Datasets:

Siki-77

/

Sub_test_diff_length

like 0

Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.

A remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best; to remake a true classic, especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like Alfred Hitchcock, is something else again. And after watching this version of `Psycho,' directed by Gus Van Sant, two things come to mind immediately: What's the point, and what on earth were they thinking? Especially in light of the fact that Van Sant used the same screenplay (by Joseph Stefano, taken from the novel by Robert Bloch) that Hitchcock used. The final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking: First, that a `remake' should be just that; a retooling of the original, rather than a `copy' using new players; and second, that shooting in color, using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. Although this was a noble effort by Van Sant, ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which Norma Bates was afflicted: The `mind' of the film was divided; half was Hitchcock, half Van Sant. And the twain, though met, shall never be bound. Van Sant, even working from the original script, would have been better off making his own film-- all the way through-- rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what Hitchcock did with certain scenes. The opening shot of the movie, for instance, and especially the `shower' scene, arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. Copying Hitchcock, from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain, and using the same `skree! skree! skree!' sound effects-- even as homage to Hitchcock-- again, only distracted from the story. And, if you factor in the performance of William H. Macy (as Private Eye Arbogast), you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. Macy is a terrific actor-- one of the best character actors in the business-- and his performance here is excellent; but as good as it is, the attitude and delivery are pure David Mamet (with whom he has worked many times), and seemingly out of context with what Van Sant is doing. So the film winds up with a triple personality disorder: Hitchcock, Van Sant and Mamet. I felt like I was watching `House Of Good Will Psycho Games.' <br /><br /> As far as performances go, Macy's was as solid as they come, and Anne Heche (Marion Crane) did a good job of creating an original character, escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of Janet Leigh. The weak links were Viggo Mortensen (Sam), who made Marion's boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place; and Vince Vaughn, who--to put it as delicately as possible-- was simply awful as Norman Bates. His whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that); affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with `spontaneous' bursts of maniacal laughter made his Norman more of a caricature than a character, altogether unbelievable and pretentious. It gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `True Incident' you would see on a television show; it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from Norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober-faced Peter Graves, intoning, `Such was the mind-set of Norman Bates on that fateful, rainy night when Marion Crane stepped out of her car and into his life--' The supporting cast includes Julianne Moore (Lila), Robert Forster (Dr. Simon), Philip Baker Hall (Sheriff Al Chambers), Anne Haney (Mrs. Chambers), Chad Everett (Tom Cassidy), Rance Howard (Mr. Lowery), Rita Wilson (Caroline), James Remar (Patrolman) and James LeGros (Charlie the Car Dealer). If nothing else, Van Sant's `Psycho' is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director, a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. Granted, todays era of psycho-babble, `American Psycho' and Hannibal Lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like Norman Bates somewhat; but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between Norman, his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying; but Van Sant is unable to convey that sense of dread, that throat-clenching fear, with this film. If ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight-to-video, this is it. Better still, had it never been born. I rate this one 2/10

This is an excellent example of an entreatingly bad b-movie. There are worse movies than this one (Titanic for example), but this definitely shares the pile of steaming crap movies.<br /><br />OK this was apparently shot in Kansas City, which explains why everyone is so lame. The main guy looks like Steve Guttenberg, and is even more lame than him! I didn't even think that was possible! In fact, him and the main girl in the movie are responsible for the WORST DRAMA EVER! Its not just that there acting was waaaaaaaaay over-dramatic, well actually it was, of course the script was terrible which combines for a deadly one-two punch in bad terrible utterly unwatchable drama.<br /><br />The scarecrow, lets talk about him. The whistling you hear every time he's around is stupid, and obviously dubbed in. Now his costume, I cannot get over that - its a guy wearing burlap sacks and a stupid mask! I simply am dumbfounded, maybe if your 3 years old with brain damage you'd be scared of him/it.<br /><br />One of the characters, the token black guy actually, used the line: "This might be a chance to earn my red wings" when referring to trying to score with one of the girls on her period. Wow, um yea, that is the kind of dialogue you can look forward to.<br /><br />Oh, in the beginning when the scantily clad girl is running through the corn, why is it roped off? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be evident, just one of the many obvious mistakes made throughout this 'film' Another is the bad dubbing for the musical number (yup thats right), there all at the beach, and the one dorkaziod gets up the courage to sing a song and play guitar for everyone, and its so obviously dubbed its funny. Thankfully, the scarecrow answers all our prayers and throws a spear right through the guy's chest when he's done singing. Overall the gore like that is pretty good, this is one of those films when you rooting for these people to be killed by the killer.<br /><br />OK, there's a scene where the 2 guys bury one of their friends in the sand, then stand up, whip out their peni, and urinate all over the guy in the sand. Who does this? Really, imagine it "Hey, lets bury joe in the sand, then stand up and take out our genitals like its no big deal and pee on him" In fact, this brings up the homo-eroticism in this film, what the hell? A good part of the beginning of this movie is the jocks standing around in there underwear in the locker room and corn field while there doing the hazing. What the hell is with that? Traditionally, in film and real life, jocks get the girls and nerds don't. That really doesn't make sense as all nerds think of is girls and sex, and apparently all jocks think of is sports and being around each other in their underwear, I don't get it.<br /><br />Lets get to the sex. As someone who watched this movie with me put it: "I've never been so disgusted by heterosexual sex in my life" and its true. If you like hot A cup action, or ugly old woman boobs, then this film is for you. I swear, they found a girl with the smallest breasts ever and this is who they get to do the nude scene?? Then the ugly old woman nurse shows her bouncy ones a couple of times, and man, I just didn't want to see that.<br /><br />Now, I have to talk about the timeline continuity to this film, thats what really is just bizarre. It starts in the daytime, then they all head to the cornfield, and within like 2 minutes its instantly dark middle of the night, when they drive off from there saying their going to the beach - its instantly day again, and apparently they stay at the beach until night again, and until day the next day. SO basically these events in the film cover 4 days, without any of the characters needing sleep or anything, its really weird.<br /><br />After the main killings have taken place, it flash forwards to '3 weeks later' and apparently none of these people actually care that they saw their friends brutally murdered! The surviving people literally pop some champaign! And thats when I realized the budget didn't go to the script, directing or acting, it all went to that freakin bottle of champaign.<br /><br />The ending. Stop reading now if you don't want the ending spoiled for you, it truly is enjoyable.<br /><br />OK, so the end takes place in a church, and the scarecrow put his soul inside the diabetes kid body, then he fights with the steve guttenberg lookalike guy, and he fights him with a b-movie version of the power the emperor had in star wars! I'm not kidding, its so stupid! So somehow, in the middle of the fight, the scarecrow's soul jumps bodies into the guttenberg jr. guy, and then with the last amount of will he has of his own, he impales himself on a cross in the church! Its awesome! Some blood, but whats even better is that the cross is obviously cardboard! You can see the bottom move off the ground! Wow, yea have fun watching.

The Governess was, by far, a very pitiful film. I do not use this word loosely, as it honestly was a poor excuse for a movie. I finished watching this feature with only one word on my mind … "why"? Honestly, you could use this question at the end of every scene of this film and it would seem like it fit. There were so many inconsistencies that lead to a lack of development (both in the story and in the characters) which ultimately lead to a very confusing film with actors walking through the motions instead of giving any explanation. Scenes would occur with no foreshadowing, understanding, or drive to a complete ending. It was as if I was watching several different ideas thrown together without really any resolution. Actors were setting events in motion that did not seem to fit their character or really were resolved. This was my biggest issue with this film. The complete and utter lack of structure to this film brought all specks of foundation crumbling down with a genuine "ripple-effect" being felt throughout the rest of the film as a result.<br /><br />Let me explain myself further on this lack of consistency throughout the film. I would liken this film to a bowl of lumpy oatmeal that had a zebra in it. It made no sense nor was there any logic behind it all. Minnie Driver was the worst culprit of this deed. Her character's lines were drawn very fuzzy and nearly transparent. She would do things like talk about sex all the time with her sister, but yet she seemed very open to sexual experiences all the time. She has her first moment of passion in this film, and there is no pain or excitement. It nonchalantly happens, and this just didn't seem to fit the original conversation that we had at the beginning of the film with Rosina and her sister. She is a very intelligent woman that accidentally finds a solution to Wilkinson's problem and suddenly wants full rights to his invention? That was confusing and completely random. Is it not obvious to anyone else that her teaching methods were non-existent. Anyone in their right mind could see that she wasn't teaching Cavendish's daughter anything. The sudden and awkward relationship that randomly forms between Driver and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers nearly had me laughing out loud. I thought maybe I had discovered some magic in this film as Rhys-Meyers literally "poofed" into the scene and suddenly caused some unneeded drama. It felt that the director (or writer) was thinking that the original story was going nowhere fast, so by adding this random character we may be able to advance the plot a bit (or confuse the lesser film enthusiasts). Well, it didn't fool me, I saw that he was nearly a "cut-and-paste" character used to strengthen an already weakened story. Don't get me started on the ending, which had no consistency to the rest of the story. Again using the "cut-and-paste" method, the writer of this film needed a way to just end the story, and this was the only solution they could arrive to. It is sad when actors are forced to do things out of character … but I guess that is the name of the game in Hollywood. Fix until completely broken, or at least salvageable.<br /><br />The remainder of the story was unexciting dribble. There were maybe a handful of neat cinematography moments where you could see that there was one sliver of creativity trying to peak through coupled with some bars of decent, period piece music, but nothing to write to Grandma about. More family structure with some stronger introductions could have strengthened this film a bit more, but as I stated before, by leaving open-ended scenes just lying around the entire film, you will experience a crack in your foundation. What may seem like a sturdy story, will eventually wear down over time, and by the end of this film I felt that the house was crumbling down on top of me. Wilkinson plays his normal self in this film, while Driver apparently did not want to get naked, but everyone else had too (I will have to see a doctor after those images were burned into my eyes … eeewwww). Also, she wore the same dress everyday. That was disgusting and I could smell her through the television. Sex and dirty laundry. Now there is a great film for you! There just seemed to be some potential floating around here, but instead it was just rubbish. Nothing was answered, questions seemed to fall like snow in Alaska, and mediocrity seemed to reign supreme.<br /><br />Overall, this could have been a decent film that combined the powerful themes of science and love together, but instead it was just pitiful. I cannot stress enough the disturbing fact that characters were going through motions without any sort of pre-explanation. I don't need cinematic moments handed to me like a child, but something should have been done to build a foundation. Just remember the oatmeal with a zebra analogy that I used. If you were as confused about that as I was, then you will completely understand the film The Governess, while if you prefer zebras in your oatmeal … then, maybe this film is for you!<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****

I lay the blame for The Comebacks on anyone who enjoyed Date Movie and Epic Movie. You people encouraged the Fox studio to keep on churning out desperate parody films, and now we're faced with what just may be the laziest and most desperate one of them all. The Comebacks barely qualifies as a parody. Heck, it barely qualifies as a movie. This is a comedy in theory, but not in execution. No one, not even the people involved with this mess, could have possibly fooled themselves into thinking they were making a funny movie. Director Tom Brady (The Hot Chick) has made something truly wretched here.<br /><br />The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clichés. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.<br /><br />The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of "spot the movie reference", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.<br /><br />By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.

As I sit back after watching Wong Kar-wai's 1994 movie Ashes of Time – more specifically the 2008 re-edit and re-release with the word 'Redux' slapped on the end of the title – I wonder what went wrong. I wonder why the film just didn't work out at all. I wonder why the movie failed to score any major points in my book. In particular, what was it about the film which dragged it down, and made it the director's worst film of his career?<br /><br />Well it's not too hard to figure out really. Let me just say that it truly is a shame that Kar-wai so abruptly went down this hell-hole of mediocrity and poorness in moviedom, especially considering the fact that in the same year he released Chungking Express, one of his enduring legacies and an absolutely sublime film. So – what went wrong? It would be suitable to consider Ashes of Time as somewhat of an experimental film. Our director essentially places his own inimitable style of film-making and places it in an entirely different setting, mood and atmosphere; what results is a catastrophic film which is all over the place and simply does not work out. Hence, it would be even wiser to call Ashes of Time a failed experiment. Bold, audacious and innovative, but a failure nonetheless.<br /><br />Let me elaborate. Those who have seen the films of Mr. Kar-wai, a Hong Kong-born film auteur who's made his mark on the art-house world since his debut in the late-80's, will know that there is an overriding aesthetic which binds all of his movies together; essentially and frankly speaking, they're all colourful, thought-provoking, amiable, subtly humorous and meaningful evocations of life, love and loss. The same formula is transposed into Ashes of Time; however, the regular setting of Hong Kong is ridden of, and in its stead we're placed into the setting of ancient China, and the land of the legendary martial arts warriors and clansmen.<br /><br />Intertwined into this quasi-adventure/historical caper is the typical Kar-wai love story, this time involving an elegiac hit-man who has moved to the middle of the desert, and is carrying out contract killings. However, I must stop myself there; description of characters is a useless thing to do. Why? Because not a single character in Ashes of Time is worth mentioning or nothing. What a bland cast, and what a waste of talent (the case of Ashes of Time contains nearly all regular Kar-wai collaborators).<br /><br />Not only that, but the film is essentially endless incessant rambling in a horrendous, almost non-existent narrative structure. One of the main reasons why detractors of Ashes of Time berate it is because it seems to possess no plot whatsoever, let alone a semblance or an indication of one. You can definitely see what they're getting at, even from the first two, three minutes, maybe less, of the film. Perhaps it's just the atypical setting of ancient China which is unaccustomed and inappropriate for Kar-wai's typical film-making style. I like to think, however unfortunate it may be, that Mr. Kar-wai just stuffed up big time here.<br /><br />One thing that a reviewer can actually compliment in Ashes of Time, albeit said compliment being starkly isolated, is another director trademark – wonderful, colourful and blissful aesthetics. What joyous colour is composed on-screen, what glorious textures are painted for us, and what breathtaking landscapes and imagery are captured for us throughout the entire movie. We can at least take this as a sign that Wong Kar-wai is still there at heart, and it's just the film which is so atypical, and buries his usually commendable nuance. Although the visuals aren't enough for us to fully absolve Kar-wai for this disastrous venture, they're enough to make the film worthwhile – and at least we don't walk out of the movie in a completely and totally cantankerous mood, now that there's something we can think of nicely.<br /><br />The film is essentially a 'wuxia art' film, following in the style of, say, legendary Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa. However, one thing differentiates Kar-wai's film from Kurosawa's best, and that's that in the Japanese director's films everything gels together and simply works. In Ashes of Time, nothing seems to work. Kar-wai's attempt to make a genuinely profound wuxia film, let alone an intellectual and provocative movie in general terms, is a futile endeavour.<br /><br />Kar-wai claims that making Ashes of Time exhausted him, and that he needed time to clear his head. It must've certainly been a fatiguing effort on his behalf, as his exertions are embodied in the film and transferred to us directly – I mean, just watching the film is an exhausting effort, and now I need time to clear my head of this unpleasant movie-going experience.

Movie Title - Tart<br /><br />Date of review - 5/26/02<br /><br />Year of movie - 2001<br /><br />Stars - Dominique Swain, Brad Renfro, Bijou Phillips (barely), Melanie Griffith (barely)<br /><br />NeCRo's Rating - 4 skulls out of 10<br /><br />May Contain spoilers<br /><br />Plot<br /><br />An "outcast" Dominique Swain wants to be with the "in" group and so she abandons her real friends and joins them.......much annoying rich people talk occurs. Acting<br /><br />ugh, I guess I got what I wanted in that Dominique was ok, but man, the rest of the cast besides maybe Brad Renfro were bad or at least not interesting or likable at all. I know some could say that the others were good because they made me hate them....trust me....I like unlikable chars but this group is unlikable because they can't convincingly be bad people.<br /><br />It figures that the only other people I got this for were barely even in it and that is Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips, but the little time they had they were ok. Melanie spoke maybe 2 lines, but at least Bijou had a good character although small.<br /><br />Violence and Gore<br /><br />My mind was constantly under attack from horrid dialogue and very very annoying characters, that's violence enough!! ok there was one bludgeoning with a rock which was ok.<br /><br />T&A Nudity Factor<br /><br />hahaha, they couldn't even add in any nudity to help spice up this movie, probably because no one would want to bear their body for this crap. If they are going to expose themselves they should do it in a movie where they will be remembered as their character and not for "oh hey I heard she gets naked in this one."<br /><br />Overall View of the movie (review)<br /><br />ok ok I know I pride myself on being the person who can like most if not almost all movies or at least find some good in it. Well this movie is one of the few I really struggled to find anything worth while in. The problem with this movie is that it is so damn annoying. I already have a deep hatred for snobby rich people attitudes and that didn't help either. All this movie really is, is just a bunch of rich people sitting around acting depressed and stupid. I can't stress the annoyance factor enough. This movie tries to rehash the tried and true "In group" plotline which can usually be done ok with little difficulty.<br /><br />Why do I not have a pic from the movie or the box cover? Well I felt this movie didn't deserve that glory so I decided to put a pic of the reason I rented this, and that reason is none other than Dominique Swain. Yes I too was wooed by her in Lolita and thought she was so good that I decided from then on to check her out in any movie in which she acts. At least I keep my promises and yes I have seen the majority of her movies, minus a few hard to find ones. She herself is a great actress and I would defend her actively, but man she chooses some of the crappiest movies to star in. This movie and Smokers are both in the same boat of crappiness, but at least Smokers had a cool idea for a story and even some real good scenes.<br /><br />Also the dvd box tries to fool you into thinking that this movie has stars as well in it by putting Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips names on the front of the box. If there's one thing that P****S me off it's a movie that plasters the names of stars on a box to make you think "wow it has ____ I wonder how good ___is in this one I saw ___ in that movie and thought she was great!" only to have the big names in the movie for a total of maybe 10 minutes between the 2. Bijou actually had a part that semi-meant something. Melanie on the other hand, only has 2 lines about.... Granted I don't like Melanie that much, but this is about ethics and not star acting.<br /><br />Out of all this mess though props must go to Brad Renfro for turning in an ok performance along with Dominique. Brad may be one very messed up kid in real life, but at least he can act. So the only reason this movie gets any skulls is because I got what I basically wanted which was Dominique Swain and Brad Renfro. Also I had the added pleasure of seeing underrated actress Bijou Phillips make me like her even more. So even though I was annoyed throughout I still came out with some positives, although this was pretty hard this time.<br /><br />I recommend you to ONLY see this if you've seen Lolita and know how good Dominique is or if you are some offbeat fan of Brad or Bijou. Uber Melanie fans will be sorely depressed. Also if you're a fan of crappy movies like me, please do not assume this be a guilty pleasure because you will feel guilty alright, for the money spent on buying or renting.<br /><br />Some movies are "so bad that they are good" as the saying goes. What they forgot to add was "so bad that they are good (to pass up)."<br /><br />NeCRo

(This has been edited for space)<br /><br />Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.<br /><br />The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.<br /><br />An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of ways<br /><br />The film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.<br /><br />The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart. <br /><br />I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.<br /><br />I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.

Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is not a Vietnam War film. Do not confuse it with one. It is set to the back drop of the war, but it is a metaphorical exposition on the deteriorating effects that war has on the human psyche. It is also one of the most audacious films ever made, produced, or even conceived (second to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To call it a masterpiece would be an understatement of proportions as ambitious as the film's production levels.<br /><br />Opening with no credits and following a memorable first scene playing to the tune of the Doors "The End" as Martin Sheen's Captain Benjamin L. Willard hallucinates to images of helicopters and napalm, the plot is essentially laid out in the first 15 minutes. Willard's mission is to "terminate... with extreme prejudice" Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has invariably gone AWOL in the far reaches of the Cambodian jungle and, as told by his general, is "out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops." Kurtz is a delusional Colonel now being worshipped by a large group of followers who have dubbed him a god. For Willard, this covert operation seems somewhat more manageable than actual combat, yet, the journey he is about to take will be a personal quest that will challenge the limits of his human behavior.<br /><br />Teaming up with a small crew, they embark down the vast reaches of the river in a rickety boat. Along the way, Willard educates himself on all things Kurtz. During Sheen's raspy voice over, he details his thoughts on the abundance of material he reads. Kurtz was a highly decorated and respected Green Beret. He was a normal man with a family, until a part of him succumbed to the horrors of human brutality and he led himself down the path that Willard is being led. The descent into the jungle is marked by a mesmerizing aura that echoes the battles being fought not to far away. Eventually the power of the experience weights on the group as drugs and a sort of solitary confinement attacks their senses. But Willard seems unfazed and desensitized in his quest to find Kurtz. As he reads about this mythic figure, he is drawn to the man's power and why he has become what he has become. We know that Willard's slow decay will parallel that of Kurtz's.<br /><br />Marlon Brando has been revered for decades. His presence: unmatchable. His genius: undeniable. But for those unacquainted with his acting prowess and unaccustomed to his physical nuance, Brando can be perceived, in the eyes of an uncompromising film-goer, as a hack. He is most certainly not. Brando was difficult to work with, hard to interpret and impossible to understand, but his talent for unintelligible rants and unparalleled monologues is irrefutable. The man obviously knew what he was doing even if we didn't. His Colonel Kurtz is a being of limitless delusions and continual profundity.<br /><br />If the film is any indication of the journeys into hell than Francis Ford Coppola's actual experience with making this masterpiece is a true life account of one man's fanatical struggle to produce a movie. It is reported that during the film's 200 plus day principle photography schedule, Coppola contemplated suicide. The film was not only an undeniable struggle to make; it is a grueling film to watch. Coppola's sweat and blood seep through the pores of the steamy locals and his dedication filters through the orifices of Martin Sheen's haunted soldier Willard.<br /><br />I can not help but feel a warm sense of nostalgia for this type of film. At the dawn of all that was original and unprecedented, films that challenged as well as stimulated were commonplace. Audacity aside, Apocalypse Now is pure film-making. My respect and admiration for Mr. Coppola is of the highest order. But I shudder at the return to what has become the norm for today's standards for film: a lack of innovation. It is not simply the unoriginality of the world of cinema today; it is the fact that nobody seems to care to tell a story anymore or to tell one with heart. But we still have the great ones like Coppola's masterpiece, a film which bathed in its ability to give us something deeper than that which we could comprehend.<br /><br />That depth in Apocalypse Now is the step into madness. The killing can disturb. The loss of innocence can unhinge. But it is the damage from within; the countless barrages of images that distress, unnerve and detach us from our everyday world and the memories that plague our deepest thoughts that eventually segregates us from humanity and propels us into the realm of the instinctual, the savage and the animalistic. If the thought of killing does not provide sustenance, the act of killing provides man with its fundamental catharsis.

It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in "Mute Witness", we find a prime example of this.<br /><br />*Scene spoiler* <br /><br />In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....<br /><br />...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.<br /><br />*End Scene Spoiler* <br /><br />I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.<br /><br />The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.<br /><br />Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.<br /><br />The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.<br /><br />There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.<br /><br />As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)

Can you capture the moment? When first you hear rain on a roof? Some things are beyond the sum of their parts, expressing the poetry of life. The things that matter.<br /><br />Poet Dylan Thomas captured the seemingly inexpressible "A good poem helps to . . . extend everyone's knowledge, of himself and the world around him." (Bob Dylan named himself after him). So why has it taken so long to make a film of the great Dylan Thomas? A simple biopic could have missed the point. Writer Sharman Macdonald has taken a different, better approach.<br /><br />In The Edge of Love, she creates the world of passions and complexities that fill the poems so we can swim in them. The lives of four friends. Dylan, who lusts and loves to the full. Wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller), his feisty support. War-hero William (Cillian Murphy), who saves him from a street brawl. And then there's his childhood sweetheart. Vera. Dear Vera. Take your breath away Vera. She's Caitlin's closest friend. William's wife. And, like a muse, the 'star' in Dylan's dark sky.<br /><br />It all kicks off in the 1940 London Blitz, with bomb shelters in the Underground. Enter Vera (an impressive Keira Knightley) under makeshift stage spotlights. She meets Dylan for the first time again in years, her heart is flushed. Their eyes shine through the smoke of the room. The purity of their former passion. Dylan (native Welsh-speaker, Matthew Rhys) is no sanctified, sanitised poet. Master of his vices he must experience them all fully. He introduces his beloved wife then continues to woo Vera.<br /><br />The Edge of Love is a visual treat. The soundtrack leaves you wanting for more. Performances are possibly the best by these actors in their careers. As a lush love story it's pretty good. As an insight into Dylan Thomas and the reality of poetry in all our lives, not bad at all. And as a tribute to a great man, inspiring.<br /><br />The production has been at pains to project the spirit of Dylan Thomas without compromising historical accuracy too much. Dramatic tension involves a pull between artistic freedom and conventional morality. Audiences looking for an experience based on the latter may be disappointed. And it will play less well to audiences whose boundaries are those of Albert Square.<br /><br />Sharman Macdonald seemed aware of the headstrong nature of artistic freedom and its limits when she spoke to producer Rebekah Gilbertson (granddaughter of the real William and Vera). "Think of all the things that you don't want me to write about," she said," because I have to have carte blanche." For Macdonald, the limits were if she should cause offence to Dylan's memory. But for many artists, especially men, the limits are those which wife and family could set on them. A woman is not going to let lofty ideals interfere with practical common sense issues, and will even put her children's interests before her own (This occasionally happens the other way round, as when towering genius Virginia Woolf refused to let loving Leonard bring her down to earth - in The Hours).<br /><br />In spite of the tension between Caitlin and Vera, these two women become closest buddies. It is one of the main (and very beautiful) themes of the film.<br /><br />The film's colours tell a story in themselves. In a drab, wartime Britain, Caitlin and Vera are vivid highlights in an ocean of grey. Shortly after meeting Vera's lit-up-in-lights stage persona, we encounter Caitlin through her searing blue eyes, sparkling in a darkened railway carriage. Her dramatic red coat cuts a dash through streets of colourless homogeneity, triumphing on a beautiful staircase as she reunites with Dylan. But Vera's lipstick red brightness is less enduring. For her, marriage is second-best, even when she has become possessed with genuine love for her husband.<br /><br />Outstanding cinematography extends to using montage to juxtapose images, in a manner similar to poetry's juxtaposition of unrelated words to create further meaning. Horrific war scenes in Thessaly are intercut with screams of Vera in pregnancy. Giving birth or is it abortion? We are not told immediately. Pain is universal and goes beyond time and place to our present day.<br /><br />Constant echoes of Dylan's poetry throughout the film lead us beyond earthly opposites. It reminds me of Marlon Brando reading TS Eliot in Apocalypse Now. A light beyond the horrors of the world. A different way of seeing things. "I'll take you back to a time when no bombs fell from the sky and no-one died – ever," says Dylan to Vera as they walk along the beach. Elsewhere, Caitlin recalls childhood with Vera: "We're still innocent in Dylan," she says.<br /><br />There's a time to leave your knickers at home or share a universal cigarette. (Not literally, perhaps.) A time to be inspired. Enjoy what is possibly the best British film of the year.

Where would Hollywood have been without Fredric March as Robert Browning or Dennis Price as Lord Byron, famous lovers in their day? Even an actor as normally straitlaced as Michael Redgrave once brought some moody charm to a portrayal of W.B. Yeats. Writers' lives are an endless source of inspiration.<br /><br />But of all poets it was Dylan Thomas, the roistering, free-loving Welshman who enjoyed a pint or two (and drank himself to death in New York at the age of 39), who was closest in spirit to the film industry. During World War II, he produced scripts for British propaganda documentaries. He even wrote the screenplay of a vapid melodrama called The Three Weird Sisters, in which three old maids in a Welsh village plot the murder of their rich half-brother. All that is now forgiven.<br /><br />In John Maybury's The Edge of Love, Thomas is played by the Welsh actor Matthew Rhys. It's not a full-scale biopic. The film covers four years in the poet's life during World War II, when he lived with two women: his wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller) and a former lover Vera Phillips (Keira Knightley), whom he met again by chance during the war. It seems he loved them both. The relationship of these extraordinary women -- to Thomas and to each other -- is at the heart of Maybury's absorbing film.<br /><br />How it came to be made is a story almost as remarkable as that of the lovers themselves. Rebekah Gilbertson, the film's producer, is the granddaughter of Vera Phillips and William Killick. William, a war hero (played in the film by Cillian Murphy), married Vera while she was still in love with the poet. Gilbertson was inspired to make the film when she discovered a book about her grandparents, Dylan Thomas: A Farm, Two Mansions and Bungalow, by David Thomas, describing their tangled lives. Sharman Macdonald, who wrote the screenplay, is the mother of Knightley. The part requires Knightley to sing, and her mother included songs especially for her. Surely no film with such felicitous family connections deserves to do other than succeed.<br /><br />We begin in London during the Blitz. Bombs are falling, sirens are wailing, and Phillips is singing to sheltering crowds in an underground Tube station. In a pub, by chance, she meets Thomas and discovers after all these years that he has a wife and child. Phillips and Caitlin form a friendship untroubled by jealousy or rancour and are soon sharing beds and bathtubs, listening to Thomas read his poems, exchanging intimate secrets and smoking their heads off, as everyone did in wartime. Caitlin turns out to be more experienced in the ways of the world ("My first was Augustus John, he seduced me when I was 15"). But it's the refined and soulful Phillips who stirs Thomas's deepest responses and eventually succumbs to his charms. In the meantime, she has reluctantly married Killick, who has seen her in the Tube station and been instantly captivated by her beauty (if not her singing).<br /><br />It is an intense and strangely beautiful film, though Thomas himself may be its least impressive character. He is best remembered for Under Milk Wood, his verse radio play about a day in the life of the mythical Welsh village of Llareggub, whose name spelt backwards was not something polite English teachers drew attention to. I once had a vinyl recording of Richard Burton reading the poem (he appeared in a film of Under Milk Wood in 1971), and I've never forgotten the creamy, seductive quality of his voice. The legendary charisma, the magnetism of the man, is something I missed in Rhys's performance. Thomas comes across as a strangely pallid, even secondary, figure compared with the women in his life.<br /><br />In his previous film, Love Is the Devil, Maybury explored the turbulent life of painter Francis Bacon and his sadomasochistic relationship with his lover and model, George Dyer. The Edge of Love seems to me a richer and more satisfying film. If you ask what insights it offers into the springs of Thomas's creative inspiration, I would have to say Llareggub. But as an insight into his egotism, his smouldering moods and his general indifference to the feelings of others, it is wonderfully sad and revealing.<br /><br />Thomas had a good war, boozing and writing while other men (including Killick) were being traumatised by the horrors of battle. In one scene near the end, Thomas's behaviour towards his friends seems unforgivably callous. But this is not, after all, Thomas's film. Murphy gives us a magnificent study in doomed passion and the emotional debilitation of war. Miller is charming and pathetic as the wife. And Knightley looks almost too exquisitely delicate to be real (as she did in Pride and Prejudice). But this is probably her finest performance. And in every respect the film is worthy of her.

Trilogies are very interesting. Some go out with a bang (Lord of the Rings), some get progressively weaker (The Matrix), some get lost in obscurity (Blade, Back to the Future), but some maintain the genius, that seemingly ever-growing bright light that floats beyond the surface of its flawless exterior. Case and point: "Three Colors Trilogy". This chapter in the trilogy, being the last one, is the most philosophical and thought-provoking. In "Blue" we had a more visually stunning, more character-driven plot, in "White" it was more of a light hearted, narrative-driven story where we listen more to what the characters say than anything. "Red", however is focused on the "what ifs" and "how comes". It questions our own fate and focuses mainly on the past and the future than the present.<br /><br />This chapter is about a young model who runs over a dog and brings him back to his owner. She soon finds out that the owner of the dog is actually a cynical retired judge who spies on his neighbors' phone calls through advanced spying equipment. All three films in the trilogies have very basic plot lines, but bring a lot more to the story. Consider in "Blue", the story of a woman dealing with the loss of her loved ones. We are constantly shown ideas about the contemporary French society and how that reflects the character's behavior. "Red" is not only about a young woman who finds shelter in an older man's life, but it is also about chance, hope, and fate.<br /><br />Irene Jacob stars as Valentine Dussaut, who at first finds the old man (Jean-Louis Trintignant), whom we never find the name of, extremely self-centered and disgusting. Though through self reflective analysis, and her voyeuristic intentions, she learns that the judge would be the perfect man for her, if only he was 40 years younger. Irene lives across from another, younger judge, who highly resembles the old man. This is the "what if" that keeps circling in the movie. What if Irene were born 40 years ago? The old man would have been her perfect match. But what if the younger judge is actually her perfect match, since he so closely resembles the older one. Valentine doesn't know this, only we do, and Krzysztof Kieslowski subtly suggests this in almost every frame which Irene is in. We are constantly smacked in the face with his presence, as almost a suggestion of Irene's fate.<br /><br />I mention that the old man does not have a name for a reason. That reason is because it is very symbolic to the overall theme in the story. We are to compare the old judge to Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), the younger judge, in more than one way. We learn that the old man once had someone he loved but she got away. In another scene, we see Auguste heartbroken as the love of his life gets away with another man. There are constant reminders of whether or not Valentine will ever meet this man. Even though they pass each other without noticing every single day. There is also the motif of the telephone, to Valentine it is a way of keeping sane and updating her life, to Auguste it is what leads to his heartbreak, and to the old man, it is the only thing he has left. These three elements serve to shadow the characters own psychology. It is a sort of statement about what they are and who they are.<br /><br />All three "Colors" films stand for a certain principle, most common in France. "Blue" stands for Liberty (the personal being), "White" stands for Equality (being accepted by more than one), and "Red" is Fraternity (to socialize, to learn). And although this final chapter is an obvious focus on the Fraternity principle, Kieslowski makes sure he brings in the other two as well, in order to connect all three stories. For example, we see the old man trying to reach out to Valentine and enlighten her with his spy equipment, which is a reflection of the Equality principle. We also see near the end that Valentine is doing some soul searching and that she's more concerned about herself than others (not picking up the phone when Michel calls), a clear example of Liberty. And with all three principles established, Kieslowski nicely connects all of the characters as well, in the final and most heartfelt scene.<br /><br />"Red" is about where you could have been if you were older or younger. It is about whether or not there is someone completely perfect for everyone, and whether or not one person can change your life. The final chapter in the most awe-inspiring trilogy ever made, this film breaks barriers in both directing and storytelling. It is not only about our modern life, but about where life could and should be in our modern time. And although the movie is more subtle than both "Blue" and "White", it boldly exclaims a statement of love and compassion.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that "Red" was Kieslowski's last film, and that he died at such a young age. Nevertheless, the trilogy will always be his masterpiece and we will always remember him for his work that ranks right up with Bergman, Fellini, and Wenders as a truly remarkable director who's never been awarded with an Oscar. Kieslowski, you have been missed!

