If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.<br /><br />To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.<br /><br />A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.<br /><br />You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.<br /><br />If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it!
Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions. <br /><br />I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.<br /><br />I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.<br /><br />Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.<br /><br />While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in. <br /><br />When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.<br /><br />As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.<br /><br />Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.<br /><br />One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.<br /><br />Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.<br /><br />The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.<br /><br />David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.<br /><br />But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.<br /><br />Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.<br /><br />Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.<br /><br />A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff!
Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.<br /><br />Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.<br /><br />In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.<br /><br />But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.<br /><br />However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.<br /><br />From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).<br /><br />Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantasticﾂ揺is portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.<br /><br />Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.
Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now.
In a near future, the ordinary man above any suspicious from the suburb Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is hired by Digicorp, a huge corporation, to be assigned as a spy and steal secrets from their competitors, Sunways. Along his training, Morgan is brainwashed, assumes a new identity of Jack Thursby and travels to boring lectures. In one of them, he is approached by the beautiful and mysterious Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who advises him that nothing is how it seems to be. Morgan acknowledges a new reality, where he does not know who can be trusted.<br /><br />The unknown "Cypher" was a great surprise for me. This movie has not been released in Brazil, but the engaging and exciting story is quite complex, with many plot points, and with great screenplay, direction and performances. In the very last twist, I recalled Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall". This movie certainly deserves to be watched more than once, and I really did not like the last scene, when the independent spy disposes the disputed disc in the sea. In only know the director Vicenzo Natali from the fantastic "Cube", and this second work I see is also stunning. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available
This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.<br /><br />Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2<br /><br />
This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...<br /><br />This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.<br /><br />Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.
Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.
You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.<br /><br />This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.<br /><br />Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.<br /><br />Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.<br /><br />Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.
There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.<br /><br />Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.<br /><br />In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.
When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.<br /><br />The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...<br /><br />Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.<br /><br />It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.<br /><br />Highly recommended.
A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.<br /><br />Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com
I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.<br /><br />Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.<br /><br />Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.<br /><br />The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.
There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.
I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.
This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****<br /><br />Remember Extreme ﾃ､ﾃ､liﾃｶt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video.
Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'.
This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........
This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!
Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies.
After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.<br /><br />DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alienﾂｳ, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****).
After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.
FORGET CREDIBILITY<br /><br />You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.<br /><br />"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."<br /><br />
The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.<br /><br />The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.<br /><br />The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.<br /><br />Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.
This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.<br /><br />Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.<br /><br />And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action! <br /><br />Brilliant movie!
Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.
Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old? <br /><br />There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.<br /><br />The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell. <br /><br />Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichﾃｩd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.<br /><br />The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on. <br /><br />Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.
Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.<br /><br />You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.
To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.<br /><br />It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !
I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.<br /><br />When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...<br /><br />This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.
Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.<br /><br />But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.<br /><br />Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.<br /><br />The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.<br /><br />The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.<br /><br />Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.<br /><br />I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.<br /><br />In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.<br /><br />It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.<br /><br />Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.<br /><br />Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.<br /><br />Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.<br /><br />Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.<br /><br />Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.<br /><br />Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.<br /><br />It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.<br /><br />Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)
Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****
Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landingﾂ・<br /><br />Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unitﾂ・<br /><br />Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of moneyﾂ・<br /><br />With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movieﾂ
I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.<br /><br />Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...<br /><br />Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?<br /><br />'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.<br /><br />'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10
Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Malﾃｩfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.
Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrﾃｨre (Gﾃｩrald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?<br /><br />I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Malﾃｩfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Malﾃｩfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.<br /><br />Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.<br /><br />Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.<br /><br />Vive La France! <br /><br />-AP3-
A prison cell.Four prisoners-Carrere,a young company director accused of fraud,35 year old transsexual in the process of his transformation, Daisy,a 20 year-old mentally challenged idiot savant and Lassalle,a 60 year-old intellectual who murdered his wife.Behind a stone slab in the cell,mysteriously pulled loose,they discovered a book:the diary of a former prisoner,Danvers,who occupied the cell at the beginning of the century.The diary contains magic formulas that supposedly enable prisoners to escape."Malefique" is one of the creepiest and most intelligent horror films I have seen this year.The film has a grimy,shadowy feel influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft,which makes for a very creepy and unsettling atmosphere.There is a fair amount of gore involved with some imaginative and brutal death scenes and the characters of four prisoners are surprisingly well-developed.It's a shame that Eric Valette made truly horrible remake of "One Missed Call" after his stunning debut.9 out of 10.
Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?<br /><br />The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.<br /><br />Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.
I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go "What the f*ck did I just see?" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like "The Grudge" or even "Silent Hill". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be!
Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.<br /><br />The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.<br /><br />I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.<br /><br />I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10
Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good.
This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.<br /><br />Carrﾃｨre's(Gﾃｩrald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pﾃ｢querette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrﾃｨre as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrﾃｨre loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrﾃｨre begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrﾃｨre's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pﾃ｢querette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pﾃ｢querette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.<br /><br />I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Malﾃｩfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.
In a penitentiary, four prisoners occupy a cell: Carrﾃｨre (Gﾃｩrald Laroche), who used his company to commit a fraud and was betrayed by his wife; the drag Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and his protﾃｩgﾃｩe, the retarded Pﾃ｢querette (Dimitri Rataud), who ate his six months sister; and the intellectual Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), who killed his wife. One night, Carrﾃｨre finds an ancient journal hidden in a hole in the wall of the cell. They realize that the book was written by Danvers (Geoffrey Carey) in the beginning of the last century and is about black magic. They decide to read and use its content to escape from the prison, when they find the truth about Danvers' fate. "Malﾃｩfique" is an original, intriguing and claustrophobic French low-budget horror movie. The story is practically in the same location, does not have any clichﾃｩs and hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. I am a great fan of French cinema, usually romances, dramas and police stories, but I noted that recently I have seen some good French horror movies, such as "Un Jeu d' Enfants", "Belphegor" and "Dead End". My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sinais do Mal" ("Signs of the Evil")
Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.<br /><br />Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version.
Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Malﾃｩfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Malﾃｩfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess withﾂ・Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Malﾃｩfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.
French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Malﾃｩfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Malﾃｩfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrﾃｨre, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.<br /><br />Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Malﾃｩfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Malﾃｩfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Malﾃｩfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing!
Malﾃｩfique is a very interesting movie. It is an unholy alloy of triumphs and failures. The central concept is great, three inmates with bizarre personalities are joined by a fourth (who the audience identify with) and they try to escape from their cell using a book of magic that they find within the walls of the cell.<br /><br />The atmosphere is well-woven, it reminds me of reading about the prison stay of Edmond Dantes' in the Chﾃ｢teau d'If (prior to becoming the Count of Monte Cristo). The director sets up the feeling that the characters are tied to the cell, particularly the character we are meant to identify with (Carrﾃｨre - a white-collar criminal whose crime is not specified, but it's obliquely suggested might be fraud). On one occasion Carrﾃｨre dithers when leaving the cell for exercise and has the cell door shut on him; we never leave the cell, the claustrophobia is unbroken. There are also no shots of the prison outside the cell, and the view through the bars is a longing sunset over a generic prison wall. So even though the film appears to be very modern, it has a very old world feel of incarceration.<br /><br />The characters are intriguing. We have Marcus, a violent pre-op transsexual who plays an abusive mother to Pﾃ｢querette (French for Daisy) a heavily retarded young man. Pﾃ｢querette likes to eat everything he finds beautiful, and unfortunately this included his baby sister, hence his current predicament (I like this comment on internalisation, very primitive). Lasalle is a withdrawn, possessed elderly man, in for brutally murdering his wife.<br /><br />The central message of the movie is that your desires will annihilate you, and there's a ritual that goes with that. I think that's what disturbs me the most, seeing people destroying themselves ritualistically. It has a real life ring to it. The quite simple soundtrack backs this up well, every step deeper into the quicksand is accompanied by the dull ringing of a gong. I'm actually hearing the gong now every time I do something self-destructive.<br /><br />I think one of the plot problems is that the ends of the characters don't really reinforce the message consistently, particularly with Carrﾃｨre, also the concept of the book seems to alter throughout the film, not in terms of a successive revelation either. I also think that some of the images we see are a bit amateurish, more by design than execution, such as the famous "vagina eye", and the sodomy of Lasalle, for me, totally hollow images.<br /><br />At the end the movie it feels like the director is in a rush to get it over with, and some things don't seem logical, for example we've been clumsily led to believe different things about Carrﾃｨre's child. This doesn't change the fact though that what we have here is that rare bird, a "pure" horror movie. There is no comedic dross or genre segueing, like Cube (1997/Natali), the obvious movie to compare it to, it's a total immersion experience, where you feel as if you are in the cell with the characters. This last comment I make about it being a "pure" experience I think is something others have mentioned as well so that is a fairly unanimous point.<br /><br />On a personal note my favourite part of the film is when Lasalle talks about his past as a librarian. He very vividly describes a scene where he goes to work one day and sits down in his usual place in the centre of a room where all the books are arranged in a circle around him. The books seem to be chanting to him that he will never contain their knowledge. This prompts Lasalle to go insane. That really is the problem with an obsession with understanding and knowledge. It's something I myself have felt.<br /><br />One final comment is that two of the quite well-received comments on the board have confused the characters' names. To convince yourself that Lasalle is the older librarian character, simply click on Philippe Laudenbach's page and you will see he was born in 1936.
I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.
I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless. <br /><br />It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.<br /><br />Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.<br /><br />Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable! <br /><br />Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.
If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrﾃｨre (Gﾃｩrald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pﾃ｢querette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pﾃ｢querette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrﾃｨre takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...<br /><br />Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrﾃｨre at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.<br /><br />With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pﾃ｢querette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.<br /><br />Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia
Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise!
"Malﾃｩfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Malﾃｩfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.<br /><br />The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrﾃｨre (Gﾃｩrald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pﾃ｢querette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrﾃｨre a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrﾃｨre discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.<br /><br />Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Malﾃｩfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.<br /><br />Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.<br /><br />The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gﾃｩrald Laroche is excellent as Carrﾃｨre, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.<br /><br />The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Malﾃｩfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.<br /><br />Anyways, "Malﾃｩfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10
When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!
I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...<br /><br />The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.<br /><br />Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).<br /><br />The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.<br /><br />The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.<br /><br />Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.<br /><br />If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.<br /><br />Enjoy!
My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).<br /><br />I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.
Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!
Monty Berman and Dennis Spooner followed up 'The Baron' with this, a fantasy series about three superhuman spies which preempted 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. It was a favourite of mine when I was a youngster, and I enjoy watching it still. Stuart Damon and William Gaunt had an unmistakable on-screen chemistry as Craig Stirling and Richard Barrett, while the luscious Alexandra Bastedo pouted her way through her role as Sharron Macready. The late Anthony Nicholls made a wonderfully gruff Tremayne. By far the best episodes were those written by Tony Williamson, Terry Nation and Brian Clemens, while Spooner's own 'The Interrogation' compared favourably with 'The Prisoner'. I regret that there was never a second series; the concept had so much life left in it. Would Craig and Richard have been competitors for Sharron's affections? What if Tremayne had learned of the Champions' powers? Did the Champions have any other abilities other than those we saw? We never found out, alas.
I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.
i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.
The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.<br /><br />The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.<br /><br />The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)<br /><br />Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.
This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.
I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...<br /><br />It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.<br /><br />I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!
Real cool, smart movie. I loved Sheedy's colors, especially the purple car. Alice Drummond is Wise And Wonderful as Stella. I liked Sheedy's reference to how her face had gotten fatter. The roadside dance scene is brilliant. Really liked this one.
I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy: <br /><br />"It's a world of suffering,<br /><br />In a sea of pain,<br /><br />No matter how much sun you bring,<br /><br />You're pummeled by the rain...<br /><br />Don't let the heartless get you down,<br /><br />Don't greet the heartless at your door,<br /><br />Don't live among the heartless"
"I'll Take You There" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.
This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.
For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.<br /><br />This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.<br /><br />If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.
At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in. <br /><br />long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.<br /><br />i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....<br /><br />it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....<br /><br />what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.<br /><br />well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try? <br /><br />i would
Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing Andrﾃｩ Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.<br /><br />After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.<br /><br />The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.<br /><br />It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.<br /><br />Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies."
"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.<br /><br />Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.<br /><br />My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.
I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.<br /><br />Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.<br /><br />Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.<br /><br />This film is special. Get it, now!
I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.
it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.<br /><br />it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.
I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.
Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.<br /><br />The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?
Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.
I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.<br /><br />Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".
First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.<br /><br />I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver. <br /><br />It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.<br /><br />However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.<br /><br />Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.
I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!
I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film. <br /><br />Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.
First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.<br /><br />This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.<br /><br />What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers.
OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.<br /><br />The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.<br /><br />Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.<br /><br />So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.
I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidﾃｴ, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.
Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.<br /><br />The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.<br /><br />The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.<br /><br />Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.
<br /><br />I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.
I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(
I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids!
I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.
The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.
This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.
Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.
Life's going not to badly for Harry Mitchell, he's an ex-air force major (plus nifty little pension I imagine), who's raking in the cash for a patent he's developed (fusing titanium and steel via explosive process, creating super metal fit for NASA), and his wife of twenty-odd years has kept herself in pretty good nick. He's got a nice little pad in LA. I like to see visions of the 80s consumer dream, and you get a good slice here, what with the restored silver Jag (a series 1 E-type roadster) for him, and the gorgeous antique dolls house for her (as well as I'm sure other trinkets and boys toys). There's always got to be more though hasn't there? So Harry let's himself get caught up in some romantic shenanigans (you're only as old as the woman you're feeling). As in many films noir, one mistake, in an otherwise blotch-less life, leads to a downwards arc for Harry.<br /><br />Three blackmailers leech onto him. These are where the value are for me, great character actors playing very believable roles. Bobby Shy (played by Clarence Williams III) is a black ex-con who is capable of performing incredible psychopathic acts in order to avoid jail and punish double-crossers. He's reminiscent of Pluto, the vicious black ex-con psychopath from Carl Franklin's well-regarded neo-noir "One False Move" (1992). There's a similar character motivation I believe. Both men have had enough of the man, and well pretty much everyone, in extremis. Robert Trebor plays Leo Franks, a fat lily-livered pansy who runs a nudie parlour where gents can photograph nude models at $25 for half an hour, and $50 for a whole hour (did anyone else guffaw at the lack of discount?). He's in over his head, and it's great to watch Trebor acting when Leo starts to feel the heat, believable breakdown. John Glover wins as Alan Raimy, who is the brains of the plot, an actually brilliant man who becomes a pornographer and turns to a life of crime out of sheer sociopathic ennui. He's a sexual sadist and does a few particularly unpleasant things during the movie, including what I believe is a pretty well-implied rape (pay attention to his RAP sheet readout, it's easily missed, and read between the lines for the motel scene with "Slim").<br /><br />In common with One False Move, though not exclusively, I think the real impact of the movie is in the unusually communicative scenes of violence.<br /><br />So far so good but I think there's a real problem with the film. Harry Mitchell is told at one point that he has his "tit in the wringer". My problem is that Harry Mitchell is played by Roy Scheider. Roy Scheider protagonists never lose, they're self-sure and smooth, but not in an annoying way. I feel I'm being asked to believe that his character is in peril, the movie relies on this for dramatic tension; however I didn't believe it. For me it's like being asked to believe that Sandra Bullock's character is going to end up sleeping alone by the end of a romantic drama, or Stephen Seagal's character is going to get taken down by the baddies (did actually happen in one movie but was done deliberately for shock value). Roy Scheider doesn't convince as an adulterer either, you don't feel any annoyance with him at all, his character is Teflon-coated.<br /><br />It also felt like a movie that took some cuts. At 110 minutes it still feels underdeveloped: Harry's wife, Ann Margaret, is pretty much a cardboard cutout, an extension of Harry, her back story as a politician running for office receives scant attention. The effect that the affair has on Harry's marriage isn't properly communicated. This could be a Frankenheimer problem, he's not known for character development. I never felt that Harry was dealing with little more than an overtly annoying and erroneous tax claim from the IRS. <br /><br />There is good sleazy violent noir content in this film, but I feel that to be in the excellent bracket that the casting of Harry could have been done better (no disrespect to the great Roy Scheider). The film felt short, even with the long running time, and I think could have taken some more fleshing out.<br /><br />But you really can't forget the sleaze, like the deliciously pervy scene of Harry taking photos of Doreen in the nudie parlour.
52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.
This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.
This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking "but I loved GET SHORTY" you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the "feel" for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday.
I've always liked this John Frankenheimer film. Good script by Elmore Leonard and the main reason this wasn't just another thriller is because of Frankenheimer. His taut direction and attention to little details make all the difference, he even hired porn star Ron Jeremy as a consultant! You can make a case that its the last good film Roy Scheider made. I've always said that Robert Trebor gave just a terrific performance. Clarence Williams III got all the publicity with his scary performance and he's excellent also but I really thought Trebor stood out. Frankenheimer may not be as proud of this film as others but it is an effective thriller full of blackmail, murder, sex, drugs, and real porno actors appear in sleazy parts. What can you say about a film that has Ann Margaret being shot up with drugs and raped? A guilty pleasure to say the least. Vanity has a real sleazy role and a very young Kelly Preston makes an early appearance. A classic exploitive thriller that shouldn't be forgotten.
Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+.
Spoilers!<br /><br />From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!<br /><br />If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?<br /><br />After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up. <br /><br />I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"<br /><br />This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place. <br /><br />Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty. <br /><br />9 of 10 stars.<br /><br />So sayeth the Hound.<br /><br />Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!
Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.
Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.<br /><br />All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.<br /><br />Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context.
This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.<br /><br />Season 1<br /><br />1. The Sopranos: 5/5<br /><br />2. 46 Long: 4.5/5<br /><br />3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5<br /><br />4. Meadowlands: 4/5<br /><br />5. College:<br /><br />6. Pax Soprana: 5/5<br /><br />7. Down Neck: 4.5/5<br /><br />8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5<br /><br />9. Boca: 4.5/5<br /><br />10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5<br /><br />11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5<br /><br />12. Isabella: 5/5<br /><br />13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5
The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......
Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.
"The Godfather" of television, but aside from it's acclaim and mobster characters, the two are nothing alike. Tony Soprano is forced to go to a psychiatrist after a series of panic attacks. His psychiatrist learns that Tony is actually part of two families -- in one family he is a loving father yet not-so-perfect-husband, and in the other family he is a ruthless wiseguy. After analysis, Dr. Melfi concludes that Tony's problems actually derive from his mother Livia, who's suspected to have borderline-personality disorder. Gandolfini is rightfully praised as the main character; yet Bracco and Marchand aren't nearly as recognized for their equally and talented performances as the psychiatrist and mother, respectively. Falco, Imperioli and DeMatteo are acclaimed for their brilliant supporting roles. Van Zandt (from the E-Street Band) plays his first and only role as Tony's best friend, and is quite convincing and latching. Chianese, the only recurring actor to have actually appeared in a Godfather film, plays Tony's uncle and on-and-off nemesis. Many fans also enjoyed characters played by Pastore, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, Pantoliano, Lip, Sciorra and Buscemi. Tony's children are "okay" but not notable (with the exception of Iler's stunning performance in the third-to-last episode, "The Second Coming"); Sirico and Schirripa are unconvincing and over-the-top, but the show is too strong for them to hold it back. Even as the show continues for over six season, it ceases to have a dull or predictable moment.<br /><br />**** (out of four)
As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.
Though "The Sopranos" is yet another gift from the megahit "The Godfather" and sequels, which dramatized and to a certain extent glamorized the mafia, "The Sopranos" takes another tack. No suited up, classy mobsters here with homes in Lake Tahoe and stakes in Vegas casinos - these guys are goombahs, with a front of waste management, who deal with things that fall off the back of trucks, topless bars, protection money - in short, what the neighborhood mobs were all about.<br /><br />Colorful characters dominate this series, which doesn't hold back on the sex and graphic violence. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mob head with a wife and two children, living in New Jersey, who suffers from panic attacks as he tries to balance his biological family with his mafia one. To get to the bottom of his attacks, he sees a psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), who is afraid of him and yet attracted to him at the same time. Tony's henchman - Paulie, his nephew Christopher, his Uncle Junior (the titular head of the mob), his good friend Pussy - are all fully fleshed-out characters.<br /><br />As we learn going through the series, there are enemies not only from without, but from within, and one of those enemies includes Tony's sickly but horrible mother (Nancy Marchand), who convinces Junior that Tony is a danger to him. Tony's sister Janice, meanwhile, is searching for money in her mother's house with a stethoscope and a Geiger counter. Tony has mistress problems, and a wife (Edie Falco) who puts up with a lot because she loves him, all the while keeping ties to her Catholic religion. "The church frowns on divorce," she tells one woman contemplating a split. "Let the Pope live with him," is the response. As far as Tony's mistress problems, his psychiatrist points out that Tony is attracted to demanding women for whom nothing is ever enough, and asks him if it sounds familiar. Yeah, it sounds like his mother.<br /><br />I'm of Italian descent, and yes, I'm sick of Italians being shown in a negative light and everyone assuming all Italians are mobsters. Yet you can't help liking this show, which is a constant reminder of our culture. (Thanksgiving, it's pointed out, isn't turkey and sweet potato pie - it's the antipasto, the manicotti, the meatballs and escarole, and then the bird!) Not to mention, the right-on pronunciation of words like melenzana (mullinyan), escarole (scarole), manicotti (manigot) etc. The only un-Italian thing about Tony is that he doesn't have a finished basement, something unheard of in the rest of my family (except my parents never had one either).<br /><br />The standouts in this show are Gandolfini, as a ruthless gangster on antidepressants, Falco, who is brilliant as his wife, and Bracco as the tortured Jennifer. But everyone is excellent. If you can take the violence and the language, this is a great show, an unrelenting portrait of New Jersey mob life.
The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.<br /><br />Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.<br /><br />James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.<br /><br />Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.<br /><br />The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protﾃｩgﾃｩ, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.<br /><br />Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).<br /><br />Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit.
The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.<br /><br />The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it...
Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail clichﾃｩ but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.<br /><br />Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!<br /><br />I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.
The Sopranos stands out as an airtight, dynamic exploration of American life, and how the American experience is shaped and defined by money. By setting the story in the milieu of the underworld, David Chase eliminates all barriers to a grunt, low to the ground and outright mean deconstruction of the post-modern era. <br /><br />Every character represents a facet of American industry. Tony Soprano exemplifies the beleaguered working stiff, torn between familial duty and a need to keep his "business" on an even keel. The convergence of these two things is the imperative that keeps the story moving forward. The characters of Christopher, Paulie, and Bobby reflect the loyal - but self-serving underlings present in every enterprise, who are trusted out of necessity rather than merit. With the character of Ralph, Joe Pantoliano essays a brilliant interpretation of the charismatic psychopath, a twisted businessman who's flourishes of violence are tragically outweighed by his stunning earning power. And Dominic Chianese is the ultimate symbol of the antiquated old-guard, which maintains power through established relationships and the need of the up- and-comers to deflect blame.<br /><br />Though abrasive and occasionally disturbing, The Sopranos has earned its place as the ultimate TV drama. <br /><br />PS A good companion piece to Chase's series would be The Shield, another violent drama that manages to make the ugliest of characters interesting.
I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.<br /><br />I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).<br /><br />Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....<br /><br />Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).
The Sopranos is perhaps the most mind-opening series you could possibly ever want to watch. It's smart, it's quirky, it's funny - and it carries the mafia genre so well that most people can't resist watching. The best aspect of this show is the overwhelming realism of the characters, set in the subterranean world of the New York crime families. For most of the time, you really don't know whether the wise guys will stab someone in the back, or buy them lunch. <br /><br />Further adding to the realistic approach of the characters in this show is the depth of their personalities - These are dangerous men, most of them murderers, but by God if you don't love them too. I've laughed at their wisecracks, been torn when they've made err in judgement, and felt scared at the sheer ruthlessness of a serious criminal. <br /><br />The suburban setting of New Jersey is absolutely perfect for this show's subtext - people aren't always as they seem, and the stark contrast between humdrum and the actions taken by these seemingly petty criminals weigh up to even the odds. <br /><br />If you haven't already, you most definitely should.
Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it.
I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))<br /><br />Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;<br /><br />1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.
It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......<br /><br />From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!<br /><br />While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)<br /><br />But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?<br /><br />Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.<br /><br />All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled.
I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1
"The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4
Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.
The "gangster" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichﾃｩs that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you.
There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV
Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons. <br /><br />6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever. <br /><br />Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase.
As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance?
When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.<br /><br />I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.<br /><br />I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will.
Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)<br /><br />I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.<br /><br />Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading.
THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)<br /><br />Number 1 - Television Show of all Time <br /><br />Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time. <br /><br />James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny. <br /><br />While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real. <br /><br />The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.<br /><br />Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character. <br /><br />Simply exceptional.<br /><br />10/10
What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.
The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.<br /><br />Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.<br /><br />Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.<br /><br />The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.<br /><br />The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.<br /><br />With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined.
I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.<br /><br />I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.<br /><br />I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.<br /><br />I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.<br /><br />In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended.
First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life.
I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.<br /><br />The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.<br /><br />The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.<br /><br />Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.<br /><br />It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.<br /><br />Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.<br /><br />All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it
Jon Voight is brilliant in Midnight Cowboy, but Hoffman's performance, though reminiscent of his later turn in Rainman, is the kind of performance that keeps me watching movies. As a portrayal of a New York character, only Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Bill Butcher in Gangs of New York comes to mind as comparable, and Day doesn't give his character the emotional depth that Hoffman gives Ratso. <br /><br />It's typical of Hoffman's way of acting that the actor we tend to identify most with Midnight Cowboy is Voight. I think Hoffman is one of the 4 or 5 best actors in the history of film at playing off the people around him in such a way that he raises their performances far above their normal levels. <br /><br />Voight's Buck is so naive that he would float out of the film altogether, except that Ratso pulls him down - pulls him down, but also teaches him, a lot about how to survive and, more importantly, how to live.<br /><br />Midnight Cowboy is a movie about escape that turns into a movie about finding yourself. I think that, as gritty a movie as it is, it has a very beautiful message, that no matter how much a loser you might be (Ratso clearly defines "loser"), if you can find a way to be true to yourself, you are in possession of the secret of life, and you might even be able to share that insight with someone else. <br /><br />I can't help but compare Midnight Cowboy to Klute, from a few years later, which I think is more like a movie about finding yourself that turns into a movie about escape.
I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.<br /><br />The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.<br /><br />I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason.
Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.<br /><br />PROS: <br /><br />-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes! <br /><br />-Beautiful score <br /><br />-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today <br /><br />-Fantastic and fast editing job<br /><br />CONS: <br /><br />-For mature audiences only <br /><br />-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.
Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.<br /><br />Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....<br /><br />....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.<br /><br />The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.<br /><br />This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.<br /><br />Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.<br /><br />I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.<br /><br />Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.<br /><br />Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.<br /><br />The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....<br /><br />John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......
Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.<br /><br />The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naﾃｯve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.<br /><br />While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.<br /><br />Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.<br /><br />*** ﾂｽ out of 4
What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.<br /><br />This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.
"Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.<br /><br />The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10)
Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone.
Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.
Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.<br /><br />A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the "end of innocence" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.<br /><br />JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend "Ratzo" dreams of living in.<br /><br />But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting "Midnight Cowboy" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.<br /><br />Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life.
John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners ﾂ・a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.<br /><br />Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.<br /><br />Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naﾃｯve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'<br /><br />Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting ﾂ・bafflingly ﾂ・was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.
"Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).<br /><br />The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.<br /><br />Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).<br /><br />It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all.
Just kidding.<br /><br />Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.<br /><br />While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.<br /><br />Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.<br /><br />8.5/10
Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.<br /><br />What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene. <br /><br />The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.
Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.<br /><br />He starts off as a very naﾃｯve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naivetﾃｩ that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.<br /><br />Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.<br /><br />The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.<br /><br />It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman.
After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.<br /><br />Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.<br /><br />The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.<br /><br />Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.
Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****
It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".<br /><br />The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.<br /><br />In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.<br /><br />The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger".
'Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.<br /><br />The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason.
Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.<br /><br />A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.
I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)<br /><br />So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.<br /><br />The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.<br /><br />Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.<br /><br />Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)<br /><br />4.5/5
The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).<br /><br />I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.<br /><br />This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.<br /><br />The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.<br /><br />I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.<br /><br />I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.<br /><br />I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.<br /><br />On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.<br /><br />Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.<br /><br />Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences.
Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since. <br /><br />Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences. <br /><br />It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools. <br /><br />10/10
Virile, but naive, big Joe Buck leaves his home in Big Spring, Texas, and hustles off to the Big Apple in search of women and big bucks. In NYC, JB meets up with frustration, and with "Ratso" Rizzo, a scruffy but cordial con artist. Somehow, this mismatched pair manage to survive each other which in turn helps both of them cope with a gritty, sometimes brutal, urban America, en route to a poignant ending.<br /><br />Both funny and depressing, our "Midnight Cowboy" rides head-on into the vortex of cyclonic cultural change, and thus confirms to 1969 viewers that they, themselves, have been swept away from the 1950's age of innocence, and dropped, Dorothy and Toto like, into the 1960's Age of Aquarius.<br /><br />The film's direction is masterful; the casting is perfect; the acting is top notch; the script is crisp and cogent; the cinematography is engaging; and the music enhances all of the above. Deservedly, it won the best picture Oscar of 1969, and I would vote it as one of the best films of that cyclonic decade.
In my opinion, this is one of the greatest movies ever made in America and it deserved every single award it won and it's place on the AFI Top 100 list (though it's shamefully too low on the IMDB Top 250 list, at only #183 as of this writing). If you enjoy acting of the highest calibre (Voight and Hoffman are a superb match), well-drawn characterizations and inventive direction, editing and cinematography, you'll love this just as much as I did. Schlesinger paints a vivid, always credible picture of the late 60s New York City scene and it's many victims struggling to overcome personal demons and survive amidst the amorality, poverty and hopelessness of 42nd Street, New York City.<br /><br />The filmmaking techniques employed here brilliantly capture the feel of the underground New York film movement (and of the city) and are nothing less than dazzling. I've seen many ideas (including the rapid-fire editing, the handling of the voice-over flashbacks, the drug/trip sequences and the cartoonish face slipped in during a murder scene to convey angst and terror) stolen by other filmmakers.<br /><br />The relationship between Joe and Ratso is handled in such a way as to be viewed as an unusually strong friendship OR having it's homosexual underpinnings. I think the director handled this in a subtle way not to cop out to the censorship of the times, but rather to concentrate his energies on the importance of a strong human connection in life, whether it be sexual or not.<br /><br />MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a brave, moving film of magnitude, influence and importance that has lost absolutely none of it's impact over the years, so if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on a true American classic. I recommend this film to everyone.<br /><br />Score: 10 out of 10.
Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?<br /><br />Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.<br /><br />This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.<br /><br />Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.<br /><br />A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.
I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.<br /><br />Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.<br /><br />My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.<br /><br />And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.
Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.<br /><br />John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy. <br /><br />Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go. <br /><br />The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.<br /><br />Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.<br /><br />Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.<br /><br />The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones. <br /><br />7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.
Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.<br /><br />Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.<br /><br />Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.<br /><br />The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.<br /><br />All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.<br /><br />*** out of ****
This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !) <br /><br />You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.<br /><br />There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.<br /><br />Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition.
This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindstrﾃｶm are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.<br /><br />"Vuxna mﾃ､nniskor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldnﾂｴt be better off without it.
This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!<br /><br />All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!<br /><br />Highly recommended.
High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see.
I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\<br /><br />All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.<br /><br />I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.<br /><br />Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.
In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.<br /><br />This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.
Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.<br /><br />Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.<br /><br />Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival.
George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer. <br /><br />In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)<br /><br />As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.
A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.<br /><br />Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.<br /><br />Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for.
Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.<br /><br />But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).<br /><br />Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.<br /><br />The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.
when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie
There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better! <br /><br />I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better!
Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).
Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!
Ah, clichﾃｩs, clichﾃｩs, clichﾃｩs; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller.
Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.<br /><br />Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.<br /><br />Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.
So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)
Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, Iﾂｴd probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when youﾂｴre nine you just donﾂｴt care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays Iﾂｴm kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new yearﾂｴs eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. Itﾂｴs like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one canﾂｴt see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I donﾂｴt mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the castﾂｴs balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I donﾂｴt mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff.
*****Spoilers herein*****<br /><br />What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?<br /><br />Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.<br /><br />I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.<br /><br />The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.<br /><br />I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children.
MINOR SPOILER<br /><br />Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10.
"Pet Sematary" succeeds on two major situations. First, it's a scary Horror movie. Those that just aren't produced in these days. Second, it's an emotional, clever movie overall. So if you are looking for chills, scares, creepiness and visually stunning settings, great acting, dialongs, and gruesome effects; this is the movie you are looking for. A classic now and truly a must see for any Horror fan. <br /><br />Probably, the best adaptation to any of King's novels. The events feel a little rushed compared with the novel, but that doesn't means that this underrated movie isn't a complete Horror/Drama accomplishment. <br /><br />Stephen King's novel is widely known for being very emotional and gruesome at the same time. The movie captures the same feeling mainly because there's a great character development and you can feel the loving relationship between it's members. Then, when everything seems to be happiness (technically happy, because the title "Pet Sematary" does not offers appiness!) a tragic event changes the movie's atmosphere, now it turns very dark. The movie has a sinister feeling since the opening credits, but after Gage is killed the movie becomes sad, gray, creepy. Dealing with the loss of a baby son is something that can ruin a family's entire life, and "Pet Sematary" proves it dramatically. <br /><br />The legend behind the pet sematary is more than a myth that no one wants to experience, but sadness and desperation lead an emotionally destroyed father to give it a shot. Sadly enough, the legend comes true and baby Gage returns from the dead. The previous encounter with the pet sematary legend turned out to be a tragedy but this time it's something much, much worse. What will happened with the lives of our All American family? Could Pascow prevent this tragedy? What is it with the surreal nightmares? <br /><br />Watch "Pet Sematary" to witness one of the most touching, emotional Horror movies of recent times. You won't regret. The acting is very good although I didn't dig the actor who portrayed the father. He didn't seem disturbed enough when the situations asked for his desperation. But that's just my opinion. Denise Crosby truly delivered a great performance and worked perfect as the noble, tender mother. Baby Gage was amazing even on his creepy parts. *Shivers*. Overall this is a great classic of all time and a disturbing movie that touches people's deepest fears... the loss of someone you love, the dead returning to life, and a feeling of desperation.<br /><br />Something is for sure... I don't wanna be buried, in a pet sematary!!
Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.<br /><br />All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.<br /><br />There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS). <br /><br />Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.<br /><br />Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed. <br /><br />It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.<br /><br />Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."<br /><br />About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)<br /><br />Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.<br /><br />Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.
This is one of the creepiest, scariest and most heartbreaking horror movie EVER! <br /><br />Dr Creed (Louise) and his family moving in to new home with his wife (Rachel), Daughter (Ellie) and little son (Gage) Everything seems normal until Dr Creed loses one his patient who had a terrible head injury,Then he is haunted by the ghost know as Victor takes him to the Pet Sematarty and show him that where the dead come to life.<br /><br />Louis not knowing if that was all dream and is talking to Ellie who worried about her cat that could be killed by lorry and then later on Rachel tells Louis that it really hard for to talk about death because of her sister Zelda who was really sick (As we see in a flashback how sick her sister really was and this is one of the most creepiest scene ever!) <br /><br />The next day Louis gets a call from Jed saying there cat as been killed by lorry and Jed take him to place where Victor the Ghost told him not to go! And bury the Cat, His wife and kids have go to see their Grandparents and Louise is home alone shocked to see the cat is back and now it as evil in it eyes so he goes to see Jed then Jed tell him that he also buried his dog there too (As we seen other flashback).<br /><br />Later on in the movie The Family out having Picnic, Gage is playing with kite and Gage say's I drop it", The wind blow the rod near the road where a lorry coming at fast past, Gage is get closer to road, Louis is rushing to get him, The most HEARTBREAKING scene in any horror movie will leave with your Jaw on floor or Shivers will go down your back when you hear Louis screams, Soon he missing him so much, Louis then buries Gage in same place where is buried the Cat. <br /><br />The scariest thing about this movie is that some scenes in this movie are not too far from really life. <br /><br />This movie is just Amazing and the acting from everyone was great! 10 out 10
I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.<br /><br />I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.<br /><br />The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.<br /><br />
"Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.<br /><br />Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.<br /><br />The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.<br /><br />Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.
Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.<br /><br />During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...<br /><br />I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.<br /><br />Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.<br /><br />A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.
As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.
In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...) <br /><br />As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.<br /><br />In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.
Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.<br /><br />Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.<br /><br />When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.<br /><br />Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.<br /><br />This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from "The Exorcist." The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.<br /><br />The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.<br /><br />9/10
I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.
Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out.
One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...<br /><br />My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.
This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!
I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!
I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.<br /><br />Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.<br /><br />A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.<br /><br />Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.<br /><br />The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.<br /><br />But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.
Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis."
The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token. <br /><br />Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.<br /><br />At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?<br /><br />The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.
'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.<br /><br />In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.<br /><br />This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.<br /><br />Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.
Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesquesﾂ預t Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cuttingﾂ預ll very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?
Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.
I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.<br /><br />Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.<br /><br />Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.<br /><br />The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.<br /><br />(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.<br /><br />The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.
This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.<br /><br />Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.<br /><br />The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.<br /><br />This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.
Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.
At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!
The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.<br /><br />As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound ﾂ・for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.<br /><br />There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.<br /><br />Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.<br /><br />The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.<br /><br />The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.
The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.
This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.
I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie.
This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended.
Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...<br /><br />Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...<br /><br />I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.<br /><br />That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.<br /><br />Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...<br /><br />Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.<br /><br />Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.
Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.<br /><br />Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.<br /><br />While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.<br /><br />This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.<br /><br />A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions.
Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.
I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.
This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8
This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.<br /><br />I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.<br /><br />A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.
I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.
The story is extremely unique.It's about these 2 pilots saving Earth from alien beings but they have to use a special speed that makes everything around them age rapidly.The whole series is about the pilots dealing with the loss of time,friends,and mentors.<br /><br />The ending COULD have been fantastic.It started to end on a total down note and leave a real mark but instead ended on a super happy Disney note and annoyed me VERY bad.<br /><br />The animation is decent for 89 but can't compare to nowadays.I have also heard many complain about the cheesiness of the nudity.I actually found it to be somewhat decent.The nudity for the most part was warranted except in episode 2 where there was an excess.<br /><br />Overall it deserves a look but the ending keeps it from being a classic.
Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time.
This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.
/* slight spoilers */<br /><br />Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.<br /><br />Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.<br /><br />For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.<br /><br />The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.<br /><br />The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray<br /><br />some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.<br /><br />The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.<br /><br />As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.<br /><br />Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.<br /><br />***/*****
Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.<br /><br />Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.<br /><br />Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.<br /><br />All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you.
terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion
Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name.
Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.<br /><br />There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.<br /><br />And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that.
Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.
What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.
Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnestﾂ・some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marblesﾂ・some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wiseﾂ・some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the wordﾂ・but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphicsﾂ・it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them.
Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch.
This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.<br /><br />I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.<br /><br />If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.
With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.<br /><br />Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9.
Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!
I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it
Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen. <br /><br />The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly. <br /><br />Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better. <br /><br />The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock! <br /><br />What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.
I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.<br /><br />Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.
This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.<br /><br />Make it so...
Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out! <br /><br />I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!<br /><br />Good work to all concerned!<br /><br />(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)<br /><br />It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?<br /><br />Really glad I found it!<br /><br />(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)<br /><br />The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.<br /><br />Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!<br /><br />I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza<br /><br />"Never give up, never surender!"<br /><br />Viva les frontieres
For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.<br /><br />This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.<br /><br />By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.<br /><br />I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.<br /><br />The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.<br /><br />If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.<br /><br />If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.
Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.
Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.
Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose. <br /><br />While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.
Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though.
I acquired this, one of my all-time favourite films on DVD recently and as usual, during viewing, the whole thing just blew me away.<br /><br />I am a massive fan of Hazel O'Connor and the soundtrack to this film just has me in tears, especially the "Will You" track. It's a pure nostalgia trip for me back to my youth. This rates second best to Quadrophenia (which also starred Phil Daniels).<br /><br />A great soundtrack and a great view of Britain in the Thatcherite years of the grim 80's in which I grew up. The ending is so sad, for hours after the end of the film I am like a blubbering baby.<br /><br />I expect to wear out this DVD from repeated viewing, I can watch it over and over again and never be bored, simply for the soundtrack alone.<br /><br />Hazel, sorry to hear about your dad darling. God Bless you all. xx
Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well.
I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry!
One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy
I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.
Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!
I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br />
Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter.
I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.<br /><br />The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.<br /><br />Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though.
Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carrﾃｩ minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.<br /><br />In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.<br /><br />Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all. <br /><br />Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.<br /><br />Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him. <br /><br />And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues! <br /><br />Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.<br /><br />His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rﾃｼdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.<br /><br />The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.<br /><br />Indeed well worth the money!
As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.<br /><br />Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.<br /><br />Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.<br /><br />The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rﾃｼdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.<br /><br />The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.<br /><br />Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.<br /><br />Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.
This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.<br /><br />Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.<br /><br />The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.<br /><br />Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy. <br /><br />Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister. <br /><br />If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.
This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.<br /><br />If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.<br /><br />There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.<br /><br />I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.
It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time. <br /><br />Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarrﾃｩ's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.<br /><br />The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.<br /><br />Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.<br /><br />Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rﾃｼdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.<br /><br />The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English. <br /><br />The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarrﾃｩ has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.<br /><br />Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarrﾃｩ adaptations to reach film or television to date. <br /><br />Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarrﾃｩ fans. DVD available from Acorn.
This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rﾃｼdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.
Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.
Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.
Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.<br /><br />Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!
Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.
Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!!
This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!
THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.<br /><br />This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...<br /><br />THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10
This is an excellent show! I had a US history teacher in high school that was much like this. There are many "facts" in history that are not quite true and Mr Wuhl points them out very well, in a way that is unforgettable.<br /><br />Mr Wuhl is teaching a class of film students but history students and even the general public will appreciate the witty way that he uncovers some very well known fallacies in the history of the world and strive to impress them upon that brains of his students. Use of live actors performing "skits" is also very entertaining. <br /><br />I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in having the history they learned as a child turned upside down.
this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following
I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.<br /><br />I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.
I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.<br /><br />It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.<br /><br />I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.
Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.<br /><br />He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.<br /><br />I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.
Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?<br /><br />This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.
Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.<br /><br />In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.
Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.
Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.
108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.<br /><br />John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.<br /><br />DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.<br /><br />KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risquﾃｩ jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.<br /><br />Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934).
A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.<br /><br />Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.<br /><br />Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't deadﾂ熔nly wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.<br /><br />Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).<br /><br />The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalﾃｩ where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.<br /><br />Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing propsﾂ妖odgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swingsﾂ傭ut these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!<br /><br />8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.
One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).<br /><br />Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.<br /><br />Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.<br /><br />I really like this film a great deal.<br /><br />If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.<br /><br />You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures.
I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.
Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.<br /><br />I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:<br /><br />Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.<br /><br />Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.<br /><br />Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful. <br /><br />Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous. <br /><br />Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.<br /><br />Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)<br /><br />Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!<br /><br />Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.<br /><br />So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code. <br /><br />The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.<br /><br />Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex.
Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.<br /><br />This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.<br /><br />That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.<br /><br />This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!
The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.
In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.
A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout)
This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.
This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.<br /><br />As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss ﾂ・and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction ﾂ・foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.<br /><br />There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.<br /><br />For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.<br /><br />I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.<br /><br />There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.<br /><br />The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.<br /><br />All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.
"Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.<br /><br />The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.<br /><br />One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.<br /><br />Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.<br /><br />Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.
When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.<br /><br />As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.<br /><br />O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.<br /><br />"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).<br /><br />Good for Jane and her mate!
Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodilesﾂ葉he the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephantsﾂ庸ar more friendly and trainable than African onesﾂ謡ith costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots himﾂ傭ut, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their "boys." People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.
I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.<br /><br />After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.<br /><br />One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.<br /><br />The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.<br /><br />It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie.
As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic.
Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.<br /><br />Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.<br /><br />Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.
There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended.
The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!<br /><br />The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.<br /><br />MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!<br /><br />The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).<br /><br />Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?<br /><br />While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.<br /><br />TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!
Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings. <br /><br />He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?<br /><br />Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.<br /><br />Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.
I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.<br /><br />It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.<br /><br />The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com
William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.
This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do.
This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.
I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.<br /><br />Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun. <br /><br />In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka
This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.<br /><br />The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.<br /><br />Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.<br /><br />The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).<br /><br />So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.
The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.<br /><br />Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.<br /><br />Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.<br /><br />This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.
Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a cafﾃｩ where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...<br /><br />Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic.
Ossessione<br /><br />Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable.
Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventionsﾂ預s well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this natureﾂ葉he neo-realist filmsﾂ謡ere made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.<br /><br />The two leadsﾂ宥ino and Giovannaﾂ預re polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herselfﾂ葉hat's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husbandﾂ宥ino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.<br /><br />In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's deathﾂ擁t being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.<br /><br />There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a faﾃｧade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfishﾂ預lways wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.<br /><br />All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.
Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.<br /><br />The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.<br /><br />Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.<br /><br />8/10
Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.
I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.
When people nowadays hear of a 1940s drama, they usually appear to create a distance of irony claiming that it's another tearjerker with great stars in the lead of tragic, melancholic roles. This opinion, however, does not resemble Neorealist movies, in particular this one directed by Count Luchino Visconti. OSSESSIONE as his debut once censored and once cherished as nearly a realistic masterpiece is still loved by some people and strongly criticized by others. The contradictory opinions about the film that have appeared in these 65 years seem to have been caused by the content of the movie itself, exceptionally controversial for modern times as well as the past. At the same time, while being based on the novel by James M. Cain, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, it is one of the most genuine screen adaptations where director remains his own style, view, his own art. I have seen the film twice and the second viewing led me to very detailed analysis part of which I'd like to entail below.<br /><br />First, Visconti's movie seems to touch all psychology and actions that people may do in life, in particular those absorbed by desire. These people make such tragic decisions in spite of terrible consequences they are bound to face. Gino (Massimo Girotti) a traveler with "bear like shoulders" turns up at the crossroad of a motorway near Ferrara and enters the tavern. Although many people go there to have a meal, Gino occurs to get something more - much more: the indefatigable desire of beautiful Giovanna (Clara Calamai) a woman already married to an elderly man who runs the bar, Mr Giuseppe Bragana (Juan De Landa). Her body and her song possess his mind totally and from the moment of their first love, the couple plan to get rid of the old obstacle and build up a new life together... However, are people bound to wrong deeds in face of desire? Can one build love upon murder? What is love and what is loyalty? Does desire lead to a dangerous addiction or even obsession? Such questions intensely arise while watching the movie, when, to the core, the viewer is supplied with an insight into characters. "We have to love each other affectionately" answers Giovanna seemingly giving a cure to all crying conscience but may desirous love justify and cure everything? "Isn't it what we both wanted" says one of the couple... it occurs that it's not. Therefore, the content of the film appears to be very dangerous if not analyzed with intellect and heart. Yet, it constantly remains thought provoking.<br /><br />Second, OSSESSIONE has a very strong point that talks to modern viewers: brilliant moments and marvelous cinematography, which go in pair with memorable sequences and visual power. These make a modern viewer realize that a film made almost 70 years ago is absolutely entertaining to watch. They range from tasteful erotic images to purely technical shots. Who can possibly skip that moment in Ferrara where Gino meets a beautiful girl, a sort of "Ragazza Perfetta" (perfect girl), a dancer Anita and buys her ice cream. His desires show him totally different direction... Do viewers remain indifferent at Gino-Giovanna's first meeting? The first focus of camera is on Giovanna's legs seemingly representing carnal desire over love that Gino experiences. A marvel of shot is Gino and Giovanna leaving the investigation room and the closeup of their shadows that directs our attention towards their suspicious look.<br /><br />Third, OSSESSIONE can boast outstanding performances both from the leading pair as well as the supporting cast. Massimo Girotti once said in an interview that working in this movie had been one of the most difficult jobs he had ever done; yet, consequently, what comes out is a flawless acting. He portrays a bisexual man torn within desires who commits a crime but cannot stand any of the objects that remind him of his victim, which represents conscience. His bisexuality is indicated through the character of Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo) whom he meets in very surprising circumstances in the train for Ancona. Clara Calamai, who was cast in the role after eminent Anna Magnani had refused, fits very well to the role and we may claim that there is a true chemistry between the couple. They are both very convincing. Besides, I liked Juan De Langa in the role of Bragana: he portrays an old husband not affectionate to his wife and still crazy about high art. In some of his most witty moments, he asks his wife to wash his back or walks in the empty streets singing his favorite opera songs after sort of karaoke performance.<br /><br />In sum, we, as modern viewers who are capable of critical view, have to look at this film very objectively. It is art for sure thanks to the aspects aforementioned, it is a powerful story as well thanks to the controversy it carries; yet, is it educational? Visconti was not Fellini who said that he did not carry any message for humanity. In such case, his films would only entertain (which is, of course, not entirely Fellini's style, too). Visconti always had something to convey. What did he want to say here? Is the film against bad marriage? Or is it against wrong actions of people absorbed by desire? The final shocking moments say for themselves. Though you don't have to agree with the vision, OSSESSIONE is really a wonderfully realistic film, one of Visconti's best 8/10
A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.<br /><br />The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.<br /><br />The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.<br /><br />But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.<br /><br />If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.<br /><br />
To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.
TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!
A masterful treatment of James Caine's "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French "Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended.
Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).<br /><br />Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes. <br /><br />It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.
fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again.
Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come.
Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.
Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."<br /><br />I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.<br /><br />The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.<br /><br />I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!
Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.<br /><br />The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.<br /><br />What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.<br /><br />Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.<br /><br />The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.<br /><br />"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.
(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').<br /><br />Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter ﾂ・what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why ﾂ・despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.<br /><br />Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.<br /><br />In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.<br /><br />On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump ﾂ・water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.<br /><br />Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.<br /><br />Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her ﾂ・he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.<br /><br />I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds ﾂ・that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.<br /><br />While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.<br /><br />A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker ﾂ・they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! ﾂ・all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting ﾂ・it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.
Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.
This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.
Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing dﾃｩbut, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.<br /><br />It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help. <br /><br />"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clﾃｩmenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.<br /><br />All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttﾃ Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciusciﾃ". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carnﾃｩ's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lﾃｨve", and Julien Duvivier's "Pﾃｩpﾃｩ le Moko". <br /><br />While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.<br /><br />"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.
Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.<br /><br />Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.<br /><br />Terrific
When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.<br /><br />But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.<br /><br />I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased.
This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.<br /><br />Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.<br /><br />Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON!
Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).<br /><br />Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.<br /><br />The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words". <br /><br />You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.<br /><br />The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.
I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.<br /><br />I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.<br /><br />I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)<br /><br />I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.<br /><br />Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it)
When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.
I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.<br /><br />I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!<br /><br />If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.
this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.<br /><br />enjoy!<br /><br />
This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.
The combination of the superb black and white photography and the 'Eugene Onegin with a twist' plot made this a real knock out for me. The atmosphere created by the mostly very dark shots contrasted with occasional very bright overexposed white was gripping. There was a superb moment where where transparencies - apparently conventional holiday snaps but where the faces of the actors revealed character and situation subtly but instantly - were shown accompanied by Lensky's heart-wrenching aria from the Tschaikowsky opera Eugene Onegin.<br /><br />For me the mark of a good film is that it should take advantage of the opportunities presented by that medium, which means that often the story is less important than imagery and atmosphere - Last Year in Marienbad is a good example of such a film. Krisana is in the same mould.
This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.<br /><br />Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.<br /><br />The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.<br /><br />Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending.
I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.<br /><br />"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.<br /><br />Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.<br /><br />The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.<br /><br />"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.
A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.
Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.
I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.<br /><br />I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.<br /><br />The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.<br /><br />I found the film to be delightful!
Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.
Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.<br /><br />The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichﾃｩd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.<br /><br />Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.<br /><br />The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts.
I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see!<br /><br />I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see!
I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you. <br /><br />It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.<br /><br />And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichﾃｩs of both.<br /><br />If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.
Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.<br /><br />Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.
Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco ﾂ・of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly. <br /><br />A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant ﾂ・a zombie in his closet.<br /><br />Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him ﾂ・and his family ﾂ・he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.<br /><br />Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan ﾂ・who wrote and directed ﾂ・blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality ﾂ・it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).<br /><br />The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless. <br /><br />Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.<br /><br />However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal.
This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA.
I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.<br /><br />This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.<br /><br />I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.
I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.<br /><br />jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.<br /><br />If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!<br /><br />Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!
Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.<br /><br />Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.<br /><br />I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm
This is why I still have nightmares.<br /><br />This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.<br /><br />A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).<br /><br />The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.<br /><br />Not suitable for children.
I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.
i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year......
I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path.
This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.
Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9
Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (Mﾃ〃), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.
This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.<br /><br />Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.<br /><br />If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.<br /><br />
This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see.
CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.<br /><br />CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).<br /><br />Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.<br /><br />In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.<br /><br />CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.<br /><br />The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.<br /><br />Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.<br /><br />His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.<br /><br />So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.<br /><br />Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.<br /><br />Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.<br /><br />5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.<br /><br />The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.<br /><br />In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.<br /><br />Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.<br /><br />A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.<br /><br />Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.<br /><br />CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.<br /><br />WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.<br /><br />Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.<br /><br />Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.<br /><br />Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10)
I was surprised at how fascinating this movie was. The performances were extremely good, especially by Rea as the compassionate no-nonsense detective.<br /><br />Despite a low budget, no big FX or flashy camerawork, Citizen X somehow manages to surpass the majority of similar big Hollywood films by just. Telling. The. Story.<br /><br />True stories tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang, and that's the case here, but apart from that, this is a highly recommended detective yarn.
This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.<br /><br />The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."<br /><br />Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.<br /><br />This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.<br /><br />
"Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.<br /><br />** Mild Spoilers **<br /><br /> Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naivetﾃｩ would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"<br /><br /> The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.<br /><br /> More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.
The poor DVD video quality is the only reason why I gave this movie a 9 instead of a 10. That could have been so much better, this movie deserves it.<br /><br />This is truly a movie that covers several themes simultaneously. If you do not like movies about serial killers, but are fascinated by the astonishing bureaucratic culture in the former Sovjet Union, this movie is a must-see anyway.<br /><br />I can't compare it to "Silence of the Lambs" for several reasons. The way the serial killer is portrayed, has been done far much better in Citizen X. You see several details of his private life, because you "travel" along with the killer, which gives you some idea of the source of his constant anger and sexual frustration.<br /><br />The only other movie I have seen that is as realistic as this one was "Henry - portrait of a serial killer". If you were fascinated by that movie you definitely need to take a look at Citizen X.
Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film
Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts ﾂ・above all ﾂ・which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.<br /><br />For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes ﾂ・which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.
Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.
I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre.
Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today!
Rea, Sutherland, DeMunn, and von Sydow (in a small role) are all brilliant in their performances. Sutherland is particularly adept at this sort of role, where he must portray a character whose morality is, at first, uncertain to the audience. As is so often the case with Sutherland's characters, we must ask "is he a villian [in this case, a minor one], or a hero?"<br /><br />This is a disturbing story, intelligently told, about the incompetence and fearful bureaucracy in the old Soviet Union that impeded the efforts of extremely competent people. As Sutherland's character wryly notes, "The measure of a bureaucracy is its ability not to make special exceptions". The "committee meeting" (between Rea and Sutherland's characters) after perestroika is enforced, with its revelations, has enormous emotional impact. You can feel the suffering of the dedicated people who labored in that system.<br /><br />The handful of dramatic scenes portraying victims' family members adds emotional resonance to the impact of the story. This is seldom a feature of a film with this sickening subject matter, but effectively reminds us that the victims had lives, and were loved.<br /><br />This is a sad, but very important film, which deserved its showcase on Canada's History Television.
Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.<br /><br />***SPOILERS FOLLOW****<br /><br />That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.<br /><br />It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.<br /><br />Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.
A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.<br /><br />The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause ﾂ・to catch the serial killer.<br /><br />Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.<br /><br />Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help.
Caution: May contain spoilers...<br /><br />I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.<br /><br />As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.<br /><br />Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.<br /><br />A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.<br /><br />Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.<br /><br />9 out of 10 stars
A surprisingly complex and well crafted study of "The First" serial killer in the USSR. Set in the days of perestroika this intense piece is brought to full life with the performances of Stephen Reah and Donald Sutherland.<br /><br />This examination of Cicatillo as a killer is well rounded and by hinting at some of his behaviors while out right showing others there is a subtlety that is compelling without being overtly graphic. Not for the weak of heart however as it's subject matter is often disturbing but necessary to it's full development of the main participants in this fact based story.<br /><br />HBO has furnished us with an excellent film in an unusual manner. Congrats to the director and editor of this great piece. It is in my Top 10 Must see list.
There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.<br /><br />So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief<br /><br />Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it .
Spoilers - in as far as I describe characters and their relation to the plot.<br /><br />This is a quality film. The subject matter is at once grim and gripping. The dogged determination of Stephen Rea's character, Burakov, is simply captivating. With any due apologies to him, his hangdog, continually put-upon expression serves the character well. He is, as we in England would say of the Inspector Taggart TV series character, bound to be grim because he sees three murders a week. Well, that's not strictly accurate as Chikatila operated over a number of years...<br /><br />You get a real sense of the blankwall resistance of the USSR bureaucracy, brilliantly portrayed by Joss Ackland (who often seems made for this sort of role).<br /><br />A key character (and I write this as the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is being shown on BBC1) is the Donald Sutherland character "Mikhail Fetisov". His quiet support of Burakov is steadfast. And it endures through Perestroika, and drives the involvement of the FBI for profiling. Brilliant.<br /><br />This is a must-see, as far as I am concerned.
This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved. <br /><br />I rate this film 10/10
"Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B)
Here's an oddity: a modern-day film about a serial killer that has no fight scenes, nobody seen dying, no car chases and no loud noises.....and it takes place in Russia. There are only two short action scenes but they are horrific.<br /><br />The rest of the story is detective work, and how much red tape the poor detective had to go through to solve the murders. This is a very somber movie, and "somber" best describes the personality of the hero (Stephen Rea), as well. Yet, the story is not depressing and it's very interesting all the way through.<br /><br />Rea is outstanding as the determined, harried-looked detective. Jeffrey DeMunn is downright scary as the killer. Donald Sutherland's Russian accent is suspect but he plays the only character in this film that has some warmth.<br /><br />Once again, the story is dotted with liberal agendas, here and there, with not one but two references to bias against gays, the total validity of secular psychology, police and government officials being boorish/crude/bigoted, yadda, yadda, yadda. <br /><br />Otherwise, it's an intelligent and refreshingly low-key crime film. This is a somewhat unique film that probably is not well-known but is well-liked by the people who have seen it. Since it's based on a true-life account of this killer, it's all the more chilling. Don't pass this by just because you haven't anything about it.
There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.
This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see.
This has to be one the best movies about serial killers that I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who absolutely loved Silence of the Lambs. HBO has hit the jackpot here. This film is compelling from the first moment until the last.<br /><br />This film has so many underlying themes its hard to tell exactly what it is about. It chronicles the decade-long search for the Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Stephen Rea gives a brilliantly reserved performance as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation, and Donald Sutherland gives an even more involving performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him. Both of their performances are subtle masterpieces---Rea begins naive and unwilling to compromise, while Sutherland begins detached and almost amused by the situation. Towards the end, Rea becomes more world-weary and beaten by the system, while Sutherland finds himself more passionate and idealistic.<br /><br />In any other movie, I would have said that Sutherland's performance stands out above the rest, but here even it is rivaled by Jeffrey DuMann, as the serial killer himself. DuMann brilliantly creates a character here who inspires empathy rather than the hatred we think we would find---he is a monster, but he doesn't want to be, and we get the idea that he is just as disgusted with what he does as we are. He is tortured, ashamed, but vicious as well.<br /><br />If you can take the incredibly dark subject matter, (and it is *very* disturbing), then you should see this movie.
Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen. <br /><br />It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.<br /><br />I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me.
I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.<br /><br />Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.<br /><br />CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV
Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.<br /><br />Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schﾃｼrer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane? <br /><br />I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.<br /><br />But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director Josﾃｩ Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.<br /><br />Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.<br /><br />The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schﾃｼrer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schﾃｼrer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.<br /><br />The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together.
Although the word megalmania is used a lot to describe Gene Kelly, and sometimes his dancing is way too stiff, you have to admit the guy knows how to put on a show. In American In Paris, he choreographs some outstanding numbers, some which stall the plot, but are nonetheless amazing to look at. (Check out Gene Kelly's "Getting Out Of Bed Routine" for starters)<br /><br />Gene Kelly stars as a GI who is based out of Paris, he stayed there to paint, soon he is a rich woman's gigolo, but he really LOVES SOMEONE ELSE! Hoary story sure, but the musical numbers save the show here! I really loved Georges Guﾂｨﾂｦtary's voice work in this one. His 'Stairway to Paradise' and his duet with Le Gene on 'S Wonderful' is 's marvelous'. Oscar Levant and Leslie Caron I can take or leave. All in all, a pretty good, but not dynamite movie.
The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by!
