a cop shows up in the middle of the night to man the police office at the rest stop, which had been conveniently left unattended for the entire day so far. Nicole tells him all about what's been going on, and when the killer drives up in his truck outside the office, the cop goes outside to confront him. What does the police officer do, knowing that something is seriously wrong? He goes up and calmly talks to the killer (who Nicole had even pointed out to be the guy who was stalking her), and buys into the killer's lie that he was simply driving through and needed directions. Seriously. The cop then talks to Nicole outside, totally unaware as the pickup truck turns around and runs him over.<br /><br />The cop quickly starts telling Nicole that he's a goner who's "lucky to be breathing" still, yet he strangely doesn't die for quite a while. The two of them do some more pointless talking, and the all-important fact that he has a gun is annoyingly not even mentioned for too long a time. When the two of them finally try to use the gun, Nicole stupidly wastes most of her bullets blindly shooting at a door when the killer was possibly behind it. With two bullets left, the policeman tells Nicole to use one to euthanize him. She fires one into his mouth, and he lays still for a few moments, with a chunk blown out of his head. Then, he suddenly and inexplicably yells out "You missed!" and she has to shoot him again. Completely cheap attempt at shock.<br /><br />Nicole finally confronts the killer
and fails. The movie ends with a scene taking place not long from then, with a woman arriving at the now strangely much more active rest stop. In the bathroom building, she hears Nicole crying for help in the closet (locked in like Tracy was). She gets a policeman to go inside and check it, but he finds an apparently normal and clean closet. The cop leaves, thinking he's been tricked. A battered Nicole is seen coming out from behind some boxes in the closet (she would have been easily spotted if the cop had spent all of 10 seconds looking), apparently too stupid to have said or done anything when the policeman was there. WOW.<br /><br />This movie is apparently the first in a new line of "quality" direct-to-DVD movies, marketed as being too extreme for theaters. In reality, it's just more cliché, B-Movie garbage.
| 0 |
11,065 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 942 | 1,126 |
First let me say that those of you that voted it "10" are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie "From Justin to Kelly" because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.<br /><br />I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the "cgi" or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.<br /><br />Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the "token Nerd" is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating "I don't want this story in your book." The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: "If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.") At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: "We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown." You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.<br /><br />Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the "action" scenes.<br /><br />The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The "monster" comes in to attack/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the "monster" was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his "mask" (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.<br /><br />Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.<br /><br />Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.<br /><br />If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie.
| 0 |
11,356 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 930 | 1,152 |
Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.<br /><br />1 / 10.<br /><br />Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:<br /><br />- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's "Manhunter", based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.<br /><br />- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced "Manhunter", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.<br /><br />- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of "documentaries" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.<br /><br />- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it.
| 0 |
11,819 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 909 | 1,139 |
There is a difference between a "film," and a "movie." A film, regardless of quality, is ready for public consumption. A movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. In my time as a viewer, I have seen may examples of both.<br /><br />On September 19, I attended a screening of writer/director Jon Satejowski's "Donnybrook." Now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the "finished" product) of this piece, I can safely say it is a movie. And a student movie, at that. It is, for lack of a better word, competent, which is to say, the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. The visuals are, for the most part, static and unimpressive, and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots, with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. I understand that this is a modestly budgeted film, but some visual flair would have been appreciated, and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested.<br /><br />Granted, there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written, engrossing story and some sharp dialog. Steven Soderbergh's "sex, lies, and videotape" comes immediately to mind. This movie, however, has neither. The main story is weak and unfocused. If the main plot is Davie trying to mend his relationship with his father, then I feel this movie misses the point. What I got out of it is that Davie's main aspiration is to "change the face of rock 'n' roll." However, we see very little activity on his part to show this. While there is one dream sequence at the beginning, and an impromptu performance of his at the end, all we seem to get are scenes of Davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. We are simply told that Davie has played a lot of gigs, but we never see him in full rock out mode. Next time, SHOW don't TELL the audience. Anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. Also, Davie doesn't look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970's; he looks like he'd be more comfortable in the early days of rock 'n' roll, posing as James Dean's less talented brother. In the meantime, the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather cliché characters, and story threads, that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story, are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i.e. the subplot involving Terry's father). If I want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction, I will consider watching "Napolean Dynamite" again, a film I could barely make it through the first time.<br /><br />As for the above mentioned dialog scenes, I guess I should mention that they are few and extremely far between. Is it too much to ask for characters who do speak? I don't think it is. When the characters do speak, it is in short, choppy sentences; collections of oh so insightful questions, angered grunts or wildly over-the-top outbursts. These characters simply do not behave like normal, rational people. Working with material like this, it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film, Al Hudson's, and that's just because he's doing a poor imitation of Sam Elliott for his time on screen. A good director, or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director, would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. However, with Satejowski being so close to the material, he simply doesn't see them, or, if he does, he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it'll hurt his creative vision. Being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner, is the mark of a self-indulgent, misguided fool. Just ask Rob Schneider. <br /><br />In the end, we are left with a poor, high-school-set, knock-off of Zach Braff's amazing "Garden State" combined with the equally amazing "Velvet Goldmine," two films far more worthy of your time.<br /><br />Now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review, allow me to offer this. The best I can do is compliment Mr. Satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. However, the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. This is a student movie, nothing more, nothing less. If the movie holds any promise (and let's face it, at this point, it isn't going to come from the acting, writing, or directing), it is this: If, IF, the people associated with this film are willing, then, please, learn from this movie, file it away, and use the lessons learned on your next attempt; don't attack your critics, or have friend or family do it for you. If you are able to do this, maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution, worthy of being called a "film."<br /><br />I am your audience, and I am willing to watch.
| 0 |
11,877 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 905 | 1,192 |
Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************<br /><br />Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:<br /><br />1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.<br /><br />2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.<br /><br />3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.<br /><br />4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.<br /><br />5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.<br /><br />6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.<br /><br />7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)<br /><br />8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".<br /><br />9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.<br /><br />10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:<br /><br />CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.<br /><br />DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.<br /><br />CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.<br /><br />DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.<br /><br />11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************<br /><br />Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.<br /><br />Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....<br /><br />All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)<br /><br />Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.<br /><br />I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.<br /><br />The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.<br /><br />
| 0 |
11,970 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 945 | 1,121 |
WEll first and for most I'd just like to say that I'm back out of retirement from writing well deserved comments about horrible movies. Only the movie in titled "Scarecrow gone wild" could bring me back, so here I am.<br /><br />With that being said, I like to start off with this comment. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was really horrible, I mean I know it was going to be bad. But I had no idea that I would be spending 60 minutes out of a possible 90 minute film laughing at what I thought was a horror movie.<br /><br />Let's start with the biggest flaw of the film (to me that is). Ken Shamrock. Now if memory serves me correctly, Shamrock is one of the worlds most dangerous men. Now if memory serves me again, he was also in this stupid movie being a stupid comic relief (or that's how it looked to me). I mean how else do you explain all of his lines. My all time favorite line of his in this so called movie was "It's been a long time coming". OK????????? The funnest thing about that line was that no more then five minutes prior to him say that, he was sitting on the beach talking to the soon to be dead kids about how the dam scarecrow could not be killed. So if he has knowledge of this, why on earth would he start trying to combat it as soon as he sees it (the scarecrow that it). Like I said before, he must have been the comic relief, except I don't think his UFC buddies where laughing.<br /><br />Now that I've finished that well deserved paragraph on to the movie.<br /><br />I'll admit that I can't remember a lot of scenes, and that's not good considering that I just watch the movie no more then fifteen minutes ago. So what I'm going to do is list the top five things wrong with this film 1. Usually when horror movie monster have their own theme music, it's not heard by the victims or even by the monster itself. So why were just about every person involved in this movie able to here this pathetic whistling. I mean I saw the scarecrows face and nothing about it said that he was the whistling type.<br /><br />2. Why on earth were there murders on a beach. I'm sorry, but threw out history beaches are associated with party time and vacation type feelings. But I guess this horror movie thought it was going to be such a success that it would change all of that. Plus was it me or did the beach seem to be the size of someone living room. I mean every time an actor or actress was running around on the beach, it looked as if they were running in the same spot.<br /><br />3. The girl running in the gray sweat pants. That really bother during the duration of this film. I mean she looks so ridiculous. Plus it didn't help any that she looked as though she was the youngest out of the whole group. I mean what was she like twelve or something. There no excuse for someone to be that thin on camera. I mean doesn't the camera add like ten pounds or something, so what was her excuse.<br /><br />4. People trying to get record deals on camera. Just when I thought that this movie could not get any cheesier, out comes the wanna be Gorth Brooks and oh man was he lame. I don't' remember the whole scene, but from what I do remember it was not pretty. This one guy starts singing this song about something that has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with what's going on in the film. The funniest part of the whole happening is how everyone seems to being enjoying this. I mean the only person who doesn't really know how to response to this is the "token black guy". And that's sad because if I'm not mistaken he was the one that encourage this latest addition of American Idoal. But here's where it gets funny. While this guy is all into his new song or whatever. In the far distance we see or villain aka the scarecrow. And boy does he look pi**ed off at this. I mean there's actually a moment where he looks like he's really jealous of this guy. So what does he do about this jealousy, well I'm glad you ask. He wait's for the guy to finish his song, and then he finises the guy. I don't want to give the death scene away, but I can tell you this. If that scene doesn't make you laugh, then nothing on this earth will.<br /><br />5. This movie was way longer then I expected. And it didn't help that they tried to pulled some pathetic twist bulls**t at the end to squeeze another 10 minutes out of this film. I mean I'll admit, I didn't see the twist coming, but that had a lot to do with the fact that I was hoping that the film was over and done with. But no they had to do they twist s**t. Needless to say that when I say that coming, I just turned off the T.V. and said f**k it, there's no way that movie could have gotten any worser. Thanks to my rather fast judgment I can say that I'll never know what was to happen next. But I promise that I do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!! All and all the movie is good for a laugh, but please don't buy it. Just hype it up to one of your friends and watch it on there expanse.
| 0 |
12,454 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 932 | 1,101 |
For the first time in reviewing films, I found myself immediately uninterested in this story. I don't know if it was the way that it was filmed or the story behind the characters, but it felt bland, overused, and completely unoriginal. Within the first thirty minutes, I found myself rather apathetic with all the characters and the story. I felt as if I had seen this structure before, and Tart was providing nothing new to surprise me. After thinking that it may just be my mood, I stopped the film and chose to start it fresh in the morning, but the same feeling persisted. I just didn't care. That is not a good sign. The characters were bland. When I say bland, I literally mean that by watching them develop, you will never have any flavor hit your palate. The story seemed recycled, nearly to the point of plagiarism. Now, I am not saying that Christina Wayne stole this story, but she added nothing fresh to the perspective. The casting was horrid, the underlying symbolism and themes were so far lost that no critic could find them (nor the characters), and the stories were vague and sloppy. You knew nothing about anyone or anything, and instead of pushing more emphasis on the characters, we instead found ourselves with drugs, minor sex, and money pushed into our faces. These are themes we have seen in every film since the dawn of film time, yet somehow could not be creatively captured by Wayne.<br /><br />What immediately pulled me away from this story? It was mainly the characters. I have seen most of Brad Renfro's work, and honestly he needs to redefine himself. Director Larry Clark has defined him, and oddly he cannot get out of that stereotypical character. Within the first twenty minutes of Renfro's screen time I was bored. I knew exactly what he was trying to portray and why. It was spectacular nor impressive, just repetitive. He needed to bring some excitement or suspense to his role, instead of just blandly playing this random socialite. Without a strong character, the final climax of this film comes instead as a letdown. Renfro did not showcase the best of his abilities in this film. While I am on the subject
nobody showcased the best of their abilities. What is going on with Dominique Swain, outside of Lolita, I don't believe she has really emerged as an actress, and following-up with roles such as Cat Storm doesn't help. Bijou Phillips was the only actress that I witnessed actually try to bring something remarkable to the screen, sadly due to everyone else's horrid acting, she was lost. Rambling here and there, and honestly nearly forgotten about during the second act. Melanie Griffith was a pointless cast and most of this film's budget probably went to her TWO scenes that she was in. Maybe the rest of it went to the random guy from The Kids in the Hall, who desperately needs to place himself far away from this project.<br /><br />My biggest problem, outside of the acting, was the pacing of this film. Nothing, and this is hard for me to say, but nothing gelled together. There were so many sub-stories happening throughout the course of the film that no actual substance was formed. The robberies, the teenage "angst and woe", the wealthy socialites learning how horrible real life is, the random Kids in the Hall guy, and even the ending just felt rushed and horribly edited together. With this shoddy craftsmanship the whole story never really formed any true shape. Family structures were never defined, characters were never given any emotion, and all we are left with are bits and pieces of honest leftovers. Wayne did not complete the task at hand.<br /><br />While I hate to put the entire burden on the director, with this film I am left with little choice. With a horrid title that just screamed the complete opposite of what this film was about, with amateurish directional ability the cast pretty much was able to give every emotion in every scenes, leaving us with disgusting acting and poor developments, and with vague storytelling it is hard to place any "good" behind Tart. This was a film I had heard nothing about, and after viewing it I can see why. All Wayne has done with this film is random take excerpts from other films that have done a better job of defining all the elements above and cut all together to make the film Tart. It is hard for me to say this, but Wayne ruined this film. While I don't believe there was much to fully take from the story, any remaining elements of excitement were drained as Wayne took the helm. While most of the time you can credit some of the story, perhaps strong acting, or even the music, in Tart you can credit nothing. From the opening sequence until the end, I felt like I was swimming through very lumpy oatmeal. No consistency, no strength.<br /><br />Overall, this film is a waste of your time. If you are searching for some deep symbolic elements or possibly some banter on our society, you will not find it in this film. While I know that was what Wayne was attempting to show, the final product seems like it was edited on an Etch-a-Sketch. It was an embarrassing film to sit through, and encourage nobody to pick it up. Wayne threw to the wind all the teachings of her Columbia University education and destroyed two hours of my life. Avoid at all costs! <br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
| 0 |
12,506 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 940 | 1,109 |
Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.<br /><br />Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.<br /><br />One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.<br /><br />Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.<br /><br />So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.<br /><br />Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.<br /><br />This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.<br /><br />The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.<br /><br />By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.
| 1 |
12,692 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 955 | 1,148 |
Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.<br /><br />Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.<br /><br />The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.<br /><br />Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.<br /><br />The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do.
| 1 |
12,756 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 919 | 1,140 |
This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable. <br /><br />The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?<br /><br />A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.<br /><br />And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.<br /><br />The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.<br /><br />Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)<br /><br />The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.<br /><br />Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night. <br /><br />And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train."
| 1 |
12,758 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 978 | 1,186 |
Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. <br /><br />Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.<br /><br />But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. <br /><br />The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. <br /><br />Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics. <br /><br />All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience! <br /><br />-9/10
| 1 |
12,759 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 870 | 1,131 |
Well, this is about as good as they come. There are arguments about whether Hitchcock was only a "master of commercial suspense" or maybe a "compulsive technician" -- or was he really "deep." Nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean, but it's legitimate to ask if, at his best, he could not have been all three things at once.<br /><br />In this one he seems to be about at his peak. Hardly anything in it is accidental. It abounds with doubt, ambiguity, and wit. And the story is engrossing, Patricia Highsmith apparently having complexes similar to Hitchcock's own.<br /><br />I'm sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so I won't bother going into it. I'll just point out five on screen incidents that Hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for.<br /><br />Bruno Antony (Walker) has followed Miriam (Laura Miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. She's noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it.<br /><br />1. Laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through The Tunnel of Love and then to an island in the center of the lake. Walker is right behind them, smiling, in his boat -- Pluto. "Pluto." It's not an allusion to the Walt Disney cartoon character. It's a reference to Pluto, also called Hades, a god of the underworld in Greek and Roman mythology. This tiny touch can't be an accident. And the "underworld" that Walker represents is not just a literal hell, but the underworld of the human mind. I hate to say he's a Jungian "shadow" but that's what he is. (Did Carl Jung see this movie? He was alive at the time of its release -- but probably not.) 2. Now, this is a deadly serious sequence, right? Walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn't even know. Imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. A night-time stalking through a crowded carnival, stealing from shadow to shadow, the killer peering from behind the canvas walls, and so forth. What does Hitchcock show us? When Walker first comes through the gates, concentrating on his victim, a little boy in a cowboy suit, holding a balloon, runs up and shouts, "Bang! Bang! You're dead!" Walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. And when the kid starts to walk away, Walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it, then continues his pursuit without another glance. That's one way Hitchcock treats impending doom.<br /><br />3. The famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses, which has been aped innumerable times.<br /><br />4. Miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet, sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. One of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn't reach the bell at the top. Under Miriam's delighted and admiring gaze, Walker smiles and rubs his hands together, then picks up the mallet, slams it down, and the puck bangs against the bell. She's thrilled. He puts the mallet down, looks at her, grins, and WAGGLES HIS EYEBROWS at her like a ten-year-old showoff! 5. After the discovery of Miriam's body, while whistles blow and people shout, Walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. Walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection, gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. A macabre joke.<br /><br />These incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen-minutes of the carnival visit. (Robert Walker's performance is exceptional throughout.) It's essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (Cf: "Ride the Pink Horse") But the menace of the scene is undercut by Hitchcock's insistence on irony and distance. None of the familiar noir techniques are employed. There's nothing really "creepy" about it. And the murder itself is hardly a savage one. I don't think that any director other than Hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. It would have been all menace and shadows, hiding places, abortive attempts, scowls instead of grins.<br /><br />Not that it's an entirely flawless movie. A flawless movie is not yet with us. Some of the middle section is a bit slow going and Farley Granger, although a nice guy, is stolid, dull, and rather stupid. His new girl friend is just dull.<br /><br />Hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in "The Wrong Man." I'm not sure Hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. The latter was imposed on him at an early age by his Catholic education. "Original sin" -- you're BORN with it -- and all that. In filmed interviews, he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. We're justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a "screen memory." I hope you get the pun. I know, I know. It's strained and inept but I spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up.