In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks" people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.<br /><br />I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.<br /><br />It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.<br /><br />Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.<br /><br />It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works.

It was September 2003 that I heard the BBC were going to resurrect DOCTOR WHO and make it " Bigger and better " but I'd heard these rumours in the press before and thought that's all they were - Rumours . But it was then mentioned that Russell T Davies was going to executively produce and write the show and then one Saturday afternoon in March 2004 Channel 4 news interviewed the actor cast in the title role - Christopher Eccleston . Yes that Christopher Eccleston an actor I've always been impressed by since watching his film debut in LET HIM HAVE IT and if he was getting interviewed on television it must have been true . As the months passed more and more information was leaked , Billie Piper was being cast , the Daleks would be returning and The Mill , the Hollywood effects company who had done the FX for GLADIATOR were contracted to do the special effects for the show . For several weeks before the first broadcast trailers galore heralded the return of the new series , massive billboards in London informed the public about the return of the show , tabloid newspapers carried massive photo spreads of the aliens appearing and Christopher Eccleston appeared on programmes as diverse as BLUE PETER , MASTERMIND ( Which had a special DOCTOR WHO night edition ) , THIS MORNING and Friday NIGHT WITH JOHNATHAN ROSS . In fact this new series of DOCTOR WHO must have been the most hyped programme in the history of British television , it had better be bloody good <br /><br />So was it bloody good ? Undoubtedly it has been a major success with nearly every episode making the top ten shows in the TV charts . To give you clue of its rating success only one episode ( The Ark In Space episode two - Febuary 1975 ) from the old series had made it into the top five TV chart . The opening series episode made number three with two more episodes either beating or equalling the previous record and this is in an era where there's far more competition in terms of TV stations and choice . Let's laugh and cheer at the fact DOCTOR WHO stuffed HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME , CELEBRITY WRESTLING and mauled ANT AND DEC'S Saturday NIGHT TAKEAWAY . Of course much of the success is down to the breath taking visuals and the casting of a well known prestigious actor in the role . For the most part everything you see on screen here equals anything you'll see in a Spielberg / Hollywood movie . There's a Dalek invasion force numbering tens of thousands , exotic aliens , a 19th Century Cardiff that looks like a 19th Century Cardiff and night filming that is actually night filming and not done by sticking a dark filter over the screen . I promise you'll be hearing a lot more from the directors who worked on this series , Joe Ahearne especially will one day be in the Hollywood A list <br /><br />There are some flaws to the new series of DOCTOR WHO and all of them should be laid at the door of Russell T Davies . It may be contentious whether the soap opera and post modernist elements are successful or not ( In my opinion they're not ) but what's not in dispute is that the weakest scripts are all written by RTD . As I mentioned in my review of CASANOVA he cheats the audience and he does the same thing here: when faced by armed soldiers pointing their guns at him The Doctor bellows " attack plan delta " which makes no sense to anyone in the audience but allows him to escape from a tight spot , a naked Captain Jack suddenly pulls out a laser he's been hiding and RTD scripts are full of these type of cheats and deus ex machina type endings . In fact the final episode is spoiled greatly by the ridiculous concept of what the " Bad Wolf " is which seems to have got RTD out of a tight spot more than The Doctor . And of the endings I'm trying to remember if any of them were actually down to The Doctor ? More often than it's a supporting character or the Doctor's companion who saves the day . The show is called DOCTOR WHO not ROSE TYLER so can we see the title character save the day please just like he did in the classic series ? One final point about the portrayal of the Doctor is the way he's written as a grinning loon . Eccleston is best known for his serious and gloomy roles and he's absolutely breath taking at scenes when he's showing grief , like the tear running down his face in the End Of The World but more often than not he's written as a " Tom Baker on speed " character . It's obvious why Eccleston hasn't done much comedy in his career - He's not very good at it <br /><br />Am I starting to sound like I hate this show ? Sorry I didn't mean to but it's just that while some anticipations have been met or surpassed some others haven't and they're nearly all down to Russell T Davies who thankfully is contributing less in the way of scripts in the next series of DOCTOR WHO . Let's see more traditional stories of a human outpost being under threat from monsters like we saw in the 1960s and 70s , imagine a story like The Sea Devils with a massive budget directed by Joe Ahearne ! Oh and one last request - Can we see these " NEXT TIME " trailers scrapped ? They reveal all the best bits of next week's episode

What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock movie classic. Oh well....<br /><br />I loved this movie-and would see it again and again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the reason why I loved this movie so.<br /><br />But it isn't a great movie. I understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the character development.<br /><br />What is wrong with the character development is this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples- 1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes)<br /><br />2)The first "after show" party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.)<br /><br />3)Backtracking a little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-the whole "business as usual" tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played very effectively.<br /><br />But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the actors/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go beyond the "formula" feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the movie wasn't.<br /><br />Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all.<br /><br />Watching this, it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out....<br /><br />I hope I'm not being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons. I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie, instead of a cliché. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great, great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still means so much to so many of us.

The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a "positive" reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael "Linnett" Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, "here I am!". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, "I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help."

A while back I bought the Chinese box set of Fist of the North Star which came with all of Fist of the North Star, Fist of the North Star 2, New Fist of the North Star, and the Fist of the North Star movie. While there is an American Version and a few European Versions, they end half way through Fist of the North Star which is about as far as the movie goes.<br /><br />The series is about the successor of an ancient martial art called Hokuto Shin Ken (Fist of the North Star) named Kenshiro, or Ken for short. There is only one successor each generation. It takes place in a post apocalyptic future where martial arts is the most powerful weapon. The two most powerful arts are Hokuto Shin Ken and Nanto Divine Ken as my version calls it. Nanto is really multiple styles but they are all the same since they allow a person to chop someone to pieces. There are six Nanto masters and each has their own star. Hokuto is an art that allows someone to damage/kill or heal someone by hitting a point on their body. Each art has their own constellation. Hokuto - Big Dipper, Nanto - Gemini. Kenshiro goes around saving the world from evil consisting of going after his two brothers and three of the Nanto masters and their armies. Each army captain has their own way of fighting which makes each episode different and the number of soldiers bloody. Also, Kenshiro is looking for his girlfriend Yuria who was stolen by the Nanto master Shin. Along the journey Kenshiro is joined by his brother Toki after rescuing him from his brother Rao who calls himself Kenou or Boxing King. He is also joined by two Nanto masters Rei, who is looking for his sister who was taken by Ken's brother Jagi, and Shu. Both of them and Toki die along the way. Other characters that join Ken are two kids Rin and Batto who don't do much. That's about as much as I can say for story since its so long and full of details. The series is also divided into four parts.<br /><br />What makes this show great is the fighting. Ken normally goes up against a group of people that think they are tough and then get killed in one hit. Which is funny and badass, but makes for quick fights. Another great part is comedy/badassness. Ken hits someone, and they think its nothing. Ken says they are already dead. Then they die. Other parts are when he'll hit them and tell them they have a few seconds to live. Then a counter will pop up. Or when he tells them they are not worthy of knowing his name. Then there is when he does a rapid fire kick or punch and goes wa da da da da da da etc. Eventually you might find yourself doing it with him. One great part was when a bad guy thought he knew Hokuto. He went up to Ken and hit him. Ken stood there said he was dead in a few seconds. The bad guy counted off then died. It isn't limited to Ken everyone else kills just as quick. There has never been a character as awesome as Ken and their probably never will.<br /><br />There are a few problems though. One is the repetitive nature. Some flashbacks mainly the one with Yuria being taken are played too much, and there are also too many recap episodes especially in part four of the series. In fact, the last episode is a recap of the whole thing. Another problem is the ending. The final battle with Rao wasn't that impressive. Ken and Rao fought then talked, etc, until Rao came to some realization and kills himself instead of Ken killing him. But it is better than the American and European versions that just cut off halfway. <br /><br />Who would I recommend this for? This is for older teenagers and adults who like action. Since the styles cause people to explode or get cut into pieces, the violence is very graphic and there is a lot of it, but they don't show much blood because they usually make the death just a silhouette that still looks like the person but less colorful. This was probably done to avoid censorship. If you don't like action rent the American Version. If you like action though, then I say go for the import since you can see all of the series, but they do not have the best English translation since it is subtitled by the Chinese. Note: My import came with everything I said at the beginning, some imported versions do not, but you still have to get an import to see all of the series and Fist of the North Star 2. If you don't think you can handle the subtitles for any reason then go get the American Version. Another note: In the version I got no subtitles were on the last disc for New Fist of the North Star; although, New Fist of the North Star isn't very good to begin with.<br /><br />I give the show an 8/10 for its high amount of action, good story, and the awesomeness of Kenshiro.<br /><br />****UPDATE****<br /><br />Toei Animation released an English subtitled version. You can download the episodes as well as Hokuto no Ken 2 from IGN's Direct2Drive or watch it free on FUNimation's site.

During the brief Golden Age of the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Home Movies, we purchased a GAF Projector for $148.00 on close-out at a Downtown Chicago Camera Store. It seemed that GAF was getting out of the Camera & Projector Business; although they would continue with their other enterprises, such as the former Sawyer's Vue-Master 3 Dimensional color slide viewers.<br /><br />Little did we know nor anticipate the rapid approach of the Video Camera, the Betamax, the VHS and the eventual DVD revolutions. With the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Camera that we also purchased, we took some sound film records as our Daughter, Jenn's First Holy Communion and her younger Sister, Michelle's Graduation from Pre-School. This was all circa 1979-82.<br /><br />During this time we also purchased a few Daddy Toys to go with it; like some Super 8 Magnetic Sound LAUREL & HARDY Films and W.C. FIELDS' Shorts from Blackhawk Films, Davenport, Iowa. We also picked up a Columbia Pictures Home Movies Sound Film of a then sort of forgotten Classic Cartoon, UPA's GERALD McBOING-BOING (United Productions of America/Columbia, 1951). It was THE hit of our Home Movies Time! <br /><br />Being members of that Baby Boomer Generation, the Wife (Deanna) and meself had recollection of the Character of Gerald McBoing-Boing; for Gerald had a Network TV Show on CBS, early Sunday Evenings, ca. 1955. Bill Goodwin was the Announcer/Host. But we had never seen this original UPA Theatrical Cartoon; nor was it known to us that the young Master McBoing-Boing was a creation of Dr. Seuss of "Grinch", "Horton" and "Mulberry Street" fame.<br /><br />THE staff assembled was very talent rich and deep. The outstanding production values are apparent. Director Robert Cannon and Supervisoring Director John Hubley were veterans at the top of their craft. Writers were Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss, Himself), Phil Eastman and Bill Scott.<br /><br />Mr. Scott is remembered not so much for his writing contributions to UPA, but for being partners with Jay Ward in such Television Properties as ROCKY & BULLWINKLE, MR. PEABODY, FRACTURED FLICKERS, GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE, HOPPITY HOOPER and FRACTURED FLICKERS. With the Jay Ward Productions he was a writer, voice man and Kibitzer-General of the whole company.<br /><br />The cartoon receives its only "voice" from the Narrator, Radio/Movie/TV Actor Marvin Miller. Remember him? He was Michael Anthony on the TV Ssries THE MILLIONAIRE (Don Fedderson Productions/CBS Television Network, 1955-60).<br /><br />Bold color schematic and imaginative design went into giving the UPA animations a special feelings of loneliness, fear apprehension and eventual triumph. And, we might add, the animation is definitely of the "Limited" Variety.<br /><br />AS with so many great stories, ours starts out with a simple premise; one's being born different. In this case it is young boy Gerald McCloy, who has been born to make sound effects in communicating rather than talking. Kids can be cruel and soon he is dubbed with his not so flattering nick name by a group of youthful taunters chanting: "Nya, nya, your name's not McCloy; it's Gerald McBoing-Boing, the Noise Making Boy!" AT this point, the Animation Team does an outstanding job in shifting the emotional gears in the young outcast from happy & carefree to isolated & lonely and finally to depression & despair in not being able to turn to anyone for help and understanding; not even to his Mother and Father.<br /><br />A frighteningly fashioned dark scene involving a highly UPA stylized run away scene involving a Train and an equally stylized Snowfall brings Gerald right to the brink of absolute despair. But then, he is interrupted by a gentleman announcing that young Gerald is wanted by the producer of some Radio Program to provide the sounds for the show down at the Studio.<br /><br />ONCE the premiere show is done with Gerald starring in the Sound Department, he rides off in a huge Limousine (which seems to have anticipated those S-t-r-e-t-c-h Limos of our day) to the cheers and admiration of his Classmates and the World.<br /><br />IT has been said that there are only so many plots and, in that case this story is most likely a variation on The Ugly Duckling; for after all, a sad and lonely boy finds his place in the world and true happiness.<br /><br />NOTE: United Productions of America, or UPA for short, was an outstanding center of creativity in the field of the Animated Cartoon. They were responsible not only for GERALD McBOING-BOING and several sequels and a TV Series, but also the highly popular MR. MAGOO Theatrical Cartoons and subsequent TV Show (with voice talent of Jim Backus), the Classic Original TV Cartoon of FROSTY THE SNOWMAN and the rather bizarre DICK TRACY Cartoon Show (with Tracy's voice rendered by Mr. Everett Sloane!).

I remember when I first saw this movie. I was babysitting for a friend of my mums, and one of the kids suggested we watch it. Thinking it was the frankly laughable 'Prince of Thieves' they were slipping into the video recorder, I was prepared for a few hours of boredom, What I got came as a shock, a pleasant one I'll admit, but still a shock.<br /><br />Now, you all know the Robin Hood legend don't you? I shall explain a little. Robin Hood was a Saxon criminal, nicking money here and there and giving it to people who needed it, all the while seducing the beautiful Maid Marion, and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham and prince john. That's the basics! Now, on with the review.<br /><br />This movie was released in 1993, and is a take off of the whole Robin Hood legend and a p--- take of Prince of Thieves in particular.<br /><br />Loosely following the legend, Robin of Loxley is first encountered in an Arabic prison during the third century crusades, and together with a 'Moor' as they were called in those days, he executes a cunning escape with a cellmate, Asneeze.<br /><br />After escaping, Asneeze beseeches Robin to find his son Atchoo, a foreign exchange student in England and look out for him. This Robin vows to do! Robin swims back to England.<br /><br />He returns to his home, Loxley castle to find it being wheeled away on the back of the cart by Bailiffs, and goes through he sorrowful revelation that his father, dog, cat, and even the goldfish are all dead. Desperate for a familiar face, he finds the family's loyal blind servant Blinkin sitting on the toilet with a Jazz mag in Braille. The hilarity continues throughout the movie.<br /><br />As with all Robin Hood stories, Robin must thwart the evil plans of Prince John and the sheriff of Rottingham, who are wreaking havoc and charging exorbitant taxes on King Richards's kingdom while he's away.<br /><br />Those familiar with the movies Mel Brooks has previously directed will have some small idea of what to expect. After all, this is the man responsible for Dracula-dead and loving it and young Frankenstein. All the jokes, which range from visual gags to wonderful witty comments are in exactly the right places throughout the movie, with never more than a minute between laughs.<br /><br />Cary Elwes (incidentally the only English man to play Robin Hood in a movie), who many of you will know from Princess Bride brings his cheeky grinning twinkle eyed presence to this movie, and does a wonderful job. From outlandish heroic posturing, to a wickedly sexy glance, he really is amazingly funny. And the man looks better in tights than I do!<br /><br />Richard Lewis is hilarious as the whiny, arrogant Prince John with the ever-changing mole. He gets the sissy-boy behaviour down to a tee, and his whinging American vocalisations are great. All the way through the movie, a mole on his face constantly changes position: it starts on his left cheek, then over to his right cheek, then his chin, then his forehead, before going back to it's original place. This is a subtle joke based on the mole on Alan Rickman when he played the sheriff in Prince Of Thieves<br /><br />Roger Rees as the sleazy sheriff of Rottingham is marvellously slimy and nasty, and has some great lines throughout the film.<br /><br />There are some faces here you'll be familiar with from other Brooks films. For instance Robert Ridgely, playing the hangman in this film also played the hangman in Blazing Saddles, another film directed by Brooks. He likes to add subtle references to his earlier films too; with several in this film that die-hard Brooks fans will easily spot. Those who watched History of the World part 1 will recognise the music to the song 'Men in Tights'. Also, when Patrick Stewart arrives and snogs Marion, Mel himself (playing Rabbi Tuckman) utters the line 'it's good to be a king', one of his lines in History of the world.<br /><br />The whole cast is wonderfully comedic, even those with only a few lines bring a great depth of warmth and humour to them<br /><br />What makes this film so wonderfully warm and funny in my own opinion are all the improvised scenes. Although there was a script of sorts, some scenes were completely improvised by the actors themselves, such as the scene where Latrine (Tracey Ullman) prays for Rottingham in her bed, and he falls through the ceiling, landing right where she wanted him, which was totally devised and thought out by the two actors.<br /><br />There are few special effects, and those that are there are small but fun moments of computerised camera trickery.<br /><br />The soundtrack is memorable, with some very funny songs, and a couple of cheesy love songs. You'll be singing 'Men in tights' or at least humming it to yourself, for weeks.<br /><br />The rating is Pg, to which I say BAH HUMBUG. There is no bad language in the film, except in the use of double entendre, and one utterance of sh!t, and violence is minimal. In fact I'd go as far as to say non-existent, apart from a few comedy fight scenes.<br /><br />A great fun film that adults and children alike will enjoy!

I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.<br /><br />In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.<br /><br />Pornographic? - Hardly!.<br /><br />Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.<br /><br />R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.<br /><br />Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.<br /><br />I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.<br /><br />Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.

I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.<br /><br />As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.<br /><br />( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )<br /><br />Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. "Hi-De-Hi!" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!. <br /><br />One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.<br /><br />I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: "Lies, Ted! All lies!".<br /><br />As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated. <br /><br />The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating! <br /><br />With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.<br /><br />The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.<br /><br />Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'. <br /><br />I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers!

It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm Kwon Taek at the time it was. He examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.

It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.

"I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.<br /><br />Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."<br /><br />You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.<br /><br />So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.<br /><br />"Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.<br /><br />Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.<br /><br />Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.<br /><br />The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.<br /><br />Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."<br /><br />Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.<br /><br />Match, cut.

One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.<br /><br />What I got from this was the same as what I got from "The 400 Blows" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny ("I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.<br /><br />The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word "gay" or "hustler." What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie "getting used" to the job.<br /><br />Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.<br /><br />The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, "woteva," and continues.<br /><br />You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), "So...can you help me out?" The man says sure. "I don't mean my pants!" 10/10

I have walked out of a Coen movie before and not quite known how to feel. The two best examples of that are The Big Lebowski and Fargo. Lebowski was so ridiculously original and so filled with strange humour that I had to like it. On the other hand, there were some unnecessary reveries with flying people and killer bowling balls that just didn't seem to fit the mold of the film. Still, I liked the film and now own a copy of it. Fargo made me howl with hysterics, sometimes I wasn't sure why I was laughing so hard that it made me cry, but nonetheless I was. There were many seemingly strange characters in Fargo, but upon further investigation, they were really just real people talking about real situations. That is why the man with the shovel ( or was it a broom ) was so side-splittingly funny when he was telling the police officer about some funny looking man down at the bar the other night. And that is also why the theater erupted in laughter when he then says that there are some funny looking clouds coming in. (I own a copy of this film too) The Coen's have a way of masking their film and their characters as being somewhat eccentric and perhaps a little off the wall. But if you look closer at some of those same characters that seem zany, you will always find that in some strange way, they all ring true. That is what is quite exceptional about O Brother Where Art Thou? This is a film that is out there. I mean it is not even in the same ballpark as a traditional film. I reviewed the film Shaft this past summer and in it I said that Shaft was an okay film that I have seen a thousand times before. But you can not say that about a Coen Brother's film and you most certainly can not say that about this one.<br /><br />This film has everything in it from a jail break, crooked southern politicians, muses, references to what I can only assume are historical figures, riverside baptisms, bank robberies, violence towards animals, singing flocks of religious fanatics, KKK, lynch mobs and so on. There are obviously many references to Homer's Odyssey in here as well, but I wouldn't know that because I have never read Homer's Odyssey or even knew one thing about it. Every other newspaper reviewer seems to know all about it and they think that this cynicism and almost spoof-like quality towards it makes the film that much better. Well coming from a guy who doesn't know anything about it, I can tell you that it is still an entertaining film. There were times when again, as is usual for a Coen film, I wasn't sure why I was entertained or laughing, but I was.<br /><br />This is a road picture where three men travel along the way to find a hidden treasure that Clooney says he has hidden to his two other cell mates. He has to take them along because they were also chained to him when they had their chance to escape.<br /><br />I like all the principal actors in the film and many of them are Coen cronies. It was nice to see Goodman again. It was nice to see Hunter and especially Turturro who seems to have a place in every Coen film. It's too bad they didn't find a place for Steve Buscemi but that is a different story all together. But back to Clooney. The man just has charisma. He is a one hell of an actor as well and here he is not quite as zany as the others but even he has his own idiosyncrasies. His work here is quite awesome and I really hope this shows that he is capable of playing any range of character.<br /><br />Now after heaping all this praise on the film, let me just say this as well. I didn't really enjoy the film at first. I found it to be quite tedious and a little boring. There were too many ideas in here and not enough care went into harnessing them for all what they were worth. But then the film began to grow on me. It took a while but it did grow on me. I don't think this is their best film, but it is still a good one and I am giving it a 8.5. But the reason that I do recommend this film is for one reason only.<br /><br />Every day you can go look into the paper and look at the films that are playing and say to yourself, seen it, seen it, oh, seen it last year, that is the same as this film and that is the same as that film. Most films have been recycled in some form or another. Not the Coen's films. They have not been recycled and if they have I don't know about it. That is reason enough to see something that they put out. Originality counts for a lot in my books. The Coens are original and they are good. And that is not common in todays cinema. Enjoy them while they are allowed to make films. Because you don't get vision like this in many films, so when you do, enjoy it!

"Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.<br /><br />When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.<br /><br />There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.<br /><br />As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".<br /><br />Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.<br /><br />Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.<br /><br />Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.<br /><br />Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense. <br /><br />For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.<br /><br />The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims.

Guilt and redemption are two of the staple emotions and plot elements of the heavy, powerful dramas that the Oscars love so much (which is kind of funny since "The Kite Runner" was only nominated for Best Original Score-the lack of nominations was perhaps unjust). While most film adaptations of books (or any other means) are usually inferior to their literary counterparts (and "The Kite Runner" is NOT an exception), Marc Forster's film adaptation is a good one.<br /><br />Most people are familiar with the story, the book having been read by millions, so I won't go into the plot except to say that the book stays pretty faithful to its source. That being said, if you don't know the plot, see the movie, or better yet, read the book.<br /><br />The best thing "The Kite Runner" has going for it (other than its story) is director Marc Forster. Forster is a director with epic scope and unique vision that is perfectly utilized in bringing Khaled Hosseini's book to the screen. A small part of me worried that he would use the same dreamy images that were included in one of Forster's earlier features, "Finding Neverland." Don't get me wrong, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful film, one of my favorites actually, but the visual trickery he used in there doesn't have a place here. Fortunately, Forster understands that, and the brilliance of his direction shows his versatility. Though the lack of a Best Director nomination for his work here is not exactly a travesty, I see a number of statuettes in store for him down the road.<br /><br />Also of note is the screenplay adaptation. It remains faithful to the source, but it leaves room for Forster's vision to interpret the material. The dialogue is not dumbed down, and it. along with Forster's direction, moves at a solid pace. Like Forster, the lack of recognition at awards time for the screenplay was not an outrage, but I wouldn't have complained if it was at least nominated.<br /><br />The dividing line here between this film being great and outstanding lies with the acting. Most of the performances are solid, but there are some that don't quite make the cut, and it hurts the film. The most notable weak performance comes from Zekeria Ebrahimi, who plays the young Amir. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not as effective as it could be. He just can't translate the guilt that consumes Amir to the audience. In fact, I think I might have been a little lost at this point in the movie at this point had I not read the book because of this. He looks somber, and at times resentful, but we can't feel his emotions. This is a difficult part to portray, and for the most part young Ebrahimi holds his own, which is especially surprising since this is his first film role.<br /><br />The best performances come from Khalid Abdalla, who plays the adult Amir, and Shaun Toub, who plays the wise Rahim Kahn. Abdalla may not be a known name (though he was in Paul Greengrass's "United 93"), but his work here is amazing. He's a quiet, modest man, and he emotes perfectly when needed to. A lesser-capable actor could have made the character of Rahim Khan into a cliché, but Shaun Toub uses enough subtlety and care in his performance that he creates what the clichés are trying to portray.<br /><br />Forgive me if I go on a rant here, but this is something that I must address, and that is the film's PG-13 rating. The fact that this film received such a low rating is outrageous. There is no justification for it. Some could argue that the rating was bent because of the need for everyone to see it, like the gore in "Saving Private Ryan," which some say should have earned the film an NC-17 rating. But that exception cannot be applied here. The only purpose the scene serves is to tell the story. Forster (probably at the behest of the producers) tried as hard as he could to tame the film's most painful and disturbing scene to allow the film to sneak by with a PG-13 rating, but the subject material is too disturbing to be depicted in any way and get less than an R rating, regardless of if how "tasteful" is may be portrayed. Worse, this editing robs the scene of much of its power, and by trying it make it less disturbing to get the lower rating is insulting. Furthermore, some scenes of violence are incredibly disturbing as well. In terms of how much time these scenes take of the movie, it doesn't add to much, but what is there is well deserving of an R rating at the very least. The MPAA, whose system of rating movies has always been corrupt, has sunk to a new low by giving this film such a low rating.<br /><br />But one shouldn't fault the film for this. The film is a solid film that is well-worth seeing, especially if they are fans of the book.

Can a film be too faithful to the book upon which it is based? Judging from the time-spanning 2007 adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's huge 2003 seller, the answer is rather ironically "yes". Like many, I was enthralled by the book, an impressive first effort by the Afghan-American writer/physician. So obviously were director Marc Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction") and screenwriter David Benioff ("Troy"), who pay meticulous attention to the most significant details of the story within the film's 127-minute running time. Yet, the seamless tapestry of heartfelt events in Hosseini's novel often comes across as episodic and truncated because Forster and Benioff are sincerely trying hard to remain true to the full scope of the story within the time constraints. Part of the challenge is how Hosseini carefully used symbolic acts to provide literary, then-and-now symmetry to what is essentially a three-act story, a technique that can come across as somewhat contrived on screen.<br /><br />However, the filmmakers do the most important things right, specifically giving the viewer an intimate look into a hidden culture heretofore conveyed through CNN news reports, ensuring authenticity by having characters speak in the Dari Persian dialect of the Afghan language, and capturing the emotional entanglements of the complex narrative. The first part of the movie is set in 1978 Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and the eventual takeover of the Taliban. The focus is on the relationship between Amir, the son of an affluent businessman named Baba, and the devoted Hassan, the son of his father's servant. Connected by their mutual love of kite running, the two are thick as thieves until a tragic event separates them irreparably. Unable to find the courage that comes so naturally to his father, Amir is crippled by guilt for not having rescued Hassan from an unspeakable act performed by a trio of local bullies. Forster makes especially palpable the ethnic tensions between the Hazara and the Pashtun in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Upon the 1979 invasion by Soviet troops, Amir and Baba flee to the U.S. where the story picks up their story nine years later in Fremont, California, a suburban enclave of Afghan émigrés. Baba is reduced to working in a gas station and operating a flea market kiosk. Amir meets a local Afghan girl and marries. This is the film's least interesting passage since Benioff's treatment gives short shrift to ancillary characters like Amir's wife Soraya and most critically, Amir is portrayed by necessity as a reticent young man with a downward cast toward his self-esteem. The final section flashes forward twelve years where Amir, upon publication of his first book, is summoned back to Taliban-dictated Afghanistan to rescue Hassan's son from the Taliban, as a means to atone for his cowardice years earlier. There is true suspense and fear generated in this portion of the story as shocking revelations and old acquaintances come back to haunt Amir during his journey.<br /><br />A British actor of Egyptian heritage, Khalid Abdalla (the lead hijacker in "United 93") has the central role of Amir as an adult, a challenging role since he has to convey a constant sense of shame and diminished self-worth until the end. The other professional actors fare better - Shaun Toub (Tony Stark's savior Yinsen in the current "Iron Man") as Baba's business partner Rahim Khan, who holds the key to the truth; Atossa Leoni quietly affecting as Soraya; and best of all, Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi who brings pride and dignity to Baba. Three young non-professionals were recruited from Kabul's school system to play the key child roles, and all are quite good. Zekeria Ebrahimi is up to the challenge of the toughest part as young Amir, and Ali Danish Bakhtyari is poignant as Hassan's nearly catatonic son Sohrab. But it's the sad-eyed, moon-faced Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada who will break your heart as the young Hassan, especially in the devastating pomegranate-throwing scene. It's fair to say his performance is on par with the young Enzo Staiola's in Vittorio de Sica's classic "Bicycle Thieves".<br /><br />The technical aspects are well done, in particular, Roberto Schaefer's clean cinematography (western China convincingly substitutes for Afghanistan), Alberto Iglesias' evocative score, and even the CGI effects showcasing the kites in turbulent flight. The 2008 DVD has a solid set of extras beginning with an insightful commentary from Forster, Hosseini, and Benioff, although some of their dialogue seems rather forced. There are two featurettes included - the first is the 14-minute "Words from the Kite Runner", which focuses on Hosseini's connection to the story and the development of the novel, and the second is the 25-minute "Images from the Kite Runner", a more standard behind-the-scenes look at the production. Rounding out the extras are the original theatrical trailer, a few previews, and a PSA from Hosseini on how to help the Afghans during their current time of need.

Based on the best selling novel by Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner is a story of friendship, betrayal, and the struggle for redemption. Set in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion of 1979 and later in the days of Taliban rule, all of the elements are present for great drama but, under the direction of Marc Forster (Finding Neverland), the film lacks the kind of searing emotional impact that makes for a memorable experience, though it is entertaining, well acted, and occasionally moving.<br /><br />Set in 1978 in Kabul but filmed in Kashgar, China because of the dangers in Afghanistan, the friendship that opens the film between two young boys is very real, though they are miles apart in social and economic circumstances. 12-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) lives in posh surroundings with his wealthy and educated father Baba, played by the great Homayoun Ershadi, although his wealth seems a bit incongruous in one of the poorest countries in the world. Though Baba is a loving father, he confesses to Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), his friend and business associate, that Amir is too soft and that there is "something missing with that boy". The family has a servant, Ali (Nabi Tanha) who dotes on his every need and whose son Hassan (Ahmed Khan Mahmoodzada) is Amir's best friend.<br /><br />The two are separated not only by class but also by ethnicity. Amir, a burgeoning writer, is a member of the Pashtun majority while Hassan is a Hazara, a minority sect (10% of the population). Though we learn little about their traditions or social situation, they are bound together by their love of kite flying, a popular sport in Kabul and by Amir's reading Afghan folk stories to Hassan who is illiterate. The annual kite-flying competition to the boys is a big event in their lives and the CGI effects are breathtaking. The kite strings are covered with glass particles and the winner is the one whose kite string can cut down the other kites in the sky. Hassan is the kite runner who has an uncanny ability to locate the fallen kites and bring them to Amir as a trophy. After Amir wins the important contest, however, a sad event occurs that will shape the rest of his life.<br /><br />Bullies, led by the older Assef (Elham Ehsas) who later appears as a ruthless Taliban leader, attack Hassan because he is a Hazara and brutally rape him (off camera) while Amir is too frightened to try and prevent it. Unable to confront his perceived lack of courage (though one must wonder what if anything he could have done to help Hassan), guilt becomes the driving force in his relationship with Hassan and their friendship becomes strained. In one incident, Amir throws pomegranates at Hassan as if begging him to fight back and punish him for his passivity but Hassan doesn't take the bait, continuing to be loyal in spite of his friend's cowardice. When Amir urges his father to dismiss the servants and accuses Hassan of stealing his watch, Hassan admits to the theft even though he is innocent. Eventually, circumstances force Ali and Hassan to leave out of shame. When the Russians invade Afghanistan, Baba and Amir also leave, fleeing to Pakistan and then to Fremont, California where the story picks up years later.<br /><br />Baba is forced to work at a gas station and to sell trinkets at an open-air market while Amir (Abdul Salam Yusoufzai), seemingly going through the motions of living, studies to become a writer at the local community college. After he falls in love and marries Soraya (Atossa Leoni), the daughter of a Kabul general, Amir finally publishes his first novel, A Season of Ashes and things look very positive. When Amir receives a call from Rahim Khan asking him to visit him in Pakistan telling him "there is a way to be good again", the specter of guilt that has haunted him all of his life beckons Amir to go home. He returns to Pakistan and, with great risk, goes back to an Afghanistan now controlled by the Taliban to confront the demons of his past and to discover a startling secret in the process.<br /><br />The Kite Runner is a sensitive film that deals with the internal pain that comes from knowing that you were not true to your best instincts and allows for the possibility of moving beyond shame to a new level of responsibility. It also does not hide the pain caused to Afghanistan by wars and revolution, a pain that is perhaps represented by the suffering Hassan. Unfortunately, it reduces complex situations to the level of good guys and villains and distorts what actually happened, exonerating the U.S., who engaged in anti-government covert operations within the country, from any responsibility for the disastrous war that left over one million dead and millions more disabled. Though we are inspired by the outstanding child actors and moved by the freedom that kite flying represents, The Kite Runner relinquishes its power when it attempts to substitute melodrama for history.