What makes for Best Picture material? The Oscars have come in for a lot of stick for rewarding overblown spectacles that have aged poorly, and ignoring the "auteurs" who would be deified in decades to come. It wasn't because Hollywood was against art or creativity. The Academy Awards are the selections made by the industry itself, and that is why, at least in the classic era, they tended to reward the greatest collaborations, the most sensational meetings of creative minds.<br /><br />The Arthur Freed unit at MGM had been bound for Oscar-winning glory for several years by this point; it was only a matter of time before Freed, aided by his strongest director Vincente Minnelli and some the finest musical stars in the business, would land a Best Picture. Freed had arguably done more to raise the status of the musical than anyone else, crafting pictures which wove story and song together without losing the dynamic spectacle of the 30s musicals. The point about Freed musicals, is that the lyrics of the songs, unlike those of Hammerstein or Lerner, don't have to tell or even relate to the stories. What's important is that the tone of the song and the way it is presented fit into the structure of the film.<br /><br />An American in Paris was the first of three Freed musicals (the other two being Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon) which took existing classic numbers out of their original context and made them work in a completely unrelated story. The words don't fit the plot, but the routines fit the show. So, when Gene Kelly sings I Got Rhythm, he hasn't even got a girl yet, but the way it's done with the French kids joining in is a great bit of characterisation, and the upbeat tune and dance gives the movie the little lift it needs at this point. An American in Paris also uses the rule-breaking allowed in the genre to add little unconventional flights of fancy to tell the story, such as the series of dances which accompany the description of Leslie Caron's character.<br /><br />And what better director for this project than Minnelli, himself a painter and a pianist? At this time there wasn't really anyone who had a better feel for Technicolor. While some directors would saturate each scene in one colour or fill the screen with clashing shades, Minnelli's colour schemes are tightly controlled but never look forced. In the opening scenes the tones are fairly muted, but not drab, and in particular there is an absence of red. During Oscar Levant and Georges Guetary's meeting in the cafﾃｩ, a few more vibrant shades are introduced. Then, during the first musical number, "By Strauss" Minnelli gradually brings in splashes of red ﾂ・a table cloth, a bunch of roses ﾂ・until it eventually dominates, as if the song has awoken the picture's colour scheme. For most of the songs, the colours are choreographed as intricately as the people. However, in some numbers, such as "Tra-la-la" he keeps the shades the same and instead opens out the space as the song swells up and the characters become more animated.<br /><br />The Achilles' heel of An American in Paris is its story. I personally find the romantic angle particularly unpalatable, playing as it does like a last hurrah for the misogynistic love stories that reigned supreme in the 30s; the headstrong, independent woman gets rejected while the meek, delicate girl is harassed into loving the hero. Even if you don't mind that, it is difficult to connect emotionally with the story because it is constantly overshadowed by the songs and dances. Compare this to Singin' in the Rain, which doesn't really have as many great routines or memorable set-pieces as An American in Paris, but it has a winning storyline. Singin' in the Rain was overlooked at the 1952 Oscars, yet it is regarded as a classic of the genre today. But I think people sometimes forget that cinema is an all-encompassing form of visual entertainment, not just a means of telling a story. An American in Paris is not deep or engaging or tear-jerking but, like a certain DeMille picture that won the top award the following year, it certainly is a great show.
This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.<br /><br />A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.
The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, "An American in Paris", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.<br /><br />Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancﾃｩe of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.<br /><br />The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to "Our Love Is Here to Stay" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. "I Got Rhythm" and "S'Wonderful" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while "Embraceable You" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in "On the Town" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.<br /><br />As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise", George Guﾃｩtary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras.
This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.<br /><br />The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one. <br /><br />The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.<br /><br />When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work. <br /><br />But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.<br /><br />One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.<br /><br />8/10
An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin. <br /><br />The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include "I Got Rhythm," "'S Wonderful," and "Our Love is Here to Stay". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the "songbook" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is "The American in Paris" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.<br /><br />It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.<br /><br />Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a "real" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, "Who's Gene Kelly?" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.<br /><br />Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guﾃｩtary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.<br /><br />Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.<br /><br />Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.<br /><br />Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of "Stairway to Paradise"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's "Concerto in F" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)<br /><br />The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kellyﾂ・but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit ﾂ・and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.<br /><br />There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).<br /><br />Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.<br /><br />Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, "An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance." An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good." The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.<br /><br />The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)<br /><br />Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film." It was his only Oscar.
An American in Paris is a wonderful musical about an American painter living in Paris for inspiration. He meets a rich woman who admires his paintings on the street and she believes she can get his work to be even more popular to the public, e.g. in a museum. Golden Globe nominated Gene Kelly as the artist Jerry Mulligan is just perfect at both singing and especially dancing. He also meets the main girl Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) who is engaged to his best friend. He can't help his feelings for this girl, even after he finds out who she is engaged to. Filled with nice romance and wonderful song and dance, this is a very good musical film. It may drag slightly with his dancing dream sequence, i.e. The American in Paris ballet, but there is a good happy ending. It won the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay and Best Picture, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Minnelli and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Millenni (Liza's father). Gene Kelly was number 66 on The 100 Movie Stars, and he was number 15 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, "I Got Rhythm" was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 9 on 100 Years of Musicals, it was number 39 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, it was number 68 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!
If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.<br /><br />The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.<br /><br />Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guﾃｩtary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.<br /><br />Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guﾃｩtary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.<br /><br />I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.<br /><br />But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.<br /><br />I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.<br /><br />The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow.
... Oxford, Mississippi, at least. Okay, the Paris we get is Paris, Culver City apart from the Establishing library footage of the real McCoy but it IS Paris in spirit than which nothing, nowhere, is better. Okay, Kelly is no Astaire but then who is and Caron is no Hepburn, ditto but Alan Lerner is light years ahead of the vastly overrated Comden and Green who scripted Kelly's other 'big' 50s musical Singin' In The Rain (a curious replication of lyricists writing screenplays featuring songs by OTHER lyricists and just to balance things the Gershwin numbers are far superior to the Arthur Freed/Nacio Herb Brown numbers so Alan Lerner didn't have to feel too outclassed). The story needn't detain us any more than the anomalies -Kelly hasn't got change of a match and is a painter, i.e. bohemian, yet he is able to scare up a perfectly good suit at a few hours notice when Foch invites him to dinner at her hotel; in the well-documented Love Is Here To Stay sequence the lovers are strangely unmolested by passers-by, other lovers and the bridge in the background is totally free of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic - this is, after all, a feelgood musical so it stands or falls by the score and in this case it stands four square. As feel good musicals go it's definitely in the top 10.
The story and music (George Gershwin!) are wonderful, as are Levant, Guetary, Foch, and, of course, Kelly. One thing's missing, and that thing is a good leading lady. I'm sorry, Leslie Caron bothers me. Anyway, despite her, the plot moves along nicely with the famous (and deservedly so) Ballet. Oh the colours, the dazzling reds, blues, greens, and yellows. Musn't forget the beiges as well. ; ) I just adore the contrast between the Beaux Arts Ball (completely black and white costumes) and the ever-so-brilliant Ballet.<br /><br />So I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Please, by all means see it, and enjoy it, because though it isn't the best, it is MARVELOUS. But be sure not to forget that other Gene Kelly musical with the 20 year old girl that was catapulted to stardom just afterward.
An American in Paris is a showcase of Gene Kelly. Watch as Gene sings, acts and dances his way through Paris in any number of situations. Some purely majestic, others pure corn. One can imagine just what Kelly was made of as he made this film only a year before "Singin' In The Rain". He is definately one of the all time greats. It is interesting to look at the parallels between the two films, especially in Kelly's characters, the only main difference being that one is based in Paris, the other in L.A.<br /><br />Some have said that Leslie Caron's acting was less than pure. Perhaps Cyd Charisse, who was originally intended for the role could have done better, however Caron is quite believable in the role and has chemistry with Kelly. Oscar Levant's short role in this film gave it just what it needed, someone who doesn't look like Gene Kelly. Filling the role as the everyman isn't an easy task, yet Levant did it with as much class as any other lead.<br /><br />The song and dance routines are all perfection. Even the overlong ballet at the end of the film makes it a better film with it than without. Seeing that there really wasn't much screen time to make such a loving relationship believable, Minnelli used this sequence to make it seem as if you'd spent four hours with them. Ingenious!<br /><br />I would have to rate this film up with Singin' since it is very similar in story and song. Singin' would barely get the nod because of Debbie Reynolds uplifting performance.<br /><br />Full recommendation.<br /><br />8/10 stars.
Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.<br /><br />The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br />
Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. <br /><br />To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song.
While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist.
I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10
Released two years before I was born, this Oscar-winning movie has it all - lavish Technicolor sets and costumes, breathtaking cinematography, superb wall-to-wall Gershwin music, superior choreography, a lighter-than-air screenplay, and great performances by Kelly, Levant, Foch, Guetary, and Caron. Hollywood doesn't make 'em like this anymore. Definitely, this is my favorite movie of all time, a standard by which I judge all other films. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY!
Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say "they don't make 'em like they used to!" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see!
I enjoyed this film. It was lighthearted, delightful, and very colorful. You can see that MGM was showing off Technicolor. There are hardly any colors that do not appear in this film. Every scene is packed full. The choreography was great. Gene Kelly is a wonder. He is so talented. The dance numbers in this film are all perfectly executed, and perfectly designed. He understands that the dances can tell the story as much as anything else. The last section of the film, the grand dance sequence, is very impressive. What makes this film very special is Gershwin's music. Few American composers have had a better gift for melody. I very much enjoy Gershwin's music. It is enchanting. Ira Gershwin is definitely one of the greatest lyric writers. He is so witty and charming. This was a highly entertaining film.
Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.<br /><br />But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.) <br /><br />The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.<br /><br />Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch!
I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.<br /><br />Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the "comments" index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.<br /><br />Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing "Pal Joey" on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin "panorama" film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the "goody two shoes" roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of "For Me and My Gal"). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of "Pal Joey". This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to "Pal Joey." In my opinion, the WB film "Pal Joey" is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================<br /><br />You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying "but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!". You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.<br /><br />Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as "Joey's" enthusiasm to "start a nightclub". But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in "Pal Joey" (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================<br /><br />Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no "chemistry". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse "forced" romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in "The Pride and the Passion". ====================================================<br /><br />When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a "load of crap". ==================================================
An American in Paris was, in many ways, the ultimate mixture of art and Hollywood musical. Made at the height of MGM's powers as a musical powerhouse, the film features memorable music from the Gershwins, who rightly have been called the 20th Century's equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart. <br /><br />Gene Kelly was also at the height of his powers in this film, though it could be rightly argued that this movie was just the warm-up for his best work in Singin' in the Rain (1952). The two films are actually closely linked. Aside from the Arthur Freed connection, the Broadway Melody segment in "Rain" owes its existence to the incredible American in Paris Ballet sequence in this film. This might well have been the only time a dance number is specially mentioned in the opening credits of the film. And it deserved to be, as it showcases Gene Kelly's skills as a dancer and choreographer to their utmost degree.<br /><br />The film's cast is uniformly excellent. Leslie Caron, incredibly making her film debut, shows a maturity that makes you think she'd been making films for years. Her introductory dance sequence, and later her work on the Ballet, provides some surprisingly sexy moments rivalled in MGM Musicals only by Cyd Charisse's work in Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon. Oscar Levant is hilarious as Kelly's stoic pal, who gets two of the film's best moments: during the end party sequence (which I will not give away for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and one of the film's most memorable musical numbers which couples his incredible piano skills with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects.<br /><br />Less memorable are Georges Guetary as Kelly's romantic rival, though he does get a few musical highlights, and Nina Foch as Leslie Caron's romantic rival. The May-December relationship between Kelly's character and Nina's reminded me of the same "kept man" relationship seen between George Peppard and Patricia Neal in Breakfast at Tiffany's.<br /><br />There are a few elements of the film that made it less satisfying for me than Singin' in the Rain. The Ballet, though lavish and well-produced, doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Without giving away the plot, the Ballet just happens, with no real rhyme or reason. And unlike the Broadway Melody sequence, it really doesn't have anything to do with the plot -- and in the best musicals, the songs always have some sort of raison d'etre. <br /><br />Making matters worse is the ending of the film which happens immediately after the Ballet. Although the ending shouldn't be a surprise (this IS an MGM musical, after all), I was hoping for a bit more ... movie after the Ballet ended. It's as if director Vincente Minnelli felt that he couldn't follow the Ballet with anything else. The film literally left me in the lurch.<br /><br />That negative aside, An American in Paris rightly ranks alongside the best of Hollywood's musicals. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Singin' in the Rain, but it comes close and it remains a testament to Gene Kelly's skills as one of the greatest dancers of all time.
I saw "An American in Paris" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are "It's Very Clear" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and "I Got Rhythm" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in "Une Chanson Americaine"). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it !
Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM. <br /><br />The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.<br /><br />Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.<br /><br />Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy. <br /><br />Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.<br /><br />Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.<br /><br />In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.<br /><br />In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.<br /><br />Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated.
Vincente Minnelli directed some of the most celebrated entertainments in cinema history... He was among the first Hollywood directors to show that a profound love of color, motion and music might produce intelligent entertainment... <br /><br />'American in Paris' is the story of an ex-GI who remains in France after the war to study and paint... He falls in love with a charming gamine Lise Bourvier... Their romantic love affair sparkles as brightly as the City of Lights itself... The whole movie brings a touch of French elegance where technique, artistic style and music all come together in perfect synchronism...<br /><br />The first musical sequence introduces the exciting personality of Leslie Caron in her screen debut... She is like a diamond, a touch of class... George Guetary describes his fiancﾃｩe ambiguous grace in a montage of different dance styles, sweet and shy, vivacious and modern, graceful and awesome... The number leads to an unpretentious bistro, where Kelly and his very good friends in Paris share a gentle parody of Viennese waltzes... Later Kelly celebrates a popular tap dancing with a crowd of enthusiastic children singing with him 'I Got Rhythm,' and at the massive jazz nightclub Kelly spots the girl of his dreams... He is instantly hit by her sparkling sapphire blue eyes, and only one clear thing is in his mind, to pull Lize onto the dance floor and sing to her: "It's very clear, Our love is here to stay."<br /><br />To the joyful 'Tra-La-La,' Kelly provides humor, wit and talent all around Oscar Levant's room ,and even on the top of his brown piano... <br /><br />When he meets his pretty Cinderella along the Seine river, Kelly is swept away by his happy meeting with Caron... He expresses all his emotions with 'Our Love Is Here to Stay.' The piece had a definite nighttime feel as the two lovers were bathed in soft, blue smoky light... They start an enchanting dance-duet juxtaposing differing elements... Caron dances with her head on his shoulder, then tries to run away in a fluid way... They move backward, away from each other, then pause to rush toward each other, for a little kiss, and a warm hug...<br /><br />The film's weakest numbers were those that bear little relation to the story... In one, Georges Guetary performs an entertaining stage show with showgirls in giant ornaments floating down to the stage... In another, Oscar Levant imagines himself conducting a concert, and playing not only a piano recital, but the other instruments as well... He even applauds to himself as members of the audience...<br /><br />The extravagant climactic super ballet of the film is quite an adventure, a breakthrough in taste, direction and design... It is a blaze of love, fury and vividness... It is Kelly's major fantasy of his lost love and of his feeling about Paris as viewed through the huge backdrops of some of France's most Impressionist painters...<br /><br />The number starts at the Beaux Arts Ball after Kelly finds himself separated from Lise, and begins a sketch with a black crayon... It gathers the important parts of the film's story through a constantly changing locations, all in the style of the painters who have influenced Jerry... The tour, richly attractive and superbly atmospheric, includes the Place De la Concorde Fountain, the Madeleine flower market, the Place De l'Opﾃｩra, to his Rendez-Vous at Montmartre, with the cancan dancers in a representation of Lautrec's Moulin Rouge...<br /><br />Kelly seems to defy the boundaries of his physical self... Caron seems to dominate her space and sweeps you away to another time and place...<br /><br />Nina Foch appeared very attractive and elegant in her one-shouldered white gown... In one of the film's most famous lines, Kelly asks her: 'That's quite a dress you almost have on. What holds it up?" Nina, cleverly replies, "modesty!"<br /><br />'An American in Paris' garnered six Oscars, including an honorary award to Gene Kelly... The film gave us a wealth of memories to take home...
Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.<br /><br />Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film.
This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherchﾃｩ "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.<br /><br />Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.<br /><br />Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.<br /><br />The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.<br /><br />The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.<br /><br />__________________________________________________________________<br /><br />FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.
updated January 1st, 2006<br /><br />Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.<br /><br />Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.<br /><br />Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jﾃｼrgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.<br /><br />Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).<br /><br />Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schﾃｶne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.<br /><br />Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).<br /><br />The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)<br /><br />Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera.
Etienne Girardot is just a character actor--the sort of person people almost never would know by name. However, he once again plays the coroner--one of the only actors in the Philo Vance films that played his role more than once. I've already seen him two other times and loved him every time because he was so funny and a breath of fresh air. This film also is great to watch because in addition to Girardot, there are many other wonderful character actors along for the ride--including Grant Mitchell, Gene Lockhart, Henry Walthal, Kent Smith, H.B. Warner and Nat Pendleton. This is quite an impressive cast, and they sure made the job easier for leading man and woman Edmund Lowe and Virginia Bruce.<br /><br />These great character actors are one of the big reasons I love these old B-movies. While the mystery itself is rarely that terrific, because of the breezy writing and acting, the films really satisfy. As for this film, Vance is played wonderfully by Lowe but, like I said, the mystery itself is only an after-thought--with a silly plot involving hypnosis and suicides. Unfortunately, you cannot hypnotize anyone to do anything of the sort--I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD do anything like the evil guy could do in the film, I would have done it! Used car salesmen and a few of my old bosses would have been obvious targets!! <br /><br />Overall, while not the best Philo Vance film, it was very good and it's a darn shame Lowe only played this role once. In fact, aside from William Powell (who played Vance five times), the series was hindered by a long, long succession of actors such as Basil Rathbone, Wilfred Hyde-White and Warren William (and many others) playing Vance. This is a similar problem that also plagued the Bulldog Drummond series--just too many different actors playing the leading man.<br /><br />Well worth seeing and exciting--though also quite impossible.
When Philo Vance (Edmund Lowe) is standing precariously on the edge of a balcony high above the city, apparently hypnotized and just about to step to his death,it immediately reminded me of a nearly identical scene in another film made nine years later, "The Woman in Green" in which Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone)is similarly about to hurl himself into space while being hypnotized. <br /><br />Happily, both Philo Vance and Sherlock Holmes survive these attempts at murder by unscrupulous criminals. Exciting cinematic suspense in both these scenes. When will they learn you can't cloud the minds of great fictional detectives ?
EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.<br /><br />Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.<br /><br />On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.<br /><br />Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner.
S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.<br /><br />MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.<br /><br />Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market. <br /><br />The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.<br /><br />I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock.
Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.<br /><br />While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.<br /><br />I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!<br /><br />I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.
I thought that it was a great film for kids ages 6-12. A little sappy, but the story is uplifting an fresh. It proves that the dreams of an adolescent can truly come true. I think that it's a great story for any kid who is feelings down, or feels as if there trying to juggle too many things among them. Very 'cute' film. Bravo.
A great storyline with a message. Joan Plowright is superb as "Phoebe", Mike Kopsa is hilarious as "coach" and Richard de Klerk plays the role of "Carmine" superbly. Mischa Barton as "Frankie" puts in a good performance and Ingrid as "Hazel" plays her first lead extremely well. This film is superbly directed by Jo-Beth Williams. The editing is first rate.
This is a great movie to see with your girlfriend. My friend and I both love dance and ran into this movie at the video store. We had to get it. With no violence and such a warming story its a great movie to relax to and just enjoy your night. I would recommend this movie to any family or just a bunch of girls looking for a cute movie.
An excellent family movie... gives a lot to think on... There's absolutely nothing wrong in this film. Everything is just perfect. The script is great - it's so... real... such things could happen in everyone's life. And don't forget about acting - it's just awesome! Just look at Frankie and You'll know what I thought about... This picture is a real can't-miss!!!
This film struck me as a project that had a lot of the right ingredients, but somewhere along the way they didn't quite come together. I don't know who made it, but it has a slightly Disney-esque feel. While parts of it are improbable (like when a pre-teen runs for a public office) and tend to prevent the story from being taken seriously, there is a healthy dose of normalcy (whatever that is) to keep things balanced and in perspective. The acting is alright. Strangely, the relationship between Frankie and her grandmother is convincing, but the relationship between Hazel and Frankie is a bit...off. It's interesting to see how she has to work hard to keep a balance between her best friend, her grandmother, and her two passions: ballet and baseball. Being a baseball player myself, it was quite painful to watch Frankie try to hold her own on a team of boys, but it does a good job of showing the struggle she faces. I read somewhere that she isn't really ballerina, but the editing in this film did a very good job of making her dancing look not only natural but beautiful. Overall, it was a good film about honesty and ambition, but its star Mischa Barton didn't quite achieve the level of realism we saw during her performances in "Lawn Dogs", "Lost and Delirious", and her small but shocking performance opposite Haley Joel Osment in "The 6th Sense."
I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.
Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.<br /><br />With the black servant 'Protﾃｩe' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.<br /><br />A great discourse.
This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all.
I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel!
Claire Denis's Chocolat is a beautiful but frustrating film. The film presents a very interesting look at the household of a European colonial family living in Cameroon, giving the viewer an informative perspective on the lives of many characters and their interaction. However, the development of these characters is often maddeningly insufficient. For example, a central theme in the story is young France's inability to form strong relationships with others. Although this portrayal is executed flawlessly, notably in the way that Denis frames the story with scenes from France's return to her childhood home, the girl's lack of intimacy with the film's other characters makes it difficult for a viewer to invest much interest in her development (or lack thereof) as a protagonist. The general stagnation of the film's character development makes it difficult to become engaged in the loosely organized plot. The film raises a great deal of tension between characters, particularly between Aimee and the men in her life, but never fully addresses this social friction, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. The final few scenes are powerful but depressing. Denis's work is certainly interesting from an intellectual and historical standpoint, but if you are looking for a film with adventure or drama, Chocolat is definitely not the best choice.
This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective.
I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside. <br /><br />It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant. <br /><br />For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut.
The story is about a little girl growing up in colonial Africa, but it is so much more than that.<br /><br />Anyone growing up in the South would experience the same things. A longing for another, one of a different race, that cannot be consummated. Even a glance is forbidden. There are no words needed. Their facial expressions say everything.<br /><br />It is the story of a black servant, Protﾃｩe (Isaach De Bankolﾃｩ) and a white woman, Aimﾃｩe (Giulia Boschi). Their desire for each other is so strong that they torture each other because they cannot have each other.<br /><br />The little girl, France (Cﾃｩcile Ducasse) is lonely and spends all her time with Protﾃｩe. She really can't see this dance.<br /><br />One of the more irritating aspects of the film is the laziness of the colonials. They cannot even get undressed for bed by themselves. There world is about to end; they just don't know it yet. Their racist attitudes will be erased with their presence.<br /><br />I think I would like to visit this Africa. It seems so quiet; especially at night when you only hear the animals.
I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really "get it" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to "get", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like "exciting" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.
I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!!
In reflecting on this movie I can think of two others to help put it in perspective. One relatively forgettable but covering the same geography, is Coup de Torchon, the other thousands of miles away and much larger in scope is the unforgettable Indochine. Claire Denis has produced a movie that has some of the grand underpinnings of Indochine, the complex and unspoken relationship between France and her colonial subjects.<br /><br />I was struck with the dignity of Potee, with his struggle to maintain his dignity among his peers and with his white bosses. I was also struck with the love/hate relationship between him and Aimee. It is the latter that gives the film its driving force, it is the latter that links this movie to Indochine.<br /><br />One never is sure what motivates everyone, though some of the characters are required of a remembrance of colonialism. It is this cynical side of the story that ties it to Coup de Torchon. Theirs is the more scandalous story, perhaps even more interesting in a depraved way, but Denis gives us a remembrance of how it was with all the tension and unresolved relationships.<br /><br />The American black who gives the grown up France a ride in the beginning and end of the movie offers yet another interesting side to the confusion that we in the Western world have when we look at Africa. He says that when he came he wanted to call everyone brother. He was coming home, but they just thought him to be a little daft. France, the character and the girl, grew up in Cameroon, but neither fully understands what it is even though they can remember how it was.<br /><br />
This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered. <br /><br />The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimﾃｩe and her servant, Protﾃｩe. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protﾃｩe or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protﾃｩe lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.<br /><br />Also interesting is the relationship between Protﾃｩe and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.<br /><br />There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protﾃｩe! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.<br /><br />While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.<br /><br />Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel.
Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' "houseboy," perhaps the only "real" human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite.
My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protﾃｩe and Aimﾃｩe compared to the one between Protﾃｩe and France.<br /><br />I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the "sexiest" scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, "Yes!" when he figured out the scene: the one where Protﾃｩe is helping Aimﾃｩe lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the "mirror technique" when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is "sexy".<br /><br />Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was "Africanism", and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot "become" African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African.
Set in the Cameroons in West Africa in the 1950s, Claire Denis' Chocolat is a beautifully photographed and emotionally resonant tone poem that depicts the effects of a dying colonialism on a young family during the last years of French rule. The theme is similar to the recent Nowhere in Africa, though the films are vastly different in scope and emphasis. The film is told from the perspective of an adult returning to her childhood home in a foreign country. France Dalens (Mireille Perrier), a young woman traveling through Cameroon, recalls her childhood when her father (Francois Cluzet) was a government official in the French Cameroons and she had a loving friendship with the brooding manservant, Protﾃｩe (Isaach de Bankolﾃｩ). The heart of the film, however, revolves around France's mother Aimﾃｩe (Giulia Boschi) and her love/hate relationship with Protﾃｩe that is seething with unspoken sexual tension. <br /><br />The household is divided into public and private spaces. The white families rooms are private and off limits to all except Protﾃｩe who works in the house while the servants are forced to eat and shower outdoors, exposing their naked bronze bodies to the white family's gazes. It becomes clear when her husband Marc (Franﾃｧois Cluzet) goes away on business that Aimﾃｩe and Protﾃｩe are sexually attracted to each other but the rules of society prevent it from being openly acknowledged. In one telling sequence, she invites him into her bedroom to help her put on her dress and the two stare at each other's image in the mirror with a defiant longing in their eyes, knowing that any interaction is taboo. <br /><br />The young France (Cecile Ducasse) also forms a bond with the manservant, feeding him from her plate while he shows her how to eat crushed ants and carries her on his shoulders in walks beneath the nocturnal sky. In spite of their bond, the true nature of their master-servant relationship is apparent when France commands Protﾃｩe to interrupt his conversation with a teacher and immediately take her home, and when Protﾃｩe stands beside her at the dinner table, waiting for her next command. When a plane loses its propeller and is forced to land in the nearby mountains, the crew and passengers must move into the compound until a replacement part can be located. Each visitor shows their disdain for the Africans, one, a wealthy owner of a coffee plantation brings leftover food from the kitchen to his black mistress hiding in his room. Another, Luc (Jean-Claude Adelin), an arrogant white Frenchman, upsets the racial balance when he uses the outside shower, eats with the servants, and taunts Aimﾃｩe about her attraction to Protﾃｩe leading her to a final emotional confrontation with the manservant.<br /><br />Chocolat is loosely autobiographical, adapted from the childhood memories of the director, and is slowly paced and as mysterious as the brooding isolation of the land on which it is filmed. Denis makes her point about the effects of colonialism without preaching or romanticizing the characters. There are no victims or oppressors, no simplistic good guys. Protﾃｩe is a servant but he is also a protector as when he stands guard over the bed where Aimﾃｩe and her daughter sleep to protect them from a rampaging hyena. It is a sad fact that Protﾃｩe is treated as a boy and not as a man, but Bankolﾃｩ imbues his character with such dignity and stature that it lessens the pain. Because of its pace, Western audiences may have to work hard to fully appreciate the film and Denis does not, in Roger Ebert's phrase, "coach our emotions". The truth of Chocolat lies in the gestures and glances that touch the silent longing of our heart.
Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version ﾂ・there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release ﾂ・since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.
A lush fantasy world with quirky characters and annoying 80's music. This epitomizes the 80's desire to rewrite fairy tales and make fun of how they work. Personally I liked Greensleeves and the other harsher characters. They had some of the more amusing lines.
You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.<br /><br />It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.<br /><br />
This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.
One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the "cut-out" method of animation (a la "South Park"), the real talent behind "Twice Upon a Time" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's "Rhoda") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The "accidental nightmare" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed.
Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.<br /><br />The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience!
OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask.
I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.<br /><br />I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.<br /><br />Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond "art". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...<br /><br />Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.<br /><br />
As a person who sought out an existence as a 'professional' person with income backed by a BS in Chemistry and MS in Business Management, my sanity was always spasmodically sustained in outside indulgences in things more artistic. My post-post graduate classes were always emotionally and spiritually supported by an interest in photography, stained-glass, ceramics, metal forging/welding, and art drawing that also included silk screening.<br /><br />I also keep healthy with jogging, walking and lately, hiking to remote destinations in California and nearby states like Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Jogging, walking and hiking gets one close to the earth with time to stop and watch and listen and also photograph or record sounds.<br /><br />Within that background, I was obsessed with RIVERS AND TIDES. I was equally impressed with the documentary content of artist Andy Goldsworthy as well as the skills and smoothness of Director/Cinematographer Thomas Riedelsheimer. I actually could not separate the art of Goldsworthy with camera path of Riedelsheimer.<br /><br />Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful.
<br /><br />So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.<br /><br />The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.
This film is mesmerizing in its beauty and creativity. An artist's profound vision, his art that springs intuitively from its natural source brings us an inspiring Hosanna, blending his creations with trees, white water dashing against rocks, fields and rain...Andy Goldsworthy makes the viewer feel joy in being alive, aware that we are all made of the clay of this glorious earth. He doesn't spare us his occasional frustration, but on the whole we see the miracle in joining art with nature. Credit also goes of course to the filmmaker, Thomas Riedelsheimer, who directed, photographed and edited the movie with incredible sensibility and perfect timing.<br /><br />If you have any feeling for beauty, nature and art...do not miss this fantastic film!
Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect.
A new way to enjoy Goldsworthy's work, Rivers and Tides allows fans to see his work in motion. Watching Goldsworthy build his pieces, one develops an appreciation for every stone, leaf, and thorn that he uses. Goldsworthy describes how the flow of life, the rivers, and the tides inspires and affects his work. Although, I was happy the film covered the majority of Goldsworthy's pieces (no snowballs), I do feel it was a bit long. The film makers did a wonderful job of bringing Goldsworthy's work to life, and created a beautiful film that was a joy to watch.
Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.
This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often clichﾃｩ things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends.
I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb)
this has by far been one of the most beautiful portraits of a person that I've ever seen on screen. Andy Goldsworthy is a kind of man that is upon extinction. he views the earth and nature with such admiration and respect that it's primitive in a good sense. his purity, honesty and kindness breathes clearly as you watch him work in such simplistic yet full of life momentary pieces of art. I was amazed how patiently he created his pieces and how patiently he accepted their end. sometimes prematurely, but his Scottish sense of humor covers his disappointments brilliantly. the film is shoot elegantly and contains the same flow that Goldsworthy's art has. it combines nature and art in a minimal way as it is in itself. Fred Frith's score is organic enough that it blends everything together without interfering with it naturalistic sound. this is overall a great piece of work in every aspect. it has no boundaries as far as age goes.
This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre.
A very engaging documentary about Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy, whose work consists mostly of ephemeral sculptures made from elements from nature. His work is made of rocks, leaves, grass, ice, etc., that gets blown away when the tide arrives at the beach or the wind blows at the field. Thus, most of Goldsworthy's works don't really last, except as photos or films of what they were. Now, one can argue that Goldsworthy's works are a reflection of mortality, or words to that effect, but isn't it easier to say that what he does is just beautiful art. And at a time when the stereotype about artists is that they are mostly bitter, pretentious, often mentally unstable people who live in decrepit urban settings, Goldsworthy seems to be the opposite: a stable, unpretentious, family oriented person who loves nature and lives in a small village in Scotland (of course, I'm sure those are the same reasons why he's shunned by some people on the art world who found his works fluffy or superficial).
The Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy fashions natural materials into ephemeral artworks, assembling rocks into egg-shaped cairns, filling riverside rock-pools with fiery flowers and stitching thorns and twigs into intricate web patterns. An original work and a few photographs of his other creations are tucked away in a corner of Southampton art gallery (near where I live), but although I found these pieces intriguing, I only realised the wonder of Goldsworthy's work when I was lucky enough to catch a re-screening of Rivers and Tides.<br /><br />Thomas Reidelsheimer's film, accompanied by a beautiful instrumental soundtrack by Fred Frith, brings Goldsworthy and his art to life by showing the artist at work. The opening scene captures him fusing icicle fragments into a snake-like thread set atop a tree-stump. Working with his teeth and bare hands, Goldsworthy crafts a beautiful, ephemeral work. Before long this delicate sculpture melts away to nothing in the brilliant Nova Scotian sunlight. This scene is among the most beautiful in the film, but the breadth and inventiveness of Goldsworthy's work is remarkable. Reidelsheimer shows both the successes and the failures, capturing the frustration of pieces that collapse before they are completed as well as the glory of those that shine, even if for just a few hours, minutes or seconds.<br /><br />Goldsworthy himself provides the narration, speaking slowly but thoughtfully about the themes in his work. He makes plain his need to work with nature, to be alone in it and to further his understanding of it through trying to work with natural materials, even when they seem to be working against him. At times he is down-to-earth and humorous; at other times he struggles for the words to express his purpose ﾂ・something which is quite understandable when witnessing his astonishing work first hand. The 'Rivers and Tides' of the title become increasingly pertinent as we see the natural materials pass through the artist's hands, flowing from one form to the next. The capture of the creation and dissolution of Goldworthy's work is in itself a striking piece of art.<br /><br />Although Goldsworthy works with widely varying materials and covers territory across North America and Europe, the presentation of artworks one after the other in this film is exhausting; it gave me the same feeling of fatigue that I get when I spend too long in an art gallery and struggle to take in anything new. A brief interval in which we are introduced to Andy's family and hometown is all that breaks the long succession of his artworks. Nevertheless, Reidelsheimer does a superb job in photographing Goldsworthy and his creations, locating them in their wider environments, from meandering Canadian rivers to rainy Scottish hillsides. Fittingly, the film ends with Goldsworthy casting handfuls of earth and snow into the sky. Fleeting patterns emerge from the dust particles even as they dissipate into the air; this is the purest expression of the beauty to be found in the work of this remarkable artist.
The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie!
Being a fan of Andy Goldsworthy's art for a while now, and owning some of his books, I had some expectations of what I would see. What I got was something completely satisfying, and quite a bit more than I expected. Being an artist myself (I work in clay), finding inspiration within our surroundings to make good art is imperative, and it is something Andy Goldsworthy has mastered. Following him over the course of a year, the director captures the spontaneous energy, skill, and devotion to the artists connection with nature with dratic inspiring flair. The music set to the film is embracing and intoxicating. If you are an artist in need of inspiration, or anyone else in need of an uplifting experience, then SEE THIS MOVIE. I for one am glad to know that Andy is somewhere out there. Creating, dancing, wrestling with the forces of nature to make our world more beautiful.
This German documentary, in English, is about a Scottish environmental sculptor named Andy Goldsworthy. He makes art from objects he finds in nature. For example, early in the film we see him taking sections of icicles and "gluing" them together with a little moisture into a serpentine shape that seems to repeatedly go through a vertical rock.<br /><br />Of course, the icicles melt, but that transience is a part of most of Goldsworthy's work. He goes to a site and gets a feeling for it, deciding intuitively what to make that day. He talks of having a "dialog" with the rocks and other materials that he works with, attempting to work *with* rather than against them. It might be stones, or flowers, or leaves, or sticks. The sculpture might last for minutes or years, or might not even last long enough to be completed and photographed. The work seems to be more of a process than a goal.<br /><br />The film, and the work, is beautiful, inspiring, and thought provoking. It moves pretty slowly, which is appropriate for the material, but you should be sure to go when you have had a good night's sleep. But do go if you have the opportunity.<br /><br />Search the web for some other pages about Andy Goldsworthy or to read about his local sculpture at Stanford University. There are also several books available with photographs of his sculptures.<br /><br />My thoughts: Skip reading this part if you want to find what this film means to you completely independently. I recall a couple of ideas that occurred to me while watching the film which I thought I would share for those of you still reading. First, the transitory nature of much of Andy Goldsworthy's work reminded me of the natural ebb and flow of human life. We're born, we live, and eventually we die. That's natural, and that's also naturally a part of Goldsworthy's art.<br /><br />The other thought was to be awestruck with the way that Goldsworthy has managed to integrate his passion and his work so thoroughly into his life. Most of us have work which is tolerated at best, a life which we hardly notice living, and passions which we really mean to spend more time on, if we even remember what they are. Andy Goldsworthy has managed to create an amalgam of all of these aspects of his life that looks like it works very well, and is nourishing for him and those around him. Wow.<br /><br />Seen on 8/28/2002.
Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk.
As the jacket proclaims, this film is "Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited," and, yes, it is mesmerizingly beautiful. The timelessness that we perceive in stoic rock and in the unceasing ebb and flow of water frames the ephemeral works from Goldsworthy's hands so that in their very ephemeralness they point to eternity.<br /><br />And so the beauty of his compositions haunt us with just a touch of melancholy woven in--or in the words of Matthew Arnold from "Dover Beach":<br /><br />Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.<br /><br />At one point near the end of the film Goldsworthy says that "Words do their job, but what I'm doing here says a lot more." As a wordsmith myself I take no offense and not for a moment do I think him immodest because the combination of form and time and change and texture and color and composition that Goldsworthy painstakingly and intuitively creates, is indeed something more than mere words can say.<br /><br />At another point he remarks on "What is here to stay...and what isn't." That is his theme.<br /><br />I think that artists sometime in the twentieth century became acutely aware of how ephemeral even the greatest works of art are compared to the vast expanse of cosmic time; and so they began to reflect this understanding by composing works that were deliberately ephemeral. The idea was, that by emphasizing how short-lived are even the mightiest works of humans, a sense of the timelessness of art would be expressed.<br /><br />Perhaps part of the effectiveness of Goldsworthy's work is in this sort of expression. He painstakingly composes some form of straw or leaves where the tide will reach it, or places it in the river where it will be swept away; and in this process is merged both the composition and its ephemerality.<br /><br />Both the transitory and the timeless are necessary for us to understand our world and our place within it. And it is important that these works be done within the context of nature so that what is composed is set within what is natural. Thus the walls of stone and the eggs of stone that Goldsworthy constructs are silent and solid yet we know that they are not monuments to eternity, but instead will stay for some undefined length of time and then dissipate and return to a state much like that which existed before we came along.<br /><br />This is art as art should be, akin to the spiritual.<br /><br />In a sense Goldsworthy's work is an inarticulated understanding. It is an experience purely of time and form. In a sense his work "answers" Shelley's famous poem "Ozymandias" by saying, even as the tide washes the work away, and even as the river dissipates the expression, even so the art lives on because of our experience of it. Similarly one thinks of Tibetan sand paintings so carefully composed and measured out, and then just as they are so beautifully and preciously finished, they are given to the wind, so that we might know that all is flux.<br /><br />Yet, in the modern world these works of art endure in photos and videos. Goldsworthy is an accomplished photographer (of necessity I would say) and all his works, even the unsuccessful ones, he tells us, are photographed so that he can look back at them in a more reflective mood and see what he has accomplished and what he has not.<br /><br />This cinematic production directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer with the beautiful and appropriately haunting music by Fred Frith is not to be missed. It is one of the most beautiful documentaries that I have ever seen and one of the most spiritual.
Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best.
On one level, this film can bring out the child in us that just wants to build sandcastles and throw stuff in the air just for the sake of seeing it fall down again. On a deeper level though, it explores a profound desire to reconnect with the land. I thoroughly empathized with the artist when he said, "when I'm not out here (alone) for any length of time, I feel unrooted."<br /><br />I considered Andy Goldsworthy one of the great contemporary artists. I'm familiar with his works mainly through his coffee-table books and a couple art gallery installations. But to see his work in motion, captured perfectly through Riedelsheimer's lens, was a revelation. Unfrozen in time, Goldsworthy's creations come alive, swirling, flying, dissolving, crumbling, crashing.<br /><br />And that's precisely what he's all about: Time. The process of creation and destruction. Of emergence and disappearing. Of coming out of the Void and becoming the Universe, and back again. There's a shamanic quality about him, verging on madness. You get the feeling, watching him at work, that his art is a lifeforce for him, that if he didn't do it, he would whither and perish.<br /><br />Luckily for us, Goldsworthy is able to share his vision through the communication medium of photography. Otherwise, with the exception of a few cairns and walls, they would only exist for one person.
I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. <br /><br />Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.<br /><br />On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.<br /><br />I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.
Beside the fact, that in all it's awesomeness this movie has risen beyond all my expectations, this masterpiece of cinema history portrait the overuse of crappy filters in it's best! Paul Johansson and Craig Sheffer show a brotherconflict with all there is to it. As usual a woman concieling her true intentions. The end came as surprising as unforssen as the killing of Keith Scott by his older brother.<br /><br />The scenes in 'wiking land' are just as I remember it from my early time travels. - To be honest my strong passion for trash movies makes this one a must have in my never finished collection.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to all the people in love with the most awesome brother cast from One Tree Hill.<br /><br />-Odin-
SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.<br /><br />They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.<br /><br />Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.<br /><br />I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.<br /><br />Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.<br /><br />This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone.
I saw this film at the Rhode Island International Film Festival and was completely blown away. The structure and execution of the film was fantastic...I know it won't, but it really deserves an Oscar nod. Cal and Andre were phenomenal as the two disturbed classmates. Yes, the film is very controversial and I can see a lot of people having a lot of problems with it, as it deals with school shooting and especially makes you identify with the killers. However, despite its harsh and blunt subject matter, Zero Day is SO worth watching. I'm looking forward to it coming out on video so I can buy it - it's very, very good. Very powerful and intense...the end shooting sequence leaves you speechless because it's almost too realistic. Their uncertainty, the "recordings", the footage and panic of the students, totally indescribable. I really hope it gets the attention it deserves. It's done in the same format as The Blair Witch Project, handheld camera, made to appear as a true home video documentary kind of film - but god is it INFINITELY better. Very impressive, hats off to everyone involved. If you've got the chance you really should see it.
What is most disturbing about this film is not that school killing sprees like the one depicted actually happen, but that the truth is they are carried out by teenagers like Cal and Andre...normal kids with normal families. By using a hand held camera technique a la Blair Witch, Ben Coccio succeeds in bringing us into the lives of two friends who have some issues with high school, although we aren't ever told exactly what is behind those issues. They seem to be typical -a lot of people hate high school, so what? A part of you just doesn't believe they will ever carry out the very well thought out massacre on Zero Day. The surveillance camera scenes in the school during the shooting are made all the more powerful for that reason. You can't believe it's really happening, and that it's really happened. The hand held camera technique also creates the illusion that this is not a scripted movie, a brilliant idea given the subject matter.
This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw "real" feeling of the film that makes it.
I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.<br /><br />In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".<br /><br />The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.<br /><br />You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.<br /><br />The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".<br /><br />I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.<br /><br />A+.
This is the best movie I've come across in a long while. Not only is this the best movie of its kind(school shooting)The way Ben Coccio(the director) decided to film it was magnificent. He filmed it using teenage actors who were still attending high school. He filmed it in the actors own rooms and used the actors real parents as their parents in the film. Also the actors were filming too using camcorders making it seem much more like a video diary. It is almost artful.(if that is indeed a word)There are a few slip ups however, for example when Cal calls brads(?) land rover a range rover(or vice versa, It's been awhile since I've seen it)
I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T "go there" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of "why???" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary.
Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.<br /><br />That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies.
Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.<br /><br />That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies.
I am a big fan of cinema verite and saw this movie because I heard how interesting it was. I can honestly say it was very interesting indeed. The two lead actors are awesome, the film isn't ever boring, and the concept behind it (though obviously inspired by the Columbine killings and the home movies of the killers) is really interesting. There are some weaknesses, such as the final 20 minutes which really detracts from the realism seen in the first hour or so and the ending really doesn't make any sense at all. The shaky camera sometimes can be a distraction, but in cinema verite that is a given. But I still think the movie is very well done and the director Ben Coccio deserves some credit.
As a fan of looking further into the phenomenon that is school shootings, this film took an interesting and different approach to the idea. Presented as a series of video recordings made by the two troubled men (I cannot refer to persons who kill as boys or teens), the months of preparation leading to zero day (the codename for the day on which they will attack) the film tries to present the situation from the opposite end of the gun. It seems intent on portraying the pain they suffer, yet focuses on the literal preparation. The problem is that little in terms of emotion is directly delivered. The only point at which emotion became overwhelming was the ending, as expected. But leading up to this point, it's never really clear as to why they are planning this out. We are told the obligatory story that they were mocked, but the film also seems to contradict this. Without ruining the film, it's easy to say it was a great attempt and had equally great intentions, but falls short because of sloppy film-making. All directing is amateur, to further the homemade video concept, but the story and continuity is weak. The film seems to want the audience to decide a lot, but also fails to provide the information for such an event. The ending is abrupt, and doesn't feel like it finishes everything that the film began.
Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.<br /><br />When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.<br /><br />The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.<br /><br />It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.<br /><br />I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened.
This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.<br /><br />Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career.
Zero day has a purpose and this is not simply entertainment, it delivers a message about its specialised subject school shootings. Charting the lives of two friends Andre and Cal leading up to an attack on their high school. <br /><br />Whilst the movie started in somewhat unassuming fashion, an impromptu announcement of the coming attack in amateurish teenage style followed by some brief encounters with the boys families. It is not long before we are down to business with the boys showing us their collection of guns, their fetishistic love of them, their sprawling sporadic narcissistic fantasies and even in a controversial scene how to build pipe bombs.<br /><br />So what is the movie trying to say? What is really motivating these soon to be killers. It seems hard to really pinpoint. They certainly do not come across as cold blooded psychopaths yet they are planning an act of sheer brutality. This brings me to what I feel is the genius in part of Zero day. Cal and Andre talk constantly about how much they are on a different level, how above the rest of us they are and how they will 'leave us all behind.' Like the columbine killers they truly feel superior. Like Nietzsche's res sentiment Cal and Andre's value system seems to have been born out of rejection from their society. Yet we are given only glimpses of this, an expression of hatred for a popular athlete for example. So where is the motivation? What I feel is that Coccio portrayed two individuals desperate to make a statement of superiority a gesture of their power yet who have no reasonable venue for it. Hence they turn to mass murder and the kind of which that will garner them more attention than they could ever realise. This is why in part school shooters seem able to carry out atrocious acts despite coming from good stable loving homes. The murder is part of a fantasy, Cal and Andre are totally lost in their fantasy they almost fail to see the reality of their actions. They turn fantasy into tragedy.<br /><br />What is secondly most enthralling about this film is the character development and the unique dependence Cal and Andre have on each other. Andre is throughout the film overtly the leader of the two, Cal's embrace of his demeanour and attire seem somewhat forced. Andre is uptight, Andre is intense and serious. He completely shuns others except for his family, he is meticulous and precise about everything he does and for a while appears the prime mover in the plot to attack the school. Yet he is likable in his own way, he does not embrace teenage nonsense and in part we feel compelled to agree with him, yet these moments are shattered by Andre's fleeting gestures of violence towards us the audience treating us as both confidante and potential victim. Cal on the other hand seems more relaxed than Andre, more accepting of reality. Yet he is in his own way dominant. We have many personal moments of introspection with Cal's video diary, scenes when he is alone and apart from Andre. Cal seems to be struggling with his own personal demons and using their plan to exorcise himself of them. Andre is jealous of Cal going to the prom with an old friend, he wants Cal all to himself. Cal placates Andre and encourages him. For the first time in his life Andre seems to have found someone who believes in him and who admires him he cannot lose it. Whilst Cal has found someone offering him a way out.<br /><br />The movie certainly picks up pace and improves as it nears its grim conclusion. There is an excellent moment when Cal attends the high school prom. Suddenly the star of the movie becomes shy and introverted, not at all at ease with his peers. Yet we are inclined to feel more connection with Cal than with the raucous bawdy crowd screaming juvenile obscenities whilst drinking heavily in their limo. Theirs is an episode all too common and recognisable. We do not want to relate to them, when it is over and Cal is back with Andre silently preparing one of their final videos we like the characters feel once again at ease safe in the fantasy world they created. We feel like shunning the masses as they have.<br /><br />The penultimate scene is superb. The final video sees Andre and Cal arming themselves in their car just moments before attacking. It is all too real and truly creates a sense of impending doom. By know we know Cal and Andre and are realising they are about to actually do it, with a kind of morbid fascination we are also relishing the films catharsis.<br /><br />The massacre shot in CCTV fashion is at times shocking, and whilst it was certainly the perfect choice to depict the massacre if we were going to it is not void of flaws. What is most significant is the sudden radical change of perception we have of Cal and Andre, looking at them in the this person suddenly they are the callous killers we knew they would become yet refused to acknowledge that they would. It is violent and real, our heroes have become monsters and the reality of their fantasy is a terrible tragedy, which costs them everything.<br /><br />The final scene shows a group of teens filming themselves burning the crosses erected for Andre and cal in disgust that they have been memorialised. Having known Andre and Cal we can only feel almost a sadness that they are actually gone forever and that they certainly did not win anything.<br /><br />Zero day is a must see for anyone interested in these violent acts sensationalised by the media. It is a character study well worth experiencing.
zero day is based of columbine high school massacre. and its a video diary of two boys. at first you don't know whats going to happen you think it is just a bad student film. until they start talking about the horrible things they are going to do in this quite school. until they start talking about pipe bombs and guns and going shooting in the woods. they is a lot to say about this movie. all know this film is well a film you forget you watching a film and watching a real video two boys made.<br /><br />the two boys act like they are in a weird cult. they burn all there stuff. like play station games books dvds homework stuff school stuff. these two boys can be anybody your friends you brothers or the people you see walking down the street. it goes through there daily actives (and that is making a gun. in the videos they make it mentions the bullying that happens to them and how people said stuff about there clothes and the things you are into I'm not saying its right but many people do do things like that.<br /><br />and also the thing is with this people are suspected to like it because of the sensitive topic they have chosen on this film.<br /><br />so thats my review on zero day.<br /><br />and lets just say the end shooting scene is messed up.
In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.<br /><br />It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.<br /><br />It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.<br /><br />This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.<br /><br />The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.<br /><br />I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.<br /><br />If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless.
Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.<br /><br />"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some.
This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.
Cutting to the chase: This is one of the most amazing, most intense film I've seen in a long time. The first movie in years that left me absolutely staggered. I could barely feel my way out of the theatre, I was so overwhelmed.<br /><br />I've been staring at the screen for about fifteen minutes trying to find some way to describe the power of this film, and just failing. Highlighting any one aspect of it -- the documentary-style video diary format, the unflinching portrayal of the events, the force of the characters -- just seems to trivialise it all. Some may find it laughable that any killer could be characterised as normal. But then not all killers are raving lunatics foaming at the mouth. Many are quite regular, unassuming people. They're just wired differently.<br /><br />And that's perhaps the most chilling thought of all.
High school friends Andre Kriegman and Cal Gabriel declare war on their classmates and plan a terrifying assault on their high school. As they begin the deadly countdown to their final act of revenge, the two start a video diary to explain their feelings and chronicle their mission.<br /><br />There is another similar movie like this, called "Elephant." Why do I bring this up? To compare the two films, of course. I have to say, even though I liked "Elephant," this is a much better film. What's the difference, you ask? Well, for starters, this is shot differently, much along the lines of "Cloverfield," "Blair Witch Project," and "Diary of the Dead." This makes the movie all the better because it's much more painfully realistic.<br /><br />But what won me over was how the movie was willing to show the "other side of the story." You get to know these two shooters, unlike "Elephant." I actually cared for one of the shooters and could understand their actions and why they did what they did. This movie actually makes you feel sympathetic to these people and that's a good thing because it's not always black and white.<br /><br />To be honest, this is why I almost cried in this movie. The characters are real human beings with logic and reasons behind their actions. You get to understand them. It's not like they want to kill people for attention. Overall, this film is emotionally gripping and very haunting and much better than "Elephant."
This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic.
The thing that makes this movie so scary is the way that it portrays Andre and Calvin as (relatively) normal guys. These are definitely not people who want to become professional filmmakers since they goof around in front of the camera, forget scripted lines, etc. They are only making the video as a diary to show 'the survivors' how normal their lives were. Their parents just think the guys are filming for a family home video. By researching other kids attacks on their schools, Andre and Calvin learn what not to do and they inform (usually in a silly 'This Old House' kind of way) any potential 'Andres and Calvins' who might be watching this video how to make bombs, get weapons, and not get caught before Zero Day (the day of the attack).
I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.<br /><br />Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.<br /><br />The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.<br /><br />I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts. <br /><br />It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids. <br /><br />Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.
Zero Day leads you to think, even re-think why two boys/young men would do what they did - commit mutual suicide via slaughtering their classmates. It captures what must be beyond a bizarre mode of being for two humans who have decided to withdraw from common civility in order to define their own/mutual world via coupled destruction.<br /><br />It is not a perfect movie but given what money/time the filmmaker and actors had - it is a remarkable product. In terms of explaining the motives and actions of the two young suicide/murderers it is better than 'Elephant' - in terms of being a film that gets under our 'rationalistic' skin it is a far, far better film than almost anything you are likely to see. <br /><br />Flawed but honest with a terrible honesty.
Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves.
As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.<br /><br />The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)<br /><br />The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. <br /><br />The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.<br /><br />All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.
I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film. <br /><br />I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake. <br /><br />Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight. <br /><br />Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.<br /><br />Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending. <br /><br />But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little.
If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy
i watched this film many years ago and have searched for it ever since in my opinion although very raw it is very educational as to what the future can hold i enjoyed the movie and to this this day rate it very high sorry to all those that disagree but a movie should always be judged each to there own and in my opinion its great give it a go with all the cloning and test tube babies that are happening today who are we to judge this film, this may be a dramatised event of what is to become but there you go. All the horrors of today are so far fetched even i laugh but this one gets me thinking and it scares me as a mother what if i was desperate,after watching this movie i would think twice sorry but i love the movie make your own mind up don't watch the movie making- just aknowledge the story and ask yourself this how far would you go for a child?
The Unborn is a very, very different film. James Karen & Brooke Adams are in the film and they performed quite well. this film is builds up solidly and it keeps you going. Though I think you must be a horror fan to watch this because of the scenes and the plot. There is one brief sex scene with no nudity that could have been left out and to some people this scene may disappoint someone like Me that's into the film and thinks that stuff ruins a good film but that's it when it comes to that. There is a scene where Adams' character goes nuts and kills a cat but you can tell its not real. The music is very different but very good. The Unborn in My opinion is a really creepy film that's superbly unpredictable and that's quite strange! I recommend all horror fans to this movie!
The Unborn tells the tale of a married couple named Virginia (Brooke Adames) & Bradley Marshall (Jeff Hayenga) who have tried for the last five years to conceive, Virginia has had two miscarriages since then & is desperate to have a child. They visit Dr. Richard Meyerling (James Karen) for help after he is recommended by some of their friends, Dr. Meyerling says he will be able to help them have a child. Dr. Meyerling operates on Virginia & it is soon confirmed that the surgery has been a success & Virginia is pregnant. At first everything seems perfect & the Marshall's couldn't be happier, but their picture perfect lives don't last for long as Virginia's pregnancy develops problems, she becomes moody & acts totally out of character & she receives a worrying phone call from Beth (Jane Cameron), another woman who has undergone Dr. Meyerling's procedure, who claims that Meyerling is in fact using his patients for his own sinister ends & is in fact a disgraced genetic researcher. Virginia begins to question just what is growing inside of her...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Rodman Flender I actually thought The Unborn was a decent horror/thriller (it's DEFINITELY NOT a sci-fi film as the IMDb would have you believe) that pleasantly surprised me. The script by Henry Dominic tries to be different & it must take some credit for that at least. The Unborn goes for psychological horror rather than cheap scares & bad special effects, it's got quite a clever story that works & plays on basic human fears. It moves along at a fair pace although it's not exactly an action packed film by any means. The climax was good & seemed a fitting way to round things off & the warnings about messing around with genetics seem even more relevant today than it must have been back then, maybe Flender knew something the rest of us didn't. On the down side it lacks some exploitation elements & is at heart a dialogue driven film mostly focusing on one person so it can get a bit dull at times. Also, I have to mention it, what on Erath was that grinning black skateboarding dwarf all about eh?!<br /><br />Director Flender does an OK job, The Unborn is far from the most stylish or visually interesting film ever made but it's good enough. The atmosphere is good & there's a fair bit of tension as what Virginia has inside of her & Dr. Meyerling's sinister plans aren't fully revealed until the last possible moment. Disappointingly the blood & gore is almost non existent which in a way lets the film down because in retrospect nothing really memorable happens, The Unborn relies on good storytelling which is fine but in a week I doubt I'll remember too much about it.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK, I'd imagine that The Unborn had a pretty low budget but it's well made even if it's a little bland & forgettable. The baby creature is actually a decent special effect & has fairly realistic facial movement. The acting is good & this was one of the first acting jobs credited to Friends (1994 - 2004) star Lisa Kudrow, I have to be honest I don't like Friends & I don't even know who she was in this so I can't tell you how she did.<br /><br />The Unborn is a good horror/thriller that deserves to be more widely known & seen, it's far better than a lot of low budget crap that litter video shop shelves. If your a horror fan & are looking for something a bit different, something slightly more intelligent & thought provoking than usual then I think you could do a lot worse than The Unborn. Followed by a dumbed down sequel The Unborn II (1994) which I watched straight after this, check my review out if you want..
The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always.
The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.<br /><br />On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars.
We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for chﾃ｢teau) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.<br /><br />The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back.
Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.<br /><br />It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.<br /><br />For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible.
This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.<br /><br />It's a document.<br /><br />It's mind-blowing.<br /><br />I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)<br /><br />NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.
"Kolchak: the Night Stalker" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead? <br /><br />That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.<br /><br />I'll address the question of Kolchak being "formula" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.<br /><br />In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.<br /><br />You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.<br /><br />The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include: <br /><br />Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.<br /><br />The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the "Omen" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.) <br /><br />Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.<br /><br />Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!) <br /><br />On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on "Buffy." McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone.
Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series "X-Files"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).<br /><br />Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book!
If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker.
I barely remember this show, a little ,but I remembered it was great! My eldest brother, reminded me about the show recently and I had seen an advertisement for the D.V.D set coming out. The network, again screwed up in pulling this from the air, so that they could put what else in it's place? It should have gone at least 3 seasons. Why not, right? I think sometimes that the network executives think they are the 'gods' of the entertainment world. But they mis-guess and flat out miss good show placement from time to time. Let it be said that, they have a lot more flops than 'hits'. This was one of the poor decisions to cut from the line-up. Anyhow, I am getting this for my collection.
As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.<br /><br />Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.<br /><br />Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come.
Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.
There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichﾃｩs (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, clichﾃｩ or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilﾃ! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age.
A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately 窶・but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.<br /><br />Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn窶冲 regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula 窶・dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody窶冱 hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps 窶・but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.<br /><br />That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) 窶・not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he窶冱 never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)! <br /><br />While the hero窶冱 cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there窶冱 a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin窶冱 relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) 窶・to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there窶冱 a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.<br /><br />For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight窶冱 armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast 窶・featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak窶冱 co-workers) return in the same roles 窶・Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I窶囘 lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS 窶・while, as the weakest, I窶囘 go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I窶况e already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).<br /><br />Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself 窶・in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise 窶・returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet窶ｦbut, for various reasons, I窶冦 not sure I窶囘 want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic!
"Kolchak" was a TV series that really didn't fit into any category. Part horror, part comedy, some social awareness thrown in, and what we have is something that I think people weren't ready for. It's a shame really, as I've started to watch these shows on the Chiller network, (I never saw the originals), I realized how different and interesting it really was. <br /><br />Starring Darren Mcgavin as Kolchak a reporter for the International News Service, and Simon Oakland as his always angry boss, Tony Vincenzo, the show followed the exploits of a Chicago news reporter who more often than not, became a part of the story himself, as he searched the windy city for modern day creepies that go bump in the night. The underlying charm of Macgavin really sets the show apart. A somewhat goofy guy, who always wears the same suit, you cannot help but love him. His jokes are great, and the back and forth between him and the skeptical editor, Oakland, are downright hilarious. <br /><br />The stories are for the most part pretty good, and the acting is very good. The 70's were not a *great* period for special effects, and the show suffers for it, but if you suspend disbelief, what you have is a fun series that was ahead of it's time.
I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless.
I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.