| 1 |
12,764 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 936 | 1,158 |
When Alfred Hitchcock made STRANGERS ON A TRAIN it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. From 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes, and his contractual arrangement with David O. Selznick ended because of this. Actually he made some really good films in the period, such as NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, UNDER CAPRICORN, ROPE, and (my opinion) STAGESTRUCK. But while NOTORIOUS AND SPELLBOUND were liked, the audiences were turned off by Hitch's attempts at experimentation: his use of a dream sequence by Salvator Dali in SPELLBOUND was acceptable, as was the setting among psychiatrists. But the experiment with long takes in ROPE confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film), and the willingness of Hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked - far more disliked then it deserved to be - in STAGESTRUCK. A matter of bad timing for UNDER CAPRICORN (it was released just as the scandal of it's star Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn't). THE PARADINE CASE was another failure - and one that really had little in it's favor.<br /><br />With STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. Instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the story was of how Guy Haines, a professional tennis player, meets a fan of his - Bruno Anthony, a playboy - who is traveling on a cross-country train at the same time as the athlete. Bruno is talkative and fawning, and Guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met...if a little eccentric, with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. But Bruno knows all about Guy's personal problems. He is married to a promiscuous young woman named Miriam, and is in love with Anne Morton, daughter of a Senator. Bruno knows that Miriam won't divorce her successful celebrity husband. Bruno mentions how he can sympathize - he hates his stepfather, who is constantly criticizing him. Then Bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men - technically strangers - exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect, unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. Guy listens to the idea - and agrees it is an interesting idea. The train reaches Guy's destination, and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. He just does not realize that the "eccentric" Bruno is a sociopath, and believes Guy has just agreed to the two killing each other's foe!<br /><br />It's a wonderfully simple plot actually. Bruno, of course does kill Miriam, but he fully expects Guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. Guy is horrified - and worse, he finds that he is the police department's number one suspect. When Bruno, to encourage Guy, mentions he has the latter's lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site, Guy finds himself in deeper problems - how to avoid the police, and how to control (if possible) the insane Bruno?<br /><br />Hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully, so that from the start we see both our "heroes" from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. There are constant cross-contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other's orbits. It is like fate drawing them together. Yet both have their own personality - and Hitch, with a typical twist, makes the mad Bruno actually more of an attractive figure. His scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful, and he will have Guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. One suspects that once Guy too had one, but his marriage's failure, coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman, has made him more circumspect and dull than he was.<br /><br />The cast is good too. Robert Walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). It was a far cry from the homespun boy-next-door of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY or THE CLOCK. His lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. As Guy Farley Granger acts like a cousin of his co-murderer in ROPE, especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to Jimmy Stewart). As for the ladies, Kasie Rogers is properly sluttish as Miriam - enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering Bruno in his act of evil. Patricia Hitchcock appears as the younger sister of Anne (Ruth Roman), who bears a close resemblance to Miriam, and accidentally sets off Bruno at a social occasion. She plays this rare role well. Ruth Roman is properly supportive of Granger, but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background, and somewhat low keyed. Other supporting performers, Leo G. Caroll as the Senator, Marion Lorne (usually a comedian) as Bruno's dotty mother, and Norma Varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from Walker are all shown to best advantage - all at the hand of a master.
| 1 |
12,834 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 943 | 1,188 |
Movies seem to fall into two categories: films that reinforce existing societal values and beliefs, and those that challenge them. This film is a 180-degree shift from the idealistic rhetoric portrayed in offerings like "The Longest Day" and "The Green Berets" which seem more like Disney fantasies by comparison. The "Apocalypse Now!" project, the production and resulting film, is "Heart of Darkness" updated into a psychological horror story of the late 20th century post-modernist variety. The cast and crew who worked on it probably could relate to the terrifying places the human mind can achieve. This is the plight of Joseph Conrad's original character Kurtz who came into literary being in 1901 and subsequently referenced in TS Eliot's "The Hollow Men" (Mistah Kurtz, he dead) of 1925. Although neither a straight telling of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (1901) nor a first-hand account of the Vietnam experience, "Apocalypse Now!" stands as a masterpiece which pushed on the envelope of cinematic potential. "Apocalypse" is not just about the "horrors" of war per se, like "Platoon" and "The Deer Hunter", but the darker sensibilities of human nature as revealed through the raw and demeaning confrontations of violent conflict on a mass scale. Apocalypse Now! is not so much seen as experienced.<br /><br />The bulk of the movie is the journey of a trained secret assassin, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen in a tour-de-force performance), aboard a US military boat traversing an unnamed river into the heart of Vietnam and Cambodia where few westerners would ever tread. His mission is to terminate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a career army Special Forces Division officer who was the darling of the US Military until he went AWOL and renegade in the deep uncharted jungles between Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The official classified report is that the colonel has gone insane but as events play out, something else has happened to him that is far more terrifying than simply insanity. Sheen's mission is to terminate the colonel with the American public none the wiser.<br /><br />The movie is rather episodic. The journey along the river is made up of several vignettes as Sheen and his crew meet different self-contained "aspects" of the war at the ground level. American audiences of the 1970's had probably never seen this kind of film-making before, with the possible exception of "The Deer Hunter" which was released in the previous year. The first, and one of the most notable, is an helicopter battalion led by Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall in an Oscar-nominated performance) who is a cross between General Robert E Lee and Richard Wagner. He loves to play "Ride of the Valkyries" from Wagner's "The Ring" when he bombards helpless villages. His line "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" is one of those oft-quoted lines from the annals of cinema. Other encounters include an amphitheater where enlisted privates will be entertained by the likes of Hugh Heffner and Playboy bunnies.<br /><br />Despite all the production catastrophes that impeded getting this footage into the can, the remarkable aspect of this film is its pacing. The original release (not the later Redux version) does a fine of job of building until the viewer is emotionally prepared to deal with the climactic confrontation between Willard and Kurtz. The strange discourse between Willard and Kurtz is worth the price of admission alone. And some of the shots of both Sheen and Brando in certain places are some of the starkest and terrifying images ever produced on film. Not even the likes of Clive Barker, Wes Craven or David Cronenberg have anything on Coppola in terms of horrific imagery. Brando's Kurtz in one scene in particular is so utterly terrifying it makes most other horror movies seem tame by comparison, which comes from the recognition that the horror is not from without but from within.<br /><br />Without giving too much away, Coppola's solution to the climactic moment stands as one of the most innovative of cinematic revelations. According to the documentary "Hearts of Darkness", Coppola feared that the inevitable final scene would lapse into melodrama, and the atmosphere of the movie's darker hues would be compromised. He wasn't sure how he could make it work until his wife encouraged the director to witness the ceremonial sacrifice of an ox as practiced by the native people with whom Coppola was using as extras in the scenes with Kurtz at "his" village. After the viewing, Coppola had his ending, and it is one of the most simultaneously disturbing and beautiful sequences in the history of American film-making. Love it or hate it, no western viewer will be the same after seeing this scene.<br /><br />This film is not for all tastes just as Conrad's original novel is not the kind of book that will be read on airplanes. It's not just the violence and the pointlessness of violence that are difficult for most American viewers to absorb. It's the naked unveiling of aspects of the human condition that seem so removed from suburban American life that make this film difficult for the average movie-goer to handle, which is as it should be. Coppola did not make a family picture. However, if the viewer can understand its larger point, there is a lot to be gotten out of Apocalypse Now!. If you're looking for a film experience to reaffirm pre-existing attitudes about American sensibility and heroism, better stick with John Wayne. But if you're willing to be taken into places you've never been, even beyond "the evils of war" rhetoric, "Apocalypse Now" will take you into a world you thought you'd never visited before, and the disturbing part of it is that you may recognize it.
| 1 |
12,913 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 833 | 1,136 |
There are times I am convinced that The Mikado is the best Sullivan & Gilbert opera ever, but that is only so long as I'm not listening to Iolanthe. Be that as it may, The Mikado is probably the most frequently filmed of the Savoy Operas. (Yes, I put the composer first. Nobody says Hammerstein and Rodgers, or Hart and Rodgers, or Boito and Verdi, or What's-His-Face and Strauss. You don't even hear the names of librettists for Offenbach, Suppe, or Balfe. Gilbert was just the bigger name (and the bigger ego) at the time, so they put his name first. It's time that silly practice was put to rest.<br /><br />Anyway, The Mikado is a compleat S&G operetta. It has some of Sullivan's catchiest numbers, combined with some of Gilbert's cleverest lyrics. It has an interesting book and sprightly dialogue. It's got a wonderful degree of craziness. And it leaves the door wide open for elaborate and whimsical costuming.<br /><br />This particular production, filmed in a live performance in 1990, turns its imagination toward striking simplicity. Set in a British seaside resort toward the end of the Art Nouveau period, it throws over the japonerie of the original entirely. The result is costuming and setting in an eye-caressing medley of whites, grey, and blacks, accented by occasional bits of red (and less frequent uses of yellow and green). It takes some getting used to, but it's really spiffy. Of course, when the chorus tells you they are gentlemen of Japan, you would be right to exclaim, "Oh, pooh. Bah!" (Did I just say that?) It's most gratifying that this fine production is now on DVD. However, one caveat: the print seems to be photographed through a glass of imperfect clarity, so that the expected sharpness of the image is softened and ever so slightly fuzzy. The tendency to superimpose images is, alas, annoying. Why do people who are doing a really spiffy production want to muck it up with artsy-fartsy stuff of that sort? But it's the performance that counts the most. We may skip the overture, since although one is performed, Sullivan never wrote one. (True, it may be so he wrote none for any of the Savoys. But the Mikado overture doesn't even date from Sullivan's lifetime and was compiled by observing the techniques used in the others.) As for the rest of the operetta, it's first-rate and supremely funny.<br /><br />The Ko-Ko here is the estimable Eric Idle, who does it credit. There is a tradition of bringing a Big Name into the role. The was a U.S. TV production years ago in which Ko-Ko was played by Groucho Marx with mixed results. Idle's performance is delightfully quirky ... he does "Taken from a county jail" assisted by a tennis racquet. His "I've Got a Little List" is done as a speech to a microphone -- of course it has the usual updated lyrics, which are much funnier than the usual run of such things, and his delivery is positively hysterical. It goes on that way throughout.<br /><br />In this operetta, it's important to have a good Katisha; it's just no fun if you're not being bellowed at in style. This Mikado has a fabulous Katisha in Felicity Palmer, in her way almost as Big a Name as Idle. She bellows with the best of them in a wonderful rich contralto ... wonderful, especially, for a soprano. And her costume...!!! (Not to mention her recital with Franz Liszt, apparently, accompanying.) Nanki-Poo is played by Bonaventura Bottone. I have trouble getting around is somewhat un-Nanki-Pooish chubby shortness -- but is voice is undeniably a solid, rich addition to the vocal palette. There is a nice touch during "A Wand'ring Minstrel", where the chorus reacts with distaste to the mention of "his nancy on his knee" -- bear in mind the Mikado's decree about flirting. Be that as it may, Bottone is a fine singing actor and if his appearance doesn't put the best face on Nanki-Poo, his performance does.<br /><br />Yum-Yum (Lesley Garett) and her friends are appropriately pretty and silly. She and Bottone do lovely duets. Pish-Tush (Mark Richardson) plays his persona as something a blageur and does it very well. Poo Bah (Richard Van Allan) is wonderful as a stuffed shirt out of water ... a role later done to death in American sitcoms (you know: haughty butlers forced to cater to bratty children -- that sort of thing). The Mikado (Richard Angas) is bloody marvelous, with an imperious voice at absolute variance with his ridiculous lyrics.<br /><br />I don't recommend you get this as your only Mikado. Get a good traditional production as well, so you can see what Gilbert intended (more or less) in terms of staging. That being said, I'll watch this one twice while viewing any traditional bit once. On the whole this is a terrific offering, a vocal and visual delight, with delicious over-acting. It's a DVD to treasure, with dervish-like maids, tap-dancing bellhops, and all. Watch for the bellhops with signs.
| 1 |
12,958 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 897 | 1,194 |
Jean Renoir's homage to the Paris of the late 19th century is beautiful in many ways. Not only does it appear to have been photographed by Toulouse-Lautrec and Mucha, it portrays the geographic Paris; the streets accessible only by staircases, the unpleasant end of fleeting popularity, and the sexual opportunism of men with a product to sell, in an uncompromising picture of show business that is in stark contrast with the picture painted by Hollywood. There is an obvious comparison to be made with Lloyd Bacon's "42nd Street," which had been made about 20 years before, featuring Ruby Keeler as a dancing sensation, a fresh-faced kid from the sticks who had come to New York to get into show business, who saves the show when the star fails--"You're going out there a kid from the chorus, but you've got to come back a STAR!!" Warner Baxter's "Julian Marsh" is a director who suffers for his art and is unappreciated. Jean Gabin's "Danglard" keeps running afoul of genital politics, but when he talks about the show he is more like Knute Rockne than like Julian Marsh. He's all about the game, except--for his pointy thing. He has a profitable new venture sewed up until his mistress become jealous of the woman whom she recognizes as his next mistress. His prospects rise and fall with every coital journey he takes. <br /><br />Danglard takes Mistress 1 (Lola de Castro, played by Maria Felix) slumming to a dive, where he sees "Nini," (Françoise Arnoul) with her boyfriend and first lover, Paulo the baker, and discovers that she is a spirited dancer. He uses his charm and the prospect of money to lure Nini to studying dancing so that she may go on the stage. The prospect of money and fame charms Nini, and she become Danglard's next mistress, as well as an apt student of the cancan, which Danglard has dubbed "French Cancan," to cater to the current Anglophile tendency in the dance.<br /><br />Both "42nd St" and "French Cancan" are tributes to show business--to modern entertainment--that has is own iconography and its own conceit. "42nd St." is centered around Julian Marsh, a great director of Broadway shows, which he organizes with great personal energy and dubious sexual involvement. The male juvenile is a middle-aged twit with lumbago, replaced by Dick Powell, the pretty tenor with secret wealth to hide. Danglard, on the other hand, goes from woman to woman, seducing them with the promise of fame, hooking them with what must have been a very persuasive endowment. One has no doubt that he is heterosexual and quite active. Postcoital scenes abound.<br /><br />Days after seducing Nini away from Paulo, he has discovered Esther, a Piaf type, and begun to prepare her for her job of singing the film's theme song while he plays it on her fiddle. That of course arouses Nini's jealousy just as she has aroused the jealousy of Lola. (And of course Nini had already forsworn the privilege of being a Czarina!) The whole movie is about how Danglard's concupiscence has cost him money but how even his troublesome horniness is subordinate to his love for the show--how the audience demands devotion--and it is this potent combination of phallic persuasion and tempting fame that makes Danglard the hero, while asserting that a true lover of the show will never profit as much as the money men. At the movie's conclusion, Danglard, having outfoxed the creditors and the jealous babes, approaches a new attraction watching the incredible (and believe me, it IS incredible) performance of the cancan. "Have you ever thought about being on the stage?" he asks, and the curtain descends. Meanwhile, poor Julian is sitting of the fire escape of the theatre listening to Peggy Sawyer's new fans disparage his contribution to the show's success. (I won't even go into "42nd Street"'s central line, "Oh, Guy, it was GRAND of you to COME!") <br /><br />Furthermore, I won't go into the glimpse one gets of legendary Parisian entertainers, including a brief vision of Piaf, nor of the vision of a Paris both urban and rural. Certainly there is a sample of the styles that engendered Trenet and Aznavour. But it is the memoir of an assertive and welcome masculinity, something unseen in any Hollywood musical with which it might be compared, is a pleasant relief from the androgynes of 30's Hollywood musicals (including my beloved Fred Astaire, not to mention Dick Powell), let alone the barf promulgated by MGM in movies like the repulsive "American in Paris." All those fountains! We'll save our comparison of that turkey to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and its deconstruction of the American male for another day.<br /><br />That Danglard may have been a hopeful vision, in postwar France, of a kind of hyper-masculine mec that may or may not have ever existed, is practically beside the point. That he is a man's man, neither John Wayne nor Edward Everett Horton, is perhaps more on target. That he is a man who likes the ladies is never in question. I, for one, wouldn't mind living his life at all. I wonder if Gabin was that lucky. <br /><br />At the beginning of this comment I wanted to talk about Baz Luhrman and what Sinclair Lewis called "boloney". I never got that far. Baz's Moulin Rouge... well, Paris doesn't put that kind of stuff in the Seine anymore.