I have to admit that when I first heard about the Apocalypse film it was a worry.<br /><br />I mean, they have a lot to live up to, don't they? When they first did a stage show they won the Perrier award and when they did radio they won a Sony award. When they ventured onto our telly's they won a Bafta award, a Royal Television Society Award and the Golden Rose of Montreux.<br /><br />When the first series aired in January 1999 it was mind-blowing! A real breath of fresh air in British Comedy, and when the second series aired a year later it built on that foundation and sealed the shows cult status around the world, our web stats show that we have received visitors from every single country on the planet! The 'Local show for Local People' showcased the Gents talent for live performance and opened doors for the gents to do more live performing such as 'Art' in the west end.<br /><br />The fans favourite has always been the Christmas Special, less of a sketch show and more a tribute to classic horror films yet still wrapped up in the delicious League style.<br /><br />And then of course there was the 'difficult' third series, still a hit with the loyal hardcore fans of course, but maybe a little bit ahead of its time for a mainstream TV audience.<br /><br />As I say, a lot to live up to.<br /><br />So now we have the film and...Well a film is different isn't it? It will be seen by much larger numbers than the radio or TV shows and with the third series in mind I was worried.<br /><br />Well as you know I was lucky enough to get to see the film yesterday at a press screening in London and all my doubts were blown away (literally) in the first few minutes! I am not going to give plot lines away as some reviewers have done, nor am I going to tell you the catch phrases (although there is really only one) but I will try to tell you what they have managed to achieve with this film! Leaving the cinema on Monday night I could only imagine writing 'Oh my god, it's brilliant, its amazing, its the best thing they have ever done, better than the first, second and specials all rolled into one!' Of course I owe my visitors a much better explanation than that! So, why is it brilliant? This is a film for everyone, the casual fan, the obsessive fan the occasional fan and even for someone who is sat in the wrong cinema! You don't have to have watched the series to enjoy this film; it works on so many levels.<br /><br />This film reminded me why I am a League of Gentlemen Fan! You can tell that filming was a true labour of love too; the attention to detail is incredible. The sets for the TV show were always detailed but I am going to have to watch the film again just to look at the background! The story moves at a swift pace, the action carrying us from Royston Vasey to the real world where we meet the 'Creators' who are of course the League themselves! Along the way we manage to bump into favourite characters from the show but always within the central story unlike the TV sketch show.<br /><br />I was glad that the film was dark in places, a little scary and a little strange...only fitting for The League of Gentlemen. The Gents also managed to get their revenge on the BBC censors, not as much slipping in the word 'Mongoloid' as screaming it from the roof tops! Some may think the Gents portrayal of themselves a little indulgent but that's the joke and with that comes my only worry, the in jokes I mention below may puzzle some viewers and they might come over a little too clever...but I shouldn't worry, there is always a poo joke waiting just around the corner and speaking of jokes, they come thick and fast, and in a mixture of clever references, wig jokes, bum jokes, visual jokes and cock gags! I haven't laughed out loud in a cinema since...well, I can't remember! The fans that have been 'with' the League since the beginning are rewarded with loads of 'in' jokes, some that work on two levels, a mainstream audience may laugh at a reference to a compact disc for one reason whilst fans of the Local show will laugh for another reason altogether! The cameos are genius! Peter Kay and Simon Pegg form the strangest double act you have ever seen, Simon getting one of the films biggest laughs just by making a noise! I was a little worried about the 1690's aspect of the film when I first heard about it but as a story within a story I was just getting into it when...but that would be telling! All I need to say is that it fits wonderfully and adds to the overall feel of the film! I am not a professional reviewer of films, so I am finding it difficult to put into words how much I enjoyed this film but for now I will just say that if the supposed benchmark for British Comedy films in recent years was the excellent 'Shaun of the Dead' then I am sorry but a new benchmark has just been set by the inventive, hilarious and sometimes a little scary...The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse.<br /><br />Jason Kenny 2005

In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's "Rendition" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.<br /><br />The term "rendition" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.<br /><br />On the negative side, "Rendition" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's "interrogation" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a naïve "boy scout" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He "goes through the motions," but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.<br /><br />What makes "Rendition" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.<br /><br />Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.<br /><br />Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of "civil liberties for all" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say "enough is enough," even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).<br /><br />Thus, to reject "Rendition" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. "Rendition" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing.

This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.<br /><br />Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.<br /><br />Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a "harpy;" the rug salesman spouse (Pär Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric Bäckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.<br /><br />Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.<br /><br />Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.<br /><br />But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.<br /><br />Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.<br /><br />An Italian reviewer called this "a small, great film," and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes "Un Certain Regard" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them "the best commercials in the world." It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.<br /><br />"Schadenfreude" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us.

WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) **** (Voices: Peter Salis, Ralph Fiennes Helena Bonham Carter)<br /><br />Fantastic Feats of Clay: Wallace & Gromit Save the Day! Crackin' Good Entertainment!<br /><br />Nick Park, the creator of the animated team of Wallace & Gromit, is a genius. His painstaking art in the form of Plasitcine claymation is a unique process involving literally thousands of hours (it takes roughly an 8 hour work day to contribute 3 minutes of action to a film; this foray into feature length storytelling took 5 years!) in making his lovable master & loyal dog team take form is finally on the big screen in the duo's first full-length motion picture and it's cracklin' good (to coin a phrase from Wallace's usual reply to all things good!) <br /><br />Park, who co-directed with Steve Box and co-wrote with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, sends up the horror genre in this rollickingly funny and swift paced action comedy with the geeky inventive Wallace (voiced by British vet thespian Salis) and his mute yet loyal (and sharper-minded) mutt Gromit (all furrowing eyebrows and mouth-less insouciance) have devised a service to their community: pest control ("Anti-Pesto" as they are known) for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Festival that has the entire town in the mood for all things vegetative a gigante and the biggest pesk are troublesome rabbits eating the crunchy goods. Wallace's inventive mind has created a vacuum container that is quick, efficient, and more importantly harmless to the cute vermin that plague the estate of Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Bonham Carter, making a fast-break to be the first lady of stop-motion animation what with her earlier turn in "Corpse Bride" a few weeks ago), who is housing the competition and is a love interest for the nerdy Wallace.<br /><br />The only fly-in-the-ointment is vainglorious, bombastic loud-mouth and jerk Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Fiennes, his first attempt in the animated arts coming across as a Patrick Stewart lunged braggard with hilarious results), a badly toupeed wearing macho moron who is plotting to marry Lady Tottington for her riches while he is a chief competitor to W&G's humane attempts by resorting to his trusty guns and nasty bulldog.<br /><br />To add insult to injury the duo are facing a terrible plight in the form of a huge were-rabbit (the titular monster a nice nod to both Universal and Hammer horror flicks) that is terrorizing the village and devouring every veggie in sight. The two set out to trap and dispose of the creature but there is more than meets the eye as things progress.<br /><br />Relentlessly funny and with such amazing elastic, and kinetic energy to his wonderful clay counterparts, Park and Box have created a truly magical and highly entertaining film with so much amazingly detailed production design to their little world that it may take more than one screening to absorb just how much effort in their blood, sweat and tears have gone into making this instant classic for children of all ages. <br /><br />Wallace, the cheese loving balding inventor, could easily be Homer Simpson's UK cousin with his rotund body and constant knack for getting things wrong while attempting to do the right thing; his heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. His sweet crush for Lady Tottington (resembling a pre-plastic surgery Carol Burnett) who is a head taller than our hero will perhaps remind those of their first unrequited love with a smile of awkward admission. His Rube Goldberg-like gift for making the complicated into ease is inspired lunacy that fans will recall from the earlier shorter films "The Wrong Trousers", "A Close Shave" and "A Grand Day Out".<br /><br />But it is in my opinion the wise, silent and long-suffering Gromit, his poached egg eyes of slow-burns and disbelief at what is transpiring, is one of the best animated characters ever created with such an amazing arsenal of exasperated, mouthless expressions and subtle nuances that most live-action actors would kill to accomplish in the attempt of conveying dismay, concern, grief, genuine surprise and relief. His final chase – a signature of the immensely popular comic team – is ingeniously set and quickly improvised especially his literal dog-fight with the equally soundless bulldog with tenacity, wit and a Chuck Jones fueled smartness that would have Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger green with envy.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit match the best of Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello and any other classic comedy team that comes to mind; here's hoping their longevity continues on screen for just as long as their predecessors. The waiting is most eager.

Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.<br /><br />(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's "amazing" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)<br /><br />Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.<br /><br />That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the "star power" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was "of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!," a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the "cuteness" of the child characters.<br /><br />And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, "Ponyo" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like "The Little Mermaid"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.<br /><br />But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination. <br /><br />Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.<br /><br />In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will "remember him fondly." And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical "bad guy." Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a "bad person." All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters. <br /><br />And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like. <br /><br />In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family.

I'm impressed that 'Hail the Woman' was made at all; released just one year after American women got the vote, this turgid drama makes an earnest plea against the sexual double standard which judges women's sexual behaviour more harshly than men's.<br /><br />SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD. A prologue, set in the Plymouth colony in 1621, shows a Pilgrim girl sentenced to the ducking stool for flirting with a boy; the boy is not penalised. Now we come to Flint Hill, New Hampshire in the present (1921). Oliver Beresford (Theodore Roberts) is a bombastic bible-thumper: what we call in Britain and Australia 'a God-botherer'. Beresford is determined that his son David (Lloyd Hughes) become a preacher, regardless of how David feels about it. As for Beresford's daughter Judith ... well, Beresford is confident that women aren't important enough to be anything more than wives and mothers. Apparently, God told him this personally.<br /><br />David's evangelical career is compromised when he impregnates Nan Higgins, the stepdaughter of the local odd-jobs man. (Tully Marshall's character is identified in the credits solely as the 'Odd Jobs Man', but a close-up of a cheque reveals his name to be Jake Higgins. The prejudices of 1921 require that he be merely Nan's stepfather, not her biological parent.) To save his son from scandal, Beresford buys off Nan's stepfather with a cheque. Nan goes off to the big city, to melt into oblivion as one more unwed mother.<br /><br />Judith is naturally dismayed by the limitations imposed upon her by her gender. (Or rather, by other people's perceptions of it.) She meets Wyndham Gray (excellent performance by Edward Martindel), an author who encourages her to transcend sexist stereotypes. But Judith is informally engaged to local lout Joe Hurd, who won't put up with such nonsense. Hurd is played by Vernon Dent, a burly performer now remembered solely for comedy roles (as a second banana to Harry Langdon, and as a villain in Three Stooges movies). He gives an excellent performance here, in a role outside his usual range. Sadly, in real life Dent spent his final years in poverty and total blindness due to diabetic retinopathy.<br /><br />Eventually, Judith ends up working at an orphanage. This being 1921, I expected the orphanage to be whites-only, so I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to include one Chinese boy. (And unpleasantly surprised when he's used as the butt for a racial joke.) The movie makes one odd error here. In a Christmas sequence, we see the orphanage mistress reciting 'A Visit from Saint Nicholas' ... but (in a dialogue title) she credits Santa Claus with SIX reindeer rather than eight. This is followed by a brief animation sequence, showing Santa with six reindeer hitched to his sleigh. I assume that the animators (either by accident, or to save money) left out two reindeer, and the title card revised the poem to match the error.<br /><br />Lloyd Hughes was generally a bland and unimpressive actor. His most famous performance is his role in 'The Lost World', where he's easily upstaged by a rampaging brontosaurus. For his climactic scene in 'Hail the Woman', Hughes gives a memorable performance as he finally rebels against his father's tyranny. In his performance as the gospel-shouting father, Theodore Roberts has been accused of overacting to the point of making his role a caricature. I disagree: sadly, decades after this film was made, I continue to encounter 'holy' fools exactly like this man ... willing to destroy the lives of everyone around them, and firmly convinced they have God's authority to do so.<br /><br />In the central role of Judith Beresford, Florence Vidor gives a sensitive, realistic and intelligent performance. I normally dislike Vidor, who tended to be cast in glamour roles but wasn't pretty enough to justify them. Here, her character's physical appearance is less relevant than usual.<br /><br />This entire film is impressively directed by John Griffith Wray, a director who deserves to be much better known. Sadly, Wray died at the onset of the talkies era, in his mid-thirties: had he lived another ten years, he would surely have helmed several early sound classics. In 'Hail the Woman' there are several extremely beautiful screen compositions: I was especially impressed by a scene in the New England forest, when Vidor and Dent have a quarrel in front of an enormous uprooted tree. (I wonder where this was actually filmed.) 'Hail the Woman' deals with unpleasant subject matter, but it deserves to be much better known, and I'll rate this ambitious drama 9 out of 10.

"Man of the Year" tells the story of Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) a political comedian (like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert) who has his own television show. On his show he talks about all sorts of things but his main focus are political issues which he is very opinionated about. One day on his show, a fan from the audience raises the idea that Dobbs should run for President of the United States. After that episode aired, millions flocked to the web to create various petitions and voice their opinions on why Dobbs would make a great candidate for the President for the United States. A few weeks later, Dobbs decides to run for President and low and behold wins the election. Everything seems to be going as planned until a woman by the name of Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) shows up and starts some controversy regarding his position. A funny yet serious political thriller ensues… <br /><br />Man anyone walking into this film expecting to see a brainless comedy will surely be disappointed. I always wonder how some people are film marketers when I see how misleading their marketing campaigns. "Man of the Year" is a great example of bad and misleading marketing, because everything from the poster, to the trailer, to the online advertisements makes this movie look and feel like a comedy. I would honestly have to say about 1/3 of the film is funny while the rest of it plays off as a political thriller that makes good arguments and allows its audience to think. I kind of wonder in this case if the marketing was done on purpose since this film addresses pretty serious issues in-between its comedy routine.<br /><br />But enough about marketing, lets get down to the film itself.<br /><br />I really liked "Man of the Year" even though I was expecting to see a comedy instead of a serious film. One of the many things I will give this film credit for is that the film does a decent job switching between comedy and drama even though at first it seems a little awkward. I really think that after you figure this out that the movie is going to be more of a political thriller than a comedy you get comfortable with it. Some may not because they are lead to believe that they are seeing a comedy and don't understand what this film is trying to say in the end but for those people they can blame the marketers for not advertising this film right.<br /><br />"Man of the Year" talks about a lot of things and seems to have a very strong opinion. As Tom Dobbs speaks he is saying things that need to be said and isn't about candy coating them. I also think the whole political subplot, while most critics say hurt the film probably again because of the misleading marketing, was very good. The idea of computerize voting has been tossed around the last few years and with all the problems computers have the issue being addressed in this film could surely be realistic. Also the control big businesses have over voting also gets addressed.<br /><br />As far as acting goes, I think everyone involved did a good job. Robin Williams had a chance to be funny yet serious at the same time by playing Tom Dobbs. Some say that Williams has overstayed his welcome as a comedian but I personally still think he is funny and he's a good serious actor as well. This is probably one of the few occasions though that we get to see him go back and forth from serious to funny and I think it works well. Also it's nice to see Lewis Black co-star in a decent film. Again I like Black when he appears on "The Daily Show" and does stand up however most of the films he has been in were awful. This was a good movie for him because I think his political views fit in with the story that director Barry Levinson was trying to convey. Laura Linney is a fine addition to the cast and proves once again that she is a very good actress and lastly Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum both do a very good job as always with this roles handed to them.<br /><br />"Man of the Year" was written and directed by Barry Levinson, the man who has brought us such films as "Rain Man," "Good Morning Vietnam," and "Wag the Dog." Levinson does a fine job writing the film and directing it. Like I said I know a lot of critics didn't like the whole political thriller aspect of the film but I thought it fit in nicely. It was actually nice to watch a mainstream movie that allowed me to both think and laugh at the same time. Barry Levinson did a fine job with this film.<br /><br />In the end, don't go into this film expecting to see the movie that the commercials are selling you. It does have laughs but at the same time it plays off more as a political drama. It's not as stupid or silly as the marketing campaign leads you to believe. I really liked the fact that this film that this film wasn't a typical Hollywood film. It tried to be a comedy and a serious drama at the same time and worked at least for me. I like the fact that the film didn't really tone down any of the issues it addressed nor did it have a typical Hollywood ending. I was trying to call the ending from the get go but surprisingly it didn't end the way I thought which made me happy. It's a movie that will make you laugh but then a few minutes later allow you to think and wonder what's going to happen next. I think its a good movie that will be hurt by its bad marketing.

For many years, Samuel Goldwin tried to bring his friend Jascha Heifetz to the screen. One evening when Goldwyn and his wife Frances were having dinner with Heifetz and his wife, silent screen star Florence Vidor, Goldwyn proposed that Heifetz star in a movie. After some persuasion, Heifetz agreed, on the condition that his acting be kept to a minimum. And the movie, originally titled "Music School" was born.<br /><br />The story itself is rather stock: A streetwise boy (Gene Reynolds, who is best known as the producer of "M*A*S*H"), runs away from home and ends up at a financially troubled music school run by Professor Lawson (Walter Brennan). While attempting to raise funds for the school, the boy and some other kids happen across Heifetz at Carnegie Hall. After much ado, Heifetz ends up appearing at the school concert and sponsoring the school. <br /><br />The story, while predictable,is surprisingly well written, although the film contains several minor gaffes where different scenes were patched together, the most obvious being the young cellist who is sent out of the orchestra room on an errand and is seen sitting in the orchestra a few seconds later.<br /><br />What is not surprising is how good the acting is. As was customary for studios then, the studio surrounded the inexperienced star with veteran talent: Brennan, Joel McCrea, Andrea Leeds, Porter Hall, Marjorie Main (later of Ma and Pa Kettle fame), Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, and a Who's Who of character actors. Actress Diana Lynn and singer/actress Kaye Connor made their (uncredited) debuts in this film, as did longtime Nelson Eddy singing partner Gale Sherwood (as Jacqueline Nash). Child veteran actors Reynolds, Walter Tetley and Terry Kilburn also appear.<br /><br />Goldwyn hired the Peter Meremblum Symphony, a highly regarded youth orchestra from the Los Angeles Area, to appear in the film. Most of the kids in the orchestra weren't actors, but they were excellent musicians, as good as professionals (which many of them later became). Many of the kids in the orchestra went on to noteworthy careers: Kaye Connor and Diana Lynn both starred in the theater and movies, Richard Berres was a producer and director, Mitchell Lurie founded a well-known music supply company, Elliott Rapaport went on to be a prominent cardiologist, Lewis Elias was a band leader, Thomas Facey a conductor with different symphonies, Channing Robbins a prominent instructor at the Julliard School, his sister Joyce Robbins an instructor witn SUNY Stonybrook, and many of the kids in the orchestra pursued musical careers with major symphony orchestras.<br /><br />While Heifetz's acting was kept to a minimum, his salary wasn't. He commanded $70,000 for seven weeks. When some scenes had to be re-shot at a later date, he got an additional $50,000 for another four weeks. What thankfully wasn't kept to a minimum was his musical output. Composer Alfred Neumann (who was once a Meremblum Orchestra conductor) handled the scoring. Heifetz performs the "Introductionne and Rondo Capriccioso" by Camille Saint-Saens, his own arrangement of Manuel Ponce's "Estrellita" (with an off-screen Teddy Saidenberg accompanying), Dinicu's devilishly difficult "Hora Staccato" (from a Vitaphone recording, with Emanuel Bay at the piano), an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's "Melody", an excerpt arranged for violin solo from Tchaikovsky's well-known "Adante Cantabile" from his opus 11 string quartet (played during the opening credits at the beginning of the movie), and the final movement from Felix Mendelssohn-Barthody's E Minor Violin Concerto. During all of these performances, there are many closeups of Heifetz's performing, including some very close shots of his fingering and bowing, something that would be of value to violinists desiring to study his technique.<br /><br />The Meremblum orchestra also shines here, performing the arias "Caro Nome" by Verdi and "Casta Diva" by Bellini, (both with Sherwood singing ), an arrangement of the overture from Rossini's "Barber of Seville", a short excerpt from Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", and the previously-mentioned Mendelssohn concerto (with Heifetz). Diana Lynn can be heard in the background of one scene, performing part of Chopin's Nocturne in B-flat Minor, and a five year old Mary Ruth performs Chopin's popular "Minute" Waltz.<br /><br />All in all, this is an excellent movie. AMC showed this regularly up until early 1992. I haven't seen it on television in recent years, but copies of it are not difficult to obtain. If you have the chance, I highly recommend that you view the movie.

When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with "Premiere". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. "Premiere" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.<br /><br />The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is "shot through a wormhole" and winds up in "a distant part of the galaxy".<br /><br />After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.<br /><br />The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In "Premiere", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.<br /><br />The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.<br /><br />The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In "Premiere" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.<br /><br />The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in "Premiere" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is "irreversiby contaminated" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in "Premiere", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.<br /><br />The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, "Premiere" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, "Premiere" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4

Like one of the other reviewers (might have been @ Amazon), I was first introduced to Tourist Trap by the beloved, decrepit old WOR-9 in NY, around January 1983. Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell, which I'd been waiting to see since it debuted on Halloween 1978, had just ended, and I thought I'd had my horror fill for the day (quit laughing - that three eyed "Borgost" (sp?) monster Ike Eisenmann draws up in his room is scary).<br /><br />For as much as I still enjoy Richard Crenna wearing his made-for-TV horror hat, it was the first 10 minutes of Tourist Trap, following Devil Dog that day, that really left a mark - and months later, it ended up being the first movie I ever taped off TV. WOR used to play this fairly frequently, often as the Saturday afternoon Million Dollar Movie, as others have observed. It's one of those offerings that delivers a powerful horror punch up front, a veritable left hook - and then practically starts over with the rest of the cast, dances and jabs, putting the opening scene a larger context along the way, then moves on to the real climax (see Night of the Living Dead, Re Animator).<br /><br />Two paragraphs and I haven't mentioned a single mannequin. Face it - the damn things are scary enough, without the music and the script. I, too, can remember some scary dress dummies and the like in various relatives' attics and basements, and say what you like about how relatively straightforward Schmoeller and Carroll's approach is - no one, before or since, has played it this well. In real life, a good mannequin will make you do a double take - and here, that's about the last thing you're likely to see, if you happen to be stuck at Slausen's defunct wax museum and roadside stand. Yes, there is a point ("I loved her very much"), where Chuck "Slausen" Connors is trying to pass for Vincent Price. Yes, the plot might have taken up all of a paragraph in the early stages; I can't see the script being all that thick. It doesn't matter. From direction to competent acting (Meryl Streep's emphatically not in attendance, and here, that helps instead of hinders), to another useful and effective Pino Dinaggio score (see Carrie and various other de Palma movies), to various lighting, film stock, use of varying sound levels ... I could go on - every element of this low budget production comes together and you get a work very much greater than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />Did I mention it's scary as Hell? Stephen King talked this movie up in Danse Macabre a year or so after its release, and with good reason. Like much of his work, it may not be great art, but it sure does tell a scary story, and does it well. The rest of the cast may be relatively unknown (wasn't Jocelyn Jones in that Texas car chase movie as well?), but Chuck Connors and Tanya Roberts were and are, just familiar enough to audiences, to make you think - Stephen King style - that this could happen to you, or people you know.<br /><br />Comparisons to Psycho (plot) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (overall look and feel), even if they aren't the first associations in my mind, are valid. I only wish I could comment on the DVD, which I look forward to buying, as Tourist Trap has become notoriously hard to find on video since the near-complete extinction of independent video rental outlets, where it had a home aside from WOR and cable in the 1980s (though TMC/Showtime appear to have picked it up and play it regularly now). No, no spoilers here, I'm afraid, no plot breakdown - go see it yourself (all right, there may be a tiny little one below, so scroll away if you like - better safe than sorry). The mannequins are damn scary and I'd rather show than tell ... :)<br /><br />For the record, Tourist Trap is also chock full of great lines, from "we are going to have a party! How do I look, huh, how do I look?!", to "you're so pretty", "you can't hurt me", "I shouldn't have to hide it - it feels good!" (listen for that Vincent Price inflection again there), the inevitable "you're crazy!" (delivered at the right moment, and in the right tone) ... and try - just try - to keep the hair on your arms down when you hear the mannequin's head screaming "Molly!" - especially once you realize whose head it used to be ... :)<br /><br />P S ... Charles Band was the producer on this, I believe, and likely owned the rights to Dinaggio's music. Band, from what I understand, was the brains behind Full Moon Entertainment, which might explain both the music's subsequent use in Puppet Master, and, well, the 40 commercial approach has characterized Full Moon throughout, from the enjoyable Puppet Master and Subspecies franchises, to, uhhh ... Trancers and Bad Channels (sorry, BOC).

I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.<br /><br />Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Farö, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of Göttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near…. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?<br /><br />That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame.

I hate films about sports. I guess the pre-fabricated Hollywood sports film is a bit tough for me to swallow because it follows the most identical of ideas each year, what I am trying to say is that there isn't much creativity in this genre. Use exhibit "A" – "The Game Plan" as evidence of this if you want. So, needless to say, I was hesitant to watch this documentary because of the sports theme element, but at the same time I couldn't wait because I love surfing documentaries like "Step into Liquid" and "Billabong Odyssey". I took a step, I plunged into the unknown, and to be honest, at first I wasn't happy. I didn't like the direction, the people, or the style that the film encompassed to present these young sport entrepreneurs. With my first viewing, I thought that history couldn't be fully recorded, so I thought Stacy Peralta was splicing stock footage with faux-actors acting like they were from the late 70s. The music was intense, it matched well Peralta had made a mixed tape from this generation for our enjoyment, but the visuals were anything but stimulating. The elongated scenes, while using amazing music to support, just seemed flushed and too long for my attention. I wanted to get to know the pioneers, not just watch them skate for ten minutes in an empty pool. I wanted a combination of who these kids were, where they went during their rise of fame, and where they are now. It felt like I was watching the birth of our nation with a great score to the settlers just rowing their boats all day. I wanted to know the men behind the myths.<br /><br />Then, with a thought that I would have another negative review under my belt, I watched the film again with Peralta's audio commentary. His passion, his voice, his knowledge of the people and what he had to do to get this film accomplished "wow-ed" me. This suddenly transformed into the film I wanted to see. Peralta lets us know more of where these kids are today, what they are still doing, and how difficult it was to get some of them onto the camera. He hadn't seen many of them in 20+ years, so to hear these challenges brought the human element back to the surface. He was sincere; he was sympathetic, yet he showed so much dedication to this project. While I do not agree with everything that he chose to do (i.e. the Sean Penn mess up is not PUNK ROCK), he revitalized this film for me. It was due to this commentary that I rate this film much higher than originally thought.<br /><br />Jay Adams. Tony Alva. Jeff Ho. Peggy Oki. Wentzle Ruml. These are just a few of the name that need to be mentioned, and continually praised, if skateboarding is to continue the fast growing trend that it currently sees. While Tony Hawk's name sells products, it is these guys, these mild-mannered pavement slackers that redefined an entire sport. Sure, others were probably doing it in the stone ages, but these guys did it with style, grace, and moved it to the next level. This was a hobby for them, but it also propelled them in a direction I believe none of them were ready for. "Dogtown and Z-Boys" is the story of evolution, being in the right place at the right time, living in a generation without televisions to keep us planted, and about friendship. We have seen so many stories during the years that show the progression of humanity, and this is definitely a story that should be added to that. I cannot say that I loved this film, nor will I, but it should be standard viewing for everyone learning or wanting to experience the growth of the skateboarding trend. It was sad, it was emotional, and these guys aren't multi-millionaires over again – they are people with a passion, and very rarely do you see that in documentaries.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot watch this film again, but I will suggest it to friends and family time after time. I think the downfall for this film, to me, was the filming – the attempts to be avant-garde with the style, which ultimately drew away from the characters and events. As mentioned before, there were some elements that dragged on too much, which left us with little to no time to know where these guys were now. Peralta obviously had a passion for this sport, for the people, but he seemed out-of-focus at times. The music was intense, and worked perfectly with the film. Sean Penn, while he was decent with his voice-over, wasn't needed at all. They could have spent the money elsewhere. On the positive, the audio commentary captures everything that the regular film was missing. Peralta's voice, instead of Penn's, brings a stronger human element to the scene, while he tells us better stories of the people, places, and events. Watch this film, but don't expect to be blown away. Listen to the audio commentary; I think you will be impressed.<br /><br />Grade: *** ½ out of *****

Daisy Movie Review By James Mudge From beyondhollywood.com<br /><br />On paper, "Daisy" sounds like an Asian film fan's dream come true, directed by "Infernal Affairs" co-helmer Andrew Lau and starring everybody's favourite sassy girl, popular Korean actress Jeon Ji Hyun. Unfortunately, despite the talent involved, and the fact that the crew flew halfway around the world to shoot in Amsterdam , the film turns out to be a bit of a disappointment, being a clich'd romantic drama which wallows in misery and self importance.<br /><br />The plot follows Hye Young (Jeon Ji Hyun), a rather naive Korean girl who lives in Amsterdam , spending her life working in her grandfather's antique shop and doing portraits for tourists. One day, she begins receiving flowers at exactly the same time from a secret admirer, who she believes to be a mystery man from her past who once built her a nice little bridge. One day she meets Jeong Woo (Lee Seong Jae, also in "Holiday" and "Public Enemy"), who unbeknownst to her is actually an Interpol agent tracking Asian criminals in the Netherlands .<br /><br />With Hye Young assuming that Jeong Woo is responsible for the flowers, the two fall very slowly into a chaste romantic relationship. However, it turns out that the man sending the flowers is actually Park Yi (Jung Woo Sung, from "Sad Movie" and "Musa"), an assassin working for a Chinese crime syndicate. Inevitably, the love triangle turns tragic and the two men end up facing off while poor Hye Young tries to work out which of the two is the love of her life.<br /><br />Although "Daisy" is ostensibly a love story, it has the feel of a funeral, with a slow, sombre pace and a plot which piles on the misery. Half of the film's running time is taken up with scenes of the characters staring longingly out of windows into the rain, with the silence broken only by bouts of self pitying narration. Director Lau seems to be under the impression that the film is a weighty Shakespearean tragedy, rather than yet another gloomy hit-man love story. As such, the proceedings have a rather pretentious air, despite the fact that the plot is inherently predictable and based largely around glaring cliché borrowed liberally from the likes of "Fulltime Killer" and John Woo's classic "The Killer".<br /><br />Almost every aspect of the film is riddled with angst, with the three lead characters suffering as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders, and steadfastly refusing to do anything to pursue their romantic inclinations. Park Yi in particular, as the kind of overly emotional, socially retarded assassin so beloved of modern cinema, is faintly ludicrous, from his blatant incompetence on the job to his hilarious attempts to discuss impressionist painting with Hye Young or his penchant for flower growing. This languid passivity does make the film's central romance somewhat hard to swallow, and Lau's attempts to evoke the feeling that it is fate which brings the characters together comes across more as shoddy coincidence.<br /><br />Fans of Jeon Ji Hyun should note that her character is far closer to her role in the glum supernatural drama "The Uninvited" than "My Sassy Girl" or "Windstruck", and while she tries her best to pull a few wacky faces here and there, her performance is certainly more subdued.<br /><br />The film benefits from glossy production values, and Lau makes good use of the Amsterdam scenery, playing on the contrast between the grey, almost Gothic beauty of the city and the innocent blue skies and flowery fields of the countryside. Unfortunately, he tends to overuse slow motion for some of the emotional scenes, which when coupled with some of the picture postcard visuals gives the film the feel at times of a perfume advert. There are a few scenes of surprisingly violent action, though these are few and far between, and whilst well staged, seem to have been thrown in as an afterthought and do little more than briefly raising the pulse.<br /><br />Despite its flaws, "Daisy" makes for engaging viewing, and the story grips almost in spite of itself, mainly out of a morbid fascination to see not which of the men Hye Young will end up with, but to see who will lie dying in her arms. The self indulgent melodrama works well enough to tick all the right boxes for the genre, and the film functions perfectly well as an enjoyably glossy, weepy romance.<br /><br />It is worth noting that the DVD features the director's cut of the film, which for once indicates that it is substantially different from the theatrical version, which not only adds 25 minutes, but reorders some of the scenes, making the narrative less linear. Although this new version is perhaps too long, it is surely superior, as without these changes, the film would surely have been even more conventional and would have suffered from even murkier character development.<br /><br />Wai Keung Lau (director) / Jae-young Kwak (screenplay) CAST: Woo-sung Jung …. Park Yi Sung-jae Lee …. Jeong Woo David Chiang …. Cho Ho-jin Jeon …. Detective Jang Ji-hyun Jun …. Hye-young Dion Lam …. Yun Joon-ha

Tobe Hooper (fresh off mainstream success with 'Poltergeist') aims for the skies this time around. 'Lifeforce' is an adaptation of Colin Wilson's 'The Space Vampires'. The script by 'Alien's Dan O' Bannon and Don Jakoby) varies a bit I was told: the futuristic storyline was made contemporary and Hailey's Comet was added to coincide with its actual passage by Earth a few weeks after the films release (so I've read).<br /><br />The story concerns a shuttle mission (commander by Steve Railsback) sent to investigate Hailey's Comet as it passes by Earth. All goes off without a hitch but upon reaching the comet it is discovered that an alien ship is hidden in the coma of the comet. The team investigates the massive structure and discovers desiccated bat-like creatures. Looking deeper into the ship a chamber is found that contains three humanoids (two naked males and one rather fetching nude lady too) in odd stasis coffins. The crew returns to the ship with the humanoids and a bat creature in tow.<br /><br />A bit later the ship returns to Earth but no contact can be made by NASA and another shuttle is launched to ascertain the status of the mission. Upon docking with the Churchill it is discovered that a massive fire has seemingly killed the crew and all data concerning the flight. But the three humanoids remain. However it is learned that an escape pod had been launched but whose whereabouts are unknown.<br /><br />Soon they make the discovery of the alien's origin when the very attractive space vampire queen arises from her slumber to easily seduce the lifeforce from the men around her. If you suck face with her she makes you like them and if you don't feed after two hours you will dry out and become dust. The goal of the three is to drain enough of the population's essence to power and sustain them and their ship for the trip to the next planet to lay waste to them as well.<br /><br />Thankfully the Commander survives re-entry in the pod (crash lands in Texas no less) and now has a psychic link to her royal hotness, the queen and is able to use it to find the hidden queen as she and the surviving male attempt to bleed London dry of their souls.<br /><br />Tobe Hooper (of 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' (1974)) does an admirable job in what has to be his largest production to date. The production assembled many fine technicians from all over the movie industry. Production Designer John Graysmark (fresh off 'The Bounty (1984)') uses every bit of four stages at Elsree Studios to create the spacious interiors of the ship and such. Cinematographer Alan Hume returns to science fiction after a stint on 'Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi' (1983) and three consecutive James Bond episodes. Hume uses every bit of the widescreen frame with the great effects. Oscar winner John Dykstra innovator of the groundbreaking effects of the original 'Star Wars' (1977) manages to push the envelope once again a creating some highly creative and spectacular effects using lasers. Heck even maestro Henry Mancini drops in to give the film a very memorable title theme that gives this sci-fi / horror hybrid a touch of an adventurous feel. In the acting department it pretty much falls onto the shoulders of Steve Railsback and newcomer Mathilda May (vampire queen). Railsback always brings an edge to the characters he plays and can play nuts like nobody's business. That comes in hand as his mind deteriorates when the queen's grip tightens on his soul. Gorgeous French actress May doesn't have a heck of a lot of lines (were there more than ten?) but her frequently nude presence never gets old and you gotta give her kudos to having the jingle bells to pull it of. Pretty much all the queen is there to do is feed and to do so she needs to seduce you with her sexual presence. Job accomplished and where do I sign up to be victim? I really enjoyed how they tweaked the old vampire clichés and still managed to make it seem fresh but still easily recognizable. Almost everything is accounted for here: bats (their true form resembles a large bat), coffins {the stasis fields resemble these), transformations (they scan your mind and can be anything), massive sexual appeal (Miss May….duh) not to mention they even include the old standby stake-through-the-heart (this time a bit of a lead dagger to the energy center slightly below the heart). The only thing they didn't touch on was religion but I think that the vampires using the cathedral at the end as home base might just be a bit of a wink and a nod.<br /><br />In short (yeah right 800 words later) 'Lifeforce' is an excellent science fiction and horror combination that pays homage to the vampire theme while adding some neat different wrinkles. The effects and scale of the production are enough to keep summer movie types engaged (at least at the time) and horror and sci-fi fans engaged. 4 of 5.