It's a genuine shame that this spin-off TV series inspired by the superior made-for-TV pictures "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler" only lasted a single season and twenty episodes, because at its best this program offered an often winning and highly entertaining blend of sharp cynical humor (Carl Kolchak's spirited verbal sparring matches with perpetually irascible and long-suffering editor Tony Vincenzo were always a treat to watch and hear), clever writing, nifty supernatural menaces (gotta love the offbeat and original creatures in "The Spanish Moss Murders," "The Sentry," and "Horror in the Heights," plus you can't go wrong with such tried'n'true fright favorites as zombies, vampires, werewolves, and witches), colorful characters, lively acting from a raft of cool guest stars (legendary biker flick icon William Smith got a rare chance to tackle a heroic lead in "The Energy Eater" while other episodes featured great veteran character actors like Keenan Wynn, John Fiedler, John Dehner, Severn Darden, and William Daniels in juicy roles), effective moments of genuine suspense (the sewer-set climax of "The Spanish Moss Murders" in particular was truly harrowing), and, best of all, the one and only Darren McGavin in peak zesty form as the brash, aggressive, and excitable, but basically decent, brave, and honest small-time Chicago, Illinois newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak.<br /><br />Kolchak was the quintessential 70's everyman protagonist, a wily and quick-witted fellow with a strong nose for a tasty scoop and an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble. Moreover, the occasionally bumbling Kolchak was anything but superhuman; he usually either tripped or stumbled while running away from a deadly threat, yet possessed a certain inner strength and courage that enabled him to save the human race time and time again from all kinds of lethal otherworldly foes. Kolchak was surrounded by a handful of enjoyable secondary characters: Simon Oakland was perfect as Carl's chronically ill-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo, Jack Grinnage as the prissy Ron Updyke made for an ideal comic foil, Ruth McDevitt was simply delightful as the sweet Miss Emily Cowles, and Carol Ann Susi was likewise a lot of fun as eager beaver rookie Monique Marmelstein (who alas disappeared after popping up in only three episodes). Granted, the show did suffer from lackluster make-up and special effects (the titular lycanthrope in "The Werewolf" unfortunately resembles a Yorkshire terrier!) and the latter episodes boasted a few laughably silly monsters (the headless motorcyclist in "Chopper," Cathy Lee Crosby as Helen of Troy in "The Youth Killer'), but even the second-rate shows are redeemed by the program's trademark wickedly sly sardonic wit and McGavin's boundless vitality and engagingly scrappy presence.
I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.
Weak scripts at times? Yep! Cheesy special effects at times? Yep! Deliciously guilty pleasure most of the time? Yep! More about Carl Kolchak and Darren McGavin? Yep! I always enjoyed science fiction as a kid, but found so much of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy/horror stuff as just so much crap. It took Abbott and Costello to give me a new perspective on the classic Universal monsters, and it took Carl Kolchak to win me over to the "dark side" of entertainment. The Duke had Rooster Cogburn, Eastwood had Dirty Harry, Garner had Maverick and Rockford, Selleck had Magnum, and Darren McGavin had Carl Kolchak. Mixed in with all those weak scripts, cheesy special effects, that baroque group of supporting characters and actors and guest stars, there was Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak. He had a wry sense of humor in spite of the danger, was an idealist in his pursuit of the truth, and a realist when it came to accepting the obligatory incompetence and eventual cover-up by government officials. Additionally, unlike 98% of us, Kolchak was willing to stick his neck out and do what needed to be done, even if it meant his demise, the end of his journalistic career, or jail time. For all his faults, including no taste in clothes, Carl Kolchak was a man of charm and wit who drove a beautiful classic yellow Mustang (which was an old used car at the time) on his way to save the day for humanity. As good as any other fictional hero Carl Kolchak was the everyman hero brought to life every week for one season thanks to Darren McGavin. Now that he's passed on and his show is on DVD, I hope he's having as much fun watching me watch him have fun playing Kolchak The Night Stalker all over again!
When originally screened in America in 1972, 'The Night Stalker' became the highest rated made-for-T.V. movie in history. Based on Jeff Rice's unpublished novel, it told how a fearless investigative reporter named Carl Kolchak ( the late Darren McGavin ) discovered the existence of a vampire in modern-day Las Vegas. When it arrived on British television four years later, it did not quite have the same impact, but my friends were talking about it at school on Monday morning, as indeed was I. We all agreed that it was one of the most exciting things we had seen. <br /><br />I did not know of the existence of 'The Night Strangler' until it turned up nearly a decade later. I.T.V., who screened the 'Kolchak' movies, had apparently decided to pass on the spin-off series; they felt 'Barnaby Jones' starring Buddy Ebsen to be more of a draw, and anyway, viewers might confuse 'Kolchak' with 'Kojak'! For years my only source of information concerning the show was an article in Fangoria magazine. I could not even purchase the Jeff Rice novels.<br /><br />Then something wonderful happened. In 1990, B.B.C.-2 put out the show as part of a late-night Friday series devoted to the supernatural called 'Mystery Train', hosted by Richard O'Brian. 'Kolchak' found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of 'The Brain Eaters' and 'Earth Vs.The Spider'. The opening titles were trimmed, removing Kolchak's whistling, and the closing credits...well, there were none.<br /><br />The first episode screened was 'Werewolf'. I cannot say I was overly impressed, but stuck with it, and am I glad that I did!<br /><br />I really wish I'd seen it in 1974. My twelve year old self would have adored it. Creepy, humorous, exciting, no wonder it fired Chris Carter's imagination. <br /><br />The show's biggest asset was, of course, McGavin. Unlike the recent Kolchak, the original was an everyman figure, eccentrically dressed, rather conservative. He was to the supernatural what 'Columbo' was to crime. The late Simon Oakland was great too as Kolchak's bad-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo. The scripts overflowed with wonderful, dry wit. I found myself enjoying the programme more for the humour content than the horror. When the twenty episodes ended, I felt bereft.<br /><br />'The X-Files' came along a few years later and filled the void - but only to an extent. I wanted Kolchak and Vincenzo back. I am glad that the show was never revived though. Without Oakland it would not have been the same.<br /><br />I have the Rice books now and have read them several times. I was very surprised when Stephen King slated the first ( in his book 'Danse Macabre' ) as it is as good as anything he has written. <br /><br />Alright, so some of the monsters were hardly state-of-the-art, but so what? The new 'Kolchak' totally missed the point of the original. What you don't see is sometimes more frightening than what you do...<br /><br />Best Episode - 'Horror In The Heights' Worst Episode - 'The Sentry'
One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.<br /><br />Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.<br /><br />I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.<br /><br />McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.<br /><br />Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !
Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.<br /><br />Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord."
It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.<br /><br />It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.<br /><br />This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.<br /><br />I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.
I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics. <br /><br />The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight.
If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />Arthur Lowe is a real treat!<br /><br />I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.<br /><br />Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.<br /><br />I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!
You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.
The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films.
The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected.
Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet.
I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.<br /><br />P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.
This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about. <br /><br />I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.<br /><br />I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.<br /><br />This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)<br /><br />Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.
This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.<br /><br />It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.<br /><br />Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.<br /><br />Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one.
This movie is awesome for three main reasons. It is esthetically beautiful. I absolutely loved that. There is a bold color theme throughout the movie with extraordinary costumes and picturesque sets. A photography which looks very costly (and probably was not) completes the look . I always enjoy those stories about groups of misfits/loners coming together and becoming a family . Sometimes they fall into clichﾃｩs but this one does not. This group of actors really portrays well flawed, yet extremely likable characters. Alan Larkin is the best (between him , the van and the road movie theme, I could not help but remember my favorite movie of last year Little Miss Sunshineﾂ・ . I discovered Fabrizio Bentivoglio , very interesting actor, and just got annoyed a tiny little bit by Til Schweiger performance at times . The opening scene, all the scenes where they mess up their tricks are very funny. There is a mix of humor and emotion throughout the film. I like the end a lot. And of course it is all about the Magician theme . A good magician is making the audience look where he wants them to, to create an illusion. Which happens to be exactly what a movie director does and that's why they call it movie magic.
I rented this movie from blockbuster on a whim .. i like alan arkin and the cover was catching ... i read the back and knew right away it was going to either be the best or the worst movie i have ever seen ... i guess i got lucky .. i laughed from beginning to end .. alan arkin brings a great character to this movie. i have since bought a used rental copy for my own collection and watch it all the time .. i have recommeded this movie to loads of people and they all enjoyed it as much as i did ... i see complaints about the menus and dvd functions .. but it doesn't take away from the movie .. the disk was authored for Blockbuster exculsivley which is why they didn't allow you to skip past the previews .. aside from that you shouldn't let the functions of the DVD to deterr you from watching the excellent film.
Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.<br /><br />Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.<br /><br />Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.<br /><br />The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.<br /><br />Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual.
I had seen Lady with Red Hair back when it appeared, and didn't remember it as something to cherish. The truth is that, notwithstanding its base in a true story, its screen play is silly and unbelievable. The real merit of the picture is the cast. A constellation of some of the best supporting players of the 30's and 40's make a background for the delicate, intelligent work of the always underrated Miriam Hopkins, and the wonderful, spectacular performance of Claude Rains, who, as usual, is the best thing in the picture. What an actor! He never won an Oscar, but he is in the good company of Chaplin, Garbo and Hitchcock. Perhaps Lady with Red Hair contains his best work in films. See it and enjoy him.<br /><br />
As a biographical film, "The Lady With Red Hair" (the story of how director /producer/playwright David Belasco transformed notorious society divorcee Mrs. Leslie Carter into an international stage star) is certainly not in a league with that other Warner's biopic of similar vintage, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (what is?), but "Lady" is an enjoyable film in its own right--AND shares quite a few traits in common with the Cagney classic. <br /><br />Like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" brims over with old -time show-business flavor. (Among other things, both films feature delicious theatrical boarding-house sequences as well as the inevitable scenes set backstage and in theatrical managers' offices.) Also, in "Lady" as in the Cohan biopic, the supporting cast is made up of familiar and beloved character actors of the period, all doing the sort of top-notch work we remember them for. <br /><br />Need I add that, again like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" doesn't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story? But, also like "Dandy," "Lady" does manage--gloriously!--to convey the esssence of its show-business-giant hero's larger-than-life personality. Everyone knows that Cagney limned Cohan for all time in his brilliant and affectionate portrayal in "Yankee Doodle Dandy"--but few moviegoers realize that Claude Rains did a similar service for David Belasco in "The Lady With Red Hair"- -and did it with a panache that almost equals Cagney's.<br /><br />Rains-as-Belasco perfectly captures that legendary showman's galvanic personality in all its outsized glory. Rains gives a tremendously enjoyable , superbly observed, and remarkably true-to-life performance as the man all Broadway once called "The Wizard." To watch Claude Rains in action (looking in every shot as if he's having a helluva good time!) in "The Lady With Red Hair" is to see David Belasco leap to life on film as if he can't wait to shake things up on the Main Stem once again.<br /><br />
A group of friends decide to take a camping trip into the desert-and find themselves stalked and murdered by a mysterious killer in a black pick-up truck."Mirage" is obviously inspired by Spielberg's "Duel" and Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes".Still this slasher yarn offers plenty of nasty violence and gore.The film's gory highlight is a sequence involving a man having his arm and leg chained together around a tree and then having his limbs dismembered when the chain is pulled by a truck.There is also a little bit of suspense and some exciting stalk-and-slash sequences.The acting is pretty lame and the script is quite weak,but the film is fast-paced and shocking.B.G.Steers who plays the villain is fairly threatening.The desert locations provide some atmosphere and the gore is rather strong.Overall,if you like low-budget horror films give this one a look.8 out of 10.
I remember that i was a child when i first saw this movie, it was my first horror movie (maybe that's the reason why i can still remember some parts of it). I don't remember much about acting, nude scenes or other things but i do remember a male has head blown up with a grenade, a male dismembered over a tree and a male run down by truck and shot in head :) (Todd Schaefer, Kenny Johnson and Kevin McParland). I also remember the last scene when Jennifer McAllister riped of the killer stomach to get the keys of the truck. It's a movie that gives you the creep and it's worth a look. But where do i find it? How can i download it?
Well, this was one of those films I caught on the off-chance, and it was good enough for me to record when it showed up next time... If, like myself, you enjoy many 80's horror flicks that branched out a little from the norm (i.e. not just another glut of generic sequels) then I think you may enjoy this. When the bad guy eventually turns up in person, he was definitely not what I expected to see! All in all, I wouldn't go out of your way for this one, but if you like the genre, then watch it if it comes up and you have an hour and a half to kill, I guess. I'd give it 6.5 out of 10.
This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date ("The Trip", "Joy Ride", "Jeepers Creepers") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended.
Mirage (1990) is a very rare horror/chiller from 1990, released here in the UK on the "New World Video" label.<br /><br />It's a desert based horror film about a group of young friends who are partying for the weekend, only to be killed off one by one by an unknown force who drives a menacing black truck!!! This film has some creepy scenes, and some gore here and there, but i have to say that the acting was so lame, even by low budget standards! But the film was oddly addictive and i liked it, and i never fell asleep or turned it off, which is always a good sign! I nearly gave this movie 6/10, but seeing as it built up steam along the way, had some good moments of gore and suspense, had some good nudity, and the fact that the blonde in the main female role was a hottie too! i'll give it 7/10.
Bill Crain's rarer than rare 'slasher' movie certainly doesn't follow the standard stalk and slash guidelines that have become so essential of its counterparts. The bogeyman this time around uses grenades and small arms as well as an awesome array of melee weapons; - a sin that's virtually unacceptable in most post-Halloween genre pieces. But there's still just enough familiarity to keep slasher buffs from checking the rule book and the plot never strays too far from the path that you've grown to expect. Just as Wally Koz's surprisingly decent 555 was seemingly put together with help from various members of his family, Mirage seems to have been a joint production from relatives of the director. Looking through the credits I noticed numerous 'Crains' listed in key positions throughout the construction of the feature. But despite fairly good distribution across the globe, the movie failed to make an impression either side of the Atlantic and now it has become pretty much a phantom of the VHS market. Nevertheless this only made it appeal to me even more and so I strained my resources to track a copy downﾂ・<br /><br />It all takes place in the middle of the dessert, which as I'm sure you'll agree is hardly the most exciting location. With that said though, I must admit that there's certainly going to be no chance of any nosey John Q Laws turning up unexpectedly. Four undeniably beautiful youngsters head out into the sand for a night of debauchery and frolics that always seems to rub homicidal maniacs the wrong way. Chris (Jennifer McAllister) and her boyfriend Greg (Kenny Johnson) meet up with amusing new age hippies Trip (Kevin McParland) and Mary (Nicole Anton) at a make shift camp site in the midst of the dune-like wilderness. Greg's older brother Kyle (Todd Schaefer) and his buxom girlfriend Bambi (Laura Albert) soon turn up to join the body count applicants in their quest for an early grave. Kyle used to date Chris before his younger brother took the liberty of stealing his squeeze ﾂ・something that Kyle doesn't seem too keen to forget. Sound like a motive for a massacre? Well what did you expect? Before long an unseen someone driving a truck with tinted windows joins the gathering with a unique set of tricks up his sleeve. Will any of the kids survive to turn up for a sequel? <br /><br />I have had trouble tracking down any information at all about this feature. I don't even know if director Bill Crain is aka William Crain ﾂ・the man behind Midnight Fear and Blacula among others. Mirage certainly doesn't appear on his official filmography, so your guess is as good as mine. Judging by the credible work behind the camera, I'd have to say that I find it hard to believe that this is the debut of a man with no previous cinematic experience. The film is stylishly photographed with some superb work from DP Michael Crain, and the director boasts a credible talent for building suspense when it's necessary. R. Christopher Biggs' gore FX are imaginatively created and gruesome, and kudos to the sleepy head over at the BBFC who inexplicably let this pass through UNCUT on a usually stringent 18 rating. A couple of the murders are indeed extremely macabre. One guy gets buried up to his neck in sand before coming face to face with a grenade, while another ends up literally legless after loosing a battle with a chain and a pick up truck! There's also some black humor that's surely unintentional. We spend the majority of the feature seeing only the killer's boots as he steps out of his vehicle and stalks the youngsters. But when he's revealed to hilariously resemble Keanu Reeves circa Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, I didn't quite know what to expect. Thankfully Crain knows exactly how to keep things creepy and the showdown is particularly mean spirited as the psycho taunts Chris sadistically.<br /><br />There are some surprisingly good performances on display from an extremely inexperienced cast. The divine Jennifer McAllister does a superb job as the heroine and B.G. Steers portrays off his rocker dementia with finesse. The Casting director chose wisely to pick some of the most beautiful females ever slaughtered in slasher cinema and it gratefully doesn't come at the cost of thespian potential. The soundtrack works well to build the desolate atmosphere of isolation, which is carefully handled by a director that should have been signed and nurtured by Hollywood bigwigs. Watch out for the superb nightmare sequence that is truly horror film-making at it's freakiest.<br /><br />Mirage is a good late entry to the cycle that was somewhat unfortunate to miss a boom year placing amongst the slasher elite. When you consider that this was made with just a cast of seven and a pick up truck, you have to say that they did a damn good job. The flaws are numerous, but never detract credibility from the net result. Unfortunately you've probably got more chance of finding liquid gold in your coffee mug than you have of ever tracking down a copy. If you see this one covered in dust on the top shelf of your local video store, then make sure you pick it up. Recommended.
It's hard to watch this movie without thinking forward to the television show it would become, especially if, like me, you happen to like the TV show more. But there's a lot to be said for the source.<br /><br />Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is a top New York City sportswriter who lives in an eight-room apartment by himself, a casualty of divorce and his own stubbornly sloppy mindset. Enter his friend Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon), needing a place to live after his wife threw him out for his stubbornly neatnik mindset. The result is a train wreck and one of the most beloved movie adaptations of a Neil Simon stage play.<br /><br />First thing's first: I love that apartment! Poker table, novelty dart board, askew photos of baseball players, empty booze and beer containers, even a pair of Roman columns. It's a place where men can be boys. Simon and director Gene Saks do a great job opening up the stage play's single set, Oscar's living room, by moving the action into the bedrooms and kitchen and giving the mounting tension between Oscar and Felix more corners to bounce off of.<br /><br />Neal Hefti's familiar score was heard on the TV show, but never so sweepingly orchestrated as it is here, in several different arrangements that make the on-screen action soar whenever its played. Real location work and night shots of Manhattan give the film an energy common to films shot in that place and time ("Buddwing," "The World Of Henry Orient," "Midnight Cowboy," "Manchurian Candidate," "Rosemary's Baby," etc.)<br /><br />Are Lemmon and Matthau too heavy in comparison to Tony Randall and Jack Klugman? To be fair, the movie is meant to be a more serious affair, dealing with the then-uncommon condition of mid-life divorce and the frustration inherent in not being able to make a relationship work. Simon has more in mind than entering Felix and Oscar in a game of "Password" or a battle of wits with Howard Cosell. But I don't know...<br /><br />Both Lemmon and Matthau were terrific comedians I enjoy watching especially in the middle of this film as I often do in their separate movies, but I never understood why they were regarded as a great comedy team. Here, in their best-regarded partnership, they seem to be acting in two different films; Lemmon in a comedy-drama and Matthau in a farce. Matthau is great in the beginning, charming us with his teddy-bear demeanor around the poker table, but near the end of the film he takes a turn much like Jack Torrance's in "The Shining," reacting to Felix cleaning up his apartment and serving tasty food to his friends in a way that totally upsets the delicate balance of blame.<br /><br />While the ending bothers me, the part many see as the most jarring, the beginning, works fine as I see it. Watching Felix stumbling around trying to kill himself isn't great comedy, no, but it's a good way to get into a great comedy, setting us up with some real-life pain before bringing in the warmth and laughter. (Plus it has some great shots of the seedier parts of the city.) In the middle of the movie, this scene would have been a miscalculation, but it works as a way of establishing Felix's torment and a sense of sharp relief to come when we see Oscar and his poker friends bicker and feud.<br /><br />That's where Simon's lines are so great. They are the underlying strength of the film. He gets the banter exactly right and real, and still makes it funny. "I don't mind you talking, Felix. You got things to say. What's scaring me is I'm beginning to listen." The TV show showed how wrong it is to assume the movie is always better, in fact the TV show once made a good point about "assuming" anything at all, but the movie makes for a solid foundation and is a joy in its own right.
Neil Simon had a knack for dialog and nowhere is this more evident than the lines he gives WALTER MATTHAU and JACK LEMMON as opposite types in THE ODD COUPLE--a mixture of comedy and sadness that depends entirely on the believability of two such mismatched friends sharing an apartment.<br /><br />Lemmon is neatnik Felix Ungar, bent on suicide after the divorce from his wife and reluctantly agreeing to share an apartment with Oscar Madison (Matthau) with somewhat disastrous results. Seems that everything Felix says and does drives Oscar up the wall and neither one can stand the other's ways, with Oscar being the messiest male imaginable and Felix the exact opposite.<br /><br />Funniest scene for me was when the giggling Pigeon sisters in the apartment above visit them on a dinner date. The priceless interaction between Lemmon, Matthau and Carole Shelley and Monica Evans is enough to put you in stitches. The talented Pigeon sisters are the gals who did the voices for the Gabble Sisters (a pair of geese) in Disney's THE ARISTOCATS, and here--their comic timing on top of Lemmon's sad story of despair is enough to spin the film into hilarity--where it remains much of the time.<br /><br />If you're a Neil Simon fan and have enjoyed other screen treatments of his work, this one is not to be missed. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly cast (even though they considered exchanging roles before filming began) and, of course, it's easy to see why it became a top-rated TV show later on.<br /><br />Summing up: Top Simon comedy, not to be missed.
Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) has just been dumped by his wife, because he is one of the most annoying , neurotic people in the world. Suicide is his way out, but he just can't seem to get it to work, so he heads over to his friends house. Oscar Madison (Walther Matthau) is also recently divorced and living it up in bachelor heaven. Smoking, gambling, hitting on chicks, eating out and never cleaning is paradise to him. Well, with the suicide attempts Oscar decides to let Felix move in. At first, it is a match made in heaven, Felix cooks and cleans and helps Oscar pay his alimony on time, but soon Oscar is jonesing for women and Felix (who in today's world would probably be gay) isn't ready to move on. They invite a couple of British birds over and they find Felix so tender that soon they and Felix are weeping and chatting about his family life, leaving Oscar denied. This is it, he explodes and throws him out, but Felix isn't as helpless as it seems, and soon he has the upper hand. My favorite quote "You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Based on a Neil Simon play (who also wrote the screenplay), this has a certain theatre feel to it. Set and the repartee and looks feel quite play-like (for better or worse). Lemmon and Mathau have excellent comedic chemistry and have appeared in the Grumpier Old Men movies and Out to Sea, reprising the same finicky/slob roles, but with different names (to avoid royalty issues, I'm sure).<br /><br />This movie is like strawberries dipped in chocolate. The chocolate is smooth, sweet and rich, the strawberry is tart, juicy and bright red (unless you get those nasty greenish ones). They are almost polar opposites, but together, the contrasts highlight each other and make a wonderful dessert. 7/10 <br /><br />http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies
THE ODD COUPLE is the classic film version of Neil Simon's most famous play about a TV newswriter named Felix Unger, who is an obsessive neat freak, who moves in with his divorced best friend, Oscar Madison, a sportswriter and complete slob, after his wife Frances throws him out of their apartment. Already divorced, Oscar takes his best friend in and regrets it from the moment he does it. Neil Simon's classic comedy first came to Broadway with Art Carney playing Felix and Walter Matthau playing Oscar. Jack Lemmon takes over for Carney in the film version with a memorable performance as Felix Unger. Lemmon is not only terribly funny in the role but so vividly real that he brings an element of melancholy to the pitiful figure that is Felix Unger. Matthau, fortunately, was allowed to recreate his role as Oscar, a one-of-a-kind gem of comic performance that provides consistent laughs throughout. This teaming of Lemmon and Matthau turned out to be comic gold that was re-visited in nine other films. With both of these actors no longer with us, the viewing of this classic becomes more touching but no less hilarious. Simon's play has been nicely expanded for the screen with a silent prologue chronicling a depressed Felix's suicide attempt that is a winner. The supporting cast includes Herb Edelman, John Fiedler, Larry Haines, and David Sheiner as Oscar's poker playing buddies and Moncia Evans and Carole Shelley as the Piedgon Sisters, blind dates of Oscar and Felix. Of course, it later became an excellent TV series with Tony Randall and Jack Klugman, but there's nothing like the original. A joy from start to finish.
This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! "The Odd Couple" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS!
Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt.
The first time I saw this, I didn't laugh too much. At the time, I was only about fifteen years old and thought that maybe some of the deeper humor was too mature for me to understand at the time. I had the same reaction when I viewed it a second time a few months ago, and this time, it was because Felix's aborted suicide attempt at the beginning of the movie kind of darkened the movie a bit. This scene made some of the things Oscar said and did to Felix later in the movie seem needlessly cruel, and their personality clashes weren't as amusing as they could have been. Had I not already known the story, I would have been worried that some of Oscar's antics to Felix might push him over the edge. As it was, it didn't make me laugh or smile like the television show with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall did. Still, all in all, a pretty good movie and it spawned one of the greatest sitcoms on television. 7 out of 10.
Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.<br /><br />It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.<br /><br />Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this.
Some of the best movies that are categorized as "comedies" actually blur between comedy and drama. "The Graduate" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", which were made also in the late 1960's are perfect examples. Are they comedies with dramatic undertones, or dramas with a lot of humor? In many respects, "The Odd Couple" falls into this same category of being both comedy yet highly dramatic with deep underpinnings about human nature. Much of what happens may be funny to the audience but the characters are not laughing.<br /><br />Despite the rather light-hearted TV show of the 1970's, the original "Odd Couple" is not merely about a neat guy and messy guy who are forced to live together because of their marital situation. It's really about two opposites who must face why their marriages fell apart and how their detrimental idiosyncrasies reveal themselves outside of their marriage. Neatness, the characteristic of Felix Ungar (Jack Lemon perfectly cast) and messiness, the characteristic of Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), are only the beginning and somewhat superficial. As the story unfolds, we find there is a lot more to these men than simply neatness versus messiness.<br /><br />Briefly, the story is really about Felix Ungar, who has to face an impending divorce from his wife Francis, who we never meet but is an important character throughout the story. On the verge of suicide, Ungar goes to the only place he knows: the apartment of Oscar Madison where a group of poker buddies hang out every so often. We learn that Ungar is not only a member of this "poker club" but the group knows what's happening to him and try, in their inept way, to help out. Madison figures the best way to help Ungar is to let him move in with him until his suicidal tendencies wear off.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Madison, he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Madison is a carefree happy-go-lucky if rather irresponsible slob who's refrigerator was last cleaned probably when Herbert Hoover was still in the White House. Madison's idea of serving snacks is grabbing moldy cheese and sticking them in between two pieces of bread, and then throwing the contents of a bag of chips on the table. On the other hand, he enjoys booze and women, in short having a good time. <br /><br />Ungar is not only altogether different, he is diametrically opposite. He is not only an obsessive neatness nut that finds more joy in disinfecting the apartment than meeting women but he knows more than most women do about cooking and fine eating. At one point, he calls his ex-wife, not to talk about reconciling, but to get her recipe for meatloaf. At another moment, Ungar was going to spend the rest of the evening cutting cabbage for coleslaw. When Madison seems unimpressed, Ungar finally confesses he was only doing it for his roommate because he can't stand coleslaw. Who is this guy? But he has another endearing trait: Felix is also a hypochondriac. He obsesses about his health to the point where he makes strange noises in public places claiming he's helping his sinuses. He seems to have every health condition in the book. And if they made up more, Felix would probably have them. Ultimately, he is overly self-absorbed.<br /><br />Running throughout the movie are references to marriage. At one point when Madison is trying to convince Ungar to move in, he says, "What do you want, a wedding ring?" But little does he know that it is not the neat guy who can't deal with the messy guy, but the other way around. Their friendship becomes an inadvertent hellish relationship. And the climax occurs when Oscar invites two lonely British sisters for a get-together with both comedic and tragic results. This is one of the best comedies of its type ever written and not to be missed, with superlative performances by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon in roles that are hard to imagine better played by anyone else. It is unfortunate that writing of this caliber is sadly lacking from most comedies being produced today.
The original movie, The Odd Couple, has some wonderful comic one-liners. The entire world it seems knows the story of neurotic neat-freak Felix Ungar and funny, obnoxious, slob Oscar Madison. This paring of mismatched roommates created one of the most successful TV series of all time as well as countless, not anywhere near as good, imitations.<br /><br />The Odd Couple movie has some wonderful jokes about Oscar's apartment and his sloppy habits. He says, "Who wants food?" One of his poker player buddies asks, "What do ya got?" Oscar says, "I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches." "What's the brown?" It's either very new cheese or very old meat!" I also love the line about Oscar's refrigerator, "It's been out of order for two weeks, I saw milk standing in there that wasn't even in a bottle!" There is no question that Walter Matthau's Oscar Madison is a joy to watch on screen. He's almost as good as Jack Klugman's version in the TV series.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is Jack Lemmon's Felix Ungar. Jack makes a very, very, honest effort at the role. The problem is that he makes Felix SO depressing and down-trodden that he becomes more annoying than comical. Tony Randall's performance in the series, brought the kind of humor, warmth, and sensitivity, to Felix's character, which Lemmon's portrayal lacks. Tony's Felix Unger obviously could be annoying some of the time. However, in the TV series, it related to specific situations where the annoyance was needed in the storyline. Jack's Felix Ungar, (note the different spelling) in the movie, seems to never be happy, fun, or interesting. The movie Felix Ungar is a roommate that drives you up the wall, all the time.<br /><br />The movie still has great moments that withstand the test of time, the "famous" meatloaf fight is one of the greatest scenes ever! One of the other great examples of Felix's "little notes" on Oscar's pillow will be remembered forever. However, there are some darker sides where Oscar goes over the top, His "crying" near the end after bawling out Felix, and a scene involving Felix's Linguine dinner, (although lightened by a funny line.) seem more depressing than comical.<br /><br />Perhaps there wasn't enough time to see the lighter side of these characters that made the series so memorable in the movie. The beginning 20 minutes are very boring. The same issue occurs with Felix's conversation with the Pidgeon Sisters. The movie's ending is predictable and too pat. There's very little care or compassion for each of them by the other. The result is that the darker side of the film leads to a lot of depression and anger, rather than comedy, unless you are watching the great scenes described above. It appears that Jack Lemmon's monotone persona of Felix brings the film down, rather than enhances or embraces the comedy between the characters.<br /><br />It really took the 1970's TV series to make The Odd Couple the best that it could be. The original film is still very good. However, the TV series is much better.