| 1 |
13,069 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 988 | 1,166 |
Looking back on Jim Henson's works years after his death is like taking a look back into another time. For unlike most so-called creative types attempting to sell to, or worse yet cynically exploit, children nowadays, Jim never seemed to really forget what it was like to be a child. And if there ever was a moment in which he demonstrated this, Labyrinth aside, it is 1979's Muppet Movie. Filmed as an allegorical story about how Henson came to work in children's television as a puppeteer and ended up with a half-hour show of his own on primetime television, The Muppet Movie ends up an affirmation of everything more progressive, understanding sorts would say to children who did not quite meet the expected norm during the 1980s. And as we enjoy the fruits of an era in which we are gagged and bound from speaking about anything lest someone might get offended, the open celebration of difference or diversity that formed a large part of The Muppet Show is on offer here. I have said it in other comments, but I must say it here. A great light in the world went out the day Jim Henson died.<br /><br />The Muppet Movie begins with its cast sitting down to see the premiere of what were about to see for the next eighty or so minutes. In short, precise strokes, we are introduced to the major players as well as some of the minors. And when the story proper begins, boy are we given a great song to bring us into the moment. The Rainbow Connection painted both a beautiful and sad image of what the Muppets, especially Kermit, were. These were not just a bunch of felt puppets with singular personalities who combined to put on a show. They were living things based upon a part of all of us, only writ so much more boldly than we are used to. As each Muppet was introduced to us in turn, we saw another reflection of part of ourselves, and of course the children in the audience would respond differently to each character. Hence, everyone had a favourite. When Animal appeared behind a drum kit and attempted to eat a cymbal, I knew I had found one of mine. Nowadays, I am more of a Swedish Chef fan, but what the hey.<br /><br />Complementing the characters was a string of musical numbers that further developed their motivations and personalities. Can You Picture That? shared an insight into Dr. Teeth and his band as well as the creative soul of Henson. But the most relevant song to me was Gonzo's number, asking what he is and where he came from. Many of us would spend a lifetime gazing into the stars and, like Gonzo, saying we knew we would be going back there someday. Not that all the songs were so deadly serious, of course. Fozzy and Kermit share a number after they decide to combine their talent (or lack thereof) and hit the road. If any evidence were required that present-day "musicians" have lost the ability to use the pop structure to create something listenable, this number would be it. Never before, and never again, would the group dynamic of a cast and the music so perfectly complement one another. With the puppeteers and voice actors so perfectly on top of their game, the human cast had a lot to live up to.<br /><br />Which makes it all the more amazing that the human element also lived up to their end of the deal. Cameos literally pepper the film, with everyone from Steve Martin to Telly Savalas popping in to offer their support. Even Richard Pryor, the last man one would expect to see in a film about the Muppets, appears to set up a hilarious moment. Mel Brooks' cameo is just as disturbing to me as an adult as it was when I was a small boy, but I suspect that is because Henson knew why I would find it disturbing now. The big acting strength, though, comes from Charles Durning, who as Doc Hopper embodies everything both Henson and his audience determined to resist. At every junction, Hopper comes to either offer Kermit the chance to sell out and betray his own kind. Or perhaps offer stops being the right word when Hopper's attempts to ensure Kermit's compliance become progressively more forceful and violent. The whole thing is one big metaphor for how every artist has his heart broken by the world.<br /><br />Of course, Animal also shows up to remind us that just because our friends are not sweet and cuddly does not make them any less of a friend. In point of fact, Animal turns out to be the best friend that Kermit has in that moment. And that has been the core message of every good show or film Henson has been involved in ever since. That shunning or dismissing others simply because of linguistic or cosmetic differences could literally be the worst mistake one ever makes. There can be little doubt that in today's world where a moron in a purple suit can tell my sons they are not good if they do not have good feelings for fifteen seasons and still not come under serious investigation by child welfare authorities, Henson's creature workshop could never have got off the ground. To misquote the album title, daring to be stupid is one thing, but enforcing the choice upon others is another matter. The Muppet Movie demonstrates how Henson dared to ask us all to think, both inside and outside of the proverbial box. There will never be another entirely like him, but he never would want us to stop trying.<br /><br />Therefore, The Muppet Movie is the epitome of a ten out of ten film. If we were to send a film out into the cosmos to prove to intelligent life that we are worth more than being obliterated, this would be it.
| 1 |
13,258 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 936 | 1,151 |
Back in August, '81 there was a country-ish buzz to movies, big hits like "Urban Cowboy", "Every Which Way But Loose", "Smokey and the Bandit" were all the rage. For that reason I suspect the producers of this movie chose "Honky Tonk Freeway" as the title hoping it would help the movie's box office receipts by drawing in that same "Urban Cowboy" crowd. Instead "Honky Tonk Freeway" bombed at the theaters and I suspect it do so in part by being burdened with a poorly chosen title. Thats same problem burdens it now on video and thats too bad because its a pretty good movie and in a comedy style ahead of it's time. No matter what, probably anybody who can remember 1981 will enjoy it.<br /><br />Its too bad this movie bombed. But I think it would have anyway even if it hadn't been saddled with a poor title. Its a movie ahead of its time. One could look at this movie now and see that its clearly a father or *great-uncle anyway) to the kinds of comedy made today. For its day "Honky Tonk Freeway" was pretty full of innuendo and a kind of frankness about life that didn't get popular in comedy till much later on. While clearly its a child of "Airplane", its more mature, and while its certainly no "Knocked Up" it clearly points in that direction. The characters are more "comedy-mature" in that they are low-key and don't ever think anything they do is anything other than serious. The jokes are in the choices of what to emphasize and the camera views and the way the view themselves and their situations.<br /><br />But, more than that, "Honky Tonk Freeway" is a real time capsule. A great look back at the exceedingly early 80's. The people in this movie are dressed and act as everyday people of 1981 did. It was clearly meant to reflect the times and be a sly comedic comment on everyday life around them.<br /><br />I don't know if my review is helping you, but this is really a good, sometimes kind of excellent, movie thats worth renting if you want to see how a lot of faces that are familiar today looked when they were 30 years younger. Beverly D'Angelo is so young its hard to realize its her sometimes. So are Beau Bridges and Terri Garr. Terry Garr was just about to become the toast of Hollywood as her next movie after this one was "Tootsie" which finally made her a star. Howard Hessmann was arguably the biggest "current" star of the the day when this movie was made. Back in 1981 Howard Hessmann was the star of the big hit TV show "WKRP in Cinncinatti". He played its lead character, the rascally night DJ. Daniel Stern was just about to break out as a star as the grown-up narrator voice of the lead child character in the popular 80's sitcom "The Wonder Years" There are also several faces that are no longer with us these days, its nice to see Hume Crowyn and Jessica Tandy as a an old married couple on a journey. Jessica Tandy would finally pick up her Oscar ten years after this for "Driving Miss Daisy". There is also the great Geraldine Page in one of her final movie appearances. Though she'd had a brilliant career she didn't get her Oscar till four years after this in 1985's "Trip to Bountiful", for which she richly deserved it, and she died very soon after getting that award.<br /><br />Plus, there are lots of other faces in this movie, actors who aren't big stars but who have done tons of supporting work. Many are familiar even if you can't think of their name.<br /><br />This movie is a pleasant little diversion. A bunch of people with a variety of problems set out from various locations each for their own individual unrelated reasons who all, in a vaguely Altman-esk way, end up heading towards Florida and unbeknownst to them a rendevoux in the little town of Ticlaw, Florida, which happens to be reeling from the effects of being bypassed by the recently constructed interstate nearby which did not construct an exit to Ticlaw which effectively takes the town off the map.<br /><br />And thats also what this movie is about, fascination with the whole idea of the interstate system, which had only recently been "completed". It had taken a generation to build, from when it was authorized by congress around 1960, through many years as different parts were built and then "went live" and by 1980 most of the system had finally been built and all connected together and first the first time the promise of what the interstate system would be had turned into what is. And people were enchanted by it. Everybody by 1980 was pretty much an "interstate freeway veteran" in the sense that by then everybody had used parts of it and knew how it worked and how it was different from other roads in that it had no red lights or stop signs, only on and off ramps, and that it went to places that were formerly less accessible. By 1980 anyone could drive anywhere in comfort and without having to stop for anything except to eat and sleep and a bathroom. And this was all new then. <br /><br />The ending is anti-climatic and isn't that satisfying albeit its one spectacular moment. What makes it great is it's the journey not the destination that makes Honky Tonk Freeway timeless in spite of it being such a product of its day. Forget its title; instead let it take you down memory lane.
| 1 |
13,325 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 845 | 1,106 |
There's hell to pay when you cross Nami Matsushima(Meiko Kaji), Female Scorpion, and a dangerous group of thugs(..including their sadistic head pimp and his equally repellent lady), operating a prostitution ring with an iron fist, does just that. Hell hath no fury like Scorpion, and a determined detective, Gondo(Mikio Narita), seeking revenge for decapitating his arm after handcuffing her, will do whatever it takes(..and that includes intimidating anyone who might know her whereabouts)to catch Nami. Nami finds an ally in hooker Yuki(Yayoi Watanabe), who provides her a temporary shelter. Yuki has a retarded brother who suffered a brain injury during a job, and must take care of him(..in a disturbing revelation, regarding incest, she also provides his sexual needs!)..she, in actuality, keeps him locked up in a room while working the streets! Meanwhile, Nami is targeted by a vile neighbor once she finds a place of her own(..she works as a sewer), and he threatens to turn her into the authorities(..Nami was an escaped convict, who fled a subway from the cops)if she doesn't supply him sexual favors. His wife dumps a tea kettle of boiling water all over his face and body, resulting in death, & the prostitution clan come looking for Nami to pay the debt of losing a very important member of their organization. That's when Katsu(Reisen Lee), the pimp's lover and confidant, realizes that the one responsible for the loss of their loyal member is a former inmate of hers, Scorpion. Subduing her with an injected liquid drug, placing her in a bird cage(!), Katsu embellishes in her imprisonment. What ultimately fuels Nami's rage is watching a prostitute die outside her cell, a victim of a forced late-term abortion, left to bleed to death. Finding a scalpel clutched in her hand(..from the operation room), Nami will break free from the cage and prey upon each member of the clan responsible for the hooker's death. The series of scalpel murders provide Gondo with an opportunity to catch Nami, and he'll trap her in the underground sewers below the city, but can he catch or kill her? Especially if Yuki comes to her aid?<br /><br />Trust me when I say there was no shackles binding director Shunya Ito or his film-making team because FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is yet another perverse, deranged, and ultra-violent entry in the very entertaining series. Equipped with fine production values and a visually stylistic talent for capturing all of the madness in imaginative ways, Ito pulls you right(..or he did me)into the twisted drama that always exists when Nami Matsushima is on screen. When you have a protracted opening credits sequence where your anti-heroine is fleeing through the crowded city streets with a man's severed arm handcuffed to her, the viewer has to know what they're in for! The incestuous sub-plot is simply bizarre(..and it's shot in a soft-core way with the retarded brother humping his numb, cold sister with dead eyes staring ahead!), and the entire abortion sequence is rather hard to sit through. But, the abortion angle, as disturbing as it is, provides motivation for Nami's revenge..despite Nami's imperfect ways, and her criminal nature, you would rather see her take these cretins out than vice versa. Interesting angle with Detective Gondo, as well. Gondo is willing to break the rules, and he becomes a force-of-nature towards anyone who stands in his way of capturing his mortal enemy. His fate at the end, visiting another enemy of Nami's, in an isolated cell, while she looks on, perfectly encapsulates what makes these films so ridiculous yet so entertaining. The scalpel murders is a montage of slumping scumbags, in various places, the blades protruding from flesh, with Nami leaving the crime scenes very driven to wipe the whole clan out in memory of a fallen victim of unfortunate circumstances. While the film is essentially a comic book adventure, there's a sadness that permeates, and few characters come away without flaws. I imagine many will walk away from this scoffing at how unrealistic FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is(..specifically how Nami is able to escape capture time and time again, accomplishing her goals of revenge, paying back all those who have wronged her), but I looked at it as a violent action cartoon, much like the later 80's films, and enjoyed it for what it was. As always, this film features some beautiful Asian actresses and some colorful heavies. Meiko Kaji, almost always reserved/quiet, yet chilly staring down her enemies with violent intent, is in fine form(..in more ways than one)and Reisen Lee, as her cross-eyed, repugnant adversary, runs away with the picture as a perfectly realized contemptibly abusive foe worthy of psychological torment(..when both are in prison, Nami's ways of torturing her are sweet). My favorite scene has nothing to do with the plot, but is so wonderfully wrong, features a dog discovering Gondo's rotted severed arm, walking through a street eventually finding a resting place to chew on it!
| 1 |
13,481 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 957 | 1,144 |
It's almost impossible for me to sit down and write a conscientious review of THREE COLORS: RED without letting people in on some of the ideas that Krysztoff Kieszlowski has explored in the previous two entries to this fascinating trilogy. The more I see them and think of them, and imagine myself in their world, the more I get its theme: that we are more linked to each other than we would want to think ourselves, and all it takes is a little hand of fate to set some events in motion. In BLUE, Juliette Binoche played a grieving widow whose plan to live her life without connections to the past had her meet someone unexpected. In WHITE, an act of cruelty spawns an unlikely friendship between two men who will, against the odds, conspire to bring the perpetrator to justice and full circle. And now, in RED, all the elements of fate and apparent coincidence apply themselves into the meeting of a young Genevese model and a retired judge who has a habit of prying into other people's lives.<br /><br />This young girl is appropriately named: Valentine (a luminous Irene Jacob), who has this radiance about her and even smiles openly while working the runway. Not that she is without some baggage: she has a boyfriend, unseen, who also demands to know what she is doing at all times, she has a brother who troubles her, and she rejects the advances of a photographer who is working on her image for a huge billboard. She strikes a dog while driving and nurses her back to health, but when she takes her to the owner, a retired judge (Jean Louis Trintingnant), he does not want her. "I want nothing," he coldly says, and elements of BLUE suddenly reveal themselves as this arrogant man, who also lives in anonymity and apparent, free-floating freedom, conducts surveillance on unsuspecting people. This male version of Juliette Binoche's character at first shocks Valentine -- she states she can only feel pity for him as she walks away in horror, but a chance event has her back at his place, and here is when he begins revealing who he is, and his great loss.<br /><br />At the same time Kieszlowski is unfolding a parallel story: the story of a young man, Auguste (Jean Pierre Lorit), about to become a judge and who lives right across the street from Valentine -- but they keep missing each other. Chance is the word. Like Valentine winning the jackpot at the grocery story she visits, elements of chance pepper her life and Auguste's. He has a girlfriend who also supplies people with telephoned reports about the weather. One of them happens to be the old judge. He knows more about her than Auguste does, and he's never met her. Like God, or Prospero, he is slowly creating a storm which will crack the walls of this present state of conformity and bring a new meaning to the expression "We meet again." It's this parallelism between the old and young judge that makes RED so beautiful and transcendent, because time is, in reality, a lot more fluid than we would like to deem it. There are people whom we meet in life that if only we had been born in similar time frames, so many things would be different.<br /><br />Such is the case with Valentine and the old judge. I believe that there is definitely a strong fraternity of souls tying them together in a tight bond: she is that woman whom he did not meet -- by chance or not -- and is, whether he knows it or not, trying to make amends, hence why he goes to the great risk of revealing his surveillance and becoming the social outcast. But it doesn't end there. One of the many links between the three movies is the character of an old woman walking to a large garbage container. Where Julie did not see her (and would not have helped her anyhow), and Karol fresh from his public humiliation sneers at her thinking, "Someone is worse off than I am," Valentine is the one who helps her. Frailty in need can happen anywhere, and Kieszlowski even applies it here in a minor character.<br /><br />Now, RED is so much more than a story. Valentine, the old judge, Auguste, even Rita the dog: these aren't characters confined by storytelling. An American version would ruin the idea and commercialize chance encounters and even bring forth a dumbed-down ending. RED is so devoid of a linear, defined plot that anything could happen to any of these people and the possibilities that this story could have veered off in so many directions had one crucial element not taken place at the exact moment and place.<br /><br />Adding to the concept of characters who mirror each other despite time frames or location is the theme of sexual betrayal. This is also an important and character defining element in all of the three films: in BLUE, Julie's husband had a mistress and she also betrays Olivier when it's become clear she's emotionally dead. In WHITE, Dominique has Karol listen to her moan over the phone (which becomes an important device in RED) as she has sex with a man while the billboard of Brigite Bardot's CONTEMPT looks on. In RED, the old judge's tale of love and betrayal gets re-enacted. And all this time, Valentine's billboard image looms over them like a presage of what is to come at the same time that Rita, the dog Valentine's car struck, bears seven pups, life renewed for the six major players in this complex trilogy obviously filmed with care and love. Why do I say six? You'll have to watch the movie and wonder.