This is a movie that will leave you thinking, is he or isn't he? While many people have complained about the ambiguous ending, it gives room for the audience to think and interpret it from the signs. This is my interpretation and theory, and I believe it is very sound. <br /><br />First, here is the plot. One day, Prot (Kevin Spacey) suddenly appears in the midst of a busy train station. After attempting to help a woman from muggers, he is arrested and sent to Bellevue, and later transferred to Dr. Mark Powell's (Jeff Bridges) hospital. Prot freely talks about how he came from the planet K-Pax and is here to do a report on Earth. Naturally, he is classified as a looney and is locked up in a low security level ward. He befriends the other patients and quickly convinces them of his story. In fact, he tells them he can take one person back with him. Soon Dr. Powell is beginning to question Prot's insanity and as the plot progresses, it is harder and harder to prove Prot wrong. <br /><br />In the end, Dr. Powell learns that Prot is Robert Porter, a smart man who worked in a slaughter house in New Mexico, when his wife and daughter were murdered. Prot claims that he plans to leave for K-Pax at a precise time on the fifth anniversary of the murders. The time comes and goes, and Powell finds Prot or Robert in a catatonic state. One of the patients is missing and is never found again. <br /><br />On to my theory: Prot is not crazy. Prot is from the planet K-Pax. Robert Porter is a friend of Prot's. On one of Prot's previous visits to Earth, Robert was a child, learning about the constellations from his father. Prot and Robert became best friends. After the death of his family, and Robert slaying the murderer, Robert decides to commit suicide. Prot is on K-Pax at the time, but he rushes back (in multiples of light speed) to stop Robert. So Prot takes over the thinking of Robert, taking over his body so to speak. Awhile later, Prot (still inhabiting Robert's body) comes to New York and is locked up. When he leaves for K-Pax on July 27, he takes Bess with him, but he must leave Robert's body behind. Hence, we now have the catatonic Robert.<br /><br />Explanations or clues:<br /><br />PROT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANETS AROUND LIBRA: As Prot says, any child knows about their own system. Only a few people on Earth had an inkling about the system, and Prot added to their knowledge. Robert Porter, while smart and knows his constellations, was no astro-physicist. <br /><br />DR POWELL FEELS CHOSEN BY PROT: It's true. Prot could've left the institute at any time, but chose not too. Prot's last words to Dr. Powell are, "Now that you've found Robert. Take care of him." Prot was probably staying there to ensure a place for Robert when he left. <br /><br />SUPER-HUMAN ABILITIES: It was a proven fact that Prot had a significantly higher sensitivity to sunlight and could even see UV rays. Prot provides his usual K-Pax reason, but there was no Earthly reason given. It was also mentioned that Prot was given extremely high doses of medicine with no effect.<br /><br />HELPING THE PATIENTS: Throughout the movie, you see Prot helping the other patients (or the patients discussing Prot's suggestions) to a better sane world. While the psychologist balk at Prot's help, Dr. Powell talks at the end of the movie about the new lives the patients are leading.<br /><br />THE SPRINKLER SCENE: The sprinkler is associated with Porter's home in New Mexico (which is ironically where Roswell is). Does Porter associate the sprinkler with the death of his family? Is her trying to protect Powell's daughter from that horrible fate? I have a different point of view. It is assumed that Porter had committed suicide in a river. Indeed, Prot (under hypnosis) is greatly concerned about Robert. I believe that Prot associates the danger with the water, not the sprinkler. He is trying to protect the girl from watery death, like he did Robert.<br /><br />HYPNOSIS: Dr. Powell feels that under hypnosis he can uncover Prot's true identity, but while Prot gives plenty of information, he never gives up his Prot persona and claimed homeland of K-Pax.<br /><br />THE SECURITY CAMERA: Why would the camera just give out for no apparent reason? <br /><br />MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES: First, Prot disappeared for a few days to his trip up north. Funny, the patients are not at all alarmed. Indeed, they try to reassure the doctor. Sometimes I think they understand better than the staff. Naturally, the most telling disappearance is of Bess, the winner of the essay contest. Not only does she disappear at the approximate same time, but the only remaining clue is her winning essay.<br /><br />This is only my humble theory. You can conclude what you want. You can take Dr. Powell's theory, that Prot was merely a persona taken up by Robert Porter to mentally defend himself from reality, but that would be giving up too many plot holes.

One of the Message Boards threads at IMDb had two women talking about Colin Firth, how they watched the movie only because of him. Obviously these were two young women; but what struck me is how little this movie has been appreciated by audiences generally. The brilliant, and I mean brilliant, performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange were hardly noticed, not only by audiences, but by the Academy and by most of the critics.<br /><br />I think I know why. First, the plot--or actually just the setup--is a kind of bastardization of Shakespeare's King Lear with the dying, crazy patriarch and the three scheming daughters who will inherit. Their names even begin with the same letters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia--Rose, Ginny, and Caroline. And I guess "Larry" (Jason Robards) works for "Lear." The apparent idea envisioned by Jane Smiley in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel was to tell a Lear-like story from the point of view of the daughters, and to tell it a sort of late twentieth century realistic way not considered by the Bard. The problem is, in Smiley and Moorhouse's story, the two older daughters are very human with strengths and weaknesses while the father is a most despicable character without much in the way of redeeming qualities. His only strength was his ability to make a financial success of the farm; however, we can even discount that since his father and grandfather before him built the farm and he inherited it.<br /><br />The second problem--and this is one I cannot personally attest to, not having read Smiley's novel--is that the movie is only a limited and partial interpretation of that novel. Still, it is almost always the case that an excellent novel, especially a long and ambitious one with many psychological nuances, cannot be faithfully transferred to the screen. The vision and audio demands of film drown out the subtleties of a narration while the time constraints don't allow for the full development of character and motivation achieved by the novelist. Given five or six hours, perhaps Moorhouse could have made a movie more in keeping with Smiley's novel.<br /><br />A third problem is one that is perhaps Moorhouse's alone. She began her directing career with the very well done Aussie film Proof (1991) starring Russell Crowe. She follow it up with How to Make an American Quilt (1995) which celebrated women, especially women of a certain age. However it was a bit heavy-handed and clearly and determinedly a chick flick. In a sense A Thousand Acres takes off from there, showing us not only the point of view of women, but does so in a way that may seem politically motivated to some. Larry Cook is clearly a bad, bad daddy. He beat his daughters and he had carnal knowledge of them. He ran the household with an iron fist. Jess (Colin Firth's character) seduces the inexperienced Ginny and breaks her heart for nothing more than a bit of fun it would appear. And then he goes to Rose, who clearly is going to be the power behind the new ownership, and hooks up with her, while incidentally inducing her husband to end his life in a drunken accident. The rest of the men are one-dimensional characters without nuance, the way they often appear in romance novels. I think most audiences were put off by the heavy-handed incest, adultery and sexual betrayal that was woven into the story.<br /><br />Having said all this, I think the critics and the public are wrong. I think the direction was biased against men, but in this story it needed to be. I think Moorhouse did a fine job of making an emotional and engaging film about family dynamics that were none too pretty. And the acting by Pfeiffer and Lange was nothing short of sensational. They seemed to feed off of one another in a way that I found absolutely authentic and deeply moving. In particular Pfeiffer was riveting as she projected her bent-up anger and hatred. The way Moorhouse allowed her character to be revealed to us gradually is a tribute to her ability as a director as well as to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. And the skill with which Moorhouse guided the change in Ginny's character as she went from a "ninny," as she called herself, to someone with self-awareness and some understandable bitterness, was also excellent. The fact that she left her husband was as much out of shame as anything else. He needed to go get her and forgive her and bring her back. And Robards in his intensity and madness was also very good.<br /><br />I predict that this film, which bombed in theaters, will be better appreciated in the years to come as people see it on DVD. My question is, whatever happened to Moorhouse? Her talent is obvious, but she has yet to director her fourth feature film. When she does I hope she remembers to go with what she believes but to be fair as well. I think, actually she was fair to the two lead character in this film, but didn't pay enough attention to the others. In addition to the unnuanced father, Jennifer Jason Leigh's Caroline was unfinished, leaving us to wonder about why she did some of the things she did. And the husbands needed to be something more than mannequins. They needed to be engaged and involved.

To view the fictionalized biography "The Phenix City Story", I claim, is to enter fields where U.S. filmmakers have seldom ventured, Director Phil Karlson got his directorial assignment on "The Untouchables" TV mega-hit series largely on the basis of "Kansas City Confidential" and this film; and it has become one of the most admired and most- imitated movies ever made. The rarest feat for US filmmakers seems to be the hero-centered purposeful anti-crime film or TV series; I remind the viewer how mightily "Cain's Hundred"'s and "Hardcastle and McCormick"'s and even "the Untouchables'"' producers had to work to produce anything but episodes devoted largely to the unfictional activities of criminals rather than those of their ethical opponents. This powerful, seminal and very-gritty movie has a style all its own; and its lesson seems to be attention to detail about the opponents and victims of criminal organizations as well as their gang members. There is a twelve-minute prelude to the film, in which reporter Clete Roberts interviews the real participants from the Alabama city's who had struggled against its corrupt vice gangs. The problem grew out of the presence of Fort Benning across the river, and the nearly century-long existence of vice dens in the area. The film details the return of John Patterson from Germany where he has been a prosecutor. His father, defeated for Attorney general of Alabama, refuses to join his pursuit of the 14th street vicelords despite several provocations including a beating of his son, avenged by Patterson on his tormentor. There are several well-developed characters, including Ellie, who works in one of the clubs and her honest boyfriend, the leader of the syndicate, the Pattersons and John's wife, Ed Gage, the vicelords' operatives and Zeke Ward, an honest black man victimized for his opposition to them. The cinematography by Harry Neumann and the art direction by Stanley Fleischer are in B/W and are very much like news-film, adding to the film's realistic power. Music by Harry Sukman contributes to the film effectively. Writer Daniel Mainwaring and Crane Wilbur produced a swift-paced and straightforward story that divides into parts. Part one illustrates the vicelords' empire from inside one of their clubs, showing the fate of a victim who is beaten and then picked up by police in the pay of the Mob. In part two, Albert Patterson refuses to oppose the leader of the Mob, the intelligent Rhett Tanner. In part three, young Patterson returns and after several incidents including his having to beat up the Mob's head goon to avenge his own beating decides to run his father for Attorney General of the state. His wife is horrified; and the Mob kills Zeke Ward's daughter and dumps the body at Patterson's house with a warning his children will be next. A few more such incidents, including the loss of a trial in which the Pattersons prove the goon killed a friend of theirs who had found the car implicated in the murder of the little girl, and watch the inquest declare the death accidental, convince Patterson to run, and he wins the Democratic statewide nomination despite the Mob's statist tactics--and is promptly assassinated. John Patterson stops a vigilante crowd from starting open warfare with the 14th Street mob and uses their voices to call the capital and demand martial law for Phenix City. The clubs are closed and equipment confiscated, but not before the girl inside is murdered by the Mob's goon, and Patterson has to be stopped by Zeke Ward from killing Tanner instead of delivering him to the law. The drama's ending is upbeat; but the prognosis for the town is less- sanguine than painted; the mob in fact tried to come back then moved to Tennessee. In this well-acted classic of anti-crime film-making, Richard Kiley is young but very strong as Patterson, playing it without an accent. John Mcintyre as his father is very good, while Edward Andrews as Boss Tanner is award caliber. Others in the cast include Kathryn Grant as the girl inside, Ellie, Jean Carson and Kathy Marlowe as the Mob's women, John Larch as their goon, Biff Mcguire as the young victim, James Edwards as Zeke Ward, Lenka Peterson as John's wife, and some good character actors as townsmen and Mob bosses. It is I suggest hard to say enough good things about the realism and lack of posturing in this film; it is certainly one of Phil Karlson's best directorial efforts. Karlson also did "The Scarface Mob" later did "Walking Tall" as well. A sobering and inspiring look at the ease with which complacent citizens of a public-interest democracy can acquiesce to tyranny, and how a few honest men can teach them the need to fight for their rights.

This movie is an almost forgotten gem from 1979 which although in essence a comedy it was based on one of the UK's biggest ever bank heists. In fact one of the titles that this film is known by includes "caper" therefore that in its self is an indication of the type of movie. A of a bunch of lovable rouges, who are not the violent or psychotic types, who with cheek an guile pull off the biggest job of their lives. To be honest I don't really know too much about the real crime and can't comment if it accurately depicted the events that unfolded or the characters involved.<br /><br />Richard Jordan handles himself very well playing PINKY Green and is very believable as an easy going small time American born crook who seems very comfortable with himself. I have to add that sometimes American actors struggle gel well with English actors in a British made film, the chemistry is not always there, however this is no problem for Jordon who fits right in with his role.<br /><br />It's worth pointing out that Jordan himself was probably one of the most underrated actors of the 70's and 80's and never really got the recognition he deserved. He seemed to get stuck in supporting roles and B movies, not a fair representation of his acting ability. He has played a corrupt cop in THE FRIENDS OF EDDY COYLE, a sadistic killer in THE MEAN SEASON. In THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS he played a sort of comical Gordon Gehco character and also in the 1980's EQUALIZER TV show he played a good guy. All of this displays the versatility of his acting skills while mixing with the likes of David Niven, Kurt Russell, Edward Woodward and Robert Mitcham.<br /><br />In this movie he effortlessly plays his part as a small time crook with the eye for the ladies and you immediately take to his character and root for him from the beginning. You can't help liking Green, – – you see he really did want to go straight but once blackmailed it all seemed too much of an opportunity to pass up and in the end he relished the thought of all that money.<br /><br />David Niven is the boss and calls the shots, the police inspector was brilliantly played by Richard Johnson who typically portrayed a smarmy but thorough London detective who clearly loves his job. The other supporting cast don't say too much but looking at them they were all very well known British character actors who often found themselves playing either villains or coppers(isn't that ironic). Elkie Sommers, Oliver Tobias do what they have to do and it's good to see Gloria Graham in a cameo role.<br /><br />To some viewers particularly Americans it would seem ludicrous that somebody with Greens record could land a maintenance job at of all things a bank and come and go when he pleases. In addition the stunt he pulled at the crown court after sentencing was not as far fetched as it might seem, back in the 1960's and 70's security was not as nearly as tight as it is now.<br /><br />As for the movie itself there are a couple of interesting observations. With small time crooks the haul here was too much. There have been other movies where this occurs too i.e. THE BRINKS MAT. It's not just the disposal or the hiding of the loot but with so many people involved somebody is going to be careless, is going to blab or just simply break once leaned on. In addition the authorities come down on very hard on local rouges when such huge robbery is carried out. Also, they say there is no honor amongst thieves but Ivan was adamant that PINKY got his whack. You only had too look at his stare in the dock, if looks could kill, a look of total betrayal! How could he have dobbed them all in after taking care of him? You have to ask yourself a question why is it that crooks can be so stupid? Did Green really think that he could sweet talk his way out of suspicion a second time around? Inspector Watford was not at all fooled by his innocent looking face as well as a well constructed alibi, the whole caper reeked of inside job. In addition you have to wonder why they leave so many clues? A note pad with the safe numbers jotted down, travel brochures for overseas trips, still leaving his telescope around as well as unusual behavior on the day of the robbery which was out of character.<br /><br />With some decent but common sense police work Insp Watford quickly had the measure of Green, picked him up and soon had him singing like a canary. It just shows how despite well thought out planning things can unravel very quickly, there is never a clean getaway for every body, some are always going to get nabbed. Although it's worth pointing out that a lot of the money was never recovered.<br /><br />All in all an entertaining movie, interesting shots of London and England in the late 70's, well paced, with a great ending. I would highly recommend this particularly if you enjoy capers. ( Note: I recently purchased a DVD of this but the transfer was obviously taken from a VHS tape and is of poor quality. Therefore do not pay too much for it!)

I'm sick and tired of people complaining that Never Say Never Again is just a weak remake of Thunderball. Yes, that movie's influence is unmistakable, but the tremendous and almost universal inferiority of re-made films is reserved for such thoughtless and unintelligent films like the 1998 re-make of Psycho. While it's true that the opening theme of the twelfth (and Connery's last) Bond film is one of the worst of the entire series, the film itself still manages to stand on its own, despite many other weaknesses. Besides that, even the weak title song is made to blend pretty nicely with the closing dialogue in the film.<br /><br />Sure, Sean Connery was getting a little on in age when this movie was filmed (at least by James Bond standards), but there is plenty of evidence in the narrative that makes it clear that this was not exactly unknown to the filmmakers. James Bond is near retirement before he is handed his assignment, having spent most of recent time teaching, not doing, and there is even the tongue in cheek insistence from M that he pay more attention to his health, dieting and training and getting more exercise and whatnot. Besides, this is James Bond, remember? This guy is supposed to be some kind of super human, and all of his fans are getting all upset because he's got some gray hairs. When this guy retires at the end of the film, M sends poor `Small-Fawcett' (in a hilarious cameo from Rowan Atkinson) to tell Bond that without him, he worries about the safety of the free world, and all of you people can't get over the fact that he's not a sprightly young man anymore. Come on, Sean Connery could STILL play James Bond just as good as he ever could, or at least better than anyone else ever has been able to.<br /><br />The majority of the film deals with the elaborate plan to steal nuclear missiles and hold the world hostage (as Dr. Evil would say, `Oh hell, let's just do what we always do…'), so there's clearly not much new there, but this is one of the Bond films that had the better one liners. There's the amusing scene where Bond is asked for a urine sample – `If you could just fill this beaker for me…' `From here?' There are a lot of good one-liners, but the sexual innuendos aimed at Mr. Bond are especially prevalent in this installment. But then later he happens to throw that very urine sample into a villain's face, making him scream as if his face were burning off. Not a very good attempt at comic relief, especially since this guy had been kicking Bond's ass with some sort of super-spring device that could cut through pretty much anything. And of course, Kim Basinger stars in this film as one of the best Bond girls of the entire series.<br /><br />It's no secret that Never Say Never Again has dated badly, and one of the things that has dated the worst is the special effects – with the one exception of the flying missiles, which were obviously fake but still impressive for 1982. The colored contact lens at the beginning of the film was totally without effect, and the laser watch was one of the worst things in the entire movie, second only to those damn sharks. Evidently, Fatima Blush put some sort of device on his scuba tank that attracted sharks (granted, they did have weird guiding mechanisms of their own), in a scene that more than likely inspired the classic line, `I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with FRICKIN' laser beams attached to their heads!' And then, of course, there is the exploding hotel room scene which was redone in an episode of The Simpsons, and which was obviously followed by another obligatory and overly casual one-liner from James.<br /><br />The domination video game created by Largo, the film's villain, is an especially memorable scene, and the film also boasts what is probably the best motorcycle chase in the entire series (far to superior to the laughable one in Tomorrow Never Dies). But despite many strengths, the film's weaknesses are left clearer in the audience's mind at the end of the film due in large part to the anticlimactic underwater conclusion (one of the more obvious parts borrowed from Thunderball, and inferiorly recreated). Never mind the fact that Largo revealed some crucial information to Bond as he left him in the tower alive (Dr. Evil's brilliance, once again, `I'll just leave him there without actually witnessing his death and just assume everything went to plan. What?'), the climax of what is expected to be a fast-paced action film should never take place in a muted underwater atmosphere. <br /><br />All in all, Never Say Never Again ranks very highly on the James Bond scale, and Connery's wink at the end of the film (as well as the two closing lines) suggested at the time that he may still return for another turn as Bond. Clearly, this is no longer very likely, so we can only hope.

It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.<br /><br />This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.<br /><br />The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain. <br /><br />When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.<br /><br />To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.<br /><br />But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly – so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind – and look where the thinkers end up.

"I know I'm human. And if you were all these things, then you'd just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it's won."<br /><br />John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of the most entertaining horror films ever made – fast, clever and purely exciting from start to finish. This is how all movies of the genre should be made.<br /><br />Taking place in the Antarctic in 1982, the movie focuses specifically on a group of American scientists. We are given no introduction to their mission, but are thrust into their existence when a pair of seemingly crazy Norwegians appears at their base camp, chasing an escaped dog. The Norwegians are killed, and the dog finds its way into the colony, which is when things really start to get crazy.<br /><br />It is soon made quite clear that the "dog" is actually a shape-shifting alien organism, which manifests itself upon the physical form of its victims – in other words, it begins to eat the Americans, and imitate them so well that the remaining humans cannot discern the difference between their friends and enemies<br /><br />The pack of scientists, led by MacReady (Kurt Russell), begin to fight for their own survival, using wits instead of brawn. If the Thing is indeed amongst them, then how are they to go about revealing it? How many Things are there? How can the Thing be killed? (Or can it be destroyed at all?)<br /><br />The creature's origins in the film are explained easily: Thirty thousand years ago a spacecraft plummeted to Earth, and was frozen in the Antarctic ice. The Thing tried to escape, and was discovered in the ice by the Norwegians, who unknowingly released it from its natural prison.<br /><br />"The Thing," the movie itself, is similar to Ridley Scott's iconic "Alien" (1979). Many comparisons have been made – the protagonists are stranded in a desolate area, stalked by a seldom seen foe that manages to kill them off one-by-one. However, "The Thing" – for all practical purposes – came first.<br /><br />Based on the famous short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr. (writing under pseudonym as Don A. Stuart), the film was originally adapted as a feature production in 1951 by Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby. The result was "The Thing From Another World," an unarguable classic. But to be fair, it bore little resemblance to the short story, and Carpenter's remake does it more justice.<br /><br />The idea of the Thing being able to adapt the physicality of anyone is what essentially makes this movie so great, and is the most vital link to the short story. In 1951 the special effects were simply too poor to reasonably portray the shape-shifting organism, but thirty-one years brought many advances in SFX.<br /><br />Creature effects artist Rob Bottin does an excellent job of turning what could have easily become a cheesy gore-fest into a startlingly frightening (and realistic) mess of blood and fear. The Thing, although never actually taking one specific form, is constantly seen in a morphing stage, and the effects are simply superb. They still pack a punch twenty-two years later.<br /><br />Ennio Morricone's score (nominated for a Razzie Award at the time) is a bit too electronic and tinny, but nevertheless haunting when used correctly.<br /><br />From the fact that its cast consists entirely of males, to the fact that its ending is one of the most thought-provoking and untypical conclusions of all time, "The Thing" – by any standards – is unconventional Hollywood at its best. It comes as no surprise that, at the time of its release, "The Thing" performed poorly in theaters, and "E.T." – released the same year and featuring a much kinder alien – became the higher-grossing picture of the two (by far).<br /><br />In the long run, however, "The Thing" is superior in almost every conceivable way. Spielberg's tale is outdated and flopped during its 20th Anniversary Re-Release. "The Thing," on the other hand, has gradually climbed a ladder of cult classics – it is one of the most famous non-famous movies ever made.<br /><br />Carpenter is notorious for having a very uneven career – from his amazing "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) to the magnificent "Halloween" (1978) to the disappointing and silly "Escape from L.A." (1996), "The Thing" remains his very best motion picture. Although its reputation over the years has never been honorary enough to land it a spot on most "great movies" lists, "The Thing" is still one of my favorite horror films, and – upon close inspection – masterfully crafted. It is a daring and ingenious thrill-ride that is simultaneously unique and chilling – a genuine relief for film buffs who are tired of the same old horror knock-offs. This one, at the very least, is genuinely unpredictable.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a hard-partying, womanizing Texas Congressman with no discernible legislative record. In 1980, he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of Afghanistan, which is in the midst of a brutal war with the USSR. On the auspices of his old flame, arch-conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Afghanistan to assess the situation, and is stunned by what he sees. He returns to the US determined to help the Afghans, only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation - and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. Undeterred, Wilson recruits Herring and the vulgar, outcast CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a mostly unknowing US Congress. Ultimately, the Afghans defeat the Soviets, but while America celebrates their victory, Wilson and Avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post-war Afghanistan falling on deaf ears.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson's War is slick brain candy, a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film-goer. The movie assembles an astonishing array of talent, both in front of and behind the camera, and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. The film's has only one flaw, which we'll arrive at later. As an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th Century's largest covert war was waged - and, perhaps, the way that things get done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies - it's fascinating.<br /><br />The movie is interesting on a number of levels. The story portrayed in the movie - with all of its outrageous double-dealings, sneaky covert operations, and, perhaps most of all, its success - would be so outrageous as a work of fiction, that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. But things really did work out this way, at least within reasonable bounds. The film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. Wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them) - yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. Herring is something of an elitist, and her born-again attitude of righteousness is off-putting - yet she's deeply committed to the cause of the Afghan people. Avrakotos is a CIA outsider with an attitude problem, looked down upon because of his "street" background - yet his love of country and hatred of Communism are unwavering. The fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the USSR is not only proof that anyone can make a difference, but also that truth is stranger than fiction. It's also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy - not too surprising, given that our writer is Aaron Sorkin, but it's an interesting way to approach this story.<br /><br />The movie does, however, have one drawback, which is a bit surprising. The film seems to unabashedly celebrate Wilson and Co.'s achievement. This is fine - nothing wrong with defeating the Soviet Union, is there? - until one considers that out of the ashes of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan came the Taliban and eventually al-Qaeda. Regardless of the US's level of responsibility, it happened, and the movie's portrayal of Wilson's success is almost unmitigated. To be fair, the movie does address this issue towards the end, with a rather topical speech by Wilson about the US's inability to clean up after themselves, but it's done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. The overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. This isn't a fatal drawback, mind you, but it's one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie. <br /><br />The film's talent is remarkable. The legendary Mike Nichols delivers a slick, gorgeous-looking production; the material is perfectly suited to his understated, wry directorial style. Sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay; the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic Sorkin exchanges (the best being the "Scotch bottle" discussion between Wilson and Avrakotos), and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. The film's cast is a marvel: Tom Hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause, Julia Roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed Joanne, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive Gus. The always-lovely Amy Adams takes another step on her road to stardom as Wilson's long suffering assistant, and Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Emily Blunt, Christopher Denham, and Ken Stott flesh out the supporting cast.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson's War is an intelligent and fun movie, a wonderful bit of a-bit-more-than-light entertainment. The fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn't be held against it; it's brilliant at what it does.<br /><br />8/10

Commissaire Mattei(André Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.<br /><br />Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volonté)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.<br /><br />It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.<br /><br />Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volonté, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volonté-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volonté is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.<br /><br />Melville is wrong. Volonté give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.<br /><br />Also André Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.<br /><br />Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.<br /><br />We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volonté is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?<br /><br />In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.<br /><br />The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volonté escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.<br /><br />Michael Zabel

I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.<br /><br />I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'<br /><br />Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!<br /><br />Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.<br /><br />Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.<br /><br />First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.<br /><br />I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.<br /><br />Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.<br /><br />This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.<br /><br />Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.<br /><br />By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'<br /><br />Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'<br /><br />

Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: "A person who can listen to "The William Tell Overture" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.<br /><br />And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make "the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.<br /><br />As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to "…the Plains of the Early Western United States!" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The "New Technology" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than "Roller Derby" and "Wrestling From Marigold Arena" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.<br /><br />So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.<br /><br />Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' "Thrill Factory", which would be invaluable experience in doing "THE LONE RANGER". Cast as his "faithful Indian companion" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively "Cowboy Movie" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on "GUNSMOKE") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the "LONE RANGER".<br /><br />In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.<br /><br />The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from "U NO Wutt!") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the "old Radio" stock stuff.<br /><br />With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans!

A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.<br /><br />But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.<br /><br />Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the "hick"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.<br /><br />Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There must have been something in the air in the immediate postwar years that made night cities attractive settings for movies. A gaggle of nocturnal, urban films were made at that time, and not just in America. One of the most notable was Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, an English picture about a wounded gunman staggering through the streets of Belfast. In America it was the high noon, or more properly, high midnight, of film noir.<br /><br />Crossfire isn't really film noir, but has the trappings of noir, though it uses them for its own aims, which have to do with bigotry. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, written by John Paxton, it was adapted from a novel by Richard Brooks. The book concerned the murder of a homosexual; in the movie the victim is changed to a Jew. Though filmed like a mystery there is little suspense in the film, as it is fairly obvious who the murderer is early on. What makes the film so watchable and beautiful is its evocation of a city, Washington, D.C., just after World War II, by some of the most gifted craftsmen working in films at that time. Unlike many night movies Crossfire is set mostly indoors: in police stations, rooming houses and all-night movie theaters. Soldiers are everywhere in the film, and most are itching to get back to their civilian lives. Yet one senses, from most of the men we meet, that their personalities have been so shaped by their military experience it's going to be tough for them to return to their old neighborhoods; for some maybe even impossible. They seem more bound to one another than to anything or anyone else.<br /><br />Yet some men never truly bonded with anyone in the military. The murderer, Monty, is one such individual. One senses that he was never connected in his civilian life, either. He is a lone wolf who also needs people. Desperately alone, he has a sadistic streak a mile wide, and always needs someone nearby to be the butt of his jokes. The man he kills did him no harm, and was in fact a stranger to him. But once Monty figured out the man's religion, that was enough. He didn't really mean to kill the guy, as it was his intent to 'merely' humiliate him and just beat him up. But as he was quite drunk at the time, Monty's fists got the better of him. It is this act that sets the story the story in motion.<br /><br />Once the movie builds up a head of steam the other characters come rapidly into focus. Monty's opposite number is Keely, another soldier, who, though introspective like Monty, and somewhat detached, harbors no resentment toward anyone and seems a reasonable, even amiable guy. Finley, the pipe-smoking homicide detective, is dandyish and a tad effete compared to the men in uniform, but proves more than a match for the various and mostly recalcitrant soldiers he deals with. The actors who plays these roles, Roberts Ryan, Mitchum and Young, give excellent performances, each in a different key. Ryan, as Monty, is tense and paranoid, always looking around for someone to pick on; and one can feel his anxiety over becoming a victim himself. As Keely, Mitchum is low-key, almost nonchalant; he never raises his voice; and he seems to have more to say, more to offer, than is permitted by the script. Young's performance has often been criticized as being too soft, but I find it deceptively strong and nicely offbeat. He cuts against the stereotype of the hardboiled cop, and makes the character of Finley a bit of a prince of crime detection.<br /><br />There are few surprises in Crossfire, though the script is at times surprisingly well-written, even brilliant. Character actor Paul Kelly gives one of the best short performances in the movies as the 'boyfriend' of a woman a soldier picks up in a bar. Kelly may or may not be her husband; and he may or may not live with her, though he seems relaxed enough in her apartment. The beauty of these scenes are that nothing is made clear, and this man himself seems more than a little confused over what his role is, was or ought to be. In a way these few scenes form the thematic core of the film, which is anomie. With the exception of the detective all the men in the film are drifting, aimless and basically lost, some more seriously than others. In this respect Crossfire is, for all the preaching near the end, a film about the vagueness of identity, and how easily it can be lost or warped. Men drift from one bar to another in this film, as they engage in a sort of woozy camaraderie, their personalities merging into a kind of general American male template. Then something happens, something is nailed down. A word is mentioned, whether 'Jew' or 'hillbilly', and things suddenly turn tense, and the very notion of individuality, of an identity outside the group, of anyone not like them, becomes deeply offensive, even loathsome. Then, after tempers flare and whatever stirred them up has been resolved or forgotten, the men revert to their loose, non-personal group normality, and order is restored.

**SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel "The Brick Foxhole" about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie "Crossfire" is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.<br /><br />Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in. <br /><br />Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place. <br /><br />With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.<br /><br />The movie "Crossfire" then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him. <br /><br />Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.<br /><br />It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of "them" he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of "us"! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death. <br /><br />It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI "friend" of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.<br /><br />Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. "Crossfire" addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved.

What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like "Raging Bull" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries' "The Railway Children". This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children's film doesn't seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children's movie – "Railway Children" was created during a time when purity was more than just saying "no", when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. "Railway Children" is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.<br /><br />There are several moments that stand out proudly in "Railway Children" that transform this from mediocrity to excellence – one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries' children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today's children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, "No, I will not. I don't like Perks." The children's reaction is hilarious – providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.<br /><br />That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn't perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children's reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn't distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like "Love, Actually" or "Vicar of Dibley" demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren't afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of – more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.<br /><br />Overall, I loved "Railway Children". I didn't know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. "Railway Children" is more than just a kid's film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.<br /><br />Grade: **** ½ out of *****

This review contains MILD SPOILERS, but not enough to spoil the story...<br /><br />Watched Nihon Chinbotsu (Sinking of Japan or Japan Sinks, depending on where you live) recently, a remake of the 1970's movie of the same name, which itself was based on Sakyo Komatsu's best-selling novel. This movie is a gem of Japanese film-making. It appears that Japan is sinking due to a subduction of a tectonic plate to the west. The Americans predict that it would happen in the period of 40 years, but according to Dr.Tadokoro (a seemingly 'mad' scientist), it will happen in less than a year. The Japanese government isn't that convinced but sets up a Disaster evacuation plan as well as form a new D1 team to handle the crisis. While on a trip to China to negotiate evacuation plans, the Japanese Prime Minister was killed, and sends the cabinet into a state of panic. The D1 team is left to handle most matters, and led by the newly elected Minister of Crisis Management, Saoro Takamori (Dr.Tadokoro's ex-wife). She turns instead to Dr.Tadokoro for advice, and he has plans to blow astronomically HUGE holes under Japan to avert the process of sinking.<br /><br />Japan would soon have to negotiate with various countries and persuade them to adopt Japanese refugees. Soon, it seems that a lot of countries are reluctant to accept any more due to the sudden influx of Japanese in their country and the chaos that follows (if this ever happens, touch-wood, I hope Ito Misaki will be safe... she can always stay at my place... hee hee). The scenes of evacuations are really well done, showing the havoc, suffering and desperation civilians have to face in such disastrous times. And the many faces of human beings surface, arrogance, selfishness, bribery, bravery, cowardry...<br /><br />This is a really well-made film. the storytelling is solid, with an engaging storyline and wonderful acting. Dr.Tadokoro (played by Toyokawa Etsushi) was done really well, portraying a divorced and often mad scientist who kicks and bashes up stuff. His frustration and concerns were very visible and that's a really good thing. Reiko (played by gorgeous Shibasaki Kou) was also played rather well, and has the most memorable line in the entire movie (go watch it to find out) and I fancy that she has a nice acting voice. She plays the love interest of Toshio Onodera (played by Tsuyoshi Kusanagi of SMAP). Oh, I almost forgot... she has really, really long hair~ And there's also a subtle but background love story, which is well written and if there's something the Japanese do really well, it's love stories...<br /><br />One thing that makes this movie interesting is the technical explanations of the events that occur, and if you're interested in geography, you'll have a really good time (I know I did... hehe). I can see that they went to great lengths to make this movie's theory believable, and the first few graphical displays and explanation were done rather well (although you'll have to excuse the Japanese's famous "Engrish".<br /><br />OK, now about the effects (it's all about the effects, isn't it?). After watching the movie with pure awe, I must say that this movie has special effects that are on par (or even better) with some Hollywood productions. The volcanic eruptions... the massive earthquakes... destruction... tsunamis... explosions... all done splendidly. The opening scene is so cool, the 1st earthquake catches you by surprise, mountains fall, the destruction due to volcanic eruptions makes you cringe... to actually watch Mount Fuji heat up is a marvel... then you see Shibuya fall to the ground... it's so sad!!! However, what I felt was one of the best scenes was the giant tsunami scene, which sees rescue operations fail and people left with nowhere to run and no hope to hold on to... the ending scene also deserves a mention... wonderful stuff. If you like effects, you'll love this movie.<br /><br />Oh ya... every good movie has a great song behind it. The seriously addictive "Keep Holding U" sung by the super-cute and adorable SunMin is a duet with Kubota, and it's simply lovely. I feel it suits the movie really well and it shows that no matter what disasters hit us, our love and strength would keep us holding on. The disaster scenes are handled with orchestra music and at times silence (a Japanese specialty) and really gives a sense of chaos to the destruction on screen. Oh, and did I mention it's a really, really, really WIDE screen? Okla, been going on and on about this movie. Yeah, I LOVED it, and hoping to watch again... It does have plot holes, but it's all excusable because it was just a wonderful popcorn movie. Not perfect, but really well-made. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I'm glad to say that the most expensive movie in Japanese history is also one of their best. If you haven't watched it, you really should today... it is a MUST WATCH!

"Family Guy" is probably the most ballsy sitcom ever produced. It relentlessly skewers everything it can think of, from TV shows to family drama. Best of all, it's one of the few TV shows on today that's actually funny.<br /><br />The show revolves around the Griffins: Peter, the obese father whose schemes are limited by his lack of intelligence. Lois, the mother who is more or less the head of the family, even though Peter considers himself to be that. Chris, the fat teenage son who has just as few brains as his dad. Meg, the black sheep of the family that is the but of everyone's jokes. Stewie, the baby who has plans for killing his mother and taking over the world. And Brian, the family dog, who is frequently the voice of reason, but is frequently corrupted.<br /><br />"Family Guy" employs many tactics to get laughs from the audience. Most notable are the frequent cutaways that spoof what has just been said. They are effective because of the impeccable timing, and in how they play out. "Family Guy" uses spoofs to get humor as well, most commonly from 80's TV shows. What really makes the show so great is that a person doesn't have to be familiar with what it's spoofing. I'm sure it would help, but the material is funny enough in its own right. But the show doesn't stop there. Not only does it spoof just about everything, it skewers its own spoofs! The show is filled with off-color humor. The only reason why people aren't up in arms about the show is probably because it makes fun of every race, sex and other generality equally. There is nothing sacred here, and no one and nothing is immune from "Family Guy's" satirical jabs.<br /><br />Putting on musical numbers in a film takes a lot of time and effort, and it's a very big risk. But "Family Guy" contains some great songs. All well-written and performed, and of course they are hilarious (perhaps the most famous one, "The Freakin' FCC" is both catchy, and hysterical because it hits the ratings board where it hurts).<br /><br />The voice characterizations are right on the money. Seth McFarlane is tremendously talented. He provides the voices for Peter, Brian (which is his own natural voice), and Stewie. Not only are the voices consistent and creative, he can alter their pitch at will, so it really seems as if they are spoken by three different actors. Alex Borstein brings a nasally drawl to Lois that is perfect for the character. Seth Green is unrecognizable as Chris (had I not looked on IMDb, I would have never known that it was him). Lacey Chabert originated the character of Meg, and while she was good, Mila Kunis really elevated the character with her sharp voice. Kunis gives Meg a new, sharper edge that she didn't have with Chabert.<br /><br />"Family Guy" has been compared to "The Simpsons," and that's entirely understandable (and not just because they are produced by FOX). Both are satires of blue-collar life, and while "The Simpsons" is good, "Family Guy" contains are sharper edge. The show is utterly fearless. There is no real sacred cow. The show lampoons handicaps (physical and mental), ethnicities, TV shows and movies, celebrities, politicians, religion (especially catholicism), drug use and addiction, sexual humor of all kinds (including S&M), and some that's just beyond description. Not everything "Family Guy" throws at the audience works, but as a whole, the show is consistently amusing and frequently hilarious.<br /><br />If there's any flaw with "Family Guy," it's that the jokes run on far too long sometimes. Particularly with the "awkward moment" jokes, the sequences are stretched for so long that not only does it cease to become funny, it becomes so irritating (and long) that a fast-forward button is warranted. These can be effective at about 10 to 15 seconds, but the show sometimes stretches these to beyond two minutes. One could argue that the show rewrites its rules to suit the plot, and it often does (for example, Brian frequently acts like a person, but he still acts like a dog when the story requires it). But that's not a problem because the show still works.<br /><br />Some people have argued that the show has stopped being funny. While I agree that it's not as edgy as it used to be, I think the blame lies with FOX, not McFarlane and his crew. The show originated with FOX, but after some lackluster ratings and viewer turnout, it was canceled. However, DVD sales were large enough for it to be picked up by Adult Swim. The show became an instant success, and it was once again bought by FOX. However, because the show is so big now, FOX is afraid to let the writers experiment and try new things. While it's still funny, the humor is not as fresh and edgy.<br /><br />Definitely check this show out. It's awesome.

I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?<br /><br />I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what/who I want to see despite any reviews.<br /><br />I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.<br /><br />I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.<br /><br />It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the "love", and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.<br /><br />It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.<br /><br />I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): "Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us".. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.<br /><br />Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie.

BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the bar very high.<br /><br />ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was "Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.<br /><br />ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a large number of reliable character actors from the "Warner's Repertory Company" are employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland), Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), "Californy" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges), General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel). <br /><br />THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford, William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper, Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker, Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal, Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more.<br /><br />THE film moves very quickly, particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually).<br /><br />AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor, SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!). However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of "Artistic and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just didn't happen that way, yet the "gag" both helped the film to move along; while it underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the film.<br /><br />DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident, being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25, 1876, "Custer's Last Stand" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans' National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on September 11, 2002.<br /><br />JUST as so many films of that period of WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release period.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!!

Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.<br /><br />"Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others. "Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.<br /><br />The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.<br /><br />Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.<br /><br />James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel. <br /><br />In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.<br /><br />Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.<br /><br />Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)<br /><br />Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)<br /><br />Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)<br /><br />Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)

First, let me review the movie. This movie creeps me out, and I don't even believe in aliens! However, the movie has its flaws.<br /><br />There are three acts to this movie. Act One is perfect. It sets up the movie, and really builds up the creep factor. I must say the score is great! Everything is set up and it's set up perfectly.<br /><br />Act Two begins when Jillian, playing Sherry Burton, goes to the shrink. They hypnotize her, and she recalls the abduction. Act Two ruins the film when the aliens show up. "Screaming Mad George" did the effects for the aliens. I must say they did a good job, except with their depiction of the "Gray" aliens. No offense, but the Grays looked like inflatable door prizes.<br /><br />On a side note, I liked how they treated hypnosis in Acts One and Two. If you paid attention, you would notice that the husband and wife had two different memories. In the husband's version of events, the blue light zaps them and his wife says, "Somebody's here," or something like it. It makes sense. The husband is concerned for his wife. "Someone" may hurt her. That's his issue. However in her version of events, she says, "Help me!" She does not say "Somebody's here." This also makes sense. The aliens are after her. Wanting her husband to help and save her is her issue. Now back to the film.<br /><br />Act Three turns the film into a gore fest. It begins with a "strange" ultrasound procedure. It's a typical gore fest, but it does have a surprise ending. I won't ruin it because it's actually an interesting development. <br /><br />The DVD and commentaries takes itself too seriously, but if you think Wilford Brimley saying "Horsesh**" is funny, you might want to check it out in the cast interviews section. Now on to my praise of Jillian McWhirter.<br /><br />I could only hope Jillian will read this. I had never seen her before, but wow, what a performance! Let me tell the rest of you this. First of all, this is supposed to be a serious film. The details I will now describe may sound campy and fun, like "Humanoids From The Deep" (1980), but it really isn't. Got that? Okay.<br /><br />Jillian is hot, naturally good-looking. She is naked for a lot of the film, a good thing. Unfortunately, she is usually being assaulted, terrorized, and raped, a very bad thing. However, she must act in a lot of this film naked. She gets points for overcoming that. She has to act happy, sad, horny, afraid, and physically hurt all in the span of a few moments. The turnaround of emotion is astounding! She has to cheer for joy when she learns she's pregnant. She has to scream in terror when the aliens take out her guts. She has to act very angry when her husband suggests that the baby isn't his. She has to act like she's in denial, saying nothing is wrong with her baby, when her husband says otherwise. A denial, I should note, that is really forced upon her by the aliens controlling her. I am talking Oscar-caliber performance here!<br /><br />Then there is the rape scene. It's disturbing, but since it's just some rubber alien, it's not too bad. In this scene, the alien is not a "Gray" alien, so I will describe it. The alien has tentacles, and it's kind of like a table. Jillian is on the table-like part, restrained by the tentacles. By her head is the alien's head. The alien's head is long, and it flips down so that its head is now above Jillian's legs. Then, the alien's hey-nanu-nanu comes out of his forehead. It's forehead! Sounds pretty campy, right? Well, Jillian plays it straight, and she pulls it off! She has to act like an alien with its hey-nanu-nanu coming from its forehead is raping her, and she pulls it off! It's a very intense scene, but that's not what makes it. You see, this scene is done in a flashback. What makes the scene is Jillian's performance recalling these events. She is just lying in a hospital bed under hypnosis recalling the alien abduction, but her acting here is more intense than the actual rape scene! How many actors can pull off a performance in a scene that describes a rape that is more intense than the scene with the rape? Not many! However, Jillian does it.<br /><br />I could go on and on. Jillian, if you ever read this, I want you to know that I, (name withheld) alias of MegamanX-1, believe you are the best actress ever. You are the best actress ever! I could only hope you read this and take it with you always.<br /><br />As for everyone else, "Progeny" (1999) is an Okay to Good film. I would recommend it.

Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him. <br /><br />Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win. <br /><br />Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!<br /><br />This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!<br /><br />-

If it is true that sadomasochism is a two-sided coin which contains the whole in the diverse expression of its opposites, then the cinematic portrait of Erika Kohut has its reality. Professor Kohut treats her piano students with a kind of fascist sadism while longing for the same for herself. Her outward expression projects her desire. That is why she can hurt without guilt or remorse.<br /><br />Along comes talented, charming, handsome young Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel) who is attracted to her because of her passion and her intensity. He wants to become her student so as to be close to her. She rejects him out of hand, but because of his talent the Vienna conservatory votes him in. He falls in love with her. Again she pushes him away, but he will not take no for an answer, and thereby begins his own descent into depravity and loss of self-respect.<br /><br />The question the viewer might ask at this point is, who is in control? The sadist or the masochist? Indeed who is the sadist and who the masochist? It is hard to tell. Is it the person who has just been greatly abused both psychologically and physically, who is actually lying wounded on the floor in grotesque triumphant and fulfillment, or is it the person who is rushing out the door, sated, giving the order that no one is to know what happened.<br /><br />But Erika is not just a sadomasochistic freak. She is a sex extreme freak. She wants to experience the extremes of human sexuality while maintaining the facade of respectability. Actually that isn't even true. She says she doesn't care what others think. She doesn't care if they walk in and find her bleeding on the floor because she is in love. Love, she calls it. For her sex and love are one and the same.<br /><br />At one point Walter tells her that love isn't everything. How ironic such a superfluity is to her. How gratuitous the comment.<br /><br />The movie is beautifully cut and masterfully directed by Michael Haneke who spins the tale with expert camera work and carefully constructed sets in which the essence of the action is not just clear but exemplified (as in the bathroom when Walter propels himself high above the top of the stall to find Erika within). He also employs a fine positioning of the players so that they are always where they should be with well timed cuts from one angle to another. This is particularly important in the scene in which Erika, like a blood-drained corpse caught in stark white and black light, lies under her lover, rigid as stone. Here for the most part we only see her face and the stark outline of her neck with its pulsating artery. We don't need to see any more.<br /><br />The part of Erika Kohut is perfect for Isabelle Huppert who is not afraid of extremes; indeed she excels in them. I have seen her in a number of movies and what she does better than almost anyone is become the character body and soul. Like the woman she plays in this movie she is unafraid of what others may think and cares little about her appearance in a decorative sense. What matters to her is the performance and the challenge. No part is too demanding. No character too depraved. It's as if Huppert wants to experience all of humanity, and wants us to watch her as she does. She is always fascinating and nearly flawless. She is not merely a leading light of the French cinema; she is one of the great actresses of our time who has put together an amazingly diverse body of work.<br /><br />I think it is highly instructive and affords us a wonderful and striking contrast to compare her performance here with her performance in The Lacemaker (La Dentellière) from 1977 when she was 22 years old. There she was apple sweet in her red hair and freckles and her pretty face and her cute little figure playing Pomme, a Parisian apprentice hairdresser. Her character was shy about sex and modest--just an ordinary French girl who hoped one day to be a beautician. Here she is a self-destructive witch, bitter with hateful knowledge of herself, shameless and entirely depraved.<br /><br />Huppert is fortunate in being an actress in France where there are parts like this for women past the age of starlets. (Hollywood could never make a movie like this.) In the American cinema, only a handful of the very best and hardest working actresses can hope to have a career after the age of about thirty. Huppert greatly increases her exposure because of her ability and range, but also because she is willing to play unsympathetic roles, here and also in La Cérémonie (1995) in which she plays a vile, spiteful murderess.<br /><br />Do see this for Isabelle Huppert. You won't forget her or the character she brings to life.

This has become one of my favorite movies and certainly one of the best westerns I have ever seen. Having a soft spot for the genre (westerns are – or were, since they are no longer made very often – morality plays that too often have been denigrated by critics with intellectual pretensions), I purchased the DVD, sight unseen, because I had read enough about William S. Hart's work (much of which he wrote and directed) to pique my interest and thought I should have at least one of his films in my video collection.<br /><br />I must admit that I approached the actual viewing with some trepidation. My previous experiences with silent cinema "classics" had left me feeling let down. Chaney's The Phantom of the Opera, Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Fairbanks' The Mark of Zorro were fine, but not nearly as good as their reputations would lead one to expect. They were either too long, or too theatrical, or both. <br /><br />The Toll Gate, however, emerged as a pleasant surprise.<br /><br />It is a story told in a simple and straightforward manner. Black Deering (played by Hart), leader of a notoriously successful outlaw gang, thinks the time has come for group to disband, before its luck runs out. He is, however, opposed by his chief lieutenant, Jordan, who goads them all into one last holdup by promising great wealth but leads them into a trap in which he is complicit. Everyone is killed except Deering, who is taken prisoner. When his captors recognize him as the man who once saved a number of soldiers and settlers by warning an outpost of an impending Indian attack, they allow him to escape. Free, he tries to find honest work but is snubbed and ridiculed and ultimately must rob again to survive. Soon, he is pursued not only by the sheriff's posse but also by Jordan (now prospering from the reward money he has collected) and his henchmen. His flight leads him to a remote cabin inhabited by a single mother and her little son. After some initial misgivings, they take him into their hearts. Deering sees a chance for a new life but, with the posse and Jordan closing in, realizes that this may not be possible. <br /><br />Hart was the first great western star and the first to inject realism into the genre. As one of the pioneers of movie-making, he created many of the characters and situations that have become cliché in westerns for more than ninety years. What keeps his movies interesting, however, was his ability to go beyond the cliché (perhaps his imitators did not go far enough) so that the material appears fresh and innovative, even now. Three such instances in The Toll Gate illustrate this: <br /><br />1) In one scene, his character shoots into a crowd in an attempt to kill Jordan, and kills a bystander instead. A subsequent close-up shows that he is clearly frustrated. The frustration, however, comes not from the fact that he has gunned down a man who had hitherto caused him no harm but that he missed his intended target. <br /><br />2) In another, as he flees from the posse, his "borrowed" horse steps into a gopher hole and breaks a leg. Hart pulls out his gun to put the animal out of its misery but, before pulling the trigger, gives his head a sad, loving pat, as if to say farewell to an old friend. <br /><br />3) And finally, after he has strangled Jordan and thrown his body over a cliff, he returns to retrieve his guns and spots his adversary's pistol lying on the ground nearby. He steps forward and gives it a swift kick before mounting his horse. It is a simple gesture but it underscores the deep loathing he feels for the man who betrayed him and his comrades. <br /><br />And I love the title, The Toll Gate. It is allegorical in its implication that a man cannot begin a new life until he has paid for the sins of his old one. Deering's payment comes in the form of sacrifice. Today's more sophisticated audiences may not buy into that sentiment entirely but it can still work on you if you let it.<br /><br />Viewers who like their videos in pristine condition will undoubtedly object to the DVD's picture quality, especially the badly deteriorated final reel. I don't mind at all. That a copy of this 1920 movie even exists at all is a miracle since prints of so many other silent movies have been lost. If you bear that in mind and look upon the film as a piece of history, its visual flaws are not that difficult to accept. <br /><br />William S. Hart was born in 1870 in New York but grew up in the Minnesota and Wisconsin where he learned to speak Sioux and Indian sign language. He counted Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson among his friends and collected Remington paintings, so his knowledge of the West was first-hand. If his vision seems overly romanticized by today's standards, it is nevertheless rooted far closer to reality than the spaghetti westerns of the '60s and '70s and the revisionist works that followed. Both the star and his films are overdue for re-evaluation.

It's easy to see why many people consider In the Mood for Love to be Wong Kar-Wai's best film. The toned down appeal of the film, centering on the studied view of a relationship put through an emotional ringer, is a retread into Happy Together territory but without the hyper-kinetic patchwork of jarring film stocks and hyper-saturated sequences that have become a trademark of Kar-Wai's films since Chungking Express. Like Soderbergh's The Limey, this is a different kind of curio for Kar-Wai; where dialogue and plot are forsaken by mood and composition in order to create a tale of two delicate lives in a seemingly confining emotional stasis.<br /><br />It's a testament to the genius of Kar-Wai that he is capable to making such a simple tale so resonating. Chow Mo-Wan (Tony Leung) and Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) move in next-door to each other within the same apartment building. He's a journalist who dreams of publishing martial-arts novels and she is a secretary at a shipping company. Their eventual coupling is obvious from the beginning but the pleasure here is the way that Kar-Wai ambiguously paints such a journey with his grand masterstrokes.<br /><br />The key to the success of the film is Kar-Wai's use of the interior space, playing with foreground and background planes in ways that are similar to the works of Polanski. During the wooingly sensuous first half of the film, Kar-Wai isolates Leung and Cheung within shots in such a way that the second person in a conversation is never visible. Kar-Wai is concerned with environment and space here, creating a cramped emotional dynamic between his characters. It's also telling that Kar-Wai never chooses to focus on the physicality of Mo-Wan and Li-zhen's spouses. Their faceless partners are noticeably absent from the film, as they are tending to their own love affairs with each other.<br /><br />This is not to suggest that In the Mood for Love is a confining experience because Kar-Wai manages to inundate his film with broad splashes of hypnotic camera movement and sound. There is one shot where Cheung's slow, sensual rise up a metaphorical stairway turns into Leung's descent down the very same stairwell; their movements perfectly compliment each other, bookending the shot and creating a sense of erotic duality between the two figures. Their souls have connected but they have yet to physically unite. The erotic displacement of these scenes is both fascinating and frustrating, as two star-crossed lovers reject physical consummation due to their humble fidelity.<br /><br />Other scenes in the film are punctuated with brief slow-motion shots of Cheung erotically moving through her interior surroundings, set to Mike Galasso's hauntingly beautiful score. Cheung's dresses beautifully compliment her exterior space as she moves slowly through her surroundings. Her movements slowly build up to what seems to be an inevitable fusion between Li-szhen and her dream lover even though the seduction process seems to be entirely sub-conscious.<br /><br />If I make it seem that these two characters are more like two birds unleashing pheromones on each other, it probably isn't that far-fetched of a statement. The tight bond these two characters have with their internal spaces is almost as intense as their relationship to the exteriors. The film rarely moves into an exterior space and when the camera does it is usually to peak through oval windows and symbolic bars that always remind us that these characters are like confined animals. Kar-Wai continues to tease us even when the lovers get close enough to touch, shattering the couple's proximity to each other by shooting them through mirrors or through gaps within articles of clothing located inside of a closet. Mother Nature even seems to respond to their love lust, often unleashing a soft crest of rain over the characters after their bodies have glided near each other.<br /><br />Kar-Wai's hauntingly atmospheric shots of a waterfall allowed Leung's Lai Yu-Fai to experience a cathartic release in Happy Together, even if Leslie Cheung's Ho Po-wing was not there to enjoy it with him. By that film's end, love was so inextricably bound to the act of war that a third man's muted declarations of love signaled Yu-Fai's realization that his dreams of seeing a waterfall would bring him inner peace, even if it would not bring him back his lover. Mo-Wan's journey terminates within the confines of a crumbling temple. His own emotional depletion is paralleled nicely with the political climate of his country, and the absence of Li-szhen is only made tolerable by the fact that Kar-Wai allows Mo-Wan to experience a release of sorts. Mo-Wan caters to an ancient myth and his secretive release into a crack in the temple leaves him capable of living his days with the hope that all his loss and heartache somehow served a higher purpose.

Recently finally available in DVD (11/11/08), Severo Pérez' film...and the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tomás Rivera's ...y no se lo tragó la tierra/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano literary landscape. <br /><br />Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal. Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too "ethnic," too alien from a basic American mainstream, too much a "foreign" art indie, too limited in economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value.<br /><br />Briefly, ….and the Earth did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering, and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences, subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of fact—yet, also symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to him—strength of character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct. In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others.<br /><br />This stark battle makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a Project; and redemption—all under the auspices of free will in spite of the deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances.<br /><br />Perez has a long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards: first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards.<br /><br />In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film that has been made.

I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.<br /><br />So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.<br /><br />Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.<br /><br />The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.<br /><br />The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.

It's now 2005 and 15+ years since this cartoon first aired. I haven't actually watched it seriously or closely in about 10 years. Now that I'm an adult in my 30s I can look back with a serious eye as I watch the episodes again.<br /><br />In concept, the cartoon is partly an homage to the classic Looney Tunes but also its own original show. There are a few episodes that are structured like the old cartoons. For example, there is a singer that attacks Buster and so he exacts revenge on this singer's concert -exactly like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. The ensuing cartoon is similar to Looney Tunes, just in a different era. If you look at the old Looney Tunes, they did an awful lot of stuff exactly like Tiny Toons did. The old Looney Tunes made a lot of social commentary and parody. There were celebrity impersonations. There were a lot of corny period jokes, slang, and dialog. The comedy was surreal and wacky. You can say this exactly for Tiny Toons as well. The comedy styling is 'spiritually' the same. Most definitely a throwback to the classics which hadn't been done well (if at all) in cartoons in the decades prior to this show. We recognize the cultural references in Tiny Toons and we can roll our eyes when something we don't like comes up. But the reason we don't think Looney Tunes are corny is because we weren't alive back in the 40s. Also, Looney Tunes was original back in those days but today cartoons are rehashed over and over. So it's easy to perceive Tiny Toons in an unfair light due to our exposure to current events and our overexposure to cartoons in general.<br /><br />There certainly are differences in many respects - the timing, the delivery, and obviously the duration of the shows. They are two different styles from two different periods, being done under two very different circumstances - Looney Tunes being made for adults in theaters and Tiny Toons being made for kids watching TV. Even so, they did a good job making an original show with original gags AND still paying homage to and patterning after the comedy stylings of the old Looney Tunes.<br /><br />Since Tiny Toons had a lot more time to play with, they had some genuine moments of great animated inspiration. You only have to look at episodes like 1 minute to 3, the baby Plucky toilet episode.. there are so many more. For example, one of the best comedy dialog exchanges ever animated is in ThirteenSomething when Babs and Buster are on the phone in a split screen, hoping each misses the other. The miscommunication is spectacular. Notably, the character development in this episode and in several others (usually the ones penned by Deanna Oliver or Sherri Stoner) is rather good. The female characters were taken seriously as personalities and developed, unusual considering the opposite is usually true for cartoons of that period.<br /><br />This was the first modern cartoon that had lots of both pop culture-referential and self-referential humor. This was way ahead of its time. Tiny Toons really opened up a door for writers to take comic liberties that are so common in the cartoons today, instead of doing the boring old crap we endured as 80s kids. Yes, I loved Transformers and Thundercats, but Tiny Toons totally jumped away from all that. It was a breath of fresh air. Bakshi's New Adventures of Mighty Mouse may have been a precursor, but Tiny Toons made this surreal style of comedy cartoon writing a real success.<br /><br />As a kid I totally overlooked some jokes. For example, one episode is an homage to the Marx Brothers that I completely ignored as a teen. Now I have a newfound respect for it. There are so many inspired gags that I never noticed that are genuinely brilliant. It's that kind of comedy that makes me think of Looney Tunes and Family Guy. I NEVER noticed that kind of comedy as a kid. I've been thinking this for most episodes I watched recently.<br /><br />You'd notice these kinds of things if you actually WATCHED the show. Unlike some other reviewers here who I know are unfairly judging it, I've seen all the episodes and have thought about them thoroughly, exposed both as a kid and as an adult.<br /><br />You can tell there was an awful lot of care taken with the voice acting too. I'm not talking about just the main characters, but the side characters were done really well and creatively too. But back to the main characters, some of the main characters were brilliant. Tress MacNeille had, in my opinion, her best performances in this cartoon. She hasn't been the same since. Rob Paulsen also did some incredible stuff here, too.<br /><br />This is all not to say the show didn't have some bad episodes. It had plenty. It had a lot of mediocre ones, too. But by far it certainly had a lot of genuinely funny episodes. Especially back when it first aired it was actually funny to watch.<br /><br />Out of 10 I give the show an 8.5 - and kudos for pushing the envelope and breaking down the doors leading to a new era of cartoons.

ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S / (2001) *** (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> According to Harald Zwart, the director of "One Night at McCool's," this film is "a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows." <br /><br /> "One Night at McCool's" marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in "One Night at McCool's," from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing. <br /><br /> "One Night At McCool's" features three men who share their separate experiences about a particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version of "American Beauty," but in others, it is a world apart. <br /><br /> "It all started one night at McCool's" explains each of the three men to their various listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin, a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At first, Randy is reluctant: "The sex and the violence, all in one night – it's a little much." But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away.<br /><br /> Jewel changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive ways. <br /><br /> It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story. Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always delightful Liv Tyler ("Armageddon"). She is not really interested in the men, but what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can get what she wants out of life through her beauty. <br /><br /> The film has a lot of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its violently hilarious showdown, "One Night at McCool's" takes advantage of most of its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in "American Beauty."<br /><br /> "One Night at McCool's" is the first film to come from Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine, and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as either too black or too lackadaisical. "One Night at McCool's" is one of the few that actually work. <br /><br />

This early Warner Brothers talkie "Son of the Gods" (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.<br /><br />Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of "Only Angels Have Wings"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of "Gone With The Wind"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.<br /><br />During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of "Arrowsmith"), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of "Two-Faced Woman"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.<br /><br />Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of "Iron Man") sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />This socially conscientious Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.<br /><br />The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, "Son of the Gods" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, "Son of the Gods" is a son of a good movie!

Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get. Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then it transitions to him being treated for his wounds.<br /><br />It might lead one to believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b) there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group- by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as Brent describes, a "blood transfusion." With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they cancel out reason to meet their ends.<br /><br />And finally there's the layer of style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest' films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this, especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever.<br /><br />Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally damning and thought provoking.