First ever viewing: July 21, 2008<br /><br />Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.<br /><br />One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!<br /><br />Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.
and laugh out loud funny in many scenes.<br /><br />The movie's basic plot is well chronicled, a story of opposites trying to find a way to survive each other in close proximity.<br /><br />This is unquestionably Lemmon and Matheau's best film as co-stars, and the interaction between the sloppy Oscar and the OCD Felix are classic.<br /><br />The scene where Oscar lines up a double date, leaves the room briefly, and comes back to find Felix and the two girls all crying is pricelessly funny.<br /><br />For any fan of intelligent comedies, The Odd Couple is a "go out of your way to see it" film.
Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.<br /><br />He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.<br /><br />The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.<br /><br />This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.
There's nothing really to dislike about "The Odd Couple," and it's no surprise that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make a hugely winning comedic team. But there's something so underdeveloped about Neil Simon's adaptation of his hit stage play as to make it seem more like a skit on a sketch comedy show than a full-bodied film. I have not seen the play, but have to assume that the screen version is fairly faithful, since Simon wrote it, so the defects cannot be blamed on a stage-to-screen adaptation. There are some interesting ideas in this story--two recently divorced men who fall immediately into traditional married roles when they become roommates because neither knows any differently--that Simon never fully fleshes out. Still, there are many worse ways to kill a couple of hours.
If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.
THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners.
Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). <br /><br />For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.<br /><br />For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.
There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says "Good night." "Goodbye," he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together ﾂ・aha, he's going to off himself ﾂ・we watch him struggle to open the window ﾂ・oh no, he's going to jump ﾂ・The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger ﾂ・his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy ﾂ・it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes ﾂ・no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags ﾂ・just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcﾃｩes live. The twist here is that these two are really married ﾂ・to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys.
I don't think I've really ever given Walter Matthau his due as a comedic performer. He's certainly been wonderful in plenty of lighthearted roles, but I guess I always put his success down to his characters' grumpiness and ruthlessness, a gruff contrast to the flamboyant personality of his frequent co-star Jack Lemmon, and, I suppose, a natural extension of his earlier work in dramatic pictures. Watching Gene Saks' 'The Odd Couple (1968),' adapted from a popular Neil Simon play, the realisation suddenly clicked: Matthau is, in his own right, absolutely hilarious! Initially striking the audience as filthy, crude and generally unappealing, his Oscar Madison eventually manages to worm his way into our hearts, culminating in a hilariously overplayed confession of emotions that Matthau rasps out in a voice not entirely his own. At the same time, while holding his own as a comedian, his interplay with Lemmon is, of course, pitch-perfect; indeed, the film rightly belongs to both actors, who have never failed to light up the cinema screen by themselves, let alone together.<br /><br />Calling to mind Billy Wilder's screenplay for 'The Apartment (1960),' this Neil Simon comedy builds itself around around a rather morbid premise. Compulsive house-cleaner Felix Unger (Lemmon), having just been evicted by his wife of twelve years, attempts to commit suicide, but fruitlessly abandons the idea after he wrecks his back trying to open the hotel window. Dejected, he arrives at the house of good friend Oscar (Matthau), a divorced slob who lives alone on a diet of potato crisps and green sandwiches (that might contain either very new cheese or very old meat!). Oscar kindly offers Felix a place to stay, but is soon overwhelmed by his friend's finicky personality and constant insistence on absolute cleanliness. The pair form an unusual sort of marital arrangement, with Felix assuming the role of the effeminate and constantly-nagging wife, and Oscar as the sloppy, unappreciative husband who always comes home later than he's supposed to. This is a marriage that barely lasts three weeks, and, by the end of it, we can completely sympathise with Felix's ex-wife, who remains unseen.<br /><br />'The Odd Couple' is a terrific comedy, most of all because it has a lot of heart. For all their arguing, it's obvious that the two roommates have plenty of affection for each other, most movingly seen when Felix tries to launch into a furious tirade, instead ﾂ・perhaps inadvertently ﾂ・ending up informing Oscar how "tops" he his. The pair's four poker buddies (John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner and Larry Haines) are also constantly badgering each other about some obscure annoyance, but you can't deny that they've got the best of intentions. Their decision to treat Felix as though nothing has happened to him may have sounded fine in theory, but maybe being ignored wasn't quite the correct solution to Felix's gloomy feelings of inadequacy and inconsequentiality. Unlike some comedies based on popular stage plays {I was recently disappointed by Wilder's 'The Seven Year Itch (1955)}, this film doesn't simply strike at the same chord throughout, and the relationship between the two leads is progressively developed, through tears, laughter and much disagreement.
A simple comment...<br /><br />What can I say... this is a wonderful film that I can watch over and over. It is definitely one of the top ten comedies made. With a great cast, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau wording a perfect script by Neil Simon, based on his play.<br /><br />It is real to life situation done perfectly. If you have digital cable, one gets the menu on bottom of screen to give what is on. It usually gives this film ***% stars but in reality it deserves **** stars. If you really watch this film, one can tell that it will be as funny and fresh a hundred years from now.
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau began and ending their career together. Remember best as the Grumpiest of Old Men as well as the Oddest Couple to have ever made us laugh, Lemmon and Matthau were one of Hollywood's best loved comedy teams of the last 100 years. Not as "raunchy" as Pryor and Wilder, instead, they were the classic comedy team that reflected a more modern Marx Brothers routine. Such as the physical comedy as well as the mixed blend of chaos that Marx, Chaplin and Keaton were so famous for. In the Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau play complete opposites that create the chaos. The physical comedy is as unique as Chaplins. The joke is usually on themselves as oppose to passing the joke onto another. Not your typical guy film, it is in a way a coming of age comedy with two old men as oppose to two young teenagers in their prime. The chemistry between Lemmon and Matthau is entertainment enough. Although this movie isn't for everyone, this is a great comedy.
Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean "house husband" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses. <br /><br />Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!<br /><br />Very entertaining.
"The Odd Couple" is one of those movies that far surpasses its reputation. People all know it, they hum the theme song, they complain of living with a sloppy "Oscar" or a fastidious "Felix"...but they're under-selling the film without knowing it. This isn't just about a neat guy living with a sloppy guy; it's a portrait of two friends helping each other through the agony of divorce. It's also damn funny from start to finish, but it's the kind of comedy that arises from realistic, stressful, and just plain awful situations. So, some viewers have actually found the film to be a bit uncomfortable, but I think its verisimilitude is its strength. Besides, Matthau's bulldog face just cracks me up! My favorite comedy, by a country mile.
The Odd Couple is a comic gem. One the funniest script ever committed to celluloid - exceeded only by Strangelove, Spinal Tap and Lebowski! Lemmon and Matthau are best friends: obsessive compulsive Felix and sloppy, irresponsible Oscar. Oscar's wife has already left him because he is impossible to live with due to his irresponsible attitude. Felix's wife leaves him at the start of the movie, and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with poker buddy Oscar. Thats when the fun begins.<br /><br />The entire script is brilliant and filled with brilliant one-liners. You are probably already familiar with the "F.U." joke but it still works brilliantly due to Matthau's comic timing.<br /><br />My favorite moments are when Lemmon tries to clear his sinus in the diner and when the Pigeon sisters are being charmed by a very suave Matthau and Lemmon is totally out of his element. This one requires repeat viewings!
Simon's best comedy is superbly crafted by director Gene Saks and given life by the immense talents of Lemmon and Matthau. No one delivers these lines better. No one times them better. Nobody does it better.
This cordial comedy confronts a few bizarre characters. Especially, of course, the two leading characters. Jack Lemmon plays Felix, a hypochondriac whose wife lost him because she couldn't stand his cleaning and cooking attacks any longer. So he tries to kill himself but every attempt fails. Walter Matthau plays Oscar, his friend, an untidy, unreliable sports-reporter who lives in divorce from his ex-wife in a bachelor apartment. He offers his distressed friend Felix a new home in his apartment. And soon the trouble begins because two such contrary characters can't live together for a long time. Felix turns Oscar's disorderly flat into a clean exhibition flat. He cleans and cooks the whole time. After a short while, Oscar feels persecution mania ... Filmed in a theatrical way and excellent acted. Above all, Jack Lemmon's play is wonderful. He is the perfect clown. He makes us laugh but in a tragi-comic way. Look for the wonderful scene when both men invite their two female neighbours for supper, because Oscar has to touch something more softer than a bowling-ball. While he is preparing the drinks, Felix sits with the two young ladies in the living-room. To get out of this embarrassing situation, he starts to talk about the weather. A minute later, he changes the subject and talks about his ex-wife and children. Suddenly he begins to weep and when Oscar comes back with the drinks, there are three weeping people in the living-room. The film is full of such amusing and at the same time touching scenes. An intelligent, entertaining comedy with much heart. 10 out of 10!
I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.<br /><br />Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.<br /><br />I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.<br /><br />Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.<br /><br />Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.
I saw this many years after the television series and, initially, I didn't care for it. Then, as my memory of the series receded with the passage of time, I watched again, and found it absolutely hilarious. Based on the stage play by Neil Simon, it has not been 'opened out' much for the big screen, and that's one of its strengths. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are brilliant as Oscar and Felix, and the supporting cast are wonderful, particularly John Fielder as 'Vinnie'. Even now, certain moments can reduce me to tears of laughter - Felix interrupting Oscar in the middle of a ball game with a dinner request, Oscar cracking up and chasing Felix around the apartment, the giggling 'Pigeon Sisters' brought low by Felix's sob stories, and of course, the legendary cafeteria scene ( later ripped off by Nora Ephron's 'When Harry Met Sally' ). Razor-sharp dialogue too. When the boys think Felix has taken an overdose, Oscar says: "They could be vitamins! He could be the healthiest one in the room!". Fantastic!
I have seen this film many times and I like all bad teachers want to give it ten out of ten but feel that it would be unfair to other good films. However, I do think that this is one of those rare gems: a perfect comedy. It is I would venture one of the greatest comic films of all times. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly matched and mismatched. The script is so sharp that you need to staunch the bleeding. The story is well known and has already been described in other comments. The two leads give extraordinary performances, the girls are superb and the situations are side-splittingly funny. Not one swear-word in sight (mark that Hollywood, you don't have to swear to be funny, you have to be witty) and the move from stage to film is seamless. They don't make'em like this any more. Timeless.
SPOILERS<br /><br />In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, "Hell is other people". In "The Odd Couple", Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau demonstrate just how accurate this can be. As Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison, Lemmon and Matthau respectively create two good friends who decide to live together. As the two begin to slowly grow more and more frustrated with each other, the laughs come thick and fast, before Felix departs, leaving Oscar a changed and more cleanly individual.<br /><br />Jack Lemmon as Ungar is absolutely superb as the neurotic, cleaning obsessed divorcee coping with life as a single man. Walter Matthau in contrast to Lemmon's character is equally as good as the slobbish sports writer who simply wants to play poker to earn money for his child benefits.<br /><br />Lemmon and Matthau are magnificant in their selected parts, to some degree dependent upon the beautiful script by Neil Simon, and simultaneously because they work well as a team. As two friends who are inherently different in lifestyles, although similar in relationships with ex-wives and children, these two, late, great actors create a partnership which is practically impossible to recreate. So great in fact, that the world screamed out so much for something similar, that two years before Matthau's death and three before Lemmon's, the characters were reunited in an inferior sequel. This idea, whilst following Hollywood's irritating obsession with sequels, might have worked to a certain degree, but at the same time, it could never come close to replicating the genius of this original film.<br /><br />Ultimately it's not really possible to say anything else. With Simon's amazing script, filled with humour and laughter, the creators of this film were already onto a hit. The casting of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison though, is the most important part of this film. "The Odd Couple", with it's traditional soundtrack (which even gained a tribute in "The Simpsons"), it's excellent script and it's genius leading men, is a tribute to cinema and a feature for history to remember.
A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.<br /><br />A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.<br /><br />PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.<br /><br />Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.
In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.<br /><br />The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.<br /><br />It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.<br /><br />Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.<br /><br />Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.<br /><br />Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set! <br /><br />It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time.
One of the many Merrie Melodies cartoons that entertained American moviegoers during WWII, Bob Clampett's "An Itch in Time" portrays a hobo flea settling on Elmer Fudd's dog. The little guy turns into a real sadist while making a home on the dog's back, but Elmer warns the dog: "One more scwatch and I'll give you a bath!" Meanwhile, the flea is setting up dynamite on the dog!* And that's not the end! I noticed that in one scene, Elmer is reading a comic book featuring Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig. Obviously, Elmer and Bugs frequently co-starred but Elmer never co-starred with Porky (unless you count the very short "Any Bonds Today?"). But to me, the thought of Elmer reading about these other famous characters from his same genre stresses the metaphysical nature of his world, as though he knew of their existence within his universe even though they don't appear in this cartoon.<br /><br />Of course, I'm probably going too far in my analysis. I'm sure that the cartoon was intended as pure entertainment, and it certainly entertains. As for the "I might get to like this" line, it sounds as though that was something that the censors wouldn't have allowed but somehow missed; I, for one, don't actually know what it was supposed to sound like. Was it something sexual? As for the end, had I thought that I'd seen everything, I would have been tempted to look for more, rather than do what the cat did (although it was a neat trick).<br /><br />*The guys behind these cartoons sure had a thing for TNT, didn't they?
Bob Clampett's 'An Itch in Time' milks seven minutes of crazy action out of a very small premise. Elmer Fudd tells his dog that if he scratches himself just once more that he will be given a dreaded bath. Unfortunately for the dog, a relentless flea makes it all but impossible to stop from scratching. The cartoon switches between the flea's progress inside the dog's fur and the dog's desperate attempts to cope with it. In a great sequence that really captures the frustration of an itch that can't be scratched, the dog changes colour from brown to blue to red to polka dotted to plaid! It sounds ludicrously surreal but it perfectly evokes the indescribable feeling of an itch in a way only Clampett could. There are several other elements which make 'An Itch in Time' pure Clampett. There's the grotesque concept itself, which leads to some graphic scenes of the flea munching on the dog's flesh. There's the unrestrained violence that rears its head in any scene featuring the cat. Most notably, there's the dirty jokes including a huge shot of the dog's behind which causes the flea to wolf-whistle and a hysterical sequence in which the dog attempts to scratch himself by dragging his backside along the floor. He momentarily breaks off to address the audience: "Hey, I better cut this out. I may get to like it"! With a very limited concept, Clampett manages to make 'An Itch in Time' a unique, minutiae-based cartoon. Like an early episode of 'Seinfeld', 'An Itch in Time' is practically about nothing but very funny with it.
Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name "A. Flea" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming "T- Bone!" He then sings, "There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!")<br /><br />That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea. <br /><br />The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal!
`An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.'
"In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first "national" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the "Windy City" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic."<br /><br />The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.<br /><br />Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.<br /><br />Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), "Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard." If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?<br /><br />Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany. <br /><br />The Fﾃｼhrer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Fﾃｼhrer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.<br /><br />The OSS Societyﾂｮ 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101
I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).<br /><br />Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.<br /><br />However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the "Swallow" and "Gunnerside" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.<br /><br />The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history.
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....<br /><br />This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.<br /><br />This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!<br /><br />If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!
by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.<br /><br />Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.<br /><br />So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost.
It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shﾃｴ Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.
This was a really cool movie. It just goes to prove that you don't need silly litle things like continuity and scripts to make a movie. It traverses continents in seconds, people get shot and nothing happens to them, swords set on fire, samuari fight on sinking galleons, David Essex is the epitome of slimey villainy and John Rhys Davies is just the dude. I enjoyed this movie but I like s**t movies, this is the perfect example of a very s**t movie that just KICKS ASS. If you like Battlefield Earth you'll love this film, its swashbuckling, its fast, its silly, its samuaraitastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />It also looks as if it was made in 1972
I find this movie the best movie I have ever seen, because it reflects the inner strength of a young girl during the second world war. The movie is impressive, not least because it actually happened. It reminds me of the story of Anne Frank.<br /><br />
this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2.
As a another reviewer states Hanna's War is an outstanding film about an outstanding person, Hanna "Anniko" Senesh, who would become the Jewish Joan Of Arc. Unfortunately I diverge in opinion not agreeing that Miss Detmers as the lead is too beautiful to be taken seriously as a resistance fighter. In truth for me her performance is not held back by her beauty but makes it all the more stark in the terror of the sadistic brutality as a resistor she faces. Maruschka Detmers performance is brave, poignant, heartfelt or understood, and totally believable. In other words for me "In the zone." from the opening credits. If you would like to learn about the suffering of someone else for something they believe in and be impressively entertained give Hanna's War with Maruschka Detmers a try. My hat is off also to Ellen Burstyn as Hanna's mother a much well known and famous actress who could have made effort to walk off with the film. In that it is a team effort perhaps of two actress' but not an All About Eve situation.
It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.<br /><br />The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.<br /><br />Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.<br /><br />The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.<br /><br />The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever.
For someone who remembers Jane in the Daily Mirror strip cartoon, viewing this film is an exercise in nostalgia. In that context it is wonderful, but younger viewers would undoubtedly find the comedy limp and would miss the point that the actors are cartoon characters. The plotline is also a bit limp for today's audience, but reflects the naivety of the 40s and 50s very well. Jane, you must remember, was part of the escapist fantasy of the wartime years, created to boost the morale of the troops. She gave a double meaning to the "strip" in strip cartoon.<br /><br />The story has something in common with the tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rider Haggard. The theme would have been a familiar one to readers in that era, a bunch of bumbling Nazis thwarted by a few equally bumbling Englanders, and set in the African jungle of course.<br /><br />For Jane fans, a must see. For the rest of you, a damp squib.<br /><br />
The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verﾃｳnica Lujﾃ｡n, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorﾃｳs, Fabiﾃ｡n Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramﾃｳn Lillo, Josﾃｩ Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verﾃｳnica Lujﾃ｡n, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorﾃｳs, Fabiﾃ｡n Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramﾃｳn Lillo, Josﾃｩ Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! <br /><br />Movie Nuttball's NOTE: <br /><br />I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today! <br /><br />If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)!
This movie catches a lot of flak, but this is usually based on the horrible looking and covered / clothed version of the film that played US television and has also been issued to death on VHS and DVD buy companies like Alpha, Unicorn, etc. This movie never had a theatrical release in the states, although it was picked up by Avco Embassy in 1973. In Spain at the time, when there was nudity involved, the filmmakers shot two versions, one with clothes and one with out. The fully uncut English dubbed export print was titled WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS and seems to have been released to home video only in Sweden back in the 80's. It can be found on Ebay and the likes and comes highly recommended. My guess is Avco cut the film down for a R rated release that never happened. In 1974 it was released by Avco to television titled FURY OF THE WOLFMAN and the clothed version was used for this TV print. Cut to 12 years later and FURY OF THE WOLFMAN pops up on home video on the Charter label. This version appears to be what Avco was going to release back in '73. It's the uncovered version, with some nudity that would never pass on TV or in a PG movie. There are several scenes on the Charter tape that play out with nudity that are clothed in the TV print ( the source for all those dollar Dud's and VHS editions ). But a comparison to the fully uncut WOLFMAN NEVER SLEEPS reveals that 2 scenes are cut on this version! ( spoilers in next paragraph ) The scene where Ilona has Waldermar chained to the wall and whips him after he transforms into the werewolf is incomplete. After whipping him into submission, she starts to remove her clothes and begins making love to the werewolf!!! The werewolf responds positively to these sexual shenanigans too. This scene certainly ranks as one of the most unusual in the history of horror films and is a delirious treat. It's not graphic but the implied bestiality was too much for US audiences, or more likely the MPAA. Ilona is desperately in love with Waldemar and could not possess him, hence her whole scheme to mind control Waldermar's wife and involve her in an affair. She wanted to wreck his marriage, and she accomplishes this while Waldemar is in Tibet. Unfortunately he returns a werewolf, but this does not slow her down a bit. If she can't physically have him as a man, she loves him enough to have sex with him as a werewolf. This also helps explain the later scene where the werewolf beds down with a woman he spots getting naked before bedtime while peeping through her window. This scene is presented sans nudity in the covered version and really makes no sense. In the uncut version, it would seem Ilona's affections have made the werewolf horny and in need of release, so he rapes the first woman he can after escaping. The other cut is a complete scene of Waldemar in bed with Karen and she is seen naked. A very similar bedroom scene was cut out of the US version of WEREWOLF SHADOW ( WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) as well. The film does have it's problems though, for certain. The director was drunk, the bad stand in for the werewolf at points, the atrocious English dubbing, the inclusion of sequences from the first Waldemar film MARK OF THE WOLFMAN aka FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR and the grotesque overuse of that film's music score throughout etc, but seen in it's original widescreen format and uncut ( ie: WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS ) it is one of the wildest and most outrageous of the Daninsky werewolf series, with a plot line unmatched in it's everything but the kitchen sink approach. The cut / clothed pan and scan full screen copies of this film do it no favors, and unfortunately that's the version almost everyone commenting on the film have seen. The film carries a 1970 copyright, and I'd bet the 1972 release date on the IMDb is incorrect. The film precedes WEREWOLF SHADOW ( aka WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) in the series and was certainly released before WEREWOLF SHADOW. The ending of WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS / FURY OF THE WOLFMAN dovetails directly into the opening of WEREWOLF SHADOW, offering concrete evidence of this. Sadly a complete version of this may never get a decent release. A perfect release would be the uncut English version but in Spanish with English subtitles. The English dubbing severely hurts the movie. But any Spanish language version would reflect the covered version as shown in Spain during the Franco era, where nudity was verboten.
This movie is stuffed full of stock Horror movie goodies: chained lunatics, pre-meditated murder, a mad (vaguely lesbian) female scientist with an even madder father who wears a mask because of his horrible disfigurement, poisoning, spooky castles, werewolves (male and female), adultery, slain lovers, Tibetan mystics, the half-man/half-plant victim of some unnamed experiment, grave robbing, mind control, walled up bodies, a car crash on a lonely road, electrocution, knights in armour - the lot, all topped off with an incredibly awful score and some of the worst Foley work ever done.<br /><br />The script is incomprehensible (even by badly dubbed Spanish Horror movie standards) and some of the editing is just bizarre. In one scene where the lead female evil scientist goes to visit our heroine in her bedroom for one of the badly dubbed: "That is fantastical. I do not understand. Explain to me again how this is..." exposition scenes that litter this movie, there is a sudden hand held cutaway of the girl's thighs as she gets out of bed for no apparent reason at all other than to cover a cut in the bad scientist's "Mwahaha! All your werewolfs belong mine!" speech. Though why they went to the bother I don't know because there are plenty of other jarring jump cuts all over the place - even allowing for the atrocious pan and scan of the print I saw.<br /><br />The Director was, according to one interview with the star, drunk for most of the shoot and the film looks like it. It is an incoherent mess. It's made even more incoherent by the inclusion of werewolf rampage footage from a different film The Mark of the Wolf Man (made 4 years earlier, featuring the same actor but playing the part with more aggression and with a different shirt and make up - IS there a word in Spanish for "Continuity"?) and more padding of another actor in the wolfman get-up ambling about in long shot.<br /><br />The music is incredibly bad varying almost at random from full orchestral creepy house music, to bosannova, to the longest piano and gong duet ever recorded. (Thinking about it, it might not have been a duet. It might have been a solo. The piano part was so simple it could have been picked out with one hand while the player whacked away at the gong with the other.) <br /><br />This is one of the most bewilderedly trance-state inducing bad movies of the year so far for me. Enjoy.<br /><br />Favourite line: "Ilona! This madness and perversity will turn against you!" How true.<br /><br />Favourite shot: The lover, discovering his girlfriend slain, dropping the candle in a cartoon-like demonstration of surprise. Rank amateur directing there.
Someday somebody is going to write an essay comparing Paul Naschy's "Fury of the Wolfman" to the great Spanish surrealist films, "L'age D'or" and "Un Chien Andelou". The Naschy film is a masterpiece of delirium from beginning to end. Dali and Bunuel probably loved it, and ate their hearts out seeing someone do with such apparent ease what they had to rack their brains to pull off.<br /><br />The film lacks cohesive structure even though it does have a plot that moves from A to B to C. Some mishmash about a "Professor Walterman" -- his first name, mind you -- who was bitten by a Yeti monster during an expedition to Tibet and hasn't been the same since, which is understandable. One of his jealous colleagues, the insane daughter of the noted Doctor Wolfstein, knows about his condition and reveals that his wife has been cheating on him. But its a setup for a twisted scientific experiment to unleash his inner beast.<br /><br />"Walterman" flips out, turns into a werewolf, kills a few people, is electrocuted, dies, is buried, unburied, taken to a castle filled with circus freaks, wired to various machines, zapped with assorted electronic effects, injected with potent elixirs, is chained up, turns into a werewolf, a woman in an evening gown with thigh-high Nazi fetish boots whips him, he escapes, helps the pretty female doctor find her way out of the castle, fends off the circus freaks with a battle axe, eventually turns back into a werewolf, and has to fight to the death against the female werewolf incarnation of his cheating wife. The lady with the Nazi boots shoots him with silver bullets from her Luger pistol, they die together, and the pretty doctor walks off into the morning with the studly reporter, who did nothing. "Look! What a beautiful day it is!" <br /><br />"La furia del Hombre Lobo" was written by Paul Naschy in a hurry. Original director Enrique Eguilez was fired and replaced by Josﾃｩ Marﾃｭa Zabalza, a drunk who was infamously intoxicated throughout the production. He was often unable to work (though he did find time to instruct his 14 year old nephew to make some alterations to the script) and Naschy ended up directing much of the film uncredited. Zabalza did rally enough to clip some action scenes from one of Naschy's previous movies, "Mark of the Wolfman". The scenes were fortunately good enough to use twice even if the costumes were different, and helped pad out the runtime after Zabalza refused to get out of bed to finish the movie. Post production was a nightmare. Nobody knew who was doing the editing, the money ran out, the master print disappeared for a while, and then at a pre-release screening for a film distributor the executive arrived to find Zabalza urinating into the gutter in front of the theater. He was too drunk to find the restroom but at least he made it to the curb.<br /><br />Yet somehow the film works, if you let it. It keys into those atavistic memories we have about murky castles, vaulted catacombs, chains, whips, gloomy moors. Fans of those sort of things will find it hypnotically watchable even if the story as a whole doesn't make much sense due to the fractured discontinuity of the execution. In one scene its pouring rain and the wolfman howls at the lightning; in the next shot its bone dry and he's howling at the full moon. Then its raining again. And yet you don't look at it as a gaffe. Its like an unfolding dream where contradictions are possible, opposites are the same, and effects proceed causes; First the wolfman picks up the power cable and screams, and then the cable starts sparking with electricity. People say its low budget hurts the overall effectiveness -- I say the film would have been unwatchable if they had a dime more to spend. It is a marvel of making something out of nothing, and succeeds not because of what it could of had, but because of what it does. It's easy to laugh at stuff like this and even easier to dismiss it. The trick is being able to see through the mayhem, or rather to regard the chaos as part of the effect.<br /><br />Paul Naschy died last week at the age of 75. He had been ill with pancreatic cancer for a year or more, was working on film projects right up until his last days, but passed away in Madrid, Spain, with his family while receiving chemotherapy treatment. His rich, varied, and surprisingly lengthy career is a legacy to a man stubbornly pursuing his artistic vision in the face of universal mainstream disinterest. And yet in all of us there is an eleven year old kid who will watch his movies like "Fury of the Wolfman" in rapt awe. Even people who don't like Euro Horror will discover something in this movie to marvel at, if only for just a minute in a couple spots. You can find it for free at Archive.Org or even buy it on a DVD for a nickel. It's worth far, far more.<br /><br />Amusingly, Naschy was horrified to learn that many others like myself regard this twisted, sick, demented little movie as a classic, if not an outright masterpiece of Cinema Dementia. The problems he encountered during the production and the mess of a film that was left after were perhaps too personal an artistic disappointment for Naschy to forgive. I would never presume to dare to forgive it for him, but I will say this: I'd rather watch "Fury of the Wolfman" in its dingiest, most cut and degraded fullscreen public domain print than ever sit though the overbearing, obnoxious crap churning out up at the Swine Flu cineplexes this or any other weekend.<br /><br />The world lost a great artist this month. Watch his films, and remember.<br /><br />9/10
I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned!
This movie was great and I would like to buy it.The boy goes with his grandfather to catch a young eagle. the boy has to feed and care for the eagle until it is old enough to be sacrificed for the crops. the boy saves the eagle from being killed and runs away from the tribe.The eagle helps feed him by catching a duck from a small pond the boy scares up. Later the boy shoots a deer that a bully kid was claiming because their arrows were marked very close the same. Only until they check the thickness of the red lines do they determine who actually got the deer. But this was unfortunate because it made the other boys even crueler to him,and at the end he is being chased up onto a cliff but when you think he will fall off his pure love for the eagle transforms him into a golden eagle with only a necklace as a reminder of who he was.Please if anyone knows where I can buy this movie let me know.I haven't seen it for over 30 years,but still remember parts of the movie.deniselacey2000@yahoo.com
Man, I loved this movie! This really takes me back to when I was a kid. These were the days when the teachers still showed classroom films on reel-to-real and if you were good, they would rewind the movie slowly so you could watch it play backward. I still remember one of the opening lines...."Tutazema was his name, and he was an Orphan. He lived with his sister so and so in the village." This is a great movie for kids and as enduring as the red balloon. At the end the other Indian boys in the village attach the feathers to Tutazema and he becomes an eagle himself. He gets to live the way he always wanted to. He gets to soar the heavens.
Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, " The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle". I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!!
I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...<br /><br />I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK! <br /><br />What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace. <br /><br />CB
My son was 7 years old when he saw this movie, he is now on a Russian Fishing vessel and said that the movie he was most impressed with and that has lingered in his mind all of these 39 years is the movie of The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle. He has asked if it were possible for me to get this for him. I am sure that a lot of things go through his head as he has only 3 hours of daylight and he has been on this ship for 3 months and will have 3 more months before his contract expires. Since we have Indian blood he connects to this movie. On January 27th he will turn 47 years old and I would like to be able to obtain this movie for him. He lives in Thailand and has been a commercial fisherman for the past 17 years and as we all know this is one of the most dangerous jobs. Can you help me obtain this movie? Thanking you in advance, Dolly Crout-Soto, Deerfield Beach, FL
I remembered seeing this movie when i was a kid one day on the wonderful world of Disney. This movie has been in my memory for over 30 years and I have been looking for it. I would have to say that out of all the kids movies I saw back then,, this one stuck out more than all of them and after only seeing it once, I really hoped I would get to see it again. The story and images of this movie have been burned into my memory. To this day, I never did see it after that day back in the 70s, in fact, I never remembered the title until an internet search earlier today disclosed it to me. I loved it and want my kids to see it.Does anybody know where I can find it?
I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away...
My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible.