| 1 |
13,799 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 944 | 1,150 |
An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.
| 1 |
14,091 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 939 | 1,155 |
In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once
it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses
Else what
if the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself. <br /><br />It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself. <br /><br />Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him. <br /><br />Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself. <br /><br />In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art.
| 1 |
14,111 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 956 | 1,187 |
Luchino Visconti has become famous to the world after his marvelous production THE LEOPARD. Movie fans got to know the style of the director who introduced himself as one among the post war new realists, an aristocrat who developed his individual free thinking and, consequently, expressed them as an artist. However, when applied to this movie, MORTE A VENEZIA based upon the novel by Thomas Mann, it's a slightly different story.<br /><br />The entire film is, at first view, so unique, so psychological and so much influenced by the various thoughts of an artist (both director and main character Gustav von Aschenbach) that it seems to be "unwatchable" for many viewers. Therefore, such opinions about the movie rose as being "too slow", "unendurable" or "endless boredom". Why? The reason seems to lie in a significant view widespread nowadays: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO FLAWLESS ACTION." Here, it would be appropriate to say: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO NO ACTION." As a matter of fact, everyone would be able to say one sentence about the whole movie's content and that would suffice. All that we find in MORTE A VENEZIA has a sense of vague reality filled with both profoundity and shallowness that appear to be significant for the sake of each single moment. And it is so when we notice the psychedelic scenes in Venice, when we see Gustav at the railroad station, when we are supplied with his intensely emotional memories. The insight into his decaying mind is sometimes so intense that the only way for the viewer to go on watching the film is to do his/her best to feel and experience rather than see and think. All is doomed to fade, to wither like flowers on meadow when their time comes. In other words, all has a sense of loss and death without many events or even dialogs. As a result, it is quite unlikely that you will get the idea of the movie after a single viewing. It must be seen more than twice with the mind that is constantly open. If you'll like it or not...that's a different story, very personal one.<br /><br />The artistic values are the factor that is noticeable at first sight and stays with us throughout. Beauty as something very meaningful for the main character that appears to come and leave; rest as something he's heading for so badly and which comes to him in the most unexpected way; feeling that he finds in a teenage boy who appears as a model of all the dreams and desires, as a forbidden fruit of homosexual lust which vanishes. The costume designer Piero Tosi does a splendid job in this movie. Through lots of wonderful wardrobe he supplies us with a very realistic view of 1911 when the action takes place. The cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis provides us with a terrific visual experience that can be called a real feast for the eyes. And in the background comes Gustav Mahler's music, the composer whose life inspired Thomas Mann to introduce the character. <br /><br />The performances are top notch, particularly from Dirk Bogart as the main character, Gustav von Aschenbach, who wants a rest after hard artistic job and vainly attempts to find it in crowded Venice. For the majority of the film, we have a great insight into his thoughts, feelings and acts of anger, exhaust and despair. Though sometimes depressing, he keeps us on the right track till the end not losing hope for the less tragic end... Tadzio (Bjorn Andersen) depicts the model of decadent homosexual desire but also a model of beauty and purity that appears to last pretty short... "Adieu Tadzio, it was all too short" says the main character. A great, though very controversial, job is done by Mark Burns as a sort of "super ego" Alfred with whom Gustav polemics about such ideals as beauty, justice, hope, human dignity. For Alfred, beauty belongs to the senses. How Freudian, yet how dangerous the idea might be! And ever present in artistic Italian movies of the time, Silvana Mangano - here as an elegant lady from Poland, Tadzio's mother.<br /><br />Memorable moments indeed constitute the movie's strong points; yet, not all viewers will find them unforgettable. They, similarly to the whole odd movie, require much effort to get onto the right track in director's individual ego and within the four walls of his psyche. Among such scenes, I consider the beach sequence pretty important, particularly the way Gustav observes Tadzio. The physical distance accurately represents the lack of courage to come closer... I also appreciate the shots when Gustav is sitting in the gondola and the city's view moves in the background - how memorably that may raise existential thoughts of transfer. Aren't we, people, a sort of "passangers" in the world, in the journey that life is.<br /><br />In the end, I must tell you one important thing. I had found MORTE A VENEZIA extremely weird until I started to look deeper at what the director is really trying to convey. Then, every scene turned out to be meaningful in its interpretation with which you don't have to agree (I hardly agree with anything the main character does) but you should at least tolerate this as something the author badly wanted to say. Listen to his voice, allow him for a few words in one page of reality...<br /><br />Therefore, there is a long way towards understanding the film since not many movies like that were being made in 1971 and are being made now. Paradoxically, it seems that we are all bound to have the right feelings about this film in the long run similarly to that we are all bound to experience once a strange, unavoidable, usually unexpected reality that death is... 7/10
| 1 |
14,275 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 893 | 1,171 |
Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that defines 1950s French Cinema.<br /><br />Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also gave him a second chance at making films.<br /><br />Jules Dassin gave the filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions. His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955). Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir pictures.<br /><br />Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography, directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made in motion picture history.<br /><br />The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118 minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion picture.<br /><br />Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or/and music would ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency that never once lets down.<br /><br />Maintaining a high level of suspense is what makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and tension.<br /><br />Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann, Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc...<br /><br />Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955). Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist. Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats.<br /><br />Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) became a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end.
| 1 |
14,300 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 907 | 1,177 |
A blaxploitation classic, this movie was terribly influential in rap music for the "toasts" that Rudy Ray Moore performs. Toasts are long rhyming stories that are funny and deliver a point, and you can see how they would naturally evolve into rap. For more on toasts, Rudy Ray Moore, and why this movie is important, go to Dolemite.com.<br /><br />Which leaves us just to talk about the movie itself. This movie packs in a great deal of "laugh-at-the-funny-outfits-and-hairstyles" bang for the buck, as nearly every shot has some sort of outrageous element or dialogue. It starts as Dolemite is being released from prison in order to find out who framed him and bring him to justice. I was unaware that prisons release people so they can prove their own innocence, but that's me, I'm a neophyte in the prison scene. He is helped in this by Queen Bee, who is Dolemite's lead prostitute and has been running his brothel while he's been gone. She has also put all of his prostitutes through karate school, so now he has an army of female karate fighters.<br /><br />I watched this movie in two parts, which is usually a mistake, but in this case it provided an interesting contrast. The first part I watched on my lunch break while exercising, and wasn't enjoying it much at all. It struck me as particularly poorly made blaxploitation, with a ludicrous story, shoddy craftsmanshipwell, I guess that makes it sound like it had SOME craftsmanshipand tons of outrageous locales, outfits and dialogue. But I wasn't enjoying thatin fact, it kind of made me feel dirty. Let's face it, a white guy watching something like this to laugh at the outfits and the things the characters say is essentially getting an enjoyment out of it that is racist: how ridiculously those black people dress, what silly things they say. I wasn't really enjoying it, wasn't laughing, and wasn't looking forward to watching the rest.<br /><br />Later that night, when I was in a "much more relaxed state," I watched the restand legitimately loved it. Like Disco Godfather, which I had watched a few days previously, this has a warmth and sweetness at its core that makes it likable even when it's silly or violent. The character of Dolemite has an element of self-parody about him that makes the whole thing fun, and the appearance of several actors who were also in Disco Godfather implies that we're watching the group effort of a bunch of friends who just want to make something fun together. Even the poor dubbing, karate fights, and everything else just makes it that much more charming.<br /><br />What I find interesting about the Dolemite films is that they have some moral ambiguity I don't see in other blaxploitation films, and certainly in very few mainstream films. In this one, there is an African-American woman who gives a speech about the (white) Mayor, saying "he has done more for the black community than anyone." We later find out that the Mayor is, surprise, corrupt, but I like that the movie would present this woman as essentially misguided and not try to "redeem" her in some other way. There's also the figure of the Hamburger Pimp, who is presented as a useless junkie, and no one makes an effort to find some redeeming, socially positive angle to what he is, he just is. In Disco Godfather the religious character Lady Reed plays is presented as just nuts for wanting to pray for her child, hopelessly lost to angel dust. I like that the films would present such harshly critical portrayals of people in their own community without sugar-coating or trying to redeem them to make them more palatable.<br /><br />There are a lot of hootworthy elements, such as when Dolemite says "Move over and let me pass, or I'm gonna be pulling these Hush Puppies out your muthatf** a**." There is Queen Bee reaching over and answering the phone: "Dolemite's Total Experience." And you will not be able to miss (though you may wish to cover your eyes) the extended nude scene by the REPULSIVE Mayor. I am all for mustachioed pervy older men, but even I have limits-and my limits are usually a few miles past most people's, so be warned. The DVD I had is clearly edited, which is noticeable in certain of the dialogue scenes, and at the end, when Dolemite's killing of a major character with his bare hands obviously excludes the main event.<br /><br />If you do get the DVD, however, be sure to watch all three trailers for the Dolemite films, as they are a hoot. I wasn't going to watch The Human Tornado, but after seeing that trailer, you'd better BELIEVE that I am. Also, there is a scene in the Dolemite trailer that I don't remember from the movie when Dolemite swings at a Mexican-looking thug, obviously misses, and the guy flips himself into a nearby car trunk.<br /><br />After watching the first half, I was going to say to skip this and watch Disco Godfather, as the film-making and story has marginally improved, but after really enjoying the second half, I would advise watching this one over Disco Godfather, as this one is even more exuberantly fun, outrageous, and good-naturedand has those toasts which, even if one doesn't understand the roots and nuances of the form, are still something to see.<br /><br />--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com
| 1 |
14,538 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 954 | 1,148 |
I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in 1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13 year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was to attempt the journey without stopping.<br /><br />It's important to remember that this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic, never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald Crowhurst did. <br /><br />A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then), including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him, and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'. (Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit.<br /><br />In the wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film, together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him. Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule, bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan. But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was. <br /><br />This beautifully edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon, knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self. <br /><br />I strongly suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since) probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked what they found. <br /><br />The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late 60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie. Highly recommended.
| 1 |
14,580 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 893 | 1,149 |
I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle confusing...<br /><br />So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least.<br /><br />Yes, it's a long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America (1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956) at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the scene.<br /><br />But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do with reinforcing myths about history and heroes.<br /><br />Not so Heaven's Gate: in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War.<br /><br />Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment, it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and infamous.<br /><br />Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative the story of the three main characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it is, I think, entirely appropriate.<br /><br />And that war is depicted graphically, viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited flawlessly although in the final massacre between the Association and the immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and confusion of war...<br /><br />Which brings me to another criticism by others: the noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent: life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war, it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are present in and within the scenes...<br /><br />And what of the title? From Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie and it is stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) is a useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say, namely the idea that the brave immigrants the God-fearing salt of the earth were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion.<br /><br />Was that Cimino's intent to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history? Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves...
| 1 |
14,966 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 853 | 1,164 |
To speak relatively, if one were only to see now Hector Babenco's "Pixote" (1981, Brazil;pronounced as "pi-shot"), after having seen quite a number of films that deal with street children, juvenile delinquents, kids in trouble (Truffaut's "The 400 Blows", Bunuel's "Los Olvidados", De Sica's "Shoeshine", Nair's "Salaam, Bombay!", Bresson's "Mouchette", Nugroho's "Leaf on a Pillow", etc.), one might be afraid that the plight of the kid portrayed in the film might not affect one anymore, having been "de-synthesized" already after going through the emotional roller-coaster ride put in motion by the previously quoted films.<br /><br />Thankfully, that won't be the case. For Babenco narrates his film in such a matter-of-fact manner ("artlessly", as one film reviewer put it, in a positive light) and that his central child performer, Fernando Ramos da Silva (13 years old at that time and a street kid himself), gives such a no-frills, wounded performance, raw in its simplicity (that hardened face, those lonely and longing eyes) that one is hard put not to be pierced in any way. (Such a feeling may achieve such a heightened realism when one learns that the child had only lived but a short life, having been involved in street crimes after the film and subsequently murdered.)<br /><br />In about first half of the film, Pixote and his fellow street kids and delinquents spend their time in a repressive state-run reformatory school, where brutalization and humiliation, rape and murder, are the norm and culture;where they are forced to confess to their "crimes", on the flimsy notion that under the Brazilian law, underage felons are not "punishable" for their offenses. For these kids, the dubious freedom offered by the streets is more preferable than the harsh rehabilitation provided by these supposed well-meaning authorities. Within the walls of this supposed protective establishment, these young souls are soon to discover that love and care from parental figures are likewise nowhere to be found, if not to a degree worser.<br /><br />(For Pixote, the only form of escape comes from puffing grass and sniffing glue, secretly smuggled inside the reformatory.)<br /><br />When the kids burst themselves into a small-scale "revolt" to finally express and then fulfill their collective desire to get back to the outside world--their "home"--the intensity and form are of such a kind that one can't avoid thinking of the schoolboys' revolt in Jean Vigo's influential "Zero for Conduct". It's only that in "Pixote", the "uprising" is made to appear on a gutter level.<br /><br />Once Pixote and his small group are back on the streets (the film's second half), they engage in robbery, pimping and drug-dealing to fend for themselves, along which they get to meet Sueli, a battered but kindly prostitute. Sueli willingly accomodates the four lost souls, in such a way that she allows her customers to be robbed by them and that she provides more than motherly care (at least to one of the children).<br /><br />One would have thought that the street kids have at long last found the one person who can provide them the love and warmth that have been sorely lacking in their lives. But as dubious as the freedom that these kids believe the streets are providing, this new-found "maternal figure" cannot but stay forever. <br /><br />Jealousy, squabbles, differences, and murder have only set the kids apart--and for good. And during that defining scene where Pixote, prompted by the circumstance, gets to shoot not just Sueli's arrogant American customer but also his fellow street urchin Ditto (more than a son to Sueli), he thereafter literally goes back to "infancy", as he sucks from the right breast of the disoriented woman, right there and then materializing his lingering desire for parental affection, the image itself both sad and unsettling.<br /><br />It is so that Sueli, in a probable coming back to her "senses", lamentably pushes back Pixote from his "nourishing" position and rejects him, for good. Thus, in a quietly wrenching moment, Pixote, with that young-old face and those sullen eyes (not entirely dissimilar, though in a different context, to the young boy's mien in Elem Klimov's harrowing "Come and See"), gets himself up, puts on his coat and takes his gun (yes, a gun!), and sets off to nowhere, walking along the train tracks and with the morning light just beginning to show up. With that scene, Babenco may just be doing an homage (amongst many other homages found in different films!) to the iconoclastic final scene in Truffaut's "The 400 Blows".<br /><br />But whereas we got to know what has become of Antoine Doinel three years later in the short film "Antoine et Colette" (as well as in three other feature films in the years thereafter), we are left grappling in the dark as to what lies ahead for Pixote after he finally disappears from the last frame, that being the last time that we'll get to see this real-life street child (notwithstanding the fate that eventually befell him in actuality).<br /><br />"Pixote" may not be as nearly as whimsical as "The 400 Blows" or as hallucinatory as "Los Olvidados", but it still stands out among films of similar theme and texture because of its simple, raw power.