This is my favorite horror film, a close 2nd to 'Poltergeist'. I saw 'One Dark Night' when it first came out in theaters in 1983 at the theater where I worked.<br /><br />I was born in 1963, so I have a certain love for '80's horror films, despite them being a little dated and the dialog not well written. What I thought was so original about it was that the phenomenon of 'psychic vampirism' has not been addressed (at least, to my knowledge at that time) and is a very real phenomenon.<br /><br />I didn't care if Adam West was in it (nothing against him, but his supporting role was not memorable), but thought Meg Tilly was good casting. The little-known Donald Hutton (from 'Brainstorm' and 'Invaders From Mars') as an ambiguous scientist who oversaw studies on Ramar's abilities was sadly overlooked. As a gay guy, I was paying more attention to David Mason Daniels, Meg Tilly's unfortunate but gorgeous boyfriend. He's selling real estate in Texas now. <br /><br />I felt the film 'realistic' in two ways: Raymar, who was discovered to have murdered 6 girls in his surreal apartment, had a funeral that was sparse in attendance, reflecting the fact that not only was he mysterious, a hermit, but a killer. As you know, these types are buried without fanfare. Second, if corpses were going to be telekinetically mobile, they would hover, dragging their feet. The filmmakers could have gone for the schlock walking, groaning, arms out-stretched zombies, but opted for what would be believable. Kudos! The buzzing electrical discharge from Ramar's eyes at his 'throne coffin' (like he's overseeing his kingdom of dead), cast an eerie magenta light in the mausoleum that will stay with you for years! If you've ever gone to a mausoleum, even on a sunny day, you will notice that they have their own rosetta lighting caused by stained glass windows. Don't get me started on the cavernous silence. Even Ramar himself looked like someone who could pass as an eccentric, perverted old man. The score was one-of-a-kind and memorable, and I keep kicking myself for not getting it on cassette when it first came out. The track shooting was done where it was supposed to be. I especially liked the carefully-planned characteristics of each corpse: the bride, the badly decomposed child still holding its teddy bear, the grandmother, the tall thin black guy, and the half-faced World War II vet, and the green-slimed eyed elderly gent who was the first to greet the 'Sisters' clique initiators. Even corpses can be good actors, I suppose. The only thing I had to groan about was the arm that came out of one of the vaults and choke Julie's boyfriend couldn't possibly be done unless a corpse was put in laying on it's stomach and feet first, but why? It looked a little to fresh too.<br /><br />The film begins eerie, with us never seeing Ramar's face (until the last quarter of the film, which is like unwrapping a birthday present) as he is picking up teen girl runaways in his daughter's psychic flash. We then see coroners hauling his body away in his one bedroom apartment where we see he's experimented his telekinetic craft by phasing dishes into his wall. The rest does drag as the Heathers-like 'Sisters' group baits Julie into a final initiation by spending the night inside the mausoleum, but it is a well-placed build up to the unleashing horror later. The movie isn't bloody in any sense of the word. The goriest part is when Ramar's daughter uses a compact mirror to feed his power back to him, and he bubbles then melts. I've always felt that a power like Ramar's could never die and a sequel could be worth looking into. I can see it now: One Dark Night II: Turning In The Grave. But let's face it-The film stands alone. I heard the film had other titles, but the original fits.<br /><br />A remake would be pointless. But if there were to be one, I would write better dialog, and lengthen some scenes such as show the studies on Ramar's abilities done in the lab instead of hearing about it on a tape recorder. In this information age, something like that would be well documented on DVD. And more corpses! Why just raise the ones in the mausoleum when Ramar's power could spread to the graveyard too? Let's just say I'd hate to be one of the persons who had to clean up the mess at the end of the climax; something that too can be shown. I think having one of the initiating Sisters recognize one of the corpses as a relative would have added some good if disturbing character. With CG effects, some awesome scenes with Ramar animating cremated remains would be off the wall! <br /><br />Say what you will about,'One Dark Night' but it has it all. So see at least once in your life...or death!

First, the obvious—as a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY … is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY … is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful. <br /><br />It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY ….Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberance—not only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception. <br /><br />Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traits—his clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air ….Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real life—mixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observation—it's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.<br /><br />QUAY … is multifaceted—it is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine. <br /><br />The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery. <br /><br />As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY … is very true to Clouzot's nature—a sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was first—class when he filmed something—he knew what to shoot, what to choose—see the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious. <br /><br />Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition. <br /><br />Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomy—much like a menacing bird of prey—somewhat like Van Cleef—yet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY …'s sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet movie—which is an astounding quality in itself). <br /><br />Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.<br /><br />To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much.

This is one of four 1970s movies by TV writer Lane Slate about sensationalistic murders in small towns. They feature likable TV personalities as police chiefs and quirky characters as town regulars, including light-touch love interests. The others are: They Only Kill Their Masters (James Garner, 1972); and The Girl In The Empty Grave and Deadly Game (both Andy Griffith, 1977).<br /><br />Alda's is set near Vermont ("Mount Angel" next to "Horse Creek"); the others in California, Garner's at seaside ("Eden Landing") and Griffith's in the mountains ("Jasper Lake"). All try to capture the feel of a small town, to move at a relaxed pace among comfortable characters, and to tell a mystery with at least some complicated twist or turn to it. On that level, they are somewhat entertaining (that they were often re-run itself suggests they have some appeal). But they suffer from overall thin stories and dialogue, slack pacing, bland settings, flat or exaggerated characters, and off-putting, forced attempts (often juvenile or crude) at color or humor.<br /><br />Alda's and Garner's are the most serious about story, characters, pacing, and tone. They have the best supporting casts, though Alda's is put to better use; the Griffith casts pale in comparison. Alda's has the best director.<br /><br />"Shocking" has some surprise and drama. The killer's method is inventive. The tone is more even, and the dialogue more natural, than in Griffith's. Alda's film does not suffer like the others from smug big-city transplants to the town or from hokey, exaggerated local characters, both of which come across as figments of a Hollywood scriptwriter, not as genuine (the worst offender is the Griffith movies' pipsqueak, mumbling moron "Whit," who, we are told, tried to hook a jeep up to and make off with a trailer serving as a temporary bank branch, dragged away the dock for the police boat, stole tomatoes from a farmer's truck only to get nothing for them, and filled out $11 on the withdrawal slip of "Spiro T. Babylis" only to be discovered by the teller). Mercifully absent is the clunky, heavy-handed repetitive-style dialogue from the Griffith movies ("You going to lunch?" "I'm going to take out the boat." "You going to take the boat to lunch?" "I'm not going to lunch." "You're not going to take the boat to lunch?"; "There aren't any fish in this lake. Why are you fishing here?" "It's illegal in Horse Mountain." "It's posted here too, you're breaking the law." "Some law. There aren't any fish in this lake." "Then why are you fishing here?" "I told you, it's illegal in Horse Mountain."; "Please call me Lloyd. My name is Lloyd." "Okay, Lloyd..." "Call me Lloyd. That's my name. My name is Lloyd.")<br /><br />But Alda is too low-key and unimpressive to be taken seriously as even a small-time police chief, certainly not a red-hot lawman in demand by a rival town. Slate has the character admit as much, when he comes late to the scene of a by then obvious clue, as a result of an accidental name recognition. Rather than detect or investigate, Barnes strikes out blindly in emotional denial. His secretary Lasser feeds him a key clue ("Why didn't I think of that," he says!). An embarrassing funeral scene, plus a plot contrivance, leads to another gift clue.<br /><br />Worse, Barnes is more interested in deriding the military-style helmets of the county police sent to help him (Deadly Game also suggests Slate has something against the military) than leading them or his own men effectively. He allows a late murder by incompetently guarding a known target. Barnes allows his car to be repeatedly rammed by the killer fleeing one crime scene, without drawing his gun or trying to take control. Again, he is ineffective, and nearly killed, in the climactic scene, which results from multiple errors on his part that are only partially corrected, by accident. The erratic Northeastern accent that Alda affects does not help believability.<br /><br />There are plot holes. Why would the killer strike after all these years? And committing the first two murders without a trace seems implausible. But they are nothing compared to later ones -- a couple together, a shopkeeper in his store during business hours, a fully clothed deputy seated in his office and, unbelievably, his dog!<br /><br />Alda's movie also suffers from some offensive elements that Slate injects into all the movies. Barnes first appears in a motel clerk's bed. He then treats her rudely at every turn and insults and tries to avoid her kids. This, and talk about the female doctor, smack of a crude, mean-spirited pattern (Garner's film has been described as "sleazy," including a scene where he and a deputy laugh about how a girl in the back seat of a car that hit a bump in the road had part of her anatomy bitten off by a guy in the car with her. Griffith's feature an ersatz Ropers routine, in which the woman embarrassingly tries to coax the man into "the supply closet"; a gratuitous locker-room-type exchange with a deputy in discussing a young woman's car accident death ("Did you take her out?" "I took her in once."); a reference to bank teller "Bernice" as "swollen-up in places" and to "sticking a pin in" her and to "hating" and firing secretary "Maude" because she was "too hairy"; a description of the female doctor's practice as "two stirrup tables and a flashlight"; a humiliating scene in which Fran Ryan propositions Griffith, offering "some home grown"; and an insulting subplot in which a woman, pursued by a deputy played as a drippy buffoon, seems to "sleep around").<br /><br />Finally, Alda's film has a grim, bleached-out, colorless, lifeless look and feel. Only Louise Lasser adds spark. At least the other films had some spirit, scenery, and pleasant music; Griffith's got out onto the mountainside, onto the lake, and even out into the big city. You feel more like re-watching Masters or Empty Grave than Shocking.

Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since "The Running Man" have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that "The Running Man" film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film… Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.<br /><br />**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abomination—it's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the "hero" calls "Furface." Groan… Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the "evil government" which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an "Oxcom" (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopers—always plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing people—and all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!<br /><br />Change from Book to Film:<br /><br />--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.<br /><br />--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his mother—and all her depth and character growth is completely gone.<br /><br />--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.<br /><br />--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.<br /><br />--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the "immortal" that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?<br /><br />--Dog never receives deserving name of "Einstein" in the movie.<br /><br />--No part of the book took place in a High School—at least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.<br /><br />--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the book—unrealistic pacing.<br /><br />--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.<br /><br />--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.<br /><br />--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.<br /><br />--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.<br /><br />--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.<br /><br />--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:<br /><br />--Michael Ironside—usually, I like him.<br /><br />--The dog is still fairly likable.<br /><br />--Wacky "totally 80's" title screen.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.<br /><br />--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.<br /><br />--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.<br /><br />--Loose, weak, watered down story.<br /><br />--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.<br /><br />--Absolutely no character development.<br /><br />--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only "Alien vs Predator," at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment. <br /><br />Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 4/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 1/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 Violence/Gore: 4/10 Music: 5/10 Direction: 3/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fans—and only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy/check/borrow the book.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com

Possible Spoilers As Peter Jackson has so brilliantly shown in his `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is quite possible to make good films, even great ones, within the heroic fantasy genre. The genre has distinguished literary antecedents, dating back to the mediaeval chivalric romances, particularly the Arthurian legends, upon which Tolkien and other authors have drawn. `Lord of the Rings' apart, however, it is difficult to think of any other sword-and-sorcery films which are any good. I would agree with the reviewer who said that the best of a bad bunch was Ron Howard's `Willow', and even that achieved little distinction other than that of being a merely mediocre film as opposed to a positively bad one. `Red Sonja', however, cannot achieve the even more modest distinction of being simply a bad film as opposed to an appalling one.<br /><br />As with `Willow', many of the plot-elements in `Red Sonja' are derived from `The Lord of the Rings'. An evil ruler seeks to gain control of an artefact with supernatural powers in order to achieve an ambition of world domination, but is thwarted by an assorted group of heroes. The film, set in the Hyborian Age, a barbaric era in the earth's remote past, starts with the villain of the piece, the wicked Queen Gedren, making unwelcome sexual advances to the heroine Sonja. When these are rebuffed, Gedren (not a woman to take no for an answer) reacts by murdering Sonja's parents and brother. (In 1985 it was presumably still considered politically correct not only to make the chief villain a woman but also to make one of the main motives for her villainy frustrated lesbian lust).<br /><br />Gedren's next move is to capture the Talisman, a sort of fluorescent green soccer ball with magical powers, by slaughtering the whole of the scantily-dressed female priesthood charged with protecting it, just as they are about to destroy it because they feel its powers have become too dangerous. Among the dead is Sonja's sister, her sole surviving relative. Sonja herself, however, has not been idle, but has enrolled in a martial arts academy from which she graduates summa cum laude, and sets out to avenge herself. Along the way she teams up with Kalidor, a heroic wandering swordsman-king resembling Tolkien's Aragorn, Prince Tarn, the spoilt child-ruler of a kingdom that has fallen to Gedren's powers, and Falkon, Tarn's loyal servant. The rest of the film is fairly predictable, as Sonja and her allies try to overthrow Gedren and prevent the destruction of the world threatened by the out-of-control Talisman.<br /><br />Just what is it that makes this film so bad? Well, the acting, for a start. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Kalidor gives the sort of typical wooden, poker-faced performance that became his trademark, at least in the early part of his career, complete with heavy foreign accent. Compared with Brigitte Nielsen as the heroine, however, he looks like Laurence Olivier. Miss Nielsen seems to have had even worse language difficulties, delivering every line in the mechanical, toneless voice of someone who has just completed lesson three of a `teach-yourself-English-by-correspondence' course. One wonders if she was hired for the role just to make Arnie look good by comparison. The other characters, while not conducting their own private struggles against the English language, are simply cartoonish caricatures, especially Prince Tarn who must be one of the most obnoxious screen youngsters ever.<br /><br />An even worse fault than the bad acting, however, is the film's almost complete lack of imagination. This is a particularly glaring fault in a fantasy film, as films of this genre need to rely on their imaginative power in order to persuade the audience to suspend the natural feelings of disbelief that would be provoked by a fantastic plot. When we watch Peter Jackson's masterpiece we can persuade ourselves, at least for the next three hours, that we are in Middle-Earth, that elves, wizards and hobbits do exist, and that the fate of the world really does depend upon the destruction of a magic ring. When we watch `Red Sonja' we are persuaded of nothing except that we are watching a bunch of actors with bad accents fighting one another on a hillside for possession of a lime-green football.<br /><br />This lack of imagination even starts with the film's title. The British science-fiction author Brian Aldiss, when challenged about the exotic names given to his characters, replied that there was little point in creating a fictional alien society with its own distinctive culture if you were going to spoil the effect by calling the hero Joe. (Admittedly, Tolkien was able<br /><br />to get away with giving the name Sam to one of his main characters, but that was because Hobbits were supposed to be reassuringly familiar, the Middle-Earth equivalent of tweedy, pipe-smoking Englishmen). Similarly, giving the heroine of a tale ostensibly set in a long-gone barbaric age a common girls' name like `Sonia' (which is how the name `Sonja' is pronounced) is about as appropriate as calling her `Betty' or `Mary-Jane'.<br /><br />The film seems to have been made on a very small budget, which makes me wonder why they bothered at all. Fantasy needs to be done convincingly, or not at all. It was obviously shot in a remote mountain area, with little or no attempt to suggest a distinctive culture. The few buildings we see, such as the temple of the Talisman or Gedren's palace, are obviously cheap sets. We learn that Tarn's capital city has been destroyed by Gedren using the power of the Talisman, but we do not actually see this event; all we see is what might be a thunderstorm taking place on the other side of a hill. At first you wonder how Sonja intends to overthrow an entire kingdom with only a few allies, but when you see how small an army Gedren has at her disposal it becomes more understandable. When an earthquake threatens to destroy the palace, you wonder if this is the Talisman at work or merely a crew member inadvertently leaning against the set. If we can enjoy this film for nothing else, we can at least enjoy it for its inadvertent humour; a fine example of the so-bad-it's-funny school of filmmaking. Ed Wood would have been proud of this one. If it had been shown on Californian television the night before the recall election, Gray Davis would still be governor. 2/10.

I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.<br /><br />I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.<br /><br />Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.<br /><br />Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.<br /><br />Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.<br /><br />"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though." this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, "What about this?" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says "Are you okay?" or "How'd you do that?" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.<br /><br />What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said "Babe?" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.<br /><br />All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.

Yeah, what did I expect? I thought this would be a film about young adults at their turning-point in life, something like "Sonnenallee" or "American Pie", which I liked a lot. I wanted to see a funny film, perhaps with an ironic look on idyllic Wuerzburg. And what did I get?<br /><br />Attention, spoilers ahead!<br /><br />This film starts with a lengthy dialogue which gives you a good hint of what will inevitably follow: more lengthy dialogues. Sometimes I thought Moritz Bleibtreu might have forgotten his text and trying to hide that fact by improvising and just repeating what he was saying before. But as I think of Bleibtreu as one of the better german actors, I believe that this effect really was intended. I think the author wanted to show how boring talking to close friends can be - especially when they are stoned. But really, I don't need cinema to be bored by stoned friends' talk. Boring dialogues make up most of this film.<br /><br />But okay, that's one thing. I can cope with that, I have seen nice films with abominable dialogues, just think of Schwarzenegger's life's work. But the next thing is that characters are cheap and flat and that the storyline is as foreseeable as anything. Just one example (SPOILER!!): Why, do you think, does someone take a garden hose to his hemp-plants deep in the forest? To water them? Of course not, usually you don't find water-pipes deep in forests, do you? The only reason this water-hose is there is that a hunter who happens to come by while the two protagonists are harvesting their dope can be drugged, maltreated and finally filled up with three bottles of Jaegermeister. I truly hated this scene, because it's really violent. Usually, I don't mind violence in films - slapstick-comedies are full of it. But in that sort of comedy there is a silent agreement between the film and you that people don't get hurt if they fall on their faces or get beaten with chairs or things like that. But if that happens in a film which is otherwise realistic enough, slapstick-scenes also seem real. In this particular scene in "Lammbock" I really thought that this hunter must be badly injured, if not dead - the final scene really invoked in me the impression that he is left to die there, totally filled up with more booze anyone could handle. And the protagonists just walk away. It would have been otherwise if the author had consistently followed one style; the scene could have been quite funny.<br /><br />Talking about being consistently - that's what I missed most about this film. The whole film seems to be a listing of small episodes that came to the author's mind. Things just happen without a apparent reason - yeah, I know, that's life, but that's not cinema, because cinema is meant to tell a story, not to show boring episodes without any significance. I found myself asking "Where's the point?" all the time. Characters besides the two main ones are not elaborated, you never get to know why the protagonist's sister wants to sleep with his best friend Kai, in fact, she tells you but I could not buy it, not at all. I think she just was there to give Kai an opportunity to act this childish AIDS-test sketch, which you sure have seen a thousand times before, and mostly better. The protagonist's girlfriend you meet once, then she leaves Germany (what you don't even see and the guy doesn't seem to care) and finally it is mentioned in one sentence that she has met someone else in America and splits up with the protagonist. It seemed to me that the author wanted to tie up a few loose ends. He actually didn't, you never really get to know what's so bad about studying law, being daddy's son (daddy fixes everything in the end and serves coffee in the middle of the night, which to my mind made him one of the nicer characters in the whole film) and living in beautiful Wuerzburg. Even the dinner with daddy's layer-friend, which maybe was intended to show how horrible it is to have to live up to dad's expectations, seemed flat, just another nice dinner with the family's friends (except for the trip the guy is on later, but I think showing that eating dope before you dine with parents isn't healthy was not the point of this scene, if there was any). I have experienced far worse dinners in my life than this one and still finished my exams. I couldn't understand one single character in the whole film, they just seemed flat and implausible.<br /><br />All this made it a not-so-good film, but not one I wouldn't watch again on television. It really had a few good scenes (most of them were not new, though, like the one with the nice and understanding policemen), some were really funny, some dialogues were nice and I like Bleibtreu's play, although he repeated his well-known stereotypes again this time. Not good, not abominable, that's what I thought after the film was half over.<br /><br />But then came this incest scene and this I really found repulsive. Incest simply isn't funny. I don't even know if this was intended to be funny, some people in the audience laughed, so it could have been meant this way. This scene spoiled the whole film for me, I couldn't feel sympathy for the protagonist any more - I can't feel sympathy for anyone who f**** a helpless person, to me, this is rape and rape isn't funny. So it might have been a hint of drama or so, but the incest is never again mentioned (although we thought this could have been one reason for the protagonist to leave Germany in the end, but as it is never mentioned again, we don't know.), it is even totally unnecessary. I almost expected the sister to become pregnant in the end, which would just have added the finishing touch to this tasteless story, but not even this final cliche is fulfilled, just as nothing is really solved or thought through to the end in this film. It isn't really funny, it isn't really a drama, it isn't at all a road movie a la Tarantino despite desperate tries on violence, it is definitely not enjoyable.<br /><br />Skip this film. Watch "Final Fantasy", that's also bad, but at least with beautiful pictures and not that tasteless.

Wrestlemania 6, is an entertaining Wrestlemania, if not an entirely successful one. The Ultimate Challenge, is of course worth the price of admission alone, but once again as with a lot of the early Mania's, there's too much filler in between. The crowd pops for almost everything, and as always, giving us the reliable announcing team of Gorilla&The Body. Having a Face vs Face match as the main event for a Wrestlemania, was absolutely unheard of at this time, it only made things that much more tense. <br /><br />Matches. <br /><br />Koko B. Ware/W Frankie Vs "The Model" Rick Martel. For a 3 or so minute match, this is as good as it gets. I wish it was a tad longer, but what I got, was pretty damn good. Martel wins, with the Boston Crab.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Tag Team Championship. Demolition Vs Colossal Connection|C|/W Bobby Heean. HUGE Pop for Demolition. Match itself is pretty dull, I often had trouble paying attention. Andre really didn't do much, so in a way it was more like a 2 on 1. There is solid talent involved here, and it's a shame they couldn't produce better. Demolition wins that titles, with there Pattened maneuver off the top. Crowd blows the roof of for the finish.<br /><br />1 1/2 /5<br /><br />Earthquake/W Jimmy Hart. Vs Hercules I got what I expected here, a standard boring filler match, with Earthquake doing his thing. I'm not really a fan of either, so It didn't perk my interest much. Quake wins with his sit down splash.<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />Brutus Beefcake Vs Mr.Pefect/W The Genius. Deafening pop for Bruti. Really good match up, with sadly not enough time given to develop even further. It really kept my interest, and remains one of my favorites on the card. Beefcake wins with a slingshot to the post, much to the crowd's approval.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Roddy Piper Vs Bad News Brown. HUGE pop for Piper. Nothing more than a boring brawl, that does not know what it wants to be. Some entertaining antics from The Hot Rod, but nothing else. Noteworthy for Roddy painting himself half black, and calling himself "Hot Scott"<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />The Hart Foundation Vs The Bolsheviks. Record breaking, but other than that, nothing to see here. Harts win with, The Hart Attack.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />The Barbarian/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Tito Santana. Average for the time it got, but watchable nonetheless. Crowd was rather dead for it, except for Heenan's interference. Jessie's hilarious cracks, about Tito's food is more entertaining, then the match itself. Barbarian wins with a nasty looking, flying clothesline off the top.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Mixed Tag Match. Dusty&Sapphire/W Elizabeth. Vs Macho King&Sherri. Big pop for Dusty, and an even bigger one for Elizabeth, who looks absolutely stunning, might I add. I thought it was OK. It was lively at least, if nothing that great. I'm not a fan of Dusty' so. Dusty and Sapphire win, when She rolls up Sherri.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />The Orient Express/W Fuji. Vs The Rockers. Crowd is rather anemic for this, surprisingly. Decent no doubt, but with these guys involved, it should have been better. The constant focus with Fuji, kinda detracts from the match. Express wins by count out, when Janetty gets nailed with salt.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Jim Duggan Vs Dino Bravo/W Earthquake&Jimmy Hart. Duggan like an idiot, brings out The American flag in Canada. Duggan gets some solid boo's for it too, but that also may be due to Bravo's Canadian heritage. Crappy match all around, I don't care for Duggan, but that's not why it sucked. Too short in the end, to really matter. Duggan wins when he whacks Bravo in the back, with the two by four. Duggan gets splashed for his troubles.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />Million Dollar Championship. Ted Dibiase|C|/W Virgil. Vs Jake Robers/W Damien. Some slow spots, but when all was said and done, I had a good time. Two solid wrestlers giving it there all, resulted in an entertaining match up. Crowd noticeably gets Ancy during parts of it though, by doing the wave. Dibiase wins by count out. Jake has the last laugh, by giving away some of his money, much to the crowd's delight.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Big Bossman Vs Akeem/W Slick. Nice pop for The Bossman. Too routine, and too short to really mean anything, in the end. Akeem was a gimmick, I was never too fond of. Bossman wins with his slam.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />The Rhythm&Blues segment was pretty much a failure. Crowd wasn't into it<br /><br />Rick Rude/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Jimmy Snuka. For a filler match, before the main event, this wasn't too bad. If it had time to get going more, it would have been excellent, for sure. Rude wins, with the Rude Awakening.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Title For Title. Ultimate Warrior|IC Champ| Vs Hulk Hogan|WWF Champ| This one is all about the atmosphere from the crowd, and the split crowd reaction, for the most part. Warrior got a pretty decent pop, but in my opinion it was a little underwhelming. Hogan dwarfs it completely,with his. It's one of Wrestlemania's best matches in history. With two people, who aren't really known for there wrestling, they managed to create an amazing match up that was talked about for ages. I have seen this many times, and my respect level grows higher for each one, for their effort, considering i'm not a fan of either. Even die-hard fanatics who crave pure wrestling, can't bitch about this one!. Warrior wins with his splash. <br /><br />5/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Wrestlemania 6 is an entertaining entry, if nothing overly special. It's memorable for the main event, the location, and the crowd, but it's not one of the best if you ask me. That being said I do enjoy it, and I give it my recommendation to fellow wrestling fans.<br /><br />7/10

The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: "WANTED! Runaway Robot!" ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word "Heartbeeps" inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying "Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!" "So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?" THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.<br /><br />During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would "load up on breakfast, and fast" during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style puréed food via tubes? <br /><br />Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless "smoke" for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created "steam" around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke. <br /><br />John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered "The Empire Strikes Back" score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say! <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a "purpose" programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and "die." They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as "death," with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets "a purpose!" AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry. <br /><br />At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their "bartender." Val's and Aqua's new "daughter," Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp. <br /><br />There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better.

Watching Stranger Than Fiction director Marc Forster's The Kite Runner is the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because this art-house epic rated PG-13 is good for your movie-going diet. No, this isn't the kind of movie that I like to slouch on the couch and eyeball at the end of a tough day. The Kite Runner isn't your typical mainstream movie designed to entertain you and make you forget about your troubles. First, no celebrity stars appear in it. Second, nothing is cut and dried, black or white, or so outlandish that you don't believe an image that you see. Third, The Kite Runner lapses into subtitles when the characters occasionally speak in their native tongue. Fourth, Forster's film isn't a romantic trifle about boy-wants-girl, boy-loses-girl, and then boy-wins-girl back. Fifth, this foreign language film may make you feel uncomfortable and challenge your assumptions about life, friendship, and survival. The chief themes here are cowardice and redemption. The protagonist commits a cowardly offense in the first half of the action that he must atone for at the cost of his own personal safety and integrity. Right, The Kite Runner is about redeeming oneself for the sins of the past. We're talking about personal accountability, so don't rent or buy this wonderful movie for a boy's night out celebration or something to take the bad taste of the day out of your system. Based on Khaled Hosseini's bestselling novel, this culturally enlightened melodrama about right and down initially looks like one of those light-hearted friendship movies about adolescents in the vein of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Sandlot. About a half-hour into its 127 minutes, this escapade about two youngsters who fly kites in Afghanistan turns dark and unsavory. Nevertheless, if you can handle the remaining hour of the plot, you'll emerge gratified, relieved, and perhaps even entertained. <br /><br />The Kite Runner opens in San Francisco in the year 2000 as our protagonist, Afghan émigré Amir Jan (Khalid Abdalla of United 93) and his wife Soraya (Atossa Leoni of The Florist) receive two boxes of published copies of Amir's first novel. No sooner has Amir had a chance to bask in his triumph of a life-time as a storyteller than the phone jars him from his reverie and he is drawn reluctantly back into a past that is best left forgotten for him. Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub of The Nativity Story) calls Amir from Pakistan to make a request. Rahim was a servant in Amir's household back in the 1970s when Amir lived with his wealthy Pashtun merchant father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi of A Taste of Cherry) in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. "You have one more chance to be good," Rahim informs Amir without sugar coating his request. Basically, Rahim wants Amir to fly to Pakistan and then enter war-torn Afghanistan and rescue Rahim's young grandson Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhty Ari) who is being held a prisoner against his will as a sex slave for Assef (newcomer Abdul Salam Yusoufzai) a cruel Taliban chieftain and Amir's once dreaded adversary. <br /><br />The Kite Runner shifts from San Francisco in 2000 to an extended flashback set in Kabul in 1978 when life was idyllic. Twelve-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and the son of his father's servant, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) love to watch movies, such as John Sturges' western The Magnificent Seven, when they aren't flying kites. Incidentally, this is kite flying like you've never seen kite flying. Not only do the kids fly them, but they also compete with other kids to see who can cut the strings of another kid's kite. The kite fighting flight scenes generate the same kind of excitement that the dog fighting scenes had in Tony Scott's Top Gun. Hassan is Amir's best friend but unlike Amir, Hassan belongs to the reviled Hazara minority. Earlier, young Amir and Hassan had a confrontation with young Assef (Elham Ehsas) and his two flunkies. Assef was about to beat them up, but Hassan pulls out his slingshot and threatened to use it on Assef. Assef had no choice but to back down. Meanwhile, Amir was prepared to suffer the hand fate had dealt him. Amir's father Baba laments his son's lack of spine and fears that he will grow up half of a man because he is a coward, unlike the plucky little Hassan who bails Amir out of predicaments. Anyway, Amir and Hassan emerge from the showdown with Assef without a scratch. Later, after Amir sets a new record with his kite flying and fight skills, Hassan runs after a kite to claim it. Hassan is the eponymous character referred to in the title. Hassan claims the fallen kite but he finds himself at the mercy of Assef and his two minions. Assef lets Hassan kept the kite, but his minions pin Hassan spread-eagle, belly down in an alley while Assef sodomizes the youth. Worst, a traumatized Amir watches the assault from nearby but lacks the courage to intervene on behalf of his friend who would have intervened for him.<br /><br />Aside from the extraordinary aerial scenes with the kites, The Kite Runner is down-to-earth, straight-forward stuff. When Amir returns to Afghanistan to rescue Sohrab, he masquerades as a Taliban fighter but he doesn't carry a firearm. The rescue scene in The Kite Runner is rather like the escape scene from The Midnight Express. While Forster doesn't explore the local politics or plunge us into the ethnic and cultural issues at stake here. Indeed, Troy scenarist David Benioff had to eliminate some parts of the book and the racial and ethnic prejudices aren't clearly delineated so you have to accept some things on faith. Forster lensed the film in nearly China to give it an authentic look. Forster deserves credit for making this two hour plus epic fascinating. The performances, especially by the children, stand out for their believability. The Kite Runner is a film that you won't easily forget.

It has been widely agreed that Hayao Miyazaki is a master at his craft when it comes to combining rich animation with thoughtful story lines and similarly imaginative characters. His movies, from NAUSICAA, TOTORO, KIKI, LAPUTA, and MONONOKE to the recent HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are all not only gorgeously rendered in terms of art, but in terms of movie-making as well. Can this man do no wrong? Not really, but it is impossible to expect everyone of his movies to always be five star marvels. His newest film, PONYO, an unashamedly family-friendly tale of a "goldfish out of water", is as lushly animated and alive with interesting characters as you would expect... and yet this is the first film of his which treads into "lesser" territory. Don't get me wrong, PONYO is not a bad movie by any means. As mentioned, it is a sight for the eyes and is as charming and adorable as TOTORO and KIKI. The problem is that the story doesn't stay afloat to satisfy anyone eager for another engrossing, in-depth plot.<br /><br />For its opening hour, PONYO is Miyazaki storytelling at its finest, in which a rowdy and overeager young goldfish (who later becomes named Ponyo) makes a forbidden trip to the human world where she is subsequently adopted by a boy her own age named Sosuke (modeled, interestingly, after the director's own son). This does not please Ponyo's father, a mysterious wizard named Fujimoto, who is very angry at the humans for their destruction of the sea (this environmentalist theme is not much different from Miyazaki's other films)... a problem he very much intends to rectify by creating jellyfish from the prow of his submarine. He separates the pair and tries to talk Ponyo into staying underwater with him. The goldfish, however, has already tasted both Sosuke's blood (healing a cut on his finger) AND some of the human food (ham, which she becomes inexplicably addicted to), and of course steals into her father's forbidden potions, transforming into a hyperactive young girl (who is the spitting image of Mei from MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO). This triggers a dangerous tsunami which threatens to engulf the entire world with water. Conspiring with his wife, Gran Mamare, a diaphanous sea goddess who alternatingly shifts from super-sized titan to human-size form, Fujimoto decides to test the two youngsters' love for each other. They do this by elevating the sea to the level of Sosuke's house, prompting the youngsters to set out across their now ocean-infested world in an over-sized toy-boat (made possible by Ponyo's own magical powers).<br /><br />It is at this point where PONYO begins to run out of steam. Although Ponyo and Sosuke are adorable and the scenes involving them are funny and cute, they slow down the film. Where the film really takes on water, unfortunately, is at the climax in which Sosuke must prove his love to Ponyo, presented in a way which is strangely anticlimactic and rushed, bringing an otherwise charming tale to an abrupt halt. This will likely underwhelm viewers expecting another instant masterpiece from the man who has delivered far more interesting finales for many of his other movies. Remember the destruction of Laputa? Satsuki's search for little Mei? Kiki's rescue of Tombo? Porco Rosso's fight with Curtis? The rescue of the Forest Spirit's head? Or even the test between Chihiro and Yubaba? All those resolutions were far more satisfying and felt more complete than this one.<br /><br />On a technical level, PONYO cannot be faulted. The animation is absolutely gorgeous to look at, produced entirely without a single shot of computer-generated-imagery, and naturally Joe Hisaishi provides us with yet another breathtaking musical score; the best moments being the rousing sequences underwater, accompanied by a chorus and a soprano voice. And the backgrounds are lovingly painted and detailed as any other Ghibli movies.<br /><br />Having proved themselves worthy on translating and dubbing Ghibli's previous movies into English with top-quality results, Disney Studios and Pixar once again provide an English dub complete with a mostly capable cast of actors. Frankie Jonas is surprisingly good as Sosuke, sounding very natural and believable throughout. Noah Cyrus as Ponyo, on the other hand, sometimes goes overboard in shouting her lines before eventually settling down toward the end. Leads aside, the rest of the cast includes Liam Neeson as the overprotective Fujimoto (who manages himself unsurprisingly well in the character), Cate Blanchett as Gran Mamare (in an omnipresent tone which is not much different from her Galadriel in LORD OF THE RINGS), Matt Damon as Sosuke's constantly seafaring father Koichi (who is good but nothing to write home about), and Tina Fey as Lisa. Of them, Fey is the best voice in the entire cast, imbuing the character with just the right amount of spirit and personality. Her scenes with Sosuke show real chemistry. On the other hand, Cloris Leachman, who was spectacular as Dola in CASTLE IN THE SKY, is disappointingly wasted as one of three handicapped elderly women (she barely has ANY lines!), who are also voiced by Betty White and Lily Tomlin. Of them, only Tomlin's character, a cantankerous woman named Toki, shows any real personality, but if I were casting the movie, I'd switch Tomlin with Leachman. Probably the only really jarring drawback of the dub is a blasty techno-remix of the film's catchy (but ridiculously repetitive) title song, which thankfully doesn't occur until midway through the closing credits.<br /><br />On the whole, PONYO is a good film; a fine piece of animated work which is perfect for youngsters and family audiences. Due to the loss of momentum toward the end, though, it falls far short of classic status. Since Miyazaki at his least is still better than a majority of other animated films, though, I'll be generous and give PONYO a full star recommendation, because any feature of his is still very much worth watching, particularly on the big screen. (Be sure to catch it in the theaters while you can.)