I have seen this movie when I was about 7 years old - which was 33 years ago - and I never forgot this movie! I was deeply touched and moved by the brave little boy and the beautiful eagle. And I just couldn't believe it when he turned into an eagle just when everyone in the theater thought he was going to die...<br /><br />My sister was in the movie with me and I asked her recently if she remembered the movie we saw with the boy and the eagle and she said she remembered it like we saw it only yesterday. So it isn't just me.<br /><br />This movie is a MUST SEE !!!<br /><br />You will never forget it - just like my sister and me...
I read so many comments that I, too, shared about remembering this movie and wanting so badly to see it again but I didn't know the name of the movie. Thankfully, because of doing a search and finding the title on this site, I read the comments left here and realized that this was the movie I remembered. I then did a search and did find the movie and was so thrilled to be able to watch the movie once more 40 years later. Because of this site and your comments, you helped me and so I want to thank all of you. I want to share how I was able to find this movie for all of you who were looking for a copy as well. It was on the VHS version of Wonderful World of Disney's "Call it Courage" which contained 2 movies, the second one being "The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle." It touched me now as much as it did 40 years ago and now I own my own copy of it. I think it is only available on VHS. I found it on ebay and I have seen several copies of it there. Enjoy it, I know I did!<br /><br />It is a wonderful story about the love of a boy and the eagle he took care of. When it was time to sacrifice the eagle, the boy set the eagle free because he couldn't allow it to be killed. After the boy was forced to leave the tribe for punishment after freeing the eagle, the eagle, too, saved the boy's life and more than that, taught him how to survive. The closeness that the boy and the eagle shared in the wilderness was so moving and the filming was really remarkable. What a wonderful era this was. I have never seen anything come even close to this movie!
I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10
The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you.
William Hurt may not be an American matinee idol anymore, but he still has pretty good taste in B-movie projects. Here, he plays a specialist in hazardous waste clean-ups with a tragic past tracking down a perennial loser on the run --played by former pretty-boy Weller-- who has been contaminated with a deadly poison. Current pretty-boy Hardy Kruger Jr --possibly more handsome than his dad-- is featured as Weller's arrogant boss in a horrifying sequence at a chemical production plant which gets the story moving. Natasha McElhone is a slightly wacky government agent looking into the incident who provides inevitable & high-cheekboned love interest for hero Hurt. Michael Brandon pops up to play a slimy take-no-prisoners type whose comeuppance you can't wait for. The Coca-Cola company wins the Product Placement award for 2000 as the soft drink is featured throughout the production, shot lovingly on location in a wintery picture-postcard Hungary.
The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Dﾃｩsirﾃｩe Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Dﾃｩsirﾃｩe Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!
Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.<br /><br />An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.<br /><br />Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.<br /><br />Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.<br /><br />8/10
The first time i saw it i got half of it but i watched and i knew later on it was about a salem witch trials. They focused on the Sara Good's family. SHE is famous for cursing a priest which came true. In the film it depicts her daughter dorcas and her husband the spirit of Ann Putnam Sara's husband comes to the future hunts this girl to redeem her soul. which does happen at the end of the movie. Dorcas is depict as witch at 5years old who is burned at the stake. Which never happen Ann putnam saves her from the flames. the girl is safe she goes to Ann putnam's grave to to see that is not empty but it is at first because she accuse her of witchcraft, and lets her burn to death. Now that ann putnam saves her her spirit is redeemed, and she is not a outcast to society for the salem witch trials.
In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across "Burned at the Stake" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of "big bug" films and similar works years earlier.
The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.
For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.<br /><br />If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, "Life" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level.<br /><br />
Picture Bride has an excellent look into Hawaii's past and the people who lived there in that time. The time, money earned and the hours that these people had put into their lives to survive and live, takes a whole new meaning to blood, sweat and tears.<br /><br />The concept of dating/matchmaking is something like what we do similar today via the net. Just that is more of snail mail. Very slow snail mail.<br /><br />The singing of the plantation's songs from the workers reminds me of the southern plantation workers' songs of their demise and future goals.<br /><br />The movie shows the hardship as well as soft romantic scenes that Hawaii can bring. Like the stillness of a storm coming and the sudden chaos of the rain and then the tranquility.
This is a great film. From reading other reviews, I can see that I'm not the only one who shed a tear. Tamilyn Tomita acted with such skill and conviction, she made the ending heartfelt and memorable. In the hands of a lesser actress, her last scene would have seemed trite and corny. One would never guess this film was done on a tight, limited budget. The cinematography is gorgeous and there are a number of big name actors. The script is so wonderful, I can see why they all wanted to be in it. If you watch the long, long list of credits at the end, you'll see that half of Hawaii pitched in to make this film happen, and for good reason. The soundtrack (available on CD) is absolutely beautiful and sets the mood throughout the film. My only "complaint" is that I almost didn't want the film to end.
I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.<br /><br />I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train" and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, "Heaven's Burning". Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene. <br /><br />I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005. <br /><br />There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: "Gaijin" about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and "Sugar Cane Alley" about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but "Gaijin", sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is "A Thousand Pieces of Gold". This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun.
Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think......
Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see!
Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.<br /><br />Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding.
Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.<br /><br />The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out.
This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.<br /><br />There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.<br /><br />Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film.
Distortion is a disturbing, haunting film, about life imitating art and art reflecting life. Haim Bouzaglo, the director of the film, plays the role of Haim Bouzaglo, artistically blocked and sexually impotent playwright, who finds inspiration in his suspicions about the subject of his girl friend's documentary. As an Arab suicide bomber, disguised in skullcap and American t-shirt, wanders through the landscape in search of his target and his nerves, Haim transcribes his girl friend's life as she films her documentary and incorporates himself and his actors' lives during rehearsals. But the bomber has already struck and Haim has left the restaurant just minutes earlier. Despite the manipulation of time and space, the story is crystal clear, comprehensive and absorbing, a brilliant commentary on the "distortion" of everyday Israeli life, where the political is intertwined with the personal, where everyone lives "on the edge," and people never know whether they are playing leading roles in their own lives or are merely dispensable bit players in someone else's dramatic narrative.<br /><br />Bouzaglo plays with this notion of everyone being an actor in someone else's production brilliantly. We are always voyeurs, seeing what the fictional director sees illicitly but also what the "real" director chooses to reveal. To remind us that these glimpses are violations of privacy, Bouzaglo takes us into the bathroom and the bedroom (sometimes the bedroom is the street and rooftop), and repeatedly frames his views within TV, video, or security screens. Actors play the role of actors who represent the "real" characters played by actors. Of course, each of the actors is the star of his or her own production, only dimly aware of their diminished roles in their fellow actor's personal films. The detective hired by the playwright becomes a character in the play. The actor hired to play the role of the detective seeks out the detective for "tips" on how to play the role, is caught by the detective on surveillance tapes, and they attend a cast party as their real selves.<br /><br />Despite this multiplicity of views, there is no mistaking the clear lines of this narrative: the playwright searches for subject matter, the bomber seeks a target, and the detective stalks the filmmaker. Nor is there any difficulty locating Bouzaglo's ultimate targetﾂ容nervated and impotent Israel, fully conscious of the threatening peril but incapable of meaningful action. Israel is Bouzaglo, the impotent fictional playwright cannibalizing his own life for his play. Israel is also the bankrupt soldier-entrepreneur who is the subject of the filmmaker's documentary, the cheating actors and actresses, and the cuckolded husband. They are all Israel because they are all helpless, caught in inaction or aimless action, as the bomber scans the landscape for his best target. All the characters can do as another bombing is reported is have sex and keep "score" of victims.<br /><br />There is personal triumph, vindication, perhaps revenge at the end of this play within a story within a film, but viewers will be left aching for the state of Israel even as they are filled with admiration for Bouzaglo's memorable rendition of a nation's plight within the telling of an individual's story.
I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinﾃｩma tout ﾃｩcran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking.
The premise is simple. This movies starts out looking like your average lame chick flick about two attractive young people meeting each other in an airport, then things take a 180 degree turn...<br /><br />I for one, really dislike the kind of mind numbing love story nonsense that pollutes the average movie theater. And it is my humble opinion that Wes Craven, based on his previous meta-horror films (Sceam) does too...<br /><br />Following this logic, it's not surprising to find that Craven sardonically takes his time to built up a nauseatingly sweet 'sependipity love'-story, only to have an AWESOME Cillian Murphy wreck that whole sugar-coated dreamworld... <br /><br />The scope of his character Jackson Ripner (Jack the Ripper, get it? lame, right?) in this film is impressive, he goes from being utterly charming to being a twisted nihilistic sicko, which is a plus in my book. As he proceeds to freak out his victim (Jennifer Garner lookalike Rachel McAdams, who I found pretty annoying by the way), you can't help but sympathize with the guy...<br /><br />This is Wes Craven, embodied in Jackson Ripner, through Cillian Murphy, bashing all brainless chick flicks...<br /><br />Mr. Craven, I salute you.<br /><br />Best quote:<br /><br />Jackson Ripner (after beating the snot out of Rachel McAdams in the airplane toilet): "Thanks for the quickie!!!"
Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.<br /><br />3 1/2 out of 4 stars
Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.<br /><br />In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.<br /><br />Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...<br /><br />Sometimes it reminds a "Scream", but he definitely better, than both "Screams" sequels together.<br /><br />And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet...
Great little thriller. I was expecting some type of silly horror movie but what I got was tight short thriller that waste none of our time. Mostof these movies we have to get into the back characters stories so we will either feel sympathy for them or hatred when people start getting killed. o such foolishness here. Yes you see a few characters but they really only interact with the principals. Such as the husband wife at the motel whose room was canceled. We saw them so we could just how efficient the Lisa character was and how inefficient the new Hotel clerk was. We see the little girl simply because she will have a very small but important role later in the movie when all heck breaks loose. THe Flight Atrendants because we need on in particular to move the plot ahead. The bad guy in particular needs her in the beginning of the flight. The rude guy in the airport was important to the movie too. The only 2 characters that were just 5 liners with no use to the plot were the two young guys on the plane. THat was clever because I thought they would have something to do with plot. From the first scene to the last the woman character a young hotel executive named Lisa is in charge. Even when Jackson shows his true colors she doesn't panic. She thinks what she can do to stall time. Any other movie the smart executive women would be acting like idiots. But not this one. It was a very short movie and I was waiting for the usual plot devices to kick in because the movie seemed to be coming to its conclusion fast. Thankfuly none of them were used. The new hotel clerk did not do the usual called and told her what to do, which is panic drop the phone and run out of the hotel without saying anything, or question your boss and tell her she had to much to drink and just dismiss her. Was Craven should do more of these types of movies. Also one last comment. Brian Cox is in the movie but I had not one clue who he was. I had to come over here to see that he is Lisa's father. He is completely unrecognizable.
I was bored one night and Red Eye was on and thought why not.<br /><br />Red Eye is one of the best movies in a long time.<br /><br />I mean I just got into the movie cause it was just so brilliant.<br /><br />The story is new and different.<br /><br />The movie also has two great leads in the movie with Rachel Mcadams as Lisa Reisert and Cillian Murphy as Jackson Rippner.<br /><br />The acting is just brilliant and you get the feel for the people in the movie.<br /><br />The music is just excellent, it give you chills and can also make you feel relax.<br /><br />I just love how the movie was just so well done and it never gets boring.<br /><br />Red Eye is just phenomenal. Nothing more and nothing less.<br /><br />It's a excellent thriller.<br /><br />Overall, I enjoy Red Eye so much that I can watch it over and over again.<br /><br />If you like Red Eye, then I recommend Elektra and Cry Wolf.<br /><br />I give Red Eye 9 out of 10.<br /><br />Great movie
Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.<br /><br />Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.<br /><br />Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content
(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...) <br /><br />Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper! <br /><br />It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.<br /><br />Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!
Red Eye, a movie that id had wanted to see for awhile...Cillian Murphy plays Jack Ripner (jack the ripper) a managerial pose to Assassins, and his literally killer plan to knock off a highly profiled man and his family.<br /><br />An everyday woman "Lisa" (I think) is a normal woman, goes to work, home...worries...hates to fly.<br /><br />The death of her grandmother sends her on a flight which delayed several times.<br /><br />a flight where she meets Jack...an ordinary seeming guy, until he suavely reveals his profession and plans, which coincidentally include her in them, she is the key to the Keefe's (sp?) death.<br /><br />She succeeds in saving them...but nearly the cost of her life is taken, Jack is beaten...the Keefs are saved...oh what a story *laughs* just kidding, the movie is really good actually, the best of last year...there are small things that you have to pay attention to earlier in the movie that play a GREAT importance to the movie later... (the Frankenstein pen) I watched it several times before catching all the little jokes and quirks...<br /><br />a must see for thriller fans no sexual, but there is a slight hint (the bathroom scene) (jack) "Thanks for the quicky" and the (female attendant) "Ohhh...its gonna be ONE of those flights" (second female attendant) "Hey! this isn't a motel" you get the idea...
-A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.<br /><br />-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with "Flightplan" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.<br /><br />-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of "24" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.<br /><br />-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing "Cursed" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.<br /><br />-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.<br /><br />-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half
This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.
Lisa is a hotel manager or owner and she gets on a flight to Miami. She ends up sitting next to an assassin named Jackson who tells her that she has to switch a room of a family or her father dies. The reason she has to switch the room is because Jackson wants to blow it up.<br /><br />It's a great suspense movie because Lisa tries several ways to escape this ploy that Jackson has set up. The whole storyline is great and I thought that they could have spent some more time on the plane. There could have more to the plane but other than that, the whole movie was pretty good.<br /><br />I especially liked the ending because it was heart-stopping. I didn't know what was going to happen and I was surprised by it. For me, this movie just took off.
"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.<br /><br />One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.<br /><br />A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....
Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one.
Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.<br /><br />Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.<br /><br />A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.<br /><br />This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.<br /><br />The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.<br /><br />Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578<br /><br />I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.<br /><br />8/10
Red Eye starts in Texas where hotel receptionist Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is about to catch the last 'red eye' flight back to Miami where she lives & works. While waiting for her plane Lisa meets the handsome & charming Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) & they both seem to hit it off, then when they board the plane they discover that by a coincidence they are seated next to each other. Once the plane takes off & they are in the air Jackson reveals who he really is & that their seemingly chance meeting was not a coincidence, Jackson says that he is working for someone who wants to assassinate the homeland security secretary Charles Keefe (Jack Scalia) & they need her to change his rooms at the hotel where she works in Miami. Jackson tells Lisa to phone the hotel & make it happen or her father will be killed...<br /><br />Directed by Wes Craven who is perhaps better known for his horror films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991) & the Scream trilogy of teen slashers a short, punchy, fast paced little thriller like Red Eye seems like a big departure from the sort of film Craven usually makes. The script by Carl Ellsworth makes for a surprisingly gripping thriller that I must admit I really enjoyed, at only 85 odd minutes in length it's a very quick moving, economical & straight to the point sort of film that focuses almost entirely on one tight, taught plot rather than go off in various directions with lots of subplots. Some may like this approach like I did while other's may not but I think it draws you into the action a lot more as it comes thick & fast without the film slowing down any & giving you a chance to relax. I really liked the plot for Red Eye, sure a film like this is always going to have one or two questionable moments in terms of plotting but what the hell, it's a film made to entertain & for me that's what it did. I really liked the two central character's, Lisa comes across as very likable while Jackson Rippner (an obvious play on the name of the notorious Victorian serial killer Jack the Ripper) is a suitably slimy villain with a cold 'I'm only doing my job' type mentality. Another plus point is that I didn't think anyone behaved overly stupid here, everyone actually seemed like human beings & the films plays out in a relatively plausible fashion. I really liked this & it's one of Craven's better more recent films.<br /><br />Craven turns in a good solid tense, tight, taught & fast paced thriller with an attractive cast, some good action & a gripping plot. He certainly doesn't hang about & once he starts the action & tension he never lets up, far & away the most effective part of the film is when Rippner is holding Lisa hostage on the plane & once the film switches to Miami & Lisa's fathers house it does become a little bit more routine but it's still good. A special mention goes to Rachel McAdams who is absolutely gorgeous in this, I could probably watch Red Eye again just because she is in it & looks drop dead stunning. Those who see Wes Craven's name attached to Red Eye expecting a horror film should think again since there's no horror in it at all (despite the IMDb listing 'Horror' as Red Eye's genre). I am not sure about the ending, on the one hand it was nice to see the villain live for a change which goes against traditional expectation but it might have been more satisfying to see Lisa kill him in some way.<br /><br />DreamWorks apparently gave Red Eye an initial budget of $44,000,000 but reduced it to $25,000,000 although it's still a very well made film with glossy production values. Actually shot in Los Angeles & Florida in California. The film was supposedly written with husband & wife Sean Penn & Robin Wright Penn intended for the leads but eventually the makers opted for younger leads. As I have already said Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy & is a total babe in this & worth watching the film for on her own. Oh, & she puts in a decent performance too.<br /><br />Red Eye is a really fast paced taught tension filled little thriller that I enjoyed immensely, I didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I did & I am glad I decided to watch it. This definitely gets a recommendation from me & Rachel McAdams really is hot stuff in this...
Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.<br /><br />What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.<br /><br />As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale.
Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.<br /><br />The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.<br /><br />Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.<br /><br />For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.<br /><br />In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.<br /><br />Short haul fun.
I also just got back from an advanced screening of Redeye and I must say I haven't had so much fun at a movie in a long time. WES CRAVEN is at his best ever. He brings us an amazing end of summer thriller I was so desperately craving. This is THE thriller of the year..no doubt. <br /><br />All the actors are amazing and the action is realistic and fun. The F/X were great. It steadily built suspense. I was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. It's been a while since I heard an audience cheer and clap and get excited in a theater. <br /><br />If your looking for thrills,action and a GOOD plot this summer, REDEYE delivers. Go see it!
On an overnight flight from Los Angeles to Miami, Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming man who turns out to be a hired killer who demands her help killing a businessman or else her own father will die.<br /><br />Red Eye is a terrific thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The premise is similar to Cellular and Phone Booth but Red Eye is better than both of those films. Almost everything about Red Eye is above average including the suspense, the acting and the direction. Most of the film does take place on a plane but that doesn't slow down the movie. The film is very fast pace and exciting with no slow or boring spots. Wes Craven does a really good job behind the camera. Instead of focusing on the thrills, he focuses on the story and the characters. The movie does have its share of suspenseful moments but that's not what the film is really about. I also like the way Wes Craven focuses on the other passengers and the small details that become important later on. Red Eye really shows his skills at storytelling.<br /><br />Red Eye also works well because of its young and talented cast. Rachel McAdams gives a very engaging performance and her character is hard to hate. You may even end up cheering for her out loud. Cillian Murphy gives a very creepy and effective performance as the villain. The way he acts charming at first but then turns psycho is especially impressive. The supporting actors are also pretty good which include Brain Cox and Jayma Mays.<br /><br />The movie is also very stylish and it has this overall creepy vibe to it. The setting works well since there is an obvious fear of isolation and no escape. Overall, the tone of the film is consistently creepy. The screenplay isn't as strong as everything else though. There are a few unrealistic moments that may distract the viewer. Most of them didn't bother me but there were of few that left me shaking my head. Also, the ending is disappointing. It isn't a bad ending just a very simple one and a different approach would have been better. Since the movie focuses on the characters, there is really no scream moments maybe just a few jumps. If you expect a horror movie then you will end up disappointed. In the end, Red Eye is an engaging thriller and it's one of the best movies of the summer. Rating 8/10
Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy.
Scream was Wes Craven's last decent thriller. Since then there has been nothing but an unbearable streak of Hollywood trash barely good enough for a blockbuster night, including the disappointment of the Scream sequels. Perhaps the genius and the craftsmanship devoted to the movie drained all the energy and creativity out of him, so that when it came time for supper, he had nothing to serve us but his own doo doo. Finally, after who knows how many bad movies later, he gives us a delicious, ruthless, gripping, chilling suspense thriller with Red Eye.<br /><br />Rachel McAdams once again delivers an enjoyable performance as she plays a hotel manager who has the unfortunate connection with an important political figure and regular at her hotel. Then she meets Jackson Ripner (Cillian Murphy, Batman Beyond) at the airport, who she gets to know a little better after a delayed flight and a bay breeze. What she doesn't know is he already knows her. And he also knows her father, who she will never see again if she fails to cooperate and meet Jackson's demands- to use her connections to set up her hotel regular for assassination.<br /><br />You're probably thinking this is nothing but your everyday thriller complete with predictability and chase scenes. Although this is a good old fashioned thriller, that's the beauty of it. No special effects. No cheap make up. Just classic suspense. You feel the desperation and regret with every decision McAdams is forced to make and you actually care for her as you cheer her on every move she makes to find an escape from her claustrophobic position.<br /><br />As always she delivers an entertaining and convincing performance. It's either her sweet face or her uncanny ability to sincerely cry, but you always seem to sympathize with her if her role demands it. Cillian Murphy on the other hand is naturally creepy looking, so even if the trailer didn't reveal it, his ultimate transition from charming stranger to merciless jackass isn't so surprising. Perhaps it would have been more trippy to see a nice guy persona like Toby Maguire transforming into evil relentless madman. Nevertheless, Cillian Murphy, after his true identity is established, played the role so solidly you'd really want him to die, or at least get his ass kicked.<br /><br />Don't overlook this feature. There are plenty of chalkboard screeching moments and heart jumpers that will keep your eyes on the screen instead of your watch like you would at Craven's recent pictures. If not for the you, do it for all the times you'll see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, or someone with popcorn jump and cling on to you. Wes finally gets it right. Aside from his trademark mastery in suspense, Red Eye is not without its humor as McAdams' replacement Cynthia at the front desk fumbles to keep the hotel in order. It was a relief that Red Eye wasn't a disappointment. Instead you'll get the pleasure of seeing McAdams deliver another incredibly talented performance, Murphy look creepier by the minute, and Craven craft a classic traditional thriller. A flight that was delayed and would have been the beginning of Craven's renaissance had it arrived right after Scream.
I had fun watching Red Eye. It's not a masterpiece, but it's well directed and structured. Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams are perfect in the role. Yes, it's the same old story with a different setting but Wes Craven gave it a good pace. At least not another Scream with the usual college killer. It's nice when you can see a clean, coherent thriller even when originality doesn't stand out as its main character. Particularly from a film-maker like Craven that has brought so many innovative ideas to the thriller and horror genre in the past and that now just lends himself to bringing home what could have been a good TV movie had it not been released theatrically. Good job!
I saw an advanced screening for this movie tonight. I absolutely loved it. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all night. Cillian Murphy is extremely creepy as the villain. For those of you who have seen Batman Begins, his character was much scarier in this film. He played his character very well. The scariest "bad guy," I have seen in awhile. Rachel McAdams was great. Everyone in the audience laughed, gasped and cheered at the same time, as if we were on cue. The suspense is held through out the movie. THe amazing part is that the end was not anti-climatic. I was not disappointed in the end. I felt satisfied. The trailer does not do the movie justice. The movie is much better than the trailer indicated. Do not wait for this movie to come out on video. Go see it. Although, I did not have to pay to see this movie, I would have gladly given 10.75 to see it. Enjoy!
What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.<br /><br />Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.<br /><br />Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.<br /><br />The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up.<br /><br />"Red Eye" is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, "Red Eye" might be your ticket.
I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?<br /><br />At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?<br /><br />At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like thatﾂ
'Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.<br /><br />The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, "the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood." The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, "collapse in a heap on the floor" and have their lives forever changed by the event.<br /><br />For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.<br /><br />To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.<br /><br />To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me.
I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.<br /><br />Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.<br /><br />Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.<br /><br />I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them.
This show is awesome! I have been a fan since it premiered, and it only keeps me watching... I've seen some terrible things here, that I wish I hadn't, BUT, it really shows you how addiction affects all involved, not just the addict. You can see all kinds of different addictions, from drugs and alcohol to the shopping addict, or the eating disorder addict. And actually, it's really sad to see some of the famous faces that have come through also. We've seen accomplished musicians, an NBA player, and even young people, who really need the help. And since they have started showing a few follow-ups, that's been awesome too. Now, you can see how they are a long while after their ep aired. If you haven't checked this one out, please do. It's on A&E, and it's awesome! The new eps are Sunday nights at 10PM EST, if I remember correctly... so set your TiVo!
I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinﾃｩmas d'Amﾃｩrique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4. <br /><br />The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.<br /><br />This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned.
This movie, even though is about one of the most favorite topics of Mexican producers producers: the extreme life in our cities, has a funny way to put it on the screen. <br /><br />Four of the more important Mexican directors, of the last times, approach histories of our city framed in diverse literary sorts as it can be the farce or the satire, which gives us a film with a over exposed topic in our country, but narrated in a very different way which gives a freshness tone him. <br /><br />With actors little known, but that interprets of excellent way their paper, each one of the directors reflect in the stories the capacity by we have been identified anywhere in the world, that capacity of laugh the pains and to make celebration of the sadness. Perhaps to many people in our country the film not have pleased, but I consider that people of other countries could find attractive and share the surrealism of the Mexican.
I can give you four reasons to see this movie:<br /><br />1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.<br /><br />2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.<br /><br />3. A surprisingly good cast.<br /><br />4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).<br /><br />(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)<br /><br />Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts. <br /><br />Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a "Peter and the wolf"-like anecdote.<br /><br />In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.<br /><br />And at the end, Fernando Sariﾃｱana returns to the dark humor in the "grand finale" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films "Todo el poder", Sariﾃｱana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.<br /><br />Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.<br /><br />And it's a beautiful life in Mexico...
There are people claiming this is another "bad language" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of "Cero y van cuatro" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider "Tamales de Chivo" the best one.<br /><br />The movie is deeper than some "cabrﾃｳn" and "pendejo" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously.
What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it.
A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..<br /><br />This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.<br /><br />I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it!
WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS, in my opinion, is a very touching and kind of heartbreaking drama about the consequences of being anorexic or bulimic. Anytime Lexi (Katie Wright) or Jennifer (Marley Shelton) threw up, I wanted to vomit myself. It's kind of hard to explain why. If you ask me, they should have been more cooperative about things. However, I did enjoy seeing them do things together as well as get lectured by their parents. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "If you ask me, WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS does indeed show you how being anorexic or bulimic can affect a person's body. " Now, in conclusion, I recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. You're in for some tears and a good time, so the next time it's on TV, kick back with a friend and watch it.
I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!<br /><br />It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of.
Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.<br /><br />At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death...
I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites.
There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.
I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this.
The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year.
First animated feature film from Ireland is also one of the best animated films I've ever seen. Its a real warts and all story that is unlike any of the other Oscar nominees and any other film from this year or any other year.<br /><br />The plot of the film has the Abbot of Kells, a village in Ireland building a wall around his town to prevent the vikings from destroying the town should they ever attack. His nephew Brendon, is a young monk who does the best he can but meets the ire of his uncle by doing things in his own time. When a legendary illuminator Aidan arrives from a destroyed monastery, Brendon drifts towards him and his warm personality. Much to his uncle's chagrin Aiden offers to teach Brendon how to illuminate. In order to help Aidan work on his great book, saved from his destroyed monastery, Brendan goes out into the forest to get material to make ink. While outside the walls he meets Ashley, a forest spirit with whom he develops a friendship. Unfortunately the Abbot finds out that he went outside the wall and there is hell to pay. But lurking in the distance are the vikings...<br /><br />Forget what you think you know about this film you're wrong. Even what I've explained doesn't do this film justice. Its a simple story with so much more going on. This is a wonderful movie about trying to find your way in the world, over coming demons and finding the beauty of the world outside of the walls. (As the film says the world is a dangerous place and doesn't cease to be even if you build walls).<br /><br />Its a film that treats its audience as adults and deals with all of life including the darkness. There is death and destruction and joy and happiness. Its not sugar coated. People die. Monsters lurk. (it freaked out some of the kids), but in the end there is hope. Frankly the darkness in this film is completely unlike anything in any recent American film. Forget the "sadness" in a Pixar film, this is the real thing, and its refreshing and it shows how homogenized even Pixar has become.<br /><br />Its a Genndy Tartakovsky-esquire (Samurai Jack) animated film who's look is actually based upon the the Celtic art of the period. Its a film that looks unlike any other. Here again is another film that takes the movie frame and uses it in every way possible. the Images are designed to fill the available space as much as possible. Often the film manipulated things to make it look like a page in the legendary Book of Kells. Its stunningly beautiful and best described as art come to life.<br /><br />Director Tomm Moore has fashioned a film that is a masterpiece. I can't say more than that. Its a masterpiece. Its one of the best animated films I've ever run across.
This animated feature (a co-production between Ireland, Belgium and France) deals with what is surely one of the oddest subject ever for a movie: the creation in the 9th century of a famous illuminated manuscript, the book of Kells. In this fantastic retelling of that story, a prepubescent boy named Brendan, living in a monastery ruled by his uncle, a stern abbot who is worried preparing the defenses of the abbey from the impending attack by the feared vikings, must get into the forbidding surrounding forest to find the materials that a master illuminator named Aidan needs to finish the book. To do that task, in the forest he unexpectedly finds the help of a friendly fairy named Aisling.Gorgeously and delicately drawn by hand (there is some computer animation in a few key passages) in a manner that wants to resemble both medieval and traditional Celtic art, and with a very creative use of color and all sorts of geometric shapes, this film is relentlessly strange, but is a good strange, not of the off putting variety but of the eye opening sort. If one were to nitpick - beyond some anachronisms, like an African monk in 9th century Ireland ﾂ・one would have to say that the blend of Catholic mysticism with Celtic paganism in this movie never really coalesce. And the comic relief is sometimes a bit too broad. That's why I cannot give them the highest ranking. But these are minor problems with an otherwise delightful and superbly imaginative film.
A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.<br /><br />Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.<br /><br />The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.<br /><br />The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.<br /><br />The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.<br /><br />Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!