| 1 |
15,091 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 986 | 1,151 |
Spoilers ahead.<br /><br />2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.<br /><br /> The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.<br /><br /> The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.<br /><br /> Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.<br /><br /> The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are "Blue Danube" and "Also Spake Zarathustra" (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.<br /><br /> The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.<br /><br /> The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.<br /><br /> This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.<br /><br /> This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth. <br /><br /> In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.<br /><br /> 2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.
| 1 |
15,093 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 968 | 1,190 |
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is "The Dawn of Man" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world? <br /><br />During "The Dawn of Man" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from
out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch
man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.<br /><br />We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, "Well, that's how you would think it looks." No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with "2001". <br /><br />HAL is the liveliest person, shoot
I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL "reads" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he "sees" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.<br /><br />The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of
whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought. <br /><br />In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't.
| 1 |
15,336 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 880 | 1,111 |
Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his "mother of all epics" INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, "The Egyptian." Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.<br /><br />The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question "why?" and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that "eye for eye" is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.<br /><br />Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as "insane" Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!<br /><br />The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, "The Egyptian" shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.<br /><br />All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.
| 1 |
15,537 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 994 | 1,189 |
This film grabbed me right from its start, where a sweet-looking teen-aged girl is shown visiting a grave alone, then Elton John's powerful song "Friends" starts playing while she's shown walking alone through the streets of Paris, carrying a suitcase, naively unaware of the car theft and prostitution going on around her. The entire film is a beautiful, dreamy, romantic collection of scenes of young love, holding hands, living in the country, wild horses running around freely, fields of wildflowers, sunsets, toasts of wine, evenings by the fireside, having fun, and general innocence, all set to romantic music by Elton John. It's magical.<br /><br />Somehow I missed seeing this film when I was growing up. I'm sure it would have left a strong impression on me if I had seen it then. I remember the radio advertisement for the movie in 1971, talking about how it was a special movie with music by Elton John, and with the chorus of the theme song "Friends" playing in the ad ("Makin' friends for the world to see..."), but I never heard anything else about it in those days, and never got to see it until I rented it 35 years later from a video store. By then it had been edited, censored, and all kinds of unhappy people with angry political agendas were using all kinds of ugly words to describe the film. What can I say? The world has gone insane since then.<br /><br />The story is that a 14-year-old girl is forced to move in with her cousin in Paris after both her parents die. (It was their grave she was visiting in the opening scene.) One day while visiting the zoo alone she meets a 15-year-old boy, they hit it off, and agree to meet the next day. The next day while riding together the boy accidentally drives his car into a lake in a freakish solo car accident. It was his father's car, he can't bear to go back home to face his father's wrath, so the two teenagers begin living in the French countryside together, with the mutual background that they both hated their lives at home. They settle into an unoccupied cottage, the boy takes odd jobs to support themselves, their supposed friendship turns into romance, the girl becomes pregnant, and they successfully have a baby at home. All the while the boy's father has the police attempting to locate his missing son. On the 1-year anniversary of the couple's flight together, the police finally locate the boy's employer by an in-person inquiry, and are told they can see the boy the next morning when he comes to work. The next morning the boy is shown leaving his cottage to go to work, saying a sweet farewell to his girlfriend/wife, and happily doing cartwheels as the scene freezes on his girlfriend waving goodbye. At least that's how the video version I saw ends. It's an unexpected though well-timed ending, presumably depicting the last moments of bliss before the boy is taken back to his parents' home and his happy life with his wife and baby is shattered.<br /><br />As beautiful as the story and images are, the plot is awfully unrealistic and highly contrived. I think it's better just to enjoy the movie as a young person's dream-come-true fantasy and to go no further in analysis, because all logic and believability quickly fall apart when the story is examined in more depth. Why would a fully furnished and stocked cottage be left unattended with the door unlocked and unvisited for a full year? What did they plan to do when the owners returned? Why would a girl trust a car thief enough to get pregnant from him? Didn't they think it was unethical to use other people's homes and food? How could they ever hope to get needed dental care or other emergency medical attention while living outside of society? How could the boy have a car accident on a country road with no collision and no other cars around? Where are there places anywhere near civilization where wild horses run free? How is it that a teenage male would not have sex as the primary thing on his mind when he picks up a girl at a zoo? (The Elton John song lyrics just don't fit.) Why would they take off clothes when sleeping outside at night when it's about to get cold? And so on. The scenes of wild horses are contrived to appeal to girls, as is the unrealistic theme of "friendship before romance," and all the back-washing and tickling scenes with their predictable outcomes, the running through flower fields towards each other, the haze filters, the scenes shot through wildflowers in the foreground, the baby ducks, and so on. It works, but it's definitely contrived.<br /><br />Still, this is a movie about youth and freedom, and that ideal hasn't changed since the 1970s. Young people today are still treated as belongings or as lost pets to be recovered by the police instead of treated as mature human beings who have the same needs of romantic love and freedom as does the adult world, and the ability to be responsible when given that freedom. Therefore the message is universal. It's clear why a sequel wouldn't work: this story is about a magical, year-long reprieve from the real world. Such a situation could never have been extended indefinitely, assuming that it could even happen in the first place, and a story about real life afterward would lack the magical appeal of such an unreal state of existence. I really hope that no teenagers took the film seriously enough to try such a foolish stunt. But I hope equally well that teenagers who were impressed by this film in the '70s learned something from it, and have since then made attempts to make such a magical world a more attainable reality for others, instead of perpetuating society's various hatreds and repressions, especially on their own children.
| 1 |
15,666 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 987 | 1,190 |
One of the genres that flourished during the decade of the 30s was the variation of crime fiction known as "the murder mystery", as the addition of sound to films helped to make a more faithful translation to film of what the audiences experienced in the original plays. And since horror films were very popular in those years, by enhancing the horror elements of the plots the murder mystery films experienced a popularity almost equal to what it enjoyed in the previous decade (in which the first movies of the genre were produced). Aspiring playwright Charles Belden saw in this renewed interest in murder mysteries a chance to make a name for himself, after Warner Bros. picked his three-act play, "The Wax Works", to create the 1933 horror film, "Mystery of the Wax Museum". Belden joined independent filmmaker Frank R. Strayer to keep making films, and "The Ghost Walks" was one of his best.<br /><br />In "The Ghost Walks", John Miljan plays Prescott Ames, a young playwright who wants to impress a famous Broadway producer named Herman Wood (Richard Carle) with his new play. Ames takes Wood and his assistant Homer (Johnny Arthur) to his country house for a reading of his play, but his car ends up stuck in the mud during a terrible storm. The three men ask for refugee in an old Mansion which happens to be property of one of Ames' old acquaintances. Inside the house, Wood and Homer witnesses the strange relationship between Ames and the house owners, however, this is all a plan conceived to impress Wood: everyone in the house is an actor playing a role in his murder mystery. Unfortunately, the murder committed is done for real, and while Wood and Homer think it's all fake (after discovering Ames' original plan), the cast knows that someone inside the house is a real murderer.<br /><br />As expected, Charles Belden's screenplay for "The Ghost Walks" features the classic elements of the murder mystery stories of its time, as we have the stormy night at an old dark house as setting, the obligatory group of suspects, and the touch of comedy. However, what's interesting here is how Belden makes the film a real spoof on the genre with the many twists he puts in his story to play with the clichés of murder mystery plays. The dialogs are excellent, full of wit and lighthearted charm, and while the plot certainly loses a lot of steam by the end (it follows the murder mystery routine anyways), it never fails to be interesting and entertaining thanks to its smart twists and specially its quirky characters. Interestingly, there's an obvious gay subtext that while stereotypical, it's never denigrating and it's genuinely funny at times.<br /><br />By 1934 director Frank R. Strayer was already an experienced craftsman in the Poverty row side of the film industry, but his partnership with writer Charles Belden would give him a couple of his most interesting movies, and "The Ghost Walks" was one of them. While obviously done on a shoestring budget and the typical production values of independent films of its time, Strayer manages to take advantage of his set and makes an atmospheric movie that fits nicely the mood and tone of the story. The pacing is a little too slow at times, but Strayer knew that the power of his film was on Belden's script and makes the most of it, letting his cast to make the most of their characters with excellent results. Certainly the execution is a bit typical and unoriginal, but Strayer makes an effective albeit restrained work in this film.<br /><br />As written above, the screenplay is filled with great lines that make the quirky characters shine, and fortunately, most of the cast play with this to their advantage. Veteran character actor Richard Carle is remarkably funny as cranky producer Herman Wood, adding a lot of charm to his character, specially in his scenes with Johnny Arthur, who plays the flamboyant secretary Homer. Arthur is the one who gets the most best scenes, and he gives and hilarious performance as the cowardly yet witty assistant. John Miljan is just effective as Presocott Ames, nothing amazing, but nothing really bad, and the same could be said about June Collyer as Gloria Shaw (the obligatory love interest), whom is just fine. However, Donald Kirke is really enjoyable as the malicious Terry Shaw, and it's a shame he didn't get more screen time.<br /><br />As usual with Frank R. Strayer films, the low budget hurts the film badly, as while Strayer makes the best he can, the film still feels kind of plain at times. However, the main problem is problem the very slow pace it has, as even when the film is filled with sparkly moments of witty dialogs, it moves at a pace so slow that can become boring and tedious for moments. It also must be said that while effective in their roles, Miljan and Collyer are pretty dull and average when compared to Arthur and Carle, and one wishes the movie had been more focused on the comedic pair they make than on the main couple. Finally, as written above the ending is kind of weak and not up to the high standard of the first and middle parts, although credit must go to Belden for keeping creative plot twists appearing until the very end.<br /><br />One could say that Charles Belden is an unsung hero of the murder mystery genre, as among the many horror and mystery films that came out the B movie studios nicknamed as "the Poverty Row", "The Ghost Walks" is easily among the best (alongisde Strayer's previous film, "The Vmapire Bat") despite its shortcomings. And even when it's definitely not a masterpiece of the genre, it's a nice way to spend a night enjoying the way it pokes fun at its own origin as a murder mystery play. A very recommended film if you like the genre. 7/10
| 1 |
16,825 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 938 | 1,167 |
"Putney Swope" is a unique, low low low budget gem from the late 1960's which probably would have been forgotten in time if it hadn't been for two things: Paul Thomas Anderson (who named Don Cheadle's character in "Boogie Nights", Buck Swope, after the eponymous hero of this film) and the limited DVD release. Watching "Putney Swope" is like listening to hardcore punk rock: it may not make a lot of sense (at least to me it didn't upon watching it for the first time), but you have to respect the film for its passion and unabashedly rebellious message. I didn't understand a lot of things about "Putney Swope", but for the most part, I liked it. The more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me.<br /><br />The film is advertised as a parody of New York's Madison Avenue, best known in the 1960's as the advertising capital of the world. Members of Generation X and Y may be lost on this concept, but fortunately "Mad Men" is on TV to provide us with this otherwise lost piece of U.S. History. What you need to know before watching this movie is that these ad agencies were largely male, and even more largely white establishments.<br /><br />With this premise in mind, the movie opens up with an ad agency board meeting. The members are predominantly white except for Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dick Gregory in this film), the token African-American on the board. The board members are so self-absorbed and soulless that when their chairman falls dead in front of them, their only concern is who will become chairman next. Without even removing the body from the boardroom, they begin a paper ballot to elect the next chairman.<br /><br />Putney Swope is elected by a landslide, but not because the other members think Swope is qualified. Voting for Swope was an ill-fated attempt for these board members to sabotage any other member's chance of being elected chairman. With their plans backfired, Swope takes charge and "sink(s) the boat", firing all but one of the original members and hiring all people of color in their place .<br /><br />After this point, the film became (for me) very weird and hard to follow plot-wise. There may not have even been a plot, really. The whole idea of the film seems to be a "what if" scenario, with the result being that the new "Truth and Soul Inc." firm would be unconventional, but successful nonetheless. The firm ends up making so much money that the members build a huge glass case to keep the cash in for unexplained purposes. It could be because Swope doesn't trust banks, although that point is not touched upon or explained in the film. It could also be metaphoric in some way, but who knows.<br /><br />Most of the movie takes place inside the ad agency, with occasional scenes in the White House with a president who, for some unknown reason, is a midget. My assumption is here that some political joke was being made, but I can't figure out what. Were the filmmakers saying that the president is a small, insignificant part of American life? Were they saying that the latest elected officials (Nixon at the time) were insignificant candidates? I don't know. I found it a bit eerie, however, that the man playing the president bore a striking resemblance to future president Ronald Reagan. It is funny to make that connection 40 years after the movie was made.<br /><br />What this film may have benefited from is showing how consumers outside the ad agency reacted to the new ads. Of course, the ad footage possessed a strange, funny appeal for its unconventional creativity, but did these ads convince people to buy the product? If so, how? The movie hinted on the idea that the new ad campaign was successful through client interaction and the calls from the White House. However, it would have been revealing to see average people, since that demographic has always been most profitable for advertisers.<br /><br />Although the parodies and political messages this film may have made probably didn't stand the test of time, this film still had a lot of unique qualities. Arnold Johnson had a magnetic X factor to him that benefited him greatly in this film. Swope's rough voice was actually director Robert Downey, Sr.'s voice dubbed in, sometimes poorly, but fit the character so well in being an authoritative outsider. He hires and fires workers at random, but earns the respect of all but one of the employees for revolutionizing the ad agency and seeking out new ideas.<br /><br />The premise of the film was, and still is, incredibly risky, especially since the film was written and directed by a white man (Robert Downey, Sr.). However, this film declines to fall victim to negative black stereotypes which would lead to the rise and fall of the blaxploitation genre years later. Although some of the sex scenes may be a bit off-putting for some viewers, the main message is that a black owned and operated business can thrive through innovation and risk taking. Many people may not take a positive message away from this movie, but I just did.<br /><br />"Putney Swope" remains an overlooked movie from a strange era, and Downey, Sr. (even despite his son's recent comeback) never quite got the recognition as a director he deserved. However, if you find a DVD of this movie, buy it and watch it. If it's on Netflix, ditto. It's a movie that can be confusing at times, but is worth watching for its gusto, ambition, and its non-conformist stature even by today's movie standards.
| 1 |
16,972 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 952 | 1,187 |
We see at the beginning of Little Dieter Needs to Fly Dieter Dengler, the subject of the film, an obsessive-compulsive. Or at least that's what he seems to be by way of constantly opening/closing doors and with his large stock-pile of food in the cellar. In a way director Werner Herzog sets up a central question, in a manner of speaking, to why Dieter is like this. Well, in fact, he's not necessarily obsessive-compulsive as he is just, well, prepared. And why shouldn't he be after the life he's lived? Aside from the juiciest, most dark and exhilarating and frightening and just downright haunting story of survival that's the core of the picture, the back-story to Dieter is fascinating too. Dieter's own childhood, for example, was already a slog from the start, being in post-war Germnay, poor in a family without much food or prospects, eating wallpaper for "the blue in the walls". But enter in a passion, an un-yielding desire (which, of course, is part of Herzog's bread & butter and love of man in his films), which is flying, and for Dieter there was nothing else but to fulfill this. What it ends up leading to, after becoming an American citizen, is more than he could've bargained for.<br /><br />Dieter is one of Herzog's most compelling, quirky, and compassionately observed figures in his whole career, a man who's memory is scarred by brutal memories of his time being a Vietnam POW, though at the least it provides for some of the most compelling storytelling in any documentary of the last 20 years. Ironically, the storytelling comes through- unlike in The Wild Blue Yonder- mostly in lots and lots of exposition from Dieter on some of the most minute details of his time in the different prison camps (the torture tactics, the bugs, the brutal, wretched violence and threats like with the wedding ring tale), and leading into the most interesting and sad portions with his best friend Duane. They escaped the prisons together, but found that their journey to reach Cambodia would not be so easy. Now, through most of this, the talking does something that is enthralling, which is that as Dieter goes through his stories and occasionally does re-enactments (in fashion Herzog could only do, with Dieter already middle-aged being led in handcuffs et all through the jungle), one can picture all of this in the mind. It all becomes even more vivid to try and get these little details and the intensity of it all together into a form of reality. That Herzog keeps these portions simple, and knows when to hold Dieter back in his answers, makes him all the more a key figure of interest. He's not ever totally 'normal', but unlike a Timothy Treadwell, you wont think ever really about laughing at him either.<br /><br />So, along with his hero (whether of war or not is hard to say, as Dieter disputes that claim as saying the ones who died were the real heroes, typical but perhaps quite true), Herzog stylizes his film with a mix of old stock footage when detailing Dieter's early life (the period footage of WW2 scenes and post German rubble is always a captivating sight, and with Herzog gets up a notch in his timing and assemblage with music), and in capturing the footage of Vietnam in aerial viewings of jungles and fields. Herzog is also very wise at not injecting politics much at all into the proceedings, there's no 'I was used by the Americans' or whatever thrown into the mix. There's even a sense that Dieter doesn't hold too much of a grudge with everything that happened to him, that it's just what happens in time of war (and, of course, he WAS dropping bombs on people from his plane). Now, through much of these harrowing- and even in the smaller bits involving what went on in prisons, bathrooms and the scraps of food it's always harrowing- luckily Herzog keeps a level of humor in check as well. One of my very favorite scenes in the film, where Herzog breaks away for a moment from Dieter, is when he shows a 'trainee' film used for American soldiers meant to show what should happen in case they get abandoned in the jungle alone...with all of the gear that they could possibly have including a knife, a flare gun, and a very fast helicopter to come around (and this is put to hilariously dead-pan voice-over work).<br /><br />Yet even the moments where one laughs only brings to mind the moments of absurdity in a time of absolute crisis, and how one can't ever really imagine what it's like to be alone in a foreign territory surrounded by people who will do anything to keep said person as a form of collateral in war-time. Dieter, aside from knowing that flying and airplanes are the only way of life he would ever want to have (and Herzog ends the film on a wonderfully somber, elegiac note where he flies over a large field of airplanes), knows what it is to have to survive at all costs. But yet, as well, as in many of Herzog's protagonist driven films, there's the near unalterable spirit that will keep on enduring if one's strong enough, even through horrid moments (the fate of Dunae) and problems all the way up to the rescue by the helicopter (is he American, or a spy, they ask on the chopper). Dieter is such a man with a spirit, and he's given via Herzog a fantastic, tragic, creative, well-shot, albeit maybe too short, tribute to his life. And, of course, it pumps me up even more for the upcoming dramatization Rescue Dawn.