The Merchant of Venice 8/10<br /><br />(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)<br /><br />As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve. <br /><br />Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.<br /><br />In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.<br /><br />Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.<br /><br />The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).<br /><br />The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.<br /><br />The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support. <br /><br />There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):<br /><br />In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.<br /><br />Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.<br /><br />The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)<br /><br />Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition.

The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin.<br /><br />In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history).<br /><br />Identified by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead," Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.<br /><br />The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.<br /><br />Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.<br /><br />Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power.

Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make things-- life-- work? Writer/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one `gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy, too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story.<br /><br /> Admittedly, Joline has always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597 days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out. When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso, Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance, giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil' over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself.<br /><br /> There's a touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and upbeat look at that thing we call life.<br /><br /> Heather Graham takes hold of this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person, and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around, beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so vibrantly to life.<br /><br /> As Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life.<br /><br /> Overall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo, who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable character.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker (Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8/10.

As I expected would happen, too many reviews of this film (from professionals and amateurs alike) have focused as much if not more on the film's ideology. That's because The Sea Inside (aka Mar adentro) is a film about euthanasia. Specifically, it's a true story about an infamous Galician named Ramón Sampedro, who fought for many years for the right to assisted suicide, who was denied that right by the Spanish constitutional court, and who--well, I don't want to ruin the ending of the film for you.<br /><br />The real life Sampedro catalyzed a national debate on euthanasia in Spain. Now with producer/director/writer/composer/editor Alejandro Amenábar's (Abre Los Ojos, 1997, and The Others, 2001) "biopic", The Sea Inside, another rhetorical aid has been provided in the international debate on this hot button issue.<br /><br />But as I keep saying (to deaf ears?), your opinion, pro or con, on the film's ideology shouldn't affect your rating of the film. You're not supposed to be rating the philosophical or political messages that Amenábar wants to make. You're supposed to be rating the film, as a film. Maybe that's a bit too idealistic, as none of us can likely completely divorce our evaluations from our ideological biases, but idealistic or not, that's the goal.<br /><br />So forget about the philosophical and political issues for a moment. As a film, Amenábar has turned in one of his most elegant and mature works to date. He does not focus on societal debates. He does not focus on Sampedro's legal/political struggles. He focuses on Sampedro as a man, living out his days confined to a bed in his brother's home.<br /><br />Sampedro, played here in an amazing performance by Javier Bardem, was a quadriplegic. As the film begins, he has been a quadriplegic for 26 years. That condition was brought about, as Amenábar shows us through marvelously shot flashbacks, by a diving accident--Sampedro was distracted by a beautiful woman, miscalculated the water, dove in, snapped his neck, and almost drowned. As a quadriplegic he eventually began writing poetry, some of which was published in a book entitled Cartas Desde El Infierno ("Letters from Hell"); in real life Sampedro's book became a best seller in Spain. Perhaps taking Sampedro's artistic work as a cue, Amenábar has created an elegantly poetic film.<br /><br />Most of The Sea Inside is set inside Sampedro's bedroom. The focus in these scenes is Bardem's complex and sublime performance. As a quadriplegic, Bardem is limited to moving his head and talking. He has mastered subtle changes of expression and inflection to convey a deep character with a multifaceted, intellectual approach to life. Bardem and Amenábar have Sampedro often waxing philosophical in understated speech, but there's always a combination of a wicked sense of humor, passion for the aesthetic--including music and women, and a sadness and even occasionally bitterness not far below the surface. Different underlying emotions occasionally break through like waves on the skin of the ocean.<br /><br />The people Sampedro interacts with most frequently facilitate this in complex ways. These others include his sister-in-law, Manuela (Mabel Rivera), who has been his chief caretaker since Sampedro's accident; his brother, José (Celso Bugallo), who is one of the vocal objectors to Sampedro's wish to die, and with whom there is an underlying unresolved issue (it seems like maybe José was the one to save Sampedro from drowning?); his nephew, Javier (Tamar Novas), who is perhaps the most understanding towards him; a right-to-die advocate, Gené (Clara Segura); a pro bono lawyer, Julia (Belén Rueda), whom he wanted because she had a degenerative disease, CADASIL (Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy), and would thus by more empathic, and who he falls in love with; and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a local woman who works at a cannery and moonlights as a DJ, who heard about him from the media, who wants to convince him to desire to live, and who falls in love with him.<br /><br />The bulk of the film consists of these characters interacting with Sampedro in his room. There are also a few other ancillary characters, including Sampedro's father, who remains oddly distant, and a notorious and media-conscious priest, Padre Francisco (José María Pou), who does his best to change Sampedro's mind via philosophy/theology (in a scene often mistakenly characterized as "comic"--it has an attendant comic element, but the scene is primarily very serious).<br /><br />That most of the film takes place in Sampedro's room ingeniously gives the couple significant changes in setting greater impact. Sampedro's room has a nice, big window, which he says he is satisfied with as an observation point on the world. Maybe even more importantly, he regularly imagines the window as a launching pad through which he flies across the hillsides to the ocean, which he always loved, and which has been the most influential force in his life--it provided his living when he was younger and took his mobility away. Amenábar gives us a fantastical sequence of Sampedro imagining one of his flights to the sea. It is beautifully shot, with low angles (presumably from a helicopter) of the hills rushing by, until we follow a stream to the wide-open ocean, which in this film represents freedom, the infinite, and natural forces.<br /><br />The other significant change of setting arrives with Sampedro finally taking to a wheelchair (he otherwise refused them, saying they "mocked his immobility") to make an appearance in court to help plead his case. Amenábar gives us a poignant, melancholy travelogue, shot subjectively, of Sampedro viewing life and the world in action from the car window.<br /><br />Whether you agree with legalizing euthanasia or not, it's difficult to deny that this is a well-acted, well-scripted and well-constructed film. You may not believe that it's a ten (and that's even more unlikely if you disagree with legalizing euthanasia), but it's still worth watching as a fine example of artistic, sophisticated film-making.

"Buffalo Bill, Hero of the Far West" director Mario Costa's unsavory Spaghetti western "The Beast" with Klaus Kinski could only have been produced in Europe. Hollywood would never dared to have made a western about a sexual predator on the prowl as the protagonist of a movie. Never mind that Kinski is ideally suited to the role of 'Crazy' Johnny. He plays an individual entirely without sympathy who is ironically dressed from head to toe in a white suit, pants, and hat. This low-budget oater has nothing appetizing about it. The typically breathtaking Spanish scenery around Almeria is nowhere in evidence. Instead, Costa and his director of photography Luciano Trasatti, who shot another Kinski western "And God Said to Cain," lensed this horse opera in rather mundane setting around Tor Caldara, Lazio, Italy and Monte Gelato Falls, Treja River, Lazio, Italy. Nevertheless, "The Beast" qualifies as a Continental western because it deals with wholly unscrupulous characters and the action could be classified as film noir because the hero and heroine are trapped by intolerable circumstances that compel them to resort to criminal activities. Predictably, their well-laid plans backfire owing largely to the Kinski character. Indeed, the licentious Kinski character resembles a Wily E. Coyote type character. Consistently, he struggles to have sex with several beautiful women but either lawmen or outlaws frustrate each of his efforts. Ultimately, "The Beast" amounts to a tragic character study brimming with irony. The Stelvio Cipriani orchestral score sounds as if it were lifted by the Tony Anthony western "The Stranger Returns." The Mario Costa screenplay takes place on the western frontier between San Diego and Mexico that is being terrorized by a notorious Mexican bandit called Machete (Giovanni Pallavicino of "We Still Kill the Old Way") and his gang. They prey on the stagecoach and nobody is safe from their depredations. The first time that we see 'Crazy' Johnny Laster he pauses to refresh himself at a stream and spots a gorgeous looking woman washing clothes. He creeps up behind her and attacks her, but a bigger man armed with a rifle intervenes and he has to flee. He shows up in a nearby town and a snuff-snorting gunslinger recruits him to help ambush a wealthy man, Mr. Powers, on the trail and rob him. They wind up killing him and getting no money. Mr. Snuff-sniffer accidentally leaves his snuff box at the scene of the crime and the sheriff arrests on suspicion of murder. 'Crazy' shoots his accomplice from his hotel room so that he doesn't have to worry about being implicated in the crime.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a young couple in love are having trouble making their way in the world. Riccardo (Steven Tedd of "Requiem for a Bounty Killer") lives a Mexican couple on their ranch and helps them raise their real son Juan. In the village, Riccardo's lovely girlfriend Juanita (Gabriella Giorgelli of "Stranger in Sacramento") sings and dances in the cantina. Riccardo and Juanita plan to marry, but the last place that Juanita wants to settle down is on a dusty ranch. She dreams of living in the city, but life in the city requires more money than either Riccardo or she has. They team up with a blond outlaw name Glen (Paolo Casella of "Shoot the Living and Pray for the Dead") and they plan to kidnap Mr. Power's daughter Nancy when she comes to get her inheritance. Glen makes the fatal mistake of enlisting 'Crazy' Johnny to help them because Glen knows that Johnny needs the money to get women.<br /><br />They abduct Powers' daughter and keep her at a remote cabin with Johnny standing guard over her. Meantime, Juanita masquerades as Powers' daughter and shows up in town to get the money from Powers' attorney Gary Pinkerton (Giuliano Raffaelli of "Blood and Black Lace"), but he grows suspicious because Juanita doesn't look anything like he remembered Nancy. Riccardo brandishes his six-gun and warns Pinkerton that they have kidnapped Nancy. Unfortunately for Riccardo and Juanita, Pinkerton can only lay his hands on $50-thousand because Machete has struck such fear into the hearts of everybody that the Powers' total inheritance cannot be shipped through the territory by stagecoach. Meanwhile, back at the cabin, horny Johnny tries to rape Nancy, but she outsmarts him, knows him out with a chair on the pretense of needing to be alone while she undresses. After she knocks him unconscious, she steals a buggy and drives it back to town. Johnny recovers, pursues her and murders her about the same time that Glen, Riccardo, Juanita, and Pinkerton meet him on the trail. They inform Johnny about the complications created by Machete's reign of terror and give him $12-thousand as his cut of the money. Pinkerton is aghast at the sight of Nancy's bloodstained corpse and threatens Johnny. Naturally, Johnny guns him down in cold blood on the spot.<br /><br />Things really begin to deteriorate as the law in San Diego sets out to capture Machete. Glen, Riccardo, and Juanita return to Mexico while Johnny attacks two women at a ranch and narrowly escapes getting caught. He rides to Mexico, finds a cantina whore and is going down on her when a bounty shoves a revolver in his face. Johnny confesses that he knows where they can find more money if they will release him. Machete's men follow up on Johnny's tip and capture Juanita. The villagers join Riccardo to attack Machete and Johnny rescues Juanita but she dies later on after a big shoot-out. Riccardo is left standing alone now. Machete and his men retaliated against his step parents, not only killing them but also little Juan. Everything that Riccardo and Juanita dreamed up having goes up in clouds of gun smoke for an unhappy ending. 'Crazy' Johnny dies and never gets to assuage his lust. If you think about Costa's uncompromising sagebrusher, "The Beast" emerges as an interesting character study and an exercise in film noir in a western setting where everybody is punished.

Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in "Asylum of Satan" director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer "Sheba Baby," co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. "Sheba Baby" is one of several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," and "Friday Foster." The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help her take care of business. Unfortunately, "Sheba Baby" isn't nearly as good as the blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill. Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," "The Big Bird Cage," and "The Big Doll House." Anybody that analyzes images of African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief problem with "Sheba Baby" is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks. Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: "Anything worth having is worth stealing." Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason warbling it, is "Good Man Is Gone." "Sheba Baby" casts Grier as stylist Chicago gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of "Detroit 9000"), is having trouble with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of "Hammer") who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die.<br /><br />Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of "Horror High"), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot. Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his problems without her interference. "Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job, but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman," Sheba tells him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin.<br /><br />Later, Pilot sends a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office. These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson (Charles Kissinger of "Abby") and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of "Cleopatra Jones"), and pries information out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of "The Hellcats"), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes him as "the guy with all the right answers." "Sheba Baby" isn't top-notch Pam Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick.

If anyone ever assembles a compendium on modern American horror that is truly worth it's salt, there will *have* to be an entry for SF Brownrigg's ubiquetous exercize in Asylum Horror. Every time I watch this movie I am impressed by the complete economy of the film, from the compact, totally self-contained plot with a puzzling beginning and an all too horrible ending, the engaging performances by what was essentially a group of non-professional actors, and a prevading sense of dread and claustrophobia that effectively consumes the narrarive with a certain inevitability which is all the more terrifying because the viewers know what is going on long before the hero[es], with the only question being when are they going to wake up & smell the coffee?<br /><br />Shot on a dental floss budget in Brownrigg's native Texas at an old palatial manor that nicely serves as the setting for a private sanitorium, DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is another intriguing twist on the good old Edgar Allan Poe tome about inmates taking over the asylum just before an otherwise "normal" outsider unwittingly joins the ranks without realizing until it is far too late that not all is what it seems, they are totally cut off & beyond any outside help, and inevitably find their own sanity questioned as the madness spins out of control -- The Original STAR TREK TV series had a go at this with their WHOM GODS DESTROY episode from 1968, Juan Moctezuma gave the proceedings a peyote fueled Mexican psychedelic trip in DR. TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON in 1972, and tangentially related is Fernando Di Leo's ASYLUM EROTICA/SLAUGHTER HOTEL, which injects the elements of an unknown killer and an ending that can only be defined as "Splatter Cinema" -- Brownrigg may not have seen or been thinking of SLAUGHTER HOTEL, but he sure came up with some similar ideas.<br /><br />Legaliciuos former Playboy Playmate Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, RN in Clinical Psychology, who has just left her nice job as a supervisor at a major hospital to travel way out into the middle of some god forsaken waste right out of a Peckinpah movie to work with a Dr. Stevens at his private sanitorium. Dr. Stevens has pioneered a new form of therapy based upon basically encouraging the emotionally & psychologically scarred to face their inner obsessions, bring them to the surface and hopefully rid the patients of whatever has fried their sense of reasoning. Nice idea, but arming a 6ft 250 pound utterly insane man with an axe and telling him to pound out his aggression AND THEN TURNING YOUR BACK ON HIM probably isn't the smartest idea, and Dr. Stevens is dispatched before Ms. Holotik even appears onscreen with a good whack to the lower portion of his skull.<br /><br />This event leaves the sanitorium effectively in the hands of one Geraldine Masters [actress Annabelle Weenick, who also served as the script supervisor & production manager], a woman of startlingly professional demeanor who quickly defuses the situation with the help of Sam, the film's wonderfully unlikely hero, a lobotomized African American boheomouth played by an actor named Bill McGhee who was sadly robbed of a supporting Oscar nomination for his turn as a mass of muscle with the brain of an 8 year old boy. Sam's one wish is to have someone help him put his prized toy boat "in the water", and his continual asking of the various female cast members to do so [and his nonstop consumption of chocolate popsicles] as *SOME* kind of underlying theme, though we will avoid such here because the kids might still be up. There is also a quick subplot about a staff member who has decided to leave after being threatened by one of the patients, but I'll leave the details of that to your discovery.<br /><br />Ms. Holotik arrives just as Dr. Stevens has been effectively laid to rest and is quickly won over by the snappy professionalism of Ms. Masters, who reluctantly allows the leggy young nurse to stay on in spite of the tragedy that has just happened, oh, TWENTY MINUTES AGO, which you must admit was rather sporting of her. Holotik's Nurse Beale begins to demonstrate symptoms of not being the sharpest meat cleaver in the drawer, however, when informed that she shares living quarters with a bunch of maniacs and there are no locks on the doors & doesn't trudge off for the nearest Ace Hardware Store to pick up a hasp and padlock to secure herself, and we are treated to a couple of truly creepy scenes where some of the inmates sneak into her room & do stuff like smell her hair, try to kill her with butcher knives and caress her neck with axe heads. But that's all a part of working in such a radical psychiatric health care environment, Ms. Master's informs her, and she goes about her oddly defined "rounds" that consist of wearing as leg defining a nurse outfit as you can find in a 42nd Street fetish boutique and getting to know the inmates.<br /><br />Allysson is a obsessive compulsive nymphomaniac with homicidal tendancies who likes to take off her shirt & provide the film with some T & A between fits of histrionics; Harriet is a young former mother who let her child die in a stupid accident and now dotes on a beat-up old doll that she is also homicidally protective of; The Seargant is an actual seargeant [and implied Vietnam vet] who's negligence led to the death of his platoon, and now watches from the window with binoculars for the approach of an unseen enemy; Jennifer is a Phish fan who couldn't score a ticket to the New Year's Eve Show and went insane & likes to scarf down nembutols and other barbituates when nobody is looking, and likewise has hidden homicidal tendancies linked to her inability to find a bra; Judge Cameron is apparently a homicidal pervert who became obsessed with his own sense of power and now likes to chop things up with axes; Ms. Callingham is an aged poet who serves as a sort of soothsaying old hag from MACBETH before the cat gets her tongue; and Danny is an insane idiot who was included in the cast as the random element that the plot cannot control, and who's antics serve as the real catalyst for the series of tragedies & murders that ultimately take place in this dark, old, creepy house in the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />The house itself is a wonderful set, with a threadbare early 1970's decor that is remarkable in it's unremarkableness, with a fantastic use of color achieved by subtle ambient lighting. The house is a series of hallways and rooms with shiny brown wooden floors, twisting, confined stairways, secreted closets and passageways leading to the different larger areas, and of course the basement mentioned in the title -- visited only once, but boy it sure proves to be a doozy! I love the frosted old freezer where Sam keeps his stash of popsicles, the utterly plain exteriors that remind me of a summer home our family used to visit every year & force us to swelter in the heat: Everyone is covered with beads of persperation and looks exhausted, and even the ever cheerful Sam at one point begins to suspect that bad things are happening, though he cannot understand what it all means and Rosie H. is too firm in her belief of her profession to even suspect what has really happened, and while Ms. Holotik's limitations of an actress may have diminished the effectiveness of her Big Revelation scene, she's a great screamer when all Hell starts to break loose, and Brownrigg indulged of some nice camera shots of her in various suggestive poses or stages of undress that show off what a pretty lady she is without exposing anything more than her contract stipulated. Too bad!<br /><br />The real show stealer is Sam, however, and fans of what I have been taught to refer to as Splatter Cinema will not be disappointed by the rather shocking finale, and there is something moving about how Sam runs to the protection of his friend and brutally kills everyone within arms reach in a matter of seconds that either suggests he was one mean motha before his lobotomy, or the film is CUT. In any event you won't be prepared for the ending the first time you see it, even though you as the viewer know what the score is long before anyone else in the film has put it all together.<br /><br />Except for one person: Rhea MacAdams' uproariously stereotyped old coot Mrs. Callingham [who seems to be inspired by the Donald Sutherland Old Woman character from the Michael Reeves' 1964 Christopher Lee film CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, in addition to a rather nasty death by round spike to the eye], who not only predicts the future, but has the film's most laugh out loud amusing bit of dialogue while on a walk in the garden with Ms. Holotik that runs something like this --<br /><br />"It's really beautiful out here. Do you get out much, Mrs. Callingham?" asks Holotik, to which the old woman replies<br /><br />"It's YOU who needs to get out."<br /><br />Hilarious, and one of those things you gotta kind of see for yourself to "get". DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is available on at least a half dozen "bargain bin" codefree DVD releases by companies like Brentwood Home Video, Diamond Entertainment, VCI and Platinum Disc Corp.'s HORROR CLASSICS series; I kind of like Alpha Video's sexily gorgeously decorated $6 release from 2003:<br /><br />Dig through those bargain bins! But make sure you get one with the 89/90 minute print contained therein; an older 83 minute version is downright confusing due to some of the trims, and you really need to see the ending credits as intended to bring this sick, twisted and surprisingly entertaining yarn to it's end.<br /><br />Masterpiece? Maybe not compared to THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it is a very uniquely American horror film, and a genuine classic of the drive-in age that deserves to be rediscovered by anyone looking for something made with more than just a little bit of brain juice, and not a penny more than they absolutely needed.<br /><br />***1/2 out of ****

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, isn't much different at all from the previous games (excluding Tony Hawk 3). The only thing new that is featured in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, is the new selection of levels, and tweaked out graphics. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x offers a new career mode, and that is the 2x career. The 2x career is basically Tony Hawk 1 career, because there is only about five challenges per level. If you missed Tony Hawk 1 and 2, I suggest that you buy Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, but if you have played the first two games, you should still try this one. Overall, there really isn't anything new, but it is still very fun to go through the game. Hopefully this review benefits your needs.<br /><br />Graphics: 7 out of 10 Overall, the clean visuals isn't really one of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's main characteristics. The atmosphere has been changed around a lot from Tony Hawk 1 and 2, and the character models look a little bit improved. When you look back to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2 on the old PS1, the thought that those old graphics are ugly run through your head. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, the graphics are rendered A LOT better. The character models are no longer filled with jaggys, the textures are more smooth, but not to the farthest extent. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's visuals do not compare to Tony Hawk 3's graphics, but Activision probably didn't want to make Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x have extraordinary graphics. Overall, the graphics deserve an average score of 7 because they did not put the full power of the Xbox to use in here. Graphics are nice, and clean, that's all I have to say.<br /><br />Sound: 8 out of 10 The sound effects don't deliver much to the imagination, but the skateboards popping off of the ground sound great. The main reason why I gave the sound factor a rating, was because you are not obligated to listen to the below average Tony Hawk soundtrack, because there is a custom soundtrack feature. The sound effects sound a lot better than the sounds in Tony Hawk 1 and 2, mainly because it is more clearer, and just the fact that everything sounds great. One of the main reasons why I bought this game, is because of the custom soundtrack. The grind sound effects still sound the same as the first two games did, just a little tweaked out. One of the major problems of the sound factor, is the fact that if the song is over, it will NOT proceed to the next track, the song that you have just listened to will just play over again. I don't like the in-game soundtrack, but like I said, you are not obligated to listen to it.<br /><br />Controls: 10 out of 10 The controls are the best part of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x. The control set-up is marvelously comfortable, and easy to get used to. Back in the Playstation days, people thought that the controls were the best ever, but it looks like 2x has done a better job with the Xbox control. Surprisingly, it is very easy to use the control stick to execute tricks. Activision has done great work with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's controls. They have made the Xbox controller the best for Tony Hawk games. You will not be disappointed with the control style, and that is a guarantee.<br /><br />Game play: 10 out of 10 Excluding the fact that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is basically Tony Hawk 1 and 2 put together, the game play is still unbelievably fun. The game play factor has been changed around a bit. This time, you get A LOT more air than in the first two games, and it is a lot easier to perform tricks. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, each character has three career modes, consisting of Tony Hawk 1 career, Tony Hawk 2 career, and the 2x career. Tony Hawk 1 career is rather easy because in the first game, you get NOTHING for air. The Tony Hawk 2 career delivers the same amount of difficulty as the playstation version did. The only amount of difficulty that applies to the 2x career, is finding out where all items are, but after you've done that, 2x career is no hard at all. In the 2x career, there is a total of 3 levels, and the first two levels consist of finding the secret tapes, collecting S-K-A-T-E, and doing whatever else is required for that particular level. The third level out of the three, is the competition level, where you have to get a certain amount of points to get the gold. In the first two levels, the secret tapes, and collecting the letters S-K-A-T-E, are featured in both of them. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x still maintains the old Tony Hawk's Pro Skater vibe.<br /><br />Story: -<br /><br />Fun factor: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the most funnest game on Xbox today. I have played Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2, and back then, I didn't like them, but for some reason, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is really fun. There really isn't much to say, except that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the best game on Xbox today. One problem, is that if you've already gone through the game once, you will play it a couple more times, but it will be repetitive.<br /><br />Replay value: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x delivers a high amount of replay value. There is a lot of cheats to unlock, and a lot of character videos. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x has lots of replay value, mainly because it is so fun.<br /><br />Best feature: You are not obligated to listen to the crappy in-game soundtrack. Worst feature: The custom soundtrack is a bit messed up.<br /><br />Final Statement: Lots of people have complained in the past that they didn't like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x because there is nothing new, but they should stop complaining because your getting a lot of game for $50.00.<br /><br />Graphics: 7 out of 10. Sound: 8 out of 10. Control: 10 out of 10. Game play: 10 out of 10. Story: N/A Fun factor: 10 out of 10.<br /><br />Overall score: 9 out of 10.

'The Merchant of Venice' is one of Shakespeare's better-known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. Incredibly, however, this film would seem to be the first-ever English-language version made for the cinema rather than television. There were a number of versions made in Britain or America during the early days of the cinema, but these were all silents.<br /><br />The reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play's alleged anti-Semitism, a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. (This may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era; in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray Shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). Yet in my view the film is not anti-Semitic at all. It should be remembered that during Shakespeare's lifetime there was no settled Jewish community in England; the Jews had been expelled by Edward I in the late 13th century, and were not permitted to return until the time of Cromwell, some forty years after Shakespeare's death. As far as we know, Shakespeare never travelled abroad, so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any Jews personally or experienced the effects of anti-Semitism at first hand. The play is not simply about the Jewish question, but is, among other things, an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. It may, in fact, be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England (something of which Shakespeare certainly would have had first-hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them.<br /><br />Then as now, traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes had always depicted Jews as avaricious, but Shylock's principal sin is not avarice; if it were, he would certainly have accepted Bassanio's offer to pay him six thousand ducats, twice the amount borrowed by Antonio. Rather, Shylock's besetting sin is anger, and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow-Jews are treated by the Christians of Venice. Not only are Jews in general regarded as second-class citizens, but Jewish moneylenders such as Shylock are particular targets for abuse, even though the services they provide are necessary to the Venetian economy. The play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. Not only do views of this sort corrupt the Christians who hold them, they can also corrupt the Jews who suffer abuse. Shylock's vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. By spitting on him and calling him a dog, Antonio behaves like a boorish bigot, but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. Moreover, Shylock seeks to revenge himself on Antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that Antonio has done towards him, but also for all the wrongs, real and imaginary, that he has suffered at the hands of the Christian community, such as his daughter's marriage to Lorenzo. <br /><br />It is to the credit of the film's director, Michael Radford and of its star, Al Pacino, that they understand all these issues. Pacino's Shylock has, initially, a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally, after his humiliation in the trial scene by Portia's reasoning, to pathos. We see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction, but we can still sympathise with him. In my view, none of Pacino's performances that I have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two 'Godfather' films (not 'Scent of a Woman', for which he won an Oscar, and certainly not 'Godfather III'), but 'The Merchant of Venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. The other acting performance that stood out was Lynn Collins's luminous Portia, speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. I was less impressed with Jeremy Irons's Antonio, who seemed too passive. Antonio is a complex character; part loyal friend, part melancholy contemplative, part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. Although Irons captured the first two of those aspects, it was difficult to envisage his Antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures. <br /><br />Radford's interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the 'Daily Telegraph' who, although he admired Pacino's performance, disliked the period setting and argued that Shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have 'relevance' for a modern audience, citing a recent stage production which set the action in Weimar Germany. I would disagree profoundly with this approach. The theatre and the cinema are quite different media and, while there have been some striking modernist approaches to Shakespeare in the cinema (Trevor Nunn's 'Twelfth Night' comes to mind), a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (I preferred, for example, Zeffirelli's 'Romeo and Juliet' to Baz Luhrmann's). The idea that we can only appreciate Shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness; we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the Elizabethan society that produced him, but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth-century man.<br /><br />Radford's traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age-old, universal problems, but also makes for a visually striking film. In the play, the scenes set in Venice itself are characterised by turbulent action; those set in Portia's country house at Belmont are happier and more peaceful. In the film, the Venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty, wintry grey skies, similar to the look achieved in 'Don't Look Now'. The candlelit interiors, with faces brightly lit against a dark background, were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a Caravaggio painting; I suspect this was quite deliberate, as Caravaggio was a contemporary of Shakespeare. By contrast to dark or misty Venice, the Belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting Palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight. <br /><br />This is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of recent years; an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. 8/10.<br /><br />A couple of errors. We see a black swan on the water in front of Portia's house. These birds are natives of Australia and were not introduced to Europe until well after 1596, the date when the film is set. Also, the portrait of Portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the Florentine Botticelli, who was active about a century before that date. Lynn Collins may be reminiscent of a Botticelli beauty, but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century Venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century Florence.