While watching this movie I was frustrated and distracted and by the end, I wanted to give the movie a solid 4 or 5. I thought the animation was random and all over the place and there was too much going on. Even my A.D.D couldn't keep up. It felt like a slight acid trip. Everything looked flat, there was no dimension to anything. There were so many shapes, lines and patterns. I really wanted to stop the movie mid-way and smash my burned copy of this movie. But after I finish watching it, I went online to read up on the movie and I should have done a little research into this movie before watching.<br /><br />The Secret of Kells is loosely based on the true story about the original Book of Kells. A small boy, Brendan, is given the task of penning new pages in what is set to be the greatest book ever written. This book will contain information that will help "change darkness into light." Brendan lives in the village of Kells behind huge stone walls. Taking place in the 8th century, Brendan's uncle, the Abbot of Kells, is trying to build the wall to keep the Vikings out. Brendan's uncle insist he help complete the wall, but a traveler and keeper of "the book" secretly trains Brendan to hone in on his illustration skills, and convinces him to complete "the book" and carry out it's word.<br /><br />The entire time I watched the movie I thought I was missing something because I didn't really understand what was going on. I figured I was just missing a piece of Irish history. A simple Google search taught me all I needed to know about the original Book of Kells. After reading many articles, my opinion of the movie greatly changed.<br /><br />The Book of Kells is a copied version of the first few books of the New Testament transcribed into Latin by Gaelic monks in Ireland in the 8th century. Along with it's paleographic and insular script, the book is also beautifully illustrated in insular art, a type of early art form know for it's intricacy, complexity, and miniature illustrations. Much of the art in the Book of Kells is depicted as lots of art was at the time, flat and dimensionality challenged with no perspective. But what makes the Book of Kells stand out from other early pieces of art is it's use of many colors.<br /><br />The Secret of Kells is very colorful. I originally thought the animation was flat and boring. It reminded me a lot of the cartoon Samurai Jack which also had a flat and "amine" look to it. Once I learned about the art styles of the Book of Kells, it's obvious that many of the styles from the book are mimicked in the movie. There are lines and swirls and various shapes that inhabit Brendan's mind. Whenever he goes into his imagination, circular shapes resembling the sun, cogs, clocks and wheels begin filling the screen. The edges of the screen become framed in decorated moving triangles or circles. Transitions are filled with color, and Celtic knots. From the trees to the floors, many things in this world are covered in shapes or patterns.<br /><br />Clocking in at 70 minutes minus credits, The Secret of Kells is a fun little history lesson with a little adventure and silliness thrown in to keep people (maybe just children) interested. I think one has to generally be open-mined to The Secret of Kells as half art piece, half movie about history. Despite looking like it was animated with Adobe illustrator, It's a very nice looking movie. But based on the 20 films submitted for Oscar consideration, I don't think it was worth being nominated over Mary and Max.<br /><br />ThatWasJunk.Blogspot.com
The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.<br /><br />The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book whichﾂ様egend has itﾂ幼an turn dark into light.<br /><br />See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html
The Secret of Kells is an independent, animated feature that gives us one of the fabled stories surrounding the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript from the Middle Ages featuring the four Gospels of the New Testament. I didn't know that this book actually exists, but knowing it now makes my interpretation and analysis much a lot easier. There are a few stories and ideas floating around about how the book came to be, who wrote it, and how it has survived over 1,000 years. This is one of them.<br /><br />We are introduced to Brendan, an orphan who lives at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland with his uncle, Abbot Cellach (voiced by Brendan Gleeson). Abbot Cellach is constructing a massive wall around the abbey to protect the villagers and monks. Brendan is not fond of the wall and neither are the other monks. They are more focused on reading and writing, something Abbot Cellach does not have time for anymore. He fears the "Northmen," those who plunder and leave towns and villages empty and burnt to the ground.<br /><br />One day a traveler comes from the island of Iona near Scotland. It is Brother Aidan, a very wise man who carries with him a special book that is not yet finished. Abbot Cellach grants him permission to stay and Brendan buddies up with him. Aidan has special plans for Brendan. First he needs ink for the book, but he requires specific berries. The only way to get them is to venture outside the walls and into the forest, an area off limits to Brendan. Seeing that he is the only chance for Aidan to continue his work, he decides to sneak out and return with the berries before his uncle notices his absence.<br /><br />In the forest Brendan meets Ashley, the protector of the forest. She allows Brendan passage to the berries and along the way becomes akin to his company. She warns him of the looming danger in the dark and not to foil with it. There are things worse than Vikings out there. From there Brendan is met with more challenges with the book and the looming certainty of invasion.<br /><br />I like the story a lot more now that I know what it is about. Knowing now what the Book of Kells is and what it contains, the animation makes perfect sense. I'm sure you have seen pictures or copies of old texts from hundreds of years ago, with frilly borders, colorful pictures, and extravagant patterns, creatures, and writings adorning the pages. Much like the opening frames of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. The animation here contains a lot of similar designs and patterns. It creates a very unique viewing experience where the story and the animation almost try to outdo each other.<br /><br />I couldn't take my eyes off of the incredible detail. This is some of the finest 2D animation I have seen in years. It's vibrant, stimulating, and full of life. The characters are constantly surrounded by designs, doodles, and patterns in trees, on the walls, and in the air just floating around. It enhances the film.<br /><br />The story is satisfactory, although I think the ending could have been strung out a little more. With a runtime of only 75 minutes I think there could have been something special in the final act. It doesn't give a lot of information nor does it allude to the significance of the book. We are reminded of it's importance but never fully understand. We are told that it gives hope, but never why or how. That was really the only lacking portion of the film. Otherwise I thought the story was interesting though completely outdone by the animation.<br /><br />I guess that's okay to a certain degree. The animation can carry a film so far before it falls short. The story lacks a few parts, but it is an interesting take on a fascinating piece of history. I would recommend looking up briefly the Book of Kells just to get an idea of what myself and this film are talking about. I think it will help your viewing experience a lot more. This a very impressive and beautifully illustrated film that should definitely not be missed.
THE SECRET OF KELLS is an astonishing first animated feature which will dazzle your eye and move your heart. The shortcomings of the film's limited budget and sometimes limited animation are more than compensated for by the visual poetry of the story of young Brendan's heroic quest to become a master illuminator during the dark ages. Historically this was in the late 8th century, when the centers of Irish learning were over-run by the Vikings. The Vikings appear here as brute antagonists, the equivalent on the North Seas of the plundering Huns and Mongols further East. The film's narrative--- which functions more as a parable--- centers around the conflict between Brendan, who seeks to create beauty in his illuminations during a time of encroaching darkness, and his stern Uncle the Abbot-- who seeks to protect the town of Kells and his nephew with a looming wall as barrier against the Norsemen. The Abbot disregards the value of Brendan's art in his quest for security. This is the movie's outer conflict. Brendan's inner conflict is to find the hidden eye of creative illumination which will allow him to complete the most difficult painting in the Book of Kells. This eye is guarded by a Dragon Ouroboros, who destroys from within those not suited to this quest as surely as the Vikings will kill from without (That's as much of the story as I'll divulge!)<br /><br />What I really like about this film is its creators' imaginative understanding of some of the greatest art work to survive in the West from 1200 years ago. The characters are stylized in flat abstract shapes defined by line just as in the original Book of Kells. (Particularly noteworthy is monk Aidan's pet cat, defined in few lines, yet purely--- and even magically metamorphically feline.) The range of emotion which Brendan and the other animated characters convey given their economy of abstract design is a tribute to the excellent artistry of the director and his animators. The decorative borders on the edge of the picture change to complement the dramatic impact of a given scene, and this characteristic of illuminations from the dark ages is brought to wondrous animated life in THE SECRET OF KELLS. Of course, historical dramas usually tell us more about our own times than the times which these dramas endeavor to depict. However, by introducing archetypal elements into this story, the writers and director of THE SECRET OF KELLS convey a numinous sense of lived-life from that far-off time in Ireland which feels psychologically true, however much the script might stray from pedantic historical fact. (The United Nations' band of illuminators who appear as a rogues' club of artists in The SECRET OF KELLS aren't historically probable, but they're all well-designed, individuated characters who do much to convey the universal appeal of this quintessentially Irish story.) Animation has always seemed the best vehicle to me to better help us understand the visual art of different times and cultures. The magnificent art direction of this movie clearly derives from its historical visual source, but has also been cleverly adapted to the demands of animated storytelling; if animation had existed in the Dark Ages, the SECRET OF KELLS is what it would look like! Finally, Brendan's hero's quest in this film is the artist's perennial quest to convey the spirit of beauty, life and inspiration. (Without being preachy or even particularly Christian, this movie affirms Jesus' dictum that "Man does not live by bread alone." ) In my estimation the most inspired movie about the creative process of visual artists is Andrei Tarkovsky's ANDREI RUBLEV, a film about the great Russian icon painter of the 15th century. The SECRET OF KELLS expresses much the same sense of mystery and exhilaration about the artist's visual quest and creative process. It's certainly not as profound as ANDREI RUBLEV, but--- heck--- its a cartoon! (And one which will appeal to young and old alike.) I think this movie will hold up well to repeated viewing: in its own modest life-affirming way, this stylized SECRET OF KELLS is a classic.
I would not have known about this film if not for its "surprise" Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature film. Thankfully, it came to pass that I was able to watch this animated little treasure.<br /><br />The story is about the child Brendan who was the nephew of the imposing and overprotective Abbot of the township of Kells. The main pre-occupation of the Abbot is to build a wall to protect Kells from the attacking Vikings. One day, Aiden, the renowned illustrator from Iona, sought refuge with them. Aiden opens Brendan's eyes to the art of illustration and the lure of the outside world. Along the way, Brendan befriended the white forest sprite Aisling, as he sought to recover an ancient crystal invaluable to the meticulous art of book illustration.<br /><br />"The Secret of Kells" is unlike most of the animation released these days. It is a throwback of sorts as the illustrations are done in stark geometric lines and design without much care for realism, as much as symbolism. The movements of these lines are reminiscent of the simplistic yet fluid animation style used at the beginning sequence of "Kung Fu Panda." However, it is the magnificent use of color that is the main source of wonderment for the audience. The reds used in the Viking invasion sequence is unforgettably haunting.<br /><br />Try to catch this quiet gem of a film. It is a welcome respite from all the senseless bombast of current animated fare such as "Monsters vs. Aliens" and the like. The sparse Celtic musical score is effective in evoking the sense of fantasy that imbues the film. OK, the story might be a little shallow and the ending a bit wanting. I would have liked to know more about the Book that Brendan and Aiden was working on. But the clear star of this film is clearly its amazing stylized artwork, said to be based on the artwork in the real Book of Kells.
THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed...
The Secret of Kells is a film I've been waiting for for years after seeing some early footage at the Cartoon Saloon in Kilkenny. I'm here to tell you now it's been worth the wait. The cartoons are heavily stylised but not annoyingly so as I'd feared. The whole film is a thing of beauty and great imagination, I particularly love the animated illuminated book where the little figures come to life on the page. The characterisation is superb, I love Brendan Gleeson's voice as the stern Abbot and I especially liked the voice of the sprite Aisling. The forest is a triumph, such a beautiful place. The story is well realised, a mix of fact and fantasy. and really draws the viewer in to cheer on Brendan in his quest for the perfect materials for the Book. I'm a lover of calligraphy and illumination anyway so the subject is close to my heart, but all the people I know who've seen this and are not fans of the craft agree that it's a lovely little film. I will definitely buy the DVD when it's released, and would like to say, well done Cartoon Saloon and all the people involved in this mammoth project. May there be many more. :) Coming back in here to say that I bought several copies of the DVD as soon as I could and gave them out at Christmas, everyone loves it! And I wish them all the luck in the world at the Oscars, such a joy to see this nominated.
By 1945, and after a string of solid WWII propaganda pieces, Errol Flynn窶冱 hold over U.S. box office had started to decline so, in spite of the increased burden of waning looks, he embarked on a series of films pertaining to that genre which had earlier made his name: the swashbuckler. The first of these was a good one actually 窶・ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN (1948) 窶・but it also proved to be his last big-budget Hollywood starring vehicle. The rest of his sword-wielding days were spent wandering all over Europe: in England for KIM (1950), THE MASTER OF BALLANTRAE (1953) and THE DARK AVENGER (1955), in France for ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN FABIAN (1951) and Italy for the aborted THE STORY OF WILLIAM TELL (1953) and the little-seen CROSSED SWORDS (1954). However, Hollywood did beckon him one last time to his old seafaring ways 窶・albeit for a modestly-budgeted Universal picture rather than a Warner Brothers 窶連窶・production to which he had been accustomed when at his peak窶ｦ <br /><br />Still, the glorious Technicolor cinematography leaps off the screen here and, while an older and flabbier Flynn may look like the pale shadow of his former self, his red-headed leading lady Maureen O窶僣ara has a field day as a tomboyish buccaneer leader who deep down craves romance and wants to be treated like a lady. Anthony Quinn was still a few years away from his larger-than-life starring vehicles, so here he is typically seen as the baddie 窶・the pirate captain Roc Brasiliano, a role he attacks with gusto. Like THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH (1954) 窶・a viewing of which preceded this one 窶・AGAINST ALL FLAGS takes me back to my cherished childhood days of constant TV viewing when vintage Hollywood movies were the order of the day on both the local and neighboring Italian channels.<br /><br />For all I know, this might well have been the very first pirate movie I窶况e ever seen and I cringe at the thought of today窶冱 generation of youngsters supposedly believing that the grossly overblown PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy is what buccaneering is all about! As I said earlier, AGAINST ALL FLAGS might not be the finest pirate yarn ever brought to the screen but it窶冱 a solid example of this prolific genre all the same. Nowadays, the amorous persistence of the child-like Indian princess (Alice Kelley) towards her pirate captor Flynn may strike one as being awfully silly but the rest of it 窶・despite clearly not scaling the heights of THE SEA HAWK (1940) and THE BLACK SWAN (1942), to mention the finest seafaring ventures of its respective stars 窶・is briskly paced and reasonably engaging. Incidentally, the film would later go on to be remade as THE KING窶儡 PIRATE (1967) with Doug McClure! <br /><br />For what it窶冱 worth, the unprecedented box office success of that unappetizing modern franchise is most probably what induced reluctant movie studios to dust off their catalogue swashbuckling titles and release them on DVD and, as a matter of fact, AGAINST ALL FLAGS itself was the one gem in a poorly-thought out 窶弃irates Of The Golden Age Movie Collection窶・set from Universal which also consisted of obscure dross like BUCCANEER窶儡 GIRL (1950; with Yvonne De Carlo), DOULE CROSSBONES (1951; with Donald O窶僂onnor) and YANKEE BUCCANEER (1952; with Jeff Chandler)! Value for money, perhaps but, so far, I have only acquired the Errol Flynn flick from other sources; even so, if the mood strikes me in future, I might wish to lay my hands on similar marine adventures like Edward Dmytyk窶冱 MUTINY (1952), the afore-mentioned YANKEE BUCCANEER and PIRATES OF TORTUGA (1961).
Being the prototype of the classical Errol Flynn adventure movie and having a good story as well as two more brilliant co-stars in Maureen O'Hara (what an exquisite beauty!) and Anthony Quinn, I can only recommend this movie to all those having even the slightest liking for romance and adventure.<br /><br />Hollywood at its best!
A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.<br /><br />But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time.
"Against All Flags" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, "Against All Flags" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp.
Excellent pirate entertainment! It has all the good ingredients to keep one's attention -- an absorbing tale of intrigue, a fiery lady pirate named Spitfire Stevens (Maureen O'Hara) who's attracted to the irresistible Mr. Hawke (Errol Flynn) who is out on a secret mission of his own. They make a fine romantic pair onscreen -- sigh!<br /><br />Anthony Quinn is the mean, bad pirate weaving his villainous web of divide and conquer. I noticed the very familiar face of Mildred Natwick playing a supporting role as Mrs. MacGregor, the protector of young Princess Patma (Alice Kelley).<br /><br />There is beautifully filmed scenery of shorelines, ships, and the bay. Lots of action too of sword fighting clashes, ship battles, daring leaps of Errol Flynn (Robin Hood on board ship!). From the flaming redhead herself I once heard in an interview of Maureen O'Hara that she boasted great command of the bullwhip and could also outdo Flynn in sword fighting in those days but there'd be no need to put it to the test here.<br /><br />Very enjoyable movie.
Having seen Charley Boorman in Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor, I was very interested to see how Charley would be in his own show. I thought Charley came across as a lovely guy who is very grounded and down to earth. Its nice to see that celebrities struggle with their weight and fitness, it just show's their human too! I don't know a lot about bikes, but this show gripped me right from the start. The preparation and organising for this event seems immense. The event itself seems very dangerous and I'm fascinated to see why Charley and everyone else is doing it and how far he gets. I love the pace of the show and the fast upbeat music. I can't believe he broke his collar bone, I really hope its not the end, I cant wait to see the next episode...
The planning episodes were a bit dull, but when they reached the desert it was quite fun to watch. The reason why I call it the most realistic reality show is because, much to my surprise,Charley fell out of the race relatively early. When his hands were sore, I expected the usual stress and then a miracle fix, but instead he actually quit the race. The most anxious moment of the show must've been when Max was stuck out in the desert with almost no water or food! The ending was great and I was very happy to see at least one of the team make it. Overall, not as great as the Long Way Round, but definitely an interesting watch, as one gets a peek into the most challenging race in the world.
I always follow the Dakar, so when my husband bought Charlie's 'Race to Dakar' DVD home I couldn't wait to watch it! Of course we'd seen the broadcast of the race when the actual race was on, but that never gives the background and specific teams.<br /><br />If you watched Long Way Round then you won't be surprised by the language which frankly I find more amusing than offensive.<br /><br />I think the only thing that annoyed me about the DVD was Charlie's hair, but he had it styled before Dakar so my feminine need for neatness was assuaged; tho' I could have lived without the 'flame' undies lol As with LWR, the preparation was every bit as interesting as the race itself. I nearly cried when Charlie broke his hand, and winced at every bruise he sustained while training....and of course the death of Andy Caldicott...that was an appalling tragedy, but then every year there's something.<br /><br />Russ drives me nuts, although his attitude has improved a thousand times from the argumentative cynic he was in LWR. It's great to see him get along so well now with Charlie.<br /><br />What I learned from this odyssey was - 1. never let Scorpion prepare your vehicle for ANYTHING! - they had months to prepare the X5, and still the day before the team left for Lisbon, Scorpion had only done half of things that needed to be done, and the vehicle was a pain throughout the whole race; 2. the Dakar organizers need to put a lot more work into their rider/driver retrieval plan - leaving Matt (and presumably a large number of other riders/drivers out to dry the way they did was nothing short of culpable negligence; 3. Charlie has an endearing enthusiasm for 'rough and tough' adventure but needs to toughen up a lot to really perform as he'd like; and finally, 4. Charlie and Ewan are planning another of these epos called the Long Way Down in 2007, and I can't wait to get my hands on it! :D If you love bikes and/or genuinely nice blokes 'having a go', you have to watch this, I guarantee you love it. It's very entertaining.<br /><br />In conclusion, to Simon Pavey - you sir are a hero, I was so impressed by the your 'quiet achiever' manner and the fact that you actually finished.....just incredible considering what an monumentally difficult race it is. And to Charlie, Matt and the rest of the team - full marks for pulling it off. To think that a relatively green team could have achieved so much is truly admirable. You're all wonderful.
If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!<br /><br />The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this. <br /><br />The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.<br /><br />If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike.
I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.<br /><br />Highly recommended series, i want more!!
Clara Bow (Hula Calhoun) is daughter of plantation owner Albert Gran (Bill Calhoun), who is mainly interested in playing cards and boozing with friends. She's interested in riding in the countryside until engineer Clive Brook (Anthony Haldane) shows up to build a dam. One of her father's friends Arlette Marchal (Mrs. Bane) then competes for his attentions. His wife Maude Truax (Margaret Haldane) shows up for the contrived finale.<br /><br />Lots of 'pre-code' elements like nude bathing.<br /><br />Wonderful location shooting in Hawaii.
clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."
OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.<br /><br />Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.<br /><br />Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb.
Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.
There's a theory of time that posits that all the moments that ever existed and will exist, actually exist right now. It's a bit too much to wrap your head around, but perhaps a bit of a comfort to those who wish they could go back to a simpler time and place. For Barbara Jean Trenton (Ida Lupino), that time was twenty five years earlier, the mid 1930's when her youth and glamor held the greatest promise. For my part, if I could travel through time, it would be back to the 1950's when I grew up. Maybe to a place like Willoughby, but that's another episode.<br /><br />One thing that wouldn't be so special about 1959 would involve dealing with all that clunky machinery just to watch an episode of "The Twilight Zone". How many reels do you think it would take to catalog the entire series, and then find a particular story you wanted to watch? I guess you have to consider the trade offs, convenience versus simplicity, having it right now or taking the time to spool it up to the exact spot where the story begins. Popping in a CD has it's advantages.<br /><br />I'm a little surprised that Rod Serling would pen a story that so closely resembled "Sunset Boulevard". Ida Lupino's character mirror imaged Norma Desmond just a bit too closely to be considered an original concept. Martin Balsam portrays very much a similar character to Erich von Stroheim, the husband turned butler who's loyalty is unquestioned. Where the story diverges has to do with the way Danny (Balsam) and Sall (Ted de Corsia) challenge Barbara Jean to get with reality and clear the cobwebs that paralyze her existence.<br /><br />Fortunately for us viewers, Ida Lupino had no such reservations about taking parts that were 'not big, but a nice showcase'. It's a real treat to watch any episode of "The Twilight Zone" and get to see who pops up from days gone by. Sometimes you get a two-fer, like you have here with Lupino and Balsam, celebrities who sometimes made their mark before the series began, and sometimes after. Combined with the stories that the program produced, it's not surprising that they still manage to entertain so well today.
I really enjoyed this episode, which was a great surprise given the bad reputation it seems to have acquired. From a pure writing perspective, 'The 16mm shrine' is an absolute treat, with fantastic dialogue and character analysis, typical of Sterling. In particular I really enjoyed the philosophical indulgences of the episode, tackling themes of existence and reality, whilst balancing it with more psychological topics such as denial, pride, and desire. 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine' is an episode about how these ideas based around an unwillingness to accept change can seemingly alienate a person from the rest of the ever-changing world. It is also a fantastic example of cerebral Twilight Zone; one that explores the mind rather than the world outside it. These elements all come together very nicely to create a thought provoking and incredibly interesting 25 minutes.<br /><br />The episode is not without its faults however, which mainly lay in Lupino and Leisen shoes. Ironically, I felt Lupino was unconvincing throughout, with only a few scenes that could count as memorable. This of course being an absolute shame considering how well Sterling had written her character. Furthermore Leisen didn't seem to know what to do with most of his characters, sometimes having them stand around on set doing next to nothing -which probably explains why accepted the poor performances from Lupino half the time-. Thankfully Balsam does a good job of covering up a lot of weak spots, helping redeem the show from an acting perspective at least.<br /><br />As I said previously however, if you're a fan of classic film and cerebral science fiction, this shouldn't be as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. In addition to the writing that I mentioned above, the episode also features some fantastic photography (it still amazes me that the show looks this good nearly fifty years later!) and decent enough set-design. Overall 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine" is a great episode and above all is certainly one to make you think.
After hitting the viewers with three very different episodes right off the bat, Serling continued to go about introducing viewers to 'The Twilight Zone' in a very strange way by scheduling one the series biggest growers as the fourth episode. 'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' is one of the more understated episodes, focusing on an aging movie star's inability to cope with the changing times and only introducing a supernatural element in the closing minutes. Because of this approach, the episode is under whelming at first but subsequent viewings reveal it to be a thoroughly classy and beautifully written short story.<br /><br />Both the leads, Ida Lupino as Barbara Jean Trent and Martin Balsam as her frustrated but caring agent, shine in their performances. The main problem with the episode is that the supposedly 25 year old footage of the actress is unconvincing. Lupino looks identical when playing the young Trent as she does when playing the middle aged Trent and this diminishes the tragedy of the situation significantly. Fortunately, Lupino acts her socks off in convincing us of her desperation to return to the past. It's a situation most can sympathise with, and yet Trent is far from a sympathetic character. She is a prima-donna who gives little thought to the feelings of those around her, such as the disastrously withered co-star who she tactlessly belittles because he reminds her of just how long ago her glory days were. It is somewhat surprising, then, that she is rewarded with a happy ending. It is clear what is going to happen from the moment we see the huge projection screen and it is cleverly pre-empted in the opening moments when Trent scares her maid by stepping out from behind the screen. What is not clear at the beginning, however, is whether being sucked into the projector will prove a reward or a harsh lesson in appreciating what we have and living in the moment. As it turns out, Trent is allowed to return to the past she longed for, a testament to how strong the wishful thinking of humans can be.<br /><br />'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' gets better with each viewing. The top notch writing and acting combine to create a short play of enormous power which reflects the nature of humans to long for the past, even though we can never return. Except in the Twilight Zone.
I found this movie really funny because you have a youthful black comedian (Chris Rock) who dies and is sent back to earth in a mid-50's white mans body. He doesn't realize that his behavior should change and continues to act as he had before. He listens to rap music, sings along, and plays the stereotypical part of an urban black man. The real humor in this movie was watching the trouble that this behavior gets him into with the black community.
THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny
My fondness for Chris Rock varies with his movies,I hated him after Lethal Weapon 4,but I hated everyone in that movie after it.I like him when he is himself and not holding back,like in Dogma. Well this is his best yet,wasn't expecting this to be that good.Laughed my arse off the whole time. Chris Rock delivers a sweet wonderful story backed by some of the funniest comedy I've seen in quite some time. Loved it.
Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.
Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.<br /><br />As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.<br /><br />There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.<br /><br />Well to the actual plot of the film.<br /><br />Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie!
This movie i have been dying to see. Well it took till now to decide to actually rent it. It was completely worth it. This movie made me laugh from the beginning to the end. Chris Rock is funny no matter which movie he is in. However, this should come real close to being his greatest. If ur lookin for a family movie, ie pre-teens and up then this is one u can't pass over.
Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...<br /><br />Still a good 7/10 for me.
I'm not saying that just as a Chris Rock fan, I'm saying this as a person who had low expectations going in to this movie and was proved wrong. The first flaw was it's everything-works-out ending that everybody saw coming. Flaw number two was I found that the chemistry between Regina King and Chris Rock seemed fake. Finally the acting in this movie was sub-par, with the best actor being Regina King and the worst being Mark Addy. but I saw past that flaw and saw a solid comedy. In a heads-up scenario, watch heaven can wait instead, it's better. So for all you Chris Rock fans out there, WATCH THIS MOVIE, you'll enjoy out. He has some good stand-up in this movie.<br /><br />Overall: 7 out of 10
This movie is a remake of two movies that were a lot better. The last one, Heaven Can Wait, was great, I suggest you see that one. This one is not so great. The last third of the movie is not so bad and Chris Rock starts to show some of the comic fun that got him to where he is today. However, I don't know what happened to the first two parts of this movie. It plays like some really bad "B" movie where people sound like they are in some bad TV sit-com. The situations are forced and it is like they are just trying to get the story over so they can start the real movie. It all seems real fake and the editing is just bad. I don't know how they could release this movie like that. Anyway, the last part isn't to bad, so wait for the video and see it then.
Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.<br /><br />It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.<br /><br />Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around. <br /><br />But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money. <br /><br />This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him.
This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure. <br /><br />It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it. <br /><br />The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic. <br /><br />I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him. <br /><br />Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!<br /><br />xxx Enjoy!
"A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered.
This Film was really eye-opening. I have seen this film several times. First, when I was four and I actually remembered it and then when I was 12. The whole message that the director is conveying is for everyone to wake up and not make the mistake of leaving God out of our everyday lives or just Plain going the extra mile to insult him.<br /><br />A great Movie for Non-believers and Believers alike!
I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them.
I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school.
I've read most of the comments on this movie. I have seen this movie(and the whole prophecy series) many times with family members of all ages, we all enjoyed and it just made us meditate on what we already knew from reading and studying the bible about the rapture and end times. No one got scared or traumatized like I have read on some posts. The movie is just based on biblical facts. I have seen a lot of end time movies "Tribulation", "Armagedon" and so on and by far this one is one of the best in presenting bible truths. It may not have a lot of great special effects like todays movies but I believe it is a good witnessing tool. This movie and its prophecy series can be seen free at this website higherpraise.com, and judge for yourself. Blessings to all.
This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.<br /><br />When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week. <br /><br />If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer. <br /><br />If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now.
A Thief in the Night has got to be the best out of all the end times thrillers. I have no clue what people are complaining about what people are whining about when they say that these movies scared them into accepting God. They just needed to find an excuse and blamed A Thief In The Night. Do not listen! These movies do not only tell of one of the many possibilities of the tribulation, but they're also fun to watch in their simplicity. They are in fact low-budget and that is a little obvious, but not all too obvious upon first viewing. I had no clue because I really assumed that a lot of movies like these made in the 70's included low-budgets all the time.<br /><br />A Thief in the night tells the story of young and cynical Patty Myers who lives for what comes her way, until her husband, and nearly all her friends disappear in the prophetic rapture everyone warned her about. At first, the movie isn't all based around her until the rapture happens. What it leads up to are showing that everyone else around her are becoming christians and believing in Christ, which is usually what happens to a lot of people. Everyone around them they once knew and loved will be gone forever, and the one who is left behind is the one who blames everyone but themselves. No one can ever blame themselves because they're always right.<br /><br />Just like these whiners who complain about the movie. These people must be full grown adults. I'm thirteen, and you don't see me whining, especially since I was exactly like Patty before I re-accepted Christ into my heart. For those who haven't seen it, if you want a little bit of everything tossed into a Christian movie instead of stereo-typical everyone else is wrong movies, than you'll enjoy A Thief In The Night. Don't knock it before you try it. Something new is always good. Trust your own instincts.
This is a great movie. Some will disagree with me but , if you know anything about the bible you know it is. I think everyone should see it!! I agree a new updated version like be nice but the message is still right on. If you can see this movie. Is not a "scare the hell of you movie",it is truthful with the Bible. I think the U. N. will play a major role in the world government to come. The last days are lining up with the Bible. Look at what has happened with the chip for dogs and cats that now has come to light to protect on children from being kidnapped. It's the size of a grain of rice. This I feel is the fore runner of the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible. Without the mark you can't sell or buy, with this chip that small in the future there is no telling how much info can be put on it.
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.<br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.<br /><br />THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.<br /><br />CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.<br /><br />The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.<br /><br />As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church.
Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything...
To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention!
I remember seeing this movie a long time ago, back then even though it didn't have any special effects, the acting was really good. And it still has the same message for today, even though the technology has changed, maybe they should make a remake of this movie, it would be interesting to see a remake. I also enjoyed the music from the movie as well, Larry Norman was a really good songwriter during that time period, although now most Christian music is now worship and praise music. I was always curious to know what ever happened to Patty after the series ended? Did she go on to make more movies, did she get eventually get married and raise a family? I would like to have an update.
The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.
Now, for all of the cinematographical buffs out there, this film may not rank high on your list of things to see. But if you know anything about plot development, profound truth, and the intentions that this film (the series) had, you'd understand my p.o.v.<br /><br />Granted, the specifics of the film are renderings of the writer, who cannot be expected to know what will happen in the end. But the film is biblically accurate and justifiably "scares" viewers into thinking about what may be. I'm a Christian, not due to this movie, but due to my personal decision to accept Jesus as my Savior. The film and p