| 1 |
17,306 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 889 | 1,105 |
The topic of religion in Buñuel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Buñuel in "La Voie Lactée", "Un Chien Andalou" or in "L'Age d'Or". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like "Nazarin", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Buñuel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Buñuel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.<br /><br />This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Galdós, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.<br /><br />If is the sweetest Buñuel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Buñuel against the power of church, we see a Buñuel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his "Voie Lactée") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. "Nazarin" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.<br /><br />The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in "L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.<br /><br />Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Buñuel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.<br /><br />*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.
| 1 |
17,765 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 943 | 1,148 |
Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes "A Grand Day Out," "The Wrong Trousers," and also "A Close Shave" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.<br /><br />5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.<br /><br />In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.<br /><br />Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: "It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!"). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit "Fight Club") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in "The Wrong Trousers," Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the "cursed" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as "The Wrong Trousers", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100.
| 1 |
17,769 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 945 | 1,122 |
There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.<br /><br />Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.<br /><br />Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.<br /><br />Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.<br /><br />There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.<br /><br />Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.<br /><br />So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.<br /><br />Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.<br /><br />There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.<br /><br />Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.<br /><br />I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.<br /><br />The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.<br /><br />There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of "this bit was really funny" and "there's a bit when...", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent!
| 1 |
17,802 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 990 | 1,190 |
I noted that the official IMDb review refers to Leland as a sociopath. I believe that this diagnosis is manifestly and profoundly incorrect.<br /><br />This is a movie about sadness, and about the ability of one particular teenage boy to see sadness in daily life, as it lies in wait around every corner, in advance of the unfolding of the lives that it impacts. A sociopath is a person who cannot empathize with others, and who, while understanding the difference between right and wrong, does not care about this difference. A sociopath is a subject who places himself or herself at the center of that subject's universe, with total disregard for the impact that the subject's actions have for those around him or her. One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is that a true sociopath lacks the ability to feel empathy -- lacks the ability to feel that which others feel, and does not correlate changes in the moods of others as the result of that sociopath's actions with those actions. A sociopath CANNOT feel the pain of others, or understand that the pain of others is the result of the sociopath's own actions. A sociopath is a person who is not completely formed. A vital chunk is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of a true sociopath, rendering the sociopath immune to "talking therapy" and other treatment modalities that involve human interaction and the exploration of personal feelings. Sociopathy is devastating, even when the subject is treated and placed in a highly structured environment aimed at containing the damage that the sociopath can do to others. Many sociopaths function more or less normally and never raise a blip on the radar of the criminal justice system, although they tend to leave a trail of emotional debris in their wakes.<br /><br />Leland Fitzgerald is no sociopath. He is a person who is blessed (or cursed) with the ability to foresee what he considers to be the inevitable consequences and outcomes of human interactions. Leland literally sees sadness written into the eyes and faces of people around him, as he slowly assimilates and internalizes the philosophy that life is about loss, and that people slowly succumb to the inevitable and inexorable fact that, for want of a better metaphor, things fall apart. People who fall in love and who kiss and cuddle today turn into "pathetic" elderly couples. The electricity in the eyes of Leland's "mother" (a wealthy New York socialite who loves Leland and who invites him into the home that she shares with her family when he arrives in New York City, alone and determined to remain in the city at the age of 12) fades as she explains to him, on the last of his visits to New York City, that she learned that her husband had been cheating on her all the time, that she got a divorce, that having one's heart broken happens to everybody, and that such loss is an inevitable part of growing up. Her eyes still reflect light, but the electricity that once illuminated them is gone. This scene -- this explanation, late is it is in coming -- is crucial to understanding why Leland commits a seemingly savage, senseless crime (killing the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend). Leland knows what lies ahead for this little boy -- a lifetime of unattainable goals, of being taught only words that signify danger, of never knowing the love of another human being, of never feeling such love, and of never connecting with another person. More than any other character in this movie, this little boy personifies everything that Leland sees as being inevitable and horrifying about the world. Leland's act -- killing this little boy -- is, for Leland, an act of mercy, committed because this was the one thing that he COULD do in a world in which actions cannot change outcomes. Whereas a true sociopath knows that actions can and do change outcomes but does not care about the harm inflicted on others by those actions, Leland does care. What most people view as a barbaric and horrifying act is, in Leland's eyes, the only decent thing that he can do to alleviate the suffering of just one person.<br /><br />It would be comforting to be able to present this as an explanation of Leland's actions -- comforting, but incomplete. For in the end, "blame" for Leland's actions lies elsewhere. As is so often the case, there are no easy explanations and no balm to apply to the outraged soul. Why did Leland not learn something that even the most pessimistic people usually acknowledge -- that sometimes -- just sometimes -- people DO remain in love, and that relationships DO succeed, and that even the saddest lives ARE transformed? For Leland, there is no middle ground, no inner core to which he can retreat and regroup. There is only pain and sadness. One is tempted to blame his arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant father -- the brilliant writer (played by Kevin Spacey) -- for not being there at critical times during Leland's development, but given this man's thuggish nastiness, that may have been a blessing.<br /><br />In the end, this viewer was moved by a tremendous sense of sadness. Why was Leland doomed to view the world through a veil of pessimism and depression? There is a maturity to Leland's character -- present, for example, when he repeatedly insists that nobody was to blame for his girlfriend breaking up with him -- that is both stoic and heartbreaking. Stoic, in that it is absolutely genuine, notwithstanding the heated denunciations of Leland's teacher. But heartbreaking, in that it is born not so much of understanding as of despair. Leland's indifference to his fate is merely a reflection of the utter certainty of his belief that nothing really matters. Nothing that he does can change his fate.<br /><br />This is not sociopathy on display. This is, if anything, its polar opposite......
| 1 |
17,823 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 857 | 1,173 |
Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories. <br /><br />The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish "Ponyo" and takes it to the daycare/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger. <br /><br />Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.<br /><br />Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke. <br /><br />During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki). <br /><br />As with his past films, Miyazaki's "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.<br /><br />Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.<br /><br />Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as "Lisa" rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).<br /><br />80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme "Umi No Okasan" by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi "Geke No Ue No Ponyo" theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like "Die Walküre".<br /><br />The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.<br /><br />Like "Kiki's Delivery Service/Majo No Takkyubin", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Princess Momonoke/Momonoke Hime" and "My Neighbor Totoro/Tonari No Totoro", "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come.
| 1 |
17,972 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 974 | 1,173 |
As Salinger's "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" ends with the suicide of a prodigy, this movie opens with the death of the star high school swimmer legend, Matt, who shoots himself in the head with a revolver after in the opening scene. But the death of Matt Travis serves as a key to unlock the door of another prodigy, his brother, Tim who never in his life seriously bothered with the question, "What am I going to do?"<br /><br />When he finds his brother dead, his head broken like a dropped watermelon, the Travis family starts vomiting out its secrets one by one. The film focuses on Tim. He is a victim of bullying, domestic abuse, family alienation, heartbreak, issues of sexuality and friendship. <br /><br />Tim reveals his wounds by physical bruises, but these are not the only injuries to his person, as we slowly come to realize, as the script painfully unveils the origins and outcome of Tim scars. Everyone who loves him hurts him. Hirsch plays out the character quite well, revealing frame after frame in the visual expression of his body, a host of conflicting emotions inside the soul of a kid whom no one seems to listen to or know very well, unknowing and unaware of his depth of soul and prodigious talent. <br /><br />Two siblings sharing a doobie, curled up on a red, spinnable playground saucer, Tim asks Penny, "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?" The scene is framed in a familiar, recurring image of the film: the comfortable playground where Tim obviously feels at home, filmed from a bird's eye view, because with every character Tim feels comfortable to share a part of himself, and we view these intimate moments he shares in the red, spinnable playground saucer, complete with childish graffiti carved in pencil, from above. After advising him curtly to pass the joint, Penny tells him, "Tim, well, the secret to the success of life is to find something you love. And you have to do that for the rest of your life
And you better hope to hell that you're good at it because if you're not then you'll probably fail." This simple line of advice from Penny serves as the movie's central theme, the responsibility of talent and the possibility of failure. Why does one person have a talent he cannot stand, like Matt, who hated the attention his swimming fame brought, but no one notices Tim's talent no one because no one bothers to ask him? Not even us. The film makes us aware that we ourselves do not know Tim as well as we thought we did when we first meet this handsome, sad, guy; in our intimate understanding of Tim, as it progresses, we are reminded that not everyone is as they seem to be. This is the other side of the film, the failure of those who should parents, friends, teachers whoever to notice and see the gifts of the people they claim to love. Not even his mother Sandy, played by Sigourney Weaver, sees Tim's gift, despite her love for her son. Weaver does a deft job of a middle-aged woman grappling with her own inner demons as she haphazardly tries to play the roles of domesticity and support. When Tim is found to be bullied at school, she storms the boy's trailer, threatening his life, "You can tease, torture, punch, drive drunk with me, I can forgive you. Hell I can understand it, I'm a good Christian, you know, I can forgive and forget, but you mess with my kid and may God himself descend from heaven to protect you because as long as I live and I will outlive you all I will wake up and go to sleep at night just dreaming of ways to make your petty insignificant lives into hell on earth." After flicking a paper cup into the mother's face, she looks around the trailer, and looking at them both, the kid and his stunned mother, comments, "nice trailer" and leaves as quickly as she came. Weaver scores in her ability to match gusto with visceral wit that is acid and witty. And Tim's father, played by Jeff Daniels, is blind to who his son is, treating him like a stranger, not telling his family that he took time off from the office, spending his days in the city park, listless, a carved out soul, and sleeping in Matt's bed, tucked in with his high school letter jacket. Jeff Daniels does a superb job of making us believe that he can be both a bastard and lovable because, we grow to see that even an inept father can show his love for his son. In an emotional scene, Tim confronts his father. Just when you think his dad is going to hit him, he grabs for him to embrace him. Not letting him go, he tells Tim, "I am your father and you're are my son and I'm here okay but you've gotta talk to me. I don't know how to do this by myself". It is here at this moment in the film that a father tells his son, you have to tell me what's going on inside of you, you have to tell me who you are; I want to know who you are. It is in this scene that the film reaches a cathartic moment, the visual movement from Tim, angry and alone, to his father embracing him as he breaks downs and weeps, revealing the emotions hidden beneath his shell. Tim experiences this moment of cleansing with his dad as a catharsis, especially when you consider the mistreatment, manipulation, disregard, violence and betrayal he has been dealt in the long year the film encompasses. I recommend this film.
| 1 |
18,238 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 893 | 1,118 |
"Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.<br /><br />Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.<br /><br />"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.<br /><br />I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.<br /><br />Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.<br /><br />This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.<br /><br />Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.<br /><br />Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.<br /><br />We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.<br /><br />Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."<br /><br />When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.<br /><br />It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.<br /><br />After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?<br /><br />If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.<br /><br />Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation.
| 1 |
18,244 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 915 | 1,115 |
Kon Ichikawa had lived through world war two, and saw what its effects it had on his people in Japan. But so did novelist Shohei Ooka, whose book was the inspiration for Ichikawa's film, Fires on the Plain. It's a film about the men in this war, or perhaps more universally in wars in general, who lose their humanity. The soldiers trudging along through these fields and jungles of the Philippenes in this story are almost completely without hope, if not already just that. It makes Stone's Platoon look like a picnic: at least they had certain things, like food, after all.<br /><br />They have little to no reserves or supplies or ammunition, no back-up, no sense of anything going their way in this combat that they've been thrust into. They can't even get some proper hospital care, unless if they can no longer walk at all or have lost limbs (for example, say, if you have TB, you're on your way). But its really through the prism of one soldier, a private Tamura, that we get a full sense of the futility of war, both in its bleak scenes of nothingness and boredom and decay, and those flashes of intense and brutal violence.<br /><br />In the film Tamura just wants to get some medical care. This is right at the start, and his told by his superior officer- already he is with eyes that stare off and an expression that has been drained by years of battle- that he will die if he doesn't find a hospital. He doesn't, really, but does end up in with some soldiers: at first with a platoon that seems to sort of have their act together, but is really led on by a power-hungry brute who just wants Tamura's stash of salt, and then later with two other stray soldiers who are part of a group that had previously been ambushed while crossing a road at night.<br /><br />The story isn't entirely a straight line, but it doesn't need to be. Tamura's path in Fires on the Plain is told in vignettes, little stories like when he comes upon a seemingly deserted enemy village. Two of the populous comes back to get some supplies, and Tamura sneaks up on them. It's an excruciating scene, since so far with Tamura we haven't seen him do anything outright *wrong*, but he does so in this scene, not even so much out of evil but out of fear and desperation (this is also, without spoiling it, how he gets a stash of salt). Little scenes build up so brilliantly and with devastation, like a simple task of finding a pair of walkable shoes, which there seem to be none. Or when Tamura, later in the film, discovers his teeth are becoming torn apart and falling out from lack of total hygiene. So much for food, so it goes.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that this is a hauntingly realized film from Ichikawa, shot in a stark black and white view of the fields and woods, the cinematography filling everything we see in black-blacks and white-hot white. Ichikawa also makes sure to get everything authentic from his actors, not simply emotionally but with their own emaciated look and looks of desperation right on them. It's as if Ichikawa has to have them all surviving the film as well as characters surviving out in the wild; by wild, by the way, I mean also cannibalism. The shock of this is two-fold; first is the way that a soldier says half-jokingly early on about eating other soldiers to Tamaura, who asks if it was true and only in response getting a "don't ask" word of caution, and the second with the depiction of cannibalism itself, from the crazy starving man on the hill who pulls out guts out of his lap and says with a straight face to our hero that "You can eat me when I die." <br /><br />This makes thing especially more brutal when it comes to the director filming the brief 'action' scenes. These are, I would argue, more brutal than 'Private Ryan' in their depictions of violence in battle, the carnage that is completely random. A scene I would point to, and that contains just a shot that is excruciating to watch, is when from a high angle we see a group of about twenty soldiers walking slowly along, a hail of gunfire comes that kills only four or five, but it just happens so fast, and the soldiers just keep walking along at the same crawl. This isn't the only shot of horrible carnage that's shown - when needing to be bloody its there, but splashed across the screen like something completely of the macabre - but it drives the point completely.<br /><br />All of the acting is staggering (Funakoshi especially, who looks to be both most at peace and most horrified by what he sees in the subtlest of looks most of the time), all of the major set-pieces provide something else to the gruesome experience, and it all amounts to the ultimate question with an anti-war film: how can, or why, do people fight in wars like these? It's almost too depressing to put into words, and so Ichikawa pushes our noses right up into the muck and filth and blood and demands for us to take it in, so maybe, some day, it will never happen again. Or one can hope this, by the end of such a bleak and great film as this.