(Some spoilers included:)<br /><br />Although, many commentators have called this film surreal, the term fits poorly here. To quote from Encyclopedia Britannica's, surreal means:<br /><br />"Fantastic or incongruous imagery": One needn't explain to the unimaginative how many ways a plucky ten-year-old boy at large and seeking his fortune in the driver's seat of a red Mustang could be fantastic: those curious might read James Kincaid; but if you asked said lad how he were incongruous behind the wheel of a sports car, he'd surely protest, "NO way!" What fantasies and incongruities the film offers mostly appear within the first fifteen minutes. Thereafter we get more iterations of the same, in an ever-cruder and more squalid progression that, far from incongruous, soon proves predictable. Not that it were, on the other hand, literally believable-- but it were unfair to tax Motorama in particular with this flaw, any plausible suspension of disbelief having fallen precipitously on the typical film-maker's and viewer's scale of values ever since "Raiders of the Lost Ark" became a blockbuster.<br /><br />"Hallucinatory": How do we know what a hallucination is if part of having one is not knowing that we are having one? At any rate, some people know that they enjoy "hallucinogenic drugs"-- but if Motorama typifies the result of doing so, then I'm at a loss as to why anyone would take them more than once. There is, of course, the occasional bad trip. The movie must be one of those, pun and all.<br /><br />"Juxtaposition of words that was startling": How many times can a ten-year-old startle you by uttering "Oh, my God!" when he likes something, or "Damn!" when he doesn't? These two interjections are about par for the course with this script. Sadly, any sense of the surreal in what passes for dialogue could only reveal, in direct proportion, one's naivete regarding the speech patterns of the rising American generation.<br /><br />"A world completely defined and minutely depicted but that makes no rational sense:" Motorama's world indeed makes no sense, but it is about as completely defined as a cartoon in an elementary school newspaper. The numerous guest stars in the cast all have cameo roles even less intelligent than our little hero who exclaims "Damn!" in the blink of an eyelash but needs several seconds to concoct the lamest lie. And even *his* character, despite appearing in nearly every scene, gets no significant development. Here's scant reward for any viewer who sympathizes, as I must, enough to wish to know him better and understand 'where he's coming from.' One vaguely senses a far better story and protagonist struggling to get out.<br /><br />"Fully recognizable, realistically painted images are removed from their normal contexts and reassembled within an ambiguous, paradoxical, or shocking framework." No, we see a succession of stereotypical and ever more dilapidated billboards, filling stations, greasy-spoon eateries, cheap hotels, and their lowlife habitues along country highways, exactly where they stereotypically belong.<br /><br />"Largely responsible for perpetuating... the traditional emphasis on content." There is little content, moment-to-moment, in Motorama.<br /><br />To sum up: Picture British millionaires dressed as clowns or pirates on the way to a posh costume party, sitting serene and mute as cautious chauffeurs inch their Rolls-Royces like fragile skiffs through a roiling sea of desperate humanity, Chinese who implore them through the windows and smear the glass with blood. Or imagine a stadium full of abandoned antiques, limousines like those above now rusting, and white pianos tinkled by ghosts. Into this detritus wander an exhausted boy and an ailing woman to whom he clings as mother-figure becoming girl-friend, who fall asleep side by side on the grass. He is awakened-- on the Feast of the Transfiguration, "white and glistering" day 1945-- by a brilliant flash on the horizon that is not the rising sun. Finding that his consort has become a corpse, he first believes that he has witnessed her soul going up to heaven. Later he explains only a little less innocently, 'I learned a new word today: atom-bomb. It's like God taking a photograph.' Now, *there* are just two samples of cinematic surrealism, surrealism whose ironies ripple out far enough to invade its film's very title: Empire of the Sun. If you seek surreal, *please* don't miss it. Alas, however hard he treads on the accelerator to race his chariot through and beyond the desert, no scenes so exquisitely strange, rich, subtle, or gorgeous await Motorama's poor little Gus in his quest.<br /><br />None of the above necessarily constitutes a thumbs-down on this film. Though somewhat disappointed, I can't dismiss it, in view of the respectability of another genre that it does exemplify-- one influenced, to be sure, by surrealism, but also by expressionism, existentialism, and Franz Kafka's pessimism amidst omnipotent power structures. Let's try on for size: Theater of the Absurd.<br /><br />Turning to E.B.'s article on this style, I am amazed by how, to the extent that Theater of the Absurd is a valid artistic style, the above objections to Motorama vanish like a puff of smoke. I'm tempted to quote the entire text as support of the identification.<br /><br />Theater of the Absurd attempts to show "that the human situation is essentially absurd, devoid of purpose... humankind is left feeling hopeless, bewildered, and anxious.": Having instantaneously achieved his purpose of getting away from a depressing home life among bickering parents, Gus finds himself purposeless until he drives past a glittering billboard reading "Motorama" and decides to win the lottery that it promises. As others have already revealed, this ambition proves illusory: although the game "never expires", the sponsoring corporation has no intention that anyone should ever win, and has ways to trick, confuse, and leave crestfallen any aspirant to the reward. He, like others, is ultimately disappointed in his dream.<br /><br />"Absurdist playwrights, therefore, did away with most of the logical structure of traditional theatre. There is little dramatic action as conventionally understood; however frantically the characters perform, their busyness serves to underscore the fact that nothing happens to change their existence... a timeless, circular quality emerges." "Language in an absurdist play is full of... repetitions... repeating the obvious until it sounds like nonsense." Underneath a sometimes "dazzling comic surface," we find "an underlying message of metaphysical distress." Gus's obsession with a silly game, his inane language, the plot device wherein he divines a bleak future and/or returns to an earlier moment and takes a different but still bleak turn-- so much fits now. While an admirer of the surreal would do better with some films, anyway, of Spielberg, admirers of Motorama as it really is should find fellow-travelers-- not instead but addition-- in the works of Beckett, Ionesco, and Genet.<br /><br />But one can't quite stop here. After his disillusionment with the game, Gus returns to "Phil" (i.e., Love), the first attendant he had met and the one person who had treated him decently, although he had also scolded him-- at a service station advertising "Be full-filled!". Under Phil's tutelage he learns a life of waiting for cars. We might note here that the absurdist playwright Beckett had entitled his most famous play "Waiting for Godot," and that for Godot we should read "God." God is one of Phil's preoccupations, too. Furthermore, as the indirect result of his previous encounter with Gus, Phil is badly maimed and goes about in a cast with his arms straight out horizontally. In the last scene, Gus, now Phil's protege, says that he wants to hear music. We hear none, but we see Phil wiggling his fingers at the end of his outstretched arm, beckoning Gus closer, and Gus responds. The End.<br /><br />Finally, on to an author whom I happen to be reading currently, the Anglican theologian William Stringfellow. If this rebel-lawyer is not acknowledged as an architect or undergirder of Liberation Theology, which is more a Roman Catholic than an Anglican movement, perhaps he should be. Police brutality and corporate greed are a cliche in cinema and literature, including Motorama, but Stringfellow supports and illuminates such sentiments with impressive warrants from scripture, tradition, and reason.<br /><br />His most significant work is an expose of the earthly activities of those fallen angels whom the Bible refers to as principalities and powers. Principalities, wrote Stringfellow, are behind all of our popular three I's: Images, Institutions, and Ideologies. All of these commend themselves to our worship by making false promises. The more deeply involved with an image, an institution, or an ideology any person becomes, the more his own personhood becomes "depleted" and be becomes a slave to them. Promising power, control, and immortality, they inexorably deliver helplessness, chaos, and death. As essentially fallen, defeated powers, they can do no more than that. Yet they beguile humans with that "dominion over the earth" promised by God in the book of Genesis, while in fact no one of us controls an image, an institution, or an ideology bent inevitably on its own hegemony and self-preservation. They take on lives of their own. "Dominion" happens to be a mistranslation: a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be "stewardship." But this is a quibble beside a more fundamental problem: Most of us neglect to notice that God had delegated this power to Adam *before* the fall. We have no reason to assume that we, his descendents, still exercise it now: on the contrary, it should be obvious that demonic forces have stolen it from us.<br /><br />One might add two observations of C.S. Lewis: First, that "man's conquest of nature" is a mere illusion, and a ruse to cover the fact that one is really talking about the conquest of some men by other men with nature as the instrument; and secondly, contrary to popular belief, Satan is no kind of good-time Charlie. He may dangle out pleasures at first, but he is very niggardly with them and will withdraw them from any human firmly in his thrall, perhaps leaving his prey sitting in front of the fire feeling miserably sorry for himself and seething with resentment.<br /><br />Now, applying these insights to Motorama, we seem them mirrored remarkably in Gus's experience. He is, if not nice, at least a pretty little boy prior to falling victim to the Motorama game. The first signs advertising it glisten glamorously. The longer he continues, however, and the deeper he journeys towards the sponsoring corporation's headquarters, the more shabby they become. He's lonely, meeting no one else who plays the game. The stations giving out the cards have either fallen into ruins or are staffed by zombies. The people he does meet along the way are more and more ugly, deceitful, and hostile. (The fact that the principalities answer to a common dictator does not mean that they can abide one another). Gus's humanity is leached out of him as he becomes not only totally self-centered and oblivious to the needs of others but partially blinded... disfigured... prematurely aged while infantile in the literal sense of linguistically challenged. Eventually even his precious Mustang is taken from him in a crash, and he must continue in a dead man's wreck. Yet at long last, having done everything he thought was expected, he presents himself to the principality in its proud tower to receive his prize. Using the biblical power to confuse wielded by those who have built such monuments to their own vanity, its agents evade him, disappoint, insult, and finally throw him from the top floor. He FALLS long and hard, landing, finally in a body of water. In other words, in classic symbolism, he DIES. He has met the inevitable bad end of anyone who has put his faith in such a deceiver.<br /><br />But this fate proves to be only a warning look into a mutable future. He repents and returns to Phil, and upon seeing him performs the very first generous, selfless act we have seen from him for almost an hour and a half: noting that Phil is now handicapped and hardly able to insert a hose into a gas tank, he asks, "Can I help you with that?" Then, seeing the "help wanted" sign, he decides to apply for the job, explaining to the motorist with whom he was hitch-hiking that he reckons he'll get out here, because it doesn't look like too bad a place to work.<br /><br />This interpretation is conjectural, of course, and it may surprise or even outrage the film's "cult classic" aficionados who see quite different points in it.<br /><br />If Motorama isn't quite my cup of tea, I'm at least convinced now that it's hardly the worst film ever made.

Back in the mid/late 80s, an OAV anime by title of "Bubblegum Crisis" (which I think is a military slang term for when technical equipment goes haywire) made its debut on video, taking inspiration from "Blade Runner", "The Terminator" and maybe even "Robocop", with a little dash of Batman/Bruce Wayne - Iron Man/Tony Stark and Charlie's Angel's girl power thrown in for good measure. 8 episodes long, the overall story was that in 21st century Tokyo, Japan, year 2032-2033, living machines called Boomers were doing manual labor and sometimes cause problems. A special, SWAT like branch of law enforcers, the Advanced Police (AD Police for short) were formed to handle the boomers, but were mostly ineffective, prompting millionaire scientist Sylia Stingray, the daughter of the scientist who made the boomers, to create four powered combat armor (hard suits) to be worn by women to fight the boomers and fight the evil corporation that produced the boomers, GENOM. That group becomes known as the Knight Sabers, and in addition to ring leader Sylia, her rag-tag band of rebel women included Priss Asagiri, a struggling rock and roll gal with a passion for motorcycles and a disdain for cops, Linna Yamazaki, an aerobics instructor with an eye for money and a tendency to blow through boyfriends, and Nene Romanova, a young officer of the ADP and expert computer hacker (the first in a long line). GENOM, meanwhile, is represented by Quincy, a tall, gaunt old guy who happens to own the company, his younger assistant Brian J. Mason (killed in episode 3) and an annoying boomer man named Largo. Other characters included Leon McNichol and Daley Wong, two AD Police detectives (Leon appeared in a spin-off/prequel anime, "AD Police Files" which I heard was very dark), their balding, overweight boss Chief Todo, Sylia's younger brother Mackey, and a funny little mechanic known as Dr. Raven, who apparently helps Sylia with maintaining the suits. Aside from the overall Knight Sabers & AD Police VS GENOM storyline, there was also another storyline involving a friend of Linna's who was apparently a daughter in a big crime family, the annoying Largo trying to usurp GENOM, and various Priss-wants-revenge-for-a-minor-character story. Oh and did I mention that there were hints that Sylia herself might have been a boomer?<br /><br />Well, it was a great watch, full of chaos and mayhem and even some very nice pop songs, but it was not without its flaws, some of which, unfortunately, were due to the fact that the series was discontinued after episode 8 when it was originally planned for 13 episodes in all. So some of the storylines, like Largo's scheme (or schemes), the family of Linna's ill-fated friend, and Sylia's origins, were never resolved. Another problem with the series was that at the time Priss was the most popular character, so a good portion of the series focused on her, and unfortunately, most of the Priss oriented episodes basically focused on Priss self-righteously seeking justice/revenge for some secondary character who had never appeared before but happened to be a friend of hers, yet she rarely went out of her way for her the Knight Sabers, who were always bailing her out of trouble and for some reason cared a great deal about her well-being (just to be fair though, she did go to rescue Linna in episode 7, and her boyfriend got killed by a boomer and the ADP acted wrongly in the investigation). This meant we didn't really get to focus on the more interesting back story of Sylia, or even the day-to-day antics of Nene and Linna. Linna had two episodes oriented around her, which pertained to her friend with the mafia family, while Nene managed to snag the last episode for herself, which showed her eternal good cheer was genuinely good spirits and not ditziness. Nene also got to put her computer skills to good use quite a bit, or she sometimes just acted like a lovable goof, which put her screen time and character development a few notches above poor Linna, who was often thrust into the background with only her greed and her tendency to eat up boyfriends to get her any attention. Don't get me wrong, I like it and I love the overall concept of it all, but it did irk me a little bit. Also this is one of those runner-ups for "worst English voice dubbing of all time" features, meaning you'd better stick to the Japanese. Some of the voices were okay (some really did match their characters personas) but others were just flat and passionless or, in the case of Priss, really overacted.<br /><br />Well, Tokyo 2040 comes along and pretty much tosses all that out the window. Set a few years ahead, the story here is that after earthquakes shattered Tokyo, GENOM's boomers rebuilt the city into a big old paradise, except the boomers still have a tendency to fly off the handle, which prompts the AD Police to be formed followed by the Knight Sabers being formed. So the overall story is the same, but the backstories of the characters and the look and attitudes of the characters have changed a lot.<br /><br />1) Originally Sylia had short purplish black hair and brown eyes, was usually dressed like a stern, proper business woman and was distant from others. 2040 Sylia has more of a super-model look to her, dressing more provocatively and possessing white hair and blue eyes that seem to change color depending on the light (runs the gamut from blue to purple to silver and eyes occasionally looking purple or gray), and also 2040 Sylia is more of an emotionally unstable woman who flies off the handle when she's not in public, and possibly keeps even more secrets than before. Sylia also doesn't take as much risk on the battlefield, as she is more of a stay-in-the-mobile-pit type here, but she does do battle when she has to.<br /><br />2) Originally Priss was a short woman with an Afro and a really bad temper, always picking fights with people who offended her, always biting off more than she could chew, etc. 2040 Priss, however, has gone the way of the Clint Eastwood loner - very cold, very stoic and emotionally distant (more like the original Sylia you might say), so she's not really attached to anyone. Also her hair is more stingry and cat-like (a big improvement) and she is clad in leather like Trinity from "The Matrix" (although much less annoying than before, unfortunately, the writers screw her in the end when revealing her reasons for hating the ADP).<br /><br />3) Originally Linna had this big black hair going for her, but now her hair is shorter, browner, and, well, more 90s like. 2040 Linna is also an office lady who has bad luck with being sexually harrassed. As if to apologize for the way she was treated by the OAV writers, the 2040 writers actually dedicated the first 6 episodes to Linna, writing her as a country girl new to the city but determined to meet the Knight Sabers and win a spot with them, which she eventually does.<br /><br />4) Originally a short red haired girl who was often the victim of ridicule and ate a lot of candy, Nene is now a short blonde haired girl who likes to tease and take pot shots at ADP detective Leon McNichol (revenge for him toying with her in the OAV?) and other characters, even her surrogate big sister Linna and Mackey, Sylia's "brother", whom she becomes infatuated with. Cockey and arrogant, she still eats a lot of candy and is a master hacker, but she is eventually deflated and grows beyond her comic relief status.<br /><br />5) Nigel Kirkland is a new character, a tall, stoic, ruggedly handsome man with long black hair (he looks like Adrian Paul from TV's Highlander), he replaces Dr. Raven from the old series and now serves as the man who gives maitenance to Sylia's hard suits. Nigel is also Sylia's lover, but you wouldn't know it by his demeanor. He's kind of the father/big brother/mentor figure to Mackey.<br /><br />6) Leon and Daley are back, but of course differently. The original Leon was a tall pretty boy built like a baseball player with slicked back brown hair, blue eyes, a black leather jacket, tight blue jeans, and always carrying a revolver that could magically pack more whallop than a howitzer if necessary; while he wasn't really a bad guy deep down, he was kind of a jerk, but he served mostly as comic relief, as he tried to pursue Priss romantically (exactly what he saw in her is a mystery) but occasionally he and Daley served as information guides to important plot points. Also the original Daley was a fairly muscular red head who dressed in pink/purple suits as he was a flamboyantly homosexual character who was always hitting on Leon when not providing important information. In 2040, Leon is no longer a pretty boy but more your typical rugged tough guy type, with spiked black hair, brown eyes, tall and sporting big muscles, a brown leather jacket and blue dockers (he actually looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger a little bit, or maybe a pumped up Colin Farrell, or Hugh Jackman), and he still carries a revolver, a BIG one, but it's not as powerful as before. Although 2040 Leon still has a bit of an attitude probelm (especially in approaching Priss), he's not nearly as much of a jerk as he was in the old series, but he does have a bad temper and he is easily annoyed by Nene and Daley (also he drinks way too much coffee). Oh, and Leon is still after Priss, but he has a lot more luck this time around. Daley, meanwhile, is now a taller (but not as tall as Leon) more pretty boyish looking guy with red rimmed glasses, a white suit, green eyes, and light brown hair, and he carries a big machine gun (he actually looks like James Marsden from the X-Men films); Daley is a lot smarter and more assertive in 2040 than the OAV and, although it's not completely clear, his homosexual tendencies have been almost totally disappeared, save a moment of what appears to be jealousy when he hears about Leon inquiring about Priss's e-mail.<br /><br />7) Brian J. Mason (what does that "J" stand for?) is back, and so is Quincy, but Mason is much more the main villain here, with Quincy as co-villain, as he is no longer a towering figure of terror but a vegetable with a bunch of batteries and wires plugged into him. Mason now sports slicked back brown hair instead of black hair as he did in the OAV (he actually looks like OAV Leon in a suit) and he is very much from the Alan Rickman school of villains.<br /><br />8) Though a pervert in the first series, Mackey is no longer a pervert in 2040. Of course, there are lots of things different about Mackey in 2040, but they won't be revealed here.<br /><br />9) Sylia now has a companion, an Alfred-the-butler type named Henderson, who worries about her and the gang.<br /><br />10) In the original series, boomers were like the Replicants in "Blade Runner", armed with their own thoughts and feelings and ambitions, but in 2040, they're more of the dumb-monsters-on-the-rampage type. Most of the time they're just big robots who do whatever they're programmed to do (heavy labor, combat, clean up, etc) and they have this tendency to "go rogue", which means try to evolve and become a monster in the process.<br /><br />What does stay the same is the theme of humanity VS technology (do machines have souls?). Sadly, this series, though well animated and well written, only runs 26 episodes, so it moves by faster than one might like, especially those of us who are used to more than one season of our most beloved characters, and unfortunately it still ends on a cliff hanger with unresolved storyline bits (which I will not discuss here. What saves this show and makes it what it is, however, is the characters, a colorful cast of screwballs they are, ranging from stoic loners, psycho women, genocidal mad men, rough neck cops, sardonic intellectuals, wise old sages, and loveable innocents, much more diverse than before and with a lot more to play off of, they're enough to make you wish this show had gone longer.<br /><br />It's not great, but it's a good watch. Also the English dub (by ADV) is quite good, though not without a few flat spots, but certainly better than the dub on the original.

There's a sign on The Lost Highway that says:<br /><br />*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*<br /><br />(but you already knew that, didn't you?)<br /><br />Since there's a great deal of people that apparently did not get the point of this movie, I'd like to contribute my interpretation of why the plot makes perfect sense. As others have pointed out, one single viewing of this movie is not sufficient. If you have the DVD of MD, you can "cheat" by looking at David Lynch's "Top 10 Hints to Unlocking MD" (but only upon second or third viewing, please.) ;)<br /><br />First of all, Mulholland Drive is downright brilliant. A masterpiece. This is the kind of movie that refuse to leave your head. Not often are the comments on the DVDs very accurate, but Vogue's "It gets inside your head and stays there" really hit the mark.<br /><br />David Lynch deserves praise for creating a movie that not only has a beautifully stylish look to it - cinematography-wise, has great acting (esp. Naomi Watts), a haunting soundtrack by Badalamenti, and a very dream-like quality to it -- but on top of it all it also manages to involve the viewer in such a way that few movies have before. (After all, when is the last time you saw a movie that just wouldn't leave your mind and that everyone felt compelled to talk and write about, regardless of whether they liked it or hated it?)<br /><br />Allright, enough about all that, it's time to justify those statements.<br /><br />Most people that have gone through some effort to try to piece the plot together will have come to the conclusion that the first half of the picture is an illusion/a dream sequence.<br /><br />Of course, that's too bad for all those trying to make sense of the movie by expecting "traditional" methods in which the story is laid out in a timely, logic and linear manner for the viewer. But for those expecting that, I urge you to check the name of the director and come back again. ;)<br /><br />MD is the story of the sad demise of Diane Selwyn, a wannabe-actor who is hopelessly in love with another actor, Camilla Rowles. Due to Diane's lack of talent, she is constantly struggling to advance her career, and feels she failed to deliver on her own and her parents' expectations. Upon realizing that Camilla will never be hers (C. becomes engaged with Adam Kesher, the director), she hires a hitman to get rid of her, and subsequently has to deal with the guilt that it produces.<br /><br />The movie first starts off with what may seem as a strange opening for this kind of thriller; which is some 50s dance/jitterbug contest, in which we can see the main character Betty giving a great performance. We also see an elderly couple (which we will see twice more throughout the movie) together with her, and applauding her.<br /><br />No, wait. This is what most people see the first time they view it. There's actually another very significant fact that is given before the credits - the camera moving into an object (although blurry) and the scene quickly fading out. If you look closely, the object is actually a pillow, revealing that what follows is a dream.<br /><br />The main characters seen in the first half of the movie:<br /><br />Betty: Diane Selwyn's imaginary self, used in the first half of the movie that constitutes the "dream-sequence" - a positive portrayal of a successful, aspiring young actor (the complete opposite of Diane). 'Betty' was chosen as the name as that is the real name of the waitress at Winkies. Notice that in the dream version, the waitresses' name is 'Diane'.<br /><br />Rita: The fantasy version of Camilla Rhodes that, through Diane's dream, and with the help of an imaginary car-accident, is turned into an amnesiac. This makes her vulnerable and dependent on Diane's love. She is then conveniently placed in Betty/Diane's aunt's luxurious home which Betty has been allowed to stay in.<br /><br />Coco: In real life, Adam's mother. In the dream part, the woman in charge of the apartment complex that Betty stays in. She's mainly a strong authority figure, as can be witnessed in both parts of the film.<br /><br />Adam: The director. We know from the second half that he gets engaged with Camilla. His sole purpose for being in the first half of the movie is only to serve as a punching bag for Betty/Diane, since she develops such hatred towards him.<br /><br />Aunt Ruth: Diane's real aunt, but instead of being out of town, she is actually dead. Diane inherited the money left by her aunt and used that to pay for Camilla's murder.<br /><br />Mr. Roach: A typical Lynchian character. Not real; appears only in Diane's dream sequence. He's a mysterious, influential person that controls the chain of events in the dream from his wheelchair. He serves much of the same function as the backwards-talking dwarf (which he also plays) in Twin Peaks.<br /><br />The hitman: The person that murders Camilla. This character is basically the same in both parts of the movie, although rendered in a slightly more goofy fashion in the dream sequence (more on that below).<br /><br />Now, having established the various versions of the characters in the movie, we can begin to delve into the plot. Of course I will not go into every little detail (neither will I lay it out chronologically), but I will try to explain some of the important scenes, in relation to Lynch' "hint-sheet".<br /><br />As I mentioned above, Camilla was re-produced as an amnesiac through her improbable survival of a car-accident in the first 10 minutes of the movie, which left her completely vulnerable. What I found very intriguing with MD, is that Lynch constantly gives hints on what is real and what isn't. I've already mentioned the camera moving into the pillow, but notice how there's two cars riding in each lane approaching the limo.<br /><br />Only one of the cars actually hit the limo; what about the other? Even if they stayed clear of the accident themselves, wouldn't they try to help the others, or at least call for help? My theory is that, since this is a dream, the presence of the other car is just set aside, and forgotten about. Since, as Rogert Ebert so eloquently puts it "Like real dreams, it does not explain, does not complete its sequences, lingers over what it finds fascinating, dismisses unpromising plotlines."<br /><br />Shortly after Rita crawls down from the crash site at Mulholland Dr., and makes her way down the hillside and sneaks into Aunt Ruth's apartment, Betty arrives and we see this creepy old couple driving away, staring ghoulishly at each other and grinning at themselves and the camera. This is the first indication that what we're seeing is a nightmare.<br /><br />Although the old couple seem to be unfamiliar to Betty, I think they're actually her parents (since they were applauding her at the jitterbug contest). Perhaps she didn't know them all that well, and didn't really have as good a relationship with them as she wanted, so the couple is shown as very pleasant and helpful to her in the dream. They also represent her feelings of guilt from the murder, and Diane's sense of unfulfillment regarding her unachieved goals in her life.<br /><br />A rather long and hilarious scene is the one involving the hitman. Diane apparently sees him as the major force behind the campaign trying to pressure the director to accept Camilla's part in the movie (from Adam's party in the second half of the movie), and he therefore occupies a major part of her dream. Because of her feelings of guilt and remorse towards the murder of Camilla, a part of her wants him to miss, so she turns him into a dumb criminal.<br /><br />This scene, I think, is also Lynch's attempt at totally screwing his audience over, since they're given a false pretence in which to view the movie.<br /><br />Gotta love that 'Something just bit me bad' line, though. :)<br /><br />The next interesting scene is the one with the two persons at Twinkies, who are having a conversation about how one of them keep having this recurring nightmare involving a man which is seen by him through a wall outside of the diner that they're sitting in. After a little talk, they head outside and keep walking toward the corner of a fence, accompanied of course by excellent music matching the mood of the scene.<br /><br />When reaching the corner, a bum-like character with a disfigured face appears out from behind the corner, scaring the living crap out of the man having the nightmare. This nightmare exists only in Diane's mind; she saw that guy in the diner when paying for the murder. So, in short, her obessions translate into that poor guy's nightmares. The bum also signifies Diane's evil side, as can be witnessed later in the movie.<br /><br />The Cowboy constitutes (along with the dwarf) one of the strange characters that are always present in the Lynchian landscape -- Diane only saw him for a short while at Adam's party, but just like our own dreams can award insignificant persons that we hardly know a major part in our dreams, so can he be awarded an important part in her dream. We are also given further clues during his scenes that what we're seeing is not real (his sudden disappearance, etc.)<br /><br />The Cowboy is also used as a tool to mock the Director, when he meets up with him at the odd location (the lights here give a clear indication that this is part of a dream). Also notice how he says that he will appear one more time if he (Adam) does good, or two more times if he does bad. Throughout the movie he appears two more times, indicating to Diane that she did bad. He is also the one to wake her up to reality (that scene is probably an illusion made to fit into her requirements of him appearing twice), and shortly thereafter she commits suicide.<br /><br />The espresso-scene with the Castigliane brothers (where we can see Badalamenti, the composer, as Luigi) is probably a result of the fact that Diane was having an espresso just before Camilla and Adam made their announcement at Adam's party in the second half. It could at the same time also be a statement from Lynch.<br /><br />During the scene in which they enter Diane's apartment, the body lying in the bed is Camilla, but notice how she's assumed Diane's sleeping position; Diane is seeing herself in her own dream, but the face is not hers, although it had the same wounds on the face as Diane would have after shooting herself. This scene is also filled with some genuine Lynchian creepiness. Since Diane did not know where (or when) the hitman would get to Camilla and finish her off, she just put her into her own home.<br /><br />In real life, Diane's audition for the movie part was bad. In her dream, she delivers a perfect audition - leaving the whole crew ecstatic about her performance.<br /><br />Also interesting is the fact that the money that in real-life was used to pay for Camilla's murder now appears in Rita/Camilla's purse. This is part of Diane's undoing of her terrible act by effectively being given the money back, as the murder now hasn't taken place.<br /><br />When her neighbor arrives to get her piano-shaped ashtray, another hint is given; she takes the ashtray from her table and leaves, yet later when Camilla and Betty have their encounter on the couch, we see the ashtray appear again when the camera pans over the table, suggesting that Betty's encounter with the neighbor was a fantasy.<br /><br />The catch phrase of the movie Adam is auditioning actresses for is "She is the girl"; which are the exact same words that Diane uses when giving the hitman Camilla's photo resume.<br /><br />The blue box and the key represent the major turning point in the movie, and is where the true identities of the characters are revealed. There's much symbolism going on here; the box may represent Diane's future (it's empty), or it may be a sort of a Pandora's box (the hitman laughs when she asks him what the key will open). Either way, it is connected to the murder by means of the blue key (which is placed next to her after the murder has taken place). The box is also seen at the end of the movie in the hands of the disfigured bum.<br /><br />Club Silencio is a neat little addition to further remind the viewer that what s/he is viewing is not real. It also signifies that Diane is about to wake up to her reality (her reality being a nightmare that she is unable to escape from, even in her dreams).<br /><br />During the chilling scene at the end where the creepy old couple reappear, Diane is tormented in such a way that she sees suicide as the only way out in order to escape the screams and to avoid being haunted by her fears.<br /><br />Anyway, that is my $0.02. Hope this could help people from bashing out at this movie and calling it 'the worst movie ever' or something to that effect, without realizing the plot.<br /><br />As usual, Lynch is all about creating irrational fears, and he certainly achieves that with this picture as well.<br /><br />10 out of 10.

Films belonging to the "film noir" genre usually contain similar elements: a "deus ex machina" plot twist that drives the main character headlong into bedlam, a pretty but psychotic girl, a handsome but psychotic thug, lots of money, lots of brutality, and usually a denouement in the desert. Think "High Sierra" or "White Heat."<br /><br />There is plenty of hard-boiled bad film noir out there. But when film noir is good, you can't take your eyes off the train wreck of human lives.<br /><br />It is this latter tradition that "Blind Spot" belongs to. The film follows Danny Alton, a troubled teenager (superbly played with depth, grace, emotional integrity and downright plaintiveness by James Franco, who throws himself completely into this role) who has fallen in love with the rough-edged streetkid, Darcy.<br /><br />From the beginning, you know this is going to be bad.<br /><br />Darcy invites Danny to his house. But the house is empty and for sale, and a bloody check for thousands of dollars is on the floor. Danny is robbed of his clothing and possessions, but uses the check to track down the suicidal April -- Darcy's other lover. When they reach Darcy's real home, they find Wayne -- a thug hunting Darcy down for the money he's stolen. Together, the three manage to locate Darcy in a dusty, run-down motel in the desert. But that's only the beginning of the tale, as plastic explosives, drugs, gun-running, a creepy funeral home, bisexual assassins and a lonely half-finished house in the desert bring events to an explosive head in an alley outside a tattoo parlor in Los Angeles.<br /><br />This film contains some of the best noir cinematography I have seen in years. In one scene, Danny races on foot through the desert to the half-finished house in the desert where he believes Darcy may have been taken that evening by mobsters. A very long shot with sharp lighting effects shows Danny -- arms and legs flailing, palpable fear etched on his face (visible even at this distance), dust cloud trailing behind him as the wind whips in his direction -- racing across the desert flats toward the house. The loneliness, the desperation, the despair Danny feels is shocking depicted. There are many such scenes in this film, wonderfully crafted by the experienced Maximo Munzi. This is Oscar-winning material.<br /><br />The editing, too, is just astounding. The film contains little moments where the characters gain insight into themselves or their situation. Bits of time, where memory and feeling come flooding back. At these times, quick montages of images flash across the screen. This is superb editing by director-writer-editor Stephan Woloszczuk. In one early montage, Danny describes the wondrous feelings he has now that Darcy has entered his life. Quick images of Danny's diary flash across the screen: the words "4 life," "lucky" and "safe" stop momentarily, while page upon page of words, the contents of a human heart, race across the screen -- out of focus, too quick to read. It's like the flood of emotion Danny himself feels.<br /><br />The flood of images reveals something else about this film: Just how beautiful Nathaniel Waters' production design is. Darcy's quonset-hut home is the perfect match of high-tech and slob (a tribute to the attentiveness of set decorator Kimberly Foster). The stunning desert house scene is just outright creepy. The ruined motel where Darcy hides out can be found in any abandoned small town in America. The creepy (and astoundingly lit) funeral home where the plot takes a horrific turn mixes starkness with the pall of death hanging over the entire film. (It's too bad the film's lighting director is not credited.) This film has a superb production design, one that enhances every single frame and every actor's performance.<br /><br />That's the fourth element of this film which makes it grab you and hold on to you: The acting. James Franco is a superb actor. Even in "Spider-Man" -- where he was given practically nothing to do -- Franco showed that he understands human emotion like no other actor of his generation. He's no pretty-boy coasting on his good looks like Brad Pitt. Franco portrays deep emotion with full force. His performances contain pure human heart. Consider the scene in the phone booth outside the funeral home, where Danny collapses after telling April and Wayne that Darcy is dead. Lesser actors couldn't carry off the complete emotional breakdown of a human being. Franco does.<br /><br />Shawn Montgomery, in her first film, simply blows you away with her performance as the suicidal April. Deeply in love with Darcy, suffering from massive depression after having to bury alone her unborn child (after the fetus spontaneously aborts) in a perfume box in the woods, her life of luxury and perfection now a shambles: April is one of the best-drawn characters on film that I have ever seen. While Danny's relationship to Darcy is slowly teased out during the film, April's nervous breakdown is revealed only to the audience. Neither Danny nor Wayne seem particularly interested in her as a human being. April's despair when she realizes Danny has also been Darcy's lover is poignant and potent, even if it is truncated by the character's complete inability to feel any emotion for very long now. Montgomery brings to April a pathos that puts your heart through the wringer.<br /><br />Mark Patrick Gleason is given the hardest job in the film: Having to make something human and real out of the thug, Wayne. At first, Wayne is simply one of any number of violent, foul-mouthed, obsessed drug-pushers/gun-runners that appears in any number of films (from "Kindergarten Cop" to "Beverly Hills Cop 2"). Gleason does very well with what he's given, but he doesn't quite get to where you feel much for Wayne. It's difficult to say whether this is Gleason's problem or the material's. There is one moment -- where Wayne (who is Darcy's brother, although neither Danny nor April know this) reads Danny's diary and realizes the sexual and emotional link between the two men -- where you just know that Wayne is going to go homophobic on Danny's ass. But the explosion never comes. (Thank god! Trite plots are death to film noir.) Once the revelation about the siblings comes at the film's end, the audience is fairly astounded to realize the depth of love and compassion Wayne truly felt for Darcy -- so deep that Wayne accepted Danny's homosexual love for his bisexual brother. But this all happens off-screen. Gleason is never given a chance to act out Wayne's feelings. It must have been very frustrating for the performer.<br /><br />The story is rather inventive, although the smuggling device seen at the end of the film is likely to remind viewers of "Diamonds Are Forever" (yes, James Bond). A traditional narrative voice-over (which proves Franco is as great a voice talent as he is a physical actor) provides terrific atmosphere, although it does tend to flow over into schmaltz a few times toward the end of the film (providing some unintentional laughter). Terrific locales play key visual roles in the film. Kudos to the location scout for finding such astounding buildings! The end of the film struck me as a bit rushed; not pat, but a little too firm for my film noir tastes.<br /><br />Now, I've seen audiences either hate or love "Blind Spot." Modern film audiences, exposed to the most extreme brutality and violence, often have little appreciation for the subtleties of film noir. My suggestion is to take a small group of friends who don't see despair, emotional collapse, desperation or depression as laughable. Take them to a small theater, where they can glory in the spectacle of the film's vision, but where their viewing won't be ruined by a crowd of people who won't recognize good film noir. Get them some popcorn (trust me, they'll be so engrossed they won't finish it), get them a soda, and let them be overwhelmed. Go some place bright and cheery afterward, to wash the grime and awfullness out of your soul. Because this film is so good at making you feel, you'll need that restorative.