| 1 |
18,301 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 967 | 1,167 |
Okay, so I've read most of the reviews on this movie, as well as comments left by visitors to this site, and the feeling I get is that most people who wrote reviews really didn't like this movie. That's why I'm writing now-I represent the minority because, I did. I admit, I went to see the movie because I am very impressed with Ryan Gosling's compelling abilities, and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. He is an amazing actor. That aside, I wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me... why? Because it's a whodunit where you know `whodunit' from the start, and that's kind of unusual.<br /><br />As the plot goes, two teenage boys endeavour to commit the "perfect crime" because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free-the uninhibited, and let's remember, guiltless, acting out of one's will. The relationship between Richard and Justin was complex, hinted at homosexuality, and was brilliantly acted by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. Gosling was the manipulating, controlling smooth-talker, and Pitt was the extremely book-smart, socially awkward outcast. Enter Sandra Bullock's character, who it seems most people didn't particularly appreciate. I think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self-glorification thing. I didn't see that as the case here. Without "Cassie's" personal history about the ex-husband that nearly killed her, who, not surprisingly, shared similar traits with Richard Hayward, she never would have pursued her instincts about Justin and Richard. The case was seemingly airtight against Ray, the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. Even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither Bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other, and the vomit Justin left at the sight. Therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing, the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom,' ended up working against Justin, who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). Without that crucial piece of evidence, they almost had a "murder by numbers." And to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as I have, I looked in to it and found that something done "by numbers" (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. There's also a song by Sting called "Murder By Numbers", but that's beside the point. :)<br /><br />Many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between Cassie and her partner, but I think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. Like it or not, her history does play an important role in this movie because without it, she would likely have never followed her instincts about Justin and Richard. Yes, it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned, woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life' plot, but I think without the depth of Cassie's character you have just another movie about teenage killers, and they just may have gotten away with it. There's no movie there.<br /><br />And to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously didn't commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning, can I remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed, and totally traceable shoe prints. The boys wanted to be involved-it was a game. They were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. What they didn't expect was that Cassie Mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. A little unbelievable? Maybe. But many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. However, this is a MOVIE!<br /><br />I saw this movie in theatres about three times, and each time it revealed a little more to me, and I liked it a little more. The more I watched it, the more I was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth Richard Hayward-there are people really like this. My main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had Justin and Richard's interactions a little more central (because, let's face it, there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization-each character was very distinct and interesting in his/her own way. It was very well acted, although I would have given Ben Chaplin's character a little more depth to work with (he's a good actor) and maybe pared down Bullock's character a smidgen.<br /><br />I think everyone should keep in mind that for a Hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the "whodunit" at the beginning, it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. I think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout, slow revelation of the different character dynamics, and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are, we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie, if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. Especially Richard Hayward. Not that I'm biassed. :)
| 1 |
18,581 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 838 | 1,137 |
In World War II, a badly burned amnesiac known only as "The English Patient" is found in the African desert and is transported to Italy, where he joins a convoy of medical troops and others at an abandoned monastery. Among them are Hana (Juliette Binoche), a Canadian nurse whose lovers generally meet unpleasant ends; Kip (Naveen Andrews) and Hardy (Kevin Whately), two explosives experts who search the monastery for bombs; and David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a Canadian soldier-of-fortune who knows the identity of the English patient and has a score to settle.<br /><br />Through flashbacks we learn the story of the Patient: he is Laszo Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian explorer who, in the late '30s, falls in with a group of British cartographers, including Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katharine (Kristen Scott-Thomas), while mapping the deserts of North Africa. After Clifton leaves them on government business, Katharine and Clifton fall in love with each other in the desert, resulting in an affair that, naturally, has a less-than-happy ending.<br /><br />If one is able to overlook the illogical parts of the story line (such as, why would a patient found in Africa be sent to what is essentially the front line of the war in Italy?), then you can appreciate "The English Patient" as a throwback to the intelligent, layered, sweeping epics of David Lean in the '60s. Much more than "Titanic" or other epic romances of late, this movie puts one in mind of "Doctor Zhivago" and "Gone With the Wind" - an epic love story set against a huge historical backdrop. You shouldn't expect a war film, though there are some striking (if all-too-brief) scenes of violence that stand out more than the romantic sections, as is usually the case (Caravaggio's interrogation by a sadistic SS officer (Jurgen Prochnow) in particular).<br /><br />The movie is very ambiguous, in regards to pretty much everything. The central question of the film is: How far are you willing to go for love? As critics of the movie are fast to point out, Almasy is, on the surface, a far-from-likable character - he has an affair with a married woman and betrays his country by giving maps and intelligence to the Germans, causing the death of his friend Madox (Julian Wadham) and the torture of Caravaggio, and actually killing a British soldier who has him under arrest at one point. The fact that Almasy is in many ways reprehensible is kind of the point - he's in love with Katharine, and sees the world narrowly in terms of his love that loyalty to country (or anything else for that matter) is secondary; as Almasy says, he hates "Ownership. Being owned." The two engage in a rather bold love affair (shagging within ear shot of hundreds of people at a Christmas party) and it's clear that Katharine is more drawn to the mysterious, exciting Almasy than the comparatively boring Geoffrey.<br /><br />The 1944 subplot is somewhat shaky and seems superfluous; the romance between Kip and Hannah is never completely believable, and I feel the film could have done without it. But those sequences do add an interesting texture of mystery and complexity to the film, so I won't complain too much.<br /><br />Like the epics mentioned above, the film is able to convey time and place through simple devices like crowd scenes, strategically placed posters, and military presence. We do not need to dwell on the fact that it's 1938 in Cairo, but it's helpful to know. The direction of Anthony Minghella and the desert cinematography by John Seale are absolutely gorgeous; the sand dunes, sand storms, and haunting caves of the desert are captured in beautiful detail. Gabriel Yared's score is haunting and atmospheric.<br /><br />The acting is generally solid. Fiennes gives a very layered performance as a character who is mysterious, complex, and haunted. The difference between the Almasys of 1938 and 1944 are remarkable; one exciting and somewhat carefree, the other haunted and reflective. Kirsten Scott Thomas is effective as Katharine, the female explorer looking for adventure, and Colin Firth gives one of his best performances as Geoffrey, who realizes early on that he's no competition for the exciting Almasy. Willem Dafoe does nice work as Caravaggio, the shifty, hunted thief-turned-spy driven by revenge. Jurgen Prochnow gives a performance reminiscent of Jose Ferrer in "Lawrence of Arabia" (and a similar character too): very brief, but more memorable then some of the major characters. Some of the 1944 actors are unremarkable: Juliette Binochette is nothing special, while Naveen Andrews is good but unremarkable. Kevin Whately, as Kip's ill-fated partner, does what he can with a rather smallish role.<br /><br />"The English Patient" is not a perfect movie by any means, but the vituperative attacks on it by much of the movie-going public are not deserved at all. Maybe it's a show of how film sensibilities have changed since the era of the Leans and Kubricks, or maybe people were expecting something simple to understand. Complex to fault, brilliantly directed and shot, "The English Patient" is a wonderful modern-day epic.<br /><br />8/10
| 1 |
19,006 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 840 | 1,185 |
I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being "deadly boring" an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare! <br /><br />Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).<br /><br />While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).<br /><br />With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.<br /><br />I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot
except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called "Footsteps On The Moon" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface
! <br /><br />The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of "Carmen" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) also with Nero and Kinski as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)
but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly!
| 1 |
19,078 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 823 | 1,170 |
Dogtown and Z-Boys<br /><br />Summary: Dogtown and Z-boys is a documentary about a group of revolutionary teenagers that changed the world of surfing and skateboarding in Venice (Dogtown), California as we know it today. With their low pivotal style, they embarked on a Larry Bertlemen influenced journey that would lead to countless successes and a couple failures. After the Dogtown articles were featured in a reinstated Skateboarder Magazine, the sport was revamped and the members of the Zephyr skateboard team forgot about Jeff Ho, and looked to be on summer vacation for the rest of their lives by joining other skateboard teams that could afford to pay them like movie stars. The original Zephyr Skateboard Team put together by Jeff Ho (Zephyr Surfshop Owner) and Craig Stecyk (Photographer) included Jay Adams, Tony Alva, Stacy Peralta, Bob Biniak, Chris Cahill, Shogo Kubo, Paul Constantineau, Jim Muir, Peggy Oki (the only female), Nathan Pratt, Wentzle Ruml IV, Allen Sarlo, and David Ray Perry. All of the original members except Jay Adams and Chris Cahill are still well and surfing/skating. Jay Adams, at the time of the documentary, was serving time on drug related charges. Chris Cahill, at the time of the documentary, was last seen in Mexico.<br /><br />Themes: The themes of this documentary are kind of read-between-the-lines, but if there were a clear-cut theme it would be that even kids can spark revolutions. Other themes would include extensive partying in one's past may lead to an unfulfilling future, and by planning and being careful with one's assets a very rewarding future could be at hand.<br /><br />Other Works: Stacy Peralta (Writer and Director) has a fairly wide range of documentaries that he has either written, produced, or directed. Most with a common theme of surfing or skateboarding, such as Riding Giants, Sk8 TV, The Bones Brigrades, and Lords of Dogtown. He has also done films with a theme of growing up in America as a teenager, films such as: Influences: From Yesterday to Today, Crips and Bloods: Made in America, and The 70s: The Decade that Changed Television.<br /><br />Subjects: The subjects of Dogtown and Z-boys are the original members of the Zephyr Skateboard Team excluding Chris Cahill. Peralta included Jeff Ho and Craig Stecyk in the interviews. Other subjects were people who grew up during the 70s reading the Dogtown Articles as well as skateboard enthusiasts. Skaters from the Dogtown area, but not on the team were interviewed.<br /><br />Editing: The editing of this film was phenomenal in my opinion. There were scenes of the subjects talking so that the audience could see who was speaking and get a sense of the character, but would immediately cutaway to archival footage that would explain what the speaker was saying. When a song could explain the emotions of the subjects better, such as when Jay Adams' unfortunate life was a subject of talk, the song Old Man by Neil Young was played, which evokes many emotions. Sean Penn was the narrator for the film and he explained the transitions throughout the film. The film was presented chronologically from the time the Zephyr surf team was put together, to creating the skateboard team, to all of the Z-boys leaving the team to join other skate companies or create their own company. <br /><br />Cinematography: The film was shot in an interesting way. The film of the subjects speaking were all in black and white and all of the archival footage of the Z-Boys surfing or skating were in color. Of course the footage from the 70s was grainy, but that only enhanced the film. The interviewees were mostly shot in the same area it appears, but all were outside. All of the footage was very well-controlled even the archival footage which I found very surprising. <br /><br />Music: "Seasons of Wither"-Performed by Aerosmith "Toys in the Attic"-Performed by Aerosmith "Generation Landslide"- Alice Cooper "One Way Out"- Performed by The Allman Brothers "Lollipops and Roses" and "Whipped Cream"-performed by Herb Alpert "Into the Void" and "Paranoid"- performed by Black Sabbath "Godzilla"- Blue Oyster Cult "Aladdin Sane" and "Rebel Rebel"- David Bowie "Fastcars"- The Buzzcocks "Gut Feeling"- Devo "I'll Give you Money"- Peter Frampton "Funk 49"- James Gang "Ezy Rider" and "Foxy Lady" and "Freedom" and "Bold as Love"- Jimi Hendrix "Sidewalk Surfing"- Jan and Dean "Achilles Last Stand" and "Hot on for Nowhere"- Led Zeppelin "Six Underground"- The Sneaker Pimps "Surfrider"- The Lively Ones "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Motor City Madhouse" and "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang- Ted Nugent "Us and Them"- Pink Floyd "Bad Boys"- The Pretenders "Maggie May"- Rod Stewart "I Wanna be Your Dog" and "Gimme Danger"- The Stooges "Children of the Revolution"- T-Rex "Bad Reputation"- Thin Lizzy "Disco Inferno"- The Tramps "Hannah"- Rob Trower "Rocky Mountain Way"- Joe Walsh "Old Man"- Neil Young "La Grange"- ZZ Top<br /><br />The music in the film make the movie. Every one of these songs contributes to what the subjects are saying and evoke emotions that would not have been called to mind otherwise.
| 1 |
19,142 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 836 | 1,122 |
I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful works of art, there's no question about it.<br /><br />As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.<br /><br />The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.<br /><br />Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.<br /><br />So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs Bruuuuum! P.S Amazon are selling this for just over £2 it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever.
| 1 |
19,246 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 932 | 1,154 |
Life is comprised of infinite possibilities; some known, others a mystery and destined to remain so. And what of the vast unknown, the realms beyond which knowledge has no established boundaries or parameters? Who is to say what exists or what is possible? Valid questions, all of which are raised and explored in the story of a particular individual's personal journey, a strange and dramatic odyssey that defies facts and logic, in `K-PAX,' directed by Iain Softley, and starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. In the wake of an incident in New York's Central Station, a man named Prot (Spacey) is transported to a psychiatric hospital in Manhattan, where he is delivered into the care of Dr. Mark Powell (Bridges), who attempts to uncover the truth about his patient, who claims to be from the distant planet K-PAX. It quickly becomes a challenge for Dr. Powell, as Prot, with his calm, direct, forthcoming manner and a propensity for produce (he eats bananas peels and all, and Red Delicious Apples are his favorites) is quite convincing. But it's Powell's job, as well as his nature, to be skeptical. Prot's claims, however, remain intact and stand up even under the most intense probing and the watchful eye of Dr. Powell, who finds himself in something of a quandary-- Prot even tells him the exact date and time that he will depart for K-PAX, a scheduled return trip that allows Powell but a short time to sort it all out. And Powell just can't seem to get his mind around the idea that he is dealing with a real alien being; and it's something he is going to have to resolve quickly, if he is ever going to know the truth. And he has to know. The truth, after all, is the only thing that is going to set him free in his own mind.<br /><br /> Softley has created and delivered a sensitive, thought-provoking film that challenges the viewer by sustaining the mystery surrounding Prot while forcing you to reflect upon your own concepts of what is, in fact, possible. And as you never know for sure about Prot until the denouement, you are able to identify with Powell, seeing the situation from his point of view and trying to solve the riddle right along with him. Softley creates an atmosphere of wonder and a real sense of being confronted with something that is truly unique as the story unfolds and you begin to realize that Prot just may be what he says he is. And in the context of the reality to which the film is disposed, it's an engrossing matter to try to wrap your mind around. How do you react when all of the evidence is contrary to the physical limitations we've set for ourselves? While at the heart of the film there is a resounding depth of humanity that is evident, not only in Prot, but in Dr. Powell, as well. All of which makes for an extremely engaging and gripping drama.<br /><br /> As we've come to expect, Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as Prot, presenting his character from the inside out, emotionally deep and physically convincing at the same time. This is a unique individual, and Spacey brings him to life with care and the ability to share those moments that are particularly revealing, which adds to the believability of the character and the credibility of the story itself. For this film to work, it is essential that we believe who and what Prot is; we do, and it does. Spacey simply pulls it off magnificently. It's a memorable performance, from which evolves a character that will stay with you for a long, long time.<br /><br /> Jeff Bridges, meanwhile, emerges on equal footing with Spacey, adeptly making a very real person of Dr. Powell. It's a fairly straightforward role, and the challenge for Bridges was to take this very normal and ordinary character and make him unique in his own right, which, opposite the character of Prot was no small task. And, again, for this film to work it was necessary for Bridges to rise to the occasion. And, with exceptional skill and being the consummate professional that he is, he succeeds without question. Bridges infuses Powell with an underlying complexity, and is so giving in his performance, that it makes the interaction between Powell and Prot vibrant, and at times intense. It's a demonstration of two of the finest actors in the business doing what they do best, creating a dynamic that is alive and inspiring. It's a great job by Bridges, who never attempts to steal the spotlight from Prot, which serves to raise the level of the film to an even higher notch.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Mary McCormack (Rachel), Alfre Woodard (Dr. Villers), Ajay Naidu (Dr. Naidiu), Vincent Laresca (Navarro), Kimberly Scott (Joyce), Conchata Ferrell (Betty) and Saul Williams (Ernie). An entertaining, emotionally involving film, `K-PAX' is a dissertation on possibilities, as well as an examination of the ever evolving complexities of the human condition. It's a film that demands an open mind and rewards those who are able to approach it on it's own terms and embrace it. In the end, it makes you realize just how real K-PAX is; and it makes you appreciate Prot's journey, and just how much we all share and have in common with those around us, human or alien. And it may just make you reflect upon your own journey-- where you've been and where you're going. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10/10. <br /><br />
| 1 |
19,302 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 834 | 1,123 |
I saw 'I Smell the Dead' -- sorry, 'I SELL the Dead' -- at a press screening. Glenn McQuaid, the film's writer-director-editor, is a laddish Irishman who introduced the screening by announcing that -- whilst it was in progress -- he would be 'going out for a pint'. I don't begrudge him a drink, but -- by telling us about it -- he seemed to feel he needed to certify his laddishness or his Irishness, or both. When the opening credits rolled, there were -- as usual at press screenings -- loud ovations for the names of every actor or crew member who'd got friends in the audience, and silence for those who hadn't. McQuaid returned for a witty Q&A afterwards.<br /><br />This horror movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is good because its humour is considerably stronger than its horror. Only one scene is even remotely scary, and most of the 'horror' is merely gross-out, but I laughed throughout much of the film.<br /><br />This movie appears to be set in Ireland circa 1850 (by which time grave-robbing was mostly defunct). The story is told in flashback: we get flashbacks within flashbacks, and the narrating character flashbacks material that he couldn't know about, because sometimes he wasn't present or (in one case) because the action is unfolding behind his back.<br /><br />The story begins with a prisoner being taken to the guillotine. Guillotines weren't used in 19th-century Ireland, but -- for once -- we actually see a plausible guillotine sequence. The prisoner struggles on his way to execution, the rope cleats are accurate, and the prisoner manages to look up to see the blade overhead. (And there's a payoff later to justify the historically inaccurate use of the guillotine itself.)<br /><br />The characters are ostensibly Irish, but one major character speaks in Cockney slang: using phrases like "a mug's game" and "take a butcher's" (for 'have a look'). For once, actors in 19th-century roles display 19th-century dental hygiene, yet nearly all the clothes and hairstyles (and the women's make-ups) are resolutely 21st-century. I'm not complaining in the case of Heather Bullock, who wears a very fetching black miniskirt cozzie that appears to be PVC. Phworr!<br /><br />The lead actors (except Ron Perlman) are excellent, but most of the supporting cast have no sense of the Victorian period. The worst offender is Joel Garland as the publican, whose characterisation is firmly rooted in the twenty-first century. Just when I thought that Garland's performance couldn't get any less Victorian, he used his fingers to make "ironic" air-quotes.<br /><br />The sets (especially Angus Scrimm's lab) are detailed and impressive, yet failed to convince me that people actually lived and worked in these places. Nearly every interior contains burning candles, but never once did I see what would have been there if these were actual Victorian homes or workplaces: leftover drippings from previous candles.<br /><br />One scene features an extra-terrestrial: I was annoyed that McQuaid plumped for a stereotypical "grey" Schwa alien, rather than something original.<br /><br />There are splendid montage sequences, but McQuaid opts for flashy effects -- split-screens, overhead shots -- that don't serve the story. I was impressed by a recurring blue-screen device superimposing the main characters' heads over other backgrounds. Less effective was a recurring 'Creepshow'-style motif of camera shots morphing actors' faces into drawings resembling panel art from 1950s EC horror comics. I'm a fan of EC Comics, but they don't belong in 19th-century Ireland. The money that McQuaid spent on flashy photo F/X -- showing off his editing skills without serving the story -- should've been spent on accurate costumes.<br /><br />BIG SPOILERS NOW. Ron Perlman gives an "Oirish" performance full of acting-school tics. Ostensibly playing a 19th-century Irish priest, he writes with his left hand. (In Victorian Ireland, left-handed children were punished for using "the devil's hand" and were forcibly retrained to become righties.) But Perlman's character turns out to have a reason for concealing his right hand. Elsewhere, a character is bitten by a zombie yet suffers no ill effects, so I knew there'd be a payoff later. Several scenes that would more logically take place at night are shot in daylight, apparently only because this was easier and less expensive. (Since McQuaid is a proficient director and editor, he could easily have shot "day for night" ... but using a process-photography effect to help tell the story seems to interest him much less than showing off his flashy editing techniques.)<br /><br />McQuaid seems to be giving homage to those great old Hammer horror flicks. But those Hammers were so great because the actors and production designers worked hard to convince us that we were actually witnessing events in 1888 Whitechapel, or wherever. 'I Sell the Dead' almost entirely fails to evoke the 19th century.<br /><br />Glenn McQuaid shows talent as a director, scripter and editor, yet in all three capacities here he makes odd choices ... then largely fails to justify those choices. But I enjoyed 'I Sell the Dead'. I'll rate it 7 out of 10, and I look forward to his next movie.
| 1 |
19,505 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 826 | 1,148 |
Even a decade after "Frontline" aired on the ABC, near as I can tell, "current affairs" programmes are still using the same tricks over and over. Time after time, "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" are seen to be hiding behind the facade of journalistic professionalism, and yet they feed us nothing but tired stories about weight-loss and dodgy tradesmen, shameless network promotions and pointless celebrity puff-pieces. Having often been subjected to that entertainment-less void between 'The Simpsons' at 6:00 PM and 'Sale of the Century' (or 'Temptation') at 7:00 PM, I was all too aware of the little tricks that these shows would use to attract ratings.<br /><br />Fortunately, four rising comedians Rob Sitch, Jane Kennedy, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner were also all too aware of all this, and they crafted their frustrations into one of the most wickedly-hilarious media satires you'll ever see on television. The four entertainers had already met with comedic success, their previous most memorable television stint being on 'The Late Show,' the brilliant Saturday night variety show which ran for two seasons from 1992-1993, and also featured fellow comedians Mick Molloy, Tony Martin, Jason Stephens and Judith Lucy.<br /><br />"Frontline" boasts an ensemble of colourful characters, each with their own distinct and quirky personality. The current-affairs show is headed by nicely-groomed Mike Moore (Rob Sitch), an ambitious, pretentious, dim-witted narcissist. Mike works under the delusion that the show is serving a vital role for society he is always adamant that they "maintain their journalistic integrity" and his executive producers have excelled into getting him to believe just that. Mike is basically a puppet to bring the news to the people; occasionally he gets the inkling that he is being led along by the nose, but usually this thought is stamped out via appeals to his vanity or promises of a promotion.<br /><br />Brooke Vandenberg (Jane Kennedy) is the senior female reporter on the show. She is constantly concerned about her looks and public profile, and, if the rumours are to be believed, she has had a romantic liaison with just about every male celebrity in existence. Another equally amoral reporter, Marty Di Stasio, is portrayed by Tiriel Mora, who memorably played inept solicitor Dennis Denuto in the Australian comedy classic, 'The Castle.' Emma Ward (Alison Whyte) is the Line Producer on the show, and the single shining beacon of morality on the "Frontline" set. Then there's the highly-amusing weatherman, Geoffrey Salter (Santo Cilauro), Mike's best friend and confidant. Geoff makes a living out of always agreeing with Mike's opinion, and of laughing uproariously at his jokes before admitting that he doesn't get them.<br /><br />For each of the shows three seasons, we are treated to a different EP, Executive Producer. Brian Thompson (Bruno Lawrence), who unfortunately passed away in 1995, runs the programme during Season 1. He has a decent set of morals, and is always civil to his employees, and yet is more-than-willing to cast these aside in favour of high ratings. Sam Murphy (Kevin J. Wilson) arrives on set in Season 2, a hard-nosed, smooth-talking producer who knows exactly how to string Mike along; the last episode of the second season, when Mike finally gets the better of him, is a classic moment. Graeme "Prowsey" Prowse (Steve Bisley), EP for the third season, is crude, unpleasant and unashamedly sexist. It's, therefore, remarkable that you eventually come to like him.<br /><br />With its cast of distinctive, exaggerated characters, "Frontline" has a lot of fun satirising current-affairs programmes and their dubious methods for winning ratings. Many of the episodes were shot quickly and cheaply, often implementing many plot ideas from recent real-life situations, but this never really detracts from the show's topicality ten years on. Celebrity cameos come in abundance, with some of the most memorable appearances including Pauline Hanson, Don Burke and Jon English. Watch out for Harry Shearer's hilarious appearance in the Season 2 episode "Changing the Face of Current Affairs," playing Larry Hadges, an American hired by the network to reform the show.<br /><br />Particularly in the third season, I noticed that "Frontline" boasted an extremely gritty form of black humour, uncharacteristic for such a light-hearted comedy show. Genuinely funny moments are born from Brooke being surreptitiously bribed into having an abortion, murder by a crazed gunman and Mike treacherously betraying his best friend's hopes and dreams, only to be told that he is a good friend. The series' final minute minus an added-scene during the credits, which was probably added just in case a fourth season was to be produced was probably the greatest, blackest ending to a comedy series that I've yet seen.<br /><br />Below is listed a very tentative list of my top five favourite "Frontline" episodes, but, make no mistake, every single half-hour is absolutely hilarious and hard-hitting satire.<br /><br />1) "The Siege" (Season 1)<br /><br />2) "Give 'em Enough Rope" (Season 2)<br /><br />3) "Addicted to Fame" (Season 3)<br /><br />4) "Basic Instincts" (Season 2)<br /><br />5) "Add Sex and Stir" (Season 1)
| 1 |
19,507 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 917 | 1,127 |
After traveling around the world, it dawned on me that Australia really lacks one thing that other countries have: history.<br /><br />Fortunately or unfortunately, Australia wasn't establish following a war, it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather..... boring! Nothing "big" happened to mark some sort of turning point in Australia's history.... until the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-general of Australia - John Kerr.<br /><br />For those who are Australian, you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. This is for the benefit of curious non-Australians! Australia was colonised by the British. As time went on, it became apparent that Australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. Accordingly, the UK granted Australia permission to establish its own parliaments, laws, courts and so on. The law and politics of Australia would no longer be provided directly from the British; rather, Australia would be run by Australians in their own right, even though the courts, precedents, parliament and so on is largely modeled on the British system. This shift was codified in the Australian Constitution. Despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes Australian governments, law-making procedures, courts (but for those who are curious - no bill of rights), their are two "pro-crown" sections that were included and remain there to this day. These are more or less regarded as the "reserve powers of the Crown (king/queen of Great Britain)." The first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the Governor-general. Briefly, the governor-general is considered the Queen's chief representative in Australia and is described as the "Executive" branch of the Australian Government. When a piece of law is passed by the Australian parliament, the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the Governor-general. As such, the Govenor-general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the Crown. Theoretically, the Governor-general can refuse to sign a law passed by Australian parliament if he thinks fit. For instance, if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any Australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the GG could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. However, this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. By "convention" (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal), the Governor-general virtually acts at the behest of the Australian government and therefore, if the government passes law and the Prime Minister instructs the Governor-General to sign it, he will, almost always without question. In fact, by "convention" the Governor-General acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the Prime Minister of the day (and the Prime Minister alone). The second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the Governor-general's "pleasure." Now the events of 1975 - covered in this film - gave rise to a precedent on this particular section: if the governor-general is somehow 'displeased' with the government and/or Prime Minister, it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975... hence the title of the film "the dismissal.") Whether 'at the Governor-General's pleasure' can be construed as "the unfettered right to dismiss" is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst Australians at the time - especially considering that the governor-general is not elected by the people of Australia.<br /><br />Now that this background aspect is out of the way, let's get back to discussing the film. It was well made. The pace was patient, but didn't drag at all. The drama was well contained and very realistic. It didn't over-dramatise the events and most importantly, it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. On the contrary, I felt that it was fair and balanced, even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film-makers probably didn't approve of the Governor-general's decision to dismiss the Whitlam government. But I wouldn't describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other.<br /><br />In terms of accuracy, it was virtually spot on. The film-makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. There were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over, largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975, so I forgive them for that. Further, I think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post-Vietnam war era, but Noyce pretty much pulled it off.<br /><br />Finally, I was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical, obsessive or judgmental over them. Moreover, any that we're raised, for example Connor's pipeline, had a great deal of relevance to the story. The film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. This was smart because it meant that the film can't be accused of misrepresenting one side's policies.<br /><br />The dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in Australia in its short life. I am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. Essential viewing for any Australian.
| 1 |
20,139 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 882 | 1,143 |
Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a "Tabloid Musical") EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.<br /><br />Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.<br /><br />However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.<br /><br />This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song ("Americana") to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, "Il Bacio" by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.<br /><br />Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive "Little Miss Fixit" screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first "Teen Idol" with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive "wistful wallflower" adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully "adult" role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and "solo attraction" status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.<br /><br />It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only "superstar" attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an "Honorary" Oscar" in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.<br /><br />In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's "Let's Put On a Show" musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.<br /><br />Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty "Americana." As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.<br /><br />By contrast, Durbin's presentation of "Il Bacio," is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her "classical" selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional "stand 'n sing" variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though "miniature diva" Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with "jazz baby" Judy, and their delightful duetting of "Americana" in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan "Number One Asset" Durbin out).<br /><br />A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance!
| 1 |
20,312 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 984 | 1,198 |
Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.<br /><br />To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless. <br /><br />But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.<br /><br />But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.<br /><br />If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A
| 1 |
20,402 |
[
1100,
1200
] | 900 | 1,129 |
"The Beguiled" is a strange work among Clint Eastwood's oeuvre. By 1971 he had become well known as the star of action movies, not only Westerns (the genre in which he first made his name) but also war films (such as "Where Eagles Dare") and cop thrillers (such as "Coogan's Bluff"). Yet although "The Beguiled" takes place during wartime (the American Civil War), and was made by Don Siegel who had earlier directed Eastwood in "Coogan's Bluff" and was later the same year to direct him in "Dirty Harry", it is not an action film in the traditional sense. In most of his previous films Eastwood had played an active role, but here his role is largely passive- his character, Sergeant John McBurney, is a wounded fugitive forced to rely upon the charity of women in order to survive. Even while serving with his unit, McBurney played no active part in the conflict; he is a Quaker, whose religious principles forbid him to bear arms, and was serving with the Union forces as a medical orderly. <br /><br />The film is set in Louisiana towards the end of the war and starts with the injured McBurney being discovered by a young girl named Amy and brought back to her boarding school. The school is a small one, with only two teachers and a handful of girls. Although some of the girls are ardent supporters of the Confederate cause and want to hand him over to the authorities, the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, decides to shelter him and tend him, fearing that his injuries are likely to prove fatal should he be sent to one of the Confederacy's notoriously harsh prison camps. <br /><br />Although McBurney scrupulously follows the teachings of his religion as regards pacifism, he is not so scrupulous when it comes to following its teachings on the sin of fornication, and as he starts to recover he makes full use of his opportunity to exercise his charms on both the staff and the older girls, and he wins the affections of number of them, including Miss Farnsworth, her assistant Edwina and Carol, one of the older girls. Even twelve year old Amy appears to have a sort of childish crush on him. In the sexually repressed atmosphere of the all-female school his presence gives rise to jealousy and hatred, and Miss Farnsworth, rejected in favour of the sluttish Carol, plots a terrible revenge. (Interestingly, the one female to resist McBurney's blandishments is Hallie, Miss Farnsworth's black slave, even though he tries to win her round by pointing out that he is fighting to free people like her). <br /><br />"The Beguiled" has been described as an anti-war film, but this seems to me to be a misconception. The film is not really about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War or of war in general. The only acts of violence we see are perpetrated by non-combatants, and they are motivated by a desire for personal revenge, not by zeal for the Confederate cause. It would be more accurate to see the film as a drama about the psychological stresses that can be caused by the peculiar circumstances of war. <br /><br />At the beginning the school, set in a beautiful old antebellum mansion, seems like an island of peace amid the war. The building is in the Classical style, associated with order, harmony and restraint, but the story that unfolds within its walls is one of disorder, passion and violence, qualities associated with the Gothic school of writing which in the 19th century was often regarded as the antithesis of Classicism. The film can be seen as falling within what has been called the "Southern Gothic" tradition in American film and literature. <br /><br />The film was not a great hit at the box office, possibly because Eastwood was cast so much against type. It is not perhaps his best film, but it did show that he could expand his range and play something other than action heroes. (In "Play Misty for Me", his first film as director made the following year, he was again to play a "passive" character in danger from a vindictive female). There are some very good performances from the female members of the cast, particularly Geraldine Page as Martha Farnsworth, outwardly a respectable middle-aged spinster but inwardly a woman of strong passions. (There are hints that she may have been having an affair with a man whom she passed off as her brother). There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Hartman as the shy, repressed Edwina, who falls in love with McBurney and rejects the idea of revenge and from young Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy. (Amy is an animal lover- a key moment in the film comes when McBurney kills her pet turtle- so it is interesting that in later life Ferdin became an animal rights activist). The one character I was less keen on was Jo Ann Harris's Carol who seemed too modern, like a swinging seventies chick transported back in time to the 1860s. The film is notable for the emotionally intense "hothouse" atmosphere which Siegel brings to it. This will not be a film which is to everyone's taste; some will find it too overwrought and melodramatic, and some have found it misogynistic. (Judith Crist called it a film for "woman haters and sadists"). Others, however, may find it a compelling psychological drama. 7/10
| 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.